June 19, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:02 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   ReThink Zoning Progress Update

2023-06-19 Staff Report - (2.1) ReThink Zoning Progress Update (Z-9619)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated June 19, 2023 entitled “ReThinking Zoning - progress update” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   Request for Heritage Designation - 81 Wilson Avenue

2023-06-19 Staff Report - (2.2) 81 Wilson Avenue - Designation Request

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the request for designation of the property located at 81 Wilson Avenue:

a)    Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix E; and,

b)    should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 81 Wilson Avenue to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix E appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Motion Passed

2.4   Heritage Alteration Permit - 1 Cathcart Street and 115 Bruce Street - Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District (HAP23-036-L)

2023-06-19 Staff Report - (2.4) 1 Cathcart Street and 115 Bruce Street (HAP23-036-L)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for alterations to the existing heritage house on the subject property located at 1 Cathcart Street and 115 Bruce Street, and to also construct two, new 2-storey houses on the subject property (specifically on Lot 1 – Bruce Street and Lot 3 – Cathcart Street as appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix C) within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District BE PERMITTED as described in the staff report dated June 19, 2023 and as shown the aforementioned staff report as Appendix C, subject to the following terms and conditions:

i)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the applicant’s Building Permit application drawings to verify compliance with this Heritage Alteration Permit prior to issuance of the Building Permit;

ii)    detached, single garages proposed on Lot 1 – Bruce Street and on Lot 3 – Cathcart Street to be clad with a painted wood siding or fiber cement board with a smooth finish, in a colour to match the brick of the respective houses; and,

iii)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed.

Motion Passed

2.5   Building Division Staffing Enhancements: A Path to 47,000 Units by 2031

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated June 19, 2023 entitled “Building Division Staffing Enhancements: A Path to 47,000 Units by 2031” with respect to staffing enhancements for the Building Division to accommodate the requirements of Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022) related to the creation of 47,000 residential units by 2031, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   Request for Heritage Designation - 599-601 Richmond Street

2023-06-19 Staff Report - (2.3) 599-601 Richmond Street - Complete

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated June 19, 2023 entitled “Designation of the Property at 599-601 Richmond street pursuant to Part IV, Ontario Heritage Act, Ward 13” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to approve the staff recommendation, which reads as follows:

“That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the designation of the property at 599-601 Richmond Street:

a)    Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix D; and,

b)    should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property located at 599-601 Richmond Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of the staff report dated June 19, 2023 BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

 

it being noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.”

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   568 Second Street Zoning By-law Amendment (Z-9522)

2023-06-19 Staff Report - (3.1) 568 Second Street (Z-9522)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Parkit Enterprises relating to the property located at 568 Second Street:

a)    the revised, attached, proposed by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Light Industrial (LI1) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h*R9-7()H41) Zone AND a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Temporary (hR9-7()*H41/T- _) Zone,

b)    the Civic Administration, including but not limited to the staff of the Municipal Housing Development team, BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to provide for seven (7) affordable housing units in the above-noted proposed development; it being noted that any such units could be a part of the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units, as well as assist with Council’s Strategic focus to increase access to a range of quality affordable house options;

 

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

i)    any required amenity space be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the project; 

ii)    limit parking between the buildings and Second Street to one row of parking spaces on the subject site;

iii)    provide direct and convenient walkway access from the main building entrances to the public sidewalk;

iv)    ensure pedestrian connections are included throughout the site to provide for safe, direct and convenient pedestrian connectivity between sidewalks, building entrances and parking and amenity areas;

v)    consolidate long-term indoor bicycle storage on the ground floor;

vi)    consider the feasibility of providing access to the rear of the neighbouring property;

vii)    consider moving the garbage area away from the centralized outdoor amenity area; and,

viii)    provide all-season landscaping within and surrounding parking areas to screen parking from the public streets as much as possible;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    the applicant’s presentation;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    D. Hannam, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

-    J. Flynn, MTE;

it being noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended alternative Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended alternative Zoning By-law amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, and the Zoning to the Upper Maximum policies contained in Our Tools part of the Plan; and,

  •    the recommended alternative Zoning By-law amendment facilitates the development of an underutilitzed site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development and the interim temporary use of the land until servicing capacity can be confirmed.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   1176, 1180, 1182 and 1186 Huron Street and 294 Briarhill Avenue Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ-9596)

2023-06-19 Staff Report - (3.2) 1176, 1180, 1182, 1186 Huron Street and 294 Briarhill Avenue (OZ-9596)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2864876 Ontario Inc., relating to the properties located at 1176, 1180, 1182 and 1186 Huron Street & 294 Briarhill Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-18*R9-7(_)*H27) Zone;

it being noted that the following Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

i)    provision of adequate outdoor amenity space;

ii)    differentiate the main building entrance from ground floor units;

iii)    no portions of the building or landscaping features (ie planting boxes or privacy screens) are permitted to encroach into the City right-of-way;

iv)    consent to remove any boundary trees is required prior to final Site Plan Approval; and,

v)     at the time of Site Plan Approval, the building design is to be similar to that which was considered at the time of the Official Plan/Zoning By-law Amendment application;

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the recommended by-law;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  •    the project fact sheet;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies, the Zoning to the Upper Maximum policies, and the Evaluation Criteria for Planning and Development Applications policies;

  •    the recommended amendment would permit development at a transitional scale and intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of development.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   954 Gainsborough Road - Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ-9502)

2023-06-19 Staff Report - (3.3) 954 Gainsborough Road (39T-22501 OZ-9502)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Royal Premier Homes, relating to the property located at 954 Gainsborough Road:

a)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3), Holding Urban Reserve (h-2*UR3) and Open Space (OS5) Zone TO a Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-5()) Zone, Residential R5 (R5-5) Zone and a Residential R9 Special Provision Zone (R9-7(), BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)    the Application did not include Holding Provisions, a number of holding provisions are considered necessary to address a range of planning and servicing issues associated with the proposed development.

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3), Holding Urban Reserve (h-2UR3) and Open Space (OS5) Zone TO a Holding Residential Special Provision R4 (hh-100R4-5(_)) Zone, Holding Residential R5 (hh-100R5-5) Zone and a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision Zone (hh-100*R9-7(_)); and,

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised through the application review process for the property located at 954 Gainsborough Road:

i)    enquiring if a Transportation Impact Assessment has been completed;

ii)    enquiring if a Shadow Study has been completed;

iii)    enquiring about the amount of green space and community space as the area feels enclosed;

iv)    enquiring about the proximity of the proposed building to the fence of a neighbouring property in terms of privacy and open space as they will have a big wall built close to them; and,

v)    privacy concerns; and,

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed Plan of Subdivision as submitted by Royal Premier Homes. (File No. 39T-22501), prepared by ENG PLUS (Project No. 20.221), certified by Jake Surgenor O.L.S., dated April 13, 2022, as red-line revised, which shows a total of three (3) medium density blocks and five road allowance blocks served by one Neighbourhood Street (Sophia Crescent) and one Neighbourhood Connector (Coronation Drive), SUBJECT TO the conditions appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “B”;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  •    a communication from M. Al Ashkar;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    B. Chohan;

  •    F. Briceno;

  •    D. Pencilo; and,

  •    T. Raphael;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Shopping Area Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable The London Plan policies;

  •    the zoning will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents;

  •    the proposed and recommended zoning amendments will facilitate an appropriate form of low and medium density residential development that conforms to The London Plan; and,

  •    the recommended draft plan supports a broad range of low and medium density residential development opportunities within the site including more intensive, mid-rise apartments along Gainsborough Road.  The Draft Plan has been designed to support these uses and to achieve a visually pleasing development that is pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and accessible to the surrounding community.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   755, 785 & 815 Wonderland Road South (OZ-9565)

2023-06-19 Staff Report - (3.5) 755 785 and 815 Wonderland Road South (OZ-9565)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 785 Wonderland Road Inc., relating to the property located at 755, 785 and 815 Wonderland Road South:

a)    Municipal Council supports refusal of the request to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to ADD a Specific Area Policy in the Shopping Area Place Type applicable to the subject lands to permit a maximum building height of 16 storeys, and to permit an increased amount of office gross floor area of 30,000 square metres, for the following reasons:

i)    the total amount of office space is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) as the level of intensification proposed on the subject site would compete with the downtown and does maintain or enhance its vitality; 

ii)    the increased height and office space does not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to:

A)    the Key Directions that ensure new development is a good fit within existing neighbourhoods;

B)    the proposed intensity does not conform to the City Structure Plan and the intensity of office uses;

C)    the design criteria contained in the City Design chapter for site layout and high-rise buildings;

D)    the Evaluation Criteria for Planning and Development Applications in the Our Tools chapter of The London Plan;

E)    the Shopping Area Place Type policies to complete a master plan on large commercial infill development sites;

iii)    the increased amount of office space is significantly over the 2,000 square metres contemplated for a suburban shopping area and undermines the role and future health of the Downtown as the primary office destination in the City; and,

iv)    the requested amendment does not provide a suitable transition to the existing low density residential neighbourhood and represents an over-intensification of the site;

b)    Municipal Council supports refusal of the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (RSA2(3)) Zone TO a Residential R5 (R5-7) Zone; Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (RSC2()/R9-7()H25D120) zone; Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (RSC2()/R9-7()H40D200) zone; Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (RSC2()/R9-7()H48D200) zone; Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (RSC2()/R9-7()H55D200) zone, for the following reasons:

i)    the total amount of office space is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) as the level of intensification proposed on the subject site would compete with the downtown and does maintain or enhance its vitality; 

ii)    the increased height and office space does not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to:

A)    the Key Directions that ensure new development is a good fit within existing neighbourhoods.

B)    the proposed intensity does not conform to the City Structure Plan and the intensity of office uses.

C)    the design criteria contained in the City Design chapter for site layout and high-rise buildings.

D)    the Evaluation Criteria for Planning and Development Applications in the Our Tools chapter of The London Plan.

E)    the Shopping Area Place Type policies to complete a master plan on large commercial infill development sites. 

F)    the increased amount of office space is significantly over the 2,000 square metres contemplated for a suburban shopping area and undermines the role and future health of the Downtown as the primary office destination in the City; and,

G)    the requested amendment does not provide a suitable transition to the existing low density residential neighbourhood and represents an over-intensification of the site;

c)    Municipal Council supports the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “A” at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023 to amend The Official Plan, The London Plan to ADD a Specific Area Policy in the Shopping Area Place Type applicable to the subject lands to permit a maximum building height of 12 storeys along Wonderland Road South and Viscount Road;

d)    Municipal Council supports the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “B” at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (RSA2(3)) Zone TO a holding Residential R5 Special Provision/Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (h-5h-54h-63h-123h-149h-213h-()*R5-7()/RSA2()) Zone; a holding Residential R8 Special Provision/Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (h-5h-54h-63h-123h-149h-213h-()R8-4()/RSA2() Zone; and a holding R9 Special Provision/Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (h-5h-54h-63h-123h-149h-213*h-()*R9-7()*H36/RSA2(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  •    the staff presentation;

 

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    G. Halle;

  •     T. Frederick;

  •     E. Slivinski and,

  •    W. Murray;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council refuses this application for the following reasons:

  •    the total amount of office space is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) as the level of intensification proposed on the subject site would compete with the downtown and does maintain or enhance its vitality; 

  •    the increased height and office space does not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to:

  •    the Key Directions that ensure new development is a good fit within existing neighbourhoods.

  •    the proposed intensity does not conform to the City Structure Plan and the intensity of office uses;

  •    the design criteria contained in the City Design chapter for site layout and high-rise buildings;

  •    the Evaluation Criteria for Planning and Development Applications in the Our Tools chapter of The London Plan;

  •    the Shopping Area Place Type policies to complete a master plan on large commercial infill development sites;

  •    the increased amount of office space is significantly over the 2,000 square metres contemplated for a suburban shopping area and undermines the role and future health of the Downtown as the primary office destination in the City;

  •    the requested amendment does not provide a suitable transition to the existing low density residential neighbourhood and represents an over-intensification of the site;

it being also noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the City Structure policies, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable The London Plan policies; and,

  •    the zoning will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands and broaden the use of the site.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Not to be Heard before 4:00 PM - Delegation - S. Bergman, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning - 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2023-06-14 CACP Report 7

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on June 14, 2023:

 

a)    the communication, from B. Boughner, London Majors Alumni Association, as appended to the June 14, 2023 Community Advisory Committee on Planning Agenda, BE REFERRED to the Culture Office in order for additional consideration in conjunction with the Education Sub-committee and a report back to a future meeting of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning for further discussion; it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Boughner, with respect this matter, was received;

 

b)    the appointments of S. Ashman and J. Wabegijig BE RESCINDED from the Community Advisory Committee on Planning due to lack of attendance and,

 

c)    clauses 1.1, 1.2, 3.1 to 3.4, inclusive, 4.1 and 4.2, inclusive, 5.1 to 5.3, inclusive, 5.5 and 5.6 BE RECEIVED for information;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from S. Bergman, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 7:32 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (3 hours, 37 minutes)

Good afternoon folks, it’s just after four o’clock, so I’d like to call the 11th meeting of Planning Environment Committee to order. Please check the city website, traditional meeting, detail information, meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, Haudenosaunee, and Luna Peiwak and Ottawa. We honor and respect the history languages and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

The city of London is currently home to many First Nations Métis and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for readings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact packpec@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425 at this time I’d like to ask for any disclosures of pecuniary interest.

Seeing none, I have a request for the committee. We have a delegation request deferred matters, 5.1. I would like to ask that we move that up to just after our consent items. So I’m just gonna look for nodding heads here if that’s okay with everybody.

Okay, so after the consent items, we will deal with the delegate for 5.1. So now I’d like to move on to the consent items. I’ve had one request to pull 2.3 requests for Heritage designation 599-601 Richmond Street. I’ve had no other requests for any items pulled.

Okay, so we will be moving that to the end after our scheduled items to discuss at that point. So I would look to a mover to put 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 on the floor. Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll open up the floor for discussion.

I’ll make sure my notes are good too. I would like to call on, before we do that, I would like to call on staff for a brief verbal presentation regarding 2.5, which outlines some staffing and hots enhancements as we work towards our goal of 47,000 units by 2031. Through the chair, just very excited to bring you this report today. So what we’ll bring forward is just for information, the report just highlights some enhancements that we’re making to the building here.

So there’s a short term and then the long term we’ve also highlighted in the report. So as we all know, the council has approved a pledge of 47,000 units. So the next piece of that is to ensure that we have that capability and capacity and how to be able to do that. And seeing that we want to be able to hit the ground running in this process, we’re recommending and gonna bring forward 11 additional staff to support that area.

So this is gonna give us, for the most part, drawing review and inspection staff to help us to have those folks trained and ready to go when we know that the increase of housing applications is gonna move forward. So beyond that, we’ve also outlined a strategy that is going to be able to be there, to be able to support this group moving forward with three major principles that provide long-term capacity for this group. So first being to increase capabilities and capacity so that one thing that we’re in today is ensuring that we have the people. But we also have to make sure that we have the processes to be able to help those people and for those people to have the skills they need.

And that goes into the next item, which is process improvement. And we’ve done a lot of work historically in the planning area and looking at streamlining. And this is what we’re looking at doing next is moving that forward and moving that work to the building area to ensure that we can be as efficient as possible in that group. And then beyond that is enhancing that customer experience.

So it’s really coming to the mindset of for this group in general that we’re not just, that we’re more than just a regulator that we’re facilitators, that we’re here to be able to move, move, help applicants get through the process and ensure that housing is constructed in London. So I’m very pleased to bring this report for you today. And I just wanna thank you for your time. Thank you.

A quick question to you, Mr. Mathers. What timeline are you looking at for the 11 additional hires? Through the chair.

So we’ll be proceeding immediately. So over the next several months, we’ll be putting out postings for these positions and trying to get people online before the end of the summer. And of course, that does take time as far as recruiting, but we think this is the time to do it and we’ll be proceeding shortly on it. Thank you.

I’ll go to committee now for any other questions on this item or other items in the consent agenda. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I’ll stay with this item through Mr. Chair to staff.

This was kind of exciting, 11 new hires. Really, really important given the challenges of trying to get these permits out. I know we don’t, the 726,000 thereabouts. That many is coming out of the reserve fund.

The application fee is going through a consulting process. Are we able, if it’s found that we need to increase our fees to take care of our costs? Are we able to increase our fees to you? Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair, yes, so through that fee review, we’ll be looking at just even at the waiting of the fees for different types of permits to ensure that they’re fair and equitable. But for the most part, the majority of the funding for this group does come from fees. So if we find through that process that there’s additional funding that’s required, then we would make those changes.

