Planning, Environment and Water Advisory Committee

0:02And we'll start the new year and this new meeting with the land acknowledgement.

0:10As we gather, let's take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph.

0:16A city built over rich indigenous histories.

0:20We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land,

0:26the people who live here today and the generations to come.

0:31If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation,

0:35we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

0:40This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands

0:45and a place of refuge for many peoples over time.

0:49But most specifically, the Ati Wanderang and the Hoodna Showme.

0:54This land is held as the treaty lands and territory

0:58with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

1:02Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldiman trap

1:06and established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

1:13Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people who have come from across Turtle Island

1:20called Guelph home today.

1:23I'd like to invite anyone who has a disclosure of pecuniary interest

1:28and general nature thereof.

1:31Anyone?

1:36Alright, so we are good on that.

1:42Our next item would be the approval of minutes from our December meeting.

1:49Any comments?

1:52Anything else about our December meeting?

1:58Are we all good?

2:02Would anyone like to move the motion to approve the minutes?

2:07I find that difficult because I wasn't there.

2:12Okay, Justin, thanks.

2:14Seconder.

2:14And a seconder?

2:22All in favour?

2:25Or anyone against?

2:33Okay, thank you.

2:36With that, we move on to the committee items that were circulated

2:42as part of the agenda.

2:46And I think we'll get started with Wayne Gallagher, who was here to present

2:55the draft final water and wastewater capacity allocation policy.

3:00Wayne, can I hand it over to you?

3:02Yes, thank you.

3:03Okay, thanks for circulating your hesitation and your thoughts over to you.

3:08You want me to pull up the presentation?

3:10Yes, please.

3:15Well, thank you, everyone.

3:18Your time has seen a happy new year and great to bring back the draft final

3:23water and wastewater capacity allocation policy.

3:26It's the committee member.

3:28These two engagements shortly after the committee had commenced,

3:31I brought the policy to the group, shared that we were going through

3:35a 30 day public review of the draft policy.

3:39We did get some comments from the committee, so thank you.

3:42However, based, I guess I just wanted to loop back to talk about outcomes

3:46of that engagement and just share a few highlights of the policy and next steps.

3:53Okay, so just as some background in getting started tonight,

4:15I guess we saw changes implemented in 2024 through the municipal act,

4:21which introduced the ability for municipalities to implement servicing

4:25policies that would come to encompass what are use it or lose it provisions.

4:30Use it or lose it really with the intent of more housing.

4:34And working to establish more housing sooner was really looking at

4:38lapsing terms while defining lapsing terms for formal planning applications.

4:44And from there, introducing what would be the ability for, you know,

4:48a stalled application or one again that was delinquent

4:52to come to essentially remove that allocation capacity if they're not moving

4:55ahead and reallocate it to what would be more shovel ready developments.

4:59At the end of the day.

5:02Further, I guess under those changes, the municipal act had talked of the fact

5:05that as we, you know, see the approvals of these policies by council under

5:10the guidance of bill 185, that these would not be appealable to, you know,

5:14local training, local planning tribunals.

5:18I guess just before leaving this, essentially our official plan as well

5:21aligns with the development of allocation policies.

5:24So as we look to section six of our official plan,

5:29we start to talk about the presence of adequate servicing from water,

5:32wastewater and storm water before we're permitting development.

5:36As well as the fact that the city would work to define what is an allocation

5:39process for servicing and what environments or what built form that

5:43that would apply to at the end of the day.

5:45Next slide, please.

5:52Essentially, there are risks in absence of a policy.

5:56I guess first phase of this project started with really our internal

5:59tracking, looking to what development commitments we had, what was,

6:04you know, the average per capita, you know, servicing for water or loading

6:08for wastewater that we saw within the system itself.

6:11Coming to look at again the past planning approvals and what those units

6:15would mean as far as servicing today.

6:19So I guess we've started really trying to get our house in order first and foremost

6:23and understand what commitments are there, you know, what the system looks like,

6:27what is remaining for capacity at this time.

6:31However, you know, this is really staff driven and what we're seeking to do

6:34is have a council endorsed policy that again would say what we do and from there

6:41provide transparency to proponents going through this process to understand again,

6:46sequentially what it might mean going from what is a, you know, a draft

6:51submission where we're doing an initial capacity check and talking about what

6:54servicing this development would need.

6:57To the point of, you know, signing that formal development agreement at the end

7:00of the day and starting to talk to what the period is in construction and

7:04ideally getting more housing in place sooner.

7:08As far as proponents, similarly, to the point of signing that development

7:13agreement, there's nothing that formally transfers the allocation capacity

7:17to the development.

7:18So respecting the significant amount of time and investment that it takes to get

7:22to a final application.

7:24You know, there's risk there and the fact that, you know, they would like to move

7:28ahead. Obviously, they've judged the market.

7:30All of these things and essentially the city may not be ready or hold them up as

7:34part of that.

7:34If the capacity isn't present.

7:38This is topical as we've seen in Waterloo Region and recent announcements of

7:43capacity challenges in the Mannheim servicing area.

7:47I guess there's a council report in Waterloo Region.

7:49There are council meeting in Waterloo Region tomorrow that we're watching very

7:52carefully.

7:55As far as looking to an external assessment that's already been completed,

8:00it started to talk to challenges that they couldn't take their main supply

8:05sites offline.

8:07Planning to date hadn't included what was the contingency or buffer in the

8:12system. So it will allow you to normally maintain things.

8:17A capacity process that was more so based on average day needs of developments

8:22and not understanding that again, we see these seasonal increases.

8:27So we're following that closely.

8:29But as we start to speak to allocation, I thought it was an important example just

8:33to share here the seating.

8:35Next slide, please.

8:40OK, so as I start speaking of essentially we've had two steps or two phases to

8:46engagement.

8:48The first of which being in May of this year where we had a, you know, a rather

8:52open form engagement where we're starting to ask feedback on common elements.

8:55Of what would be an allocation policy, lapsing terms.

9:01Other requirements from there we were hearing, OK, well that's great that we're

9:04talking about these individual things.

9:05Please let's talk about the mechanics of the process, how it works.

9:09So from there we had used that feedback and worked for internal staff teams to

9:13develop what was a plain language policy that we had shared in September of this

9:18year for 30 days.

9:21At this time as we look to our water and wastewater systems, specifically plant

9:26rated capacity on the water side, there's about 16,474 meters cube per day of

9:32unallocated capacity available for growth.

9:36As we come to the wastewater side of the equation, there's 400 or 4,805 meters

9:41cube per day.

9:43You know, understanding that capacity is finite on either side of the ledger.

9:48And in accordance with our council approved master plans, we continue at this

9:51time to implement expansions and pursue new water supply and implement

9:56expansions to the wastewater treatment plan, again, to bring forward the

9:59servicing capacity for projected growth within our community.

10:05Coming from phase two of our process and work to essentially refine the

10:10policy based on feedback received, we're now essentially aiming to bring the

10:15policy to council in February of this year for us.

10:19Rough numbers, how many people are approved to close those surplus

10:24capacities represent?

10:26I don't have a calculator in front of me, but essentially average days in the

10:31order of 166 liters per person.

10:37And there's a peaking factor of 1.5 that we put on that.

10:41From there, we also look again, we have planning like within the models that

10:45we're using now, we have population densities by built form.

10:49And so we're applying both what is the population density, the average

10:54use per person and the peaking factor as far as our allocation.

10:59So I could come back with units, but just to give you an idea.

11:03I don't have a bubble, you have a question?

11:06I have a related question.

