July 17, 2023, at 12:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 12:01 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.5   Council Policy Manual Review 2023

2023-07-17 Staff Report - Council Policy Manual Review 2023

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the “Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Polices”:

a)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices B1 and B2 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to provide for the following new Council Policies:

  1.    Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy

  2.    Municipal Compliance Service

b)    the following items, related to the Council Policy Manual Review 2023, BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for consideration:

the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices C1 to C49, to make the specified amendments to the following Council Policies:

 

  1.    Accountability & Transparency to Public Policy 

  2.    Assessment Growth Policy 

  3.    Assumption of Works and Services 

  4.    Audio Recording of Municipal Council and Standing Committee In Closed Session Meetings Policy 

  5.    Benefits for Survivors of Employees Killed on the Job 

  6.    Capital Budget and Financing Policy 

  7.    Child Care Policies 

  8.    City of London Records Management Policy 

  9.    City-Owned Residential Properties 

  10.    Collective Bargaining Activities 

  11.    Community Arts Investment Program 

  12.    Corporate Asset Management Policy 

  13.    Corporate Plaques and Recognitions Policy 

  14.    Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Policy 

  15.    Debt Management Policy 

  16.    Dedication of Fire Stations 

  17.    Demolition Control 

  18.    Employee Service Recognition Program 

  19.    Financial Assistance for Program Activity Fees 

  20.    Grants to Centennial Hall 

  21.    Hiring of Employees Policy 

  22.    Investment Policy 

  23.    Land Dedication 

  24.    Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses

  25.    Mayor - Contracted Staff 

  26.    Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy 

  27.    Members of Council Public Registry Declaration of Interest 

  28.    Multi-Year Budget Policy 

  29.    Naming Renaming or Dedication of Municipal Property, Buildings and Park Elements Policy 

  30.    Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows 

  31.    Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Policies 

  32.    Procurement of Goods & Services Policy 

  33.    Promotion of Corporate Products and Services to City Staff 

  34.    Public Access During Council and Standing Committee Meetings 

  35.    Public Art Monument Policy 

  36.    Public Notice Policy 

  37.    Public Registry Declaration of Interest for Local Boards 

  38.    Reduced Rental Rates for Non-Profit Groups

  39.    Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy

  40.    Rental of Lands for Billboards 

  41.    Request to Waive or Reduce Facility Rental Fees

  42.    Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy

  43.    Retirement Dinners for Service Area Leads

  44.    Rzone Policy

  45.    Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy

  46.    Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual

  47.    Surplus Deficit Policy

  48.    Use of the City Hall Cafeteria Policy

  49.    Using Centennial Hall for City Sponsored Events

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Athletic Travel Grants

  2.    City of London Race Relations Anti Racism Policy (to be replaced by Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy)

  3.    Diversity and Inclusion Policy for the City of London (to be replaced by Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy)

  4.    Enforcement of City Personnel Policy

  5.    Gender Equity in Recreation Services

  6.    Inclusion in Recreation Facilities, Parks and Services

  7.    Landing of Helicopters Policy 

  8.    Protocol for Unapproved Aboriginal Burial Sites

  9.    Siting of Cannabis Retail Stores in London.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

The following is withdrawn with the approval of the Corporate Services Committee.

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the matter of the Council Policy Manual Review 2023, BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for consideration.

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following items, related to the Council Policy Manual Review 2023, BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for consideration:

b)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices C1 to C49, to make the specified amendments to the following Council Policies:

 

  1.    Accountability & Transparency to Public Policy 

  2.    Assessment Growth Policy 

  3.    Assumption of Works and Services 

  4.    Audio Recording of Municipal Council and Standing Committee In Closed Session Meetings Policy 

  5.    Benefits for Survivors of Employees Killed on the Job 

  6.    Capital Budget and Financing Policy 

  7.    Child Care Policies 

  8.    City of London Records Management Policy 

  9.    City-Owned Residential Properties 

  10.    Collective Bargaining Activities 

  11.    Community Arts Investment Program 

  12.    Corporate Asset Management Policy 

  13.    Corporate Plaques and Recognitions Policy 

  14.    Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Policy 

  15.    Debt Management Policy 

  16.    Dedication of Fire Stations 

  17.    Demolition Control 

  18.    Employee Service Recognition Program 

  19.    Financial Assistance for Program Activity Fees 

  20.    Grants to Centennial Hall 

  21.    Hiring of Employees Policy 

  22.    Investment Policy 

  23.    Land Dedication 

  24.    Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses

  25.    Mayor - Contracted Staff 

  26.    Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy 

  27.    Members of Council Public Registry Declaration of Interest 

  28.    Multi-Year Budget Policy 

  29.    Naming Renaming or Dedication of Municipal Property, Buildings and Park Elements Policy 

  30.    Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows 

  31.    Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Policies 

  32.    Procurement of Goods & Services Policy 

  33.    Promotion of Corporate Products and Services to City Staff 

  34.    Public Access During Council and Standing Committee Meetings 

  35.    Public Art Monument Policy 

  36.    Public Notice Policy 

  37.    Public Registry Declaration of Interest for Local Boards 

  38.    Reduced Rental Rates for Non-Profit Groups

  39.    Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy

  40.    Rental of Lands for Billboards 

  41.    Request to Waive or Reduce Facility Rental Fees

  42.    Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy

  43.    Retirement Dinners for Service Area Leads

  44.    Rzone Policy

  45.    Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy

  46.    Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual

  47.    Surplus Deficit Policy

  48.    Use of the City Hall Cafeteria Policy

  49.    Using Centennial Hall for City Sponsored Events

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 , to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Athletic Travel Grants

  2.    Enforcement of City Personnel Policy

  3.    Landing of Helicopters Policy 

  4.    Protocol for Unapproved Aboriginal Burial Sites

  5.    Siting of Cannabis Retail Stores in London.

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part b)

That the following items, related to the Council Policy Manual Review 2023, BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for consideration:

b)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices C1 to C49, to make the specified amendments to the following Council Policies:

 

  1.    Accountability & Transparency to Public Policy 

  2.    Assessment Growth Policy 

  3.    Assumption of Works and Services 

  4.    Audio Recording of Municipal Council and Standing Committee In Closed Session Meetings Policy 

  5.    Benefits for Survivors of Employees Killed on the Job 

  6.    Capital Budget and Financing Policy 

  7.    Child Care Policies 

  8.    City of London Records Management Policy 

  9.    City-Owned Residential Properties 

  10.    Collective Bargaining Activities 

  11.    Community Arts Investment Program 

  12.    Corporate Asset Management Policy 

  13.    Corporate Plaques and Recognitions Policy 

  14.    Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Policy 

  15.    Debt Management Policy 

  16.    Dedication of Fire Stations 

  17.    Demolition Control 

  18.    Employee Service Recognition Program 

  19.    Financial Assistance for Program Activity Fees 

  20.    Grants to Centennial Hall 

  21.    Hiring of Employees Policy 

  22.    Investment Policy 

  23.    Land Dedication 

  24.    Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses

  25.    Mayor - Contracted Staff 

  26.    Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy 

  27.    Members of Council Public Registry Declaration of Interest 

  28.    Multi-Year Budget Policy 

  29.    Naming Renaming or Dedication of Municipal Property, Buildings and Park Elements Policy 

  30.    Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows 

  31.    Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Policies 

  32.    Procurement of Goods & Services Policy 

  33.    Promotion of Corporate Products and Services to City Staff 

  34.    Public Access During Council and Standing Committee Meetings 

  35.    Public Art Monument Policy 

  36.    Public Notice Policy 

  37.    Public Registry Declaration of Interest for Local Boards 

  38.    Reduced Rental Rates for Non-Profit Groups

  39.    Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy

  40.    Rental of Lands for Billboards 

  41.    Request to Waive or Reduce Facility Rental Fees

  42.    Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy

  43.    Retirement Dinners for Service Area Leads

  44.    Rzone Policy

  45.    Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy

  46.    Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual

  47.    Surplus Deficit Policy

  48.    Use of the City Hall Cafeteria Policy

  49.    Using Centennial Hall for City Sponsored Events

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part c) of the above-noted referral motion:

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 , to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Athletic Travel Grants

  2.    Enforcement of City Personnel Policy

  3.    Landing of Helicopters Policy 

  4.    Protocol for Unapproved Aboriginal Burial Sites

  5.    Siting of Cannabis Retail Stores in London.

Motion Failed (2 to 2)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part a) of the report recommendation:

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the “Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Polices”:

a)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices B1 and B2 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to provide for the following new Council Policies:

  1.    Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy

  2.    Municipal Compliance Service

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following from part c) BE APPROVED:

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    City of London Race Relations Anti Racism Policy (to be replaced by Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy)

  2.    Diversity and Inclusion Policy for the City of London (to be replaced by Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy)

  3.    Gender Equity in Recreation Services

  4.    Inclusion in Recreation Facilities, Parks and Services

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following from part c) BE APPROVED:

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Athletic Travel Grants

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following from part c) BE APPROVED:

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Enforcement of City Personnel Policy

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following from part c) BE APPROVED:

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Landing of Helicopters Policy

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following from part c) BE APPROVED:

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Protocol for Unapproved Aboriginal Burial Sites

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following from part c) BE APPROVED:

c)    the proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendices D1 to D9 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Siting of Cannabis Retail Stores in London.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Consideration of Appointments to the London Community Advisory Committees

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Advisory Committees:

a)  that the following actions be taken with respect to appointments to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee:

i)     the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  • Nicole Karsch

  • Steve Ryall

ii)     the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to have the application for the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee remain on the City website in order to receive additional applications for appointment;

b)  the consideration of appointments to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning BE FORWARDED to the Municipal Council for a decision; it being noted of the following voting record from the Corporate Services Committee:

Mark C. Ambrogio - 4 votes

Sarvarinder Singh Dohil - 4 votes

Danalynn - 2 votes

Jeff Gard - 2 votes

c)  the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  • Saleme Atieh

  • David Godwin

  • Margot Stothers

  • Nandini Syed

d)  the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  • Becca Amendola

  • Russell Duvernoy

  • Amy Ford

  • Mary Ann Hodge

  • Allison Pert

e)   the consideration of appointments to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee BE FORWARDED to the Municipal Council for a decision; it being noted of the following voting record from the Corporate Services Committee:

Emily Poirier - 4 votes

Anuar Issa - 3 votes

Christopher DeGroot - 2 votes

Amanda Pfeffer - 2 votes

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Advisory Committees:

a)  the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  • Nicole Karsch

  • Steve Ryall

and

b)  the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to have the application for the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee remain on the City website in order to receive additional applications for appointment.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Consideration of appointment to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning.

Majority Winner: Jeff Gard; Mark Ambrogio; Sarvarinder Singh Dohil

Second selection round - Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Majority Winner: No majority

Second selection round - Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Majority Winner: No majority

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the consideration of appointments to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning BE FORWARDED to the Municipal Council for a decision; it being noted of the following voting record from the Corporate Services Committee:

Ambrogio - 4 votes

Dohil - 4 votes

Danalynn - 2 votes

Gard - 2 votes

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Consideration of Appointment to the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: Nandini Syed; Saleme Atieh; David Godwin; Margot Stothers

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  • Saleme Atieh

  • David Godwin

  • Margot Stothers

  • Nandini Syed

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

Consideration of Appointment to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: Allison Pert; Becca Amendola; Mary Ann Hodge; Amy Ford; Russell Duvernoy

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024:

  • Becca Amendola

  • Russell Duvernoy

  • Amy Ford

  • Mary Ann Hodge

  • Allison Pert

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Consideration of Appointment to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of Appointment to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: No majority

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the consideration of appointments to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory CommitteeBE FORWARDED to the Municipal Council for a decision; it being noted of the following voting record from the Corporate Services Committee:

Poirer - 4 votes

Issa - 3 votes

DeGroot - 2 votes

Pfeffer - 2 votes

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.2   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Blood Cancer Awareness Month - Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada

2023-07-17 Submission - Proclamation - Blood Cancer

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That items 4.2 to 4.4 BE APPROVED.

4.2       Application – Issuance of Proclamation – Blood Cancer Awareness Month – Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada

That based on the application dated June 30, 2023 from Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada-London Ontario, the month of September 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Blood Cancer Awareness Month-Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada.

4.3       Application - Issuance of Proclamation – Arthritis Awareness Month

That based on the application dated July 6, 2023 from Arthritis Society Canada, the month of September 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Arthritis Awareness Month.

4.4       Issuance of Proclamation - Freedom of the City

That based on the application dated July 6, 2023 from His Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Prevost, September 23, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Freedom of the City.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

4.5   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Coaches Week

2023-07-17 Submission - Proclamation - National Coaches Week

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That based on the application dated July 5, 2023 from Coaches Association of Ontario with respect to the National Coaches Week, the proclamation request BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the City Clerks Office will follow up on the application, in advance of the Council meeting of July 25, 2023.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Corporate Services Committee convenes in Closed Session to consider the following:

6.1 Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and

employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions including communications necessary for that purpose and for the

purpose of providing instructions and direction to officers and employees of the Corporation.

6.2 Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation with respect to various personal injury and property damage claims against the City.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Corporate Services Committee convenes in Closed Session from 2:12 PM to 2:30 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

That the meeting adjourned at 2:34 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 (7 hours, 45 minutes)

Like, you don’t want them in their crate? I don’t know. Good afternoon, colleagues. I am wishing to call now that we have quorum the 14th committee of the Corporate Services Committee to order, and I will begin by acknowledging that the city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, Haudenosaunee, Lenny Paywalk, and Adawanda in peoples.

We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples today, and 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 also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact csclondon.ca or phone 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

Colleagues all began by looking for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. I see none, so moving on to the consent agenda. I have been asked to pull 2.5 by Councillor Trussa, so we will have 2.5 dealt with separately, and we will deal with that at the end of items for direction. Looking for any other items, colleagues wish pulled for a separate vote.

Seeing none, Councillor Trussa. Just a question, is Councillor Hopkins with us? Sorry, no, Councillor Hopkins is not with us. Okay.

Okay, seeing none, I will look for a mover and a seconder on the balance of the consent agenda. So that’s 2.1 through 2.4 and 2.6 through 2.8. Once we have that moved and seconded, we can have some discussion on those. And I’ve seen Councillor Stevenson moving and Councillor Ferrera seconding.

And I will open the floor now to questions and comments. And sorry, Councillor Hopkins has actually just joined us virtually by Zoom. Councillor Hopkins, I just wanna let you know that the consent agenda has been moved, excluding 2.5. But you do have a communication on there from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario Board Advocacy.

So I wondered if you wanted to perhaps speak to that item in particular. Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you for recognizing me and my apologies for my speaking of the letter now. And Councillor Hopkins, I appreciate you having your video on for us, but you are breaking up a little bit in audio.

So I don’t know if you wanted to perhaps turn your camera off and that might provide the bandwidth to allow you to speak to us verbally, nice and clearly. Okay, how about this? There’s been lots of rain happening out my house. So I can always count on disruptions.

And you are coming in nice and clear now. Thank you. And again, thank you for recognizing me. If I could just speak to the committee, my letter that is attached, giving you an update on the AMO advocacy that’s been going on the past year.

In fact, when it comes to homelessness, AMO advocating on behalf of all municipalities, the challenges that we are having with doing with the homelessness and the housing situation, as well as we’re trying to keep the conversation with the provincial government when it comes to the impact reassessment, encouraging them to start that process. So that’s the AMO advocacy that’s going on. I would like to give you an update on my position at the AMO board. I am still a board member and will continue to be so.

If you will allow me, I will be removing myself from chairing the large urban caucus. And I just want to give you a bit of an update. The large urban caucus as chair, I was able to sit on the executive as well as to participate in the MOU meetings. And I felt the past number of years, especially through COVID, it really has been an honor and a privilege to not only represent the city of London, but represent all municipalities with the provincial government as it relates to the importance of staying whole as a municipality, as we dealt and pivoted dealing with COVID.

It, I’m reminded by our city manager’s comments once a number of years ago that municipalities needed to be kept whole. And we were able to do that with the help of the provincial government in particular to keep us providing services throughout the challenges of COVID and I just felt it was so important and have learned so much about the importance of what municipalities do provide to the public. And with that, I also want to remind everyone, the AMO conference is happening in our city in August 20th to 23rd and really encouraging all council members to be attending as many events as they can throughout the conference and really looking forward to hearing and seeing what our delegations are gonna look like as we get closer to the date. So without Mr.

Chair, those are my comments and thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. And I think before we move on, I’ll just look to see if committee members have any questions for you in particular with regard to your AMO report before we move on to questions and comments on other consent items. And I’m not seeing any, which I think speaks to the thoroughness of your written report and sharing your comments with us.

And I know I’m looking forward to AMO as well. So, and I believe Councillor Santos from Burlington may be in touch with you about some other fun ideas for the AMO conference this week. So I have passed along your contact information to her. Thank you for taking the time to join us at committee today to share that update with us.

Colleagues, I’m gonna look to see if there’s questions or comments on any other items on the consent agenda, excluding 2.5, which we’re dealing with separately. Councillor Perbeau. Thank you, Chair and through you to the staff. I have a couple of questions regarding 2.1 and 2.3, 2.4.

And I’ll start with 2.1 on page AAD, investment strategy, we are stating the four priorities. And I was just wondering if there are any proposed changes or if we feel these four strategies are, the prioritization is still the best for us. Thank you, Ms. Barbone.

Thank you, Chair. We do believe that those strategies are still the right ones. We’re not recommending any changes at this time. Certainly those form the backbone of what our investment strategy is to try to ensure that we ultimately maximize the use of those funds and what those revenues will generate and minimize the risk of loss ultimately.

So certainly if there were any changes that would be proposed. Those would come forward for Council approval. Thank you for that Council approval. Thank you very much for that one.

And if we can go on page 11, and I do realize that we take the more positive by and hold approach, but based on the analyzed gains and losses as of end of last year, would you make any other recommendations or propose any changes to maximize our opportunities? Ms. Barbone. Thank you through the Chair.

So one of the things that is significantly changing is the accounting standards which are now going to reckon, are going to result in the accounting that is going to bring those unrecognized gains and losses for recognition on our financial statements. So certainly from the buy and hold approach that the City of London has and through the proactive financial management to manage our cash flows, our strategy is to ensure that those investments are held to maturity to minimize the risk of any potential gains or losses until the investment finally comes to the end of its term. So certainly from our perspective, we’re not recommending any changes because changes would mean that if we were to sell, might actually cause those losses to be realized. So certainly maintaining our current strategy will ensure that those losses do not actually come to fruition.

Thank you, Ms. Barbone. Councillor Barbone. Thank you.

Do we actually have a date when we are going to receive these updates from the other levels of government? Is there a specific date or not yet? Or the new regulation? The accounting standards through the chair are already in effect and they become effective at the end of this financial term.

So if you recall back at the accounting, the presentation that was done by KPMG are external auditors. In that package, they reviewed some of those changes that will be coming and they will be effective for any year ends as of 2023. So ours will be effective when we bring forward our financial statements. So this gives you a bit of a sneak peek in terms of some of the things you might see that are going to be contained in the financial statements.

But if you go back and refer to the audit committee presentation from KPMG, they provide a little bit more detail as to what that actual standard is, when it became effective and a little bit of history related to that. Thank you, Ms. Barbone. Perfect, no more on 2.1.

If I can continue 2.3 or if someone else wants to, well, let’s see if committee members want to get on the speakers list. Councillor Ferreira. Thank you and through you. Actually, I also have questions for 2.3 for the emergency procurement.

I’m not sure if the same is Councillor Pribbles, but I was just hoping to maybe just get maybe a summary on just the actions that we took on that day. And then I guess if Councillor Pribble has any follow-up questions, just go back to him. Well, I know Mr. Yeoman was not in that role on the date of that storm.

So I’ll go to Ms. Cher first and then see if she wants to pass the puck over to Mr. Yeoman for some additional information. Thank you, Mr.