We’re also anticipating that as the number of permits ramp up that there will be more revenue coming in that would support these positions as well. So this will help us to ensure that we have a fair and equitable system. And then there’s also the multi-year budget process so that if we’re looking at further enhancements that are up, above and beyond what is contemplated in the building legislation as far as fees, then we’d be coming forward with a budget ask of that in the future as well. Thank you, Councillor.

Yeah, I thought I’d just double check that. That’s good to know. Really excited to hear about the hub. I think that is something that I know, I think the public will be interested knowing that they can come in person or have Zoom meetings and deal with that permit process.

And as well, financial college too, having that partnership and trying to get students excited and know a little bit more about the jobs that we have to offer here. So thank you for the report. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes. I also wanted to stay on this one. I just want to pull up my notes ‘cause I just had them open. Here we go.

I also just wanted to echo Councillor Hopkins sentiments. I think that this is very exciting. So congratulations. I’m looking forward to you guys having more staff.

And I’ve heard from residents, builders and developers that this is exciting. So kudos. I also love reading about the integration with post-secondary institutions. I think that’s a very exciting solution that you guys are working on.

I was also curious about two things for this. There’s a brief mention about the possibility of having a separate permit application processing stream for high volume or ones with significant construction value. I’m wondering if possible, would it could be considered to have that also then for any building with an affordable unit component included it and have that kind of jump the queue or rise in priority level? I’m not really sure.

So I guess it’s a question to staff. Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, great question.

We actually have an existing system for that. So we have a team, we call it the heat team that’s very much focused on affordable housing and our building folks are a primary lead component of that team. So we have currently like a fast tracking for affordable housing. So this, again, would necessarily even be a fast tracking.

It would just be working with some of these large volume builders and developers to ensure that even that we have the priority straight. So instead of having to go to five or six different design reviewers, then they have an ability to go to one person and then even help us prioritize because we know that things change on a day to day basis. So if we’re able to just within the confines of the current schedule and the amount of work that people have, try to prioritize that and have somewhat like a one stop shop. We’re hoping that that will hopefully also give us capacity to some of the other folks that are reviewing on a day to day basis and give a better level of service to Council.

Great, thank you. I’m glad to hear that already happens. I didn’t know that. So it’s awesome.

It also would be cool if we did that with green building standards. But I’ll leave that one there. That’s something a noodle. And the other question I had was regarding the building permit fees.

I’m just wondering, so my understanding from the report is that planning is initiating a fee review. But I’m wondering too, if I know that the last time we looked at development charge fees is 2018 and that was halted. So I’m wondering, is the scope of the fees just on the building permit stuff? Or is it also going to expand to all the fees that planning issues?

Mr. Bathers. Through the chair. So as part of our work in developing our business cases for the multi-year budget, we’re going to be doing two fee reviews.

One is going to be on the planning and then other will be on the building as well. So that will be separate from a development charge review. This is really looking at those day to day fees that we charge for different types of applications and ensuring that they are the appropriate amount and that even that the cost is distributed appropriately across the ties of applications. So this would be separate from a development charges fees, but we are looking at planning and building fees independently.

Councilor. Thank you, yes. I think that’s why I meant it. I didn’t mean development charges like those fees start.

No, you were correct. You corrected me and it was correct. So thank you. Yeah, what I meant was the costs that it takes for staff to review.

Okay, so thank you. That’s all I have for that one. I do have questions about others, but I didn’t want to, if anyone else had questions about this, I don’t want to jump off it. Oh, go ahead.

Yeah, okay. For the rethinking zoning progress, my question was just, it looks like first draft will be at some time this summer for the community to look at. I’m just wondering if Peck will also get a look at that as well. Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair. So what we bring forward to the public and we’ll make sure that Peck sees that at the same time. So we will be going directly to get involved so that we can kind of go out to everybody at the same time, but we will make sure that there’ll be a note to all the members of PEP and council and that information is available.

Councilor. Thank you, yes. I’m going forward to seeing that. I also just want to mention for 2.2 the 81 Wilson Ave for the Heritage designation.

I’ve been inside that house and it’s phenomenal. So I’m very excited to see this on the list. And if you’re ever able to go by, Susan, who’s the owner is really lovely. And her peonies in May in June are beautiful.

So I just encourage you all to make friends with Susan and go look at her peonies in the spring because it’s epic. And I think that was it. So thank you. Any other comments or questions?

Mr. Councilor Pribble. Thank you. So we’ll check to the staff.

I have three quick questions to 2.5. The first one is the 11 new staff for the 726,000. Is that financially planned for the six month for all 11 of them? That’s my first question.

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, yes, this very much is a stop gap to get us to that end of the year when we’re never multi-year budget process and the building review done. So this is to just get us to the end of the year for approximately six months.

Councilor. And the proposed drawback from the reserve, it says it will be only for this year. And the assumption is that a few years will be included in the strategic, sorry, in the multi-year budget. Mr.

Mathers. So coming out of the fee review, there’ll be some discussion on how much should come from multi-year budget. It could be a lot of it will be coming from possibly the fee reviews or the redistribution of the fees. So it could be either or and possibly both.

Depending on what’s the outcome of the fee review. Councilor. Okay, thank you. And the last question, page top 170, it says there would have to be an undertaking of mapping of the current processes.

And it states Lean Six Sigma. And I thought we already started it and if we haven’t, is it because we did just the regular Six Sigma or we are going to start Lean One or was it because it was just for planning and now we are going to do four building? Thank you. Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair. So historically, all the work that’s been done has been focused on the planning group. So there was some funding that was provided the provincial government.

That was very much focused on the planning piece of it. So this would be extending that streamlining efforts to the building area as well. Just learning from a lot of the great benefits that we’ve had in building and then extending that and trying to get those same type of improvements in the building area. Councilor.

Thank you. And for the planning, Lean Six Sigma, how far are we from completing this project? Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair, thank you. We are currently working through the development streamline process and through a number of initiatives like bringing forward recommendations to pack last cycle. I believe we’re delegating some responsibilities. We’re working through the process and we still are.

Currently in the discovery stage for our technology project with our ITS department and we’re doing is figuring out the roadmap in order to get this digital development platform tracker to the industry. And once we’ve worked through the discovery project, we’ll have a better idea of how long that will take. And the discovery project is anticipated to end at the end of this year. Councilor.

Thank you, no more questions? Thank you, any other comments or questions before I call the vote, Councilor Frank? Thank you, yes, I missed one of mine. For back for 2.5, I’m just wondering, so given the province said that they’d make us whole, with these new 11 positions to accommodate the increased workload, are we planning to kind of separate this in our financial software and tag it and then be able to allocate the cost to the increase in the 47,000 units that we’re working on?

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so there’s a bit of a divide between the bill 23 piece of it and then the 47,000 pledge. So ideally, whenever we have a well-structured building of fee regime, it should pay for itself generally.

It may need some extra funding to be able to support enhancements over and above kind of the base level service that you’re providing. But we anticipate that over the longer term, the 47,000 units should be paying for itself in the revenues that are coming in. So we are very much highlighting if there’s specific items that are related to bill 23 and even through our multi-year budget process, we’ll be able to lay out what the needs are for bill 23 related. Councilor?

  • Thank you. Any other comments or questions or a call to vote? The committee will permit me. I just want to follow up on Councilor Perbal’s question there when we talk about technology.

When we had this conversation prior and funding is also always an issue. And my understanding initially was that it would have to be a request for our IT department and then our IT department prioritizes projects within the corporation. But then since then, I’ve learned that we do might, or we might have some other means of funding within our planning building unit. And I just want that confirmation.

So if I could go to you and Mr. Mathers on that. Through the chair, absolutely. So we’ve been working very closely with ITS partners and there are a certain level of enhancements we can do without triggering a full-out process review.

So we are absolutely going to implement those low-low that the initial work. And then if we want to do something that’s even larger, more substantial, then that will have to come through a further process that we’ll be undertaking. So there is a substantial amount that we can do right now. But if we want to have a wholesale change in the future, then we will have to go through a longer process and that’ll be part of the multi-year discussions as well.

Okay, thank you, Ms. McNally. Thank you through the chair. I just wanted to mention the project that Pete Cavick was talking about that is a dedicated project team with the ITS folks.

So that’s part of that ongoing initiative that we started over a year ago. And it’s now, as Peter said, we have to go through a process and understand what that discovery, have the scope. So it does take time and then we can determine the next steps in the project. I’m pleased to hear that.

I think all of us on committee and councilors have heard a desire by our large developers, LDI, but also small people, you know, as we do in fill, and as we get to 47,000 units, it’s not just going to be big apartments. As we’ve seen with recent legislation, we’re encouraging smaller, much smaller builds throughout neighborhoods in the city. And those are going to be done by people who don’t have the wherewithal that some of our larger builders do. So I’m really happy to hear about the hires, to enhance that work that’s being done in the private sector and how we can accommodate that efficiently, but also not to forget that in the review of the processes, which, a terrific job, by the way, to our folks in planning and building, that we’re really examining how can we do things differently to become more efficient.

And technology plays a role in that. Proper use of technology, for sure, can help us on the tax payer side to do things with a lot of at least cost as possible to the tax payer and to the builders, because eventually the builders filter that cost down to the end users. We want to keep rent and price if I was as affordable as possible. The more costs that we build in to those things, pardon the pun, we’ll add to those costs.

So it is a terrific. So if there’s no other comments or questions, I will look to call the vote on the consent items. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we’ll move on now to our scheduled items.

And just before that, we have Mr. Chuck Parker attending his last meeting. My apologies, we have a delegation that we’ve moved to after consent items. Thank you, Clerk, for that reminder.

We have Ms. Bergman, hello. That would like to address the committee. So please go ahead and hear if you can turn your mic.

How about now? Perfect. Okay, perfect. As long as it doesn’t fall out here.

Through the chair, thanks for having me. I just wanted to take the opportunity to introduce myself. My name is Stephanie Bergman, and I have been the chair of the new Community Advisory Committee on Planning for the past year, the former latch. We still sometimes, the latch still sometimes sneaks in there, but the Community Advisory Committee on Planning.

So there’s an important item on our report that I wanted to discuss and take the opportunity to introduce myself. And that was item, it was 6.1 on our report. As I think you know, we’ve been experiencing a lot of difficulties in reaching quorum at our meetings. I think you’re aware of that.

And so we were kind of looking through and we looked through the original appointments and with the help of staff, we noted that there were three individuals that had only been to either zero or one or maybe two meetings in the past almost a year. And so again, that’s really making it very challenging to reach quorum on a regular basis. So we have been having challenges with that. So we did make a motion to remove or to ask council to rescind the appointments for these three individuals.

We were kind of just working with staff and figuring out how we can do this. And they recommended that we, or this was an option that I can present this to council. So we did make that motion and that was unanimously passed at our meeting. And so we are here to ask council to put that forward.

Thank you. So I’ll go to committee members, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And through you, if I can ask our delegate, the report that we have in front of us identifies two individuals, S. Ashman and Jay Wablajig. Can you identify if there is a third or was the third not recommended? ‘Cause some attendance occurred.

Ms. Bertrand. Through the chair. Thank you.

I believe, I’m gonna go with the two. I think there was one that was still in question that we were trying to reach out to attend. So your apologies, you’re correct. The two names made it on the motion, thank you.

Deputy Mayor, thank you, Mr. Chair. In that case, I’m prepared to move the committee’s request to rescind those two appointments, as we have already had to do with committee of adjustment to ensure that we had somebody attending. It’s important that if we’re going to have these committees, then this one is actually a legislatively required committee.

This is not an add-on, this is required. So you need to show up if you want to be on the committee. So I’m prepared to move that recommendation. Councillor Hopkins.

I don’t know if you’re looking for a seconder, but I definitely will be seconding. It is required. We need this advisory group. I know here at Planning, I do not want to be responsible for making the decisions that you need to make.

So very supportive of trying to get new members put on the group. So we have motion moved and seconded. Councillor Frank. Thank you.

Through the chair, I’m just curious if the chair of CACP will be willing to mention, with these two individuals, was there any communication asking if they’re able to attend or why they weren’t able to? I just wanted to confirm that was done before we take them off the committee. Ms. Bourbon.

Yeah, through the chair. Yes, certainly we worked with staff to ensure that there were and we were ensured that there were very, very many reach outs. So we were confident that staff really did help us make that effort to engage. Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes. Just wanted to confirm and I will support this as well. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, just as a follow up.

Are you able to have quorum for your next meeting? I’m not exactly sure what the time lines look like as we try to get new appointments to this advisory group, but I think I’d like to know a little bit more. Ms. Bourbon.

Yeah, through the chair. Yes, we are able to make quorum, but the challenge is that the remaining members that do show up, I mean, things happen in lives and, you know, especially with summer coming up in vacations. So that means if one or two or three of those individuals that do attend regularly are not able to make it, that’s where the challenge arises, right? So yes, to answer your question more directly, we can make quorum if these two appointments are rescinded.

Councillor, any other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I just want to, and I’m not sure if our city clerk is with us by Zoom or not, but my understanding of the advisory committee advisory committees and their ability to meet quorum is that if we have vacancies in terms of appointments not filled, that those vacancies do not actually count in terms of counting for quorum. So the smaller number actually makes it easier for them to attain quorum until such time as we fill those vacancies with new members.

And I see our committee clerk nodding her head beside you. So I just think from a quorum point of view, it’s important to share that. I also want to just take a moment, which I should have done before, to thank Ms. Bergman for coming and being a delegate before us today.

It’s always helpful when the advisory committee chairs, when there’s something on their agenda that needs our attention that they come, or if the chair’s not able to come, the vice chair come, just so that we hear from somebody from the committee directly. So I appreciate you making the time to do that today. I’m going to go to the committee clerk for any comments that she might want to give with respect to the deputy mayor’s comments. The deputy mayor is correct.

If someone resigns from the committee, then the number of committee members goes down. The quorum is 50% plus one. With respect to Councillor Frank, I can assure you that staff did reach out on numerous occasions. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? The committee will permit me. Ms. Bergman, thank you.

This is not easy. I know that it’s tough when you have to, you know, your committee has to make some hard decisions. But this is in the best interests of what you’re trying to accomplish, and what we’re trying to accomplish at committee. So thank you for doing the hard thing.

And let’s hope we can get things back in order. Thank you. So if there are no other further questions or comments, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. One to schedule items and before we start with 3.1, where I left off, Mr. Chuck Parker has attending his last PEC meeting tonight or today after 35 years, which is just fantastic at our deepest appreciations. And I’d like to go to Mr.

Adema now to recognize that. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time to recognize this. So I did want to acknowledge that Chuck Parker does plan to retire later this summer, and this will be his last time presenting a report to this committee.

Chuck started with the City of London in January of 1987, which means he’s actually dedicated more than 36 years to public service in our community. Over his long career, Chuck has spent time working in policy planning, urban regeneration, and planning implementation. Some of the fruits of that work include the current zoning by-law, which was first approved by Council in 1992, and then the subsequent zoning for annex areas. He’s worked on a number of downtown plans and strategies that have helped to revitalize our core area, and also innumerable planning applications that are now built and contributing to the life of the city.

And so while Chuck has said that all he wants to recognize his retirement is to put in a good day’s work and leave quietly out the back door of City Hall, I think we’d be remiss if we didn’t honor the years of service he has given to this committee and its predecessors and his contributions to building the city that we love today. So Chuck, on behalf of your colleagues and planning and development, thank you for all your years of hard work, and we want to wish you all the best in your retirement. Again, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr.

Adamma and Ms. Parker. What can I say? 35 years, you’re the person we hate to lose because out goes the door is 35 years of experience, wisdom, and our gratitude.

So thank you very much. Words are small in this moment because I know this is a big step for you and your family, but on behalf of this committee, thank you so much. So you’re the guy that got that summer job that I couldn’t get. (laughs) Thank you, thank you so much.

So I’d like to move on to schedule item 3.1. This is regarding 568 Second Street Zoning By-law Amendment. I will look to staff at this point. Sorry, folks, again, one step we got open to PPM.

I’ll look for our mover to open to PPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Hopkins, thank you, I’ll call the vote. Close in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I apologize for that.

We have a few items on the agenda that I believe requires some little briefing from staff, even though we have the report in front of us. I think it’s a verbal presentation is in order on some of these to kind of help us with a total understanding of where we’re going. So at this point, I’d like to call on staff for that verbal presentation. Subject applications located at 568 Second Street, which is on the southeast corner of Oxford Street East and Second Street.

It’s directly across from Fanshawe College. Location map, you can see the property. It’s currently occupied by an industrial building, a former call center. On the entire length of the property, there’s also a hydro corridor on the western edge of the property, cuts off some access to the industrial building, but there are access points to that industrial use currently.