11:08I don't know if it, but related, is there a way of putting into

11:12context in terms of fraction or percentage of our current bubble

11:15capacity that that represents roughly?

11:20Yeah, so essentially on the water, I can speak to the water side of the

11:24equation, we're permitted at 92,000 liters per day or 92,000 meters cube per

11:30day, pardon me.

11:33Next slide, please.

11:34So as mentioned, our phase two is the water side of the equation.

11:38Next slide, please.

11:46Okay, so as mentioned, our phase two engagement, which would have been kind

11:49of the first engagement of this committee on this initiative, again,

11:53brought ahead what was a plain language policy for a 30-day period.

11:58We used the Kivao platform, which really allowed, well, the intent was essentially

12:04if you had focus on a specific area or a common specific to an area,

12:08you could come in, provide your feedback and other stakeholders come in and say,

12:12okay, that's a good question or I have this question as well or want to build on it.

12:17But in addition to this, we also, you know, we were submitting or had happy to receive again

12:23what were written summaries of comments, which in turn we received two through the process.

12:31In the end, we had two written submissions from builders as well as one submission

12:36through the Kivao tool.

12:40Like, please. Essentially, what we heard through phase two of the engagement was that there was

12:49some clarification, well, the common themes we were hearing, clarification requested on both

12:54the extension and the appeal process. So under the policy, essentially, as parties came to meet

13:01their lapsing period, if they were still moving ahead and needed more time to meet that, there

13:06was the ability to request an extension of the GM and planning and building services.

13:10Should the GM essentially refuse that, there was also an appeal process that was pointed to

13:17council as far as the secondary level of process, again, to those who were not in agreement with

13:26potentially losing capacity, certainly through all this, you know, the city's open for business.

13:30If parties are making essentially good progress towards their development, I think we're happy

13:36to work with them and extend over the period of lapsing to remove that risk around the process.

13:45Within the original agreement itself or in the original policy itself, there were discussions

13:52of what would be independent servicing agreements and clarification on what those agreements would

13:57entail. Again, the scope of what would be formal checks and costs under the policy.

14:04Remember, there's a formal capacity check that holds capacity along as the application

14:10essentially progresses. There's also informal checks that are more kind of due diligence based

14:15to say I'm looking at this property potentially for this. I'd like to know if servicing is

14:19adequate for my future use, although, you know, I haven't purchased the property. I don't, you know,

14:24I'm yet to really progress my application. Question needs as far as the staffing needed

14:30to implement the system, about the availability of our tracking tools. Questions again as to

14:36what should happen if an application lapses, what does that process look like, and what would

14:42happen again if capacity was fully allocated and an application was received at the end of the day.

14:49No question, of course. No, okay. I just want to look at the answer, guys.

14:53Okay. So to begin to work through these, certainly there's some discussion on the next slides, but

15:00as far as appeal processes, again, we've added more detail within the document itself.

15:07Important to note, and I think I can actually go to the next slide as I start to answer some

15:11of these questions for me. So there's no independent servicing agreements. Essentially,

15:18there will be modernization of site plan agreements and other common development

15:22agreements to come to include the lapsing agreement. And again, the agreements aren't

15:28registered on title. So with that, essentially through the process, your initial check,

15:34you're going to get a document from the city such to say we've done the evaluation and we

15:38can't support this number of units for this development. And again, as we came to the point

15:45of site plan, it'll be noted within that to say, again, they're servicing allocated for this number

15:49of units and your new lapsing period would be for years following the date of execution of that

15:55agreement. As we looked more closely at the municipal act, the language there is to it

16:02had changed. We had originally talked of what was an original extension request of the GM that

16:07appealed to council. However, when we looked at the municipal act and the language there,

16:12it talked of an officer, council can't be the officer under law. So the secondary appeal now

16:20has been moved to focus on the deputy CAO of infrastructure development and environment.

16:25Which again, we would hope would be a much more nimble process than council. With that as well,

16:29the parties would still have the ability to engage council as we, you know, if there are

16:33challenges with the process through planning and other departments here as we look at these requests.

16:43At this time, we're working to finalize what are the details around extensions and appeals,

16:47and we've committed to bring those onto the city website by the end of Q1. However, it's important

16:53to know, you know, the period by which council approves this bylaw or policy, which will be

16:58enacted through bylaw, pardon me, would be three years following that date. So there's some, you

17:04know, there's some time to get it right. And the fact that 2029 would be the first feasible time

17:08that any party would seem to use the extension or appeal requests. Certainly with process

17:15questions, there's been added clarification on project milestones, you know, what is your,

17:21you know, state date starts, you know, there's a draft application. Again, you get a check to say

17:28I have the capacity needed. Essentially, when does the clock start on the lapsing period

17:34related to development of that application versus approval and the lapsing period around what is,

17:39you know, physical construction or substantial performance as far as, you know, the physical

17:46development at the end of the day. I hadn't included it, but there is a link here on Have Your Say

17:52that you can see what is the full phase two legal report. Again, with the last engagement being

18:02more focused on individual parts of the document, that's getting many written submissions. It was

18:07easiest for us to essentially take those written questions from proponents and or interested parties

18:12and provide answers. So I'm trusting you've seen that. Sorry, next slide, please. So similar,

18:24and we spoke of this the last time I was here with the committee is essentially, you know, a key to our

18:29policy is really early consultations, and down and understanding what the servicing needs of the

18:34development are, or proposed project and giving an early signal to the applicant and turn if

18:40we're there to support or if there are challenges or what is needed against they can adequately plan

18:46and invest. Again, under a formal capacity check, which is the check that holds capacity against

18:55an application, we're seeking to do that through pre consultation again to provide that signal to

19:02proponents. Capacity checks are subject to cost, but there's really no change in the process. So

19:10currently, if you're coming ahead with a more simplistic development, you're talking about

19:14intensification on our residential law or something of that order, our development engineers can look

19:19within their servicing models to understand if that can be supported or not. However, as we get to

19:25more complex, undertaking mostly significant, you know, taking from the system itself,

19:33or then having to engage, you know, external consultants that again, manage and keep up to

19:38date what are our linear water and wastewater models. And the cost of that would be specific to

19:43really the scope of that endeavor. The plant side of capacity is something that me and my equivalent

19:50appeared Tim Robertson and wastewater services do. There's no cost associated with that.

19:56So really no change in costs associated with the check, but again, through the policy

20:02again, through the policy, seeking to ensure that we can confirm adequate plant capacity on the water

20:08and wastewater side, as well as linear servicing capacity, both on the water main and sewer main

20:16system side of things, which again is new to the process, but ensures that again, from a servicing

20:21perspective, all needs are met. From a economic development perspective, the policy does include

20:29what are economic development investment proposals. So when the city is competing with

20:35other communities for business, it attracts business locally, you know, servicing is a very

20:41important part of that discussion, something that needs to be brought together very soon.

20:47Through this, essentially, you know, we seek to supply our economic development department

20:52with the information that they need to get back to industry and start that discussion.