Cher. When we, the direct show hit on the May long weekend of last year, we fully deployed all of our in-house and contracted forestry staff. And we required additional support from external contractors who were able to bring in equipment that were able to deal with felled, matured trees in a very quick manner in order to clear those streets, provide emergency access and support our colleagues at London Hydro who are working to restore power. This is related to the procurement of those non-standard contractors, not the folks who usually have on contract, but the ones that were brought in on an emergency basis with some very specialized equipment that allowed us to get things back to normal as quickly as possible for impacted Londoners.

Thank you, Ms. Cher. Councilor Ferriero, you’re good? Okay, Councilor Perble.

Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff and page 17 in terms of the reviewing operational needs. My question is to review and recommendations before the implementation would come to our, sorry, to this committee CSE before implementing, is my assumption correct, Ms. Cher? Through you, Mr.

Cher, we would bring anything that requires Council approval, whether that’s a change to policy, budget or procurement of new assets, that would be an excessive administrative authority to do so back to committee. If there are changes we need to make to our equipment or response strategies that we can do with an existing budgets, then that would be done within those existing budgets subject to the Council policies that govern them. Thank you, Ms. Cher.

Thank you, and will this review include the past experiences and the events and what I’m trying to say is not just the cost, let’s say budget, but also kind of looking at the past, if we do propose a certain capital expenditure, how many times would we use it in the past, if this part is gonna be included in this review? And we’re gonna ask Mr. Yeoman about this because it is his going forward. Thank you, through you, Mr.

Chair. So I really appreciate the question. It was a pretty unique event that we experienced last year, however, with climate change and changing weather patterns, we do anticipate that we might be seeing things like this that are a bit more frequent in the future. So what we’re doing is we’re doing a bit of a two-pronged approach, we’re looking at equipment that we can buy, perhaps to augment our existing equipment, as Ms.

Chair mentioned, or equipment that would be multi-purpose that we could acquire in the future as well to address some of these to respond really quick. Another option would be to look at equipment that we could have on retainer, for example, where we’d have a contractor that we would have a relationship with that we can action a little more frequently. In this instance, we actually were quite lucky that these vendors were available and they did have the equipment on hand, which may not be the situation in the future, which is what we’re trying to look at. Okay, thank you for that.

And by the way, comment, I was in that time, I was on Paul Moen, Colburn, and I saw it and if it was the city staff, or it was the external, but it was a very prompt response, certainly, on these two roads, so kudos to whoever was involved in that. Thank you. And 2.4, the reporting, and if we can go on page 24, sorry, 2.4, and it’s 2.6 reporting. And the annual report to council is a positive initiative, but I hope that if we were to find out that there are certain things that are either not protecting the corporation enough or if there are certain things that are delaying the projects that the director would come back to us first earlier and not wait till the annual report.

And I just wanna make sure that I’m assuming correctly that this would actually happen and we would not wait for the annual report. Thank you, well, let’s ask Ms. Chair about that. Thank you, Mr.

Deputy Mayor. Yes, if there are a need to change this policy because it is not meeting our needs in one way or the other, we would not necessarily need to wait till the next annual report. We would make sure we came back to this committee for a change to that delegated authority to ensure that we’re meeting those standards of public protection, protection of city assets, but also advancing work in a way that is prompt and responsible. Councilor Perva?

Perfect, thank you very much. And I do have last one regarding the schedule on page 28 and the line four, five, and six, they’re all under the one. And my question is why four and six is DCM not able to delegate and five able to delegate? And why authority to execute is no, no, yes, respectively to that table.

So I was just curious, what was the decision-making based on this thought? Thank you, Ms. Chair, did you want to respond to that? Or Ms.

Ramalu? Thank you, through the chair. So the first one, why the incentive agreements can be delegated to the director, whereas the other two cannot, the incentive agreements with utilities typically results in a cost savings for the city. And in some cases, even money coming into the city.

So they’re very low risk. That’s why those can be delegated, whereas the other two have not had that same delegation level. In terms of the authority to execute cost sharing agreements and incentive agreements, these are, there’s a wide range of these agreements that could be happening. They could be very specific, a smaller one on a project basis, versus a much larger or broader one that could have more implications for the city as a whole.

That’s why the authority to execute has been left with the clerk and mayor. So staff would approve it, but the final signature is the clerk and mayor rather than Ms. Chair. That said they can all still be approved by staff at that level.

The connection versus the connection or generation agreements with utilities, these are happen much more frequently and with shorter lead times and don’t have the same broad implications for the city. So that approval has been, or that authority to execute has been left with the DCM. Council approval. Thank you very much for the answers, no more questions.

Okay, and I have no one else on the speaker’s list. So unless anyone else has questions or comments, I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote on the consent agenda items excluding 2.5. As in the vote, that motion’s passed four to zero. On our agenda is the items for direction.

So we will deal with these first and then I’ll just remind colleagues that 2.5 what we dealt with after the items for direction are complete. So 2.4.1 is considerations to the appointments of the London Community Advisory Committees. And there are multiple committees with vacancies that we are considering appointments to today. I will let colleagues know in advance that this is an appointment process that comes through corporate services during a vacancy that occurs during the council term as opposed to the appointments that are made through SPPC at the beginning of the term.

Now this replacement of vacancies during the term is currently under review at governance working group. So this process may have some recommended changes coming forward at some point, but this is the process that’s consistent with our policies at this time. Councilor Ferreira. Thank you and through you, this might be a question back at you, but you’re referring to the vacancies.

So from what I understand these community advisory committees have anywhere from like 11 to 12 members for each committee, is that correct? And then the vacancies that we see like, you know, requires three spots, requires eight spots that we’re seeing on the agenda. Those are the vacant seats that we’re trying to fill. Is that right?

Well, I’m going to let the clerk respond to that as she’s worked on the terms of reference for these advisory committees. Thank you. And through the chair, each community advisory committee may have up to 15 members. The requirement that is outlined on your agenda represents what is required to get to the 15 maximum.

So there’s no reappointment at this point in time. It does not affect current appointments. This is just additional appointments. Councilor Ferreira.

Thank you and through you, just to follow up to that. So I do see, I think it was on the very first vote. We have for the animal welfare community advisory committee requires up to eight members, but we have two. So I was just wondering, so are we doing another round in the future looking to fill those vacant seats if we were to vote for on the two candidates on that list?

Go to the clerk. That decision is the committees. There are only two applications that have been received at this point in time. Certainly we would welcome additional applications and then we would bring those forward as they came.

There’s not an intent at this point in time unless council directs that we would go back out. We did do a pretty fulsome attempt at trying to recruit and solicit applications at this time. Thank you, Deputy Clerk. Councilor Ferreira, does that answer your questions for now?

I’m gonna just, yes. So I’m gonna ask the clerk to walk us through two process steps here. The first is that we do have committees that maybe have excess vacancies compared to the number of applicants. We also have committees that do not have or that have more than the number of applicants required to fill all the vacancies.

So can you advise if from the list of applicants if all the vacancies have to be filled if the councilors are satisfied or not satisfied with the applications? And can you just very quickly advise colleagues on the voting process for the selections? Thank you and through the chair, the short answer is it’s up to you. So for example, where we look at the animal welfare community advisory committee and there’s two applications and up to eight vacancies.

It’s the committee’s prerogative whether you would choose to just appoint those two. And if you feel that you don’t want to appoint them, we could go through the selection process for that. In terms of the other committees, we do have it set up in the system, but it can be modified very simply to allow you to vote for up to three, for example, for the community advisory committee on planning, up to four for the diversity inclusion and anti-oppression community advisory, et cetera. So we’re in your hands as to how you would like to manage that.

So Councillor Stevenson, is that helpful? Councillor Trussell? I have a general question. Is it required that the applicant disclose on the face of their application that they are resident in the city of London?

Ms. Westlake Power. Thank you through the chair. Yes, that is a current requirement, but it is under review.

So it is a requirement at this time. So would I ask right now about the person who applied the indicated at non-London address, or should I hold back? I think actually Councillor Trussell, if that is a concern, it would be appropriate to raise that when we’re dealing with the committee where that application has landed, so that Councillors can factor that into their decision-making as to whether they notwithstanding our policy still feel that they want to appoint that person. But I’m just gonna check with the clerk to see if notwithstanding our policy, that is, and I’m seeing the nodding of heads, but we’ll get to Ms.

Westlake Power to confirm. Thank you through the chair. The chair has provided the same advice that I would provide. Councillor Trussell.

Yes, the solicitation for the applications made it very clear that the applicant has to live in the city, has to have a residence in the city. Is that right? Okay. Putting aside the fact that the particular person who I’m referring to here would be excellent.

I’m not getting into that. But if we’re going to be accepting applications from people who do not meet the state of criteria and say, well, the committee later on can decide where that’s gonna land and how they’re gonna do it, I don’t think that’s a fair process. And I either want to make that clear to everybody and solicit more applications, or I would like to enforce, or I would like to enforce the rule. This is a difficult thing to say because I’m not getting into the merits of any of the applications.

I’m just on the process part now. But we can’t tell the public that you have to live in the city and then we get an application from somebody who on the face of it doesn’t live in the city. And then we say, well, we’re gonna allow that anyway and we’ll kick the can down the street to see what the committee of jurisdiction wants to do. I don’t think we can operate that way.

Thank you, Councillor. I do have another question. Disclosures of pecuniary interest are often referred to at the beginning of every agenda. Would this be a feature of advisory committee agendas?

Ms. Westlake Power. Thank you through the chair. Yes, that is an item on every community advisory committee agenda.

Okay, thank you. That answers my procedural questions. And I guess as long as I have the floor, I’ll move that we accept 4.1A applicants A and D. And further that we ask the clerk to open up that process to solicit some more applications.

And I’ll leave it to the clerk to decide how long I should stay open. Okay, so we have a motion from Councillor Trussow to appoint both applicants to the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. It requires up to eight members. We only have two applicants at this time.

And Councillor Trussow did indicate that a part B to his motion would be that the clerk shall keep the vacancies. And I will let the clerk word Smith this appropriately. But keep the remaining vacancies open and posted on the city website and circulate an additional round for applications to be received. And we’re just gonna give the clerk a moment to get that typed up.

While the clerk is typing, Councillor Ferra has indicated he will second. While that is being typed up, I know we don’t have the language right in front of us right yet, but we’ll see if there’s any discussion on that motion. Councillor Ferra. Thank you and through you.

If we run into, I think we’re gonna be running into this issue again for some other spots, I believe. Actually, maybe not. I was gonna say if we ran into that issue again, let’s keep those other applications open. But I think this is the only one that we’re running into that.

So I’ll remove that, thanks. Members, if you refresh your E-Scribe, if you don’t have it in front of you right now, that motion is now an E-Scribe. We’ll appear if you click the consideration of appointments for London Community Advisory Committees as a resolution number six. Make sure everybody’s had a chance to review that.

If everyone is ready, we will ask the clerk to open the vote on this. Closing the vote and that motion is carried four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Moving on, the next item is B, the Community Advisory Committee on Planning.

This committee requires up to three members at this time. And I’m gonna look to see if colleagues wish to proceed any differently than our regular process, which would be to open up a run-off ballot system where we rank three candidates because there are three vacancies, so we can select one candidate for each vacancy and the candidates will have to attain a majority threshold to be appointed. Answer, trust out. Did one of these candidates currently have an active dispute pending with the city that comes within the subject matter of this committee?

How would a counselor proceed in terms of raising that question? Well, I’m gonna offer some thoughts, counselor, because I’m aware of the individual you’re referring to. But this particular advisory committee has actually already dealt with that matter. It would also be pecuniary interest, so the member would have to declare pecuniary interest and recuse themselves from participating on that file.

Should it come back to that committee? But I can advise that as a member of the planning committee, that matter will be decided on at tonight’s planning and environment committee by the committee. So it would be a decided matter of counsel before this member’s appointment is confirmed. That’s helpful, but it could also be referred back to the committee.

But I think the way you answered the question is fine. Would not preclude a person from serving on the committee, but it would preclude participation in that particular matter. Yes, the pecuniary interest can be personal as well as professional. So, for example, and I will just reference because we’ve already voted on the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, Mr.

I.L. of course is involved with Humane Society. So there could be a pecuniary interest in anything that the committee is advising on with regard to the Humane Society. And he would have to declare a pecuniary interest.

The same would be true in this case. If that, and in this case, it’s a personal matter rather than a professional one. But if the committee were to refer that back and it would come forward, that would be a pecuniary interest. Thank you.

I’m prepared to proceed with the vote. Any other questions or comments before we ask the clerk to open the vote? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the first round of voting for the Community Advisory Committee on Planning. Through the chair, the result of the first round of selection sees Mark Ambrosio, Jeff Gard, and Sarverinder Singh Dohil.

My apologies for the pronunciation there. Each receiving two votes, which is the most votes. These are not majority of the members present. It is a majority in this selection.

So if the committee would like to advance to an additional round to get a majority, more fulsome majority, we could drop off the candidates that received zero votes. Thank you. And again, my apologies in advance for the mispronunciation, or maybe that’s the one that you got you. Mark Ambrosio, Jeff Gard.

The candidates that received zero votes were Crispin Colvin and Steven Fen. So colleagues, we have three candidates, none of whom obtained a majority, an outright majority, but they’re the majority of the members present. We can move forward with an appointment of those three individuals, or we can go to a second round of voting, which removes the candidates who had zero, and allows those of us who selected a candidate with only, who only received one vote, an opportunity to move our vote to someone else, which might potentially create an outright majority, but I am in your hands. We would need either a motion for a second round, or a motion for the appointment of those three individuals.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’ll put forward a motion that we appoint these three. And is there a seconder for that? Councillor Ferrera, you have a question?

I was just, before anything, I was just hoping to have a little bit more discussion on just where everybody stands. So if I see that no one is gonna be moving their vote, then I don’t see why that would be an improper motion. I would second that, but I just before anything, I just wanted to see just for our time consideration, would anybody be changing their vote? So this is the challenge we come up with when we have a long list, and we don’t have all members of committee present, and we actually have an even number, so we don’t have an odd number to sort of break any ties.

So we do have, and I’m just gonna ask the clerk, how many individuals do we have that received one vote? There are five candidates that received one vote. So there are opportunities for members of the committee to choose to support somebody who is on the list right now of the three, if they wanted to move their votes, and I might consider, I will share that I might consider moving one of my votes in the second round. Whether that makes a difference in the outcome or not, I can’t say that’s, but we’re in your hands.

Councillor Ferrera. With respect to the motion proposed on the floor, I would put a second motion. I don’t know if I can do this. If there’s a motion, I can’t do this at the moment.

But we don’t have a seconder for the appointments just yet. So I think we have a willingness, I’m just seeing a general consensus that people are ready to have a second round of voting. That’s what I was thinking about motioning. I just want to know if that’s be appropriate.

We will just proceed to have the clerk open a second round. And if any colleagues, while the clerk is preparing that list, want to speak in favor of a candidate that they’ve selected, now would be the appropriate time to do that. Councillor Trussow. Yes, I want to speak in favor of candidate A, Mr.

Mark Ambrosio, on the grounds that he has a very long working history in the area of heritage. Now, this used to be a standalone committee, hold the London Advisory Committee on Heritage. And it was just about heritage. And this is more than an advisory committee because it has statutory obligations.

And I think of everybody on this list, Mr. Ambrosio is the most familiar with the processes and the procedures of the Heritage Act. And there have been problems with this committee. We’ve had resignations and we’ve had the clerk having to declare certain meetings, not having a quorum.

And that creates, that’s bad for advisory committees in general, but I also think it’s bad when you’ve got a statutory matter that has to come up to the planning and the environment committee. I have a lot of confidence in Mark Ambrosio because I know that he’s been working in this area and he would be well qualified to serve on this committee. Thank you, Councillor Trussow. If colleagues will indulge me, the opportunity to speak from the chair quickly, I am first going to say thank you, Councillor Trussow, for speaking in favor of Mr.

Ambrosio because he was one of the candidates that I had sort of shortlisted, so I appreciate hearing your thoughts on him. I am going to also suggest to colleagues, I supported Jeff Gard, and I do think that having somebody who lives in a heritage property, who lives in a heritage conservation district, who has that lived experience, brings some value to this committee as well. So that’s why I supported him, and I would encourage colleagues to give him a quick second look before we cast our second round ballots. I’m also going to say, and although the candidate was not one of the three top vote getters, but I want to say I am always uncomfortable when I see an individual write, specifically in their application, that this is, that they’re applying because they want to raise their public profile to run in the next election.

And we did have a candidate actually write that in their application. I think these advisory committees serve a very important purpose, but they should be served because you have an interest and a passion in the topic. And so I just wanted to share that thought process with colleagues as well as to why there are other candidates that I was, or a particular candidate that I did not cast a vote for. I will not, there are a couple of individuals who did run in the next election, or in the last election, not all of them wrote that in their application.

So I don’t want to paint every candidate with the same brush. And I want to be clear about that, but there was somebody who actually wrote that in their application. So that’s a bit of a concern for me in that regard. So I’m just sharing that thought.

And that’s my thoughts on this, and I’ll look to see if any other colleagues wish to speak. And I don’t have any other hands up. The clerk has advised me she does have the second ballot ready to go. So unless anyone wants to be on the speaker’s list, I’m going to ask her to open the second round of voting.

Seeing none, clerk, if you can open the vote, please. Thank you through the chair. Just for the committee’s information, the second ballot, because we’re, I had to create a new ballot for you. And these are listed in alpha order by last name.

So they’re in a slightly different order. Apologies in advance for that. Closing this vote, and there’s not a majority. So three candidates received zero votes.

So we will proceed to a runoff, and the following will be removed from the ballot. Paul Michael Anderson, Robin Easterbrook, and Mosin Gabor. colleagues, I do just want to note that we had a tie for the third slot. Well, no array majority was achieved.

We did have two people tied with two votes. We had an individual with four votes and an individual with three votes. So, yes, we can, yep, we can have the clerk read that out. Certainly, these are the results of the second round of selection.

Saverinder Singh Dohil, four votes. Mark Ambrosio, three votes. Dana Lin, two votes. Jeff Garde, two votes.

David Godwin, one vote. Mr. Trussell. So if there are five of us here, if there are five voting, but only four voting present, is that correct?

Councillor Pribble’s not. I know, so we have five, we have four votes here, right? We have four committee members voting, each with three votes. Right, so what the persons who got three votes and four votes be a majority of the committee since they’re four of us?

Well, because no outright majority was achieved, and we have to go to another round of voting. Councillors could theoretically move their vote from that four vote getter to one of the two vote getters to raise them up over the top. So this is the challenge with our even number of Councillors. Okay, but go ahead, Councillor Trussell.

I’m sorry to the chair. We have four voting members here and there’s one person who got four votes. You don’t do better than that. We got another person, they got three out of four votes.

I think we should accept those people and then maybe run another ballot for the other three. And this is probably not the place to raise it, but we’re just going to keep running into this problem today with so few people voting. And the council’s going to want to change this anyway, which is why they should go to the SPPC, but… Well, so there are a process wise, there are a couple of options before us.

Certainly we could end up in a tie again, and at one point, if we are in a deadlock tie, then that is drawn by lot to break the tie. I suspect you are right, Councillor Trussell, that when this gets to council, that council may have a different opinion in terms of somebody who was chosen by lot. We could refer this to council with no committee recommendation and just let all 15 members vote at council. We can have another round of voting and see how those numbers come out.

I’m really in committee’s hands. This absolutely, there are different ways to deal with it. We can, at some point, if we continue to have ties, we would end up drawing by lot. If you feel that it is more expedient to refer this directly to council without a recommendation, that’s also an option.

But again, I’m in the hands of the committee on how to proceed with this. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I’m wondering if we should do one more round of voting, and then if we’re not getting anywhere, I would put forward the motion to refer it to council and do the vote there.

Councillor Trussell. That’s doable, but we could also just sort of refer it to council, it being noted that so-and-so got four votes, so three votes, two votes, and one vote. And the vote count would be in the record in the minutes that go forward from this committee to council, so. Yes, please do this to the board.