The submitted proposal is for two 12-story apartment buildings at a density of 314 units per hectare to be built in two phases. They include 438 apartment units, 219 parking spaces. The intent is for part of the industrial building portion to the north to be demolished for the first tower. And then some years later, when warranted, the construction of a second tower on the remaining portion of the industrial building site.

Both site plan shows the two buildings. There is a many area in the middle between the two buildings. And our proposal is that a many space be built as part of phase one to accommodate the residents who are occupying the first building to the north. For orientation, the building on the left is to the north and the building on the right is to the south.

Opposed landscape site plan shows this amenity area in the middle and it also shows the landscaped area along Second Street and along Oxford Street. You’ll note that along Oxford Street, there is no proposed access to the property from there. All the access points will be on Second Street. The hydro corridor I indicated runs down the side of the property next to Second Street and then up and across Oxford Street in this manner.

But there are two access points for the development across that hydro corridor. In terms of the existing policies that apply to the site, the London plan identifies the property as a rapid transit corridor place type. Intersex with a neighborhood connector, which is Second Street and that corridor place type allows a 12 story height maximum. The existing zoning on the site recognizes the existing light industrial use and the zoning request is for an R9-7, which is essentially an apartment building zone.

And at the time, the request was for a bonusing provision for the site to go to a higher density. But since the application has been submitted, bonusing has been stopped as a practice by the province. And also the 1989 official plan has been replaced by the London plan. The London plan uses height in terms of intensity, whereas the former 1989 official plan used density.

So density is no longer an issue in this particular instance. The applicant requested some special provisions be applied to the zoning that applies to the site. As I said, he requested a special provision for density, but density is no longer important. The London plan, as I said, deals with use, intensity, and form.

They asked for a parking reduction from 1.25 spaces per unit to 0.5 spaces per unit. And if you recall, our parking standards have been lowered since this application was submitted, so they no longer required 0.5 spaces per unit. Since it’s in a rapid transit corridor, there really is no parking required in a rapid transit corridor. They requested interior side yard depth minimum, going from down to 5 meters from 15.36 meters.

And the last request was to permit a self storage establishment as a temporary use in the southern half of the existing industrial use until the second building is built. Throughout the process, there was a number of issues that the city looked at and went back and forth with the applicant. Currently, with forced submission, there’s still two outstanding issues that we felt we had to address. Our engineering department have indicated that there’s probably not enough sanitary capacity for two buildings on the site.

There may be capacity for one building, but not two at the current time. In terms of urban design site plan issues, there was some concerns raised about the design of the buildings. Site layout, building form and massing function of the site, the use of the hydro corridor in the site. There was too much parking included and not enough amenity space.

City recommended resubmission and what you see on the presentation is the last submission the applicant made. In terms of public issues, there was very few. The adjoining neighbor, the east, had some issues with regards to garbage and duly restricted in the access of the rear use of property, vandalism and theft or disruption of business. And also the effect that the apartment building would have on students at the adjacent elementary school.

Because of the number of outstanding issues that the city still had, we have provided an alternative recommendation. I just wanna point out that the recommended zoning bylaw amendments are very similar to those that were requested in terms of fall story height, in terms of the number of units that could be allowed 438 including the special provisions for parking and setback and a temporary use of the existing building. There were some exceptions that the city is, that is recommending as part of our zoning bylaw amendments. We’re recommending that a holding provision be applied until the sanitary capacity for that second building can be identified.

And secondly, the inclusion of regulations to address urban design comments. Specifically with regards to the maximum floor plate size and the setback for the upper levels. To give you some indication of what this looks like in a 3D form, we had one of our urban design staff draw up some massing models for the two buildings. Phase one is on the left hand side of the screen.

So it shows the step back as you go above the four story, provide better access for wind and sunlight. And it shows the existing after the industrial building that still remains for phase one. And then phase two with the full build out of the property, it shows the two buildings with the step backs and the limited floor plate size to give you some indication of what those buildings could look like. That’s the end of the presentation.

I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, and I’ll go to the committee now for any questions of a technical nature. Councillor Hopkins. For you, thank you for the presentation.

Really appreciate it. I do have one technical. I’m trying to have a better understanding about the affordability with this application. I noticed that it’s six one bedroom units in one bedroom.

Is that just an idea at the moment, the affordable housing component? You gotta make sure I’m looking at the right one. Is there an affordable housing component to this application? Staff, I think that the report indicates that there’s been no indication that there’ll be affordable housing units included.

Councillor, any other? Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I think maybe the submission from the applicant had included that in the slide deck, but I think it was included.

I guess the to follow up on that, I applaud the applicant for wanting to include affordable housing. But I’m wondering what is the process for that if it was to be approved and they are indicating that they would like to include affordable units? Is that something that staff take care of at the approval stage or is that a later approval that they sign an agreement? Well, staff, through the chair, similar to peck in June, we have the same issue with applicant offering affordable housing.

So there’s nothing from a planning act perspective we can do at this stage. I believe through that planning committee provided direction to deal with that site plan to have them engage with municipal housing team and also direction in the recommendation. So that’s how we dealt with it at that, but in terms of this application and resoling, there’s nothing we can do. Councillor.

Thank you, yes. I guess that is something I, I don’t know not sure if we’ll eventually go to the applicant if they’re here in the gallery to discuss, but that’d be good to have a, be a little conversational for about that as well. Right. Any other technical questions for staff before?

Councillor Hayley. Yes, thank you very much. Through the chair to staff, they’re citing not enough sanitary capacity for those two buildings. Does that mean that we are reaching capacity in that general area for other, for other developments?

I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, thank you for the question. Generally, we just looked within this vicinity of the application for the sanitary capacity and based at this location within this sewer run, we were exceeding capacity within two towers. We haven’t done yet a holistic review of the area to confirm where there’s other pinch points.

Generally, it’s application by application base. However, in saying that we are doing a comprehensive review right now for our sanitary sewer system, we get a better understanding of that. So if there are these pinch points in the sewer, we can, you know, relieve them ahead of development. Councillor Hayley.

Yes, thank you for that. Yes, it would be nice to have something showing us the bottlenecks in the system so we know we can’t be looking for development. That’s the current time. Thank you.

Any other questions of a technical nature? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, and just to follow up with that question to staff, would a holding provision then be applied or how does that work with the servicing? I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, so through our recommendation, we’ve applied a holding provision to the entire site. Any other questions? Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.

I had one more technical one. My understanding is the hydro corridor kind of cuts across it, but I guess I’m still struggling, is the, are the parking lot spaces that are underneath of the hydro line corridor and the ones that are like half cut off that kind of front onto second street? Are those part of the application or not part of the application? Staff, the hydro corridor is not part of the application.

The application lands are those lands to the east of the hydro corridor, but they do access across that hydro corridor and there’s an agreement on site for use of those hydro lands for those purposes. Councillor, possibly the consultant can explain that. Okay, seeing that we’re, there are no other technical questions for staff. I’ll move on to the applicant.

The applicant would like to address the committee. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. You hear me okay? Yes, I can.

Okay, good afternoon members of planning committee. Any members of public that are here? My name’s Dave Hannah, I’m a partner with Zalinka Priamo. Also in person attending is Bob Siskin, who’s a member of the ownership group and also Jared Flynn from MTE.

He is the, they’re the project engineers. We’ve had an opportunity to carefully review staff’s report and I’m pleased to see this general, they’re generally supportive of the development via the implementation of an alternative zoning amendment. We’re generally supportive of the amendment as well. Most aspects of that amendment are acceptable to us.

However, some are not. And I highlighted in red on page two of my presentation, which is attached to the agenda. Firstly, the holding provision. MTE submitted multiple documentation, documents through the application review process to confirm that there is capacity within the existing municipal system for both buildings.

While the system is close to capacity, which is not ideal, it is a fact that there currently is capacity for the entire development. Our client wants to construct building A, which is phase one, which is at the northerly end of the site. Straight away and needs certainty, certainty of the sanitary allocation without a holding provision for at least that first building. Our client is prepared to accept a holding provision for building B, which is on the southerly portion of that site and that provision could be based on the earlier of two options.

One that we demonstrate that there is capacity for that building or there’s additional capacity provided through infrastructural and infrastructural changes, either done by the city or in concert with the applicant. The special provisions are setting maximum density, interior side yards, and the fourth floor setback are all acceptable to us, as is the proposed temporary zone for the phase two southerly building. In terms of the special provision setting, the maximum floor space of 1,000 square meters for floors 10 to 12, that’s not acceptable to us. It’s considered unreasonable and unnecessarily restrictive.

And while this could be accommodated, all it really does is reduce unit sizes and creates inefficiencies with internal layouts. You can see from the renderings we’ve provided on page three and four, that the project architects have worked hard to provide high quality articulated and attractive buildings, which include step backs at both the fourth and the tenth floors to break up the massing and maximize space in an efficient build that helps to improve the overall affordability of the units and the project as a whole. Our view is that staff are putting unjustified arguments that the proposed buildings will result in wind over shadowing and loss of sunlight impacts. However, these are not supported by dark data at all.

We were not required to provide any wind study and we’ve provided a shadow study that shows that all of the shadow is internalized to the site. As such, we would request that that particular special provision is removed from the implementing by-law. Numerous adjustments to the layout of the dome were made to provide appropriate outdoor amenity space as illustrated on the rendering on page three of my presentation and in the landscape plan. A large approximately 10,000 square foot, central accessible and programmable outdoor amenity area is provided between the proposed buildings.

There is also private balconies for each unit. Amenity areas that grade within both buildings and the outdoor amenity area is connected by a network of pedestrian linkages within the site and to the public domain and is complemented by a series of landscaped areas within the site and on the periphery. In terms of the maximum parking standard that’s set at 0.5 spaces per unit, this is less than half of what was required when we initially submitted the application. It is comparable with the rate that we proposed as part of our traffic and parking study.

As illustrated on page seven of my presentation, a portion of the total parking area for this development is located on the abutting hydro corridor lands between the proposed buildings and second street. This land is leased but not owned by my client. At some point in the future, this parking may no longer be needed for this or available for this development. And as such, the wording and the implementing by-law should clearly state that the maximum parking rate per unit applies only to the parking located on the subject lands.

30 seconds. Okay. In terms of affordable housing, you are correct. Based on the 338 unit scheme proposed, the owner is willing to voluntarily offer affordable housing consisting of seven units but 80% AMR for 30 years to be secured through the appropriate development process.

In conclusion, page nine of my presentation outlines key considerations as to why the proposed development represents sound land use planning principles and is appropriate and desirable for the subject lands given its policy context, its massing and layout and the supporting technical studies we submitted. Thank you very much for your consideration. I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

I think we’ll allow committee to pull questions until our general debate unless you have some technical questions right now. Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. I just want to confirm after hearing that the process for figuring out our sanitary capacity if that is usually something staff do or if that’s usually something the consultant does.

‘Cause I feel like we have two different answers right now and I’m just seeking a bit of clarification. I’m gonna start with staff on that one. Yes, through you, Mr. Chair.

This is Myla Bshadam, the development engineering. And yeah, the answer to your question, Councilor is, yeah, we know where is the bottleneck. It’s on second street. So that’s the information we get from said.

The bottleneck is on second street itself, south of the location and that’s really represent the bottleneck. No, not possible to have, to move forward with the application this way. The way it’s unless if they downsize their proposal. Councilor.

Thank you. And maybe if I could just seek further clarification on I guess the process. So I’m understanding from staff that they don’t believe that there is capacity and we have a consultant that is, I guess saying there is capacity. I’m going to be like the process of what is our process for determining that and is it staff’s final decision?

Again, according to through you, Mr. Chair, according to the information we get from said, because they are the one who monitor the eye and eye, which is in flow infiltration and all these details. They based on their response we get that the bottleneck is there and it was not considered from the consultant and their whatever submission we have so far. Thank you.

And I’m going to just go to staff. I think what the council is trying to get at, we have two opposing views here. How do we arrive at, how do we consider those as a committee? Through the chair, just because there’s macronyms thrown around in there.

So the set is our sanitary engineering division. So we go to them to provide a termination for us. So they provided that termination to us as far as there being capacity. So that was from the city and our calculations that there is in capacity.

This time doesn’t mean that there can’t be worked undertaken to be able to improve that, but at this time and the reason for the holding provision is that we’ve deemed that there’s not enough capacity. Councilor? Thank you. Any other questions of technical nature?

Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. I just want to go back to the affordable housing question and it’s a technical question through you to the applicant maybe. I also heard from the applicant that this application is not by the owner but by the lessee.

So how does the affordable housing conversation work going down the road? Who is responsible for that agreement if the zoning application goes forward? Just curious. So I’ll go to you to address those two concerns, leasing, lease land, and also there’s affordable housing aspect to the question.

Can you turn your mic? I didn’t turn it off. There you go. Okay, so first and foremost, the lands are owned by the current owner in terms of the application lands.

The hydrolands are leased, they’re not owned by them. So in terms of that, the ownership is clear with regards to the subject lands. With regards to the affordable housing, that is something that has been mentioned through resubmissions that the applicant was willing to explore the option of providing affordable housing. We know that there is a much needed component within the city of London and also there’s part of London as well.

And so they wanted to honor those discussions by effectively using the previous calculations in terms of what the potential uplift would be based on the height of the building, which is the additional two stories and then taking a 10% calculation of that and then applying the appropriate market percentage in 10 year as well. Councillor. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay, well, I was just gonna say would you like to hear from our engineer with respect to the capacity scenario?

I’ll go to committee if they would like to have that. No, I’m getting nose. I don’t mind, but I think, again, I kind of asked for process, but I think we’d probably have to go to staff’s recommendation but you could share the information. I’d like to hear it.

We’ve talked about different opinions here and the question was raised by committee. So if you have someone here that would like to present your side of things, I think that’d be helpful. Hello. Hi, my name is Chair Flynn.

I work at MT consultants as mentioned earlier. I just wanted to mention that we have done a capacity analysis. We’ve gone back and forth with sewer engineering and at that time we were told that there is capacity. It’s full.

It’s not ideal, but there is capacity. So through I&I, I understand there’s I&I and they would have more figures, but we have not been provided that documentation. So there are measures to have basically flow monitoring which can be recommended and asked for, but at this time, the desktop study has shown that there is capacity. It’s full, but it is there.

Thank you. Any other questions? I have a technical question. I heard that the capacity from staff is okay for the first building.

It’s a second building is a concern. Is that true? Through the chair, just to get a little bit of background on here, I think what’s being looked for is an allocation of capacity. So basically being allowing for a certain area and that they get first right at that capacity.

So it can’t be provided to anyone else. And our normal course of action for this type of application would be, once you come in with your building permit, that’s when you get the capacity. ‘Cause otherwise if we’re providing for future opportunities for capacity, and you’re not actually bringing any buildings forward, then you might be in another development within that same area that wants it getting quicker. For us, we wanna ensure that that capacity goes to the people that have building permits in and wanna construct.

So in this case, if there was a holding provision and it’s maintained that we would go through a process. And if at that time that we get through the site plan and there’s capacity available for this first building, then we could move through this process. But what we would not recommend is allocating all of that capacity right now to one development that could possibly be at a detriment to other developments. Thank you.

Okay. I’m gonna open up the floor for public that anyone in the gallery would like to speak to this application. Now is your chance. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

Do they chair? There’s no one online. Okay. I see no one stepping up to the mic.

So I’ll look to the committee to promotion to close the PPM. Council are fine seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll now open the floor for discussion to committee members and visiting counselors. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, chair. And through you, I wanna first of all extend thanks to staff to Ms. McNeely and Ms. O’Hagan and Mr.

Corby who took some time to meet with us last the word counselor and myself about this one last week. And they did provide some alternate language. And essentially what I am gonna share with colleagues in advance and I’m just gonna look to perhaps through you to Ms. O’Hagan to confirm that the alternate revision that’s in E-Scribe for our consideration, if that’s so moved, is removing the 1,000 meter square floor plate above the story and increases the height to the from 39 to 41 meters noting that the height regulations allow for rounding.

So 41.49 meters is what can ultimately be allowed there. I just wanna make sure that that’s captured in the alternate recommendation that’s in E-Scribe for us. We have that confirmed by staff. Through the chair, I don’t have access to E-Scribe but the bylaw that I did provide to you was what was discussed at the direction of the counselor, the word counselor, to remove the 1,000 square meter floor plate cap above the 12th and also to increase the height to the 41.

And the zoning provision or the zoning bylaw has special provisions to allow for rounding and it can round up to the 41.49. Deputy Mayor. Perfect, so I appreciate that. And sorry, I didn’t realize you wouldn’t be able to check E-Scribe in front of you.

