Council Planning

0:46Alright, good evening everybody. It is May the 9th. This is our City Council planning meeting and I got to call the meeting officially to order.

0:53As you can see on our agenda for tonight, it has an option for us to move into closed session and it's only under one item.

1:05And I'm just going to read that out loud and then see if there's approval by council in regards to that. So.

1:12It's that council, the city, well, hold a meeting that's closed to the public pursuant to section 239 to be DNA of the municipal act relating to personal matters.

1:23About an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, labor relations or employee negotiations and a position plan procedure criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or be on behalf of the municipality or local board.

1:42The title of the item is.

1:48Association local 467 and paramedic service services union, the Ontario public services employee union local 231.

1:58Now that is specific under section 239 to be D and K the municipal act related to personal matters.

2:04About an identifiable individual, including the municipal or local board employees.

2:08Labor relations or employee negotiations and a position plan a procedure criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or the local board with that.

2:21Is there a member of council that would be willing to move into closed.

2:24Councillor Allt and councillor billings is seconding.

2:27Anything further on that item.

2:30Okay, don't hear a C and E I'll call the vote then is anyone against moving to close for that item.

2:36All right, don't hear or see anybody that's unanimous. Thank you very much. Consider the matter.

2:41The motion carried and I will now just let the public know that we are going to have a closed meeting.

2:47And once that is done, I can come back and give a high level overview and summary.

2:52And without, I'll turn it over to the clerks to move us into closed session.

3:00Thank you, Mr. Mercer. We'll be moving in closed session. Those members who are joining remotely just to remind you that you have to log out of the open session.

3:05Before we can log you in and begin the session and closed. We'll move over there now and we'll get ready in just a minute or two.

3:11All right. Good evening, everyone. I'm just going to call the meeting to back to order at 6 30 for the open session.

1:00:05Now, earlier, we did go into closed session.

1:00:10And it was under the title on our open agenda as bargaining mandate update report for Guelph Professional Firefighters Association Local 467.

1:00:23And for the paramedic services union, the Ontario Public Services Employees Union Local 231.

1:00:30And so as the high level summary for that, as I do, Council did receive information from our professional staff in regards to this issue in regards to the bargaining with both of those groups and Council then did give direction to staff in regards to those matters.

1:00:48And that's the summary for everybody in regards to that.

1:00:52And so heading into our open session, I was wondering if everyone could please rise as we take in O Canada, please. Thank you. And as we continue, we'll just have a moment of silent reflection, please.

1:02:33Thank you, everyone. And we also have our statement of acknowledgement as we gather, we're reminded that Guelph is situated on treaty land that is steeped in rich indigenous history and home to many First Nations in Métis people today.

1:02:59As a city, we have a responsibility of the stewardship of the land in which we both live and work. Today we acknowledge the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation of the Inno-Shapak peoples on his tradition, traditional territory we are meeting.

1:03:12Is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof on the matters in front of us?

1:03:20Seeing none and hearing none.

1:03:23Seeing none and hearing none.

1:03:28And I will move on. We have the consent agenda. So we have the building bylaw update 2023, the 47 Alice Street, the notice of intention to designate.

1:03:41We have the 58 Wellington Street proposed official plan zoning bylaw amendment, but that was withdrawn.

1:03:48That's it. So, would someone be willing to move consent? Councillor Ciaran will do that for me. And Claeson will second that. Anything further on the consent?

1:04:01Hearing and seeing none, I'll call the vote then. Is anyone against the consent? Okay. Hearing none. I deem that unanimous and passed. So thank you very much.

1:04:13We are at the only and last item in front of us here with a quick presentation from our manager of policy planning and urban design, Melissa Aldenate.

1:04:24And it's around the official plan amendment 80 and the changes that came from the minister's decision.

1:04:31And then we'll go from there. So, Melissa, thank you. We'll turn it over to you. Thank you so much.

1:04:37Good evening, Mayor Guthrie. Members of council. I'd just like to provide a short presentation on the minister's approval of official plan amendment 80, which I will refer to as OPA 80.

1:04:51In accordance with the planning act and a place to grow. We completed the city's municipal comprehensive review, which is OPA 80 and presented it to council for adoption in July of last year.

1:05:03OPA 80 adopted as adopted.

1:05:09Updated our official plan for conformity with a place to grow the provincial policy statement, the planning act in the clean water act.

1:05:19Among other policy updates to implement our growth management strategy and other city plans and council decisions.

1:05:25OPA 80 was amended to provide an updated vision for growth to the year.

1:05:3351 it provided a new urban structure. It updated our population and employment forecasts and set new intensification and density targets.

1:05:43Following council adoption, OPA 80 was submitted to the minister of municipal affairs and housing for approval.

1:05:49The minister's decision was issued on April 11th of this year with OPA 80 coming into effect and force on April 12th.

1:06:02The minister's decision is final and there are no rights of appeal.

1:06:07In the decision there were 18 detailed modifications and I'll just go through those in a short overview in my presentation under these headings and I'll start with the general and minor modifications.

1:06:21These changes are mainly to references within OPA 80. So that is references to the Ontario land tribunal to the GRCA or ministry names.

1:06:35Of these changes staff do note that there may be some concerns with the changes to significant wildlife habitat with the removal of a reference to seasonal concentration areas as a criterion for designation.

1:06:48We will consider that further as we do our future planned review of our natural heritage system policies.

1:06:55The second group of modifications are related to land use policy and definitions.

1:07:05In terms of these changes, our service commercial land use designation was modified to expand the range of permitted uses to include office warehouse and repair service uses.

1:07:17Typically those uses are permitted in our employment designations.

1:07:21Within our special policy area, which is the floodplain lands primarily along the river in downtown, a policy was added that any changes to policies land use designations or boundaries applying to the SPA must be approved by the province prior to approval by the city.

1:07:39So that does affect any development applications within the SPA area.

1:07:43In terms of land use policies, a policy was added in our transportation chapter to reference the establishment of priority routes for goods movement.

1:07:55And then in terms of definitions, a definition was added for agricultural system and the agri food network and a definition of heritage attributes in our cultural heritage section was also modified.

1:08:06The next category of modifications pertain to the downtown secondary plan.

1:08:13The minister's decision modifies the height schedule for downtown, which is schedule D.

1:08:21With the exception of the special policy area, the modified minimum height is two stories and the modified maximum height is 23 stories.

1:08:30The minister did not approve the city's adopted amendment that increased height on some properties within the SPA.

1:08:37Also of note is that policy 11.1.7.2.1, which sets out how our height schedule was established was modified.

1:08:47That policy set out that the Basilica was recognized as a landmark and a signature building and those references have been deleted.

1:08:57The policy stating that lower maximum heights may be established to maintain long views to the Basilica and setting out potential from lower heights within our residential one areas have also been deleted.

1:09:10However, the decision maintains the policy that establishes that protected views to the Basilica over a lady.

1:09:17Those protective views are still maintained.

1:09:19This slide presents a side by side comparison of our former official plan height schedule and the minister's approved schedule D for heights.

1:09:34For the existing OP, the dark yellow color has a maximum height of six stories in the approved schedule.

1:09:42The areas without color within the boundary of downtown now have a maximum height of 23 stories.

1:09:48And that is also subject to the policies of our official plan.

1:09:50So in considering 23 stories, we also consider all the other policies of the downtown secondary plan.

1:09:57Moving on to the wealth innovation district or DID secondary plan.

1:10:07The minister's approval did modify the land use schedule for the lands west of the Aramosa River.

1:10:13That schedule has been modified to significantly reduce the area of employment designations and to expand the residential land use designation area.

1:10:22The commercial mixed use corridor designations have also been expanded. Along with that, an additional park area has been added.

1:10:34And looking at this table, we provided plus or minuses in terms of land use designation and of note the lands that were designated for employment mixed use one have decreased in area by approximately 26 hectares.

1:10:50This slide provides a side by side comparison of the existing official plan land use schedule for the DID and the minister's approved modifications.

1:10:59Of note, the area shown in red are mixed use corridor.

1:11:03Yellow is residential and the purple color is our employment. So you can see the significant reduction in employment and the increase in residential and mixed use.

1:11:14Also of note in the DID is modifications to the height schedule. It has been significantly revised with maximum heights increasing to 18 stories along Victoria Road south where previously 10 stories was the maximum height within the DID.

1:11:32Minimum heights for the main street and commercial mixed use corridors have been reduced from three stories to four stories. So it does have an impact on the form of development that we were anticipating.

1:11:43And just to give you kind of orient you to this, the green areas are where 18 stories is now permitted. Moving on to site specific modifications.

1:11:56These are where specific properties were called out by the minister and modified. The first one is 41 to 45 George Street.

1:12:05This is the former arm tech industrial property.

1:12:08On this slide, you can see the property outlined in green.

1:12:12The minister did not approve the council adopted land use designation change for this property.

1:12:18And as such, the land use designation remains as high density residential and that's shown in Brown.

1:12:24For 230 Willow Road, this property was not considered through OPA 80. However, the decision from the minister does modify the land use designation.

1:12:36And part so it's 230 Willow Road and part of 100 Ridgewood.

1:12:42It goes from high density from low density residential to high density residential and you can see that change outlined in green.

1:12:49So in our existing official plan is in the white land use category, which is low density and it's switched to high density.

1:12:55The next site specific modification applies to 384 Crawley Road.

1:13:07The property boundaries are outlined in green again on these slides with the existing official plan on the left and the modified land use designations on the right.

1:13:18The decision provides site specific policies for 384 Crawley Road to specifically permit industrial development and to require that nothing in our official plan would prevent the construction of industrial buildings and ancillary buildings on the property.

1:13:36The official plan schedules for the natural heritage system have been modified to remove features and the decision sets out the maximum gross floor area for the building of 160,000 square meters and a maximum height of 46 meters.

1:13:50The minister's decision does require conveyance of a public road and in this area is its Southgate Drive and we would be expecting that to be continued through to Maltby.

1:14:04And the final site specific designation changes for 280 Clair Road West. So this property is located in the vicinity of our water tower on Clair Road.

1:14:16The property again is outlined in green.

1:14:19The decision modifies the land use designation from industrial to high density residential and specifically requires that provincial guidelines for land use compatibility be followed and implemented through the zoning bylaw.

1:14:31So in in terms of next steps as I mentioned earlier, the minister's decision on OPA 80 is in force and effect and it is final and not appealable.

1:14:46Next steps for planning staff include the preparation of a consolidation of our official plan so that we have the council adopted and ministers approved OPA 80 combined with the rest of our official plan for ease of reference and we'll have that posted to our website.

1:15:01And then in accordance with the planning act we now have one year to update our zoning bylaw for regulations within the downtown which is also our major transit station area.

1:15:13And as planned we will also be working on the other updates to the zoning bylaw to implement the rest of OPA 80.

1:15:20And this concludes my presentation and overview of the minister's decision and we are happy to answer any questions.

1:15:26Okay, I'll go with that. I'll call Councillor Cronin and then I'll please.

1:15:32Sure. Thank you for the presentation. And I know this is a topic of significant interest to both staff and council and our community because we're hearing about it.

1:15:42So a couple of questions. First, the ERO process.

1:15:48Did staff receive copies of any of the letters or have previous knowledge of any of the content of the letters asking for amendments to our official plan prior to the amendment coming into effect on April 12.

1:16:05Through the mayor to Councillor Cronin, the ERO process is a provincial process. So the submissions are to the province and not to the city.

1:16:16And unless a commenter wanted to, the municipality is not informed until they are posted with a decision.

1:16:24Which was the 12th of April, I believe. Yeah. Did any of the commenters send a copy of their submission to city planning staff?

1:16:34Through the mayor. No, we did not receive the comment letters directly. That's what I thought. And I think that's extremely unfortunate. I know that's not a question. That's a comment.

1:16:43In one particular case, the Crawley Road, it was a named applicant. Council has never seen a public application for that property. Is that, is that a, is that application currently even in place?

1:16:59Thanks.

1:17:03Through Mayor Guthrie to Councillor Cronin. So they had a pre-conflictation for an application last year. They have submitted a pre-submission. So not a formal site plan submission, but a pre-submission for us to review their materials.

1:17:17And they will follow that up with a, with a submission. They will also be going through a minor variance to address for one, the height issue to conform with the official plan.

1:17:26Right. But there's no, no public meeting out of the planning act and no complete, complete application at this time.

1:17:33No complete application for site plan approval. The minor variance application is public. Okay.

1:17:39That's all in terms of questions. Thanks. I'll have something later.

1:17:43And then Councillor Allt and maybe you, Councillor Cronin, if you want, would you guys just mind at least just putting before we continue with questions, just the motion at least just to receive the presentation.

1:17:52Would that be all right? Yeah. Okay.

1:17:55Ault and Bron is good with that. Okay. So it's officially on the floor. Keep going with questions.

1:18:01Thank you as much as I'm not happy with the changes by the province. I think receiving the report coming from staff is quite appropriate.

1:18:08The questions that I have and I'm hoping that staff can at least provide me with, with their understanding relate actually to an area that isn't discussed much, which is 230 Willow Road.

1:18:18I look at the maps in the presentation and I think unfortunately the maps and, and even the presentation only tell half the story.

1:18:28If we look at these maps, it doesn't look like much density has been added to this area because much of the density in that area is actually not on the maps.

1:18:37It's beyond Silver Creek on the left side of the map and beyond Dawson Road on the other side.

1:18:42And what really concerns me about this little parcel is not the parcel per se, but the additional density in an area where in an area where there's community mixed use center proposed for higher density apartment buildings and the higher density there already without the required facilities and the support, the recreational facilities and so on and so forth.

1:19:07I really am concerned that what we are doing and what the ministry has done is intensified this area without providing the requisite supports for it.

1:19:18And I was wondering if staff could please comment, perhaps providing some planning analysis on this. It's, it from my point of view, being in there all the time. This, this is indeed problematic.

1:19:29Tremor got three to Councillor Allt. So at this time we've not received a development application or a site plan or a pre con application on the site. So we actually don't know what's proposed.

1:19:42We now know what the maximum height and density is under the official plan, but we've not seen an application at this point in time.

1:19:49But, but still the point stands that this is a tremendously dense area and what the ministry has done and we can conclude that there will be a proposal for the willow west mall that will include greater density is further intensifying area that already is one of the most density populated areas in Guelph with the most limited facilities.

1:20:09This is my concern and I'm hoping I can get an analytical perspective from the planet.

1:20:14Through me or girl Guthrie to Councillor Allt. All I can offer at this time is that that site is located within a strategic growth area. So it is an area where we are proposing and directing our highest amount of intensification. So adding this portion of a property into high density.

1:20:34Isn't unusual for strategic growth area.

1:20:37Thank you then coming back to us looking forward in the future. Will we also be anticipating that we as a city are able to put in the requisite recreational support facilities in that area for such a highly developed area.

1:20:51So I'm your.

1:20:55You're going to get three to Councillor Allt. So we will look collaboratively collaboratively across departments. We have like our master plan working group. We share that you know we work with our parks and rec master plan group. So we're all work together on these and share certainly the population numbers that are forecast.

1:21:10And we work with through those through our master plans and then they come to council for decision.

1:21:15And thank you very much. I'm sure that staff is as disappointed with the ministry's approach to to our OP as as I am and as some of my councilmates are as well.

1:21:26Well I think it's not good to speak for staff.

1:21:29No I'm not.

1:21:30I said no I said no I'm sorry.

1:21:32Councillor Allt.

1:21:33I think it's important that we do not speak for staff. So you just made a comment that they are not happy with this. I have no idea what the answer is. But I would appreciate staff.

1:21:43Responding to that because that can have intergovernmental affair repercussions greatly. So I'd like staff to respond to what you just said.

1:21:53Thank you.

1:21:54So as was noted in the presentation that this is direction from the minister. Our job is to follow that direction and implement it to our the best of our ability for the city of Guelph. And that is where we are. It's a technical amendment for us and we will do our best to make sure we implement it within the time required.

1:22:09And just to point of privilege because I think Mayor Guthrie you were quite right on that. But my words were I am sure. And of course perhaps I am not entirely correct.

1:22:19Perhaps. Okay. Councillor Goller and then Gibson.

1:22:24Thank you through your worship.

1:22:25With regards to to the downtown if I could if I could ask staff to comment on the transition.

1:22:34As I understood it when I looked at the map, there would be a gradual transition from from the river towards the downtown area. And then we have 23 stories throughout the rest of the of the downtown.

1:22:47How will we implement transitions between the single family homes on the edge of that map and the 23 story buildings that are now allowed to go up through the mayor.

1:22:59In terms of the downtown height schedule, we do have one year to review how to implement that through zoning.

1:23:09And we will be considering all of the policies of our official plan that still apply within the downtown. As I mentioned in my presentation, the minister in their revisions to our policy to that.

1:23:21I think that the policy to that.

1:23:23It's schedule was specific in their words in saying that all of the policies of the secondary plan apply to that to heights within that area. So we will be reviewing that as we consider the zoning.

1:23:35Okay, okay. Thank you for that.

1:23:37I understand that there's a 1 year period for those to to to come into play. So, for clarity, if 2 months from now, someone applies for 23 stories in the downtown.

1:23:48The it's not automatically approved for 1 more year. Is that correct?

1:23:54Through the mayor, each individual development application that comes forward would be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the official plan.

1:24:05So they could apply for the height prior to the zoning by law being updated.

1:24:10Okay, okay. And understood. And my next question is about the infrastructure. Once again, with downtown.

1:24:18It, you know, I know we have agent infrastructure and we would have had plans to replace it to a standard to meet a certain capacity now that that is doubled. What does that mean in terms of our costs and the work to to to re.

1:24:33Rewire, I said, we'll repipe the downtown to accommodate the pretty much doubled density that's going to be going in there now.