20:55It's quite common that we know within a six to eight month window if that industry or business

21:01is choosing well for ultimately choosing another community. So understanding that some

21:06may be more complex and go a little further than that, this would see a whole specific to those

21:12discussions that when we're seeking to attract industry and we say again, we've modeled the

21:17servicing and at this location of the system that you're proposing, we're in a place to provide

21:21the servicing that you need and maintaining that until the point in which that decision is made,

21:27just more from a reputational basis of starting that conversation and being there to support those

21:34industrial commercial investments at the end of the day. Lastly, as part of the site plan approval,

21:42subdivision agreement, building permit issuance, again, that's when the formal lapsing period

21:48seeking physical construction of the environment or build form would start and again, provide a 36

21:54month lapsing term. Again, this was defined in Bill 185, but should that start to take longer,

22:01again, there are extensions available to applicants or proponents, again, working to construct their

22:08developments in new housing in our community. Next step, please. Okay, so again, there are the

22:16ability to request extensions. Those would be straight to the GM of planning and building

22:24services. Again, the circumstances by which capacity would be reclaimed is essentially

22:30we have an application that is coming to time out on the four-year window following the time in

22:35which they have their first capacity check or in turn, a development which has been approved and

22:42is coming to surpass that 36 month period before reaching substantial completion of service to

22:49their property. I guess really again, I talked of the appeal again being positioned at the Deputy

22:58CAO of Infrastructure Development and Enterprise or Environment, sorry, that changed as of late,

23:03and there is an annual growth management report that's developed for council

23:09in March of each year. Through that report, we're advising that we would share with council what

23:14unallocated servicing capacity we have on an annual basis, and that comes to reconcile

23:19some of the smaller developments which wouldn't be subject to that capacity planning process. So,

23:24as we see, three or four units as a right, we aren't doing capacity checks related to those,

23:31but at the end of the year, we'll reconcile so in turn, we know what our planning commitments are

23:35and what those servicing commitments for units are at the end of the day.

23:40For us, I realized I didn't answer a couple of questions that came up on that earlier slide,

23:44so I'd just share essentially, again, if an application was received, I think the only outstanding

23:51one comes to the fact if something's fully allocated and we receive a planning application at that

23:55time, essentially the review and all the great work working with the different disciplines

24:02would happen. However, in speaking with our friends in planning, I'm told that essentially

24:07those files would be put on hold until the time that we had suitable capacity to move ahead and

24:12ensure that we could service that development. So, again, we hope with the timing of infrastructure

24:19development through the master plan that we're not getting to this sort of stance, but understanding

24:25other municipalities who have had to cross this bridge that is stimulated through the policy as

24:30well. So, next slide. So, as far as next steps and story, I developed this last week, but we did

24:40have a meeting with the Home Builders Association on Friday of last week to discuss their comments

24:46and questions related to the policy, a good discussion. I'd say there was a great amount

24:50of support there. Tonight, we're speaking with the Planning Environment and Water Committee.

24:56Tomorrow, I'll be doing a light presentation of the Economic Development and Tourism Advisory Committee.

25:01Thereafter, we will be bringing this first to Council, which will be a whole in February the

25:073rd, and then in turn, following deliberation by Council, seeing approval by Council on the 24th,

25:15their meeting later in the month. Slide, please. So, you see here the resolution

25:26shared with the report. I appreciate there may be more questions, and that comes down to my

25:31presentation. So, I open up the floor now. Thank you for the time, and again, if there's any

25:36questions, I'd be happy to answer those. Slide, please. I understand. 2029, this all starts.

25:48Well, yes. So, after Council approves a policy, then we can essentially start to apply the policy

25:54versus ongoing planning applications at the end of the day. And so, again, there would be

26:02a modernized, the Site Plan Agreement, such to define the lapsing period itself, or subdivision

26:08agreement. And then, essentially, with that being day one of the policy, it would start that three-year

26:14clock on the lapsing period. One thing included within the report that I didn't mention in my

26:20presentation is as far as roll out and early discussions. What staff feel has the best benefit

26:28is pursuing aged approvals that are greater than 10 years in duration. So, after Council approval of

26:34the policy, planning services is looking to send notice to those individual property owners

26:43to advise of changes that are taking place, and again, hoping, again, under the guise of more

26:50housing, that they're in a place to move ahead with their applications. Again, if those have stalled

26:55out, again, we'd be looking at what would be reallocation and certainly entertaining

27:00the servicing needs of those applications when they are ready to move ahead to construction.

27:09I'm curious question. If anybody reading the paper these days,

27:12who are in those Calgary's got a big problem. So, if that arrived here, what would that do to your

27:17process? Yeah, certainly we can only allocate capacity that's there. Under the Calgary example,

27:25certainly two years ago when we saw the brakes downtown, a really unfortunate situation for those

27:31folks, but had stirred questions around what is criticality and major pipes within our system,

27:39design redundancy and all of those things. So, as the committee may know,

27:45Arkel Springgrounds is our largest source of water centrally treated at FM Wood Station. So,

27:50it is a concrete pipe as well that delivers water from Arkel, but that water itself largely travels

27:56through gravity and is associated with the auto enhammer that we see within the water distribution

28:01system. So, we have, you know, we do CCTV inspections of that pipe on a five-year basis.

28:09Things have been very good shape today. And essentially we have, well, we've went through a

28:16first phase of what would be developing triage strategies that should we see brakes at

28:21separate locations within that pipe, what we would do. There are some more challenging

28:27alignments of that pipe, especially as we come to the bridge on Victoria. And, you know, so

28:33under phase two this year we'll be engaging an engineering consultant to help us with those

28:39more problematic sections again, such that should we experience an issue, hopefully we'll give a

28:45bit of a head start in coming to define that. But, yeah, certainly if we were to see a major

28:51break on something like the Arkel Aqueduct, you know, we'd be asking for demand reductions of

28:58folks within the city just to ensure that, you know, we're managing the resources best we can.

29:03And we continue to be prepared for things like fire and emergency that again could happen as well.

29:09As we look to our linear servicing plans, there's also an alternate alignment that would come from

29:16Arkel's spring grounds into the south of the city. So again, providing that redundancy such that

29:21should something happen to the current aqueduct, we have another essentially alignment of that

29:26would bring that water into the city and, you know, opposed to talking what might be days of impact,

29:33ideally hopefully down to hours in that circumstance that, you know, we know that there's a problem,

29:37we're shutting it off, we're getting it infested, but we're directing water this way into the city.

29:42So to ensure that, you know, there are impacts to critical functions.

29:46I understand. Yes.

29:51Question on your monitoring or doing capacity checks. You did mention you'd be looking at

29:58the treatment as well as like the linear component, which would include like the

30:02pipes and the pumping stations. What sort of checks are you able to do that without

30:11modeling? Because you mentioned that you would have to hire an outside consultant to do modeling in

30:15order to kind of understand capacity. So I'm wondering like if a developer comes with looking for

30:24a check to be done, how confident are you that that check is going to be accurate?

30:30Or are there other means that you have to kind of assess that?

30:35Yes. So to answer your question, it is required that essentially we do all four checks as part of

30:42a proposal. So linear water, linear wastewater and the plant side of things.

30:48We have a consultant that essentially works to maintain, well two consultants, one means

30:55essentially the water side of things as far as the linear model and one maintains the wastewater

30:59model at the end of the day. We too have a copy of those models. So again, as

31:07more routine proposals, we can utilize that same model and do those checks in-house.

31:13However, when it comes to something more significant, again, that we're having to model,

31:20the capacity isn't here. Let's say we do an assessment, we say, okay, well the sewage capacity

31:25is not there, but as we look downstream, essentially we see that should this improvement

31:31project happen, then we could go ahead and permit that capacity at the end of the day.