I don’t know if anyone else is able to but if that’s the language that was provided to the clerk and I see it up there on the screen. I know it’s very tough to read but if you can take a look at that, I have asked the clerk to add a clause as well. Colleagues that would incorporate direction to civic administration to through the municipal housing development team work with the applicant on the seven affordable units in the development noting that those could be part of the road map to 3,000 units and target that. I think that that’s absolutely a greatly appreciated offer by the applicant.

The unit num count is consistent with what we would have had under the old Bonusing Regime and though we can’t require it in zoning bylaw because Bonusing is gone by having this clause in there, it lets us move it to site plan and that negotiation with the applicant can happen in terms of those seven units that were mentioned in their presentation. So that’s appreciated and I think that with the seven affordable units and really in this location, I think the setback at the eighth story is not something that’s for me a colloquial hill to die on in terms of not having this process go forward. I will say I’m very supportive of the holding provision because it is an incentive to get the building permits in. You can’t get the zoning for that servicing and then sit on the application this way.

If you want to get your share of the servicing, then we’re going to need to work through site plan and get those building permits applied for and that’s great. So I’m prepared to move the alternate recommendation with the added provision of the affordable housing units. I don’t want to speak to all of the points that the word counselor might wish to make on this application in particular, but I will say as a fellow East End Council and this is just a little north of my ward, this is a very desirable development in terms of providing rental units right across the street from Fanshawe College. This is an opportunity to really take a bite out of what we’re seeing in terms of the cannibalization of single family dwellings to both the north and the south that become problem rental license units because they are often overcrowded.

There are property standards issues, all of those things that come with rental units and in particular, although not exclusively, where we have a massing of students in the area. So very supportive of seeing this move forward and hopefully seeing some students being able to be accommodated in some of these buildings, which is why I think that some of the parking considerations are quite reasonable as well, because a lot of the tenants of this building are not going to have vehicles when they come to London. They’re going to be arriving as students. We are on the East London Link Rapid Transit line.

We’re right at the end of that line. So this is sort of the last property that be available for that sort of density, but it is right there. It is going to have rapid transit access, so I’m very supportive of that. So I’m happy to put that alternate on the floor, see if there’s a seconder and I will be quiet there so that I haven’t taken all the words that the word counselor might want to share out of his mouth.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor. I’ll look for a seconder. Sorry, I looked over there. I didn’t see any hands.

So I’ll look over here again, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I’m happy to second it and looking forward to the conversation. I just want to make sure the only addition that is being made to staff’s recommendation is the affordable housing through you, just to the deputy mayor. There’s a lot of words here, I just want to make sure I got it right.

So I’ll go to the mover of the motion on that question. Thank you, Chair, and through you know, to be clear, the original staff recommendation has the 1,000 meter square floor plate in its, the revised recommendation. So we have an e-scribe a motion one and a motion four. I’m moving the motion four, which is a revised recommendation that removes that a story set back in the 1,000 meter square floor plate in addition to adding in the affordable housing component.

So it’s not the original staff recommendation. It isn’t altered by law, but it is one that staff help prepare some language on. Councillor, Councillor Fray. Thank you, yes, and I’m going to seek even more clarification.

Just going back to the applicant’s slide deck, the stuff in red. So then your two things are 1,000 square foot for floor plate and then affordable housing. So it’s not touching. We’re going to keep the staffs holding provision for sanitary capacity, keep the staffs recommended height, and then keep the staffs recommended surface parking spaces.

Just want to confirm because the applicant’s asking for something different. Deputy Mayor Lewis. So through you, Mr. Chair, as was indicated when I asked Ms.

O’Hagan if she could confirm the language, the height does actually move to 41 meters. It does not go to 41.1, which is what you see in the applicant’s submission. But as was indicated by staff, the zoning allows for some rounding to accommodate the fact that things like HVAC units and things on the top of a building may add a little bit more. So that height accommodation is in there.

And I’m just going to look at the applicant’s slide deck here. So the holding provision for sanitary capacity would stay. Their height concern and the floor plate would be addressed. Councillor.

Thank you. And I guess the only question I had about this one was about the surface parking ‘cause I noticed in the application, it was indicated that this seemed like a lot of surface parking and I’m wondering how staff are planning to address this with site plan. Go to staff. Through the chair, so there is a special provision that was recommended for 0.5 spaces per unit, which was what was presented from the applicant.

We added that as a maximum for surface parking. If they did choose to build structured parking or underground parking, they could build additional parking if they wanted to. Through site plan, we will be looking at, there’s direction to look at some landscape offering to kind of mitigate the visual impact of some of that parking as well as provide some other areas for infiltration as well. Councillor.

Thank you, yes. And then I’m just wondering ‘cause I didn’t notice it in the report, I think our minimum is 30% green space on site and I’m just wondering if this meets that. Staff, through the chair, through the zoning that’s been applied, they would be required to achieve the 30%. There’s no special provisions for relief from that.

Councillor. Thank you. So just looking at the map and I can’t, I don’t know. You know what I mean?

I mean, I’m looking at it, it doesn’t look like there’s a lot of green space. So given what they’ve applied for and how much surface parking there is, will they be able to do green space, 30% green space? Staff, through the chair, it’s our understanding through the proposed development that is achieving the 30%. So all this green space along the edges and everything adds up to that calculation.

Councillor. Okay, thank you, yeah. ‘Cause from my eyes, it looks not like 30%, but that’s why we have the Bluetooth calculations. So I appreciate that.

And then yes, I’ll be supporting this. I think it’s a great location. All the reasons the Deputy Mayor said, and I am happy that we’re keeping the holding provision just because it sounds like there could be, we just need to make sure that that’s being looked after. And I do want to applaud the applicant for voluntarily adding some affordable housing units.

I really, really, really appreciate that. Thank you. So am I correct that you’re seconding the motion, Councillor Frank? Sorry, Councillor Hopkins, I went to the other council.

I wasn’t too sure where you were going on that, but I’ll come back to you. Yeah, thank you. I just needed to have a better understanding before I seconded. I do have one further question.

Sure. And maybe this is just going to staff on this one about the floor plate. So we’re going with the smaller, the larger floor plate staff suggested a smaller one. Could you explain a little bit more the reasoning behind that?

I’ll go to staff. Through the chair. So our London Plan policies and the city design policies talk about buildings that are high rise. So above eight stories should be designed to slender towers to mitigate wind impacts, shadow impacts.

So once your building becomes a certain height, we want the width of it and the mass of it to become a bit smaller to mitigate those impacts. That’s why staff suggested a 1,000 meter squared floor plate maximum for the building above the eighth story. So understanding you could have a slide building up to that eighth stories, but above that, we want to mitigate those impacts. So that’s why that was added as a special provision.

So what I’m after here is a second of the motion. Then we can debate, Councilor, would you be willing to second this motion with the information you have? If not, I’ll go on. Okay, so Councilor Hopkins has seconded the motion.

I’d like to go to Councilor Cuddy, the word Councilor. Thank you, Chair and through you. And before I begin, I’d like to thank Deputy Mayor Lewis for no other words in hand-holding me through this process. This file landed on my desk, I think three days after I took this job.

And I went to Deputy Mayor Lewis almost immediately saying help me with this because I don’t know how we’re gonna get it through. And I even went as far as to take the Deputy Mayor out to the site, we sat there and looked at it and envisioned it and we called the applicant and we had a long discussion. And again, thank you for the hard work. Even at five o’clock on a Friday afternoon, I’m working with Deputy Mayor on this.

I also want to thank my colleague, Councilor Pribble, who helped me with this as well. Thank you very much. And also to staff for the hard work. And again, to Ms.

O’Hagan, who again received an email for me, I think on five o’clock on a Friday asking me to help me word Smith, this motion. This flows in nicely with what I heard last year when I was canvassing in that area in campaigning. People were saying to me, Peter, please get the students out of these houses. We’ve lived here for 35 and 40 years and we don’t want these transient students living in here not taking care of the properties.

We want our homes restored the way they were before. And what we have is an opportunity to put in 230 units almost immediately and to remove some of those students, some of those fan adjustments from the areas and put them into really nice apartment units. And further that, I look at the applicant who I spoke to this last week in Civic Works. We have a number of city leaders who have built this city and the nice thing about this application that comes from somebody who’s actually been a leader and a builder in this city for many years, Mr.

Siskin. And I’m grateful to him and to others like him who have helped us build this city and want to continue building this city. Again, I thank everyone who’s been a part of this and again to the staff for all the hard work that you’ve done. And thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Seeing none, if the committee will allow me a comment, understand the issue with sewer capacity. And you know, this is a common issue, not just here in London, but across Canada as we look at building more intensification.

I’ve heard from a number of folks outside this community and the challenges there and so much that they’re looking to the federal government to maybe provide some funding to allow for upgrades to sewer systems because these sewers were built with a certain intensification in mind and now we’re rapidly ramping that up. So I appreciate the challenges that we have here in this particular project, but we’ll be facing these again and we have to do what we can to get these builds going. I think this project really addresses intensification. It’s right across from a major post-secondary school, not just for students, but I would argue staff as well as a potential of living here and walking to work, which I think is the ultimate.

We see that with designs and encouragement for intensification downtown, but I think in major employers and population centers such as this, right across the street is an excellent example of the intensification that we should be encouraging. So I will be supporting this motion. There are no other questions or comments than I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, thank you. We will be moving on to 3.2, which is dealing with 1176, 1180, 1182, and 1186 Huron Street and 294 Briar Hill Avenue. I will look to committee to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. We have the staff report. For any of you, are there any technical questions for staff at this point?

Seeing none, then I will go to the applicant. The applicant wants to address the committee. Please sir, state your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Chair Lehman.

Can everyone hear me? We can. Awesome, thank you. Mike Davis here with Civic Planning and Design, and here today representing the owner and developer of this project.

A exciting redevelopment project in Ward three at the intersection of Huron and Briar Hill. First off, what I want to say is our team is fully in agreement with the recommendation from planning staff on this application. I want to thank Ms. Matton, Catherine Matton, along with the rest of the team in planning for their help in advancing this project to this point.

Obviously, with these planning application processes, the policies of the London Plan are a major driving factor. But I think when you’re dealing with a high-level document like that, it’s also important to realize there’s times where the plan itself cannot possibly capture what is the best outcome for each individual site. And what I really appreciate here is the open-mindedness of staff to work with us on this eight-story concept in seeing the uniqueness of the context and ultimately recommending this project for approval. In terms of the project itself, some notable points our client has gone to great lengths here to strategically knit together five parcels, four of which have existing single-detached dwellings, and one of which is vacant.

This site’s very well-served by transit. It’s within close walking distance to a wide spectrum of commercial amenities, employment opportunities, and we felt like, in this instance, six stories was gonna be an under use. So by going up to eight stories, it’s allowed the team, I think, more design freedom to use greater setbacks, other design measures that actually make this project a better fit with the neighborhood than being stuck within that stick story box. So credit to the team, it’s that architecture who’ve helped develop a strong architectural design, which we think will leave a positive impression on the area.

I also just wanna make a point that we invested a significant amount of time in communications and engagement with surrounding residents. That played out over the course of the past year. We also appreciate the attention to this project from the Ward Council and the neighboring Ward Councilor as well. Through our communications program, we had 138 unique views of our project website.

So we know that beyond just the folks who showed up or who’ve written into the city that we had a lot of eyes on this project, and I think in general, we’ve had some positive feedback. So with those quick comments, I’ll just conclude, of course, appreciate your time and consideration of this application today, and I’ll make myself available to answer any questions. Thank you. Any technical questions for the applicant from the committee members?

Councillor Frank. Thank you. I just wanted to see if any units of affordable housing were considered during this building. Please go ahead.

Thank you and through the chair. At the current stage in the planning process that has yet to be determined. So much different than the discourse we would have had with staff a year ago when bonus zoning was still in their repertoire. It wasn’t a point of conversation with staff.

I will say that in terms of the development strategy, CMHC financing is a very attractive tool, especially from a rental perspective. So whether it’s construction financing or your long-term takeout financing, a lot of that is tied to affordability metrics and performance measures. So there are some strong financial incentives in place from CMHC to consider that moving forward. Councillor.

Thank you. I’ll take that as a no, but maybe a future discussion. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no other questions, I’ll open the floor to anyone from the public that would like to address the committee on this particular application. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Do they chair, there’s no one online? Okay, seeing no one looking to speak, I will look for a motion to close the PPM.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

So I will now put this item on the floor for discussion debate, motions. Councillor Frank. Thank you. A couple of questions just pulled directly from the written in comments from the resident section.

I’m just wondering, regarding the bike parking, it was mentioned that it seemed to be behind many doors. Has that been addressed, or would that be addressed through site plan? Go to staff, through the chair, the bicycle parking will be dealt with that site plan approval stage, y’all sorry. Thank you.

And then there’s also some mention of road widening, and I’m just wondering if staff have read those comments and have any feedback on that request? Staff, through the chair. Do you mind giving us out what page that’s on? Sorry.

I don’t know what page, but I did copy the question. So there’s two, and then one was a request, like does the city of London plan and widening her on street from McNay street through Barker to Adelaide? And I think there’s a second question later on saying that there’s a lot of congestion and was asking again about road redevelopment. Go to staff, through the chair, we would have to follow up with transportation staff.

There’s any plans to widen the road at this time. We’re not aware of any plans to widen here on street, Councillor. Thank you. I hope it stays that way, but bike lanes would be great.

And then the last question was just regarding there’s an existing transit stop at the Eastern edge of the development. Is there an opportunity to enhance the stop with amenities to have a shelter, for example? And I was just wondering when that kind of, when a development occurs, when there’s a transit stop on a site, does that get looked at as part of the whole redevelopment? Or that’s completely separate and that’s LTC?

Go to staff, through the chair, that decision to upgrade the stop would be through LTC. Councillor? Thank you, those are all my questions. Other comments, questions, motions?

I will go to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, through the chair. I’m just here to express my support for this development. It’s right on the border between Ward three and four.

So gratitude to staff and to the planners for working through the details and getting some much needed housing for this area. There are a few concerns from residents around transportation and parking and I’ll be looking to work with them to mitigate that anyway that we can. So my thanks. Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, I don’t think the motion’s on the floor yet, so I’ll be happy to move the motion and if I could just make a comment beforehand, I see a seconder. Okay, let’s get a seconder first, I’ll come back to you. Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds, so please go ahead, Councillor. Yeah, I really appreciate the words from the Ward Councilor being here too.

I wanna thank the applicant. I really commend you for your community engagement. I was reading some of your notes, can’t see you there, but I think that’s really important and it really shows the comments that we did receive aren’t great, there’s a few, but I think it does help when you do that outreach, the community does get to have a better understanding of the application. I would encourage you to really look at the affordability of units we know in our city.

We need true affordable housing units and every time I see an application now at planning, I’m very mindful of where is the affordability. I appreciate there one and two bedrooms, I think there’s a great demand for one and two bedrooms, but the affordability is something that we really need to address here in our city. I’m supportive of the holding provision, the number of recommendations coming out of staff as well with the amenity space. We’re having a number of look at that, exploring it and kind of like that middle building the eight story, the six eight story, it’s good to see these applications coming forward, so thank you.

Deputy Mayor, thank you Mr. Chair and I’m happy to second this. I think some good work has been done on this. I will say that while I appreciate the call my colleagues concerns with affordable units, I also think it’s important to note that 102 parking spaces on this site are gonna be accommodated through underground parking, not surface parking.

And that’s one of the trade offs we always have to make because whether it’s above ground or below ground, whenever you’re talking about parking that’s not surface parking, you’re adding considerably to the cost of a project. I think the last numbers that I’ve been quoted are between 70 and $75,000 per parking stall. So there is a trade off to some of these benefits and as much as I would like affordable, I also don’t want oceans of asphalt sprawling out too into surface parking lots either. So I think that the other thing to keep in mind with affordable is that sometimes the geography in terms of the physical location plays a factor in affordability too.

We know that some of the rental units that are in more out in the, I don’t wanna call it the full suburbs, but away from the core, I mean, the unit costs are always more expensive in those 35 story developments in the core and the smaller sort of 810 stories that are more out in the neighborhood levels tend to be a little bit more affordable in terms of the overall market numbers that we see in the city as well. So it’s one of those balancing acts, but I think that what we’ve got here is a really good proposal. I know traffic is always raised as a concern in almost three years on this committee. I don’t think I’ve yet seen an application come through that hasn’t had residents concerned about traffic impacts on their neighborhood, but by and large after the fact, when the buildings built out, those concerns end up not being substantiated in terms of the realities on the ground.

This was another location actually that Councilor Cuddy, it was a long Friday afternoon. He took me to all kinds of sites in his neck of the woods that we’re being looked at. And when I look at this one and where it’s location is, the traffic’s not all going to go onto here on street. It’s going to diffuse in a couple of different directions.