1:24:44Premier Guthrie to Councillor Goller. So we're working with our friends and in engineering and in finance to take a look at everything. So it's like a holistic view of what this means to downtown.

1:24:54We have the downtown capital revitalization project. So as we work through what the changes mean or where density can and cannot happen, we're providing those numbers to our friends and engineering and we're trying to determine where the impacts are.

1:25:07There's already some service in the impacts. That's why we have the downtown capital revitalization program. Got to get a better name.

1:25:14And we'll continue to monitor that and with where growth can happen and what it can't. So we've already communicated all of this with with engineering on this.

1:25:23Okay, okay. So, so to that point, will we actually be able to see a difference between the expected costs to replace the downtown infrastructure with the with the new cost that we're going to have because we say we're planning to spend, you know,

1:25:42$20 million to redo plumbing in the downtown and now it's going to cost us 60. Is there are we going to be tracking those increased expenses because of these changes?

1:25:53Yeah, through Mayor Guthrie to Councillor Goller, we will. And it will not be that order of magnitude. So it's the road reconstruction has to happen regardless of the population. It's, you know, potentially a pipe size from a 600 millimeter to a 900 millimeter.

1:26:09But it's not the order of magnitude as, as estimated there. It would be smaller in scale if required.

1:26:16Okay. Thank you for that clarity. I really appreciate that. Thank you, your worship.

1:26:20Thank you.

1:26:22You don't mind just need to follow up on a question because we're on the topic. Sorry. If you don't mind council with DC's cover that.

1:26:30Or major portion of that. I just have no idea.

1:26:33I would imagine it does if it's infrastructure for an actual development, wouldn't they be responsible for a lot of that then anyways?

1:26:44Mayor Guthrie potentially we'll have to take a look in that we're in the middle of the DC update right now. So some of that will be be factored into that. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

1:26:53I got to just want to make sure I got everyone on the list so far. So Gibson or Rourke downer and now I've got Clausson and then Kate.

1:27:05Thank you through Mr. Mayor. I was going to just offer some comments, but I think I'll hold back.

1:27:10And I'm just wondering maybe I'll ask you as chair.

1:27:13There was conversations provincially about auditing the costs of this of this large policy and I think the premier himself has spoken a few times about making municipalities whole.

1:27:27I don't know if this is the appropriate time to ask staff or perhaps CEO Stewart on has there been any increased conversation or updates on that and if you'd like to provide it to us.

1:27:36I don't know it's it's under this it's under this file right so may not be specific to the staff presentation but it's again someone who doesn't watch provincial politics daily.

1:27:46Something that is if there is an update I hope you're okay to speak if it's to you. Mr. Stewart.

1:27:53So through you Mr. Mayor.

1:27:56We haven't seen any.

1:27:59What I'm going to say is clarity for Guelph staff in terms of making us whole. Yes, there's been some advancements on who will get audited sooner rather than later.

1:28:09I think it's an outcome of that as some of the other municipalities get added into the.

1:28:14The two that was that started Toronto in Ottawa that you'll see what these audits look like. I mean generally we've got some concerns with the audit.

1:28:24Not being audited of course but the audit we've had no impact input to it. And so when the go looking for things you find things and we just want to make sure that that's all clear for all of us so that this just isn't.

1:28:38You know us chasing our tails a little bit. So I think if I've got it right.

1:28:45Peel Mississauga Brampton Calden and Newmarket are in the phase one.

1:28:50Councillor Gibson knock off at this stage. So there is conversations there is movement on that and we'll just have to wait our turn.

1:28:57Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

1:29:00And thank you. And let me go to or or Rourke and then downer.

1:29:09Thank you very much. I got three three you to stop.

1:29:13I'm trying to understand what the impact is of the reduction in employment lands. So in 2017.

1:29:21The commercial policy review showed and that was with a lower population estimate right. It showed a shortfall in commercial space by 2041.

1:29:30So we were losing about 26 hectares of employment lands. So I'm just wondering if you have an idea of what the impact is in terms of our ability to meet our job target.

1:29:41Whether you think those jobs will be accommodated somewhere else or does the type of job change.

1:29:47And is there an impact to our economic development plan with the reduction in the employment lands like we were already short right.

1:29:55Through the mayor.

1:29:57There are a number of implications with changing the employment focus within the GID. So we're we've started some high level estimates as to what what the changes from

1:30:10our employment campus that was anticipated through the GID from that to a more population serving employment which you would get through the commercial mixed use or the commercial mixed use corridor.

1:30:23We've done some high level estimates but until we have the proposal forward from the landowner we really can't determine what the expectations are in terms of the jobs that they're providing if they're looking at more of a residential focus in the in the corridors or if

1:30:38they're looking at attracting office until we have more details.

1:30:43So I think that's it's really a guess for us. So we do know that our expectation was a high density employment area on the GID and that focus has changed substantially.

1:30:54So we do expect some some impacts to the types of jobs that we were looking at attracting and our long term forecast but it's early for us to to guess where that might go.

1:31:06Thank you.

1:31:10I can take them offline through you. Mary Guthrie.

1:31:15I'm wondering for the 23 stories downtown.

1:31:19Are those will those all be considered close enough to a major transit station to be eligible for inclusionary zoning through the mayor. The entirety of our downtown boundary as you saw it on the schedule is our major transit station area so it's all

1:31:34considered within

1:31:37the area that we could could apply inclusionary zoning to.

1:31:41Miss Carolina.

1:31:44And then through you Mr mayor.

1:31:47Just another question in terms of when you're going to update opa or opa 80.

1:31:54Will you also include all the recent rulings from the Ontario land tribunal and I'm thinking of Claire road right so if we're going to have a high density development zone for next to the water table.

1:32:07other recent OLT ruling sort of between the grocery store

1:32:12and the high school.

1:32:13So will the next iteration,

1:32:16I know we have a year to do it and I'm not trying to rush you,

1:32:19will that have an updated sense

1:32:21so that we have a really good sense,

1:32:23not only of the feedback here,

1:32:24but also of OLT rulings?

1:32:29Through the mayor.

1:32:31So our next step is a consolidation of our official plan.

1:32:34So that's taking all of the approved amendments

1:32:37and putting it into one plan.

1:32:38So it's easy to read.

1:32:40All of it's in effect now,

1:32:41it's just not all in one easy document.

1:32:44Our updates to the zoning bylaw

1:32:46will consider everything that's occurred

1:32:48from what was included before council for the decision,

1:32:54which includes OPA 80

1:32:55and then any other decisions until we bring it forward

1:32:58would be brought into the zoning bylaw.

1:32:59Okay, great.

1:33:00Thanks very much.

1:33:04Thank you, councillor.

1:33:05Downer and then class and please.

1:33:09Thank you.

1:33:10Through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:33:10So some of the questions around downtown

1:33:13and how the infrastructure have already been answered,

1:33:17but I just, around the employment lands,

1:33:21so in the letters that were sent to the ministry,

1:33:26both Fusion and the Chamber of Commerce,

1:33:28and these letters are public now,

1:33:30talked about there being a surplus of employment lands.

1:33:35And, but that's not the case, is it?

1:33:39I just want to reiterate that

1:33:41councillor O'Rourke had talked about that as well.

1:33:44So I just, and I remember seeing somewhere

1:33:46in one of our background studies

1:33:47that at some point there was a surplus,

1:33:49but down the road there wouldn't be,

1:33:50and we needed to, I mean,

1:33:52we've bought employment lands in the past in this situation.

1:33:56So, that's why we have the Hanlon Creek Business Park,

1:33:59because the city put out and purchased those lands

1:34:01for employment.

1:34:02So I just want to sort of get a sense of,

1:34:07you know, they're saying there was a surplus,

1:34:11both the Chamber and Fusion,

1:34:13and we're saying there was not a surplus.

1:34:17Through the mayor, as part of our background work

1:34:20for OPA 80, we were required

1:34:22to do an employment lands analysis.

1:34:25And what that showed was a slight surplus in lands.

1:34:27And when we do that analysis,

1:34:29we convert the jobs to hectares and look at,

1:34:32is there, do we meet our employment projections?

1:34:36So the number of jobs that we're anticipating

1:34:38for 2051, and there was a slight surplus to 2051,

1:34:42but we're challenged at that.

1:34:44So if we talk to economic development,

1:34:46we don't have sufficient sites available,

1:34:48serviced for businesses,

1:34:51and the more lands that are converted out of employment

1:34:54and cannot be protected for employment

1:34:58will cause us issues with meeting our 2051 targets.

1:35:01So we haven't done a full analysis

1:35:03of what all of these changes look like,

1:35:06because again, we're not quite certain

1:35:09what is being proposed for the GID lands

1:35:11to be able to plug that into our model.

1:35:15But yes, we were showing a slight surplus for 2051,

1:35:20but it wasn't such a surplus that you would say

1:35:24we could extract lands out of it.

1:35:26We protected all of our employment lands

1:35:28that we could through OPA 80.

1:35:31And when they're protected as an employment area,

1:35:33they cannot be converted,

1:35:35and a large section of those lands were just converted.

1:35:38And that's what brought us through this decision.

1:35:44Sorry.

1:35:46So the other point they made,

1:35:48the Chamber infusion was that

1:35:50we didn't need these employment lands

1:35:52because work was changing,

1:35:56that people were gonna be working from home more

1:36:00and so we didn't need employment lands.

1:36:01There was gonna be more work home.

1:36:06Will we be studying that down the road

1:36:08or what are our staff's thoughts on that theory?

1:36:11I mean, I haven't seen it.

1:36:13Nope, data was provided to back up their assumptions

1:36:19around this.

1:36:22Through the mayor, our background work for OPA 80,

1:36:24so the employment lands analysis

1:36:27did consider the impacts of COVID-19

1:36:30and the changing of the workforce

1:36:32to work from home on the employment needs for the future.

1:36:35It did have consideration for that,

1:36:36but obviously we're now into the return to work.

1:36:41So we would need to do a follow-up study

1:36:43to see what that would look like,

1:36:45but that would again be an update

1:36:46to that employment study that we did.

1:36:51Okay, thank you.

1:36:52Just one last sort of general question.

1:36:53So when we heard that the report was coming through,

1:36:59it was suggested in an email

1:37:00that we would also get what the impacts are.

1:37:02So this is a great summary,

1:37:03but it's fair to say that the impacts

1:37:06aren't gonna be fully realized

1:37:08until we've done the zoning by-law

1:37:09to see what our heights will be in the downtown

1:37:11in certain areas and that as we move along

1:37:15with a lot more information,

1:37:17we'll be able to understand better those impacts.

1:37:22So is there gonna be a way of tracking

1:37:24what the impacts are these are gonna be currently?

1:37:29That's right, Mayor Guthrie to Councillor Downer.

1:37:31So that's correct.

1:37:32The minister's decision came about not quite a month ago

1:37:36and we felt it was important to share it with council

1:37:38what the changes were.

1:37:39We're gonna continue to analyze it

1:37:41and then some areas such as downtown,

1:37:43we almost have to go property by property

1:37:44to determine what can happen and where it can happen.

1:37:47So once we do that, we'll work with our partners

1:37:51and our other departments to calculate

1:37:53and determine all the impacts.

1:37:55And then we will look at that through the multi-year budget

1:37:58if there's budget requests for that.

1:38:00But we are, even with our partners in finance

1:38:03that are monitoring all of this work

1:38:05and what the changes are through all of this legislation

1:38:07and through our OP to go to CAO Stewart previous comment,

1:38:13and the audit to make us whole and what those impacts are.

1:38:15So we are keeping track.

1:38:17Okay, just one final question.

1:38:21From your professional view,

1:38:22do you think that these changes

1:38:24are going to speed up development or slow down development?

1:38:27We've already had one developer withdraw his application.

1:38:36Mayor Guthrie, Councillor Downer,

1:38:37we had one developer withdraw the application

1:38:39because they would no longer be in conformity

1:38:41with the official plan as approved by the minister.

1:38:43So that is why they withdrew their application.

1:38:46I think it gives opportunities for development downtown

1:38:50and there's been lots of conversations

1:38:51with landowners downtown on what can happen on their property.

1:38:54So we're working through those and with them

1:38:56as they have inquiries at this point in time,

1:38:59it's just inquiries though.

1:39:00Okay, so this is too early to tell.

1:39:02Too early to tell.

1:39:07Thanks, Kathy.

1:39:08I mean, Councillor Downer, Councillor Klassen

1:39:10and then Kate, please.

1:39:12Thank you, Mayor Guthrie through you to staff.

1:39:15I just had a question with regard to the views

1:39:18of the Basilica, I just wanted some clarification.

1:39:21Am I understanding correctly that the policies state

1:39:23that we can't block, like we can build higher,

1:39:27but we can still maintain the view corridors?

1:39:30I just wanted to understand that sort of however component.

1:39:36Through the mayor, the minister's decision

1:39:38specifically maintains the protection of the view corridors

1:39:41and the way they wrote it is that the 23 stories

1:39:47and you must consider the protected view corridors.

1:39:50The part of the policy that they removed was

1:39:54a description of how our height schedule was established

1:39:57and in that description, we talked about protection

1:40:00of long views to the Basilica.

1:40:03So they took that out, but those views are essentially

1:40:06protected through our view corridors.

1:40:10Okay, thank you.

1:40:13Thank you.

1:40:15I'll go to Kate and then Boostertale, please.

1:40:18Thank you, through you Mr. Mayor to staff.

1:40:22I'm personally a little bit disappointed about the lack of

1:40:26or the reduction in employment lands in the GID property.

1:40:31Is there anything that we can do to balance that

1:40:34in other areas so that we are not gonna have

1:40:37an overall reduction?

1:40:39Like as was previously mentioned by Councillor Downer

1:40:45potentially getting new lands that we can specify

1:40:50for employment or adding more commercial to existing areas.

1:41:01Through the mayor, we will consider that through

1:41:05our next update to our official plan

1:41:08where we look at our employment projections

1:41:09for the next planning horizon.

1:41:11At this time with the changes within the GID,

1:41:17we're not 100% certain how the job target changes

1:41:23because the change to mixed use could increase

1:41:29the number of jobs, but there are different type of jobs.

1:41:32So we need to see how that development plays out

1:41:35and understand what the targets will be for that area.

1:41:39And through OPA 80, we protected employment land

1:41:44and we set out our employment designations

1:41:46throughout the rest of the city.

1:41:47So there isn't any other place in the city at this time

1:41:52to consider adding more employment.

1:41:56And when we're talking about employment,

1:41:58it's really a different, it's not commercial,

1:42:00it's not retail, it's like manufacturing,

1:42:04industrial research and development,

1:42:07that type of jobs, it's separate from the commercial.

1:42:11Okay, thank you.

1:42:12And I had one more question about the industrial area

1:42:16in Maltby, is the concern that I have is environmental

1:42:23and I was just wondering if there were any other regulations

1:42:26that we have that would ensure, especially air quality

1:42:31and other things in that area,

1:42:33or is that all regulated by the province?

1:42:40America three to Councillor Caton.

1:42:42So it's regulated in our official plan,

1:42:45the province did make modifications

1:42:48to those official plan policies.

1:42:51They would still have to, if it's an industrial building,

1:42:53they still have to meet near air or noise criteria

1:42:57that meet provincial standards.

1:42:58So those standards are still in place.

1:43:01It's just some of the land use policies have been removed.

1:43:05Thank you very much.

1:43:09Thank you, Councillor Caton.

1:43:10And last I have is Councillor Pristil please.

1:43:13Thank you very much and through you, Mayor.

1:43:14My question is a little bit different.

1:43:16I come as a city councillor with years of involvement

1:43:20in community consultations and master plans

1:43:23and all these kinds of things that's excited to be here,

1:43:26sworn in, sworn yet, sworn out,

1:43:30and like roll up the rim involved in the recreation

1:43:34master plan and all sorts of things very excited to be here.

1:43:37And so my question is about communication

1:43:40of the deconstruction.

1:43:41So if I'm not a city councillor and I'm out there

1:43:44in the community, I have followed things,

1:43:47I've put my heart into things and now things have changed.

1:43:50And with respect to the media, the media has their job.

1:43:54My question is, is there city communication

1:43:57about the deconstruction or the impacts of these?

1:44:01Because now as a city councillor,

1:44:04there are community expectations.

1:44:06Wait a minute, I put in years into that master plan,

1:44:10I delegate it, I participate, what do you mean?

1:44:12So what does that look like?

1:44:14Or is that done in tandem with the work this next year

1:44:18that you're doing that?

1:44:19Actually, this master plan now looks like this.

1:44:22Can you speak a little bit to that please?

1:44:26Mayor, Gathry to Councillor Bousetel.

1:44:29So there'll be a, this was our opportunity

1:44:31to share the changes and as was indicated,

1:44:35they're not available.

1:44:36The decision of the minister is final.

1:44:38So this is the document that we have

1:44:40in which we're going to be working with.

1:44:43As things change, as we change the downtown zoning bylaw,

1:44:47we will, that will be a public process.

1:44:49It will come to council.

1:44:50So as we go through the various processes,

1:44:51we will update that when we bring the downtown capital

1:44:55and revitalization project forward.

1:44:57And there's already been some public consultation on that,

1:44:59that will continue.

1:45:00So anytime there's an update to a study

1:45:02or a change in the study, we will,

1:45:04can you communicate that?

1:45:06Things will be on heavier say,

1:45:08or it'll be in the notice.

1:45:10We'll certainly communicate with all the downtown

1:45:12property owners as we do the comprehensive zoning update

1:45:15to reflect this.

1:45:17And we're in obviously in communication

1:45:19with the site specific properties as well as we go forward.

1:45:24Thank you.

1:45:25Just as a follow up, I guess I'm more concerned

1:45:26about master plans.