31:37So I think the model comes into place when essentially we're looking at significant volume

31:42takings at the end of the day or loaded to the sewer. But it's well coming to model some of those

31:47alternatives such that if we understand that there's a constraint, we'd ask the consultant to

31:52take a look and say feasibly what would be the alternatives here. Through the policy itself,

31:58we acknowledge there are areas of the city that the city does need to do work such to open up

32:03servicing for development. So the intent wouldn't be that again, we'd work dependently, penalize

32:08those that are in those environments. But I think it's more when we're looking at scenarios or again

32:14looking at large takings that would drastically impact either water supply in the area or loading

32:19of wastewater. And just another kind of related question, does the city maintain any sort of

32:26like ongoing flow monitoring of like the sewer system so you really have a real time understanding

32:32of how much capacity is left to be informed so these checks? Yeah, there are ongoing like CCTV

32:38inspections of sewers. I know that's more, you know, condition of the sewer itself. But there are,

32:45well, allow me to get back to you actually from wastewater. So I know that there have been ongoing

32:50studies that are happening from that perspective, but as to real time and the ability to, you know,

32:57manipulate the system, I just want to be safe. And then the answer is let me ask my friends at

33:01wastewater and get back to you. I'll get back to you. Just know like some municipalities do that

33:05and have like kind of an ongoing tracking. It helps to make sure that it's current because sometimes

33:10you're using old data. Yeah, just as like something to consider, then you could be like

33:15underestimating how much capacity is actually left. Right. Developments of common line, maybe

33:19I and I this change the info and infiltration because your pipes are getting older and more

33:24leaky, that type of thing. Right. Thanks, Laura. Cool. Did you have questions? I did. I had a follow

33:34question to the response you gave before this question earlier about the three year lapse

33:39period. And I think I think I misunderstood the policy the first time I read it. Sounds as though

33:46you're revisiting existing applications that are already in the pipeline and prioritizing them,

33:51but they'll also have three years from the date that the policy comes into effect

33:56to submit a request for extension. Like they won't have a shorter

34:00date. Yes. So following council's approval of the policy that we're able to essentially enact the

34:06policy. So that makes sense. Yeah. Any new application that would come out would follow the

34:11process that we're working through here. Older ones may have lapsing dates and things like that,

34:17but they weren't enforceable under the prior process. So again, looking at making the most of

34:25our capacity and what we have the intent was to look at developments that are for 10 years and

34:30inactive at this time. So to hopefully prompt them to move ahead, but if not, again, reclaim that for

34:36those that are seeking to build now and establish new housing now. In terms of the number of

34:45applications that are already in the pipeline, could you in three years from now, because I

34:51think that you had to turn around requests for extensions back to them in something like 60 days?

34:57Correct. In three years from now, could you have an influx of like four applications and

35:04would be reasonable to manage? I don't know how many are in the pipeline.

35:08Yeah. So for some context, over 10 years in age, we essentially have 176 units registered

35:16plan of subdivision, 751 units that have approved a zoning change looking to what would be the new

35:24proposed land use, and then just over 1150 units and draft plan of subdivision. So as we

35:33essentially take account of the proposed build form that adds up to about 1,300 meters cube per

35:40day on the water side and 1,800 on the wastewater side. So definitely before we're building more,

35:47I know the one, you know, and dealing with the ministry, the environment, they always want to

35:50know that you're making the best of what you have. So yeah, those are the numbers ideally that we're

35:56looking at in those age intervals. It was more curious as to whether you expect in three years,

36:05if everything starts on day one, is in three years going to be challenging for the same

36:10step your team potentially, or is it actually looked like it's, you can moderate it some way.

36:17Yeah, I think it's probably, and you might not know the answer right now. It's just something that

36:20occurs to me. Yeah, certainly. Well, there may be a crunch to your point. I guess as we look to those

36:31under, you know, under the 10-year window, they are developments that we're recognizing that are

36:36continuing to grow within the city. And again, they've permitted, you know, a longer period,

36:42a longer period with the intent of implementing over a longer period, right? So hopefully with the new

36:46policy, things become a little more concise on that side of things. But yeah, as again, I think

36:54primarily we are looking at the applications that are over 10 years in age, and there may be a

36:59crunch, but it's, I think, a manageable one at that time. Record this now, and I can read back on

37:05it in three years. I think that's the only thing we're going to be able to do for it on. So yeah.

37:10I have one more question. So if I understand correctly, you'll be hosting further details

37:20about the extension request process and appeals process later on, and developing that further

37:28over the next three years. The current draft bylaw includes a really basic framework, some points

37:35that will be considered. And one of them is a number of community housing units. And I was just

37:42curious, there's no definition for community housing in the bylaw. And I realized it's something that

37:48is under development. It's more of a just a flight for consideration as to develop that

37:54process for evaluating extension requests. If you've something that I was thinking of when I was

38:02looking through the bylaw was in and I realized that these kinds of applications are probably

38:07rare, and it's a tiny little volume compared to the giant developments that you're mainly

38:12focusing on in this policy. But I'm just curious from an equity lens if that community housing

38:18consideration and the extension is taking consideration around the recent, we've had

38:24some great work in the city from by perspective around supportive housing and some new builds

38:31around that. And just whether this policy, how might it have impacted them if it was already in

38:35place before those supportive housing units were actually built, and if it would have been

38:41challenging for them to keep that those projects moving forward, because they are navigating grants

38:46and other kinds of things as they're developing projects, just a consideration.

38:54Yeah, I certainly speak to that. I know, Will you are at the table from a planning perspective,

38:57if there's anything perhaps supportive of that, that you might like to share?

39:02Not quite sure what that definition comes from, if it comes from defining actors.

39:06Oh, I just know it is, I'm not saying this only as like some definition of an act. I just have

39:14seen it described as supportive housing. The most recent one that I can think of was built up

39:25Staroff, this is in Guelph. I forget the name of the project right now. I just remember they were

39:31waiting on a lot of grants from the province and grants from the county and city for to move

39:35things forward. And I'm not really familiar with the application process, and it would be challenging

39:40for them to navigate something like this. You talked about, I just think about the big developers

39:46who will be this will become routine for them and easy for them over time, thinking about

39:52applications for more, for unique projects that are important in the city that might just encounter

39:59some barriers potentially. That's all. Focus might want to jump in. Yeah, thanks. I just want to fly

40:09from a planning perspective, if speaking specifically to supportive housing, we do define

40:16supportive housing in our comprehensive zoning bylaw. So maybe a flag for Wayne that that might be an

40:24area to look if supportive housing is the direction we want to go, or if we're looking for maybe a

40:29more generalized definition for a more community housing perspective, which could maybe include

40:35both supportive housing as well as affordable housing as well, which kind of those are two

40:41different areas of the housing spectrum, but something that could potentially be looked at.

40:46Just wanted to flag that for the committee. Lucas, yeah, we can certainly look to that.

40:53Thanks for your feedback. Thanks, Wayne, for answering all those questions. Anyone else or

41:02anyone online? Any questions? Good. Oh, Wayne, would you want the committee to endorse

41:14or accept the presentation that we're looking for? Ideally endorse. You know, if there's other

41:20feelings, I could, I'm a big boy. So do we ask for? Yeah, just bring up the,

41:29I believe this is your recommendation, Wayne, that the planning environment water advisory

41:34committee receives a report and endorses the draft final water and wastewater servicing

41:39allocation policy. So if a committee is okay with this motion, we need a mover and a seconder.

41:47Vote. Anyone who would like to move? Thank you. Seconder? Seconder. Thanks, Laura.

42:00And so we are ready to vote. All those in favor? Once opposed? Okay. All right, looks like you have

42:16it, Wayne. All right. Thank you very much for your presentation. And with that, we move on on

42:24our agenda. And our second presentation today is for the downtown community planning permit system

42:31and will has shared his presentation already and you ready for this presentation?