Councillor Ferrer. Thank you and through you. I just wanted to maybe just throw out some words. I, you know, just committee work should be done on committee, and this upcoming council agenda is gonna be, it’s looking like it’s gonna be pretty heavy, so I’m just worried on how long this vote may take us if we don’t have a committee recommendation going to council, so I wouldn’t necessarily be on the side of sending it to council, I would like to have a vote, but if, I guess it is up to the committee, like if the committee decides if there’s a majority here, I guess that things that council may wanna vote on this as a whole, then I see that too, but I would say that, you know, we should be trying to make some type of recommendation for council from this committee.

So I will just let Councillors know that I’ve already suggested to the mayor that he’ll need to order dinner and plan for a dinner break at the next council, ‘cause I too think it may take us a little while to get through the agenda. I will say that if we start running into this issue, as we move forward on all of these selections, it could be a challenge, but I’m personally not adverse to sending it with the candidates who have their vote totals right now to council either, so again, in your hands, I guess what we wanna decide is, do we wanna do one more round of voting, or do we wanna refer this to council without a recommendation? I suspect that we may be doing work on these lists at council anyway, as council trust down now, there’s only four of us here. There are 15 voting members of council, and there may be names that caught zero votes here that may could potentially get eight votes at council.

So I’m not sure that I am, you know, referring it to council without a recommendation is necessarily going to hold up the council meeting any longer, ‘cause I think we may see some changes brought forward anyway, but completely in your hands, my only sort of caveat to colleagues is, if we decide to refer this one to council without a recommendation, and we run into this problem with further votes, I would suggest that we may wanna adopt the same process so that we’re consistent with all of them, so that our colleagues know what to expect when it does get to council. And I will go to councilor Pribble for his thoughts before we make a decision here. Thank you, procedure wise, I’m just wondering, if one had four, one had three, can you just go one and two and then just put the two names with two and you just vote for the third place? Would it be possible?

Because one has four, one is three, they go through, and the two two voters, which is Danlin and Jeff Garde, can you just vote on them for third place and we move on? So if we’re going to do that, just for colleagues’ information, first of all, the runoff software is actually not set up to handle that until we’ve attained a majority, and we would also have to do not withstanding our current policy, so I think it would be cleaner to perhaps not go that route, but that’s my advice. Again, it is, anybody can make a motion as a committee member, and I should point out, if people don’t move their votes, we get the same result anyway, so there’s that factor to consider. Councilor Ferrer?

Thank you, through you. I would motion to eliminate candidates with zero votes and re-vote. So if we re-vote, we did have one candidate that had one vote, that candidate as the lowest vote getter would drop off as well. And through you, that’s fine.

Okay, so we now have a suggestion that we vote a third time. I’m looking to see if Councilor Stevenson. Okay, Councilor Stevenson is supportive of that as well. I’m not seeing objections from anybody, so we will have one more round of voting, and we’ll see what the outcome of that results in.

We will need to give the clerk a moment to create a new ballot again. The clerk says actually she is ahead of us, and we can go ahead and open that vote. Closing the vote, and there continues to be no majority. The candidates Dana Lynn and Jeff Garde each received two votes, so by lot, we would draw from those two names to determine the third appointment.

And just for colleagues’ information, Mr. Ambrosio and Mr. Dohill each received four this round. So we are back to essentially the same outcome we had before.

So now we have two options. We can draw by lot, or we could still not withstanding the results of this, we could still forward to Council without a recommendation, if somebody, and that would take precedence. So Councilor Trussa. I believe that drawing by lot at this small committee is gonna be meaningless ‘cause Council’s going to want to revisit that anyway.

And since we do have two of the candidates received all of those, I think we should forward those two names on and say that there was a tie between the other two and Council can do what they want, but at least there’s an indication that those two received unanimous consent from this committee, which I think is quite an achievement. So what I’m hearing, Councilor, is that you are moving a motion to refer this to Council for further deliberation, including the results of the votes conducted at this committee, which would be part of the minutes, but it being noted that the candidates received four, four and two, two. So a referral does take precedence over the matter on the floor, so we can move to refer this to Council. So we’re referring it without a recommendation, but we are including the results of our voting here, so that colleagues are aware of where the votes fell.

And I’m seeing in general nodding, do I have a seconder for the referral? Councilor Stevenson, any debate on this? Seeing none, we’ll just give the clerk a moment to get this motion typed up for us. And the clerk does have that now ready for us in E-Scribe.

If you refresh, you will see that this motion, or number nine in our E-Scribe under this item. And I’ll just read it out that the consideration of appointments to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning be forwarded to the Municipal Council for decision, it being noted that the following vote record from Corporate Services Committee, Mr. Ambrosio, four votes, Mr. Dolehill, four votes, Ms.

Dana Lynn, four vote, sorry, that should be two votes. And Mr. Garde, two votes. Just get that corrected quickly, it’s now in the system.

So I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, the referral is passed four to zero. Moving on, colleagues, 4.1C is the diversity inclusion in anti-oppression Community Advisory Committee. This requires up to four members, and we have five applicants to select from.

And I will open the floor to any questions or comments that colleagues wish to offer in regard to any of the applicants before we open the vote. Dean Nunn, I will ask the clerk to open the first round ballot for us. Closing the vote, and the selection process has resulted in four votes for Salim Atia, four votes for Nandini Syed, three votes for David Godwin, and three votes for Margot Stothers, and that’s the majority. All right, colleagues, so we need a motion now for the appointment of those four individuals.

The other two votes went to Ms. Grant, Councillor Stevenson. I’ll put the motion forward that we appoint those four. Okay, and do we have a seconder?

Councillor Ferrera, and I will just ask the clerk now to open the vote to appoint those four individuals. It was just a second here to get that ready to go. Closing the vote, the motion is passed three to one. Thank you, colleagues, and moving on to 4.1D, the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee.

This requires up to five members, and we have eight applications for this committee. So I’ll look to see if there’s any comments on any of the applications before we proceed to the first round of voting. Councillor Trussau. I’d like to speak on behalf of applicant Becca Mendoza.

I’ve known her for about two years now. She’s, I’ve worked with her on a variety of different issues. I should say, including the fireworks issue, which is gonna be very contentious. But she is a, she’s very well versed in doing research.

She’s worked with the Fanshawe College and the King’s College Environmental Groups, and she has a propensity as a student for doing really, really top quality research, whether you agree with her positions or not. I also wanna say that she has already gotten quite a bit of experience in the last few years, speaking at City Council, as she’s done several representations to the CAHPS committee over the years. And her representations are always full of citations and links to research. So I think the committee would be very well-served.

Thank you, Councillor Trussau. Any other speakers? Seeing none, then I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote and the results are as follows, representing majority votes of the committee.

Becca Amandola, three votes. Marianne Hodge, three votes. Allison Pert, three votes. Russell Duvernois, two votes.

And Amy Ford, two votes. The additional candidates, Alfred Bobi, Jordan Buck and Susan Ratz each received one vote. We do have our five candidates, so we’ll look now for a motion to approve those five. Councillor Trussau, Councillor Ferrer.

And we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that in just a moment. I’m gonna give her a second to get that ready. And the clerk is gonna open the vote on that now for the appointment of those five individuals. Councillor Trussau, closing the vote, that motion is passed four to zero.

On the 4.1E is the final item under the advisory committee appointments. And again, this is a three members and we have seven applications for this particular committee. There was an added application that was not on the regular agenda but was on the added agenda. Councillor Trussau.

How did an additional application get on the added agenda if there was a strict deadline? Ms. Westlake Power. Thank you through the chair.

Following the deadline for applications which is posted on the city’s website, we do remove the application. However, if the application has been initiated prior to its removal, it can still be utilized and submitted. And then we manage those submissions the same as any submission for a committee agenda. Wasn’t submitted?

Ms. Westlake Power. Thank you. It was not received by our office before the submission deadline, correct.

Then it’s not clear to me why we should be considering it. So Councillor, I’m just going to share that late applications have been received for not only for advisory committees but for boards agencies and commissions as well. And we have never disqualified somebody for submitting their application late. As colleagues, I’m going to look to see if there are any comments on any of the applications submitted.

Councillor Trussau. Yes, I’m going to speak on behalf of two of the candidates. They’re both people who I personally know and who I have personally worked with. So when I speak of their con, when I speak of their qualifications to be on this committee, it’s based on firsthand knowledge.

First, I want to point out that Dr. Christopher DeGroote has been a regular participant in transit questions for a number of years now. He was a member of the former cycling committee which of course is now being folded into this committee. I think it would be very important to have Professor DeGroote continue on for this continuity.

I also want to speak on behalf of Emily Folier. She is currently serving as the external vice president for the university students at the University of Western Ontario. This is an elected, this is an elected, this is a very high position in the student government and she is responsible for all of the government advocacy work that goes on, this has been a very, very valuable office and it’s been a very active office. Over the last few years, both in terms of their work in terms of trying to drive student turnout in the election and also their participation in several situations here.

To have the vice president external volunteer to serve on a committee is an offer that I would have a very difficult time refusing. I also want to say that much of the university is a much of the university students reside in my word and far and away I can represent that during the campaign when I was speaking to people in the student areas and when I was speaking to students directly, transit was the far and away most significant issue. So having her on this committee is going to be very important when you consider what an important constituency the students are in the transit field. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor. Any other committee members want to speak in favor of any quince for this position? I see none so if committee will indulge me briefly from the chair, I will first of all echo Councilor Trust House comments with regard to Ms. Poirier.

I will certainly be supporting her. My interactions with her as well have been top notch and I think it would serve us well to have somebody from the student community involved in discussing transportation issues. I am also going to be strongly supporting Amanda Pfeffer who although she was an added to this slate of candidates as a London police officer who works in traffic, I think that that perspective for transportation advice is very valuable to us because part of transportation is how transportation regulations are enforced which often falls to our London police services. So I think we would be very well served by having a representative from the London police services on this board.

I’m also going to say that I found Mr. Lardner’s application compelling as a father of two and looking at the future and transportation but in particular his references to transit for families was important to me too. So his application also sort of rose to the top of my short list in terms of some people who I think would provide some different insights in terms of how people move around the city. So I just wanted to share my thoughts in terms of where I might be putting some of my support and we’ll leave it at that and see if anyone else wants to be on the speakers list before we open the first ballot.

Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the first ballot. And just to remind colleagues, there are three vacancies so everyone has three votes on this. The first round of selection has resulted in no majority. The following is the vote summary.

Poirier, four votes. DeGroote, two, ISA, two, Vephyr, two, Lardner, one. Maclum, zero, power, zero. All right colleagues, so we will move on to a second round of voting and we will remove the zero and one vote candidates from the ballot and then past our second round.

Through the chair, the second round will include Poirier, DeGroote, ISA, and Vephyr. After the second round, the results are Poirier, four votes, DeGroote, two votes. ISA, three votes, Pfeffer, two votes. So again, there is no majority of the committee with respect to the three that are able to be chosen.

Thank you, Clerk. So colleagues, I’m gonna recommend that as we did earlier, that we take the same approach. If somebody is willing to move a referral with the vote selection that this committee has ended at, forwarded to Council for its consideration, that would be consistent with how we dealt with this earlier, rather than drawing lots. And Councillor Stevenson, you’re willing to move that.

Do we have a seconder for that? I’ll second that. That’s the clerk to prepare that and open the vote. We do have an opportunity while she’s typing that in, if colleagues want to offer any questions or comments on the referral.

It advises me that that is now ready in East Carolina. I will just read that out for colleagues, that the consideration of appointments to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee be forwarded to the Municipal Council for Decision. It being noted, the following voting record from Corporate Services Committee. Poirier, four votes, ISA, three votes.

DeGroote, two votes, Feffer, two votes. That’s the clerk to now open that for voting. Closing the vote, the referral is passed, four to zero. Thank you, colleagues.

That concludes the 4.1, all five sub-closas of it, with regard to appointments to the advisory committees. We do have additional items on the agenda under items for direction. These are all related to the issuances of proclamations. They are 4.2, Blood Cancer Awareness Month, 4.3, Arthritis Awareness Month, 4.4, Freedom of the City from the HMCS Prevo, and 4.5 National Coaches Week.

I will note in reviewing these myself, that the first three all had clear ties to the City of London. The final one, in my review of it, did not. So we can proceed as we normally have, in that we can deal with these as a group. We can deal with them individually.

We can deal with the first three as a group, and then the final one separately. I mean, committee’s hands, but I see Councilor Trussow nodding that we’ll deal with the first three as a group. If he’ll move that, and we need a seconder for that, Councilor Ferreira. So I will ask the clerk to open the vote to approve 4.2 through 4.4, and that vote is now open.

Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, three to zero. Thank you, colleagues. So that brings us to 4.5, issuance of Proclamation for National Coaches Week. And I would just look to colleagues.

I’ll speak to this very briefly from the chair. Here I am, somebody who’s been on a bench to help coach a hockey team. And I’m not ready to approve the issuance of Proclamation for National Coaches Week, because there was nothing in the application that clearly outlined the connection to London. And there are lots of good, there are lots of great coaches in this community, worthy of recognition and appreciation for the time they volunteer.

But there are lots of organizations that could have signed onto this. So if somebody was prepared to receive this and direct the clerk to follow up with the organization to return to us some more information, I will note that National Coaches Week is not until September 16th. So there is an opportunity to provide us information and still meet the deadline for their needs. Councillor Trussau and Councillor Stevenson are both amenable to that.

So we will just give them in at the clerk moment to prepare that. Clerk has opened the vote on that, and I’ll just read it out in dated July 5th from the Coaches Association of Ontario with respect to National Coaches Week. Proclamation request be received at being noted that the City Clerk’s office will follow up on the application in advance of the Council meeting of July 25th. Closing the vote, that motion’s passed, four to zero.

Thank you colleagues. That completes items for direction. Under deferred matters, we have from our consent agenda 2.5, the Council Policy Manual Review. And Councillor Trussau, you asked for this to be pulled.

So I wonder if you would like to start us off on this item. First of all, I really recognize the amount of work that goes into this, updating our by-laws and our policies in an ongoing way is very important. But I don’t think it’s feasible, or I don’t think it’s feasible, I’ll leave it at that, or workable to give close to 50 amendments to the public, to the press, to this committee at one time. And while I appreciate the representation made, that these are mostly minor housekeeping issues, I’ll note that sometimes somebody’s housekeeping issue is somebody else’s important procedural issue.

So I can’t proceed with this as it’s given to us. I was told just informally by recollection that several years ago, the mayor and the mayor, two of the Councillors did some additional work on this. And I’m wondering if somebody could help me with that. I think this would be a good candidate for if it would be procedurally okay, having the chair or maybe two members of the committee work with civic administration to sort through these and parrot down.

I guess my other grave concern here is this should not be a consent item, because I just think it’s just too consequential for it to be a consent item. So I’m not sure how to proceed. So I’m gonna start with an easy one. And that is we refer this entire matter to the governance committee for a discussion about how to proceed with these clean up.

I don’t even wanna say clean up ‘cause some of them might not be these amendments. And that it come back. I guess the other question I would have is there a reason why these can’t be staggered? Well, let’s go to Ms.

Livingston on the question of whether or not these could be staggered and get her comments on that. Through you, Mr. Chair, the clerk leads this work, but I would say that in order to manage the volume, staggering makes a significant amount of sense to me. And perhaps with the referral to GWG that allows us to create a more manageable process for council and receiving these every other year when the complete review is done by staff.

And I was just checking, I do not see the city clerk on the call. He is in another meeting at this time, but I will just, because the city clerk’s office is leading this, I will just check in with Deputy Clerk Ms. Westlake Power. Oh, Mr.

Card is online. So he might be able to give us some insight on this as well. Mr. Card, with regard to the prospective staggering these policy reviews, did you have any thoughts that you might wish to share with the committee?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We don’t have any preference. We’re at the service of council in consolidating these policies from time to time.

So whatever approach the council wishes to follow would be certainly fine with us. We do housekeeping amendments though. And I think for our own service area, for example, we identified a policy which was no longer applicable because it had been overtaken by changes in our own processes and legislation. So I mean, that’s the type of thing that we’re talking about.

But if the council would like to receive a presentation, for example, as Ms. Livingston said, certainly we could describe these various amendments that GWG and a lot of the council to be familiar with and before they appear on the agenda. So I appreciate Councillor Chaucer’s comments about this being a consent item. I think that really the question is whether or not the changes are of a housekeeping nature.

And I realize again that there could be some differences of opinion about what’s housekeeping and what isn’t. But we’re certainly available to discuss these various changes if the council so directs. Thank you for that, Mr. Card.

And I am just going to get Ms. Westlake power to share a quick thought on this as well. Thank you through the chair. And as Mr.

Card has indicated, you will note that from time to time, council policies come forward in a different manner off this cycle where there is a more significant change proposed or where a change is initiated by way of a communication from a Councillor or from civic administration. So those less housekeeping changes to policies occur in that manner. And this represents the administrative review of in accordance with the policy that addresses the maintenance of the policies. But again, as Ms.

Livingston has indicated, we’re in your hands as to how you’d like to proceed. Thank you, Ms. Westlake power, Councillor Trussow. The only other point I want to make along with staggering is that some of these policies look like they belong to one of the standing committees.

Some of them are clearly in the area planning, some of them are clearly in the area of civic works. And I think one of the things the governance committee might want to consider, and I don’t want to make that decision now, is in figuring out how to spread out the workload on these and allocate them. They be sent to the committees that have the requisite expertise where that’s possible. But I guess I guess I’m moving that I would like to refer this matter in its entirety to the governance working committee.

And I don’t think I need to add anything. Okay, so first we’ll see if there’s a second or to refer the entire thing. Councillor Stevenson, seconding. Okay, then I’m gonna ask, I’m gonna go to Councillor Ferrer for his question.

And then Councillor Ferrer, I’m gonna ask you to take the chair so I can speak to the referral. Thank you and through you. I just wanted to speak about the staggering portion. So if we bring this to the governance working group, from what I understand, staggering would be, we have so many items come to the group, discuss and review, and then on another date, we’ll have so many items come to the group until we get to the full length of the entire manual.

I just wanted to confirm that. So I don’t want to engage too much in cross debate, but I do want to give Councillor Truss out an opportunity to respond to what his intent is with this? Yes, my intention is not for these to start coming all 41 of them, one after another, two governance, it’s to talk about what the process should be for how to deal with these. Thank you, Councillor Truss out.

Councillor Ferrer. - Councillor Ferrer. And thank you and through you. Okay, so I like that, I just wanted to confirm that.

And I’ll take the chair and I have Deputy Mayor Lewis for some list. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. So I think first of all, on the referral, I’m not gonna support the referral as is, and I want to explain some rationale here.

First, we have three parts to the staff recommendation. And I think it’s very, very important that we approve Clause A, which formally brings in our bylaws to adopt our anti-racism and anti-oppression policy that quite an amount of work has gone into. And right now, we do need to officially forward that to Council to bring into effect. I would not want to delay that work.

I think it’s very important and it’s very critical to our strategic plan as well as our multi-year budget business cases moving forward in terms of applying those lenses if we don’t have that policy officially in place. Likewise, the Municipal Compliance Service, I think we do need to move forward on that one. The other clause, C, is I think equally important in that we have some bylaws on the books and some policies that are out of date. And a couple of those actually relate to having those repealed relate to passing the anti-oppression, anti-racism policy.

And so, for example, the gender equity and recreation services, that’s now covered under the anti-racism and anti-oppression policy. Sorry, I lost my train of thought here. The diversity and inclusion policy is also covered by the anti-racism and anti-oppression policy now. The City of London race relations similarly.

So we’re repealing some policies and bylaws that are on the books right now that are no longer really in force and effect, and we are holding that back. The sitting of the cannabis retail stores in London, that’s been superseded by policies of a senior level of government. That was introduced before those senior levels of government policies were in place. So I really don’t wanna hold up A and C.

I will say on clause B, I completely understand where Council Trust I was coming from. This was a tremendous amount of reading to try and digest in the time that we’ve had this agenda. There’s a lot of policies on here. And even though they are relatively small in terms of the housekeeping changes, there was a lot to absorb and to try and figure out if there’s anything that we wanted to perhaps reconsider.