1:45:28There's a lot of community engagement in master plans

1:45:30and people's values and visions and so on get in there.

1:45:34And how is that, not the next round of the master plan,

1:45:37but how is that, given the new lens,

1:45:41how will that be communicated?

1:45:50Through the mayor to the councillor.

1:45:51So our master plans are on like a five year cycle

1:45:55for updates.

1:45:56So at this point in time,

1:45:59most of our, a lot of our master plans were done

1:46:01within the last maybe two years.

1:46:03So time we hit kind of that year three,

1:46:05three years from now we're updating.

1:46:07That's when we actually will probably start

1:46:08to see some of this in effect.

1:46:10So at that's the appropriate time to provide those updates.

1:46:14For specific projects, we might be, as indicated earlier,

1:46:17changing the pipe from a 600 millimeter to a 700 millimeter,

1:46:21but there won't be holistic master plan updates

1:46:23until their next five year reviews.

1:46:28Thank you, councillor.

1:46:29Okay, councillor Billings.

1:46:32Through you, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask for clarity 384

1:46:36Crawley Road and it talked about the modified land use

1:46:41designation that there'd be a conveyance of land

1:46:43to go down to Mopey.

1:46:46But when you look at the existing and then the modified,

1:46:49it looks like there's now in the modified a road

1:46:52that is going out to Crawley

1:46:56compared to the existing land use.

1:46:58So is that correct?

1:47:02And if so, why?

1:47:06Through the mayor to the councillor.

1:47:08So the amended schedule that came back has an option

1:47:12with a access Southgate out to Crawley

1:47:15or Southgate out to Mopey.

1:47:19And we'll be working with a developer

1:47:21to determine what is the appropriate route

1:47:23for an alternative access.

1:47:24And that's not been determined at this point in time,

1:47:26but there is different options based on the schedule

1:47:29that was received from the minister.

1:47:31Okay, so it's an either or.

1:47:33So it doesn't have to go out to Crawley.

1:47:37It's an either or and we'll work with the applicants on that.

1:47:41Okay, thank you.

1:47:46Thank you, councillor.

1:47:48All right, so I know that councillor Corrine

1:47:53would like to probably bring some things forward,

1:47:55but maybe I would just treat them as sort of separate

1:47:57after a receivable that's made up a new word.

1:48:03Receiving of the presentation recommendation.

1:48:06So do you mind if I, let's follow the vote maybe on this.

1:48:11And then we can, oh, maybe I should just ask a couple

1:48:14questions before I call them.

1:48:16Then we can go to your stuff.

1:48:19Quick question for me then, a few questions for me,

1:48:21very quick, are you have up to a year to update everything?

1:48:27But we're in a housing crisis and I'd rather not have

1:48:31individuals have to go through more hoops and hurdles

1:48:35to try to get things done.

1:48:36So it'd be nice if this stuff was updated.

1:48:39I understand capacity and I understand process.

1:48:42I fully respect that, but I do want to just know,

1:48:45is there some of this that is low hanging fruit

1:48:48that you could just bring to us quicker

1:48:51so that we can get it updated in the official plan?

1:48:53Is there some of it that's a little bit longer

1:48:55that's going to take longer to review?

1:48:57What is staff thinking?

1:48:59Or are you going to do a whole tranche of it at one time?

1:49:06To you, Mayor Guthrie, we are looking

1:49:08at our work plan currently in terms of

1:49:10how to move forward with the zoning bylaw.

1:49:12Obviously we're in a bit of a holding pattern at the moment

1:49:18with the appeal period for our new comprehensive

1:49:21zoning bylaw, so we need to understand sort of

1:49:24the playing field that we have in front of us,

1:49:26but we are looking at how do we efficiently move forward

1:49:29with the OPA80 updates to the zoning bylaw,

1:49:33and that had been in our minds as we were doing

1:49:36both of these processes at the same time.

1:49:39We knew that we were out of sync with each other,

1:49:41so we were looking at how do we efficiently

1:49:44bring in the OPA80 updates.

1:49:47So we've had that in our minds, so we are looking at

1:49:49how do we efficiently move that forward

1:49:51in a shorter timeframe.

1:49:54Yeah, okay, no, that's fair, that's a fair comment.

1:49:58Thank you very much.

1:50:01Okay, I will, do you want to comment on this before we go?

1:50:06Yeah, yeah, go ahead, yeah, Councillor Alton.

1:50:08Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

1:50:09I just further comment.

1:50:10I do wish to thank staff for all the work put

1:50:12into the original OPA80.

1:50:14I believe that what we had there was a very thoughtful plan

1:50:18for Guelph, and I had always thought that when

1:50:21a ministry reviewed, they reviewed to make certain

1:50:23that we had stuck with the letter of the law,

1:50:26rather than to recognize that perhaps there were

1:50:28deficiencies from their perspective

1:50:30that we hadn't covered.

1:50:31I believe we had a very thorough, well thought out plan

1:50:35which had input from both the community, from council,

1:50:37and which our professional staff had worked on.

1:50:40I wish you all the best in the future,

1:50:42working on future plans.

1:50:45Okay, thank you.

1:50:47All right, I'll call the vote then.

1:50:50Is anyone against the receiving of the presentation?

1:50:53That should be easy.

1:50:54All right, it's unanimous.

1:50:55That's fine.

1:50:56Councillor Kerrion has indicated,

1:50:58would like to talk about some other options.

1:51:00I'll turn the mic over to you.

1:51:01Great, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:51:03And I appreciate that final comment from Councillor Allt,

1:51:05because I think when we submit our OPA every five years,

1:51:08we expect some edits, we expect some insurance

1:51:12that were in alignment, we expect some language changes.

1:51:15It's not unusual to get amendments back.

1:51:20This was very different.

1:51:21These were far more than alignment amendments.

1:51:24These were fundamental, significant changes

1:51:27to the look and feel of our city.

1:51:29And like many of you over the last several weeks,

1:51:32since the release of the provincial amendments,

1:51:34most of us, along with our community,

1:51:37have been wrestling with how we should respond.

1:51:40And staff today have given us an information report,

1:51:43and they've done an excellent job.

1:51:45And for reasons of their professional role,

1:51:49they are not making comments of a political nature.

1:51:52And I respect them for that.

1:51:55But they're obligated to operate to the best ability.

1:52:00And we heard our general manager planning saying,

1:52:02we will enact to the best of our ability

1:52:07as professional planners.

1:52:09So some should say that we should just move on

1:52:12except the changes, valid.

1:52:15Some will say, no, we must stand up in defense of order

1:52:19and our community, and that is valid.

1:52:23Some say it is better to just stay silent

1:52:26because it'll jeopardize potential future funding.

1:52:29So valid.

1:52:30And some say that we should speak only

1:52:32through our representative association, AMO,

1:52:35or through our intergovernmental staff, also valid.

1:52:39But I think it should be council that speaks.

1:52:43We are the representatives of our community.

1:52:45Now, let me be clear.

1:52:47We all want to build more homes faster.

1:52:51We all want that.

1:52:52We all fully understand the urgency

1:52:54of shovels in the ground.

1:52:56But as we unpack the impact of the ministerial amendments,

1:53:00we may see the opposite.

1:53:02And I think what's important for me

1:53:05is that shape and wealth, OPA 80, met all those targets.

1:53:08It met the housing targets.

1:53:10It met the timing targets.

1:53:11It met the 18,000 by 2031.

1:53:14It met all of the ambitious targets

1:53:16that the province set for us.

1:53:18And we complied by submitting our official plan last July.

1:53:24So I've decided that we could be silent,

1:53:27but for me, silence means we are complacent

1:53:31and silence means we are complicit.

1:53:33And we took an oath of office

1:53:35to uphold our responsibilities under the municipal act,

1:53:38which are threefold, to act as representative,

1:53:42policymaker and steward.

1:53:44And that's a quote from our municipal,

1:53:47guide to municipal councils.

1:53:50So I have two motions in that spirit, Mr. Mayor.

1:53:53Two motions.

1:53:54The first is a response to give staff some direction

1:53:57on specific matters that relate to the ministerial amendments.

1:54:00And the second motion is related to actions from council.

1:54:04And that is to have the mayor write a letter

1:54:07to the honorable minister of municipal affairs and housing

1:54:10to articulate the concerns of this council

1:54:13and our community about the impact

1:54:16and our ability to build housing faster.

1:54:19So I don't know if you want me to read.

1:54:22I'm not gonna read the whole letter.

1:54:23I don't wanna be here all night.

1:54:25I know I have five minutes,

1:54:26but I think if I could read the motion and the whereases,

1:54:30because the whereases are kind of the preamble

1:54:32to how the motion is crafted.

1:54:34So whereas the city of Guelph recognizes and appreciates

1:54:37the need to build more housing in our community

1:54:39to meet the needs of current and future residents.

1:54:41And whereas OPA 80 July, 2022,

1:54:44submitted by the city of Guelph was in compliance

1:54:46with population and job targets

1:54:48and planning regulations in bill 109 and bill 23,

1:54:52as well as in alignment with municipal master plans,

1:54:54including but not limited to water supply master plan,

1:54:57wastewater, stormwater, transportation

1:54:59and infrastructure renewal.

1:55:01And whereas the city of Guelph submitted its pledge

1:55:03to the province with commitments to work cooperatively

1:55:06to meet the provincial housing targets

1:55:08of 18,000 new units by 2031.

1:55:11And whereas the city of Guelph believes

1:55:13that construction of new housing is a collaborative process

1:55:17which includes political leadership

1:55:18at all levels of government,

1:55:20including city planning staff, citizens, developers,

1:55:22home builders and community partners.

1:55:25And whereas the changes made by the province

1:55:27have the potential to significantly impact the character,

1:55:31cultural heritage resources, urban forest, tourism

1:55:34and infrastructure capital plan

1:55:36of the area within the downtown secondary plan.

1:55:39We're almost done.

1:55:40And whereas the valued expertise of conservation authorities

1:55:43on the management of floodplains and watershed health

1:55:45plays an important role in risk assessment

1:55:47and the planning process.

1:55:49And whereas the changes made by the province

1:55:51have the potential to place a significant financial burden

1:55:55on current and future residents.

1:55:57And whereas our role as elected counselors

1:55:59as described in the Ontario Municipal Act

1:56:01is to act as representative, policymaker and steward.

1:56:05My motion is moved by myself

1:56:07and I believe I had a second during Councillor Goller

1:56:10that city staff be directed to report back

1:56:13through the multi-year budget process

1:56:15on the financial and human resource impacts

1:56:18in response to provincial amendments

1:56:20to OPA80 and bill 23,

1:56:22notwithstanding the removal of the legislative role

1:56:25of the GRACA that city planning applications

1:56:28continued to be circulated to the GRACA

1:56:30as a valued stakeholder for their input and expertise.

1:56:34For staff to bring forward through the multi-year budget process

1:56:37and the necessary resources to expedite recommendations

1:56:40in the cultural heritage action plan

1:56:43on lands affected by OPA80,

1:56:46including financial incentives

1:56:47for conservation restoration of designated properties.

1:56:51During the next five year,

1:56:52OPA a process to initiate a public consultation exercise

1:56:58and bring forward recommendations

1:57:00for additional view corridors

1:57:02that may be appropriate to protect sight lines

1:57:04for significant landmarks.

1:57:05And then a plan for a future downtown park

1:57:08be reflected in the 2024, 2026 multi-year budget

1:57:11in response to the higher heights and densities

1:57:14in the downtown major transit station area.

1:57:16So that's motion number one.

1:57:19And then the second one is that the mayor be directed

1:57:21to send a letter to the Honorable Steve Clark,

1:57:23Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

1:57:25expressing Council's response regarding the impact

1:57:28of the amendments made to OPA80 shaping wealth

1:57:31and the OPA review process

1:57:32as outlined in the draft letter.

1:57:34I've attached the draft letter,

1:57:36but the draft letter is not part of the motion

1:57:38because that again, it's a draft letter.

1:57:41It has the salient points

1:57:43that I think need to be expressed to the minister,

1:57:45but I'm open to the mayor working

1:57:49with intergovernmental staff to craft

1:57:53the essential components of that letter,

1:57:56but certainly it's not a word for word verbatim letter.

1:57:59I wanna thank staff for your input

1:58:02and my colleagues for your input on this motion.

1:58:04I know staff do have some comments on some of the items

1:58:09under clause one.

1:58:11So let's, if we can go to,

1:58:14I don't know if I need to ask a question,

1:58:16but I know that staff do have some comments

1:58:20on specifically item one B with respect to the GRCA.

1:58:25And I just, I want their comments to be

1:58:28on the public record.

1:58:31Sure, why don't we, if you don't mind,

1:58:32just to kind of facilitate walking through it.

1:58:35Why don't we just go like in order, like each one?

1:58:38That way, because there could be some people with questions

1:58:40or could be people with no questions.

1:58:41Then we can just filter out what is important

1:58:45or not, I don't mean that that way,

1:58:46but what's important to ask questions or not.

1:58:50So does anyone have any questions on one A?

1:58:59Okay, councillor Billings and then O'Rourke.

1:59:03And maybe could we just have this slide back up

1:59:07just so we're all kind of following through?

1:59:09That would be great.

1:59:10That's coming up.

1:59:11Okay, councillor Billings, go first.

1:59:14Through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:59:16I thought I had heard that staff

1:59:18were going to be doing this anyways

1:59:19and reporting the financial impacts.

1:59:23Is that not correct?

1:59:27So through the mayor to councillor Billings,

1:59:30similar to what you saw last year

1:59:32in during the budget process,

1:59:36we would package up the financial and HR impacts

1:59:41to bill 23 and OPA 80 as part of the budget presentation.

1:59:46So we would, you're not just going to see that

1:59:48in the first year, you're probably going to see that

1:59:49over a few years, but as we mentioned earlier,

1:59:53we do want to track those costs

1:59:55just to make sure that if there's an opportunity

1:59:57to be made whole that we do have a record

2:00:00of what those costs would be.

2:00:02Okay, and then also through your Worship.

2:00:05I think it's easier to reflect the impacts for bill 23,

2:00:11but would staff have been in a harder time

2:00:14or more difficult time with the financial impacts,

2:00:18with the amendments to bill OPA 80?

2:00:22Only because we're talking like what was described before.

2:00:25Oh, now it's a larger pipe.

2:00:27I'm just asking.

2:00:29So through the mayor to council Billings,

2:00:31it is more challenging because in some cases,

2:00:34for instance, we would get a benefit

2:00:36from having more density,

2:00:38but there would be costs to increase servicing.

2:00:41So yes, it will be more challenging,

2:00:44but we're going to do our best to figure it out

2:00:47so that we can report accurately to you

2:00:49what the impacts are going to be.

2:00:51So it would be net of these days,

2:00:53net of benefits, net of whatever the variable is.

2:00:59We try to give you,

2:01:00I don't know what it looks like right now, councillor Billings,

2:01:02because we haven't figured out,

2:01:05we don't know exactly what those impacts are going to be,

2:01:08but rest assured, we're going to try and make sure

2:01:11that we can provide you as much clarity as we can.

2:01:14Okay, thank you.

2:01:18Okay, someone else was, councillor Roark,

2:01:20I think it was you, yes?

2:01:23Yeah.

2:01:23I had the same initial question as councillor Billings.

2:01:25Okay, so I'm going to make this, I hope, really easy

2:01:30if the mover is okay with this,

2:01:32if council is okay with this.

2:01:34It's already been moved and seconded everything.

2:01:37I'm just going to ask for everything to be separated.

2:01:41And as we make our way through it,

2:01:42we just vote A, B, C, D, okay?

2:01:45I think that's just easier.

2:01:47So my question is, before I call the vote on A is,

2:01:53I was under the impression, my memory is correct,

2:01:57that under bill 23 impacts, that was already done

2:02:00when we had the bill 23 meeting, similar to kind of this,

2:02:05in November last year, we made a financial commitment

2:02:13at that time, if you remember,

2:02:14it was like $200 and somewhat thousand dollars

2:02:16for staffing immediately.

2:02:18And then that was going to be,

2:02:20and then that was baked into the budget moving forward.

2:02:22And it was identified, it was actually pulled out

2:02:24and identified in one of the motions of the budget.

2:02:27So I'm just wondering why are we looking to duplicate

2:02:34something that I think we've already discussed

2:02:37in November and past, and was already embedded

2:02:39in the budget moving forward anyways.

2:02:44So to you, Mr. Mayor, we're just talking,

2:02:48I think that was bill 109.

2:02:49I know we're getting all our numbers mixed up.

2:02:51We had bill 108, originally bill 109, we talked about,

2:02:55I believe that's what we talked about in November,

2:02:57but for bill 23, we do the same thing,

2:03:00attract those costs.

2:03:01And again, as we mentioned, the best of our ability

2:03:03to track some costs and impacts of OPA80.

2:03:08Okay, let me just be very direct then.

2:03:10Is this already being done?

2:03:12Is this motion redundant?

2:03:13Yes or no?

2:03:15We are already doing this work, Mr. Mayor.

2:03:17Okay, so does the mover still wanna keep it on the floor?

2:03:23I do, all the staff are doing some of that,

2:03:26are doing it anyway.

2:03:27This is multi-year, and it's always good

2:03:32to have staff, our council direction.

2:03:35There's nothing, no harm in having council direction.

2:03:38Okay, I'll call the vote on this then.

2:03:41Is anyone against A?

2:03:44Put up your hand.

2:03:48So it looks like just me.

2:03:51Okay, so that passes, it's only me against.

2:03:54Okay, let's move to B.

2:03:55Now, Councillor Caron already mentioned B or not to B.

2:04:02For staff to comment on the GRCA thing,

2:04:06so maybe I'll just throw it right over to staff.