42:40I did. You want to, do you want me to share? Yeah, my share. Yes. Okay. Over to you. Will.

42:47Next list. All right. Well, happy to be back. I guess maybe remember the committee planning

43:18permit system from presentation last October. But we have to go to the next slide.

43:28Today, I'll leave you a background on it. Not only the project to date,

43:33a brief fresher on what is a community planning permit system as well as an overview of what

43:38we're actually presenting. So some of this may sound familiar from October, but I'm going to guess

43:43that might need a refresher on this because you're probably not dealing with it on a regular basis.

43:49All right. So next slide. So I'm going to do some background. Next slide. So just a really high

43:58level. The CPPS is one of our central housing accelerator fund initiatives, the initiative

44:05number seven. This is part of our contract with the federal government to do a bunch of policy work

44:11to find ways to encourage more housing in our community. It's also serving to support our

44:20provincial goal of 18,000 new homes by 2031. That's part of the province's 1.5

44:25million home pledge that has to be getting as much airplane the last year. But I think we're

44:30still beholding to it or we're still working towards it. In terms of our housing accelerator

44:36accelerator fund commitment, we're trying to incentivize 35 housing units by the 2026 through

44:44the CPPS. Next slide. If you remember, this is a phase project. This is a pilot project. We're

44:54looking at two different areas. We're looking at the Stone Road and Edinburgh Road strategic growth

44:59area and centered on the mall and the downtown. Stone and Edinburgh is already in effect. And

45:08as soon as we introduced that, we moved on to downtown and we prepared a new CPP

45:16by-law just for downtown to bring in similar set of rules and regulations. Next slide.

45:24In terms of the plans that I have to share with you, it's a lot of the existing policies are being

45:29brought into this. Although it's a new tool, a lot of the policies are already in place. So the

45:34official plan and the downtown secondary plan, which actually lives in the official plan,

45:41provide the vision and the policy focus for it. As part of this, we didn't go through it

45:48and reconsider the visions of the downtown. As part of our early engagement, we were asking

45:57people, are these visions still valid? This is still the direction we want to go. We got

46:02a lot of people saying yes, these are still good. So we left that as is. The Coverage and Zoning

46:09By-law is a major influence on the CPP by-law. Although downtown the CPP by-law will actually

46:17repeal and replace it. So the Zoning By-law won't actually be in effect. We're bringing over a lot

46:21of the policies directly from the Coverage and Zoning By-law. We're making a few small tweaks,

46:28but generally most of the centers that currently apply downtown were proposing to bring over

46:34with minimal changes. In terms of big policy works last year, the Visual Plan Amendment 106

46:42or OPA 106, the downtown Heights study, that was the policy work that revised the Heights

46:48downtown that now permits up to 24 stories in some areas. The CDD by-law will be implementing that.

46:55So when developers come in, they can achieve those sites at the right without a Zoning By-law

47:02amendment. All right, next slide please. So let's catch you quickly. I'll catch everyone quickly

47:11what we'll be doing next slide. So in terms of the project process, it started back in 2024.

47:20Sonetta Burrow went first along with the Official Plan Amendments to enable the CPPS

47:26in our Official Plan. That was completed in April of last year, and then we rolled over into the

47:35downtown. So we spent the summer doing public engagement, preparing the draft, going through

47:41committees, doing one-on-one meetings. We've now arrived at phase four where we have a draft

47:48CPV by-law, a draft Official Plan Amendment, and we're going through the official process.

47:54We had our open house last week. We're going to council next week, and we're in the listening

47:59phase where we're collecting a lot of feedback before we go back to council sometime in the spring.

48:06All right, next slide. Talked a little bit about what we're trying to do, what influence is it.

48:12Let's talk, let's do a little reminder about what is a Committee Planning Permit System.

48:17Next slide, please. So the CPPS, we're going to get is a little wonky in terms of

48:27development process, but its promise is it's a Streamlizer Development Review process by combining

48:33three discrete processes now into one application. Those are your Zone and By-law Amendment process,

48:39your Minor Variance process, and your Site Plan Application process. So Zone and By-law Amendment

48:46process is when you go to council to make a major change to the Zone and By-law to facilitate

48:51the development. Minor Variance is where you go to the Committee of Adjustment to ask for a small

48:56change to the Zone and By-law to facilitate the development and the Site Plan Application process

49:02is where you're working with staff on the development and design of the process afterwards.

49:09So right now, usually those were kind of end-to-end. And there's the Committee Planning

49:14Permit Application, you make a single application for staff for reviewing that.

49:20There's one application that ends under legislation. We have 45 days for the

49:27application to render a decision, whereas in our current process there is no real,

49:31there's no time frame for that. So that's kind of the big pitch. The other thing that's really

49:38good about the CPTS is it allows us to secure community needs. It's pretty open-ended on that.

49:44It allows us to exchange additional higher density in exchange for community benefits,

49:49could be affordable housing, which is the focus of ours. But it could also look at things like

49:54parkland dedication, historic preservation, public realm improvements. So it's pretty open

50:01at is long as we're exchanging higher density for that. And it also allows for a lot of flexibility

50:07in how staff review things like uses and development standards, which is how we're able to achieve

50:14that streamlined process. All right, next slide. So this is the top and bottom comparison of our

50:22current approval process and the proposed CPTS. So right now, when we receive an application,

50:30we'll be, well, for most projects, we'll probably be running you through as a file amendment process

50:37or minor variance process to kind of figure application to a zoning bylaw because if you

50:41don't meet it, you can't approve it. And you need to get some entitlements to allow us to approve it

50:47out of the council or committee of adjustment. So typically, you're doing that first,

50:51so effectively, you get your entitlements. Then the developer will design the project,

50:55come in through site plan, work through that with staff, and then get their approval,

51:00go to building permits. So it's a multi-touch, multi-stage process with CPTS.

51:06You apply and staff are looking at those tweaks to the bylaw, even if you don't fit,

51:15concurrently with that site plan application. So we're able to do that, have those conversations

51:19that all at once. And then we issue an approval, go to building permit. Should note that things

51:27like historic, your conservation authority approvals aren't affected in this, and they

51:33will still run separately from this. So this is only, we're only affecting our planning

51:37approvals with the CPTS. Next slide. So with the, and because we're looking at how we actually,

51:55because staff have a little bit more discretion in the CPTS, we've organized our,

52:04we've organized the bylaw into these classes of application that kind of correspond to the

52:08kind of decision that staff are making as part of this. Next slide, please.

52:15So generally, if you're familiar with the development process, class one and class three

52:21are really familiar. They're effectively what we have now. So class one is

52:27an application meets all of our standards and we can approve it. And that is theoretically

52:32possible under the current system. Our notice requirements correspond with the class, with our

52:40class level. So with the class one, where everything meets, we're not going to provide any notice.

52:46That's actually pretty similar to how that would work now. Class two is what is really new about

52:52the CPTS. That's where staff can approve something that doesn't strictly apply, but is within

52:59predetermined boundaries of what the bylaw says. So the bylaw will delegate certain things

53:08to staff to approve. So we can approve a certain percentage of a setback. We can approve

53:14or we can consider anything in the general provisions or the parking standards.

53:22And there, because staff are, this is, class two still stays with staff. Class two is still a

53:30staff level approval. But because staff is approving something that's not, that doesn't strictly

53:36comply, there is a level of notification that's involved with that, where we'll post it on the

53:41city website and provide outside signage, just to advertise that we've made a decision that

53:46is a little bit beyond the bylaw. And in class three, this is similar to the council process

53:53we currently have. This would be a case where an application has something that staff can't

53:59include. It's beyond what's been delegated to us. So we'll send it to council and council will have

54:04a hearing to decide whether or not they can approve it. In that case, we'll mail notice

54:09and post it on our website and have signage. And the class system is throughout the bylaw. It's

54:17really, it's the best to make change from zoning bylaws, the class system references to realm.