But I’m also of two thoughts on this. Referring this to GWG, I will say as the chair, a lot of these are going to probably sit in limbo for quite some period of time. I think everybody on this committee is actually on governance working group. And as you’re aware, we’ve two meetings in a row, not even completed the agenda that we had before us, and we’re likely to do the same in the July meeting because we’ve got some pretty substantive items ahead of us.

And I do think about some of the housekeeping amendments in here, and for example, I’m gonna point out the Mayor’s New Year’s Honor list policy. During the last term of Council, Mayor Holder added a new category and updating that so that we can continue to recognize for distinguished Londoners is important to formalize in our policy. We have been essentially making those recognitions notwithstanding the policy that’s currently on the books. Similarly, we’ve got childcare policies where the childcare advisory committee no longer exists as part of the work that was done to revise and merge and eliminate some of the advisory committees in the last term.

So I think there are some things here that it’s really important that we just get the housekeeping piece done and that we would be tying up a lot of time reviewing things that really are truly housekeeping. The other reason I’m not super supportive of the referral of the entire package is because I think that governance working group is the appropriate place to send a policy for review. And if this was pulling out two or three policies specifically that Council wanted to dig deeper into, I would be supportive of that very much so. I think about the request to waive or reduce facility rental fees.

That’s one that I get asked about regularly from constituents and community groups looking to utilize community space. Do we need to review that? I also look at things like the list is so long, I have to keep scrolling up and down. And to the council’s point, that is the problem.

But when we’re talking about, for example, the council remuneration, well, that’s already before the governance working group. So what we’re doing right now would be amending the policy consistent with the direction of the prior council, but then the governance working group may bring forward a recommendation for future changes. So even if we approved these housekeeping matters today, absolutely nothing prevents us as councilors from picking out two, three, 10 of these policies and referring, making a motion to refer those policies to governance working group for further review. So my challenge is in doing this as a block.

Rather than if there were specific ones that people wanted to dig into deeper, I could be supportive of that. I would also be supportive of future motions that say, I want to review this specific policy. I know we had a communication that talked about the naturalized area and wildflower meadows from a member of the public. And that may be worthy of a deeper review.

I know that that discussion has happened with Ms. Share’s division and the parks folks in particular several times. So I think it’s an and both to quote our city manager that we should approve these, but we should also look and perhaps even as a motion that comes to council on our regular agenda related to this, that we should perhaps also have a motion that directs some of these policies to governance working group for some deeper review. So for me, I’m not opposed to having governance working group look at some of these, but I think it’s an and both.

I think we approve the staff recommendations today, but then be completely open to reviewing some of these policies going forward. I know we had one, another communication from a member of the public about our property standards by law and that policy. And I think that there’s a conversation to be had there. I like the idea of allowing people to do naturalized plantings in their boulevards.

And we have people doing those, but in the policy, it’s technically not allowed. So it’s kind of been one of those ones where we’ve allowed it if there’s not a complaint. But I, and that’s one where I would like to see us make some changes. So that’s where I’m going with this is, I’m not, I’m not willing to support the referral on the whole, but I understand the councilor’s challenges with absorbing all of this ‘cause I had the same ones.

And I also think that the idea of staggering these in the future has a lot of merit so that it’s not as overwhelming a process. So those are my comments, Mr. Presiding Officer. And thank you for your comments, Councillor.

I have Councillor, also next on the list and I’ll yield the chair back to you. I can amend my own motion, but I’d be very happy to proceed with A1, A2, and also with C2, C3, and C5, I’d be very happy to proceed with that today. C6, C1, C2, C3, C5, C6, A1, A2, I would be very happy to dispose of. Today, the rest of my referral request stands just as a point of information.

I don’t know if we do those or not, but the yard-to-buy law is actually coming to sit at work tomorrow for exactly that point. And some of these 49 maybe don’t need to be looked at, some of them do, but I’m not willing to do that today. And if this motion is defeated and we proceed to go through this, I’m gonna ask for all 49 items to be called separately. That is your prerogative, Councillor.

So we don’t have anybody else on the speaker’s list. Councillor Ferrer, just before I go to you, did we have anybody besides Councillor Trussa on the speaker’s list when you returned the chair? Okay, no, so I’m gonna go to Councillor Ferrer now. Thank you and through you.

I just wanted to speak on another note with Councillor Trussa’s motion, which I will second on that as well. I wanted to speak with or just go to staff for the City Hall’s flag policy review that we’re currently undergoing right now. I have been speaking with the clerk’s office a little bit about that, and that’s pertaining to the actual flags at City Hall itself. I just wanted to know if there’s any update on when that review will be complete, ‘cause I did see that it’s not gonna be complete for this list that I saw here, but I just wanted to get some update on that if possible.

I think that would fall to the clerk’s, Ms. Korman. That policy requires further review and consultation, which we have been undertaking and is scheduled to come forward on the next committee cycle as a standalone matter and report. Thank you for that, Ms.

Korman. Councillor Ferrer. Thank you through you, thank you very much. So the next committee cycle, that would be a committee cycle for this committee, correct?

Okay, thank you. Okay, before we advance any further on this, the seconder was on the referral was Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Trussau has then moved an amendment to his referral. So as the preliminary seconder, Councillor Stevenson, are you in support?

‘Cause if not, what we have to do is have you withdraw and then another seconder would need to be indicated. And I know Councillor Ferrer has indicated that he’s willing, but you’ve already seconded the referral. So are you going to be supportive of the amended? Okay, so you wanna withdraw your referral, your second on the original, and then Councillor Ferrer is willing to second the amended referral.

Okay, any other comments, questions before we call the vote on this? Councillor Trussau? Did we call the vote on A1, A2 and those Cs separately and get that out of the way? Or should we just do this as one package?

Well, it is a, right now it is a referral. So the referral takes precedence. Okay, so the procedural way forward is first we need the, on the advice of the clerk, what we need to do is to the cleanest way to do this, is if committee consents to the Councillor, rather than going through a series of amendments on a referral, if the Councillor is willing to withdraw his original referral and put the new referral on the floor, then we can dispense with it that way and that will clear things up. So Councillor, are you willing to withdraw your original and then move it again?

So I withdraw my original referral, which was the matter in its entirety and in its place, I would refer that all of item B, as well as item C other than two, three, four and six, or actually item C, one, four, seven, eight and nine, be referred to government. Okay, so first I’m just gonna check with committee. Is there any objection to Councillor Trussau withdrawing his original motion? And I’m seeing none.

So now we have a new motion on the floor. Councillor, can I just get you to reiterate those components again? Yes, the clarity that I would be interested in proceeding with A one and A two, as well as C two, three, five and six, and that accordingly item B in its entirety and item C one, four, seven, eight, nine, be referred to the governance committee. Okay, thank you.

And Councillor Ferrer is willing to second that. So any further discussion on the referral? Bear with us while the clerk works on this. Okay, the clerk does have this now for us in eScribe if you refresh, and it is a motion three, and it lists the, so this is on the referral that the following items be referred.

It lists the entirety of clause B, and then in C it is listing one, four, seven, eight and nine. That’s in front of you and only for any questions or comments. Seeing none, I am going to just speak briefly from the chair this time. Again, I, for me, item C has to be dealt with.

The cannabis retail stores is not an item that we should be spending time on, in my opinion. It’s superseded by provincial regulations now. The athletic travel grants have not been used for years, and I think it’s more appropriate that athletes seek out other community sponsors. Again, having operated in that area, there are plenty of opportunities available.

The enforcement of city personnel policy again, I think that that has to be repealed so that the new policy can come into effect. It’s, I’m really hung up on supporting, not supporting the items that need to be repealed, so I’m still not going to be supportive of this. We can certainly separate VNC for a vote, and that’s fine. The clerk says she can do that, so.

I just want to limit our differences as much as we can. So if we get bogged down on anything, it’s as little as possible. I think that’s fair comment, Councillor, and we will call B and C separately. Start with B.

Fosing the vote, the referral of part B is passed four to zero. Now we will ask the clerk to open the vote on part C, and that vote is now open. Fosing the vote, the motion to refer part of part C is lost on a tie to two. So colleagues, that brings us now to the remaining components of 2.5, which are part A and part C.

Councillor, trust out. Separated. So I’m happy to support part A and get that out of the way. So again, we can do this as separate votes.

We can call part A and part C separately. That’s certainly able to be done. And I will ask, I will direct the clerk to do that, and go ahead, Councillor. Yeah, and I was hoping not to do this, and I’m glad I’m not being asked to do this for the whole 40.

But I am going to ask for those seven to be called separately. And I hope we have the appropriate staff, because we are making a change in policy or by law. And I think it’s important for the council to have each one of those in front of us and make that determination. And I’m glad they’re only, well, they’re fewer than seven because some of those are going through with A.

So which are the ones that are still not going through with A? So Councillor, the best way to proceed is let’s deal with part A first, and then we will call each item in part C separately. Although it might, yes, certainly. Yeah, so we can have nine up and down votes on part C after we can dispense with part A.

But that won’t be necessary because a bunch of the ones in part C go with A and are related to the equity piece, and they can all go along as one. Again, limiting what we’re going to be dealing with. Okay, so the cleanest way to do this and for the clerks process, it’s gonna, we’re gonna call each item in part C separately. And we will first deal with part A, and we will ask the clerk to open the vote on part A.

Sorry, now I’m getting ahead of myself. We do need a mover and a second around part A. Moved by Councillor Trussau, seconded by Councillor Ferrera. At least seconded.

And now we will get that open for the vote. Closing the vote, the motions passed, four to zero. Thank you colleagues. Now we’re going to move on to part C.

There are nine items in part C from the staff recommendation that we will need to deal with. We do have, Ms. Smith is on Zoom, Mr. Card is on Zoom.

So as we deal with these individual items, we do have staff present who I think can answer questions on the majority of them. So Councillor Trussau, go ahead. Unless any of the other Councillors have questions on two, three, five and six, I would be willing to move the repeal of two, three, five and six as a group. Clerk is working on that and we will look for a mover for that or a second or sorry.

I’ll second that one. Okay, the clerk has that ready, so we’ll open the vote on that. Closing the vote, that motion is passed, four to zero. Thank you colleagues.

So now moving on, bear with me as I keep track of all of these items as well. So the next item that we will need to dispense with is C1, that is the Athletic Travel Grants. Councillor Stevenson. Page 30.

I’m sorry Councillor, I’m working from the PDF, so the page numbers are not the same as the print version. Let’s see if we can get you that page number, bear with me for a minute. The print copy, it is page 304. In the report, this is under 4.3 on page 36 and on this item, Athletic Travel Grants.

The report indicates this is recommended for repeal because funds for this initiative were eliminated in 2022. That’s moved by Councillor Stevenson. Second that. Councillor Ferrer, you’re willing to second that one.

Any comments or questions? And we do have Ms. Smith here. This would fall under her service area.

I see none, so I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that one. Closing the vote, that motion is passed, four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Moving on, the next item that we have to deal with under C, is item four.

This is the enforcement of city personnel policy. Bear with me for just one moment, I’ll get you the page numbers. By-law will be found on page 307 and in the staff report on page 36, the enforcement of city personnel policy because it is being replaced with a new policy, the Municipal Compliance Services to reflect the recent reorganization and the new strategic plan. And so this actually goes hand in hand with a two, which we passed earlier.

Moved by Councillor Stevenson. Second that. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote on this one.

Closing the vote, the motions passed, four to zero. Under 2.5C, item seven. The ending of helicopters policy. And bear with me for just a moment.

The page number in the report is 36 for the staff recommendation. And I will just get you the by-law number in a moment. The by-law page number is 310. And the, in the report, item seven, the landing of helicopters policy is because it has been replaced with an administrative procedure.

So Stevenson, you’re moving. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Ferrera, any questions or comments? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that.

Closing the vote, the motions passed, four to zero. A colleague’s moving on the next item on 2.5C8 is the protocol for unapproved Aboriginal burial sites. You can find the by-law on page 311 and you will find in the staff report on page 36 the recommendation protocol eight protocol for unapproved Aboriginal burial sites because council will review and consult in such cases. And that is the rationale for the repealing of this.

We’ll look to colleagues to see if they’re moved by Councillor Stevenson. We have a seconder, Councillor Trussau. Oh, you have a question? Understanding as this review is going to happen anyway pursuant to some other approval process.

So this is redundant. Ms. Livingston. Mr.

Chair, I would refer that to Mr. Card. His area has carriage of the policy. Mr.

Card. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. The policy was originally adopted at Under the Cemeteries Act, which called for the consent of the nearest indigenous community to the remains that were discovered.

In our case, there are complexities because the nearest community actually is Oneida Haudenosaunee and the remains, particularly those which date from more than 500 years ago, actually are members of other indigenous groups. So we found that the procedure, which allowed consent on the part of a particular group to the city becoming the owner of land that would be set aside in recognition of that burial site was not actually the best approach. And so as the Councillor anticipates, we intend to make individual recommendations depending on the circumstances that are discovered, particularly the age of the remains. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Card. So we do have a mover in Councillor Stevenson. Do we have a seconder for that?

I will second that one. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Councillor Ferriero, closing the vote.

Motion’s passed, four to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Our final item under C2.5, C9 is the sitting of cannabis retail stores. You will find the by-law on page 312.

And again, the staff recommendation on page 36, which reads under item nine, under 4.3, the sitting of cannabis retail stores in London, because it is redundant with provincial regulations for any questions or comments. Councillor Trussau. Is it redundant with or is it in conflict with provincial regulations? I get that.

Well, let’s ask Mr. Card that one. To the extent it is in conflict, which it may be in a particular case, it’s of no force and effect and it creates confusion. So that was the basis for the recommendation.

Thank you, Mr. Card. Councillor Ferriero, you’re moving. Councillor Stevenson, you’re seconding.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, four to zero. Thank you, colleagues.

So that dispenses with item 2.5 from the consent agenda, which was moved to deferred matters. That leaves us now with two items to deal with in confidential session. So I’m going to look for a mover and a seconder to go in camera, moved by Councillor Stevenson and seconded by Councillor Ferriero, and we’ll get the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, that motion’s carried, four to zero.

Thank you, colleagues. So we will be moving into confidential session. We will just need a moment to make sure that we have all the appropriate people in the room for those items. I will advise for members of the public that our reasons for going into confidential session on our public agenda is noted at 6.1 is a labor relations employee negotiations, matter pertaining to reports advice and recommendations of the officers and employees of the corporation concerning labor negotiations and employee negotiations with regard to one of the corporation’s unions.

And that’s 6.2 solicitor client privilege, a matter pertaining to advice subject to clients solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose with regard to any litigation or respective various personal injury and property damage claims against the city. I’ll give one more minute. And I’m very lenient. Good afternoon, it’s 403, I’d like to get the 12th meeting of the Planning Environment Committee underway.

Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is situated on traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Paudenosaunee, and then at Paywalk and Adawatran. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of 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 meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PEC@london.ca or 519-661-249 extension 2425.

This time I’ll ask for any disclosures of Pecuniary interest. Seeing none, and I will move to the consent items. Are there any items that committee members would like to call a seeing none? Then we will proceed to put all of them on the floor.

I would like to start, however, with a verbal presentation from staff. And this is regarding 2.2, regarding the Byron Gravel Pit’s secondary plan. This has been in front of council for many years now. And I thought it would be good for new councillors to just kind of get a brief history, update and be good for me as well.

Just to kind of hear where we’re at with this particular piece of property. It’s a significant property in Byron. So I would look to staff right now to please go ahead with them. Good afternoon.

Through the chair, this is Alison Curtis on behalf of planning and development. For item 2.2, which can be found on page six of the agenda package. The Byron Gravel Pit’s is a unique area within the city of London that has been providing gravel products to supply the London construction market for over 75 years. In the early 1990s, the city began exploring the long-term planning for future uses of the lands and developed the Southeast Byron area plan, which was approved in 1992.

As the aggregate reserves have continued to deplete and extractive industrial operations wind down, there’s been renewed focus on the future uses of the gravel pit lands. The process of developing a secondary plan for the area was initiated in 2016, a municipal council approved a terms of reference, directing staff to develop a secondary plan to guide future development for the secondary plan area. At the same time, work was underway to complete environmental assessment for the commissioner’s road realignment, which required work on the secondary plan to pause. The EA was completed in 2019 and approved three alignment of commissioners road through the secondary plan area.

Once this work was completed, the city continued work on the secondary plan. Since 2019, staff have been working to understand the physical characteristics of the site, evaluating recreational and open space options for the area and consulting with landowners, the public and provincial ministries to inform the development of land use concepts and development principles. Staff have prepared a draft secondary plan that provides policy direction for the lands within the gravel pits based on its unique topography, natural features and relationships with the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff are recommending that the draft secondary plan be received for information and staff be further directed to commence public engagement with the community and other partners to inform the final secondary plan in the implementing official plan amendment.

It is anticipated that engagement with the public and other partners will occur during the second and third quarter of this year. Plan refinement and another statutory public meeting will be held in the fourth quarter. Thank you and staff are happy to address any additional questions you might have. Okay, thank you.

So I’ll turn it over to committee now for any questions on that item or any other secondary or consent items. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, I just would like to make some comments if I may and through you and thank the chair for the presentation and to staff as well. There’s a lot of history in the secondary plan for the pet and I go back to probably eight years ago in my first meeting we had a planning 101 session and staff mentioned we should never refer things back unless there’s a really good reason and what was on the agenda was the gravel pet and we did have to refer back and it has been, I understand a lot of work gone into where we are today.

So we are receiving the draft plan right now really looking forward to the public participation process. I know we’ve done a number of public information sessions the past number of years, but I wanna just comment on what staff said about the uniqueness of this area and it has great public interest. So really looking forward to in the second and third quarter having public information sessions, getting the input from the public as we look forward to receiving, I guess the final draft coming back to us later on next year. I do have a question around once that final secondary plan does come to us next year, what would the process look like going forward if we decide to receive it or what are the next steps going forward?

I’ll go to staff through you chair. The next steps after the secondary plans approved so that’ll provide land use designations. We’d be expecting plans of subdivision to come in that will be looking at the different blocks of land for development and through those plans the subdivisions additional studies would be there. There would also be depending upon the ownership of the land we’ll call it the donut hole of the gravel pits which may become into public ownership.

There would be a master plan, a recreational master plan that would be undertaken that would provide the long-term development of those passive and active recreational uses. Councilor? Yeah, thank you for that information. I think we’re just starting that process now with that public engagement and hoping to hear a lot from the public.

Hope that information gets out to the public as we undertake the final version of the secondary plan. So I wanted to thank staff been waiting for this for quite a long time. So thank you. Any other comments or questions for staff?

Councilor Frank? Thank you, yes. And I also appreciate reading through this as I have chat with a couple of different people about this topic. I was just hoping to hear from staff a little bit about the process for protecting the bank swallows that we know are at the location which are species at risk?

Staff through you chair. We have been in discussions with the ministry and we’ll continue to be in discussions with the ministry. There’s a bit of a challenge that the licenses have to be surrendered for development to occur. The slopes have to be made safe.

We are trying to work with opportunities that we can preserve the bank swallows or provide for an alternative location for them, maybe within the gravel pits Councilor. Thank you and just to follow up. So would that kind of information be included in the secondary plan or would that be included in each specific development application individually? Good staff.

That would follow through subsequent applications. Currently, it may form part of the master plan for the recreational leisure portion, which would also look at some preservations of natural heritage features that are currently within the gravel pits. So those would be all incorporated into that larger master plan Councilor. Thank you.

Then I look forward to seeing that master plan later on. Thanks. Any other comments or questions from committee or visiting Councilors? Councilor Permall.

Thank you chair and through the chair to the staff. When we received the advisory committee minutes and there’s a lot of times it’s being noted and the things that were discussed, but we actually don’t know the results or what the advisory committees are supporting. And I just don’t know if it’s, if there’s an opportunity to include the information for us because there’s a lot of input that I feel we are missing and we don’t know how these advisory committees, how they feel about a specific issue. So my question is to the staff, is there an opportunity to include this?