2:04:08Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

2:04:09So in our discussions with the GRCA,

2:04:12we did confirm with them that as of Oreg 596-22,

2:04:18they are actually prohibited to comment on applications.

2:04:24The only things that they will be commenting on

2:04:27in terms of applications would be anything related

2:04:30to natural hazards.

2:04:31So if we were to send our applications to them,

2:04:35they would simply send them back.

2:04:36So in our discussions with them,

2:04:38just because we knew this was coming up,

2:04:42they've asked us not to do that.

2:04:44Okay, and so to the mover, I would just ask,

2:04:47do you want to stay it on the floor

2:04:48or are you happy to remove this one?

2:04:50I'm happy to remove this clause.

2:04:52That was a conscious choice to leave it in for this evening

2:04:55because I feel like it's important that the public know

2:04:58that the GRCA, the experts in floodplain control

2:05:02and water quality and quantity are being prohibited

2:05:06from commenting on development applications.

2:05:09And I think that's just really essential to highlight that,

2:05:12but I will remove that clause from my motion.

2:05:15Okay, so I just need to ask the seconder,

2:05:20which is Guller's giving me a thumbs up

2:05:22and now I need to formally ask council,

2:05:24you're okay with that part being removed?

2:05:27Thank you.

2:05:28Okay, so B is gone.

2:05:30So we're gonna move to C.

2:05:33Oh, I'm sorry, before I go,

2:05:34Councillor Booth, I'm so sorry.

2:05:36My apologies.

2:05:37So I've removed that motion,

2:05:38but were you gonna talk about that?

2:05:39I was just going to ask for clarification.

2:05:41Okay, I'll let it slide.

2:05:43Go ahead.

2:05:43Just a clarification from the staff about their GRCA

2:05:48prohibited to comment.

2:05:50Is that because they're not funded to do that

2:05:53or if there was a fee for service

2:05:56and we require a developer to pass it through there,

2:05:58is there a way around getting a fee for service

2:06:03to comment on a development application?

2:06:06I'm not sure I understand what the prohibition,

2:06:11where that comes.

2:06:11Is it the funding?

2:06:13I'm giving funding to the GRCA as the province.

2:06:16You cannot use our money for that purpose.

2:06:18If you could just clarify that, I don't understand.

2:06:21I'm sure.

2:06:21So through the mayor to council,

2:06:23but as it's held,

2:06:25just a little while ago, the province had,

2:06:28they're changing the,

2:06:31basically asking,

2:06:32they're telling the conservation authorities

2:06:34to change their mandate of what they can look at

2:06:38and what they can't look at.

2:06:40So what they are doing right now

2:06:41is going through a many months of process

2:06:47to determine what their core services are going to be.

2:06:52And then they will be talking to the municipalities.

2:06:55If they do want to have some sort of

2:07:00service agreement with the municipalities,

2:07:02if they're allowed to at that point,

2:07:04those are the discussions we'll have at that time,

2:07:05but we're not there yet.

2:07:07And it doesn't look like at this point,

2:07:10as they continue those discussions,

2:07:12that's where we're going to land.

2:07:14So I think that at this point,

2:07:16it looks like they're going to be sticking

2:07:18to the core services,

2:07:19which is going to be looking at things associated

2:07:21with natural hazards or floodplains and things like that.

2:07:29All right, so we're going to move to C.

2:07:31And this one is bring forward

2:07:34through the multi-year budget process,

2:07:35the necessary resources to expedite the recommendations

2:07:38in the cultural heritage action plan

2:07:42on lands affected by the OP80 provincial amendments,

2:07:44including financial incentives

2:07:46for conservation restoration of designated properties.

2:07:50Is there any questions on that?

2:07:51Okay, yep, councillor Ororak has a question on this one.

2:07:53And then Gibson, yes, yes, and then Gibson.

2:07:57Thank you, Mayor Guthrie, through you to staff.

2:07:59I'm just, I'm with two minds.

2:08:02I'm okay with the first part of this clause

2:08:04and I'm not okay with the last part of the clause.

2:08:07So do we not already have funding

2:08:14to expedite the recommendations

2:08:16in the cultural heritage action plan?

2:08:18Is that not already in the budget?

2:08:23Through the mayor, currently we have funding

2:08:26to move forward with the priority action for downtown

2:08:30and we have funding in the 2024

2:08:35of the multi-year budget

2:08:36for our next heritage conservation district

2:08:38and the priorities in the cultural heritage action plan

2:08:40is Ward West, which was paused by council,

2:08:43followed by exhibition park in St. George's Park.

2:08:47And those would be further out in the forecast

2:08:51but they are not affected by OP80,

2:08:54those other two neighborhoods.

2:08:55Okay, so through you, Mr. Mayor, to staff.

2:08:59We're 41 to 44 George Street in the GI lands

2:09:02ever in that list for the cultural heritage action plan.

2:09:05Like my concern is about leapfrogging.

2:09:09Through the mayor, the arm tech site is not identified

2:09:13as a cultural heritage resource.

2:09:14It's not listed on the register

2:09:16and it is not identified in the cultural heritage action plan

2:09:19as a priority.

2:09:21And the GID lands, the priority action for that

2:09:24was the Ontario Reformatory, the part four designation

2:09:29and then we were directed to do the part five.

2:09:32So the GID recommendations are complete.

2:09:36Thank you.

2:09:36So with all respect for my colleague,

2:09:41I would like to propose an amendment

2:09:44to strike everything after CHAP.

2:09:50A, because Ward West is already there.

2:09:5341 to 44 George.

2:09:57Sorry.

2:10:01Sorry, was someone interrupting?

2:10:03There's a different motion.

2:10:05Oh, I need my glasses then.

2:10:07Okay.

2:10:10Sorry, what's happening, everybody here?

2:10:11Yeah, so I would like to put forward an amendment

2:10:15to strike everything after the CHAP

2:10:19to strike on lands affected by the OP80 Provincial

2:10:22Amendments, including financial incentives

2:10:25for conservation restoration of designated properties.

2:10:27I think there's a process for those incentives.

2:10:31Let me just see if I have a seconder.

2:10:32Does anyone who wants to second that?

2:10:35Okay, Councillor Chew.

2:10:38So, yeah, so the rationale, some of you know,

2:10:42I don't like developer incentives

2:10:46and usually when they come to council,

2:10:48there's a plan behind them.

2:10:49And so it's a staff recommendation on how incentives

2:10:53for conservation or restoration will work.

2:10:57This was specific to lands affected by OP80.

2:11:00And again, I think it leapfrogs a process.

2:11:03So that's the rationale.

2:11:06We heard from staff that the GID lands are done

2:11:10and the ARM Tech site is not a heritage property.

2:11:15So that's the amendment.

2:11:17Okay.

2:11:18Do folks need a written?

2:11:19Speaking just to the amendment,

2:11:23let me see if there's any questions only.

2:11:25Questions only, Councillor Downer,

2:11:27then Kate and then Richardson.

2:11:30Through you, Mr. Mayor.

2:11:32So I don't know why we would be taking out lands affected

2:11:37by OP80 because it's only the recommendations

2:11:41of the Cultural Heritage Action Plan

2:11:44and the George Street,

2:11:50ARM Track property is not in that, right?

2:11:52In the chat.

2:11:55So I don't know why we would take that out.

2:11:56So we're, it's just the probably the,

2:12:00can I just, like, was there?

2:12:02Through the mayor.

2:12:03Yes, the ARM Tech property is not identified

2:12:06in the Cultural Heritage.

2:12:06So I don't know why we would bother taking out

2:12:08that sort of redundant.

2:12:09I mean, it's only the recommendations

2:12:11in the Cultural Heritage Plan.

2:12:13So we don't really need to take out OP80

2:12:16because this is, it's not there.

2:12:19The other thing is too, my understanding,

2:12:21I think the motion is contrary to the motion

2:12:24that we had with the CHAP,

2:12:26with the approval of the CHAP,

2:12:28in that it also identified as staff

2:12:31to do financial incentives for conservation,

2:12:35restoration of designated properties.

2:12:38So I think the motion is contrary to a past motion

2:12:41that we already approved staff to do that.

2:12:44So I don't know where staff are in that.

2:12:45So could I get that confirmed by staff?

2:12:48The second part of the report that came forward

2:12:50was on financial incentives.

2:12:53True America 3D Councillor Danner.

2:12:55So there is already a existing motion

2:12:58that's been approved by council

2:12:59that is part of word West, Cultural Heritage District,

2:13:03that we look at financial incentives.

2:13:08It would be for, sorry, yes.

2:13:10All the chat, I'll just be there.

2:13:11I just need to, sorry, just help me out everybody.

2:13:13As the chair, I just need to make a ruling here

2:13:15based on what you just said.

2:13:16Cause I remember this now too,

2:13:17cause you just brought it up,

2:13:19is the removal as the amendment on the floor

2:13:24of these financial incentives and all that kind of stuff,

2:13:26is the intent only on the one where we've already given pre,

2:13:32we've given direction already,

2:13:34or is it based on the,

2:13:37is this removal of those wordings based on more

2:13:39than just the previous direction that was given?

2:13:42That's my question.

2:13:44The direction was on all heritage.

2:13:46Like it was basically heritage incentives

2:13:49that were identified in the chat.

2:13:51To me, this,

2:13:53that the motion to take this out

2:13:55is contrary to the motion books

2:13:57that we already have on the book.

2:13:59Yeah. So I'm going to rule that it is out of order

2:14:01just to make, just to make the ruling.

2:14:02And so in that place that I,

2:14:04there's no point in taking out unaffected lands by the OP80

2:14:08because the arm track site's not on there anyway.

2:14:11It's just-

2:14:12Well, I'll leave it to councillor Orc

2:14:13if she wants to re figure out new wording,

2:14:15but on that specific one,

2:14:16I am going to call it out of order

2:14:17because I do recall that as well.

2:14:19So to me, it should stay in.

2:14:21I just want, does anyone want to challenge me on that?

2:14:25That's a first.

2:14:26No, thank you.

2:14:27All right.

2:14:28So, councillor Orc, do you want to go back to this issue

2:14:32or kind of go on to my list for others?

2:14:34Well, then I would ask a question through you, Mr. Mayor,

2:14:38to the mover, because the motion,

2:14:42oh yeah, no, no to the original mover.

2:14:45Sorry to jump in.

2:14:46Sorry.

2:14:47So I withdraw the motion.

2:14:48No, no, it doesn't need to be withdrawn.

2:14:49It's out of order and no one arguing on that.

2:14:51So it's gone.

2:14:52The problem is, is that the original motion,

2:14:54as it stands right here in front of us,

2:14:56talks about including financial incentives,

2:14:58I'm calling that out of order now,

2:15:00because it's already been direction that we've been given.

2:15:02Right.

2:15:03Okay.

2:15:04So I appreciate that, because I had forgotten that.

2:15:06Yeah.

2:15:06Now, so what I-

2:15:07So what I-

2:15:08Sorry, councillor Orc, sorry,

2:15:09so sorry, I'm just going to continue my thought process.

2:15:12What I would suggest is that

2:15:15the original mover, councillor Moran,

2:15:18maybe look to put a period after the word amendments,

2:15:23because everything after that

2:15:25has already been given as previous direction.

2:15:36Yeah, absolutely.

2:15:37I mean, the purpose of this clause was to recognize

2:15:41that the changes to the OP

2:15:46would put our cultural heritage resources

2:15:51at more imminent need of protection.

2:15:54And I understand we have our downtown

2:15:57conservation district underway,

2:16:00but there were other areas,

2:16:02Ward West in particular,

2:16:03that would need to be expedited.

2:16:09And so the purpose was to expedite

2:16:12through the multi-year budget process.

2:16:15And-

2:16:16Let me-

2:16:16But expedite by bringing it forward,

2:16:19I'm going to cut your mic.

2:16:21Which, you know,

2:16:23I would imagine what staff are going to ask for

2:16:25is financial resources for heritage planning.

2:16:30I recognize that heritage planning right now,

2:16:33you just, you can't get a heritage planning.

2:16:36You can't get a planner anywhere.

2:16:38I recognize that.

2:16:39Putting it in the budget

2:16:41doesn't necessarily mean we're going to get it

2:16:43because resources in the planning field right now

2:16:46are just so limited across Ontario

2:16:49for the very reason that we're talking about,

2:16:51which is bill 23, bill 109,

2:16:54and the impacts on cultural heritage.

2:16:57I just, it's a good jump because I want to try to keep-

2:16:59But I'll take out the financial-

2:17:00No, no, no, no, no, no.

2:17:01Because it is a duplicate.

2:17:02So I'm going to put a P.

2:17:03No, I don't think it is, Councillor,

2:17:05based on what you've just said there.

2:17:07If your intent behind C,

2:17:09and especially the last portion of C,

2:17:11is to further the financial incentives,

2:17:14conservation for designated properties,

2:17:16more than what the previous direction

2:17:19was given a couple of years ago, I think it was.

2:17:21Yeah, the chap is 10 years old.

2:17:22Then I would not call this out of order

2:17:24because what you're doing is you're expanding

2:17:26the opportunity for financial incentives

2:17:28more than the last direction that we've given.

2:17:30If that's your intent,

2:17:32then I will not call it out of order

2:17:34because you're trying to expand it.

2:17:36Yes, I call it my more heritage faster bill.

2:17:42All right, some might call it that.

2:17:44I have some other things I would call it,

2:17:46but that's okay.

2:17:48All right, I'm going to call,

2:17:49I don't want to get this as bogged down here.

2:17:51So let's just leave it as is

2:17:54because you are trying to expand it.

2:17:56So I know I am kind of contradicting myself

2:17:59to Council O'Rourke because if I'm agreeing

2:18:02that your intent is to expand,

2:18:05then me calling Council O'Rourke's amendment out of order

2:18:08would then not seem quite fair.

2:18:11It's not exact as it was for the previous direction

2:18:13given two or three years ago.

2:18:15So I just want to be respectful to go

2:18:17and just bear with me,

2:18:18I'm just trying to chair this properly.

2:18:20Council O'Rourke,

2:18:21because I've come to a conclusion now and finite on it,

2:18:24would you like to retable your amendment then

2:18:28based on the fact that the mover's intent

2:18:30is to further the incentives over and above

2:18:33what was already given as previous direction

2:18:35or do you want to just let it go?

2:18:38I have a question.

2:18:41So the way I read this clause,

2:18:43and sorry, I was going on the version

2:18:45that was circulated earlier.

2:18:47So I'm staring at the updated one now.

2:18:50This says expedite recommendations

2:18:53in the cultural heritage action plan

2:18:55on lands affected by the OPA 80 provincial amendments.

2:18:59So those are the changes sent back by the province.

2:19:03So through you, Mr. Meredith staff,

2:19:05like didn't the Crawley Road one say,

2:19:07and you cannot do anything that is going to impede

2:19:10development on this piece of property.

2:19:13So are we, like it is two things.

2:19:16Is that leapfrog anything that was amended in OPA 80

2:19:20above other cultural heritage priorities?

2:19:23And B, if we speed up recommendations

2:19:28for the cultural heritage action plan

2:19:30on specific properties where the province said,

2:19:32do not put any more rate rules here,

2:19:39does this motion potentially do that?

2:19:46Through the mayor, in my understanding of our priorities

2:19:50in the cultural heritage action plan

2:19:52and the minister's modifications,

2:19:55the only area that this would apply to is our downtown.

2:19:58And the downtown includes our old downtown identified area

2:20:06for a heritage conservation district study and Ward West.

2:20:09To me, that's all that this would cover.

2:20:13And the other priority action

2:20:14is around financial incentives.

2:20:16Okay.

2:20:19So then I would keep the amendment

2:20:22around expanding the financial incentives

2:20:24for conservation and restoration.

2:20:28Yeah.

2:20:29Okay, clear as mine.

2:20:32Before I go to my list,

2:20:33I do need to do a follow up question to staff.

2:20:35Based on what you just answered, Melissa,

2:20:38does that mean what staff are already doing

2:20:42and including in future funding in the budget,

2:20:46it's already identified that this motion is redundant?

2:20:56Our collective answer is yes.

2:20:58Okay.

2:20:59So this is now the second motion.

2:21:00Just wanna have an observation here

2:21:02that this is already happening then.

2:21:05Okay.

2:21:06My list, Gibson, Kate and Richardson.

2:21:08Thank you through Mr. Mayor.

2:21:10I'll be brief.

2:21:10I'm speaking to the amendment,

2:21:13not the amendment of councillor Roark

2:21:14that was removed, correct?

2:21:15I'm speaking now to just see.

2:21:19Just see as it is.

2:21:20Okay, thank you.

2:21:21So this has been my opinion expressed

2:21:23many times in council, so it's not new.

2:21:27I've always been a little bit skeptical

2:21:28of using the Heritage Act and Heritage Action Plans

2:21:32to on the ground anyway,

2:21:35not just preserve heritage, but on the ground,

2:21:37how it effectively works is that it blocks development.

2:21:40It eliminates the ability for infill,

2:21:41it eliminates the ability for intensification.

2:21:44I think the major changes through Bill 23

2:21:47are the 18 to 23 stories in the downtown.

2:21:50And all I can see here is just the desire

2:21:53to rush forward a cultural action plan

2:21:56to protect certain view corridors, to block that.

2:21:59Because under our original OP,

2:22:04the 18 stories were fine,

2:22:06but now we're going from 18 to 23, that's the big change.

2:22:09And we're looking to rush cultural heritage

2:22:10to try and block some of that.

2:22:11That's how it feels to me.

2:22:12So that's not a question.

2:22:15I don't think I'm gonna have my mind changed on this.

2:22:17I think the timing of it in response to Bill 23

2:22:21speaks to my skepticism.