So I’m not, honestly, from a technical point of view, looking at the existing traffic volumes, I’m not really concerned that 143 units is gonna have a significant impact on the traffic flow in the area. And I will just say, I do agree with Councilor Frank, I don’t think there’s a good argument to be made for widening here on either. So I’m with you on that. So those are my comments.

I think this is a good proposal overall. Councilor Hopkins touched on this. And this is not the first time that this has been mentioned at this committee. To the folks at Civic, these fact sheets that you do are excellent.

It really helps encapsulate the work that you’ve done on your side of the application very well for us. I wish we saw more of these come forward. So keep doing that good work. It’s helpful for us to see as we review these applications.

And keep in mind, we are often reading these well after five o’clock on a Friday night because we’ve got to get through them as weekend homework before we come here on Monday to deal with them. So helping us absorb that information a little bit better is always welcome. Councilor Cuddy. Thank you and through you, Chair.

This is another exciting project. And just to echo what the Deputy Mayor mentioned, this is a very good applicant proposal. And the applicants have been excellent to work with. I had an opportunity to take my colleague, Councilor Stevenson for a drive out there.

And we, along with Deputy Mayor Lewis, so I do a lot of driving. And we spent a good hour with the planners and we talked about it. And we talked about a lot of the problems that the residents would have. And we think we have some solutions that we’re going to take to traffic.

And so I’m excited that this is a project that we share together on sort of on the border line. And I want to thank Deputy Mayor Lewis again for the support he’s given me on this one. It’s just an excellent project. And I will add one more thing in a make a comment about the applicants.

They’ve done some really cool things here. They actually had, when I met with planning to discuss this, they’d actually, planners that actually overcompensated for the number of underground parking spaces, which is something you don’t often see, I’m told. And so planning had them back it out and build more amenities, which is really cool. We’re going to have some really nice amenities in that area.

So again, to echo what Deputy Mayor Lewis said, this is a good company to work with. And I’m really happy and excited that it’s going on in Ward 3. Thank you. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote?

Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. I think it looks like a very nice development. So good job on design, great location, good use of infill, good density.

So thank you very much for doing all of that work. And thank you for staff as well. I would say I would love underground parking and affordable units, but I can be a bit pushy. So I’ll leave that for you to ponder, but that’s always on the floor with me.

Thank you. Okay, any other comments or questions? Seeing none, we have motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote.

Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you and moving on to 3.3 regarding 954 Gainesboro Road. I’ll offer a motion to open the PPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Hopkins, I’ll call that vote.

Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we do have the staff report, but I’m gonna ask staff for a verbal presentation on this one. Good afternoon, through the chair, this is Alison Curtis on behalf of planning and development. For item 3.3, which can be found on page 269 of the agenda package.

This application includes a proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning bylaw amendments for 954 Gainesboro Road. The proposal provides for three medium density blocks and five blocks for road allowances. A six-story U-shaped apartment building containing 190 units is proposed for block one. This block with front onto Gainesboro Road and the extension of Coronation Drive.

It is intended to serve as a gateway and transition to the low and medium density residential land uses to the south. Ms. Curtis. Yes.

Can I ask you to speak up just a bit? Yeah. Just wanna make sure we get all your words there. The applicant has indicated that a mix of one, two, and three bedroom units are proposed for the apartment building, including four townhouse units to be included at grade.

Predominantly, there will be one bedroom units within the apartment building. Street townhouses have been proposed for block two and cluster townhouses for block three. The proposed draft plan will be served by the extension of Sofia Crescent, which is classed as a neighborhood street and Coronation Drive, which would be classed as a neighborhood connector. Zoning bylaw amendments and special provisions have been requested by the applicant.

They include a residential R9-7 special provision zone for block one to allow for the development of an apartment building, a residential R4-5 special provision zone for block two to permit street townhouse development and a residential R5-5 zone for block three to permit cluster townhomes. That’s recommendation as it relates to the requested zoning bylaw amendment is in two parts. The first, which is clause A within the recommendations, represents the applicant’s original requested amendments. Staff have worked with the applicant through a process to revise their application.

Through that process, we also identified the need for holding provisions. So the second recommendation, which is clause B, includes both the revised requested zoning made by the applicant and holding provisions to ensure the orderly development of the lands. Thank you and staff are happy to address any questions you might have. Thank you.

Any technical questions for staff? Seeing none, then I’ll move to the applicant. Please give us your name and do you have five minutes? Good evening, everyone.

Through the chair, my name is Kaitlyn Crowley, planner with Selinka Priemmo, here on behalf of the owner for this application. I would first like to thank Allison and Bruce and their team at city staff in helping us get through this project and work through the proposed development. We have had several discussions with staff and I have read the staff’s report and recommendation. And we do agree with the recommendation put forward and to accept the zoning for blocks one, two, and three with the addition of their holding provisions.

We can agree to the addition of the holding provisions. Understanding that the purpose of these holding provisions is to provide for a more comprehensive servicing solution. We have initiated discussions with abutting property owners. So we will be working through those servicing agreements as well.

Upon reading staff’s report, there were some neighborhood concerns regarding green space, building design, community aesthetics, setbacks and height. To address those concerns, I would just like to note that these lands have been contemplated for residential development and that is essentially what we are trying to do here. The current UR zone is simply a placeholder for to create this more comprehensive development with abutting property owners and with the implementation of coronation drive and Sophia Crescent. This form scale and intensity of development is permitted in the London plan and it’s a form compatible with the abutting properties.

We have provided sufficient landscaped area on blocks one, two, and three up to the standards of the zoning by of the proposed zone. We have provided community benefit through the implementation of extending the planned coronation drive and Sophia Crescent. And we are allowing for adequate setbacks to the east and the south and providing a more transition between Gainesboro Road and Sophia Crescent and the neighbors to the south. Gainesboro Road will have the apartment building and then as you move further south, we have the townhouses.

The apartment building does provide for more prominent and complete streetscape along Gainesboro. And again, the townhouses just allow for that transition moving south. The proposed subdivision and zoning by-law amendment is a logical order of development and utilizes a variety of housing forms to provide for additional housing options in a way that both compliments the existing streetscape on Gainesboro and completes coronation drive while still remaining sensitive to the existing neighborhood. This subdivision is to form a new gateway around the proposed neighborhood connector and the existing Civic Boulevard.

And we would encourage council to support the proposed residential zoning on the property in order to proceed with the subdivision and site plan process where further design details can be coordinated and finalized. Thank you for your time this evening and I will be available to answer any technical questions. Thank you. Any technical questions for the applicant?

Thank you. None, we will move on to the public portion. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak to this particular application? Please sir, give us your name and do you have five minutes?

Can you turn it on? Is that on now? Yes, we got it. Okay, thank you.

My name is Bill Chauhan and I’m a property owner on the opposite side of this development. Just a question on transportation. I just wanted to know if there was a transportation impact assessment done on this application and also for shadowing. So our property is on the north side and I think we’re gonna be shadowed on it.

So those are my two questions. Okay, thank you. When we conclude the public participation meeting, I’ll ask those questions of staff. Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to address the committee? Asa Clerk, if there’s anyone online? Fabiana Bracino, please. Please go ahead, you have five minutes.

However, as online, this is your time to speak. Fabiana, please. Hi, yes, this is Fabiana. I do have a question and a concern regarding the grain and community spaces for the area.

It does feel like there’s a lot of higher buildings proposed or already built in the space and it feels like it’s getting very tight. There’s not enough spaces for us to walk around and feel either the open space or a sharing space that we can have as a community. So I would like to know what’s the plan regarding that? Thank you.

Are there any other concerns or questions you have? I also have, I would like to understand better what’s the idea with, I’m on the opposite on the other side on Sophia Crescent, just backing the potential building and I would like to know what’s the idea in terms of how the proximity of the building and our fence. So you’re questioning what’s gonna happen in the other side of the Crescent, is that correct? I understand that what’s happening on what would be your backyard is the proposed building.

I would like to know what’s the distance from the building to the fence, just to understand how it affects our privacy and our open space that we have at the back. We’re gonna have a big wall just built pretty close to us. I understand. Any other questions or concerns?

No other questions, no. Okay, thank you very much. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone else online that would wish to address the committee. Dave Pensillo.

Sir, you have five minutes, please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you very much for having us. Same thing with Fabiana is more about the privacy concerns regarding having such a big building right in front of us.

It is, it is like right now, as I can see it, like I’m just trying to imagine, is it overlooking to us and is it something that’s going to affect our privacy? That’s more of my concerns. And like again, thank you very much for having us and having to share our concerns and our input. Thank you, sir.

Any other folks that would like to speak online? Tushar, Rafael. Please go ahead, have five minutes. Hi, good evening, everyone.

Thanks for having us on this meeting. And I have the same concerns as Fabiana and Pensillo because we live in the same block and our backyards is just with the fencing where a big building is proposed. So same concerns regarding the privacy and the blockage of sun and all those kinds of stuff. So if you can, please comment on that.

Thank you and thanks again for having us. Have you taking our concerns? Thank you. Any other folks that would like to address the committee clerk online?

Through the chair, that’s everyone. Thank you. Looking up in the gallery, I see no one at the mic. So I will look for a motion to close the PPM.

Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So there are a couple of questions that were raised by the public, I want to go to staff. First of all, has there been a transportation study or a shadow study done for this particular application?

Through the chair, transportation impact assessment was not submitted. I don’t believe it was required as an item for a complete application. In terms of the shadow study, that will be reviewed more comprehensively through a future site plan application. Thank you.

There’s a concern of lack of green space. So I think I’ll go to staff first and just to comment on the green space in this particular application. Through you, Mr. Chair, the proposal itself was provided some landscape to open space on site.

The community is served by a woodlot to the south and then further to the south, there’s Coronation Parks, there’s a public park that’s within the distance of what the parks and rock master plan is, which is 800 meters for connection. So the neighborhood park would be to the south for these lands. Okay, thank you. There were some privacy concerns.

I’ll leave questions about that to committee. However, there was one specific question regarding the distance of the building to the fence of staff could comment on that, please. Included in the special provisions for the residential R9-7 zone for block one, which would accommodate the proposed apartment building. Relief from the zoning bylaw has been requested for a minimum interior side yard depth of seven meters.

And again, the future site plan application will look to mitigation measures in terms of potential impacts on adjacent properties. Thank you. So now I will open the floor to committee for discussion. Councillor Hopkins.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. And thanks for the comments from the community. Maybe just following up on one of the main things I heard about the lack of green space and the privacy that may be a concern and just reviewing some of the comments in the recommendation.

I’d like to have a better understanding. There is a wooded area on this property that is too small. It has no ecological significance. So is that going to be removed?

I know we have a tree preservation plan that is going to replace trees, but I’d like to have a better understanding what is required. The landscaping is 30% and 35%, which is sort of normal. But I wonder if I can have a better understanding what is going to be left and first question. Okay, we’ll go to staff on that regarding green space on the property.

Through you, Chair, the lands to the south that identified as the OS5, the remnant lands from Van Hork Woods, a portion of that land has been protected and in city ownership. These lands do not have any ecological value or connection with those woods, so they will be removed. There will be some studies undertaken that we’ll look at if there’s bat habitat or any other endangered species in there and if so, they’ll be accommodated. But the tree area to the south of the site where the street townhouses are being proposed will likely be removed.

Councilor. Okay, so that’s going to be removed. We’re going to be use swamping over the bat habitat to the other woods. I just want to know a little bit more about the parkland dedication.

There was no parkland dedication given. We have lieu of cash that the developer will be giving the city, but just want to have a better understanding of the green space that’s going to be left. Staff, through you, Chair, through our Parks Department, they did analysis and determined that there wasn’t a land or they didn’t require parkland in that area. You’re correct in that the applicant through his development at the time of building permit under By-law CP25 will provide parkland dedication and that will go into the reserve fund.

But there was not a requirement from our Parks Department for parkland in this area. Councillor. Okay, and then the other concern or question I heard from the public was around the fencing. What is the fencing going to look like?

Staff, sorry, I think I caught the last end of that, but it was about fencing. It will be fencing applied through our site plan process and would be evaluated during that application. Typically they would be board on board fencing adjacent to the residential properties to the east. Councillor.

So with this application going forward then, I know staff have in their recommendation. Well, I’d like to hear a little bit more from committee members, but given the concerns of the buffering, the natural vegetation, a lot of it being removed, some will be compensated. I wonder if we can do a better job allowing for the buffering. As you can see, the house is going along the property there.

The typical board on that fencing, but I wonder if there’s an opportunity. Maybe it’s a question to staff then, Mr. Chair, for you to staff. How will staff be reviewing the site plan process when it comes to buffering and tree preservation going forward?

Good staff, thank you through the chair. Site plan typically looks for the six foot board on board fence as Mr. Page indicated along those property lines that are lower residential density forms of development that generally with the fencing, you look to do plantings as well. There’s a certain separation distance for tree planting that would happen along those interfaces.

And in addition to that would be also complemented by any sort of setbacks that are required through the zoning by-law as well, which would ensure things like green space, amenity space potentially as well. So without an actual proposal in front of us can’t speak to specifics, but those would be the generals that would happen through the site plan process. Councillor. I wonder if some of the recommendations coming from the public can be noted in the zoning application just to account or to look at the buffering privacy and tree retention, if there’s a slight amendment I’d like to make in this recommendation, I’d like to put that forward if that’s possible.

Maybe I’ll go through you to staff if that’s a concern. Ms. McEaly. Thank you through the chair.

On clause C of the recommendation, it does identify that the committee to report to the approval authority, any issues if raised, and that would be the clause that you may want to add that additional language. I’d like to put that forward and see then. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair.

I’m going to move the staff recommendation and I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder and then I’m going to speak to it. But I think that we need to be cognizant of the fact that this is, as the applicant pointed out, this is land that has long been intended for development. It is within the urban growth boundary. And well, certainly things like privacy fencing and landscaping are important.

And I don’t mean this with any disrespect to the public who expressed some concerns about privacy. But when you are moving into what is a fairly new and developing subdivision, an open lot beside you is likely not going to remain open forever. It is privately held and it is going to be developed at some point and we are at that point where we have a development application to bring in some additional residential. I’m satisfied with the buffering.

I know that the staff recommendation actually talks about the refusal and then the application of holding provisions to then approve it. So that the holding provisions are there to protect and ensure that some of those concerns are addressed, that all of those things are taken into account through site plan and building permit processes so that everything follows as according to our policies and plans. So with the holding provisions in there, I’m very supportive of that. I think it also bears highlighting that the proportion of this property where the woodland is being referred to was the subject of an OMB decision many, many years ago.

So it was already decided that there was not a significance here that this was acceptable for redevelopment for residential. I don’t have the page in the report exactly, but I believe the OMB decision goes back to 2006 or thereabouts. So it’s been decided for a while that this was eventually going to be redeveloped and we’re at that point today. So that’s the reason I’m moving this and I think that with the holding provisions that are in place, we will be addressing some of the concerns through an appropriate site plan review.

So we’ve got a motion on the floor and I see Councilor Hillier roll second it. I see the word counselor has joined us. So Councilor Raman, I’ll go to you now for your comments. Thank you and through you.

I want to start by thanking the applicant for being here this evening and for the presentation by staff and the consideration given by staff to the holding provisions. I think that there was considerable discussion and input between the developer and our city staff on what should be done here on this location. Some of you may recall that this application actually started with a nine story building and then through discussion became a six story building and that the building which is building one actually fronts onto Gainesboro. So I understand the concerns absolutely of the neighborhood and I do understand some additional concerns because there’s two applications that are actually being discussed in the neighborhood at the same time.

But this one is actually for the smaller building that is of six stories. I agree that there are some concerns with green space in the area. The one thing when I was looking at this proposal and I was here, I was there today as well in the neighborhood looking at the site and walking the site and getting a sense of the distance from the site with Coronation Drive not opened up to the closest park. This application which also sees the extension of Coronation Street to me is a very strategic link between the green space on the other side, Coronation Park North so that there is that ability to get to that park across Gainesboro of which we’re also putting a traffic light there that’s already planned for.

So that there will be more pedestrian and active transportation in the area. Now I will say with that caveat, I will be talking to our parks department about some enhancements to that park. I did have a question about cash and lieu in the area and sorry, cash and lieu for parks and whether or not that could be applied specific to a park in the area. I know that this has come up before but hope to just put that out there again because this is a very active park and needs some additional activation to support the neighborhood.

Speaking to the rest of the development, I understand the concerns from neighbors around privacy concerns with the additional townhouses that would be backing onto. Sophia Crescent, I hear those concerns. I think that there’s opportunity to address that and I think the holding provision does already speak to that. I don’t see a need for an addition to that holding provision at all.