Because I’m quite sure during the meetings the advisory committees they agree on certain things, they disagree on others. Go staff. Through you chair, one would hope through the minutes of the advisory committees that they provide their comments to us, but also we’re accepting the comments from them. And within that final staff report that we bring forward, the end of the fourth quarter or the sometime into the first quarter will include the comments that do come from the advisory committees.

So it’ll be part of an appendix. So you’ll be able to read those comments. Councilor. Thank you.

This might be actually a question more to the clerk’s office. And I attended one of the advisory committees last week. And again, I haven’t seen the minutes yet, but I really think that our staff when they take the minutes of these, if this could be included. So I don’t think they specifically to this committee, but because I saw the advisory committee, I just want to mention it that it would be certainly helpful to the committees when it comes that it actually states the opinions of the advisory committee, so what they stand for.

So it’s more for our clerk’s office when they are taking the notes and taking the minutes if they can include it for us as well. So I’ll see if the clerk wants to comment on that. I’ll go to Ms. Westlake Power on that question for a comment.

Thank you through the chair. Our role in the city courts office at that meeting, at the community advisory committee meetings is the same as our role at standing committees and council. And that’s the record of the motions that are passed. So in some instances, you’ll see where the comments of a working group or the findings and that sort of information is attached to the report coming out of the community advisory committee meeting, where they had directed that as part of a motion, that that be forwarded either to civic administration or to the standing committee.

And that’s the extent of the record that we keep. We do not do a verbatim dialogue summary and where the community advisory committee deems it appropriate to make a formal recommendation about their findings, that’s what’s reflected in the committee report. So if there’s not a motion that has that type of direction, that’s why you see the clauses that refer to the notation about the presentation that they received or the discussion that they may have had, but there wasn’t a motion that came out of it. Councilor Perbal.

Thank you and that certainly is understandable. One of the things, if we can please, when we have our staff at these advisory committees, if we can inform the members of these advisory committees, if they want this certain topics to come to us, that it’s gonna be either through direction or through the motion. And once they noted that I believe that there was gonna be more involvement in terms of the direction and motion and the information will get to us. So I would just like to ask our staff to advise the members of the committee during the meetings.

Thank you, Ms. Westlake Power. I’ll go back to you on that request and wanna hear your comments. Thank you through the chair.

I appreciate you acknowledging me again and being able to speak to that request. That has made very clear to the community advisory committee members when they are brought on their onboarded as part of the committee. And as you may be aware, we’re going through a process right now of bringing on new members and that will again be part of the onboarding process. Councilor Perbal.

No more questions? Thank you very much. I do have any other comments or questions on the consent items? Councilor Perbal.

Yes, for 2.5, the monthly report, if I threw the chair to the staff. If you look at the page, sorry, where’s the table on Appendix A. And my question to the staff is, if you look at year on year during the last three years, we are really on a large substantial decline. And I wanted to ask you, if there are any specific reasons potentially, I know it has nothing to do directly with us, but in terms of the economy, what’s your input on that?

And also, if there are any opportunities. So if we look at year on year, last three years, the significant decline, any feedback on that, please. Good stuff. Chair Thakai, well, then the manager of plans examination here on behalf of Peter Picaris.

I think the chair too, Councilor Perbal. We believe that the biggest change that we’re noticing in the construction values for 2023, over 2022 and 2021, do have to do with just some economic aspects of it, the interest rates increasing, and things are just adding some uncertainty into the markets. So we are noticing a decrease that has been pretty consistent throughout the year. So outside of that, we’re not 100% sure where it’s going, but we are still planning for all of the new units to come in and are getting everything ready for when they go.

Councilor Perbal. Besides the economic situation, which I think we’ll understand, are there any opportunities or certain things from our end that we could potentially improve on or make things faster or any way be more progressive? Anything from our end? Yes, just go through the chair.

Currently, what we are working on is we’re taking a step back and we’re looking at everything from an enhanced customer service to employee to help streamline things. As the numbers are lower, it’s a prime opportunity for us to grow, reach a new staff, get all of our processes in order so that we can moving forward when these units come into us, be prepared for the increase in building permits. Councilor. And in terms of the staffing levels, and I know in June, we received a request for additional, 11 additional staff.

And as far as I know, the recruitment started immediately. Any update on the progress of recruitment of these staff? The recruitment is still, oh, sorry about that. Through the chair, the recruitment is currently underway.

We do have the postings going up on the board recently or very soon. We haven’t seen a whole lot of the numbers come back and the positions haven’t necessarily closed yet. So in the coming weeks, we will get a better opportunity and have a better idea what those applicants are looking like. Mr.

Preble, or Councilor Preble, sorry. No more questions, thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other comments?

Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of comments as well, just listening to the conversation from the Councilor on the Building Division Monthly Report.

As he stated, we get the three years, just for you to staff. I would love to see numbers over a five or six year period, which I think would give us a better indication where we are. I’m often, when I do read the building reports, I often wonder how we compare to other municipalities too. It’s very easy just to be very focused in our own city and where we are with numbers and moving permits forward.

But I know it’s just the industry itself is having challenges and I would like to see somehow how we compare to other municipalities. I personally think that we’re hanging in there and doing everything that we’re possibly can do. Good to hear that we’re still pushing the staffing, getting that compliment going, the technology, getting that system updated and working better is something that I’m very supportive of. And I know the building department is doing everything possible.

So I just want to encourage staff to keep up the good work. Thank you, any other comments or questions for staff? I’d just like to follow up a bit on this discussion, Mr. Wilding.

I had the same questions in my head. The Councilor Hopkins had, I know the years of 21 and 22 where I would, well, I would say exceptional, but I remember hearing that these were very busy years. So I’m just wondering if staff could comment, are we back down to more normalized times, pre-COVID times? Or is this a bigger concern of onset of maybe recessionary times with interest rates starting to take their effect?

Through the chair, it’s a few discussions where it appears that we’re coming down into more of what would have been our historic normals. Of course, with London being as fast as growing as municipalities as we are, we are very much watching the numbers and the permits coming in and growing for that. In looking at all of our data, I have kind of noticed through this discussion as well, that the additional year or two would make a lot of sense on the data. So I do appreciate Council’s request there.

That is something that we are very actively working on. And I do like to know it to compare to other cities, and that will be something that I’ll take back, chat with staff and see what we can come up with. Okay, thank you. As we know, 47,000 homes is the target, and there’s concerns when we start to see a slowdown on how we’re gonna get there, which goes to my comments on the Byron gravel pit.

I’m very happy to see this back on, you know, eight years ago when it got started, infill and housing concerns weren’t on our radar, but now they are and talk about an infill project of quite the magnitude. So those are just my personal comments to staff. I encourage you to keep this train going, ‘cause I think that’s an opportunity for us to get some much needed housing done there. So if there are no other comments or questions, then I need a motion on the floor for consent items, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank, and I’ll call that vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you. And I’ll move on to our scheduled items, starting with 3.1 regarding properties at two and three, Ken in place, to be removed from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources. And I’ll look for a motion to open that public participation meeting, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank, and I’ll call that vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. We have the staff report. If there are any questions of technical nature for staff, I’ll go to committee right now before I go to comments from the public. Seeing none, I understand the applicant is here.

Okay, then I’ll open for comments from the public. If there’s anyone who would like to speak to this matter, please approach the mic. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online.

Thank you. So I’ll look for a motion, just one more morning. Okay, seeing none, then I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation. Councillor Hopkins, I guess, seconder please.

Councillor Hill, your seconds. So I will call the vote. Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you.

The vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, I’ll open the floor now to many members, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I’m happy to move the motion. I know it is, we’re looking at removing it from the register.

Doesn’t meet any of the nine points. So I also just wanna thank staff. When you give us these reports, they’re very detailed. I’m not the expert and I really appreciate all the information and detail that goes into the sour reports, so thank you.

Can I get a seconder for the motion moved by Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Frank seconds. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Seeing none, then I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, we have a similar item, scheduled item 3.2 regarding 689 Hamilton Road. I will look for a motion to open the PPM on this. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll look for anyone. Chambers would like to address the committee on this item. I’ll just clerk if there’s anyone online.

Through the chair, there’s no one online. Okay, it looks like no one wants to speak to this, so I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll open this item for our committee. Councillor Frank. I’m happy to move the staff recommendation and I think that Councillor and Councillor will be very happy to have it moved as well even though he’s not here.

Okay, thank you. Can I get a seconder on this one? Deputy or Acting Mayor Lewis, second. Any comments or questions before I call the vote?

Seeing none, let’s vote on it. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 3.3 regarding 1474 Clayley Road.

I will look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Acting Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

We have the staff report, I’ll look to committee. Now if they have any technical questions for staff at this time. Seeing none, then I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please state your name and you have five minutes.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and committee. My name is Jersey Smallerick. I’m a partner with Civic Planning and Design.

I’m here today to represent a partnership of two builders led by Royal Premier Holmes, who are the owner and developer for this project. First off, I want to acknowledge that we are in full agreement of staff, Planning Staff’s recommendation brought to you before you this evening. And we also want to thank Planning Staff who worked with us diligently throughout the process, specifically Michaela Hines and Melanie Vivian, who have been a great help to get this project to the finish line. This 18 unit project, infill project, proposed at 1474 Clayley is on an interesting site.

50% of it is on a heavily treed slope. So you can’t really develop much of that part. And we’re actually retaining the majority of the trees and the slope as is. The western portion of the site currently includes a single family home, which is proposed to be redeveloped into two buildings.

The front portion having a three story, 12 unit rear lane back to back townhouse building that all the units are going to be fronting on to Ford’s Clayley Road. And then in the rear, there’s going to be six units, three story townhouses with traditional style front garages. As you’ll see, we’ve provided and included a project fact sheet with the on the added agenda. Hopefully you’ve had a chance to take a look at that.

It provides further details about this project and outlines how we’ve led our community engagement process with the community. I’ll leave it at that. If there are any questions from the committee, I’d be happy to address them at the appropriate times. Thank you.

Thank you. And I’ll go to the public if there’s any persons that would like to address the committee. Now’s your time, I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online.

Thank you. So seeing no one would like to address the committee, I’ll look for our motion to close the PPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councilor Frank seconds. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll now open this item for committee discussion, motions, et cetera. I see Councilor Cuddy, I’ll let you go ahead as it’s been sure it’s in your ward. Thank you, Chair, and through you.

First of all, I want to thank the constituents of Ward 3 in this area, Kalele, and also on Webster for their work with the developers and the planners on this. This has been in my short term on Council. This has been the, I won’t say it’s easiest, but most comfortable project we’ve worked on, and I wish they were all this way. The planners, Civic, were excellent to work with.

The residents came together. We were able to collaborate on a design that nicely impacts the area. And it’s just been a very good relationship building process. We’ve had a number of residents that came to us with some suggestions.

I was able to pass them on to the planners. We were able to work them in. And Chair, I’ll even mention that the planners were so easy to work with on this that they were able to salvage some trees that were designated to come down, but due to a good working relationship, we were able to salvage the trees and placate the neighbors. And so it’s just been a very good relationship.

We’re very happy with it. And again, if all infill developments could go this way, I wish they would. So thank you to all of the residents on Webster and on Benjamin who worked with me on this and on Kalele and also to Civic for their work on it. Thank you, thank you, Councillor.

Look to committee members for questions or comments. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I want to echo a couple of things that Councillor Cudi just mentioned.

I do appreciate how many trees they are saving in that over 50 or just I think 50% of the area is green space, which is above our minimum of 30%. So I want to thank the applicant for making every effort to try and protect those trees. And I did notice as well that ensuring enhanced tree planting is provided that site plan is included. So I look forward to seeing an enhanced tree cover as outlined in that area.

So I’m happy to move staff’s recommendation and just thank staff and the planners at Civic as well for working on this together. Okay, so we’ve got motion that’s moved. Can I get a seconder? Councillor Hopkins, do you, I was going to go to you next.

You’re welcome to comment. But if you want to second it, that’s fine. So we’ve got motion moved in second and I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you.

I appreciate the work Councillor’s comments as well. It’s always good to hear the perspective of the word Councillor. I do have a couple of questions around the development. Happy to second it.

It’s a great info like the Councillor said. And the gift back for the trees is really appreciated being in the recommendation to enhance the tree planting. And I could see that that’s going to happen. I wasn’t sure if it is a three or four or has that been decided yet, three or four story.

And the second question I have is around the fencing. Is there going to be fencing? I know one of the concerns from the public was the fencing. Just wanted to know where that plays.

I’ll go to staff for that. Through the chair, the rear buildings are three stories and the front ones were four stories. And regarding the fence, that would be something that they would be able to do at site plan is further discuss the heights regarding that. Councillor.

Thank you for that. As we approve the zoning, we don’t see that process coming forward. So that’s why I’m asking. I’m glad you are going to be looking at the fencing concerns through the site plan process.

And thank you. Thank you. Other questions or comments on this motion? Okay, seeing none, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on, 3.4, this is regarding 165 to 167 Egerton Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting.

Acting Mayor Lewis made the motion and seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So we have the staff report. If there are any technical questions for staff, I’ll look to committee at this time.

Seeing none, I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address the committee. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Nick Dajak with SBM, representing the owner and developer for this project.

Generally, we’re supportive of the staff report. Three things as an excellent project coming forward and not a good opportunity for more compact residential development. We’re site site biddies that we’re seeing possibly in Adrian’s size. This is a very typical project that we see with the benefit of the community, working with the owner and the architect A plus link.

We’ve created a design that fits within the community, maintains the two houses fronting onto Egerton Street, which will maintain that streetscape character and hides the parking and townhouse development to the rear providing nine additional units. So we’re currently going through the process with seeing how the comments from the parents and the urban design peer review panel can be accommodated. We’ve made a few changes that we then greatly improve the site layout and the building materials and that kind of thing. So happy to answer any questions, but we look forward to an approval and site plan application moving forward.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look to the gallery now for any folks that would like to speak to the committee on this particular item. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online.

Do either chair, there’s no one online. Thank you. Seeing no one in the gallery at the mic, I will assume that we’re good to call the vote. So I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM.

Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Hopkins and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, and I’ll open this item for committee members, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes.

As always, I’m happy to see a nice infill project coming to us. I am wondering just through the chair to staff about the setbacks, the front yard and the interior yard look a lot smaller, but I know that they’re in measurement with existing. So any consideration or worries about that being too close to adjacent properties or you’re fine with the existing setbacks? I’ll go to staff and the question of setbacks.

Through the chair, so the setbacks that are being requested are for the existing dwellings. So just recognizing those existing situations. And it’s actually tied to the single detached dwellings exclusively. So the townhouses themselves would have to meet the minimum required by the R5 zone.

Councilor. Thank you, that makes sense. So then the new staff will probably have nice buffers to the adjacent properties is what you’re saying. Okay, yeah, that’s my main technical question.

Okay, other comments, questions, motions? Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and through you to staff.

The Queen’s space, any comments around it being sufficient? I have no to that and I’m trying to find it in the recommendation. So if you could just add— Staff comment on the Queen’s space on this project. Sure, thank you through you, Mr.

Chair. So private amenity spaces are provided for each of the townhouse units. They are provided a six meter setback from the building to the adjacent side yard or part of me side, side lot line. I believe there are also private balcony or deck spaces as well.

So amenity space is provided for each of the proposed units and then there are also existing patios on the single detached dwellings as well for private amenity space. And through our review, staff will have the opinion that that’s sufficient. Councilor Fray. Thanks, had one follow up.

I did notice in the comments, there’s mentioned for a public bike rack, given that there’s not, it looks like any other kind of outdoor amenities provided that would allow somebody to secure their bike too. I’m just wondering if that’s something that has been discussed with the applicant and might be considered. I’ll start with staff on that one. Sure, through you, Mr.

Chair. So there haven’t been any discussions, however, that’s something that can be considered through a future site plan. Councilor? Thank you, yes.

Well, I’d love to include a little amendment asking and directing staff to have discussions with the applicant about having a public bike rack at the location. Okay, so you’ve moved to motion. Clerk, do you have the gist of that motion? Councilor, can you repeat that for me, please?

It’d probably be under the existing staff recommendation under Part B, where we’re already asking the site plan approval to consider a couple of things. So maybe it’d be item five. I, I, I, oh, sure, yeah. Whichever area you want to put it in, four or five.

Anyway, under Part B, something along the lines of staff be directed to discuss public bike parking with applicant. I also would take any staff feedback on the wording of this on the fly motion. Staff can do a way in here on what the council is looking for with some suggestions on wording for the clerk. Through the chair, the suggested wording would be that the site plan authority be directed to consider short-term bicycle parking.

So if committee want to refresh their screens, their clerk has the motion there. Okay, if you see, if you look at the motion, if you look down to V under B, B, V, a line has been added, staff be directed to discuss short-term bicycle parking. Are you okay with that, Councillor Frank? Okay, a seconder, Councillor Hopkins.

Councillor Hopkins has indicated she would like to second. Any other discussion? Acting Mayor Lewis. I know we’re only asking staff to discuss and I know chairs never want to engage in too much cross debate on this or at any committee on any issue in terms of cross debate.

But this is a private residential development. There is bicycle parking being provided. There is parking being provided. So I want to hear the rationale more in terms of because people are gonna have their garages and things.

So you can park your bike in your garage. You can park your guest bike in your garage. I get concerned when we start when micro-managing site plan details to that level when there are options available for folks. So I want to know where the rationale is in terms of short-term, I get we have guest parking for cars.

And I understand that it feels to me like that’s where the Council is trying to get to is that we want guest parking for bikes as well. But I’m just not sure where we are gonna draw the line without reviewing our overall parking policies to start inserting these things in to individual applications. Like if that’s something that we want to review in overall parking policies, I think we should have that discussion. I also would like to know whether discussion with the applicant has been had on this ‘cause I’m always hesitant to start adding things in that the discussion hasn’t happened with the applicant on.

So through you, Chair, if the Council can address those a little bit, I would appreciate that. I’m not necessarily opposed to it, but I’d like a little more detail in terms of the thought process. I’ll look to the mover of the motion to respond. Sure, happy to.

Yes, so I’m just thinking of my use. So if I was to go and bike over there, it looks just based on the design that I won’t be able to lock up anywhere. And I have to carry my bike up a flight of steps into somebody’s house, which is I can do it, but it’s annoying. And we’re providing a lot of parking for cars, although that’s arguable based on who you talk to.

And I think that as somebody who would commute to this person’s house by bike, I would like something that I could lock to. And usually when that happens, when I can’t find anything, either lug it up steps to somebody’s house or I go and find like a city stop sign and lock it to that. And I never feel overwhelmingly confident it will be there when I return. And I don’t know for sure, but maybe my direction is to ask the chair to staff, are there garages?

To me, this looked like there were no garages and all the parking spots were out front. And so again, I was just thinking that if we’re gonna be providing that much available parking to both residents and to visitors, it would be nice if they had visitors who would be able to park their bike out front because I wasn’t sure if there are garages there. So I’ll go to staff. Is there secured parking at each individual residence or is it shared parking lot?

Through you, Mr. Chair, there are no private garages for each unit. There’s just the surface parking available, but no private garages. Okay, Councilor.

Thanks. So I think then again, to me, just having a nice little bike rack with like four little lock up loops would be sufficient. And that’s why I just wanted the staff to discuss because also maybe it’s something where they only do one, whatever, that’s fine. But I think as somebody would probably bike here, I wouldn’t want to carry my bike up their steps.

I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis and then to Councilor Hopkins. I’m sorry, Acting Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate Councilor Frank following up and giving a little more on that.

And I do apologize. Actually, I read the detached garage, but it’s to be removed not to stay. So that was my mistake on that piece. So I apologize for that.

So I understand where the Council is going. And I understand that it’s a discussion that it may or may not happen. I will assure her when she comes to visit later this week in order to, she won’t have to carry her bike up the steps, she can lock it up in the backyard with me. But that’s, I’m open to supporting this as a discussion because I do think what she convinced me of is, while this is a town host development, I have visited friends at apartment buildings and had no place to lock up my bike.