54:25All right. Next slide, please. All right. We're caught up on the, on the, on what is the CPBS.

54:32Let's talk about what we're actually proposing downtown in our draft bylaw. Next slide, please.

54:38So first, I'll start with our complete community charge. So under CPBS,

54:45a, we have a community benefits charge that's 4% of the land value. It does, it can't apply

54:53under ordinance. So we were proposing effectively a replacement called the community's charge. It

54:58has the same threshold, five stories over 10 units, 4% of land value is not tied to any

55:05additional height or density. It's not tied to any sort of variation and it's supplying

55:11independently of anything else. So this is just maintaining city revenue or large scale

55:19residential. So that's, it's different name, but it's not much of a change. Next slide.

55:28Moving into community benefits. This is the bigger part. This is, this is the facility

55:33service that matters is what is called an ordinance. I'll call it community benefits

55:37because it's easier to say. This is what allows us to actually facilitate things like affordable

55:42housing. So in, in this year, we have to trade some sort of additional height or density

55:54in exchange for, it has to be proportionate. So someone's getting two extra stories from

55:59the city. We can ask for affordable housing or parkland that is proportioned to the value of

56:02those two additional stories. So the value of what we're asking for is kind of a little bit

56:08flexible based on what we're actually granting. We can ask for a lot of things in our facility

56:15services matters, but we're really focusing on affordable housing, but applicants can come in

56:19and propose other things. But we'll send a quote that will require a council approval.

56:25They have to demonstrate that, that's the link to check. All right. Next slide.

56:31When we talk about affordable housing, we're going to talk to you about fee

56:35affordability. We're talking about apartments that cost $407,000. So it's,

56:46it's part of our affordability strategy, but let's be very clear. We're not talking about,

56:52we're not talking about homeless shelters or anything. We're talking about very modest changes.

56:58And we're using the province's affordability bulletin, which changes on a yearly basis. So this

57:06is the, these are the values from last July. And I would expect that they would change this here.

57:15Next slide. All right. So we're getting into the actual part of what we're proposing here.

57:24So with, with the affordable housing, we are proposing that anything, if you get, if you

57:36receive additional height under that, I'll be 106, above six stories, you're going to have to provide

57:44affordable housing as a condition of development to reach those heights. We based our affordable

57:53housing requests on a very comprehensive financial analysis. We hired a firm called Watson and

58:00Watson and Associates, and they modeled the financial lift that development would receive

58:07over six stories at 612, 18 and 24 for purpose-built and condominium. And they calculated how much

58:16affordable housing each scenario could actually provide without having a detrimental effect on

58:24the financial feasibility. And we found that across the board, even if we control for things like

58:32parking or no parking in real estate contingency, that all scenarios could provide affordable housing.

58:39And the reports were saying that 40 to 80%, depending on the scenario, could be affordable.

58:46So where we're sticking, where we're trying to claim a stake for affordable housing is 33%

58:55of affordable housing can be, 30% of additional units above six stories can be affordable based

59:01on that performer that's consistent with our housing affordability strategy target. That's

59:07consistent with Stone and Ennaburro. And that's a long-term goal. And on the right,

59:17we're using these block diagrams to show how this actually works. So the pink is the base

59:23stories. That's your six stories. We're not requesting affordable housing, but anything

59:29above, in this case, you have four additional stories. And there's 10 story building. 30% of

59:35those additional units would have to be affordable. It's what we're proposing as a permanent.

59:41So next slide, I think we'll get a nice little box there pop up. Yeah. So when we're talking about

59:49any sort of percentage of affordable housing is always on that additional part.

59:53All right. Next slide. However, as you've heard, there is a development challenge.

1:00:04We're not seeing a lot of new development. So although we do have reports saying that 32% of

1:00:14units over six stories could be affordable, we are proposing a phase in approach where we're

1:00:20not going to ask for 30% right away. We're going to have a phase approach where we're going to ask

1:00:25for less until 2027. So on the left, we have a 12 story example. And next we'll see a little box

1:00:40pop up. We're looking at five, we're going to ask for 5% for the first six stories, which is far

1:00:48less than 33%. And we're proposing a gradient approach we're asking for 5% for your first six

1:00:55stories, 10% for your next six stories and 33% for those last ones. So on the right, we have a

1:01:02larger one. We have an 18 story building. So it's so this kind of stacks. So if you hit next twice,

1:01:12we're requesting 5% and the first six and the first six stories be affordable and then 10% in

1:01:19the next six. So it will go up as project height increases. All right. Next slide please.

1:01:31So this is what OBA 106 approved. This is currently in our official plan. These are the revised

1:01:38heights up to 24 stories, depending on the site. The affordable housing, the affordable use for

1:01:45we're proposing those be in condition to reach those. So it's still as a right on the condition

1:01:51that you provide affordable housing based on the that gradient approach and then later 33%.

1:01:59And next slide. And this shows the difference between the current zoning, what's the current

1:02:08zoning by all today and what OBA 106 enables because we're only requesting or only required

1:02:17affordable housing for sites that actually received height. So if and it's actually very limited

1:02:27the majority of sites downtown didn't actually receive additional height or didn't receive

1:02:34additional height over six stories. So and the dark orange shows an increase or an increase

1:02:44as a right of provisions of more than 15 stories and down. So this is showing where

1:02:51we'll actually require that as a condition of development. All right. Next slide.

1:02:57And this is a table showing the complete community charge, the phase in and the permanent. So

1:03:05we propose the phase in as a way of softening the blow and of recognizing that we're not seeing

1:03:13a significant amount of development while still finding a way to get some affordable units when

1:03:22this is in effect. To also mention that developers have a cash in the option as $97,000 per unit

1:03:31if they so desire that's consistent with the Stone Valley borough CBP bylaw. All right. Next slide.

1:03:38All right. Just to summarize, this is just a summary slide of the benefits of the CBP bylaw.

1:03:46And the case we're making the streamlined development reprocess and gives us more certainty

1:03:53and clear set of rules. The developer is no what is what is required and what staff can improve as

1:04:00a staff level variation, allow those to be secure community benefits, allows for some flexibility

1:04:07and it's the effective way of implementing the existing secondary plan and the initial plan goals

1:04:12as well as the housing affordability strategy goals. All right. Next slide.

1:04:20And in terms of next steps, we have a public meeting at council next week. We're doing engagement.

1:04:25So we're listening and trying to see if we got the phase in right. If the thing between that we're

1:04:32also consulting on our variation thresholds to make sure we have those right. After council and

1:04:39all that engagement will make the changes and return back to council in the spring for that

1:04:43decision meeting. All right. And like the this is thank you slides next. Thanks. All right. Questions.

1:04:52I'll take your questions. I know you have lots. It will and be open for questions.

1:04:59Okay. Maybe even stop with that and go.

1:05:06My question is because I saw the changes from bill 60 that were recently introduced. So I'm

1:05:12wondering how that would impact this plan long term because the way I understand that bill is

1:05:20like after a year with a lease in a building, the kind of rent control that used to exist

1:05:27doesn't really exist anymore. So I'm just wondering like what's going to keep these units affordable

1:05:33long term. Yeah. So we we're going to be signing agreements with with with developers to safeguard

1:05:44the and I think we're looking at a 15 year window. So we're doing a separate outside of any sort of

1:05:51rent control on the provincial level is how we intend to achieve that.