Any additional languages or amendments because I do feel like that was considered from city staff during this refusal and then the holding provision and recommendation. So I think in general, the application, it fits with the character of the neighborhood. It fits with the type of density that’s already there and I do see that this extension of coordination, that strategic link that we’re talking about will help to give access for the neighborhood to the other green space as well as provide for more pedestrian activation. I can see people going over to Ungers and other local businesses in the area using that link.

So I understand that the concerns around the neighborhood, I will continue to work with neighbors and hear those concerns and as we go through this process, but I’m supportive of the application. Thank you. Councilor, you had a question there regarding cash and new and I wasn’t too clear if that was a question you want me to go to staff on or was that more of a hypothetical? I think it was, yeah, through you chair, I think it was a question and a wishful, thinking kind of a wish list of whether or not it’s possible for cash and new to be contemplated at a local park when it has an implication on green space in the area.

So I’ll go to staff on the councilor’s question through you chair. The parkland education bylaw itself goes into a parkland reserve fund so it isn’t isolated into specific areas. It goes into the general fund and then through the work plan that our parks department has, they would be doing upgrades accordingly. So each individual neighborhood park is allocated a certain amount of funds based on DCs and that’s what provides the amenities within each of the parks.

And then the reserve fund is there for augmentation of additional features or the acquisition of future parkland. Councilor Amman, is that— Thank you, yeah, that’s kind of what I knew to be the case that it was a general reserve fund, but you know, I was hoping, I was hopeful. But I do think that there is the opportunity for further discussion with neighbors around the green space as well as that beautiful tree lot that’s already on the space. I think because of the amount of construction that’s been ongoing in the neighborhood, it’s been difficult for folks to really appreciate that woodlot because there’s been so many, so much construction vehicles and things around there.

And as development wraps up in the coming years in that area, there will be an opportunity to appreciate that space a little bit more. Okay, thank you. Any other questions or concerns? We have a motion that’s been seconded.

Seeing none, then I will call the vote. Just submitted, please, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for recognizing me. Just before we do vote, I just wanna make sure that the comments that we heard here this evening from residents, especially around the green space conversation will be noted in clause C going forward.

So I’ll call the staff, the Councilor’s concerns just regarding this clause C cover we heard today. Through you, Chair, we could, through the committee here, add additional language that it gives direction to the site plan approval authority to consider through that process. But as mentioned, the H holding provision that does cover through our normal practice in terms of the site plan control by-law, the mitigation measures that we apply as a standard through fencing and other mitigation measures. So, and they can’t enter into a development agreement until that’s part of that process and the holding provision is removed as part of the development agreement being entered into.

Is the Councilor satisfied the holding provisions cover your concerns? Yeah, I’m satisfied. I forgot about the holding provision, but I think it’s really important that when we hear concerns from the community, the lack of green space in the area, in particular, I know the buffering is concerned. I know there were a number of issues could raise, but it’s important that they be brought forward through the process.

So, I’m supportive of the recommendation. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So, I will call the vote at this time.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.4. This is regarding 755, 785 and 815 Wonderland Road South, essentially West Mount Mall. I’m going to go to staff for a presentation on this.

It’s an interesting item before us. Excuse me, I apologize. Once again, I’m too quick. Need a motion to open the PPM.

Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

No, I will go to staff for your presentation. Please go ahead. Thank you. Ainslie Hovias from the city solicitor’s office, just to provide a brief explanation about nuance in this application.

So, an appeal has actually already been filed to the Ontario Land Tribunal. What we refer to as a non-decision appeal. So, the legislative clock ran out from the time that the application was submitted and it didn’t get to PEC in accordance with that timeline. So, the applicant did choose to file an appeal.

So, what that means is that the ultimate decision will be made by the Ontario Land Tribunal, but this is here as a public participation meeting as in the normal course to obtain the views of the public and that information will all be considered by the tribunal. So, the same three options are before you, like in all other planning applications to either accept the application as submitted by the applicant, which is not the staff recommendation, or to refuse the application as submitted by the applicant, or a third option, which is to refuse, but support a revised version and that is the staff recommendation. So, planning staff will expand on the differences between what the applicant applied for and what staff are recommending. Is there any technical questions right now for staff?

I’m sure everyone has a lot of questions, but maybe we’ll hold those off until we get through to the PPM. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this in the gallery today? Please go ahead, sir. Please state your name and you have five minutes.

Just a point of order. I didn’t know if you wanted the staff presentation to go before the applicant. Well, I didn’t know if the applicant was here. I am representing the applicant.

Then I would like to go to you, sir, where we will get to staff recommendations after we go through the public process, but now is your chance to address the committee. Good evening, members of council. My name is Casey Kolchicki. I’m a senior associate with Linkopramo Limited.

I’m representing the 785 Wonderland Road Inc, the applicant on the proposed development of the West Mount Mall property. I do want to thank staff. We have met several times over the course of this application, but it became apparent that there was a bit of a divide between what the applicant was looking to do and the property and what staff was willing to support. So that was the motivation to filing the appeal.

We are still hopeful that we can continue to meet with staff during the run-up to the hearing in the hopes of resolving this issue before it goes to a full OLC hearing. We have reviewed the report that’s before you, and while we are disappointed that our revised application didn’t gain as much traction as we were hoping for with staff, we are generally in support of the residential component that is proposed before you tonight. There are a couple of things that I would note. We are still of the opinion that the Wonderland Road corridor could support additional height and density upwards of 16 stories and potentially up to 200 units per hectare.

When you look at the bigger picture contextually, we are just north of the Wonderland Road Enterprise Corridor, which when you look at its planning policy framework, envisioned a mixed-use corridor of high-density residential and commercial uses. As that corridor has built out, it has been primarily large-format commercial uses. The high-density residential hasn’t really been realized as the policy envisioned. We think that there is an opportunity to have some of that residential development essentially transferred into the West Mount Mall property to help this property redevelop itself, given that the fact that a significant commercial development here is pretty much no longer viable given the Enterprise Corridor.

The second component that we differ in greatly with the staff recommendation is around the office component. The policy calls for a maximum of 2,000 square meters for the shopping area place type, and that’s shared amongst not only the West Mount Mall property, but any some additional commercial properties that are in the area. The existing policy as written, or the existing zoning as written, actually permits upwards of almost 5,000 square meters of commercial in the office mall as of right. And through past planning administrative decisions, that cap has actually emitted medical dental and public uses.

So West Mount Mall has been able to accumulate close to 14,000 square meters of office space existing today. And that has been vital in maintaining a lifeline to this property while its commercial component has been degraded over the years. Without that office component, the building, which currently sits at 31% vacant, would be probably a shell, it would just be an empty shell. And while I recognize that the policy framework speaks about protecting the downtown and directing the major office uses to the downtown core, a lot of that policy framework was formulated based on a 2016 market study.

This market study was done seven years ago and before COVID. COVID has had a significant impact on office demand. We have seen in urban centers, including London, office buildings being converted for residential uses in their cores, because the demand for downtown office space is no longer there. Fundamentally, an office is essentially anywhere you can get an internet signal these days.

So it’s no longer the downtown core versus the suburbs. It’s really London versus southwestern Ontario and beyond. And while we’re trying to keep this property viable, we’re also trying to keep London competitive in the office market. And we’ve had numerous inquiries from people from outside of London looking to move offices to a more cost-effective market.

And we’ve unfortunately had to turn those people away. And they don’t hang up the phone with us and call the downtown core. They call Strathroy or Stratford or Woodstock, St. Thomas.

They just take their business to another jurisdiction. So we’re trying to not only keep this property viable, turn it back into the community hub that it once was, but keep London competitive in the office market. Thank you. Thank you.

If anyone else from the public that would like to address the committee on this application, please give us your name and have five minutes. We can hear you. Yeah, hi, Chair. My name is George Howey.

I’m a resident of Westmount, long term, over 20 years. I’ve been witness to the reconstruction of them all when they demolished. And then post putting in the movie theater. And where I live, I’m on the south side of Village Green.

And I’ve been inundated with noise pollution that’s only increased over the years. And now post-COVID, basically, Wonder Land Road is just a complete congestion, pretty much daily and into the late evening hours. And also, during the active hours of the cinema, we’re impacted as well with vehicles, traffic, and what have you. So this particular project, I understand the need for residential.

I understand, as I think it’s Fram, she mentioned earlier about housing, low income housing. But the size of this project is literally, in my view, almost like a Lego land. I think what it will do for our area is almost create a ghetto. And I’m really concerned about the next generation.

I have a son. I have neighbors that have young children. And the sound impact alone on the size of this development, in my view, would probably be a decade, or maybe even longer, depending if they were even able to accomplish finishing it. From what I can see, just the structure to build buildings within the mall, just to incorporate that, would probably be lengthy.

And as I said, I’m kind of surprised there isn’t more residents here. But I did put in a letter of opposition. But yeah, I just think that right now with how traffic and the sound issues and almost the size of the structure, I mean, Ryan, I’ll be completely blocked out of the sunlight. So yeah, that’s definitely a concern.

So thank you for your time for listening to me. Appreciate it. Thank you. So anyone else that would like to address the committee, please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Yep, hello. My name is Troy Frederick. I am also a resident on Village Green. And I was talking to my wife about our issues with this.

So I kind of— we got kind of a big list, but I’ll compile it down to save some time into categories. So primarily, our concerns is with health and safety in the area. We have a one-year-old and a four-year-old who our outdoor space kind of backs on to the north end of this property where the tallest towers are proposed to go. And just for a little background, I’m a plumber in a high-rise setting, mainly new builds.

So I’ve been around construction sites, and I know that when concrete is being finished to take care of imperfections, they grind it, and they sand it, they scan it. And all that dust comes down on sites that I’ve been working at before. It only takes a couple hours for dust to accumulate on all the cars in the parking lot or in the area. So now, depending on where the wind blows, all that dust is going to be falling into our little outdoor space where I have my kids’ toys and where they’re going to be spending time outside when it’s warm.

The exhaust from concrete mixers and the pumps that’ll be there, and they’re running constantly while they’re working. That’s also right to the back of our property. Noise pollution, just to pick it back on what George was saying, sunlight as well. If there has not been a study on shadowing on the property, will that be done?

If so, will that information be public? And again, if the study shows that shadowing will occur and block all the light from those residents on Village Green, will anything be done about that or will they just move forward? I would like to know if there’s going to be some accountability for that? And just on a broader issue, again, just to piggyback, the wonderland.

If anyone’s driven on wonderland after 4 p.m., it’s insane. The whole Southwest is going to be affected by that. There’s traffic backed up through intersections for that whole stretch. So I think that’s about it for my concern.

Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? I would like to address the committee from the gallery.

Please, sir, give us your name, and you have five minutes. My name is Edward Slavinsky. I live at 743 Woodcrest Boulevard. This is at the west end of the West Mount Mall.

It’s a street that’s one block, long and the same as the mall. I’ve lived there for 34 years and put up with the problems of when the mall was expanding, et cetera. My concern is when would this start and when would this end? Secondly, as I understand it from real estate people, that the property that we own will devaluate once this starts.

And of course, when it’s finished, then it will increase. I’m 83 years old. Will I live to see the increase? I’m also president of a group of 15 Woodcrest Homeowners Association, which I represent.

I’m wondering if the sewers will need replacement. As I understand from people who own homes at the north end of our street, that’s where it meets Village Green, that they have problems with water back up when it rains heavily in their basement. We don’t have it at present, but will we have it once all the extra sewage is added? I have one other question.

How many apartments would the city gain if empty downtown office space was used? Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the gallery?

Seeing none, I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online that would like to address the committee. Wendy Murray, please. Ms. Murray, please go ahead.

You have five minutes. Hi, thank you. Can you hear me OK? We can.

OK, thank you. My name’s Wendy Murray. I live on Woodcrest Boulevard. I’m very concerned about this project and the impacts to my community and my home directly, obviously.

I spoke with Ms. Sonia Wise and Mr. Councillor Van Nierbergen in January to voice my concerns about this project. And I was ensured at that time that the developer was going to be posting a meeting to address some of our questions and concerns, which, to this point, has not happened, which is unfortunate.

So I guess I have several concerns. Again, as the gentleman that all spoke before me, I have very much concerns about the Wonderland Road access. Anybody who has driven on Wonderland Road recently understands the sheer congestion of the street. I don’t know if it can accommodate the volume of traffic that would be not just introduced once the project is completed, but the construction vehicles that are going to have to be entering this community, which I’m assuming will eventually have to move through our community streets.

There’s a huge safety concern for that, obviously. Not to mention the fact that we have three schools across the road from this project. We have children moving in and out of this area, school buses, the sheer congestion that that’s going to cause. I know that in previous improvements that were made to them all many years ago, the homes on Wood Press Boulevard suffered some damages.

We have cracked drywall, broken windows, cracks in the foundation. I don’t understand how this mall is going to be able to support these towers without some sort of underpinning. So I’m assuming there’s going to be power driving going on. I’d like to know if any damages to our homes is going to be covered by the developer, who’s going to be responsible for the damage, the fixing of these, the potential devaluing of my home, not to mention the noise and air pollution that some of the other gentlemen spoke about.

The dust, again, power driving, what’s going to be happening with these children at the schools? Will they be able to play outside during this construction? Will they even be able to concentrate on their studies with the amount of noise pollution that is surely going to be encountered with this incredibly ambitious project? The homes on Wood Press Boulevard obviously have a forested area behind them, which is absolutely beautiful, but does reduce the amount of sunlight coming into our homes.

Now with towers in our front, again, has a shadow study been done? Will that information be shared with the public? Am I going to be living in the shadow in the front and the back of my home? The other thing I have a question about is, my understanding is this project is going to be potentially 20 or 30 years long.

It’s a very ambitious project. Who is going to want to buy the homes around us, knowing that they’re going to be in a construction zone for that duration of time? I have another question too with regards to the downtown core as well. We have a very large amount of unoccupied office space down in the core.

Can that be converted? And what makes the developer think that someone’s going to come to the suburb to rent office space when there’s so much downtown that’s unrented? And with the number of people now working from home, will they ever be able to rent out 30,000 square meters? That’s a very ambitious plan.

I’m also concerned about parking. We have 950 underground parking spots under the mall and a potential for 900 units. Where are these people going to park? There are three buildings that are potentially going to be in the parking lot now.

And how many town homes? Where are people parking? Are they going to expand the underground? Again, underpinning, pile driving.

You’re going to be losing so much outdoor parking with the potential, the proposed buildings. I don’t understand how anybody is going to be able to park here, not to mention the increased traffic into and out of our community. We do not have the bus services to support this. How is the site going to do service?

The developer has not engaged the public at all, have not asked our opinion at all. I heard that another developer from a previous session here tonight has engaged the public. This developer has ignored us. So there are many concerns that us as the public have.

And I think before anything happens, we need the developer to address us. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

There are anyone else on the online clerk? Through the chair, there’s no one else on Zoom. OK, thank you. Looking in the gallery, I don’t see anyone else looking to address the committee.

So I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Hawkins, all the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. So there are a couple of questions raised in the PPM that I’d like to just go to staff on.

First of all, regarding a shadow study, has there been any shadow study done? If it has or will be, will that study be released to the public? And how will the impact of that shadow study be addressed? Mr.

Chair, good evening. This is Sonia Wise. I’m a planner on the file. I did have some slides in a brief presentation if you wanted an overview of the site and the alternative recommendation.

Please go ahead. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to present. Hopefully, this gets out ahead of some of the comments that were made, and then we can follow up with any of the specific questions.

So the site is the West Mount Mall. It has frontage on Wonderland, Viscount, Woodcrest to the West, and then Village Green to the North. It doesn’t include the corner property, which was recently severed off. This is a rendering showing the proposed development.

So the development is about 16 stories or 18 stories if the full request of 55 meters is realized. There is a request for 30,000 square meters of office gross floor area, about 900 residential units, about 2,500 parking spaces, a density up to 200 units per hectare, and a new request for a call center. This is what the applicant has proposed in terms of overall heights. So starting clockwise on Wonderland up to about six stories, along Wonderland, and then up to 16 stories on the east side of the mall.

Along Viscount, about two to eight stories from Woodcrest, increasing to 10, and then 16 to the corner of Wonderland, and then to the north of the site about one to three stories at the corner of Woodcrest and Village Green, and then three to six stories to the north. In terms of our policy framework, settlement areas are the focus for growth and development, but it also does note in our PPS, our Provincial Policy Statement, that downtown should be maintained, and where possible their viability should be enhanced. So this site is well outside of the downtown, but in terms of impacts, its planning impacts really need to be considered with the city wide lines. Our London plan has a city structure plan, so that identifies a hierarchy of centers.