And so I understand why she wants to have that, at least as part of the discussion on that. And yeah, if it’s a for loop sort of traditional rack, I mean that that’s better than a city, no parking sign out on the side of the road or whatever else might be available. So I appreciate the discussion on that. And thank you to Councillor Frank for a little more detail on her thought process.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. Just to add to the conversation and why I second this, I appreciate the acting mayor’s concerns about getting into micromanaging. I don’t think we are when it comes to discussing, we’re not gonna see the site plan process going forward.

This is an opportunity where we can make these suggestions to discuss, so that’s why I’m seconding it. Any other comments or questions before we, I put this motion that’s been moved and seconded as amended on the floor. Seeing none then I’ll, if the committee will permit me to throw my two cents in. I see where the acting mayor was going on this.

And I think if this development had individual driveways or garages, then I wouldn’t be too keen on it, but this strikes me as like an apartment would be. And in that case, we shared parking lot for shared cars and visitors, et cetera. I think a discussion on having a secure place for tying up your bike is not a bad conversation. So I will support that.

Okay, so I’ll put the motion on the floor. Please for voting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.5, 146, extra road.

I will ask for a motion to open the public participation, meaning Councillor Hopkins, the seconder by acting mayor Lewis, so call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. We have the staff report, any technical questions for staff? Seeing none, then I will look to the applicant.

The applicant is here. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. We’ll go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee, Jamie Guffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants. I’m here representing the numbered company, the applicant for this development. The development is a plan of subdivision and zoning bylaw amendment. It is an extension of the Middleton estate subdivision and basically is coming forward at this time due to timing of stormwater management infrastructure at the time of the approval of the original Middleton estates.

We would like to thank staff for working diligently with us to make this committee meeting. There was a lot of work that was undertaken by the planners to ensure that we were making this particular meeting and would also like to identify that we have reviewed the recommendations and support the proposal as submitted by the planning staff. I’m available to answer any questions that may arise. Thank you very much.

There’s anyone from the public that would like to address a committee. Please go to the mic. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Jason Lalonde.

Mr Lalonde, please go ahead. You have five minutes. Thank you, thank you for giving me the time. Yeah, I understand that our traditional design culture is a powerful driving force and it’s easy to stick with familiarity.

However, since our traditional methods haven’t have proven slightly problematic, I think it’s important that we work to break away from the past while some boxes may technically be checked in this proposal. I think there are some issues and the design can be improved. I think the biggest problem I have with this development is that it is largely more single family home sprawl. The area set aside for single detached homes offers 20% fewer units than the medium density area but takes up twice as much space.

So sprawl is clearly an inefficient use of space. As I understand it, it has been established that sprawl incense devices driving and disincentivizes active and public transit. Sprawl also costs the city more money to maintain and service. So it sounds like sprawl should be avoided and but this is just more sprawl.

Sprawl is financially unsustainable and yeah, I think we need to get away from it. Other areas or other issues with the design here, the staff report said that there was some green space that was provided for a focal point in central gathering. However, there are two green spaces at opposite ends, not in a central point. The green space at the top is OS5 where a park can’t be established as I understand it and the OS1 green space is down near the single family homes where there are backyards.

There is a park in the neighboring community, which is good. So that’ll be good for anyone who doesn’t have to cross Bradley Avenue, but the medium density dwellers who want to get to a park with a playground are gonna have to cross four lanes of road. So I don’t know if that’s the greatest thing. The report says that this is a walkable neighborhood.

Now I know there is a commercial section at the top in the north section. I don’t know what’s gonna go there exactly if there’s gonna be a grocery store, but if not, the nearest grocery store is a 22 to 27 minute walk and that’s for the higher priced grocery store. The nearest budget grocery store is a 31 to 36 minute walk, which is a long wonderland road, which to be frank is a terrible walk. Unless the proposed commercial site will host a grocery store, this designed virtually guarantees residents will be driving for their groceries rather than walking or cycling.

I would think a walkable and cyclable neighborhood would strive to guarantee that most would walk or cycle to purchase their food. As far as the cyclability, I wonder what indoor bike parking will be provided for the medium density units who don’t own garages. I’ve lived in a building without proper bike storage and it is a very big disincentive to try to bike anywhere. And providing bike paths is great, but we also need to think about where people can store their bikes when they’re at home.

And so I do think that that does need to be addressed. If we were to replace all the single family units with more dense options, we could do townhouses, three-story walkups, small sections of mixed use buildings that have retail office space and residential, we could easily hit 1,000 or more homes in this development and add an average occupancy rate of 2.4 people per household. That’s enough people to support a small grocery store right in the middle of the development, along with a few other shops. And that’s not even factoring in the Middleton Estates right next door.

One thing I just wanna point out that to be frank, wealthier people live in single family dwellings and poorer people live in medium density. In this plan, the major roadway cuts through the poorer area. The major roadway needs to be crossed by the medium density dwellers north of Bradley in order to access OS1 green space. This may just be a coincidence, but I think it’s something that we should probably look at a little more closely.

This place doesn’t really seem, the development doesn’t really seem to have a central gathering point. There’s the north part of the south, but if we were to make everything more dense, we could then have a large park in the center with a few shops and cafes and restaurants where people could gather and get together. Otherwise, they’re not walking anywhere. They’re just staying in their houses, we’re driving everywhere.

So I’ll try and sum up quickly. The current proposal is unfortunately more sprawl. Though familiar, it’s not gonna help us get further. Sprawl is environmentally unsustainable, fiscally unsustainable, financially not viable as it cannot pay for itself.

The plan disincentivizes active and public transit and incentivizes car travel. And Exeter is just south and that should probably be where we steer cars. That’s my five minutes. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Any other persons that would like to speak to the committee? Does anyone else online click? Through the chair, there’s no one else online.

Okay, seeing that there’s no one else that would like to address the committee, I will look to a motion to close the PBM, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank, call the vote. No, yeah, I did. It was a big close public meeting and then they go to Tesla and have a chance. I would advise the person online that your microphone is still on.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members.

Let’s report. Thank you and thank you both to the applicant staff and then the resident who commented online. I did want to follow up maybe some of the ideas that were sparked by the resident. I’m wondering, I’ve pulled up the map that’s on page 17.

That kind of outlines the different zones that are being rezoned. And I’m just wondering if staff can maybe briefly walk us through the various lots and what the density is on them. I know there’s like some R1, R1, R4, R6, OS5. So I was just hoping to get like a real quick overview of maybe how many units would be on each of those lots if possible, ‘cause I’m getting kind of confused about where the townhouses are and where the single family homes are.

Go to staff. So you through chair, just looking at the plan, I don’t have the map up that the council was after, but the single family would be the residential R1 zones and then the townhouse blocks would be the R5s, the R6 zones, so there’d be the cluster in there. And that would allow for, like I said, the single detached and the townhouse development noting full well that some of the units can be brought up to two or three based on the recent legislation from the province. Councilor.

Thank you. So just following up, R1s can have up to three units on a lot due to the additional residential unit, but in no way if we approve R1, would we have to compel them to build three units on an R1 spot? Go to staff, that’s correct, Councilor. Thank you.

The follow-up question I have to that was just servicing for that area. Again, if it is as is, I assume if you’re bringing this to council or committee, we have all servicing available, but hypothetically, if we were to move the R1s up to a higher density, is that possible to be serviced in that area through the chair? Go to staff. Go to the chair, thanks for your question.

As part of the draft plan, we reviewed the servicing capacity available as per the plan. If there was a request for higher density, we’d have to review that to see if that servicing is attainable, Councilor. Thank you, yes. Based on that information, I appreciate the information from staff.

I personally would like to vote on the R1 separately as I don’t think that they’re an efficient use of space given our housing and environmental crisis. So I’m hoping that there’s a possibility to do that maybe through the clerks. I do think it would be great if the applicant could reconsider and do more townhouses in that area. So the clerk will pull that to be voted on separately, Councilor.

Other comments or questions from the committee? Acting Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And through you, there is a reason that people are still building single-family homes because people still want to buy single-family homes, live in single-family homes, and have raised their families in single-family homes.

The other thing I think is really important to emphasize is the city, the developer. Nobody can compel a commercial retail business to open in any site. The comment we heard from the public was, that’s enough people for a small grocery store. I can tell you the downtown has been asking for a grocery store for 20 plus years.

And the catchment area that they need requires a minimum of another 10,000 people living in the downtown before they would consider a grocery store. And we’re talking about the big chains here, not necessarily a small independent, but there’s not a whole lot of small independent grocery stores operating right now. And so we can’t base a decision on a neighborhood zoning application on what might potentially occupy a retail space. In fact, recently there were discussions around updates of the London plan for the downtown to not require commercial ground floor outside of Dundas Place in Richmond, rural, that we wanted to focus the commercial there, because the retail world is changing, rather dramatically since the pandemic.

And bricks and mortar shops just aren’t in demand the way they used to be. Commercial, whether it’s retail or office space, is struggling already. We and other committees of this council have heard repeatedly for several months now the challenges with the downtown vacancy rates in commercial spaces. So to think that we will put them in neighborhoods and that they will fill up, I think is rather hopeful, but not really practical in the current economic realities.

So I’m gonna support the full staff recommendation here. Chair, you mentioned in the last application, the 47,000 units. In fact, we referenced that in the building report too. Every unit we build is one more unit.

We’re closer to the 47,000. The 47,000 number is not unaffordable unit of housing. It’s not a rent geared to income unit of housing. It’s housing, period.

And when we’ve got a vacancy rate in the city of well under 2%, we need to take every unit that we can get. Changing zoning now means shovels are not going in the ground anytime soon because the applicant has to go back and completely rework their financials, their engineering, all of those things. They’re here with an application before us now because those things are in place. The minute we start changing zoning requirements based on some public comment or some desire for more infill means they’ve got to go back to all of their financiers and density is great, yes.

We’re also in a high inflation environment right now where we’re actually seeing units slowed down because of the cost of materials. So the more expensive we make a development, the more difficult it can be to get shovels in the ground as well. So I’m not going to support any changes to this. I’m going to support the staff recommendation moving forward.

I think we have to be pragmatic about the fact that when the applications get to the point that they’re before us and we send it back and say rework it, what we’re really saying is don’t put a shovel in the ground for another two or three years. So I’m not going to support changes to this tonight. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you committee members for the discussion here.

I want to just maybe follow up from the public. I really appreciate the comments coming from the public. I didn’t see any here in the recommendation, even though I really did appreciate the internal department comments. I thought those were really important.

I don’t see it too often. I understand we do it with subdivisions, but it really helps me being a committee member to hear the discussions that have been ongoing to this point. And from, leading from those comments that were made, maybe I’ll just start with the, at the corridor. Before we get into the housing conversation, the open space and the complete corridor that is going to be part of this subdivision development.

I think it’s really important that the city will be obtaining that corridor working along with upper Thames. Obviously we’re going to need a section 28 on this, but really creating a corridor there that is going to help not only move the water around, but people and creating, and I hope creating that low impact development that really needs to happen in this area. So I understand that’s going to be an agreement following if this is approved or not here with the city and the developer. I think those things are going to be really important.

And I’d just like to add since I have everyone’s attention here and staff in particular, the importance of when this corridor comes about, the monitoring and how that is going to work is also going to be very, very important. It’s a low lying area. It’s, it needs that extra bit of care as we develop this subdivision around it. I really appreciated the public’s comments as it really got me thinking about how isolated this area is and how car eccentric it is.

And I will be supporting the recommendation. I appreciate Councillor Frank’s comments about that residential. I think we could do more density in this area, but the concerns that come with more density in this area, the walkability and the transit is lacking. So if we can do more to encourage that walkability, the biking, just the movement and not depending on the cars, just getting in and out of this area can be challenging from time to time.

So I am supported mainly ‘cause subdivisions today, we do that mixed use. It’s, to me, it’s that simple. We put in single homes, we put in medium density, high density, throw in some commercial. There’s a lot of commercial in this area, but I will be supporting it.

I would like to acknowledge though, in the recommendation there are, there is a holding provision that it be added in the recommendation. I understand the clerk has that as well. So with that, those are my thoughts. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I still need a motion. We do not have an motion. Councillor Frank.

Okay, you have more comments. Please feel free to go ahead. Thanks. I just wanna follow up on a couple of comments that were mentioned.

I do actually agree with Acting Mayor Lewis. No one can compel a developer to build, but we are in the position that we can approve and refuse applications. And as we’ve been discussing over the last couple of months, we know we need to be doing things differently. Single-family home sprawl is expensive for the city, for taxpayers.

It contributes more to our missions. And honestly, I think it’s gonna be slowly phased out the way that VHS and CDs are seen less and less and used less and less because it’s no longer working for us. And nothing changes if nothing changes. So I don’t think we can reasonably be approving more urban sprawl, giving our housing and environmental crisis.

And I’m happy to be both hopeful and practical. Every developer I’ve spoken with would rather build townhouses because they make more money. At least that’s my understanding, I could be wrong. And if units are slowing down as we have heard, then that provides more time for them to redesign the two zones.

I mentioned, I’m not against the entire development, just the two zones that are single-family homes. I don’t think I have the votes to carry this, but the point is, if it was to go through, there’s still a lot that they could be working on while they redevelop the two areas that I’m speaking about. And if we’re trying to build 47,000 units and knowing that our low density or residential numbers are declining, regardless, the point is that our housing and environmental issues remain at a crisis level. And using up land for single-family homes is wasteful.

We gobble up over 319 hectares of farmland every day, and 5% of Ontario’s farmland is agriculture, and most of it’s located in Southwestern Ontario. So every bit of land needs to be properly used. And at this point, I’d rather take a bit more time to make the right decision than live with decades of issues that we have from urban sprawl. So we have the opportunity before us.

I, again, will be voting on the single-family home residential one separately. But the rest of it seems like a good use of space to me. So thank you for the applicant and staff for working on it, but just moving forward, this is something I’ll probably be bringing up more and more. Thanks.

I’ll go to Acting Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So I’m gonna move the staff recommendation. And I have a seconder, please.

Councilor Hill, here are seconds. Any other comments or questions on the motion? We will be voting on the one item separately. Acting Mayor Lewis.

Thank you. I just wanna, one brief comment. Councilor Frank and I may disagree on this matter, but this is within the urban growth boundary. It’s not sprawl.

Sprawl is when we start to consume land outside the urban growth boundary. This is intended for residential growth and use. So I appreciate the passion for addressing sprawl challenges, but it is within the urban growth boundary. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote?

Then I’d like to have committee’s permission for me to speak to this. I think at committee level is not the place or forum to ban development of single-family homes. I think that’s a bigger discussion. Probably best held for when we review the London Plan perhaps.

What I would suggest, there are many folks that want to raise families with a backyard in a single-family home and not in higher density. And if it’s not available in London, they’ll go to surrounding communities, which I would argue would add to carbon emissions and more car driving, which is exactly why those that were arguing the other side are trying to prevent. But I believe that we are acting within our London Plan right now and to make a diversion of banning a certain type of development. Again, I don’t think this is the appropriate forum for that.

So I will be supporting the staff recommendation. If there are no other comments or questions, I see Councillor Trussell, please go ahead, sir. I’ll be very brief. I just want to agree with Councillor Daller-Frank.

Just because something is within the current boundaries of the urban growth boundary area, doesn’t mean it’s an appropriate area to be building up. And I think it’s one that can fight those two points. And I’ll just, we’re gonna have a lot of discussion about this, but just ‘cause something is inside the border, doesn’t mean that we don’t have discretion to say no. And I’ll leave it at that.

Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? We have a motion moved and seconded. So I will call the vote and the clerk will separate it into separate items, correct?

All right, because we’re splitting it, we’re gonna need two motions. So I need a motion on the first for the R1, Acting Mayor Lewis, seconded by. I’ll second it. Any comments or questions on that item?

Then I’ll call the vote. Just to speak. What we are, the motion right now, is the motion is to move the residential R1 special origin, R1, R1-137 in Part A. That’s been moved and seconded, and I’m gonna call that vote right now.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. It’s to move, not remove. It’s been, sorry, you didn’t refresh your screen. Sorry, my apologies.

We changed it probably before you refreshed your screen ‘cause that motion was to for the staff recommendation. When I looked at the motion, there was remove. So let’s, Councillor Frank, I’m willing to, I think we’d have to do a reconsideration and I’m willing to do that if you, okay? Ms.

Westlake Power, do you want to guide us here and make sure we do the reconsideration properly? Thank you through the chair, before you recognize me, you had already said the words reconsideration, you will require a motion and it can be moved by anybody because everybody voted on the favorable side of the previous motion. So it’s just a reconsideration of the previous motion supporting the R1 so that it can be voted on again. Thank you, would someone like to make that move that please?

Councillor Hopkins, I think I have a seconder, Acting Mayor Lewis, so if you refresh your screen, if you need to, it’s just a reconsideration of the last vote we had, then we can do a due over. So I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll need a mover and a seconder.

You can see the words are now corrected. If you refresh your screen, Acting Mayor Lewis and a seconder, I’ll second it. Any questions or comments before I call the vote? Then I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Thank you, now I’d look for a motion to move the remainder of the staff report. Councillor Hopkins, seconder, Acting Mayor Lewis, any comments or questions? I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you, we are down to 3.5 regarding 146 XR Road. I will look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, and I’ll call the vote.

I might apologize, I read the wrong, (laughs) All right, we’re on 3.6, which is 725, 729, 735, 737 Dundas Street, 389, 391, 393 Hewitt Street, a portion of 7r King Street, 400 Lyle Street, and other properties. So now I will look for a motion on that item to open the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, so I’ll call the vote. I think the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

We have the staff report, any technical questions for staff at this time. Seeing none, then I will go to the applicant. If the applicant is here, please sir, state your name, and you have five minutes. Hello, planning and environment committee.

My name is Alex Brown. I work at Stantec Consulting. I am here on behalf of the land owner and developer for this project. Also with us here tonight is Luca Cott, manager of land development of Medallion Corporation, the developer.

First off, I wanna thank you for your time here this evening, and the general overall positive support we’ve received from the community, and council’s passed for this project. This project is in the final stages of site plan approval. One of our conditions to receive site plan approval is to bring the project before the committee for one further round of public participation. That is why we’re here tonight.

Luca, and sorry, the staff have done a wonderful job summarizing this project in the staff report, so I won’t go into details about the project. Luca and I are available to answer any questions that may come up tonight that staff cannot address. Thank you. Thank you, thank you.

Look to members of the public now. Someone would like to address the committee now is your time. Please go to the microphone. Please give us your name, ma’am, and you have five minutes.

I’m Sylvia Langer from Unity Project for Relief of Homelessness, next door neighbor, to the development and application here. And it is, I guess, the only thing that is outstanding for us, and I suppose this is a question I could have just asked Alex while he was sitting beside me the whole time here, and which I’ll address later, is it has to do with the access that Unity Project has to the garbage, which is historically and grandfathered into the previous development agreements for access to garbage on that site. And everything is good, but I think we read the site plan a little bit mistakenly until recently, and there’s just a question of where our access door is located that is of great importance to us now. So I’m wondering what the opportunity could be for us to just change that, or what impact that has on the site plan right now, like whether or not it’s possible to keep the access door where it is right now, and not to move it to the back, the very rear of our property.

The reason being is that we don’t have clear access from the front of our property to the rear to get that garbage through. There is, with regard to the fence line and the building, there are obstructions in between there in terms of fire exits. When you get snow and ice, you know, in the midst of that, you’re gonna have an issue. Then there is the fact that where we two try to reinvent how garbage is managed on our site, it would require a resurfacing of our back lot.

It would have all these implications as well. In the meantime, Unity Project has stationed these pallet structures in the rear yard. And those kind of obstruct or affect the access where it is proposed on the site plan. So that represents an issue to us.

I don’t really, I think everything else, we’ve addressed with regards to vibration control, the concern that we have access to ensure that we always have access to our driveway. I don’t think that there is any, there was some road widening written onto that. And I’m just wanting to ensure that throughout the build and the construction that it does not ever impact access to our driveway, particularly because we have a great reliance on emergency vehicles. Thank you.