2:22:23And I think that I've been right all along.

2:22:26When cultural heritage is used to block development,

2:22:30I think that it's wrongheaded.

2:22:31I think that we should be using it to preserve,

2:22:32but not to block.

2:22:33And that's my feelings, and so I won't be supporting C.

2:22:40Okay, thank you.

2:22:41And let's go to Kate and then Richard has withdrawn.

2:22:44So Kate, it's over to you.

2:22:47Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through you to staff.

2:22:49So I'm used to areas like downtown Vancouver

2:22:53where basically they kind of combine the heritage

2:22:57with development and they just kind of keep the facades

2:23:01of the buildings and then they build on top of it.

2:23:05So is that something that would be affected by this?

2:23:11Because I'm not as familiar with the cultural heritage

2:23:14action plan as a new counselor.

2:23:18Is that something that would happen

2:23:20or would it block it as counselor Gibson is suggesting?

2:23:24So just before you answer staff,

2:23:26I'll let this question go because, you know,

2:23:28we're still some new counselors and stuff like that.

2:23:30It's totally fine, but I do want us to after this

2:23:33specifically focus on what the motion is,

2:23:37not on like potential outcomes or what would something look

2:23:41or how would something get a feel?

2:23:42Okay, but-

2:23:43I'm just trying to understand whether or not

2:23:44I can vote for it.

2:23:46Just because I wanted-

2:23:46Yeah, no, no, it's okay.

2:23:48I hope everyone thinks I'm reasonable.

2:23:51That's why I said it's gonna let it go,

2:23:52but I also want to just remind as the chair,

2:23:54just we gotta be focused on what's there,

2:23:57which would come later in my opinion,

2:23:59but I want staff to respond.

2:24:00Go ahead.

2:24:02Through the mayor, the priority actions

2:24:04are heritage conservation district studies

2:24:07and phase one of those studies looks at

2:24:10identifying the cultural heritage value of the area,

2:24:13what buildings, it does a building inventory,

2:24:15so which buildings are,

2:24:18have cultural heritage value, which do not.

2:24:21And we would bring forward a recommendation on a boundary.

2:24:24So similar to what we've done with the Ontario Reformatory

2:24:27District is identifying phase one,

2:24:29the boundary and the cultural heritage value statements

2:24:32for that area.

2:24:34Council has a decision point then to proceed further

2:24:38to develop planning guidelines.

2:24:40And the planning guidelines

2:24:41and heritage conservation district studies set out

2:24:44how change and development could happen in that area

2:24:47and provide recommendations for updates to your zoning by-law

2:24:51to official plan policies,

2:24:54how heritage permit processes would work,

2:24:56so what you would consider when reviewing

2:24:58development applications within that district.

2:25:02So it is a process and it has decision points along the way.

2:25:06Great, so it's not gonna block anything,

2:25:07it's just more like a definition thing.

2:25:10I understand that, thank you.

2:25:13No problem, thank you.

2:25:14And I just have a question for the mover from Councillor Alton

2:25:17that I'd like to call the vote.

2:25:19Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie.

2:25:20It's a two-fold question.

2:25:22It arises from some of the questions

2:25:24of the word one, Councilors collectively.

2:25:27I'm wondering, Councillor Caron,

2:25:29is your intention to impede development

2:25:32or is it to enhance development through preservation

2:25:36of cultural heritage?

2:25:38In other words, that was one of the first questions.

2:25:40The other question I've forgotten right now,

2:25:44but I'll come back to it.

2:25:45This has been quite a convoluted discussion.

2:25:49I pre-call your second question out of order.

2:25:51No, it's count.

2:25:53All right, good to have Leavity.

2:25:56So I'll let the mover respond for that for a second.

2:25:59And then I'm sorry, it's not Billings next,

2:26:01it will be Downer and then Billings.

2:26:03Sure, cultural heritage is,

2:26:09the preservation and conservation of cultural heritage

2:26:13is something that is all about city building.

2:26:15It's protecting what's valuable.

2:26:17In my opinion, it does not block

2:26:20what the amendment is, the 23 stories,

2:26:23on sites where it is appropriate to do so.

2:26:28You go to downtown Toronto or downtown Montreal,

2:26:30you still see heritage buildings surrounded

2:26:33by 80, 90 story towers.

2:26:35Let's protect what's valuable.

2:26:37The Ward West study and the downtown study

2:26:39are gonna protect what's valuable.

2:26:41Everything else is open for development.

2:26:44Thank you.

2:26:45The other question is, there were comments

2:26:46about this being redundant.

2:26:48I had read this and presumed that your intent

2:26:51was to reiterate and reinforce.

2:26:53Is that correct?

2:26:54That is correct.

2:26:55It also gives staff an opportunity

2:26:58in the multi-year budget process to ask for what they need.

2:27:01If we give them direction, hey, we wanna expedite this,

2:27:04don't be afraid to ask us for the resources to do it.

2:27:07Even if they come back and say,

2:27:08we've posted and we've tried and we can't hire a planner

2:27:10and we can't do it, even if they come back and say,

2:27:14we're not able to expedite it,

2:27:15at least the money's in the budget

2:27:17and we've made it a priority

2:27:18because council has reassured our community.

2:27:21And in answer to your question,

2:27:23councillor, part of the reason for this tonight

2:27:25is we need to reassure the community

2:27:28that we are looking at OPA 8,

2:27:30the amendments to OPA 8 to 80,

2:27:33we're looking at what the impacts are

2:27:34and we're taking the action we need

2:27:36to protect what we can

2:27:38and move forward with building more housing.

2:27:41Thank you.

2:27:44And next on the list is, down are the buildings, please.

2:27:47Yeah, just sort of comment on the blocking of development.

2:27:53Actually, it's the opposite.

2:27:54So it not only looks at what we need to preserve,

2:27:57it sort of helps guide and creates predictability.

2:28:00So I live in a heritage district.

2:28:02It just creates predictability

2:28:04about what the expectations are within that neighborhood.

2:28:07So the blocking, it's never the intent.

2:28:13However, I just wanted to wonder

2:28:16because I had given council the notice

2:28:18that I was gonna be bringing forward a motion

2:28:21at the end of the month with the surplus about,

2:28:24we had only paused the board west to do the OR

2:28:28because the ministry was asking us

2:28:31to determine what we were valuing on the property.

2:28:35And I was gonna bring forward a motion for us

2:28:37to use one time funding from the capital

2:28:41to start that board west as soon as possible,

2:28:46as soon as we had the capacity rather than wait.

2:28:49And it wasn't in response to OP80,

2:28:52it was more in response to bill 23,

2:28:55which means we've only got two years

2:28:58to deal with heritage in this city.

2:29:02And 2024 is too late.

2:29:06So it's around that two years for this.

2:29:11I actually don't think we're gonna get 23 stories

2:29:13in word west, but so I'm not, I'm more,

2:29:16and we were already expecting a lot of change there,

2:29:19which is why word west was anticipated as a priority,

2:29:23because even then we were looking at four to six stories

2:29:25in that area already, like so it's,

2:29:27we were looking at change and things

2:29:29that were gonna happen in that area already.

2:29:32I was just gonna bring it forward

2:29:33because of the heritage issue in bill 23,

2:29:38which means we've got a window in which to do this work.

2:29:41And I'm on the heritage committee,

2:29:43like doing individual heritage designations is,

2:29:47it's a lot better to just sort of look at a whole landscape

2:29:50and deal with it that way.

2:29:52So my question, getting to my question is,

2:29:55if this is passed, would that be contrary

2:29:58than to the, would my motion at the end of the month

2:30:00to do this, to start this with one time funding

2:30:03as soon as possible be contrary to this motion?

2:30:06So I don't know if it's the clerks

2:30:07or whether planning staff would see that as, pardon?

2:30:13Well, I can rule on that.

2:30:15And I actually, I would call it not out of order

2:30:23because what you're doing is creating the opportunity

2:30:25for where the funding comes from.

2:30:28Okay.

2:30:30Okay, so it would be, then it would be.

2:30:32So if councillor, sorry, I'm gonna interrupt you.

2:30:33If councillor, if this passes its direction,

2:30:39that I mean the failsafe is that it would be

2:30:41in the multi-year budget as outlined.

2:30:44But if you wanted to talk about

2:30:46where the funding is coming from, I would allow that.

2:30:52Well, it's not just the funding, it's the timing as well.

2:30:55So it's, let's do this as soon as we have capacity

2:30:58in our heritage planning department

2:31:00because we're working on the downtown and the OR one,

2:31:03but in discussion with staff,

2:31:05there might be some capacity coming up,

2:31:07before we even do next year's budget or even that.

2:31:10Let's look at that because of this window we have

2:31:14with bill 23 that's given us two years

2:31:17and we're in heritage, we're kind of scrambling

2:31:21to do what we can, right?

2:31:22Like every other community.

2:31:24So would you see that contrary, I would ask planning staff,

2:31:29if I still bring that motion forward

2:31:31at the end of the month, and you've already ruled

2:31:34that it would be fine.

2:31:36Okay.

2:31:38I would ask Ms. Walkie to-

2:31:40I feel both is somewhat okay,

2:31:43but I'd have to see it exact, but go ahead, Christa.

2:31:47Yeah, through Mayor Guthrie to Councillor Downer,

2:31:48I concur that it would bring it forward quicker

2:31:52if you bring it forward at the end of the month

2:31:55and that to Mayor Guthrie's point,

2:31:58at a minimum at this point,

2:31:59it would be in the multi-year budget,

2:32:01there is an opportunity at the end of the month

2:32:03to bring it forward quicker

2:32:04so that we can start the RFP process.

2:32:11Okay, okay, I don't mind supporting this.

2:32:13I mean, it's the intent

2:32:14and I don't know what's gonna happen at the end of the month

2:32:16when I asked for that one-time funding.

2:32:18Yeah.

2:32:19You're gonna give me a hard time, I know.

2:32:23Okay, great, thank you.

2:32:24That was just clarity for me.

2:32:25Thank you for this.

2:32:26Okay, Billings please.

2:32:30Through you, your worship.

2:32:32Okay, so the motion is to expedite

2:32:37and then moving forward after the OPA-80 amendments,

2:32:40it's including the financial incentives

2:32:43for conservation slash restoration of designated properties.

2:32:47So because some members of council want to expedite this,

2:32:52what are we talking?

2:32:53Are we talking a million, two million, three million?

2:32:57Like what's the amount?

2:32:59What's the funding required that you want

2:33:02or you would put in the multi-year

2:33:04or want at the end of the month?

2:33:16Through you, Mr. Mayor, to Councillor Billings,

2:33:19that's why the wording is to bring it forward

2:33:21through the multi-year budget process.

2:33:22Because when it comes to the multi-year budget process,

2:33:25it is $3 million.

2:33:26Council can vote on the budget.

2:33:32We don't know the costs, so I'm asking for it

2:33:35to be brought forward and we'll see it

2:33:36when we see the multi-year budget.

2:33:38And then we'll go to court.

2:33:40So through you, your worship.

2:33:41No, I totally understand that, Councillor Kerron,

2:33:44but my question was more for staff

2:33:47in order to expedite what they need to expedite

2:33:49to get done what you want to get done.

2:33:52How much, even ballpark, are we talking?

2:33:56I would think staff would have some idea

2:33:58of what we're talking about here

2:33:59instead of just supporting a motion

2:34:01where we have no idea what we're talking about financially.

2:34:11Through Mayor Guthrie to Councillor Billings.

2:34:15So expediting a CHAP is a component

2:34:20that could be brought forward.

2:34:23Word West is the one that was paused.

2:34:25It could be brought forward.

2:34:28An idea of the financial incentives

2:34:30was outlined in the Cultural Heritage Action Plan,

2:34:33so we can put that in the multi-year budget

2:34:36for a decision at that point in time.

2:34:42So you have no idea what we're talking about.

2:34:44We're talking about $2 million.

2:34:46Like, do you have any idea of that?

2:34:56Yeah, and through Mayor Guthrie to Councillor Billings.

2:34:58So we're kind of calculating those right now.

2:35:01So we did see this motion today

2:35:03and we're gonna have some numbers for Councillor Downer

2:35:07at the end of the month for what it would cost

2:35:09to do an extra Heritage Conservation District.

2:35:13And then we will then provide those

2:35:15incentive, potential incentive numbers.

2:35:18But if it's part of the multi-year budget process,

2:35:20we'll be looking at that time

2:35:21and we haven't put those numbers in.

2:35:23Okay, so if you're calculating that,

2:35:25I have another question then through you,

2:35:27Worship, while you're calculating.

2:35:29And that is there's a difference between

2:35:31putting it in the multi-year budget,

2:35:34bringing it to the multi-year budget process,

2:35:37meaning just as an expansion package,

2:35:40so it's not built in the budget,

2:35:42it would just be a motion from council to include it.

2:35:47So is staff thinking that they would just,

2:35:49if this clause passes,

2:35:51it would be built in the multi-year budget

2:35:53and council would have to move a motion to remove it,

2:35:56or would you just be bringing it forward

2:35:58as an expansion package?

2:36:10Premier Guthrie to Councillor Billion.

2:36:12So the Heritage Conservation Districts

2:36:14are already outlined in the capital budget,

2:36:16in the ten-year capital budget.

2:36:18They're already outlined.

2:36:20And then for the incentives program,

2:36:23I think I'll go back to our friends in finance

2:36:26and determine how that's packaged for the budget.

2:36:29Councillor Billion, I'm sorry,

2:36:29I don't have a concise answer for you at this time.

2:36:34Okay, because I was speaking about the expediting.

2:36:37Like if we're gonna expedite something

2:36:39that's gonna have an impact on the budget,

2:36:42would that be an expansion?

2:36:44Or are you just gonna bring, for example,

2:36:48the 2024 forward,

2:36:49and that's already gonna be moved up,

2:36:51or whatever it is in order to expedite this process,

2:36:55given the motion.

2:37:00So 2024, we have budget

2:37:03for the next Heritage Conservation District,

2:37:05which would be Ward West.

2:37:08If we're expediting it, we may need staff resources

2:37:12to help us bring that forward.

2:37:13So that would be the expansion component

2:37:16to the 2024 budget.

2:37:18And then the downtown through your worship,

2:37:20because you said Ward West and downtown.

2:37:25Through Mayor Guthrie to Councillor Billion,

2:37:27we do already have the funds for that,

2:37:29and the project has just been initiated.

2:37:33So then it really, it's just the funds to expedite,

2:37:37which you don't know what that is.

2:37:41That is correct, but we will have that for Councillor Downer

2:37:43at the end of the month.

2:37:47Okay.

2:37:51Okay, thank you.

2:37:52Well, I just know your worship,

2:37:54like whether it's the end of the month or not,

2:37:56this motion is to expedite.

2:38:00And at this time to expedite any amount of money,

2:38:04given the pressures that we're facing right now,

2:38:07even just with 2024, forget about 26 to 27,

2:38:11our proposed budget increases is huge.

2:38:15So I just won't be supporting this clause.

2:38:20Okay, and I'd like to try to get us past this,

2:38:23but I saw a Rourke and then we'll try to get past it.

2:38:25Okay.

2:38:26Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

2:38:27Sir, you just a quick comment.

2:38:28Like at the end of the month, I'll have no issue

2:38:32supporting expediting Ward West,

2:38:34because it's already approved.

2:38:36It's the next piece of the chapter.

2:38:38So that's all fine.

2:38:39My concern with this clause really is the expediting

2:38:43for lands affected by the OPA 80 provincial amendments.

2:38:45That's my concern and also the potential

2:38:47for an expansion on the financial incentives,

2:38:51which staff can do anyway,

2:38:54as that they bring that routinely.

2:38:56So that's my concern.

2:38:58It's not at all a concern about Ward West.

2:39:01It really is about potentially contravening

2:39:04some of the direction in those provincial amendments

2:39:06and also wanting to follow what's been said as priorities.

2:39:13Okay, thank you.

2:39:15I got two quick questions and I'm gonna call a vote.

2:39:18I hate to go right back to my only question

2:39:19I had so far on this one, but I have to go back again.

2:39:22So after the commentary between my two colleagues

2:39:25and also some of the commentary and answers back and forth,

2:39:29I need to revisit my first question, which was,

2:39:31is this motion redundant?

2:39:36Is everything that's encapsulated in this motion

2:39:39already being done?

2:39:44Mayor Guthrie, yes it is.

2:39:48Plan four, it's dependent on the definition of expedite.

2:39:53Okay, and my second question is,

2:39:57could, let's say this goes through and it goes through,

2:40:02could these types of heritage districts and stuff,

2:40:07can that in your view,

2:40:10can it stymie growth an opportunity for building?

2:40:15Through Mayor Guthrie.

2:40:20So we all have, when we do the heritage conservation,

2:40:23conservation district for downtown,

2:40:26we also have to look at it with opportunities

2:40:28for that 23 stories that are permitted.

2:40:30So there may be a requirement in most cases,

2:40:34there probably will be a requirement

2:40:36that you preserve the facade in some cases

2:40:38and that you can build up and on top of that.

2:40:41So it really depends on the developer

2:40:43if that's an appropriate pro forma for them or not.

2:40:47But in my opinion, you can absolutely have both.

2:40:52Thank you.

2:40:53Okay, I'll call the vote.

2:40:56Who is anyone against C, raise your hand.

2:41:03All right, myself and Gibson and Billings

2:41:08and Chiu and O'Rourke.

2:41:10It passes.

2:41:12Thank you, we'll move on to D.

2:41:16This is the next, over the next five year amendment process,

2:41:20initiate the public consultation exercise

2:41:23to bring forward recommendations for future

2:41:25additional view corridors

2:41:27that may be appropriate to protect sight lines

2:41:29for significant municipal landmarks,

2:41:31including but not limited to the Basilica

2:41:35of our Lady Immaculate with examples of turf grass

2:41:38or Starchy Hill, et cetera,

2:41:40for inclusion in the next OPA cycle.