The downtown is our most intensive, with the broadest range of uses. It’s also the primary office center for the city, and then our transit villages, our corridors, and then finally the shopping areas. So this permits residential uses up to about six stories in height, and up to about 2,000 square meters of office gross floor area. There’s also specific area policies that include criteria to consider new requests, and one of them is that there be no adverse impact to other parts of the plan.

There were 14 public comments that were submitted with two in support, and the remainder with concerns that I think were well expressed by the community. So in terms of staff issues, the amount of office space that’s requested, it’s significantly over the 2,000 that is permitted. So 30,000 square meters of office space is requested, 2,000 is permitted as the maximum. This is a significant increase, and it competes with the downtown as the primary office center.

We have multiple planning policies and initiatives that call for revitalization of the downtown and maintaining it as the primary destination, and allowing this type of office space in a suburban area could be precedent setting, and it also does undermine the role of the downtown. The new definition for a call center essentially could allow for that same amount of office space outside of the downtown, simply under a new name as a call center. So that isn’t supported. And then some of the comments that were related to things like shadowing, relate to urban design and overall layout.

So there’s a fair amount of detail that’s lacking for this proposal. This was supposed to go to our urban design peer review panel, but unfortunately couldn’t be scheduled as there wasn’t enough detail related to the urban design elements. Some basic fundamentals of our city design policies are also not met through the details that are available. So things like creating an active street edge through the building location and orientation, screening parking behind, building location.

What we’ve seen is a preference or priority to locate a lot of the intensity proposed on top of the existing mall, and to maintain a lot of the existing surface parking lots as is. There’s also much more of a focus in terms of providing comfortable pedestrian connections, amenity areas, tree planting, open spaces, which are all again missing. And then also the transition to existing neighborhoods. So to the West and to the North, there are low rise residential areas, and we think better transition could be accomplished there.

The last point regarding the sanitary capacity. So this intensity is above the population originally contemplated. There are capacity constraints here. This is due to significant wet weather flows in the West Mount sanitary system and increased inflow and infiltration.

So what staff is recommending to acknowledge that the site does have some development potential. It’s an alternative recommendation that’s a bit more moderate in terms of the scale of development and better aligns with the role of the shopping center in the city structure. So just looking at this graphic to the east and south of the site in the red, residential uses could be contemplated up to 12 stories here. The yellow, which would be to the north and to the west, would serve as a transition area, and that would permit up to about three stories of residential.

And then the remainder of the site could support about six stories, more moderate, and provide a transition from the low to high. So my final slide, the requested amendments, just to recap, staff do not consider this to be consistent with the provincial policy statement, nor to conform to the London plan. It doesn’t achieve fundamental urban design outcomes. It doesn’t undermine the downtown as the primary office destination.

It includes a residential intensity that would be more appropriate in a more strategic growth area of the city, such as a transit village. The alternative recommendation is consistent with the provincial policy statement and conforms to the London plan. It allows for more moderate infill and redevelopment opportunities, and includes holding provisions to provide additional details to facilitate orderly development, to allow for further public involvement and to ensure sanitary capacity is available for any type of development. I’d be happy to take questions if there are any specifics regarding public comment.

Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. So I’ll go to committee for discussion. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

So I’ll start us off here, Mr. Chair, with some discussion. I actually want to have a little bit of discussion first. Normally I want to get a motion on the floor, but I’m not sure I want to support either.

The applicants or the staff recommendation at the moment. I’m quite aware of the desire. So I’m going to start with the downtown office-based issue. And where sites are acceptable and not acceptable.

And I heard some comments from the public. So I think I want to address those first. It’s really critical to understand that not every office building is going to be suitable for conversion to residential. But just a week or so ago, through one of our other standing committees, we passed some direction to staff to start developing a community improvement plan that would consider how we can start those conversions where they’re appropriate, where a landlord is willing to undertake those conversions.

So we’re certainly looking at those. We recognized in our planning and development that there are actually three classes of office space, A, B, and C class. Most of our vacancy challenges are in the B and C class areas in the downtown. And so this is where I get hung up.

We’ve actually got some social service offices of the city located at West Mount Mall. MPAC, a provincial entity has office space at West Mount Mall. I would argue that MPAC is exactly the kind of office space we want downtown. We’ve allowed that there.

So I struggled to say that we are going to focus all of our office focus on the downtown. And obviously, dental, medical, we don’t require, we do allow some exceptions for those to be out in suburban areas. And the one that I struggle with was highlighted in the staff presentation. And I actually think we do need to come up with a new definition for call centers.

Because I think we need to understand that call centers are fairly labor intensive in terms of the number of people using them. But they’re not terribly high profit margin operations. And so if they have to compete with the square footage rates for office space downtown, because we won’t let them locate in some of these commercial shopping areas, they’re going to go to other communities. They’re not going to come to London.

We’re not going to have the income. We’re not going to have the productive workers. We’re not going to have any of the benefits of jobs coming here. And we can debate whether call centers are valuable jobs or not.

I know I very much appreciate the notifications I get on my cell phone that say likely spam, because I don’t answer the call. And I suspect that folks in call centers are generating a number of those. But they can easily find some cheaper square footage in St. Thomas or in Woodstock or wherever.

And I do think that the London plan and the uses in 2016 are out of date in that regard. So I do think that regardless of what we do with this application, I think we really have to have a discussion about not just office location in the downtown, but what kind of office use in the downtown makes sense for the downtown. So that’s a concern. I think that the residential intensification that’s proposed here is very desirable.

I know we have not designated West Mount Mall, any transit village area, but I don’t see what the applicant is requesting here as really much different than what we’ve already started to move forward with in the Masonville secondary plan and the redevelopment there. I think these four, or actually the development at Wellington and Bradley that we proved in the last term of council as well adjacent to White Oak Small. I think these shopping districts are areas where we want to encourage residential infill and development because then people don’t have to travel as far or necessarily even have to travel by car to access some of the services that are available right on site or right next door. That said, similar to the last or to the first application in our scheduled items tonight, I’m hearing that sewer capacity is a concern.

So that is a concern for me too. I do not want to approve zoning for infill where we don’t have sufficient capacity to provide the necessary services to be blunt. When we flush a toilet, we want the sewer services to work. We want the waste to go away.

And so that is a bit of a concern for me that that has been flagged. When I read through this report, my initial reaction was refer it back to staff for more discussion and provide perhaps some direction on some of the things we might be comfortable with and some of the things that are still sticking points. However, we have an appeal in because the statutory deadline’s already passed. So now I’m not sure exactly what I want to do with it because obviously this is going to end up in front of the Ontario land tribunal either way.

So those are some of my preliminary thoughts to share. I do think that we’ve looked at Wonderland Road traffic. I know that we are still rolling out our intelligent traffic signal management system. I know I got the acronym wrong ‘cause the acronym is actually Tim’s.

So I didn’t start with a T. So somebody on staff can correct me on the actual acronym, but we have some work to do on traffic flow, but I’m also mindful of the fact that there are times and I was just out to Wonderland Road a week or so ago on a Wednesday for a meeting with somebody. Middle of the afternoon, I was able to travel pretty easily. I recognize that peak times, that may not be the case, but we have to consider what’s reasonable.

And I think that it’s going to be incumbent on all of us. And I’m not just speaking to residents in this neighborhood. I spoke to a grade five class in the East End this morning and asked them how many people were dropped off at school this morning by car and way too many hands went up in the room. And so I challenged their Eco Club to consider a bike to school club that they would initiate as well to try and cut down on those car trips.

So we’ve all got to change our behavior a little bit. The car, Councillor Frank will roll her eyes at me ‘cause she’s heard me say this before. I fully admit the car is not going away and the sooner it goes electric, the better. But some small behavioral changes on our parts in terms of the times of day we go out to make a grocery run or whatever can make a difference in terms of our traffic experience too.

So I think the Wonderland Road can handle the traffic. I have real concerns about the sanitary sewer capacity and I have ongoing concerns about the call centers. But that’s a broader discussion. That’s not even particular to this application.

I think we have to re-envision how we’re treating those or we’re just gonna lose out on those opportunities to other communities. So I wanna hear what other members of the community have to say. I know the word Councillors with us. I’d like to hear his thoughts ‘cause I’m actually at a loss right now as to which direction I wanna go on this.

Thank you and before I go to other committee members or visiting Councillor, there were some questions raised in the PPM that I’d just like to address with staff that we went to the presentation before I got to that. With regards to shadow study, has one been done? If one has been done or will be done, would it be released to the public and what would be done with regarding the impacts that the shadow study identified? Thank you, Mr.

Chair. A shadow study has not been provided for this application. If one does become available, it would be shared through the website most likely. And we use that information to consider the impacts on adjacent properties.

If there would be things like increased setbacks required to mitigate some of the shadow impacts or if they’re acceptable and appropriate. Okay, thank you. And another question was regarding timing of this, a start and end date. So I would like to go to the applicant.

If you can provide us, I know this is rather complex question. But generally speaking, what time are we looking for from start of construction to final end of project? Yeah, certainly. So as you know, it’s kind of a complex issue.

A full build out of a site this size and a development of the scale. It is a 20 to 30 year build out of something of the scale. It would be a phased process. Phase one, which would look to start construction as soon as possible would be some of the buildings on the existing structure along the Wonderland Road corridor.

Phase two pending is kind of where the existing movie theater is. We are seeing movie theaters struggle a little bit post COVID. So where their lease is going to be expiring in the short term and if they continue to renew, great. If they choose not to renew their next lease, then phase two would be the demolition of the movie theater and construction of some medium density housing.

And then following that, it’s kind of where the ownership group feels is next advantageous to start with the next phase. So it’s phase one is kind of the Wonderland Road corridor. Phase two is potentially the movie theater. Three, four, and five is kind of anybody’s guess, but it’s, like I said, it’s a 20 to 30 year build out given the scale.

Okay, thank you. There was also a question regarding damages to homes surrounding area during the construction phase, dust, et cetera. I think it was addressed a bit in the presentation. What is the, is this something the city does to mitigate that type of impact from a construction or is that a private matter between the developer and surrounding private property?

Through the chair, if this was a private run contract and a private contractor, that would be run through a private company and their whatever kind of insurance would be part of that project. Thank you. There was a question raised about if offices downtown were converted to apartments. That question, I don’t think anyone has the answer.

It’s looking too much into a crystal ball. It depends on too many factors there. What I would like to do before I continue the discussion with committee, I’d just like to go to staff to, this is before the OLT, their hearing has been held yet, what are the three, I understand there’s three options we could go here or correct me if I’m wrong, just explicitly ask the committee for what you are looking for from us today. Through you, Mr.

Chair, we’re looking for a direction as to which position to take at the OLT. So option one is to agree with and support the application that was submitted, which is not staff’s recommendation. Option two would be to refuse the application as submitted. And option three would be to refuse the application as submitted, but endorse a modified proposal.

So a bylaw that does advance some intensification, but not to the scale that has been proposed. Okay, thank you. So now I’ll go back to committee members for discussion. Councilor Oppens.

Yeah, so I might as well start off, I would like to hear from the ward councilor as well, but I think I’m just going to maybe just follow up with a few comments starting with the deputy mayor. I’m glad he is not referring this back. I think that is going to be a no-win situation ‘cause this type of application from West Mount Mall has been before us for the past number of years in different ways and in different forms. And there is this desire that keeps on coming back to this committee to increase the office space.

That’s what I’ve heard. I appreciate the residential conversation and the additional units that are coming forward, not to the intensity that is being brought forward by the applicant. I appreciate the applicant coming forward, but I would really encourage the applicant if he was going to do or want this application to go forward, the more consultation should be done, in particular with the community. This is going to affect the community extremely.

Basically is in the middle of a community. And I know there are a few schools to the self, but it is an area that is going to see exactly extreme changes and it will just make more sense if there’s more consideration given. I want to more or less touch upon West Mount Mall as it exists now and I know this small very well. And I appreciate there are offices there.

There are a number of medical dental offices already there. Impact is there, but the doors of impact have been closed for quite a long time. So this mall is very, very empty. And I appreciate the desire of the applicant to get it filled, but I’m not supportive of the application of this applicant.

And the main reason, I think, is that it is too high, too much, it is going to adversely affect our downtown. And I know we don’t really understand how offices are going to look like, but I do know one thing, 30,000 is a lot. And it is really going to transform our offices in our city. They’re not going to be downtown.

They’re going to be at West Mount Mall, which I think is quite a surprise. The deputy mayor mentioned a couple of things about changing policies in our office spaces. And maybe we do need to look at that, but I think before we approve a zoning application, we should really understand what our policies look like. Because reading this report, they have been successful, our office policy.

It has created offices downtown. I’m more in favor. I’m willing to hear other comments from my colleagues here, but to refuse and to endorse the staff’s recommendation, I think makes a little bit more sense. We know this is at the OLT, we know OLT is hopefully going to want to know what the city of London thinks of this application.

And this is an opportunity for us to give input to the OLT process. I would think that it is really important that we really take a good look at this development. And I will be supporting, unless I’m convinced otherwise, but to go with the staff’s recommendation. Councilor, are you making a motion to do that?

Yeah, that is well started off. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder for Councilor’s motion. Councilor Frank, so we have a motion on the floor. That’s been seconded, so let’s talk to that.

I think maybe the award councilor, it would be a good time to hear from you. Councilor Van Mirbergen, please go ahead. Thank you very much, Chair. The fact of the matter is this proposal is truly transformative.

I mean, it’s just huge in its breadth. And it’s taking, by and large, what has been a non-performing entity with a lot of space. And I don’t mean just inside the building, but also around it. And proposing some really, really constructive use.

So I give full credit to the property management company and to the ownership group of what they’re trying to achieve with the Westmount property. The matter is they’ve taken great strides to keep this building and this property from Scranton and turning into just an empty shell, which carries a whole host of other issues and problems. They’ve really been thinking outside the box. They’ve been trying very hard to make, certainly inside the mall, more productive.

We know there have been very instrumentally new creative ways to use this space, not an entity. And yes, it does include daily reptilian 30,000 square feet that was used. And that’s already spin-offs in the mall with other eating as spent away. Oh, there’s a lot here to certainly be hoping about and that we should feel good that there’s an entity that’s trying to revitalize this particular part of London and this particular property.

But if I could, I’d like to ask a specific question of the applicant’s representative. And that is it was brought up in the PPM. There was a meeting hosted by the applicant that was advertised and then it was canceled. Is there any rationale or reasoning as to why it is canceled and will there be another one in the future?

So the applicant, the question of the counselor is there was apparently a public meeting posted and then it was canceled. Are you planning a future public meeting? Maybe the rationale behind the cancellation of the one that was scheduled? Certainly, so through you, Mr.

Chair, to the ward counselor, there was no community open house specific to this application proposed. The ownership had, that was in relation to a previous application on the property, that that application was withdrawn. So there was no need to hold the community open house at that time. And then the ownership group for this application just did not wish to proceed to a community open house.

Thank you, Councilor. Okay, if I can follow up. Could that be requested of the ownership group? Because I think there’s a point, a gap, information and understanding in the community about what exactly is being proposed here and timelines and construction methodologies, that sort of stuff.

Is that somehow addressed at a public meeting? I think so much the better. Is that something that could be requested, at least asked of the ownership group and of property management fund. Well, Council, I’m not too sure how we could incorporate that into the motion, really.

I’m not looking at to be part of the motion, Chair. Okay. I’m wondering if you could get to before, yes or no, we cannot be requested. I could, I go to the applicant, you know, it’s.

But before I’m asking the applicant. Yeah, I understand like this is before the OLT, we’re not sure where we’re going on this. Would you have, you know, with the Councilor Appetite for to hold a future, you know, public meeting on this property? Through you, Mr.

Chair, at this point, all I can say is I can take it back to the ownership group and the management team of the mall property and emphasize the committee and the public’s interest in holding a community open house here and try to, by all, my power, grease the wheels to get this to a community open house. Thank you, Councilor. I appreciate that very much. Obviously, I didn’t expect the representative to make a decision here tonight, it was just, if you could bring that message to the ownership, that’s great.

I think it has to be. I remember that this mall was created by Siften in the ’70s as a neighborhood mall, like even in that time period that people could walk to and feel as part of the community, like a community mall. And that brings us with the limits but also always in business. Councilor, we’re having trouble, you’re breaking up.

It was, in business as a community mall, it’s smoothed out in single-family’s loans right in the neighborhood. So, of course, when you bring on this kind of development, that brings its own host of problems. This concerning approach is, the residents who live along woodpress also village green. A certain extent across this residential, directly based on this property of woodpress and village green.

They’re the ones that we really have to work with the applicant on the town. We develop mitigating, and also with obviously, cycle and approval. How we develop those mitigating factors. That’s it, as much as those negative effects, such as noise, light, et cetera.