1:06:05Okay. Bye. Stop with the test. I'm kind of actually built in off of that. I was thinking about the

1:06:11the affordable ownership and of things. How how are you proposing would that have to be then

1:06:19something added to title to ensure that it's affordable beyond the first owner?

1:06:24I believe so. I think I think we would have to do something on title for the 15 years

1:06:31just just to ensure that when it's sold it's it's safeguarded.

1:06:39Okay. I have another question. Just when you're kind of going through the beginning

1:06:49walk through discussing kind of when staff are posting notification on the city website.

1:06:56For the public's reference. Is the notification there posted when they receive an application?

1:07:05Or is it posted when staff have made a decision? That's a good question. We're still looking at the

1:07:11little implementation stuff. I think for the notification of decisions we were posted when

1:07:16we made that decision. And I think it's still a discussion of having internally whether or not

1:07:23we would post every application we received just just for notification. And then update that with

1:07:29we've made this decision. But the the intent of that section is to very clearly communicate that we

1:07:37have made we we've made a decision that's been delegated to us and here is what it is. Okay.

1:07:45Yeah. I imagine this could be something that some people who have an understanding maybe have

1:07:51say the minor variance process things like that might have a bit of difficulty with with just say

1:07:57the minor variance you have the public has a very clear need. Yes. Which they understand that they

1:08:03can give their comments by whereas this one lives that 45 day window. But that's not saying that

1:08:11we are not making a decision until that 45th day that could happen well before. So it's just a

1:08:18bit of a murky zone in terms of receiving kind of public consultation. So where does that sit

1:08:25within that? Yeah. And so with the CBPS there is no third party appeal. So it's really just between

1:08:34staff and the developer in terms of like that formal process. I think we had talked about a 10

1:08:44day period. So it would have to be very quick to meet that 45 days. When Howard setting it up

1:08:52there's a mandatory pre consultation meeting that that in other cases it is voluntary but this

1:09:01for this CBPS is going to be mandatory. So we will we'll have seen it first so that will help us

1:09:07prepare and hopefully we'll have an idea of what are you asking for before you even apply it.

1:09:15That can help us. But in terms of there is no mandatory public consultation period the notification

1:09:23that she's required under ordinance is something that people are adding because we feel valuable.

1:09:30But it is the 45 days and it's a challenge because of yeah doing a lot of the external

1:09:37consultation getting comments and also with external agencies. Thank you.

1:09:43I think Lucas has Lucas would you like to ask a question or make a comment?

1:09:50I just wanted to add specific to the agreements. So this this is something that we have been doing

1:09:56for our community improvement plan both for affordable rental as well as we also have a

1:10:02program for affordable ownership as well. So Will is correct. Agreements are registered on title.

1:10:09And so how that would work is that basically the owner of that property whether they're selling

1:10:15or purchasing a property is agreeing at the specific price as defined by the affordable

1:10:22built in published by the province on an annual basis. So it will require a little bit of extra

1:10:28monitoring on the city's behalf especially in particular the when those changeovers happen

1:10:34for an ownership unit for example. But that is kind of a process that we've already started to

1:10:39think about albeit for a different program than what Will is putting forward here.

1:10:44So I just wanted to add that little bit of context for the committee's consideration.

1:10:49Thank you Lucas. That is helpful. Do we have a question? Yes.

1:10:58I noticed that Will's presentation has 18,000 homes by 2031.

1:11:04You had 16,000 some cubic meters per day of spare capacity exactly that satisfy 18,000 homes.

1:11:13We do have to maintain a buffer as well as far as the operational needs. So

1:11:20again within our water supply master plan we did have a route to 2051 in the defined populations

1:11:29there. So 18,000 won't be enough. 16,000 I don't think will be enough for 18,000 homes. We'll have

1:11:37to bring on another site, another supply source or wastewater treatment capacity for that.

1:11:43And then Will, if that's further than our last conversation actually the last one

1:11:47that we understand now is that 24, 6 buildings, 6 stories,

1:11:54then every 6 stories above that you would have to provide some.

1:12:00Yeah, and maybe 2,000. In order to get to the 24th that's right.

1:12:04Okay, so you got that problem solved. I can see that. Okay. How did you come up with 6

1:12:10as a stepping stone? Yeah, so we went back and forth on that one. I think we arrived at it

1:12:17and we wanted to ensure that we had, like it was large enough that it was attractive.

1:12:32Also it syncs up with our financial model that we had a 6th story, 12th story, 18th story,

1:12:3824th story. So we felt it was more defensible because we could actually point to the financial

1:12:45numbers for each one. Because originally we had, we were starting requiring a formal housing

1:12:51for 4 stories where our models are at 6 so we couldn't really justify that. So

1:12:58it is syncing up quite a bit with our financial model so we can

1:13:03be of numbers to back that up. And I feel like we're going to have many conversations about

1:13:10the viaduct for that. Maybe there's somebody who wants to push to 7,

1:13:14so we're going to push to 5. No, I mean, I think

1:13:20that would be a lot of comments on it and then we'll have to be able to justify it.

1:13:28Okay, thanks. Just you mentioned before about the option for cash and loo of affordable housing

1:13:38and I'm just wondering how that will work to ensure that it's not the incentivizing

1:13:43developers are putting in affordable housing considering like there may be other reasons

1:13:48why they don't want to. Is it going to be more than the loss they would take at putting in affordable

1:13:53housing units? So with the, yeah, that was something that we were very concerned about and so

1:14:01we wanted to make sure that the number wasn't too low. And, but it was very important that we

1:14:09provided as an option. Stone Eddaburow provided it, it was recognition of legal that we need to have it.

1:14:18We needed to ensure that it was proportionate with the value of it based on our financial analysis.

1:14:23So 97,000 was supported by our consultants and it was consistent with it.

1:14:33Because if we really want to incentivize it, we've asked for a lot more, but it wouldn't be able to

1:14:38do it with the ordinance where it's not proportionate. So it's, you know, but we had a range and we

1:14:45chose one that was consistent but wasn't too low where it would, you would always pick that.

1:14:54Sounds like your hands were tied a little bit on what you could be there.

1:14:58Yeah, yeah, because, yeah, the financial analysis has to support it and it did support 97,000.

1:15:12I just had a quick clarification on, so irrespective of whether it is a class one,

1:15:19class two or class three project, would everything be approved within 45 days?

1:15:24That's right. Yeah. And so how are we trying to then meet capacity, right? What's the current

1:15:31staff capacity? Does we think that needs to go up or how are we going to be doing that considering

1:15:37right now it's 180 days and plus? Yeah, so I think part of the reason for 180 days is just

1:15:44because of inefficiency where we're doing them separately. We haven't allocated specific staff

1:15:52to it at this point. We're seeing some of our applications come through. We actually had two

1:15:57recon in the Stona De Burro the next little bit. So we will be testing that. This is how much

1:16:06staff time it takes in real time very soon. I think the implementation challenge that we're

1:16:15still trying to work out is counsel. How do we counsel in 45 days? The mandatory pre-con is

1:16:23essential to that where we can't just receive an application and then surprise the counsel.

1:16:31You have to do it right away. We do have a level of visibility before we see it.

1:16:38And we'll also encourage people to go through the pre-submission process as well

1:16:42so that we've seen it, we've edited it, and if we know it needs counsel, we can do that before

1:16:48you can see an application. But the pre-planning is absolutely essential to our ability to get

1:16:55to the 45 days. Absolutely. It probably seems a fast stretch at this point.