2:41:46All right, so any questions on this one?

2:41:50Okay, I have a question.

2:41:52Looks like we'll move through this one fast.

2:41:55So the changes from the province for OPA 80

2:42:03will require you to amend our official plan

2:42:07to be in conformity with their changes within this year.

2:42:11Correct?

2:42:14To give you clarity.

2:42:17Okay.

2:42:17We do not have to update our official plan.

2:42:19The provinces decision on our official plan

2:42:23is with modifications is in place.

2:42:25Our updates are to our zoning regulations.

2:42:28Yeah, okay.

2:42:30Thank you.

2:42:31So as we update, including the zoning,

2:42:38if we were to actually initiate this process

2:42:41with future view corridors,

2:42:43that would then be against what is being told to happen now.

2:42:48Would that not open us up completely for appeals

2:42:52and legal costs?

2:42:57I know it's for the next review.

2:42:59What I'm asking though is if we're about to embed something

2:43:03now and then we look to completely change it,

2:43:08would that not be right for appeals?

2:43:12To you, Mayor Guthrie, I think the key to this response

2:43:17is in the minister striking out of our policies

2:43:20that spoke to the protection of long views to the Basilica.

2:43:24So the minister has struck that policy.

2:43:27It appears that this is looking at establishing

2:43:31further view corridors beyond what is already protected

2:43:34by our official plan and now are updated

2:43:38in our zoning bylaw.

2:43:41And to go further, some of these proposed views

2:43:44are from outside of our municipality.

2:43:49Okay, I'll go Krista, then Alton, then the mover.

2:43:52Yeah, thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

2:43:54And if I can add to that,

2:43:54so we have a year to implement the zoning for this.

2:43:58So we will have in areas of downtown

2:44:01that are outside the view corridors

2:44:03because those are protected by the minister.

2:44:04So that is positive.

2:44:07But on the other properties,

2:44:08we'll be looking site by site

2:44:09and bringing back a zoning bylaw.

2:44:11So we will in more than most likelihood have heights

2:44:16that will block those additional view corridors

2:44:19and they will be implemented through the zoning bylaw.

2:44:23So if we came forward with a further official plan amendment,

2:44:26the height permissions would already be in place.

2:44:31So that's clear as day for me.

2:44:33Alt and then the mover.

2:44:35Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

2:44:36My comments are questioned perhaps even to the mover,

2:44:39but are limited to the phrase,

2:44:41initiate a public consultation exercise

2:44:44and bring forward recommendations

2:44:46for additional future view corridors.

2:44:48That strikes me as being the active clause.

2:44:51This is not about the official plan

2:44:53or about anything zoning.

2:44:55It's about public consultation.

2:44:57Is that correct?

2:44:59Yes and no, the purpose of any public consultation exercise

2:45:03on this topic is to feed into the policy making role

2:45:10that we have as council.

2:45:11Absolutely, I don't disagree with that.

2:45:13But the key here is you're requesting public consultation

2:45:17during the OP amendment process.

2:45:19So at this point, there's nothing that is challenging

2:45:24of anything that is not in place.

2:45:26So the only thing that is challenging of anything

2:45:29that the ministry has put upon this,

2:45:31this is just asking for public input.

2:45:34Correct and Ms. Eltonante's response was we can't,

2:45:37I have no illusions that we can overturn the amendment

2:45:42of the minister and just ignore the removal

2:45:44of the long view corridors.

2:45:46I'm talking about the next OPA cycle

2:45:48because I don't want to lose that.

2:45:50In the next OPA cycle, five years from now,

2:45:52I'd like to put it back and make it even stronger,

2:45:56and at this motion is to make sure we don't lose that.

2:45:59So during our next OPA cycle, we add it back in

2:46:03and potentially add further view corridors.

2:46:06And these are just not, including but not limited to,

2:46:09I mean, the recommendations may come back that say,

2:46:12we only have one view corridor we want to protect

2:46:15and it's from the turf grass institute

2:46:18or it's not presupposing what the outcome is going to be.

2:46:23I don't have 11 view corridors in mind,

2:46:27but I do want public consultation

2:46:28about what views our city values.

2:46:31Other cities have view corridors as well.

2:46:32Cities all over Europe protect their significant landmarks.

2:46:36It doesn't, and it also says not limited to the Basilica

2:46:40because it may not just be the Basilica.

2:46:42In Toronto, views to Queens Park up University,

2:46:49their view corridors to significant landmarks

2:46:52are a planning tool that many cities around the world use.

2:46:57And I just would like that to be in five years time

2:47:01part of our OPA review process.

2:47:04So not trying to overturn the minister's direction at all.

2:47:07Thank you.

2:47:08I get that.

2:47:09I get essentially what you're saying is we're being forward

2:47:11thinking, thinking outside the box.

2:47:13And this is in essence a request,

2:47:16not just for us, but for future councils perhaps.

2:47:19I think that this is a very positive clause to your motion.

2:47:25If thank you.

2:47:28I'm gonna go to Downer and then I can call the vote.

2:47:33Yeah, I'm gonna support this because to me,

2:47:35it's like the next OPA,

2:47:36there'll be lots of background studies going into that document.

2:47:39We'll have to update our employment lens, obviously study.

2:47:41There's other studies that go into it.

2:47:43To me, this is just another exercise or study.

2:47:46Are there any other view corridors that we need looking at?

2:47:49Do we wanna put that one back in?

2:47:50I don't know whether we'd be allowed.

2:47:52But anyway, that's something to consider at that time,

2:47:55at the time that you next do your official plan review.

2:47:59So it's just, it's in with all the other background information

2:48:03for me that goes into that.

2:48:05And then the force after that,

2:48:06then you got your zoning bylaw.

2:48:08So it's just adding something into a process.

2:48:11I'm not too worried about it.

2:48:13Okay.

2:48:17Oh, sorry, Gibson then.

2:48:18And then I'll call the vote.

2:48:20Thank you.

2:48:21Mr. Mayor, only because it's in the motion here,

2:48:25significant landmarks including,

2:48:26but not limited to the Basilica of Our Lady Immaculate

2:48:29from the Turfgrass Institute.

2:48:31Question to staff,

2:48:33if we were to put in a view corridor protection

2:48:35from the Turfgrass Institute to Our Lady Immaculate,

2:48:39what would that mean for growth along Victoria Road

2:48:42and the GID lens that were just approved for higher stories?

2:48:45Would that, is that not a potential conflict

2:48:48with what's just been approved for the GID lens?

2:48:53And is that going to create another layer of stymying

2:48:57or limitation of proposed developments?

2:49:05Through Mayor Guthrie.

2:49:09Just one second.

2:49:10I have a point of order from Councillor Caron.

2:49:12Just one second.

2:49:13Go ahead.

2:49:14The question is that's not what's in the motion.

2:49:16It's not speaking to the motion.

2:49:18The motion is just to have a public consultation exercise.

2:49:23Well, I call this question in order

2:49:25because if you're going to have a public consultation

2:49:28on something that could interfere with growth,

2:49:31I think that's a valid question.

2:49:33We shouldn't vote or not,

2:49:35but we should be fully informed

2:49:36before we vote on this to determine

2:49:38if the action we're about to take

2:49:40could actually potentially stop,

2:49:45but even lend itself towards issues with growth.

2:49:49It's similar actually to my question at the beginning,

2:49:51which was no problem.

2:49:52So I'm going to call it in order, let staff respond.

2:49:58Through Mayor Guthrie, to Councillor Gibson.

2:50:03We'll do whatever consultation is directed by council.

2:50:08I do have concerns with bringing forward recommendations

2:50:11for additional view corridors.

2:50:13If it's to investigate additional view corridors,

2:50:16I think that might be more appropriate

2:50:18with respect to the author.

2:50:22And the zoning will be in place for the GID lands

2:50:26and the downtown, which will have much higher sites

2:50:30in front of those landmarks,

2:50:34which may limit the ability to bring forward

2:50:36any additional view corridors.

2:50:41Okay, thank you.

2:50:41Councillor Gibson, is that okay?

2:50:44Yeah, you've muted, okay.

2:50:45Yeah, that's fine.

2:50:46I just, again, when the intention is there,

2:50:49it has to be asked.

2:50:50So I thank you for ruling my question in order.

2:50:54Okay, thank you.

2:50:55Okay, I'm going to call a vote on D then.

2:50:59And I'm going to, is anyone against motion D?

2:51:03Please raise your hand.

2:51:05Okay, O'Rourke, myself, Billings and Gibson, that passes.

2:51:11All right, let's go to the next screen.

2:51:15Thank you, E, that a future,

2:51:18sorry, that a plan for a future downtown park,

2:51:21you reflected in the 2024 to 2026 multi-year budget

2:51:24in response to higher heights and densities

2:51:26in the downtown major transit station area.

2:51:28So any questions on that?

2:51:33All right, then I have a, okay, Gibson and then myself.

2:51:36Question to the mover, where?

2:51:38Where for the downtown park?

2:51:39What were your thoughts?

2:51:42The area identified in the downtown secondary plan

2:51:46along Wellington, I'm trying very consciously not to call it,

2:51:50not to give it a name

2:51:51because we have not had a formal naming process.

2:51:56Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor, to staff.

2:51:58So that currently is occupied by businesses.

2:52:02So within a year, we're talking about,

2:52:06we're talking about purchasing that

2:52:07and turning into a park within a year.

2:52:10So Councillor Gibson, I'm just going to say that

2:52:14the mover was conscious of making sure

2:52:18that we weren't identifying any sites.

2:52:22And so to move forward in any questions for all of council,

2:52:26I just want everyone to be aware of that.

2:52:29And so I think the mover did answer your question

2:52:33appropriately by saying it's anywhere

2:52:35within the downtown secondary plan as defined.

2:52:37And so I'll go back to you, you have the floor,

2:52:40but I'd be just careful of anything that needs to be said

2:52:44right now that would require us to move in camera,

2:52:46which I do not want to do.

2:52:50I think the intention is on full display

2:52:52in that motion, but I will leave it at that.

2:52:56Hey, thank you.

2:52:57I thought I saw another hand go up.

2:52:59Ororque, all right, I got three.

2:53:02Ororque, Billings and Pusto.

2:53:04Thank you, Mayor Guthrie, through you to staff.

2:53:07So I'm going to be sure I understand this motion.

2:53:11So there's no question that with more density downtown

2:53:14that we need better green spaces

2:53:16for to meet the needs of the population.

2:53:17There's no question at all in my mind.

2:53:20My question is, does this motion provide direction

2:53:25to go ahead and do this?

2:53:27Like are we saying put this in the budget,

2:53:29the 2024 to 26 multi-year budget?

2:53:32And if so, what does that displace already in the parks plan?

2:53:40So through the mayor to councillor Ororque.

2:53:44So on this particular item,

2:53:46this work is actually already underway.

2:53:48It was probably before my time,

2:53:53but I think that direction was already given

2:53:55to look for a location for downtown park.

2:53:58And we do have a staff committee

2:54:01that does look at real estate opportunities

2:54:08to look and see if we can fulfill the directions

2:54:12of council and this is one of them.

2:54:13So this is actually already underway.

2:54:16And so anything that if we do have something

2:54:20that will come forward,

2:54:21it will come through the multi-year budget

2:54:22as it's mentioned in the motion.

2:54:25Okay, thanks.

2:54:30Billings, boost till.

2:54:33So three year worship,

2:54:34I was actually gonna steal your question

2:54:35and ask staff is this redundant

2:54:37because I thought in the capital budget,

2:54:40we already have, what is it?

2:54:43I think over 12 million for park acquisition in 2024.

2:54:48So we're already doing this.

2:54:50Is this not correct?

2:54:52This has already been taken care of.

2:54:56Through you, Mr. Mayor, to councillor Billings.

2:55:01Yes, this is, we're already looking at this

2:55:03and the work is already underway.

2:55:05Okay, thank you.

2:55:09Okay, so I go ahead.

2:55:13Councillor Orte, because Councillor Boosenthal.

2:55:16I just need clarification.

2:55:17This motion and Councillor Cronk,

2:55:20this is specific to funding for a downtown park,

2:55:25not broadly about parks in general, is that correct?

2:55:29Correct, this is specifically related to responding

2:55:33to the higher heights and densities

2:55:35in the downtown major transit station area.

2:55:37I believe that our capital plan

2:55:40for parkland acquisition is for the whole city,

2:55:43but I could stand to be corrected.

2:55:47Okay, thank you.

2:55:50So I just want clarity other than the fact

2:55:53that this is already potentially being worked on already.

2:55:59There's like no dollar amount here.

2:56:01Like it's scaring me.

2:56:04So where, how much, it has to be in the plan

2:56:09in that multi-year budget.

2:56:11Which by the way, is everyone okay if our clerks,

2:56:14our clerks just mentioned something

2:56:16from an administrative point of view?

2:56:17It should say 2027.

2:56:20So I'm not going to ask for an amendment.

2:56:22I think that's very appropriate.

2:56:24So unless I get challenged, I think we're okay on that.

2:56:27That will be captured in the minutes as 2027.

2:56:30But back to my question, the where and the money,

2:56:35we have absolutely no idea.

2:56:37So between now and when our budget comes forward,

2:56:40our staff even going to be able to identify a location

2:56:43and tell us how much money has to go in there for whatever.

2:56:54So through the mayor to council, I think the challenge,

2:56:57so yes, as Ms. Holmes has said,

2:56:59this is something that we are already working on.

2:57:01I think the challenge that we're probably struggling

2:57:03with how to respond is we aren't specific about the location,

2:57:07we aren't specific about the size.

2:57:08So we will bring you something as part of the 2024 to 2027

2:57:12multi-year budget for the downtown.

2:57:14I'm comfortable committing to that.

2:57:16What I am not comfortable committing to is where,

2:57:19what size and what the amount will be

2:57:21because we're just not in a position to answer that tonight.

2:57:25Okay.

2:57:26And would it be right for me to be concerned about the fact

2:57:29that potentially bill 23, if we are not made whole,

2:57:33that the province, including not making us whole,

2:57:37is including parkland?

2:57:39So that's already a problem, right?

2:57:42Okay.

2:57:43So the staff are saying yes for those watching at home.

2:57:47We have a huge park in Clare-Maltby

2:57:50that council went against the staff recommendation

2:57:53and consultant recommendations

2:57:55to move a huge park in Clare-Maltby.

2:57:58I have absolutely no idea where we're gonna get the money

2:58:02for that.

2:58:03So we have a potential shortfall for impacts of bill 23.

2:58:10Have no idea how we're gonna pay for all of this parkland

2:58:13that this council wants to try to do.

2:58:15And then we were gonna add this on top of something

2:58:17that's already being worked on anyways

2:58:19for the downtown anyways.

2:58:21So for those reasons, there's just not enough information

2:58:24here and I would suggest this council not vote

2:58:27for this at all.

2:58:30With that comments from me, I'll go to Guller and Keaton

2:58:33and then I'll look to call the vote.

2:58:35Thank you for your worship.

2:58:37Just to make my comments,

2:58:39I ask my council colleagues to vote in favor of this.

2:58:43We have had a plan during the last two budget processes.

2:58:47I have asked, do we have money to build a downtown park?

2:58:50And I've been told we have X amount of dollars,

2:58:53I believe last time it was $5 million

2:58:55in a fund for all city parks.

2:58:58So we have no clear plan on how we're going to get

2:59:00to the downtown park.

2:59:02I see this motion as setting the ground to saying,

2:59:04this is the money that it's going to take

2:59:07and it's going to take X number of years to get there.

2:59:10Even if it is five years, 10 years,

2:59:12I think this gets that ball rolling

2:59:14to actually realize a park in the downtown

2:59:18and move it from a holding image

2:59:21in our downtown secondary plan

2:59:22to something that we will eventually be realized.

2:59:26So I do not see this as an expense

2:59:28that will necessarily be taken.

2:59:30But I think during the 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget,

2:59:34we need to start saving for that.

2:59:37Thank you, worship.

2:59:41Keaton, please.

2:59:43Keaton, thank you.

2:59:44Thank you.

2:59:46Through you, Mr. Mayor, to staff.

2:59:48So just so I've got clarification,

2:59:52this is bringing an idea to the budget.

2:59:56And at the point of going through the budget,

2:59:59we can either approve or not approve.

3:00:01So all we're doing is just adding something

3:00:04that we are going to be making a decision on later.

3:00:06So we're not making a decision on anything now.

3:00:08We're just going to have the idea brought forward

3:00:11for something that's possibly already being worked on.

3:00:14So is that correct?

3:00:18So through the mayor to Councillor Keaton.

3:00:21And again, I'm trying hard not to commit to our things

3:00:25on behalf of our finance staff who aren't here to comment.

3:00:28I think the one concern that I would have is

3:00:30with this motion that may result in us needing

3:00:33to reallocate priority because we try to bring you

3:00:37a fully balanced budget.

3:00:39So we will, if this is to pass,

3:00:43this work is underway anyways,

3:00:44we already know that there is the desire

3:00:47and the need there.

3:00:48And as Councillor Caron mentioned,

3:00:49it is included in the downtown secondary plan.

3:00:51So this is not new for us to be considering bringing forward

3:00:54a downtown park.

3:00:55And I don't think it's new for us to be reflecting it

3:00:57in this multi-year budget, but specifically,

3:01:01I don't want to commit to again,

3:01:03what it will look like, where it will be,

3:01:05and if it will require a rejigging of other priorities.

3:01:07Cause I just don't think that's information

3:01:08we have ready to answer tonight.