So I don’t know what I really do from here with regard to that. Do I just like have a private conversation with Alex? I’ll ask those questions when the public participation meeting is over. Okay.

  • Yeah. Very well, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else I would like to address the committee?

Please ma’am, state your name and you have five minutes. Hello, committee. My name’s Jen Pasterias. I represent the Ullies Village Business Improvement Area.

Thanks very much for having me here today to speak to this. The Ullies Village has been partner with both the Medallion Corporation and the City of London through the two previous phases and the current phase three of the development located along King Lyle and now Hewitt and Dundas Streets. Since 2007, we’ve been pleased to work with the developer in the city and area businesses and residents to integrate thoughtful and useful feedback ahead of the official PPMs at all three stages of progress. This was to ensure that all parties, including commercial and residential interests and concerns were heard and noted.

In the proposal before us, we met at the Palace Theater in February 2020, together feedback from residents and membership and then worked with Medallion in the city to integrate solutions to parking logistical and design concerns into this iteration of the rendering and proposal. We don’t do this work to make it difficult on any party, but instead to work towards consensus on good development, which provides grassroots, contextual, geographical and social information in order to inform development and remedy potential challenges before they occur. Initially, when appropriate, we also request design and site plan elements that work to connect the physical and social elements of these residences to the commercial corridor. This is, again, a benefit to both the area of businesses, residents and Medallion residents.

One such request was made of Medallion in the initial 2008 site plan application to create a connectivity pathway from 700 Dundas Street property to Dundas commercial corridor via the Medallion-owned lot located between OEV’s favorite unique food attitudes and 707 Dundas, otherwise known as 701 Dundas. These were to be commercial infill located at that location. Between 2009 and 2017, Medallion said informed us that they were not able to find a suitable commercial infill for that location. And in 2018, during the build of phase two, that commercial property was made into a surface parking lot, which was prohibited in the zoning by-law under section BDC 24.

The BI is pleased to see that this has been addressed in this report and that 15 meters of sod will be placed at Dundas in that location. The image on Appendix A overall site plan shows a green space and a 1.5 meter walkway. But I need to be clear, to date, we have seen neither a pedestrian walkway as identified nor a green space. While I know commercial infill is market regulated and can’t be forced, what the BI requests as a part of this next project is the completion of the original site plan by the removal of the non-conforming use parking lot and the inclusion of the pedestrian walkway that appears in Appendix A in section four two.

This will fulfill both the zoning requirements and the 2008 site plan connectivity between medallion development complex and Dundas Street. It notes in section 4.7 that city staff will continue monitoring outstanding site plan matters. We’ve been waiting for connectivity passes 2009 and the removal of the non-conforming parking lot since 2018. What assurances can the city staff provide through existing processes that these two elements will be completed during this phase of development?

Another concern with the standing towers and the new development is the management of garbage. Currently, the structure noted in section four three is that there is, and there is an operational and structure that is there for garbage. However, the doors are regularly unlocked and left open, leaving personal garbage and large furniture items to be spread out amongst the area via different means. If there are to be an additional 270 units, it is necessary to have garbage located and secured in an area that is less accessible to the general public.

Ken staff explain number one, if the existing system noted in 4.3 will still be used once this new building is operational. And second, more clearly outline where additional garbage related to the 270 units will be stored and managed. And if there’s a plan that is attached to this plan to address how it’s gonna be managed. Otherwise, we’re very excited to see this new building erected on the current location of the property’s long shuttered.

As we stated in our previous comments, the design conforms to the urban design manual. We support the inclusion of affordable units and the additional parking spots to address the current parking challenges. Ollie’s Village welcomes additional residential and commercial units to the corridor as well as beneficial design to streetscape. With the exception of the small list of identified improvements, overall, the BIA is supportive of this development in its design and scope.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the public like to address the committee? Lisa, state your name and you have five minutes.

My name is Frank Felice and I’m a resident of the Ollie’s Village. And I’m in support of this development. It was interesting to hear the previous discussion that was had about the challenges to designing cities. And if you look at this particular development, you can take off some of the boxes in terms of its high density as affordable units.

It’s in a walkable neighborhood. And so, and in addition to that, the east link of the BRT will be traveling one block south of where this particular development is gonna be located. So I think it’s really a kind of development that should be supported. It’s gonna bring people living, more people living on the Dundas Street corridor to support those individual businesses that are there, that are unique, that are of high quality.

And so I think it’s a really good mix and a good addition to the vitality of Ollie’s Village. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any others that would like to address committee?

Please, ma’am, you have five minutes. Give us your name and I want to go. My name is Sarah Merritt. I’m a resident of the Ollie’s Village.

Also the past manager of the BIA. So I have a long history of engagement with the Medallion Corporation. Not my story to tell, but the people who founded that particular corporation had their own experiences of homelessness. So they’re very attuned to what it’s like not to have a home.

I’m supporting this site plan approval principle. I’m really pleased to see that the setback at the first level is in keeping with the scale of the existing buildings. I’m also pleased that the developers designers agreed to replicate some of the existing window, the sad treatments in the area. It would actually be helpful at some point as this process proceeds to be able to see what that would actually look like.

We had some long discussions about the corner of Dundas and Hewitt, particularly what the Dundas Street corner would look like for the entrance into the apartments above commercial art. I mean, we were able to get agreement about some really neat design. There is, however, on Dundas Street a pretty dense brick facade beside where the entrance to the apartments are. And I think it would probably create some opportunity and space for public art.

The four levels of structured parking, while necessary, is really dense in terms of what it could look like. When we saw some renderings, the architect did give us some ideas of what artistic designs could go on to that particular structure. I think that it’s really important that there’s some enhanced design on the parking facade to avoid the perception of dead space and the domination of concrete in that area. Some of what I’m going to refer to Jen from the BIE has already talked about.

The impression that I had from reviewing what we were given is that this particular building is being considered separate from some of the existing challenges on that site with respect to parking challenges and lack of green space. So I would respectfully request that as this process proceeds, those issues that have already been identified are dealt with at the same time as this process proceeds. City staff say in the report, they already have a number of files open with respect to what these issues are. But I want to go also to 701 Dundas Street to the history of that.

In 2008, there was an expansion of the oldest village community improvement plan area so that the Medallion Corporation could access the very necessary incentive programs that were at the time. It may have changed now, but when I was involved in the work, the incentive programs were only available to properties fronting onto Dundas Street. So that in order to facilitate the Medallion access to the incentive programs, it was agreed that at 701 Dundas, there would be an infill project that would consist of two commercial spaces and two apartments, plus a walkway onto Dundas Street. For a variety of reasons, we haven’t got to the point where we get that walkway.

Medallion did, in fact, or their agents did, in fact, advertise for some commercial tenants, given that they were unable to get those tenants, and they had other demands on this site with respect to staging for further development. Nothing has happened in the site. Now, the reason I’m bringing that up right now is I think it’s really critical that the commercial units on Dundas Street are not— the timing of their development is not contingent on whether or not commercial tenants have been identified. 30 seconds.

Thank you very much. I think what would be very useful would be for the developer and/or the city to look at a one-time incentive program to fill those spaces. There’s also issues around lack of green space in the whole area, and I’m wondering if it’s possible to take a look at the site plan again to see if we can increase trees in that area, because we’ve already lost a number of trees on King Street along the Medallion Apartments to facilitate rapid transit. I’m really happy to see this project proceed.

It’s been my experience working with the developer that they’ve been very amenable to working with the community. Thank you, ma’am. Thank you for this opportunity, and I hope that we get the opportunity for further consultation as this project proceeds. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the committee? My name’s Ms. Palasto.

If you look at a map of the east end of the city, east of Adelaide, there’s no green space for people. There’s probably how many people that will be living there of 5,000 people, 2,000 people. There’s no green space for the people that live there. There’s no place for their dogs to go out.

And if you have children, and I just agree that people have to live in single family homes to raise families, that’s just not true. Families can be raised anywhere, and every type of housing has to consider a wide range of demographics, including people with small children. If you want some green space, you either got to go down to the Thames River at Edlington, or there’s a small park at Elias near the railroad tracks going north. But there’s no green space at all in that community.

And I don’t understand how you can approve a cluster of high-density buildings without considering how green space contributes to the healthy community. So people have been very polite, but it’s a big issue for people that live in the poor. And I think it’s the responsibility of this committee to make sure that you’re not just looking at one aspect of a development, but you’re looking at the whole mental health and healthy communities as a whole. It’s not just about feeding the businesses on Dundas, but it’s about the people that live there, too.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address the committee? Sklerk, if there’s anyone online?

Children or Yasu? Please go ahead. You have five minutes. My name is Yasu Somelingham.

I have a property across the street. I see that there’s a commercial development along Dundas Street on this proposed application. It’s a main entrance in the corner of the— I couldn’t get more details on this project. I just want to confirm, is there any commercial develop coming along the Harvard Street as well?

I’m not too sure I understand your question, sir. Could you just be a bit more clear on that so I can ask the staff when we finish? There are— at the ground level, there are some commercial development happening on Dundas Street. I wanted to know whether there’s any commercial development along the Harvard Street as well.

Sir, what street? Could you just repeat the street name that you’re looking for commercial time? QA? QA?

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll ask that at the end of our public participation. You have some more time if you wish to continue.

Northern Dundas, I am in support of this application. And I hope some development happening in that core area. We have lots of crime and other things happening. So some development like this would really enhance the data.

Thank you. Thank you. Sir Clerk, if there’s anyone else online? Through the chair, with apologies.

Aldrin, did you wish to speak as well? No, Aldrin is not speaking. On behalf of him, I spoke with you. Thank you.

Through the chair, there’s no one else on Zoom. OK. Last call for anyone in the gallery, would like to address the committee. OK.

Seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close public participation. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank. And I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0.

So I’m just going to go to staff. We had a couple of questions raised. Couple regarding garbage. The Unity Project wanted to inquire about their access to their garbage.

Can staff comment on that? Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I believe was noted by the member that spoke, the original development agreement that was registered on title didn’t include any specific or special provisions for alternative garbage management for the neighboring properties.

That’s the same thing for the amending development agreement at this time of the phase two as well. That said, the applicant has shown details of the proposed garbage storage for the Jason property on their site plan. They have a marked gate where it can be accessed. And it’s also stored within the actual building itself.

So overall staff are of the opinion that a shared agreement can be achieved here, but it should be done separately from the development agreement and entered into between the two parties. So through those discussions, if any of the details of the site plan change in terms of the access store that was mentioned, we’d be happy to take the new revised plans at the time of the next submission. So you’re saying that that would be developed. Do you need specific direction from the committee for that or is that you satisfied with your recommendation as it is?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I think we’re looking specifically not to include those details through the development agreement and have the property owners come to their own agreement as a third party agreement separate from this process. Thank you. There is also concern about security with the existing garbage process.

And also with the added population, will the garbage facility be increased to account for that? Mr. Chair, the existing garbage enclosure, it’s the masonry enclosure that’s shown at the Lyle Street entrance, is proposed to be used for all three phases of development, the existing and the future. If there’s any misuse or mismanagement of that or if there is any type of maintenance, a lot of it would have to be done through our enforcement process.

If there’s an unruly garbage, then we would be able to respond to it on a complaint basis. There is also concern of community project about access to their driveway during the build. Can you comment on that? Through the chair or team, Mr.

Chair, while we work through that, maybe we can move on to maybe some of the other landmarks. There are some details we have to look through the traffic management plan. There are some anticipated closures for servicing connections. There may be some points that we may want to back to the applicant as well, that may be one of them.

But in the meantime, if there’s other potential questions or requirements from the public that you want us to provide answers to, happy to do that as we work through this. But the uni project will have access to their parking during the build, is that correct? There may be some short-term closures of Dundas Street just for servicing connections, but I wouldn’t expect it be for the full duration of the project itself. And there was a question regarding commercial, along Hewitt, can staff comment on that?

Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair, there is one retail unit that’s located at the corner of Dundas and Hewitt. We’ll have some small frontage on Hewitt. Otherwise, the rest of the remainder of Hewitt Street will just be for the internal purposes of the apartment building, including like a multi-purpose room and a gym and that sort of thing.

Thank you. So I will now put this on the floor for committee discussion, acting meritless. Thank you, Chair. So through you, I have a couple of questions for our staff, and I’m gonna start with the garbage question that was already directed through the public comments, but I will tell you that I have a significant concern with the answer I received, because these properties are already subject to complaints via by-law enforcement with regard to the garbage management.

So I don’t know how we address this, because I’m supportive of the plan in principle, but I’m not satisfied in the answer that I’ve heard from staff that the plan provides enough garbage management space when the existing builds are already causing by-law enforcement. So I’m going to, through you, Chair, see if staff can comment on that, as well as one other item, which was raised a couple of times by members of the public, which is ensuring that the public walkway connection is completed as part of this project, and not further delayed. I always appreciate when both Ms. Merritt and Ms.

Pastoris come together and bring the history of the BIA from both sides together, and that was mentioned by both of them. I think it’s a really important feature if we are going to be asking residents of these buildings to support local business, we want them to be able to walk out and access local business. So that is my second question. How can we ensure that through this approval process, perhaps it’s a holding provision that the walkway be completed as part of this phase of the development?

So those are my two questions for staff that I’m looking for some answers on before I’m prepared to move the recommendation. Okay, so let’s start with garbage. Mr. Corby, can you kind of guide us here on how we can address those concerns?

Yes, through the chair to Acting Mayor Lewis. I’ll start with the garbage management question. So apartment buildings are dealt with interior garbage rooms and then bring garbage out on the date of pickup. We’ve confirmed with our waste management group that the pickup facility that’s, as Ms.

Wise mentioned, is close to the Lyle Street entrance is sufficient for all of the four buildings that would be constructed here with the fourth being at present. There have been some, there has been history with the mismanagement of that area. So in terms of capacity, it has the adequate capacity for the anticipated garbage. It becomes then the enforcement matter in terms of ensuring that the space provided is used adequately.

The fencing and the screening are maintained in accordance with the plans and it can be directed through either our development compliance team in planning development or through our enforcement area. Unfortunately, I don’t have anything else beyond that to provide that the space is sufficient for the anticipated population. And then sorry, with respect to the walkways, Let’s just deal with the garbage right now, Mr. Corby.

Acting Mayor, I’m going to go back to you on that to see if you want to, if that’s suffices or if you want to explore anything further on that. It doesn’t entirely suffice. And I don’t want to get into a cross debate with staff either. Somehow, before I can give this the thumbs up, I need to have assurance that the garbage situation that is existing now with enforcement complaints is not going to be exasperated and made even worse by the addition of a new build.

So development compliance, through a development compliance approach rather than a by-law enforcement, I think would be my preferred route, but I am looking to staff for some thank you counselor. I was going to do that after I was finished speaking. So I’d be looking for some sort of provision that we can implement that would address the garbage concern because it’s an ongoing concern. I know the word counselors here, I’m sure she’s heard it too, but so have I.

And I’d really like that piece addressed, but I recognize that staff may need to have some discussion amongst themselves too. So I’m amenable to hearing comments on the walkway, letting others speak and then having staff come back with some more information, whether they have a viable suggestion or not, I’m not sure, but I’d like to continue the discussion, not hold it up, just waiting for some response on that. Okay. So if we could throw a chair here about the walkway.

Okay, first of all, Mr. Peace and Mr. Carby, one of you who have to shave your beards, because I can’t tell you apart from over here, my eyesight’s failing now. Counselor Hopkins, I saw your hand up.

It was us on the garbage or should I come back to you after we talk about the walkway, okay? So Mr. Peace, please go ahead on comments regarding the walkway. Great, thank you.

We changed seats but not last names. The garbage through whom Mr. Chair is, or sorry, another garbage the walkway is as wise indicated was a provision from previous agreements. And again, it’s something that our enforcement team, through the previous agreements, we are holding security for incomplete matters of facilities that were agreed upon through the previous agreements.

So there are mechanisms in that, should it linger that our team can work with the developer to kind of force the issue to be put in place? I may tee up the applicant at this point for both matters to get some indication of timing as to when that walkway will be provided and to see if there’s any commentary on the garbage while we kind of work through it as well. And maybe after that, we can come back to either one or both of the topics at hand. With the applicant like to weigh in here on garbage and the pedestrian walkway and development.

Turn on your mic, please. There we go, there we go, thank you. With respect to garbage, I would like to clarify the existing garbage containment area is not intended for the proposed tower. It is only for the existing facilities.

The proposed tower has all garbage facilities contained within the ground floor of the building. And as staff mentioned, when it’s time for garbage pickup that we’re gonna be wheeled out by building management, picked up and then brought back into staff. And sorry, into the building. With respect to the walkway, it is our full intent to install the sidewalk.

It is shown on our plan. I know there have been some other discussions going around with the 15 meter sod. It is our intention to install the sidewalk and the sod up along the Dundas Street frontage all at the same time. Thank you, Acting Mayor.

I’m gonna go back to you as you raised this issue. So I just wanna hear your thoughts from what you’ve heard. Well, I’m happy to hear that existing agreements have securities attached to them that would not be released back to the applicant until the walkway is complete. So that helps give me some assurance that that will in fact happen.

I just wonder if staff can clarify in the event that we see the building built out and the walkway is still not there. At what point are we talking about not closing off the final development agreement or forfeiture of the securities for development compliance reasons? Mr. Pease, generally speaking through you, Mr.

Chair, the securities are held until all works are completed for the satisfaction of planning development staff. There are instances where things start to run past or they get stale dated, so to speak, and the actions required doesn’t happen often, but it has happened in the past where securities have to be exercised to complete some final work. So there is some precedent for that. I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just wanna thank the community for coming out and giving your comments because this is what we’re doing here today is to take these comments in. I appreciate the concerns coming from the Acting Deputy Mayor, but this information will be taken back and addressed.

So I just wanna underline why we are here this evening. Taking in the public comments, so thank you for that. And just following up on the BIA concerns, I heard loud and clear and looking at the applicant out there to address the garbage, and the walkway is really important, that connectivity. But also the BIA did mention the non-conforming parking lot.

I don’t know if the applicant wants to make a comment on that, but that was something that I heard was a concern as well. Please go ahead regarding the non-conforming parking lot. With respect to the non-conforming parking that’s located at 701 Dundas, this is that 15 meter sod area that has been discussed. When that sod is installed, that will then bring that parking area into compliance with the appropriate zoning bylaw and through the design that we have proposed in front of you tonight, Councillor.

Yeah, thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. I would like to go to the Unity Project, Ms. Langer’s comments around some of the concerns that they’re having, and I heard about the access to the door, how that’s gonna work, and their own garbage access, as well as the pallets, as how that is going to be incorporated with this building.

Heard loud and clear that a third agreement should be developed between the Unity Project and medallions. I would encourage those conversations, definitely, to continue because there are outstanding matters there. I also just want to make, I’ve got a few questions through you, Mr. Chair, just questions that I had reading the report.

One of them is around the Bonusing Agreement, and I’d like to know how that works and what that process is. We’re getting public input. Where do we go forward with the Bonusing Agreement, and how does that happen? I think it’s a question for you to staff.

I don’t have staff on that. And, I’m sorry, Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, through you, Chair, to the Councillor. Bonus agreements are a mechanism to lock in the bonus bill elements that were agreed upon through the land use change for the zoning amendment.

They’re kind of a formal document, not dissimilar to a development agreement. The development agreement itself would solidify all the site plan matters. A bonus agreement comes separately and solidifies all of the bonus bill elements, mainly the affordable housing component in this case. It’s an agreement between the city and the developer to ensure that the units that were provided through the zone at the rate and time are put in place and with some form of protection to ensure that happens for the duration of that time identified in the zone itself.

Councillor. Thank you for that. When will it take place? Mr.

Peace. Thank you. Through the Chair, it happens at the end of the site plan process. It’s a formality at the end, which again, gets drafted up through our team and with the assistance of the applicant and potentially their lawyer to register it on title.

Councillor. And as we go through this process through the Chair, as we continue the affordable unicorn agreement conversation, can that all change to what we understand is going to happen right now? Mr. Peace.