So, I want to get that out on the floor. I do think there are some valid concerns about construction issues. Plan that some of the building will be actually on top of the existing mall. We require pile drivers, which is a real issue for the immediate neighborhood.

So, those are other things that live to be taken into concern and dealt with. So, I think at the moment, this is basically my questions. And I do want to end by stating, my understanding is that traffic study has been done. And with a 400 vehicle AMP leaving this development.

And it looks like a 200 PM peak. Most of this, obviously, is going on to Wonderland. And it’s just adding and adding their other developments, obviously, close to Wonderland. All this is funneling onto that main North-South corridor called Wonderland.

It’s not functioning now. It’s not going to function in the future. Despite some of our best wishes, we can’t wish this away. Wonderland has got to be dealt with.

It has to be widened. Or it’s just going to be a complete nightmare. Worse than now. So, thank you very much, Chair.

And I appreciate the time. Thank you, Councillor. We have a motion that’s been moved and seconded. There’s any other discussion?

Councillor Fray. Thank you, yes, I’ll be supporting the staff’s recommendation. And I do recognize that the impacts that were mentioned by residents and also the items that were mentioned in our application report can make the space a bit of a struggle. And I do want to see more info, though.

So I think that this is a creative use of an existing space. And I think with, you know, 900 new units, hopefully a lot of the businesses within them all become much more viable, having that many new faces out shopping and being able to walk to the stores. And I’m not keen on seeing that much office space outside of our downtown. ‘Cause we are trying to revitalize our downtown.

It’s one of our strategic pillars. So I do think providing that much floor space for office space outside of the core would be detrimental to achieving that goal. And as always, I think if we are planning to do any kind of windings, they should be for buses and for bikes. So happy to see more people out of their cars and using active transportation in this area.

So hopefully looking at that as we move forward. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, if you allow me to, I know if there’s motion.

And I just want to try to convince my colleagues here to support the staff’s recommendation. I think one of the big things that is important is that it will allow for public comments through the process. And I think that given the concerns, the challenges around capacity constraints, flooding, the details lacking with the urban design, the office space being primary to Westmont Mall, not downtown. And the big thing I see in the sort of the balance of staff’s recommendation is how we address the transition of a neighborhood to this development.

And there is more of a transition going forward. I think those were just some of the points I want to just bring out to my colleagues and hope you would support the motion. Thank you. Any other comments, questions?

Deputy Mayor. So I’m just going to share a couple of thoughts. I’m generally supportive of where the staff recommendation is on the residential side. I think we could be a little more aggressive, but I understand.

And I do appreciate actually in the staff presentation the slide indicating in red, blue and yellow, sort of the zones as to where the heightened density would be more appropriate. Where I’m struggling is that I think, and Councillor Hopkins is right, 30,000 is a big number. But I think our current policies are too restrictive. And I’m just going to share a couple of examples.

This, I know this doesn’t change anybody’s mind on this particular application. But five floors at 140 and 148 Fullerton, Canada Life office space. Now all empty to remote work. The TD Canada Trust call center building on York.

Now remote work. Six floor of the bell building. There are no bell employees in the bell building anymore. That was first lost to Hamilton and then ultimately lost to Manila.

So not even in country, but definitely not located in our core area. So I do think we have to really give some serious thought to what our office use policies look like. I don’t have a solution. You know, do we subdivide into different categories of office use and create some uses that are specific to space, just like we have done with medical and dental?

Maybe, I don’t know, but I know that what we have isn’t really working. So how we develop that moving forward. I don’t know, but I’m struggling with the restrictiveness on this recommendation. But I do like what’s being recommended on the residential side.

And I do think that there does need to be a little bit more community engagement. And I do think that we particularly needs more details on the sewer capacity and on just some of the details that might be helpful for the community in terms of understanding what this would look like at the end. So I might still vote against this, but I’d be voting against pieces of it while I like pieces of it. And if that’s a four to one loss for me on that particular vote, I can live with that.

‘Cause I understand where everybody else is coming from. And like I said, at the beginning, I’m actually still not happy with either option, the applicants or staffs. But I see things that I like in both. We just haven’t gotten there in terms of a middle ground that I’m comfortable with.

But what I do know is that sounds like it’s not going to be our decision at the end of the day. Anyway, it sounds like it’s going to be the Ontario Land Tribunal’s decision. So I just wanted to share that. I think I’m probably going to vote no, but I think I’m probably, but I know I don’t have an alternate recommendation.

So I’m not going to, if for some magical reason, I convinced a couple of you to change your votes. I will caution that I don’t have an alternate motion to put on the floor. So I’m just sharing that out loud and being honest about where my head is on this. Councilor Perbault?

I usually like to talk only when there’s things I’m not going kind of the way that I think that they should be. But one thing is that I would like to add residential. I think VR seems like we are all on the same page that we think there is a great opportunity as we saw the proposal from the staff, certain up to 12 stories, et cetera. So I think we are all on the same page.

If this was, if this came to Council, one thing is what the Deputy Justice Mayor said, that he doesn’t have the solutions now in terms of the office space downtown. I’ll tell you right now. It’s not just us, it’s the entire North America world. I would not go as far, but certainly North America, we don’t, no one really has the answers to it yet.

But one thing is I know for sure. If it came to the Council, I certainly would not be in support of increasing any meeting space at this time, not at all. I do agree, we need to come up with big picture policy. I don’t know if it’s going to be next week or, you know, it’s certainly, I don’t think it’s going to be next week, but I do think that there’s something for us to really look at the strategic plan for London, for the core area, and I think that again, no one has the answer in North America right now.

No one is going to be, as we all know, people don’t, a lot of employees, they do not want to come back. We are in a situation that employees rather say, I’d rather look for another job than coming back to the office five times a day. So I really think that we do need to revisit it, but if this came to Council and I would be voting on it, I certainly would not be at this time based on one application, making a call and increasing this space because again, it would not have to be this mount, it could be other places in London as well. So I just want to add to this.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilor. I’m going to go to Councilor Van Mirbergen. Thank you, Chair.

I meant to bring up about the office space. There’s a large gap here between 2,000 square meters and the 30,000 square meter asked. So obviously that’s just a massive gap. Is there not room to look at some form of compromise between the 2,000 and the 30,000?

I’m certainly, and I think others are as well, very sensitive to having prospective investors, prospective businesses, look at London, for whatever reason, don’t want to be in the downtown and are looking for space somewhere else. And instead of losing them to another jurisdiction, doesn’t it make sense that we try to keep them at least in London, if not the downtown, but at least within London proper? I think that makes a huge amount of sense. And if I could, since we’re on the topic of office space, if I can ask staff to get a refresher on the difference between A, B and C office space, what are the differences, what are they?

Okay, so we have two questions, definition of A, B and C office retail space and also a questionable compromise between the current and the request before us. Three, Mr. Chair, so the classification system for office space is generally, A is the highest quality, it has things like concierge services, they’re fairly new buildings, B is a little bit lower than that and then C is your office space that’s been around for quite a long time, they’re older properties and they don’t have the same type of amenities and facilities as the rest of the A’s and some B’s. In terms of a compromise for the amount of office space, this review of the application is a pretty iterative process, so we’ve had a lot of discussions in terms of what could be appropriate or considered.

The initial request was for 40,000 square meters of office, for instance, the applicant has reduced it to 30,000. So in our opinion, the 2,000 square meter cap for this site is appropriate to maintain, as the request is just too great to support. Again, our city structure plan identifies the downtown as the clear office space for the city citywide and then our transit villages are next, so there would be up to 5,000 in the north, so east and west contemplated as part of our existing structure. Thank you, Councillor van Merber.

Yeah, well, thank you very much for that. So basically the A, B and C refers to the physical office space as opposed to what the content of that physical space is. In other words, what type of business? So A, B and C does not refer to the types of businesses, just simply the physical office space.

Is that correct? Is that correct, Steph? Through the chair, yes, that’s correct. It doesn’t refer to the type of uses that would be present in any of those classifications.

Councillor. And currently with what’s being proposed, how would you classify the office space that they’re wanting with this application? Councillor, are you referring to a call center? Well, I’m referring to that we’ve just been told it’s a physical space that determines the A, B or C.

So where are we at with the Westmount application in terms of office space? Is it an A space, B space, C space? So can staff comment on the classification of office space that is in this application? Mr.

Chair, so the office space classifications is something that can be commonly found in office needs assessments. There is no official plan policy within the London plan that creates distinction between type A, B or C. So it could be any type just like the downtown could support A, B and C. Office space would allow for A, B or C depending on how it’s constructed.

Councillor, do you want me to go to the applicant to see intentions of if he has— Well, sure, maybe you get their opinion of how they see the office space with this application, what letter is determining at A, B or C? Can you comment on your intentions of the type of office space you intend to provide? Through you, Mr. Chair, Westmount Mall and its current construction configuration with, you know, community washrooms, community facilities, would classify as a B class facility.

Councillor. Okay, that’s helpful, thank you. Yeah, in terms of going between the 2000 and the 30,000, would there be ongoing negotiations between the applicant and staff, even if this passes with the two, would that be happening? Or is the two going to be like final, that’s it done if this passes?

Is that boxing us into a corner? Well, Councillor, my understanding is that it’s going to be going to OLT with a recommendation from this committee and council to be included in their decision. So depending on the decision, who knows what can happen with negotiations between the applicant and the city and their intent. So unless staff would like to comment further on that, please go ahead.

Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair. So the tribunal always strongly encourages that parties have resolution discussions prior to actually going through with a fully litigated hearing. So that would be part of the normal hearing process.

So the tribunal expects it of the parties. So we always communicate to applicants and opponents that we are open to those discussions. And I can advise that we have had some discussions, so I expect they would continue. Councillor.

Okay, well, that’s encouraging because I really do believe that 2000 isn’t enough. When you’re looking at an application of this size and magnitude, when they were first proposing 40,000, I’m not saying, you know, 40,000 was the right number, but certainly to shortcut down to two seems a little, perhaps out there. So if there’s an opportunity to perhaps increase that and find some middle ground, so much for the better. Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Preble. I just wanted to add that I hope that this application will push us and force us to revisit our classifications and our policy on office space. But I certainly hope this application is not gonna push us to throw some number there, just to satisfy potentially one applicant. I really think we gotta look at this as a big picture.

There’s a very strategic move. And I really think that we should come up as a big picture long-term strategy before we increase any numbers. And I think this needs to be considered before. We’d love to always help any businesses, West Mount Mall as well.

And I hope we can push and help certain things towards their way. We are gonna have now the CIPs for downtown. We really don’t know how things are gonna turn out in terms of the conversions, applications, et cetera. I really truly believe we need a bigger picture.

And when I say bigger picture, I don’t mean that we are gonna be doing it for next so many years, no. But I really do believe we need a strategic vision before we make any changes. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from committee members? If the committee would allow me some remarks here. I think we’ve been struggling with this mall for a long time as the owners of the mall. And now with COVID and remote work, things have changed even further.

We’ve had online, or I’m sorry, call centers before downtown, other areas of the city. And they’ve left to cheaper locales, not just nearby, but other provinces and even other countries. In fact, online centers are ones that are rapidly transitioning to remote work where people are answering calls in their home offices. I agree with what’s been raised by counselors regarding a review of our office strategy.

However, and in that regard, I think it’s not advisable to on the fly make a change, a drastic change without that review. When that review should happen, I don’t know ‘cause at the sands haven’t settled yet. I think it’s very much in flux. The changes in workplace practices, whether we will go to full remote, some hybrid, or at some point back to office settings.

I don’t think anyone can answer that. Malls, again, are also going under transformation with online shopping. I would argue one of our more successful malls, Masonville, is even looking at recent changes with our secondary plan and their plans to build residential on their property. So I think at some point, this is going to happen at West Mount Mall.

So I applaud the applicant for looking at that possibility. Wonderland Road, I will comment on that as Councilor Van Mirberg ended. We see incredible congestion on that road in the North area in my riding. We looked at widening that road.

It was voted down by the previous council. Now we’re seeing it happen along the whole corridor. I think that this is going to get worse before it gets better because of the now, the North South traffic, including access to the 401, and to major employers down to the South End of our city and the population at the North End, I’m hoping the master mobility plan will address this. So those are my thoughts.

I think we all recognize that it’s a challenge. There’s no clear answer here because of things that are in flux due to the way that we’re changing in our shopping habits and our working habits and our transportation habits. So I think the motion before us is the pragmatic way to go here. We’ll see what the OLT does, but I think it starts the conversation where we can go with this property because I think we all agree that just having a half empty major piece of land in a suburban setting as we talk about intensification is not acceptable either to where the city wants to go and I’m sure to where the owner of the property wants to go as well.

So those are my comments. I will support the motion. Look to anyone else on the committee that would like to make comments before I call the vote, seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one.

Thank you, folks. So that concludes our scheduled items. I have no items for direction or deferred matters, but we do have one consent item that was asked to be pulled. 2.3 as request for heritage designation, 599-601 Richmond Street.

So I will put that on the floor now. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. Through you, I asked for this to be pulled and I’ll just briefly explain, I’m not gonna support it.

I doubt that I’m gonna convince anybody otherwise, but that’s sometimes why you pull things is because you want a recorded vote separate on an issue and that’s why I pulled it. And for me, this just comes down to a matter of looking at the situation, looking at the recommendation, which arose out of a heritage impact assessment by the applicant on the development of some housing on the property, which great, very much welcome that. And now we’ve got a request for a part four designation and I recognize that the applicant who has the development proposal has said that they maintain it as is, which create for them to do that. However, I’m cognizant of what heritage designations mean for a property forever once you put them in place.

This is on Richmond Row. It’s highly desirable to see this part of the city get redeveloped in a timely manner when it happens. And I just think that when I read through the reasons for the criteria from a subjective point of view and I think the value of these is always a bit subjective. Yes, we can look at individual items.

But we have to look also at the impact as a whole. And for me, this doesn’t have sufficient value to warrant a part four heritage designation. So I’m going to be voting no, that’s all. That’s the only reason I asked for it to be pulled.

I disagree with the evaluation at the end of the day. I have not had a mover of the consent item. So Councilor Hopkins would like to move it. I have a seconder, Councilor Frank, any other conversation for this item?

Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to have an opportunity to speak to the recommendation.

I appreciate Deputy Mayor’s comments. I kind of mauled about go over it a little bit too. But for me, it is that streetscape that is retained. Is this goes forward with the development right next to the property?

I want to make sure, or who makes sure that the protection plan around the construction of this, of the construction around the building is maintained. I’d just like to know about that process going forward. Go to staff. By the developer, I would assume, but— Go to staff.

Thank you, through the chair. This is Michael Redwell, Heritage Planner. Can you hear me okay? We can.

Okay, perfect, thanks. Through the chair, that’s I believe a matter that would typically be addressed through site plan, any construction concerns or how it would be constructed in order to protect the adjacent buildings. So I believe that’s a matter that would be addressed through the site plan process. Councilor?

Good to know, thank you. Any other comments or questions? I’ll ask that the Vice Chair take the chair and I’d like to comment. All right, I will take the chair and I recognize Councillor Layman.

So I won’t be supporting this either. I’m a little concerned, I came forward right at this point, why it wasn’t raised earlier, if it was of importance. I look at the criteria of heritage and how this scored. Is it a rare, unique representative, or early example of style type expression, material or construction method, no?

Does it display a high degree of craftsmanship or a artistic merit, no? Does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement, no? The direct associations with a theme of event, belief, person activity organization or institution that is significant, no? Is it yield or has potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, no?

Does it demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to the community? That’s unknown. It’s important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area, no? To physically, functional, visually, or historically, link to its surroundings, no is a landmark, no.

In my opinion, this property doesn’t stand out as significant and it could stand in the way of intensification in the downtown area, so I will not be supporting it. Thank you, Councilor Layman. I will return the chair to you, advising I have no one else on the speakers list at this time. Thank you.

We have a motion on the floor that’s been moved and seconded. I’ll look for anyone else that would like to speak to it before I call the vote. Seeing none, let’s call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion fails two to three.

Thank you, folks. I think that concludes our business here today. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor. Would you like to put forward a revised motion on the floor?

No, I was just flagging your attention, Mr. Chair. The motion was defeated to pursue the heritage designation, but I think we still have to have a motion to receive the staff report, and so I was prepared to move just receipt of the report. Okay, can I get a seconder on that?

Mr. Hill, your seconds, any further comments or questions? Seeing none, I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, folks. Interesting items today. I need a motion to conclude today’s committee meeting. Councillor Frank, seconded by, Deputy Mayor Lewis, all in favor, hand vote.

Thank you, we are adjourned. Too many mistakes. Thank you.