3:01:11Yeah, no, I've realized like this is just like a nebulous,

3:01:14non-specific piece.

3:01:16So I just wanted to make sure like,

3:01:17we're not guaranteeing anything right now and that's fine.

3:01:22So I think that this is totally safe to support.

3:01:25So thank you very much for your clarification.

3:01:30Thank you, Councillor.

3:01:31All right, I'll call the vote on E, all those.

3:01:35Mr. Mayor.

3:01:36Sorry, Councillor Giffey.

3:01:38Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

3:01:39I would like to propose an amendment to this clause

3:01:42if you don't mind.

3:01:44I haven't asked for a seconder,

3:01:46but I would like to change the wording

3:01:48that a plan for a future downtown Park B referred

3:01:52to the 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget

3:01:55in response to higher heights and densities

3:01:56in the downtown major transit station area.

3:01:59If I have a seconder, I can explain why.

3:02:01Councillor Billings.

3:02:04So thank you, I'll just.

3:02:06I'll let you speak to it,

3:02:07but I think staff want to jump in,

3:02:10go ahead, I'll let you speak to it then.

3:02:12Thank you.

3:02:13I think that there is going to be

3:02:18a willingness of council to support it,

3:02:20but when it says reflected in the 2024,

3:02:22that's not a decision.

3:02:24That is a decision of council directing staff

3:02:27to reflect it in the budget, not refer it.

3:02:30So it won't be a conversation at budget time.

3:02:34With the way I see the wording here,

3:02:35it's to be reflected in the budget as in,

3:02:38it's not a topic of conversation

3:02:41or prioritization at budget time,

3:02:42it is to go into the budget and I'm not supportive of that.

3:02:45So the motion and Councillor Catton,

3:02:47you were referring to this earlier,

3:02:49but it's not a decision point.

3:02:51It is a decision point the way it's worded.

3:02:53It needs to be referred to the budget

3:02:54and then prioritized at budget,

3:02:56but it cannot, to simply vote on it now,

3:02:59is saying it's going to be reflected in the budget,

3:03:01not just simply referred.

3:03:02So my amendment would be to refer it to the budget.

3:03:07I'm going to go to our deputy CAO on this for a moment,

3:03:09just to get clarity and then I'll come back to us.

3:03:12Thank you, through you, Mayor Guthrie,

3:03:14to Councillor Gibson.

3:03:15Certainly appreciate the notion of that changed word,

3:03:19especially in regards to the massive amount of investment

3:03:22that staff are making in the 24 to 27 budget

3:03:25in the various directions that it may take us.

3:03:28Having it referred to for consideration

3:03:30certainly gives us the latitude to give you

3:03:31the best information for you to make your decision

3:03:34when it comes time to budget time in the fall.

3:03:38Okay, is there any questions on this amendment

3:03:41about changing the word reflected to referred?

3:03:45Okay, there isn't.

3:03:47So I'll call the vote on just the amendment.

3:03:49Is anyone against the amendment?

3:03:53Okay, that's unanimous.

3:03:55Okay, so now I'm going to go back to the motion as amended

3:03:58and I'll call the vote then.

3:04:00Okay, so all those not in favor, raise your hand.

3:04:08Two, Billings, Gibson, Guthrie.

3:04:12Okay, so that passes.

3:04:14And we'll go now to the letter part.

3:04:18And it states that the Mayor be directed to send a letter

3:04:21to the Honorable Steve Clark,

3:04:22Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing,

3:04:24expressing city council's response regarding the impacts

3:04:27of the amendments made to Guelph OPA 80 shaping Guelph

3:04:31and OPA review process as outlined in the draft letter attached.

3:04:37I would suggest that if this one passes,

3:04:40it should be pretty simple for number three to just go

3:04:42because if the letter exists, we should probably just send.

3:04:47Is there any questions on number two?

3:04:51Okay, so I have a question on number two,

3:04:53maybe to the mover.

3:04:58And it would just be the wording

3:04:59that the Mayor be directed to send a letter.

3:05:03Well, you know what,

3:05:04instead of like getting really nitpicky about wordsmithing,

3:05:06can I just go back to your sort of comments at the beginning

3:05:09and I don't want to paraphrase you wrong,

3:05:13but the letter you've attached,

3:05:17you know, I think it's,

3:05:19I think in your motion, if I could just get clarity,

3:05:21you're not saying that it's that letter that has to be sent.

3:05:25It says that the Mayor be directed to send a letter.

3:05:28You've given a letter in the attachment

3:05:31to kind of work off of for our intergovernmental staff to do.

3:05:35Is that your intent or are you intending the letter

3:05:38that you wrote on my behalf, on Council's behalf to go?

3:05:43So I did send a copy to our intergovernmental staff

3:05:49who suggested the additional CCs

3:05:52in the second part of the motion.

3:05:55The outline of the draft letter,

3:05:58I mean, I want to give you some latitude

3:06:00to change some of the wording

3:06:02and making it more your voice,

3:06:04although it is on behalf of Council.

3:06:06Oh, it's sorry, if I can try,

3:06:07it's not about my voice

3:06:08because I take the direction from Council.

3:06:10Right, Council's voice, yes.

3:06:11What I'm saying is our intergovernmental staff

3:06:13are the experts in sort of the phrasing

3:06:15and the wording and the writing.

3:06:17And I just don't want them to be pigeonholed

3:06:18into using your language.

3:06:21And so it says a letter.

3:06:23Are you okay with using what you've attached

3:06:26as kind of a draft to work off of

3:06:29but allow leverage for our intergovernmental staff

3:06:32to write it in the language that they would normally do?

3:06:35Yes, I put as outlined in the draft letter,

3:06:37but I want the salient points that are in that draft

3:06:41are the points that Council and our community have raised.

3:06:45And I'd like those key messages

3:06:48to be included in the letter,

3:06:50how it's worded and the order of the wording.

3:06:53Absolutely, I want to give you

3:06:55and our intergovernmental staff

3:06:56some leeway to do that, absolutely.

3:06:58Again, not me, intergovernmental.

3:07:01Okay, just a second.

3:07:02I just have a question for clerks.

3:07:22For those, sorry, for my colleagues, not in the room,

3:07:27all I was asking was just clarity

3:07:29about calling the motions at the end.

3:07:31Just so everyone knows what I was doing there.

3:07:33Okay, does anyone have any questions

3:07:36in regards to number two?

3:07:40Councillor O'Rourke.

3:07:41Thank you, Margarita.

3:07:42We'll move to the mover.

3:07:43I'm just curious, there's still a clause

3:07:47with respect to the GRCA.

3:07:49So does that stand or will you just leave it

3:07:52with intergovernmental in the draft letter?

3:07:56The clause is not regarding the GRCA.

3:08:00It does not refer to us doing anything.

3:08:05We took that clause out of our earlier motion,

3:08:07but the letter does contain a clause

3:08:11expressing our concern.

3:08:13And I do believe that those concerns are valid

3:08:16and that we should express those concerns to the minister

3:08:20that the removal of the conservation authority

3:08:25in our planning process is something

3:08:27that causes us significant concern.

3:08:32Okay, yeah, and it refers to the groundwater community

3:08:34as well.

3:08:35Okay, great, thanks.

3:08:38And I believe Councillor Goller,

3:08:40didn't you bring forward a motion for us

3:08:43in regards to all the changes to the GRCA

3:08:45that we unanimously approved

3:08:48about seven, eight, nine months ago or something?

3:08:53Wasn't there something that you,

3:08:54because you sit on the GRCA, right?

3:08:57Like a year ago, maybe.

3:08:58You brought forward a motion,

3:09:00like that lots of,

3:09:01remember lots of municipalities were sending

3:09:02in their concerns and we as a council

3:09:06already approved that unanimously.

3:09:08That was your motion, right, Councillor Goller?

3:09:10Through your worship,

3:09:11I believe that before Councillor Downer said on the GRCA,

3:09:17we did bring forward something.

3:09:18I was up by Councillor Bell and myself.

3:09:21Yes.

3:09:23Yeah, okay.

3:09:25So we've, I mean, in a way,

3:09:28might not be exact wording,

3:09:29but we've already stated our opinion about this already,

3:09:35about those concerns.

3:09:36Okay, so I'm gonna do my comments now

3:09:41because I think this is the right time to do it,

3:09:43because I'm not gonna comment about the next motion, right?

3:09:45So this is like the last of it, okay?

3:09:47So I think this has been a complete exercise

3:09:50of showing how we do not want to try to,

3:09:54in my opinion, it's not to try to be cooperative.

3:10:00I believe this is gonna have intergovernmental issues.

3:10:06I think this is poking the province in the eye,

3:10:09and I don't think it's helpful.

3:10:12We've heard from our staff that it is a final decision

3:10:17of the minister, it is what it is.

3:10:20So I'm here to try to not have any barriers

3:10:23or hurdles or issues in regards to trying to get stuff done.

3:10:28What I've been hearing tonight

3:10:30is us contemplating and voting on issues

3:10:33that are either already in the works anyways,

3:10:36or have been verified by staff to be somewhat redundant.

3:10:42And we're pushing forward a narrative.

3:10:48This is how I feel, everybody.

3:10:49I feel like this narrative continues to perpetuate

3:10:55that Guelph is a difficult place to do business,

3:10:58and that this is a difficult place to try to build homes.

3:11:05And I think one of the questions

3:11:06that's been lost in this a little bit

3:11:09is why is it that developers and third parties

3:11:14had to go around the city

3:11:16and actually lobby the government on things?

3:11:18Has anyone ever really thought about that for a second?

3:11:21Maybe it's because we're the problem.

3:11:26Maybe it's because we're causing issues in our narratives,

3:11:31in how we speak and how we vote on certain things.

3:11:35And I think it's important that it's called out

3:11:40from my opinion and my observations,

3:11:42especially on how I have to, in my role,

3:11:45deal with a lot of things,

3:11:46that it's prevalent about some of these issues.

3:11:51And I think it's something

3:11:52that we should all actually contemplate

3:11:55and think about a little bit as we move forward.

3:12:01I will say that a couple of times,

3:12:05the mover tonight indicated that we have to do this

3:12:09based on the concerns of the community.

3:12:11Well, I can tell you,

3:12:12there are some concerns of the community,

3:12:16but there is voices in this community

3:12:20that have not been represented here tonight.

3:12:22And those are mostly the ones that are unhoused

3:12:25and that would be loving the fact of some of these changes

3:12:29that have come forward from the province.

3:12:31And those voices need to be included as well

3:12:36because we're in a housing crisis.

3:12:40And Councillor Boosentill earlier said,

3:12:44she had a good question, I felt about the master plans

3:12:48and people getting input and engaging and stuff like that.

3:12:51And things change.

3:12:55And when a crisis is upon us for housing,

3:12:59things have to change.

3:13:01We gave years as an example,

3:13:03we gave years of consultation and engagement

3:13:06on where the library should be,

3:13:07but with new information,

3:13:09we had to change the location of the library on Baker Street

3:13:11and we did that.

3:13:13So when the province who is in charge,

3:13:16just a reminder, the province is in charge,

3:13:19sees goals that they are trying to commit to

3:13:22to try to help people with housing.

3:13:24And we continue to not,

3:13:29I don't think sometimes we act accordingly

3:13:31in regards to some of the way in which we move forward

3:13:35on these issues, the province steps in

3:13:37because that's their role, whether we like it or not,

3:13:41to change the things that we identified with.

3:13:44I see you, I'll go to you for sure.

3:13:47So the other thing I would just end on is that,

3:13:53we have had approved official plans

3:14:01and many members of this council have voted against

3:14:07like 900 to 1,000 units that were ready to be approved

3:14:14and recommended by our staff

3:14:15that actually met our official plans.

3:14:19So I don't see how this issue is going to change anything,

3:14:24number one, and I don't see how this issue is going to help

3:14:30in regards to try to build housing.

3:14:32And this is, you know, this is my opinion,

3:14:33we're all entitled to it.

3:14:35And council, you have made up your mind

3:14:37and I will be happy to sign my name to this letter,

3:14:40not a problem.

3:14:42But I want you to know it's,

3:14:45this stuff does not go unnoticed

3:14:48and it doesn't go unnoticed by me,

3:14:50it doesn't go unnoticed by the community

3:14:54and it certainly won't go unnoticed by the province

3:14:56who's in charge.

3:14:58And I'm trying my best to try to, you know,

3:15:00balance all of those things.

3:15:02And I would say that in a housing crisis,

3:15:04we should be talking for two hours

3:15:06about ways that we can expedite and help move things forward.

3:15:09But tonight, it just felt like I want to put this in the way

3:15:13and I want to put this in the way

3:15:15and I want to do this and that's how it feels to me.

3:15:18And so I hope that in the future,

3:15:20there could be an opportunity for us to have an opportunity

3:15:25to have discussions on what we could do

3:15:27to reduce red tape, to actually help expedite things

3:15:31and not put what I feel are things like a bad narrative

3:15:35and a hurdles in front of these things in front of me.

3:15:39And I just wanted to get that off my chest.

3:15:40I'm all out, we're all out of our opinions here.

3:15:42So I appreciate it.

3:15:44And I hope that when applications for housing

3:15:52comes forward to us that are recommended by staff

3:15:56that they start to be approved

3:15:59as fast as they possibly can.

3:16:02And we don't have hundreds of homes not being approved

3:16:06so that we can try to help people find a house

3:16:08and a place to live.

3:16:10Okay, I'm done.

3:16:11I'm gonna go Alt and Koran and Richardson and Downer.

3:16:17Kate and I see your hand too.

3:16:19Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

3:16:22Your words are certainly some to inspire discussion

3:16:26and debate around the horseshoe.

3:16:29I think that my support for these motions stems

3:16:32primarily from something that really concerns me

3:16:34and that is big government and government overreach.

3:16:38We saw that previously in the education field.

3:16:41We've seen it in hospitals.

3:16:42And I think that we are seeing it at the local level

3:16:44where we really appreciate local autonomy

3:16:47and local character.

3:16:49I am extremely concerned about the costs

3:16:52that are not going to trickle down

3:16:53but are probably going to waterfall down

3:16:56to the community and to the local taxpayers.

3:16:59We've seen that there will be a tax

3:17:00on our development charges and these are a concern.

3:17:03I have yet to hear any return from the promises

3:17:07that we will be made whole.

3:17:08And this concerns me with regards to housing economics.

3:17:12We don't have a housing issue

3:17:14as much as we have an affordable housing issue.

3:17:17And until such time as the provincial

3:17:20and the federal government pony up in a real fashion

3:17:24to ensure that we have 7,000 units in this town,

3:17:29we are going to continue to struggle.

3:17:31I did a calculation at 500 square feet at $400

3:17:36per square foot construction costs

3:17:39with the exception of land,

3:17:40it would cost $1.5 billion to put housing in Guelph.

3:17:45Factor that across the province

3:17:47and across Ontario, across the country.

3:17:50We have indeed an affordable housing crisis.

3:17:54And our job is to ensure that rather than big government

3:17:58overreach that the provincial government

3:18:00and the federal governments enter into an accord

3:18:03with communities like Guelph to ensure

3:18:06that affordable housing is available

3:18:08and that we plan with concern for local character.

3:18:12I was in Allora today and in Allora,

3:18:14I saw some good examples of planning

3:18:16and I saw some good examples of heritage restoration.

3:18:21We can do both, but we must do it mindful of the community

3:18:25and mindful that we are the guardians of community values.

3:18:30Okay, and thank you very much for your comments.

3:18:32And Councillor Caron, please.

3:18:35Yeah, Mr. Mayor, of course,

3:18:37everyone around the horseshoe is entitled to their opinion,

3:18:40but nothing we are doing tonight changes

3:18:43our housing targets,

3:18:45nothing in the OPA that we submitted

3:18:48changed that, those targets were in alignment

3:18:52with what the province told us our targets were.

3:18:56The amendments made to our official plan

3:19:00did not amend our targets,

3:19:02the same targets, population and jobs.

3:19:06What we are doing here tonight

3:19:08is we're speaking in our role under the municipal act.

3:19:11We are policy makers,

3:19:13we are representatives of our community

3:19:15and we are stewards of the financial resources of our city.

3:19:19That's what we're doing here tonight.

3:19:22Mr. Mayor, we have over 6,000 unbuilt units

3:19:26and we have a whole lot of development land

3:19:30pending in our city.

3:19:33You indicated in your remarks,

3:19:35and I do take offense on behalf of myself,

3:19:40I can't speak for my colleagues,

3:19:41but you said we're the problem.

3:19:44We are not the problem, our staff is not the problem,

3:19:47our staff are not red tapers.

3:19:51They are following policies

3:19:54that they are obligated under their profession to follow.

3:19:57And those are policies that we make,

3:19:59which is our official plan and our zoning bylaw.

3:20:02Developers and home builders in this city

3:20:05do not need to come to council

3:20:07for any development that is in our official plan

3:20:11and meets their zoning bylaw.

3:20:12The only time council ever sees an application

3:20:16for development is if it's not in compliance

3:20:19with the official plan

3:20:20or it's not in compliance with the zoning bylaw.

3:20:22We see a zoning bylaw amendment

3:20:24or an official plan amendment only

3:20:26when they're not in compliance with our policies.

3:20:29Developers, and I don't know if we have a camera anywhere,

3:20:32developers and home builders, if you follow our plan,

3:20:35you can build tomorrow.

3:20:36You can have your shovels in the ground

3:20:38once your site plan is approved.

3:20:39Our staff are not the problem, we are not the problem.

3:20:43We need a development community that works with us

3:20:46in collaboration by following our policies.

3:20:49We have a new official plan, 80 as amended.

3:20:53And if you work within that official plan,

3:20:55we will expedite to the best of our ability,

3:20:58council and staff and by best of our ability,

3:21:01that includes limitations with staffing,

3:21:05to the best of our ability to get those through the system

3:21:08and get shovels in the ground as quickly as possible.