1:17:04Everything, Corde. Any other questions? Okay, Annika. I just had a follow-up kind of on that.

1:17:15Like, is there any limitation on the number of applications that would be approved in a time

1:17:20period? Because I'm just wondering, like, how many developers might take advantage of

1:17:26the option of being able to do less affordable units if they do it before 2027?

1:17:35Yeah, I'm not sure how many we'll see. I will say that we haven't seen any large-scale projects

1:17:44this year where they wouldn't have to provide any affordable housing.

1:17:48So right now, we're just seeing a lot of developers just kind of waiting.

1:17:55And any affordable housing is better than done, and we are kind of hoping that this kind of pushes

1:18:03people a little bit to just start building because we do want to reach our 35 affordable

1:18:10unit goal for this project. Okay.

1:18:22People, thanks so much for your presentation and for answering all the questions.

1:18:28I don't have any announcements to make. I'll share.

1:18:34They'll have a recommendation. Okay. Yeah.

1:18:38That the planning environment and water advisory committee receive the presentation and provide

1:18:43the following comments on the downtown community planning permit system. So Will, I think you're

1:18:49hoping to get some feedback from and we've heard questions. So if there's anything that the committee

1:18:56would like to add here, I'm happy to. I think it's much more understandable. Okay.

1:19:11It's time. And I'm pleased to see that you've got around this height limit.

1:19:16Fine. When you first presented, it was a question for me. Thank you. Okay.

1:19:20Got a staff and whether sex is the right or not. I think it's a good approach.

1:19:25That's a good start. Is that what you're looking at, Zach?

1:19:33Yeah, it's going to be that. Is this the kind of people that doesn't make sense? Do we, like,

1:19:37are the gradient, that a good idea? Are the 5, 10, 33 percent? Yeah.

1:19:44Yeah. Yeah.

1:19:46I think I like how you're, sorry.

1:19:48Yeah, go ahead.

1:19:50I liked how there's a balance between what's really achievable, where we're not

1:19:56incentivizing developers from developing, but we're trying to balance it with some additional

1:20:04housing that is, or affordable housing that's being created for a project, rather than as a

1:20:11separate, I'll say project being created specifically. I like, even in terms of equity,

1:20:19I feel it's good to have these affordable units integrated as part of existing projects that

1:20:25are being approved. So I think that's a positive outlook that I feel is good in terms of balancing

1:20:36those requirements. Good balancing inclusion of affordable housing to a minimum.

1:20:44Sistine projects. Additional comments, feedback,

1:21:22additional comments that the committee wishes to

1:21:27to add. If not, then we can go ahead and vote on what is up on the screen.

1:21:36Yeah. And also that they are dealing with the established hyperstriction

1:21:43at the downtown core is an improvement. So dealing with these, because before they,

1:21:58you know, last April, they said, this is what you can build.

1:22:04Now, I'm saying we're planning to build this if you go through this process.

1:22:08Established height.

1:22:13An improvement, you said? Yeah, an improvement.

1:22:20Does that make any sense here? Because that's what I was struck me last time.

1:22:30I think they come up with a way of dealing with it.

1:22:44This is like, I just remember another question for you. In terms of the providing affordable

1:22:50housing units, is there any way that you're able to kind of prescribe what specific

1:22:59types of units you're looking for? Like, is it one bedroom, two bedroom,

1:23:04or does the developer get to choose and just put in three studios?

1:23:09Yeah. One criticism I have in the bulletin for the condo is it's just the price.

1:23:16There's no specification on size. The permissible rental does have that range, but I think it would

1:23:27be a negotiation as part of that process to try to get those. Yeah.

1:23:36Ideally, we would be asking for larger scale ones.

1:23:39Yeah. I'm just saying similarly, like for $407,000, if you say, okay, well, we're going to provide

1:23:47that as a bachelor unit, they're not actually, that's not really hitting what we're looking for

1:23:56in terms of affordable housing. Truly, I don't think. Obviously, there is a need for that, but

1:24:03they're almost hitting their market rates at something like that.

1:24:10Yeah. It's just a fair criticism and something that we would have to negotiate as part of the

1:24:22review process. I think there will be a lot of that kind of back to try to encourage those.

1:24:30So that's a very fair criticism. We spoke about that last time. You indicated that that's

1:24:37really the problem, so it's dictating them. So we don't have a lot of choice. It may not make any sense.

1:24:48Emily, over to you. Thank you. We are restricted in terms of what we can do in the zoning bylaw,

1:24:57but this would be a negotiated process as a best practice. We would like to,

1:25:03there are best practices out there where the unit type matches what exists in the project. So the

1:25:09affordable units are reflective of what exists in the existing project in terms of size and in

1:25:16terms of unit mix. So if there was a way to encourage a proponent to, that would be sort of

1:25:28the ideal direction in terms of where to go. Many of these are included in agreements rather

1:25:33than in zoning later. Or rather in zoning earlier. Does that make sense? Yeah, thank you. Okay. Thanks,

1:25:44thanks Emily. And we'll just add this as part of the recommendations. Okay, we're actually

1:25:53in the best practices between external affordable housing units to reflect size.

1:26:07Okay, so thanks everyone for comments and questions. I hope that's helpful.

1:26:19So if everybody's different this, then we can have a mover, a listener and a float.

1:26:25Oh, Lucas, assuming you're not moving. No, sorry. I just, I'm just wondering

1:26:34through the committee if that good balance and inclusion of affordable housing should be in

1:26:39proposed projects rather than existing projects, i.e. projects that are proposed under the CPPS.

1:26:47Yeah. Yeah, so proposal rise up. Somebody like to move the motion.

1:27:10Thanks Laura. Thanks Robert. We're making you walk over time.

1:27:17All right. And a final vote. And a final vote or supporting the proposal?

1:27:27Okay. We have a majority vote. And so any staff announcements? Brian, anything you want to add?

1:27:45Thanks for sharing the proposal with the committee. Yeah, no, I don't think I have anything you can

1:27:55Well, turns. Okay, there's always lots to share. But anyone else? I don't see any hands up.

1:28:04I'll just add something from the clerk's office. I'm going to call on Jordan. So Jordan, I was

1:28:09recently appointed as the second board committee coordinator in the clerk's office. So if you

1:28:13don't see me around, you will see Jordan T. McDonald that has joined us virtually this evening. So

1:28:21but yeah, so you might get emails from me. You might get emails from Jordan. But we're both here

1:28:28to continue to support the committee and your meetings. So just welcome Jordan. Thanks. Welcome

1:28:37to the team. Thank you. Thank you, Liz, for the introduction. I look forward to working with

1:28:42all of you as one of the new board and committee coordinators. Yes, Jordan is actually comes from

1:28:49the committee of adjustment side. So he's just moving into the board and committee role. So a

1:28:53little bit of committee of adjustment talk tonight on minor variances. And that is Jordan's wheelhouse.

1:28:58So Jordan, yeah, yeah. Thanks for good to adjourn. 7 30. Right on. Okay. So final item,

1:29:15would anyone like to move to adjourn the meeting today? By all means. This just come out to be a

1:29:22little longer than expected. But good beginning of the new year, I guess. Anyone likes the second?

1:29:29Okay, thanks, Jordan. And so all in favor. Okay, perfect. Thank you, everyone. Have a good night.

1:29:38Thanks so much. Thank you for joining online. Thanks for your time.

1:29:43Our next meeting is going to be February the 9th. Yeah. Okay. So I look forward to seeing you all.

1:29:50Thanks very much. Bye.