3:21:11If you wanna change the rules, expect delays.

3:21:15You can call it red tape, Mr. Mayor.

3:21:16I call those regulations, regulations have a purpose.

3:21:19Regulations are to protect our environment,

3:21:22to protect health and safety, to protect our city,

3:21:25to protect our future generations,

3:21:27those are all good things.

3:21:29Those are the things that protect our city

3:21:32and that is our role as members of council.

3:21:36So no, we are not the problem.

3:21:38We have a great OPA, I look forward to its implementation.

3:21:43I think what all we've done here tonight

3:21:45is to send a message to our community and to the province

3:21:49that process matters, democracy matters,

3:21:53letters to the minister are not a planning process.

3:21:59Those were not in the public realm.

3:22:05Those were not part of planning applications

3:22:08that had any public vetting.

3:22:09If we are going to plan and build a great city,

3:22:12we need our community involved,

3:22:14we need our council on board,

3:22:16we need staff resources to do it,

3:22:17but most of all, we need the province to respect our role

3:22:22as local government, as policy makers

3:22:24and as land use planners.

3:22:26Thank you.

3:22:27Richardson and then Downer.

3:22:31Thank you and I'm going to mimic a little bit of what Leana said

3:22:33and that none of us are against building houses

3:22:36and building more houses faster,

3:22:37but we want to make sure that we're doing it responsibly

3:22:40or at least as responsibly as we can.

3:22:42And I think we have a responsibility

3:22:44to let the province know

3:22:45that we're wanting to work with them collaboratively,

3:22:48but we do have concerns and it's not much of a democracy

3:22:51if we're afraid to express those concerns to our,

3:22:54it's no different than me having been told by my boss

3:22:58that I have something, she wants me to do something

3:23:00or he wants me to do something and I may not agree with it.

3:23:03I should at least have the opportunity to be heard

3:23:05and give them, give without him or her the reason

3:23:08why I don't want to do that.

3:23:09And so that they're at least making an informed decision.

3:23:13And if the province, as you say, would see us

3:23:15as being difficult for that or be punitive with us

3:23:18because we want to be heard,

3:23:21I think that's an incredible shame.

3:23:23I don't know if I'm on that.

3:23:25Downer and then Kate and please.

3:23:28So I guess did it with what I've heard

3:23:31and I guess my, I'm just concerned about your comments,

3:23:35Mr. Mayor in saying, and I could have done a point of privilege

3:23:38but that we are the problem in that

3:23:45staff have brought forward an official plan, OP80.

3:23:50And what you're suggesting is that

3:23:51because the province changed it, we are the problem

3:23:55and that we didn't get copied.

3:23:57We meeting staff and council because it was their plan.

3:24:00It's the plan they brought to us that we approved.

3:24:03And so I find that somewhat offensive

3:24:06and impunes the integrity of our staff.

3:24:11I would ask for you to clarify or apologize to our staff.

3:24:15Sure, I'll clarify.

3:24:16Let me give an example in my clarification.

3:24:18Thank you for giving me the opportunity.

3:24:20So, many members of council around this table

3:24:29voted against almost 700 units

3:24:32at the corner of white law in Paisley.

3:24:34And that went to LPAT, which cost $120,000

3:24:41of taxpayers money to lead that project for quite a while.

3:24:46Even though it actually met, and this isn't my words,

3:24:50this is the words of the appeal board

3:24:53that it met all of our official plan.

3:24:57So when I say we are the problem, there's my clarity.

3:25:01That wasn't staff's problem

3:25:04because they recommended that we do it.

3:25:06And that wasn't the province's problem.

3:25:09It was council's problem for voting against something

3:25:12that met our official plan.

3:25:15And by the way, you didn't vote against it,

3:25:17Councillor Downer, it met our official plan.

3:25:20We could have had 700 units, and we now don't,

3:25:24and $120,000 lost in legal fees.

3:25:27So there's an example of where council was the problem

3:25:31in that particular case.

3:25:32And so there's my clarity.

3:25:34There's nothing to do with staff.

3:25:35So actually that didn't provide clarity

3:25:37to the way you said it.

3:25:38You said it in response to OP80, us being the problem.

3:25:45We are the problem because OP80 got changed.

3:25:50So OP80 got changed just to make,

3:25:53like build different things in response

3:25:56to developers requesting more and taking out.

3:25:59So you clarified that part of it,

3:26:02but that still doesn't sort of respond.

3:26:05So okay.

3:26:06I'll try again then.

3:26:07And thank you for the opportunity, I appreciate it.

3:26:10So in my first clarity, I made sure it wasn't staff,

3:26:12which is accurate.

3:26:14But in the second part of my clarity,

3:26:17my point is, is that if we ever thought about

3:26:20whether or not we are the problem,

3:26:22which is why the government made the changes in OP80,

3:26:27that is exactly what I'm saying.

3:26:30That maybe we are the problem,

3:26:32and the government is seeing that they need to make changes

3:26:36because we don't do the things here.

3:26:39That under the planning act,

3:26:40they are the ones in charge anyways at the end of the day.

3:26:44And so the constant changes or narrative,

3:26:46I've talked about narrative, changes,

3:26:49the poking the province in the eye constantly.

3:26:51I have no idea by the way, I'm just speculating,

3:26:53but maybe we're the problem.

3:26:55And I'm saying it as the mayor to just let everybody know

3:27:00that if that's the type of stuff that's happening,

3:27:02and could be the reasons why these changes come forward,

3:27:06that we need to be aware of those things.

3:27:09So you are right, I will submit that you are absolutely right

3:27:14on the OP80 portion.

3:27:17No, of course not.

3:27:19We approved something and staff said to approve it.

3:27:22I was fine.

3:27:23But what I'm saying is the changes that came from it

3:27:26may be a reflection on how we act.

3:27:29And that's what I'm wanting to make sure that as the chair

3:27:32and as the mayor, I bring it to the attention of this council.

3:27:34With that, okay, I get that.

3:27:36So I don't need to debate that, but I don't believe that.

3:27:40I don't think we're poking anybody.

3:27:41I agree with Councillor Richardson

3:27:43that we are just letting them know things

3:27:45that we have concerned about.

3:27:47And that can't be the case because

3:27:51Fusion never came to council asking for

3:27:56a reduction of 26 hectares of industrial land.

3:28:00We didn't get applications on a lot of these

3:28:05site-specific modifications slash MZOs.

3:28:10They're actually MZOs.

3:28:11And most of them aren't even residential.

3:28:15So that can't be the situation.

3:28:18So they put some more stories downtown,

3:28:20which could delay things and creates infrastructure issues.

3:28:25We don't know yet, but they had no evidence.

3:28:28So our official plan is based on studies and evidence

3:28:34and background information.

3:28:37And that's what they're based on.

3:28:39That's what came forward.

3:28:40The changes we got were in response to letters

3:28:45from developers without any kind of evidence.

3:28:51And I've asked them,

3:28:52what's your, where's your study to show that?

3:28:54They don't have it.

3:28:56It's just, well, we thought that was a good number.

3:28:59We don't know that.

3:29:01We couldn't, Leigh Ann, I have a witness.

3:29:03So there's, that's not the case.

3:29:08The minister didn't make this

3:29:09because we're doing a bad job.

3:29:11We're doing everything they asked us to do.

3:29:14We're meeting the targets.

3:29:15We made the pledge.

3:29:17What they've done is they've responded to developers

3:29:22who haven't even come before council asking for these things.

3:29:26I haven't had a request for the employment lands

3:29:31to be reduced.

3:29:34I haven't had a request.

3:29:36We haven't had a request for a number.

3:29:37A lot of those things.

3:29:39We had a request for one property to be 23 stories.

3:29:45And now everything in the downtown boundaries

3:29:47is almost 23 stories.

3:29:49We expanded the boundaries of the downtown secondary plan

3:29:55in the periphery to create extra density, four to six stories.

3:29:59We did that.

3:30:00We all the way out to here on street.

3:30:02Never in our imagination,

3:30:04and I've talked to the developers too,

3:30:06that never in their imagination

3:30:07when they asked for 23 stories,

3:30:09and one specific area of the downtown

3:30:11that it would suddenly be expanded to here on street

3:30:14and London Road and Dublin Street.

3:30:19It's just irresponsible, I feel,

3:30:22of the provincial government to have done this

3:30:24without any kind of background information,

3:30:27without contacting our staff to say,

3:30:29what do you think of this?

3:30:30Like why haven't you done 23 stories?

3:30:32What are the issues?

3:30:33So I take offense with it saying that we're the problem.

3:30:37We're doing everything they've asked for,

3:30:39and there are lots that are ready.

3:30:41We're not halting or doing anything wrong here.

3:30:45And the housing, or I was at a two-day symposium

3:30:48on homelessness last week.

3:30:51The kind of houses that are gonna get built

3:30:53in these areas are not what is needed.

3:30:56We had a professor of housing there,

3:31:01and I forget where they were from,

3:31:02but it's in the affordable housing part.

3:31:05It's a low income and very low income

3:31:09that have the biggest housing issues.

3:31:11It's not in the other thing.

3:31:13And that's where we need it.

3:31:16And unless the government gets back into social housing,

3:31:19this issue is not gonna get solved.

3:31:21If we rent a gear to income.

3:31:23So this isn't, we're doing everything that we can,

3:31:29that we've been asked to do,

3:31:30but they're not coming up with a solution

3:31:32that everybody's talking about.

3:31:35And so I think that's what's really important.

3:31:38And I don't, you know, I'm not,

3:31:43you're right, it is what it is.

3:31:45But as Councillor Richardson said,

3:31:48we have a responsibility to our citizens

3:31:51to respond when we are concerned

3:31:53about decisions that are made for us,

3:31:56that are usually minor edits and have come back as MZOs.

3:32:02Okay, thank you.

3:32:03Thank you for your comments to Kate and then Gibson.

3:32:07Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

3:32:09I don't think that anything that we have been talking about

3:32:12tonight is blocking development.

3:32:15I think that what we've been doing

3:32:17is ensuring quality of life for the people

3:32:20who are gonna be moving into these spaces.

3:32:24Heritage adds beauty and desirability for the economy.

3:32:28And we need parks for people to congregate at.

3:32:33And if we're going to be having large buildings

3:32:35all in one area, people are gonna need some place to go.

3:32:39We're gonna need employment for people

3:32:42to be able to afford their homes.

3:32:44And none of the changes to OPA 80

3:32:47have included finances or specific land

3:32:50for the unhoused communities.

3:32:52And I really wish there was,

3:32:53but the changes that it made

3:32:56are not gonna affect that community all.

3:33:01I think that developments that meet our plan

3:33:05and our zoning don't even come to us.

3:33:07So as a new counselor, I don't feel like

3:33:10wanting to respond to the directions that we've been given

3:33:13is being a problem.

3:33:15And it definitely doesn't block development.

3:33:18And we didn't even get a chance to vote on the 23 floors

3:33:22that was pulled from us.

3:33:24So like there was no voting against development in my term.

3:33:29So I think that we get a chance to talk back to the province

3:33:36and respond to the directions.

3:33:38And that's all we're doing.

3:33:40And we're trying to keep Wolf a lovely place

3:33:42for everyone to live.

3:33:45Okay, thank you.

3:33:46Gibson then class.

3:33:48Yeah, thank you through Mr. Mayor.

3:33:49So I've been probably at three or four

3:33:51of these sort of sessions

3:33:54where it seems like council events about the province.

3:33:57And that's fair, that's part of what we do.

3:33:59But listening to the conversations tonight

3:34:02have done nothing but absolutely reassure me.

3:34:05Speaking about the frustrations and the anger

3:34:07and the vetting of frustration around bill 23,

3:34:11it's demonstrated to me very clearly what tonight was about.

3:34:16It's about opposition, it's about frustration

3:34:18and it's about simply trying to put things in a way

3:34:21of stopping the province from achieving their goals.

3:34:23And no one can change my mind about that.

3:34:25Anyone who's listened, it's been on full display.

3:34:28The motivation here is a response

3:34:30and to frustrate the provincial goals.

3:34:33The mayor has his way of expressing himself.

3:34:37I agree with many of the pieces of his thoughts,

3:34:41but I will say this, I have gone and spoken to municipalities.

3:34:45I don't take part in too much Amo stuff,

3:34:47but I talked to municipalities and municipal workers

3:34:49and family and friends who work in other municipalities.

3:34:52And they all say the same thing.

3:34:53This is gonna be an incredibly hard challenge.

3:34:56This is very frustrating, we don't have all the answers.

3:34:59But below that, and except for Councillor Chew here,

3:35:05I think every single one of us here is safely housed

3:35:07in a home that we're probably paying a bank mortgage on.

3:35:10But underneath all of this argument,

3:35:13is to me is exposing a bit of a blind spot for us

3:35:17that with the 18 to 20 to 25 to 30 year olds,

3:35:21trying to get into this market, start a family,

3:35:25start a career, this is an incredibly popular piece

3:35:28of policy across the province.

3:35:31That generation who is currently out of the housing market

3:35:34and wants in, they want homes to be built.

3:35:38And that is something that we are losing sight of,

3:35:41that where we are maybe just a little bit different

3:35:43perspective, we are missing the picture

3:35:48that the government ran on this platform.

3:35:51They were elected on this platform.

3:35:53They're implementing this platform

3:35:54and outside of the municipal world,

3:35:57in the demographics that are still trying

3:35:59to get into the housing market,

3:36:00this is an incredibly popular piece of legislation.

3:36:02And we need to acknowledge that,

3:36:04that we are not always in the right position

3:36:07and not always looking at it from the right perspective.

3:36:10Yes, it's challenging, yes, it's frustrating.

3:36:12Yes, we want better communication.

3:36:14Yes, we wanna be made whole as municipality.

3:36:16But absolutely, we support,

3:36:18we support the objectives of trying to allow people

3:36:22the dream of home ownership in the province.

3:36:24And I think that that is an important piece.

3:36:26I've heard all the conversation,

3:36:28I've usually always bit my tongue on this point,

3:36:31but I just felt like everyone's getting it out, my turn.

3:36:37It's okay.

3:36:38All right, and last is Klassen, please.

3:36:41And on that note, it's my turn.

3:36:45So I actually just wanna thank the mayor

3:36:48for his really spirited comments

3:36:51because it spurred a really important discussion.

3:36:54And I think these are the kinds of discussions

3:36:55that we need to be having around the horseshoe more often.

3:36:58If they're hard, that's part of what we do.

3:37:00And this discussion is difficult.

3:37:03And I think we've all made an effort today

3:37:05to try to also not disrespect the provincial government

3:37:08while also saying,

3:37:10there's some things that we're still kind of unhappy about.

3:37:13I did wanna make one point really clear.

3:37:17My voting on some of the clauses tonight,

3:37:20it's not that I'm against development at all.

3:37:23I have supported every development

3:37:25that I have seen in my short time on council.

3:37:28I have been extremely supportive.

3:37:30When approached by developers, I've met with them.

3:37:34I'm happy to support all sorts of developments,

3:37:37supportive housing, permanent supportive housing,

3:37:40condominiums, apartments, whatever, what have you.

3:37:42I know it's needed.

3:37:44The fact of the matter is that's just not,

3:37:46we're not seeing it either.

3:37:48I think we are here, we want both things.

3:37:52I think we're all singing from the same song sheet really.

3:37:55We can have and protect the things that we have

3:37:58while also building and growing a healthy city.

3:38:01We are growing.

3:38:03And I just wanna stay with healthy tension.

3:38:09This is what democracy is.

3:38:10This is what we're here to do.

3:38:11And I'm happy to be part of that,

3:38:14but also to say that we can have both.

3:38:19And I'd like to see that tension continue

3:38:23and these healthy debates go on.

3:38:25Thanks.

3:38:26Yeah, I appreciate your comments.

3:38:27Thank you.

3:38:28I'll go to you last from now on.

3:38:32All right, I'm gonna call the vote then on the letter

3:38:35and then I'll quickly go to the CCs, okay?

3:38:38So is anyone against the letter, please raise your hand.

3:38:44All right, only me, the one that has to sign it.

3:38:46Sounds good.

3:38:47All right, so that passes.

3:38:49And then the CCs is on there as the final one.

3:38:54Oops, sorry, let's make sure.

3:38:57And I don't think I need to,

3:38:59no comments on that, right, anybody?

3:39:00No, okay.

3:39:01I'm gonna call the vote on the CCs, anyone against that.

3:39:04And just me.

3:39:07Okay, so that passes as well.

3:39:08All right, thank you, Councillor Caron

3:39:10for bringing them all forward.

3:39:11Definitely got all of our feelings out on the table.

3:39:14So that's good.

3:39:15Okay, I think that's it, right?

3:39:20Bylaws, Mr. Mayor.

3:39:22Yeah, I meant from that part, yeah.

3:39:28All's over to you.

3:39:30Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

3:39:33I moved seconded by Councillor Richardson

3:39:36that bylaw number 2023 20792 is hereby passed.

3:39:42Thank you to you both, any comments on that?

3:39:46Nothing, questions, nothing?

3:39:48Okay, I'll call the vote on that,

3:39:49anyone against the bylaws?

3:39:53I won't raise my hand for that one, that's unanimous.

3:39:56Okay, Mayor's announcements.

3:39:57I got nothing, anyone got town halls coming up or anything?

3:40:00No, okay, nothing on that.

3:40:04Adjournment, I think the CAO wants to move adjournment.

3:40:09He wants to get better.

3:40:10Claussen and Richardson is going to second that.

3:40:14Anyone against adjournment?

3:40:16That is unanimous as well.

3:40:17Okay, everyone have a great night.