Through the Chair, the zoning called for 13 affordable units, I believe at 25 to 30 years at a certain AMR, believe 80% off the top of my head. And given that we are now in the site plan process that cannot change, that’s locked in through the bonus. And if there were a different land use change or a different proposal, of course, we know that bonus in is no longer provided under the Planning Act. So we’d be working with the 13 that were agreed upon at the previous Planning Committee and Council decision for the zoning itself.

Councillor. Yeah, I appreciate the update. Thank you very much for that. I’ll just like to make some comments since I’ve had the mic.

Sure, let’s go ahead. Mr. Chair, and again, I just really appreciate seeing people here and speaking to the concerns that they may have, but also I heard loud and clear this is a positive development, not only with the affordable units that will be happening, but the fact that this intensity is gonna happen within that BRT area, bringing eyes on the street, I think will make the community safer, supporting businesses. And I think staff have heard loud and clear the work that we still need to do on this application and wanna thank the applicant as well for being here.

Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you for letting me speak today. As the Ward Councillor for this development, I fully support this. It’s gonna be a welcome addition into Ole Miss Village, the new commercial development, the parking for the residents, and a completion of that piece.

I have heard some of the comments around enhanced design and completion around the parkway and the grass-sotted area, and I’ll be happy to support in any way I can to ensure that this is everything that everyone is expecting of it. I’ve been working with medallion regarding some of the issues that are currently being faced, and it’s been the top-notch relationship as far as I’m concerned. They’re dealing with some societal issues and some tenant issues that are, and some challenges that all the businesses are facing at the moment. And I look forward to doing what we can as a city to ensure that those get dealt with as well.

So fully support this. Thank you. We still do not have a motion on the floor. So if Councilor Hopkins, would you like to move it?

Okay, can I have a seconder? Councilor Frank, we have motion moved and second any other conversation before we call the vote. Seeing none, then I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Committee, I have a question for you. We are planning to break at six 30 for 20 minutes. There are a lot of folks here I think that are here for one of the items. I’m guessing for 3.9, 3.10.

I don’t know, I’m just trying to be respectful of their time because after we have two more items to get through before we get down to those, I’d just like to hear your thoughts if we should move something ahead or if we should discontinue as Councilor Hopkins. I want to ask you a question since you’ve asked us a question. - Yeah. I would think that the next two items would be short.

I could be wrong looking around, not sure, but if they are short, I can proceed. We could do a break now. I don’t see anyone jumping forward to change the order. So I’m going to continue on as is.

Okay, we are on 3.7, which is dealing with 159 Clark Road and 1900 1902 Trafalgar. So I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank and we will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

So we have the staff report. If there are any technical questions, now’s the time from committee members. Seeing none, and I will go to the applicant. If the applicants here would like to address the committee, check with the Clerk of the applicants online.

Through the Chair, there is no one online to speak to this matter. Okay, so I’ll look to anyone that would like to address committee on this particular item. And is there anyone online that wants to address this? Okay, seeing none, and I will look for a motion to close the PPM.

Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I have this item on the floor for committee.

Acting Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I’ll put the staff recommendation on the floor. This is an application in Ward two.

It is infill. We are going to see redevelopment of a site that’s long been vacant since a commercial site went out of business and then was subsequently demolished. So very supportive of seeing this land get reused and create some new commercial and residential space. I take it, you’re moving that.

And can I have seconder, Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

So moving on to 3.8, which is regarding 38. Exeter Road, I’ll look for motion to open the PPM. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. The applicant is here. We’d like to address the committee. Then how’s your time?

Burke, would the applicant be on the online? Yes, good evening committee members. My name is Simona Arshano. I’m a planner with a strict bald Nellie Moniz and the agent for this application.

I review the staff report and support the approval recommendation. I would also like to thank staff for this recommendation and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Forgot to ask committee members if they had any technical questions.

Okay, that’s fine. I’ll go to the gallery if there’s anyone that would like to speak to this. And I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online.

Okay, seeing no others that would like to address the committee, I’ll look for motion to close the PPM. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

So I’ll put this on the floor now for committee. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, if I may make comments. I’d like to put forward the motion.

This is in my ward. I would like to thank the applicant for making the changes to conform to our policies. Mainly changing the bicycles and meeting the landscaping and open space requirements. I think that’s really important.

It has changed increasing the bicycle spaces as well. I really appreciate the report also providing recommendations to mitigate strategies to ensure no significant negative ecological impacts will occur with this development proposal. It’s really important that that area, we look at the natural resources in this area. It’s really a great use of a vacant space being developed.

So really pleased, wanna thank staff and in particular the applicant for making the changes. Thank you. Any other comments or questions or motions? I get a motion.

Councillor Hopkins moves staff recommendation. Councillor Frank is seconding. Any comments or questions? Then I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you committee, very expeditious. Moving to 3.9, this is regarding 46 Elmwood Place and I’ll go to staff at this time. Understand there’s like to have a verbal presentation on this, so I can, my apologies.

We’ll do the PPM first. Sorry, Councillor Hopkins moves the opening of the PPM and seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, now I’ll go to staff for a verbal presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alanna Riley here, senior planner, current planning.

Just trying to take myself, put myself on video, but it’s not working, so I’m gonna continue. Application at 46 Elmwood Place, it’s on the north side of Elmwood, just west of Warren Cliff. Currently, there’s a long term of vacant building there that was a long term care facility. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to convert the vacant building to an apartment building with 30 units.

The London Plan is a neighborhood place type. It does not permit low-rise apartment buildings. However, we look at policy 946, adoptive reuse of non-residential buildings in the London Plan, which does permit the conversion of these buildings to residential use if deemed appropriate. The proposed residential intensity is two stories.

It also conforms with the neighborhood place type. There were a lot of public concerns, the concerns that I pulled out that were planning are traffic and parking, privacy over our look and fencing, loss of property values, loss of long-term care facilities. So quickly, just a brief look at use intensity and forms. Staff have reviewed the application under the reference policies and are satisfied that conversion to an apartment building is appropriate through policy 946 and the rest of the neighborhood place type 1 and plan.

It does allow for the intensification of underutilized property and it effectively uses the land and existing municipal services. And staff are also satisfied that the proposed form is consistent with the policies of the London Plan and the city design policies. Therefore, staff are recommending the change to permit this conversion to an apartment building with 30 units. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any technical questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, then I’ll look for the applicant, the applicant would like to address the committee. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. My name is Casey Coolchicki. I’m a planner with link of pream limited, representing the applicant for under properties Inc. I hope everyone’s having a good evening.

I’ll just start by saying thank you to staff, particularly a lander for her work on this file. I’ve had the chance to review her staff report and an agreement with the recommendation for approval tonight. And I’ll be on hand to answer any questions from council or the members of the public. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll go to the gallery right now. If there’s anyone that would like to address committee, I understand there’s someone in committee room five. I’ll go to you, please state your name and you have five minutes.

Can you turn on your microphone, please? Can you hear me now? We can, yeah, please go ahead. Okay, my name is Margaret Bulch.

I live at 60 Elmwood Place. I’m the immediate neighbor to the west. I just had some concerns about the permitted uses. And you may have gone over this and forgive me if you have, I got distracted by someone coming and showing me I used the mic.

So I just wondered if the lodging class two has been eliminated from the permitted uses. I’ll ask that question, any others you might have after we’re finished the public work. Okay, I also have a concern about the garbage. Particularly, I understand that there’s an interior garbage room within the building.

But in its previous use, the recycling was always outside and was quite bothersome. I’m also concerned about the lack of parking spaces. There’s 30 units and only 18 spaces. And that’s going to create a lot of parking along the street.

I’m also concerned about turnaround for trucks that are coming in. There’s no way for them to turn around. They have to back out. This street is a dead end, as you are aware, I’m sure.

And people are, there’s a lot of elderly people on the street walking dogs, there are some children. So I’m just concerned about the safety of residents living in the area. You’re gonna have fire trucks potentially, moving trucks, garbage trucks, all backing out onto the street with a lot of people parking and so visibility will be reduced. I’m just wondering if there could be any way that some of that space at the back of the property could be utilized as it was for the nursing home for parking.

Yeah, I’ll please continue on with any further comments or questions and I’ll ask staff the questions that you bring up. That’s really the only question I have. The other, my other personal concern for my own property is I put a fence up at my own expense and some of the trees that would’ve been a boundary that would’ve been, that are the boundary between our properties have landed on 46 Elmwood’s side. And I would just like to suggest that they remain because they’re beautiful to me from my side.

And I think they can only enhance the property going forward, but that’s maybe not a concern for this particular meeting, I’m not sure. Okay, thank you. Any other further comments? No, not for me, thank you.

Thank you very much. Hey, what else I would like to address the committee. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online.

Okay, seeing none, then I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank moved and seconded by Councillor Hopkins and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

I’m just gonna go to staff on some questions that person asked there. Lodging class, has that been eliminated? Through you, Mr. Chair, yes, in the by-law, we have only indicated that the permitted use will be an apartment building.

There is no lodging class house to be permitted. Thank you, and can you outline the plans for garbage pickup? With regards to garbage, it was proposed to be interior. I’m gonna just get the agent to follow up on that, that it’s remaining.

I do wanna note that it is a site plan approval. It will be addressed to the site plan approval process as well, but if I can relate to Casey, that it’s gonna remain interior, he can confirm that. I’ll go to the applicant. Through you, Mr.

Chair, yes, we are going to be incorporating a interior garbage and recycling room on the inside of the building and the bids will be wheeled out picked up by waste collection vehicles on garbage day and wheeled back inside. Thank you, and there’s a concern about turn around on that on the dead end street, especially for large vehicles. Can I have staff comment on that? Through you, Mr.

Chair, this was brought up during the process and it is something that will also be addressed for the site plan approval process. Thank you, one final concern was that the trees on the bordering the neighbors a lot, will those trees be protected under this plan? Through you, Mr. Chair.

So I know that Margaret reached out to me and was concerned with regards to this, and I connected her and the agent Casey to discuss these matters because I didn’t fully understand them because it was just last week. So there wasn’t enough time to really look into the trees. I know through the site plan approval process, these trees will be looked at, but I just, I’m going to have to relate to Casey on the intent of these. I believe the remaining though.

Maybe the applicant can shed some light on your, what are your plans? Yeah, certainly through you, Mr. Chair, the intent is to preserve the existing trees on site. Majority of the site works are going to be just on the interior of the existing building with the actual conversion.

Most of the exterior parking area and landscape areas are going to be maintained as they exist today. There’s no plans to really expand on any of the parking areas or infringe on any of the existing landscape areas. So through the site plan process, a tree preservation plan will be prepared. And the only reason to, at this point, to foresee removal would be if a tree’s in poor health or presents an invasive species.

Thank you. Those are the questions that were raised. So now I’ll open it for the committee members to for comments or questions motions. Councilor Frank.

Thank you. Yes, I’m very familiar with this location as it’s in my ward and actually was able to go on a walking tour with some of the residents in the neighborhood to check out the space. So it has been vacant for the last year and a half or two years. And I did hear a lot from residents similar to what Ms.

Riley was saying, that there was some worries about parking on the street and some increase in traffic, although as we can see, it would be fairly minimal. Overall, I think it’s great use a re-adaptive use of the site. We did have one concern I wanted to share that was significantly concerned about long-term care in the city and the worry that we are losing beds. And my understanding is this location was too small.

And so actually the company that used to be there moved down to the south end of the city and built a bigger facility. But I did want to flag that for people because I think perhaps in our next strat plan, whoever is planning to run again once we uncounsel that long-term care homes seem to be a topic, at least in this area of my ward as a concern. So overall, I’m very happy with it. I think that the applicant and staff have done a really good job of addressing all the concerns.

They got lots of emails and we’re able to respond to them. So I’m happy to put staff recommendation on the floor and happy to support this infill project. Can I have a seconder for the motion? Councillor Hopkins, any discussion?

Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I might hope we get farther along folks, but many members here have been in other committees today. It’s been a pretty big day without a break.

So we’re gonna break for 20 minutes. So I’m gonna ask committee for their go ahead on that. So I’ll need a hand vote on that. Just wondering how long we will be breaking.

20 minutes, so that’s in pass. So we will be back here at 10 to seven. (indistinct chatter) Please turn off the council, Mike. That’s him, that’s that guy right there.

Okay, we’re back, we’ll call the meeting back to order. And we are on item 3.10 regarding 599 and 601 Richmond Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM, Councillor Hopkins, second by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the motion.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Technical questions for staff at this time. Seeing none, then I’ll go to the applicant, if the applicant is here online. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Hello, Chair, thank you. My name is Manish Padar. I am the planner and agent for the file. And I would like to thank the neighborhood association for being here and obviously the Councillors and the person’s interested today.

This is an application for a 12-story building. There was an earlier application for an eight-story building that as you know, was approved. We have come back asking for four more stories, which equates to about 30 more units. In our opinion, we’ve done our homework, we’ve put our best foot forward.

And we feel that we meet all the policies of the London plan and the applicable urban design guidelines, as well as the PPBS of course. In terms of the 12-story proposal, we recognize that the zoning that is currently in place, which is a bonus zoning would be replaced. That being said, when the bonus zoning is replaced, we will maintain all the attributes that were given towards the bonus thing. So we are gonna still have high quality urban design.

We will still have affordable housing units and we will still protect the heritage listed properties that comprise 599-601 Richmond Street. In putting this application forward, we try to work the best we could with staff. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion, but we would say that we’ve been consistent in what we’ve put forward. Two of the comments received from staff had to do with transportation and the footprint and intensification.

One of the recommendations in the refusal report was that we do a smaller footprint. It is physically impossible to make this building viable with a smaller footprint. And as you will see, it is virtually an identical footprint to the eight-star proposal. Or one of the other comments that was received had to do with the lay-by.

Again, staff were saying they did not support the lay-by, but it is again the identical lay-by that we presented in the eight-star proposal. So again, we are keeping all the heritage resources, all the heritage buildings that are there. We are respecting urban design guidelines and we are providing affordable housing. So again, we’re providing two one-bedroom affordable housing units and two two-bedroom affordable housing units.

In recognition of what’s existing, there is, you know, we are redeveloping a surface parking lot that is next to drill cools. And, you know, I know that it may be looked upon as, you know, as maybe a redevelopment that the neighborhood association would not care for, but as we know, London does need more housing. And again, we’ve made sure that in doing this proposal that we’ve factored in all considerations towards site suitability and land use compatibility. The Miss Velastra who is here tonight will be speaking, as noted in the agenda.

But I would like to point out that we had gone to the Ontario Land Tribunal for the eight-star proposal. Miss Velastra was the opponent on behalf of the neighborhood. But in the decision by the ULT, it was made explicit that Miss Velastra had failed to demonstrate that we had not met the intent of the London Plan or the PPS or applicable guidelines with respect to urban design. So, you know, we respectfully say, you know, we would like to be good neighbors.

We’d like to contribute to a vibrant downtown and, you know, do our best in helping the city grow inward and upward. If there are any further questions, I’m happy to answer them. And thank you for your consideration. Thank you.

I’ll go to the public now for anyone who would like to speak to the committee on behalf of this item. Please state your name and you have five minutes. So my name is Miss Velastra. I’m with the North Tobit Community Association.

I just want to crack something that was said earlier. The lay way, the cutaway of the boulevard was not approved by staff in the first application and it was removed in the final when it came to council. It was not there. Second of all, I was a self litigant in that Ontario Land Tribunal.

And it was a very, so it was very, it was a David and Goliath appeal. So that needs to be made clear. So in my neighborhood, what we know now is that after many years is that high density along transit routes does not necessarily feed a transit system because owning a car is either an economic choice or it’s a personal choice and is not influenced necessarily to the proximity of transit. And we also know that high density along transit corridors do not necessarily keep foot traffic out of interior neighborhoods.

And so what you don’t, maybe you don’t know about my neighborhood, but we have free overnight parking in my neighborhood from April to the end of October. And increasingly that parking is being used by area residents. And there’s less and less parking available for visitors to Richmond Road, which the rationale for that was to promote more alcoholic business to Richmond Road and it gave people the option of leaving their cars overnight so they didn’t drive home. But that area is being used by residents now.

But the bigger problem with this development is that it’s not respectful of our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is an historical neighborhood. It is a candidate for historical conservation district. It’s not respectful of the policy that’s in place that does talk about main commercial corridors being respectful of the interior neighborhood.

There’s many of us in our neighborhood that consider this development to be brazen and over development of the site. It’s not compatible to children, people with families. They want to cut away the boulevard, which is the only large green space on Central Lab, on the street. And it doesn’t really offer affordable housing ‘cause 80% of market value is not affordable.

And that conversation is coming up over and over again. Olivia Chow and Toronto has raised it. People are challenging that. I think they’re offering three affordable housing at 80% market value.

Most people can’t afford that. The most vulnerable people can’t afford that. And it’s really targeting a certain demographic at a certain income and that’s already happening in our neighborhood. In our neighborhood, a one bedroom, a one room in a student housing was for $1,400.

So they’re really gouging those people and somehow no one speaks up for them. So our neighborhood association is starting to speak up for people in our neighborhood that are being gouged out of housing. And there’s just more coming on board because our neighborhood for some reason isn’t really explored by members of council. It’s a downtown neighborhood.

And the feeling is that downtown residents are really pushed aside when it comes to you, the interest of business. And we’re here to tell you that we live here. We care about these neighborhoods and we want compatible development that provides people with affordable housing and is complimentary to the historical nature of the neighborhood in Richmond Road. And it’s your responsibility to look at the housing problem at all levels.

And that includes at this level at planning applications. And it’s going to concern that the plan for homelessness is really just about cleaning up the downtown for the sake of business. And it’s not really a genuine plan that looks at the overall problem of what’s causing homelessness. And a lot of that is in our neighborhood.

We get a lot of vulnerable people in our neighborhood and we’re really starting to advocate on their behalf. So the expectation is that it happens here. Three seconds. Thank you.

Is there anyone else I would like to address committee? Please give us your name and you have 30 seconds. Go ahead. Or five minutes.

Okay, I’ll go. We’re getting faster on here. We’ll talk really quickly. My name is Patricia Kalamore.

I live at 156 Central Avenue and I am a long-term resident of this neighborhood. I do not support West Dell’s application to amend the zoning for the proposed development at 599-601 Richmond Street. I was present at a Zoom meeting with Strict Baldnelly, Monet’s engineering consultants, the manager of the Starbucks store that fronts onto Richmond Street and a city planner on December the 1st, 2021, in which an eight-story 53-unit high-rise with an affordable housing component of four units through bonusing was first proposed. The application was subsequently approved by council that 18 months later West Dell is applying for four additional stories to add an additional 36 units as I learned tonight, only two affordable housing components in my opinion is bargaining in poor faith.

It is not just my opinion that the addition of four additional stories to the proposed building at 599-601 Richmond Street is too high. City planners stated in a recent report to PAC that the overall height of the building should be more, quote, sympathetic to the existing and planned context of the neighborhood and the proposed amendment represents, and again, I quote, an over-intensification of an undersized site. In an article in the London Free Press dated February 11th, 2023, Jared Safeman, chief executive of the London Homeowners Home Builders Association stated all levels of government want to add residential units. We’re lacking supply.

We need more, but especially ones that are affordable. That West Dell would apply for four additional stories in height with an additional 36 units, but offer no affordable housing other than two units. Now that the previous bonusing has been removed as a result of Bill 108, in my opinion, is unconscionable. Finally, developers need to find compromise with the residents of the neighborhoods in which they build.

In the same London Free Press article previously referenced, Ward 10 Counselor Paul Van Merbergen stated, “We want to get 47,000 homes, but we can’t do that when we ride roughshod over neighborhoods. It’s a matter of degree of balance.” And specifically with regard to a proposed development at 489 Upper Queen Street, Ward 12 Counselor Elizabeth Palosa, who supports infill as long as the development fits with the area said, “I’m looking for a win-win. It’s about the right intensification, and I really hope that we can find the win-win.” Thank you. Thank you.

Other that would like to address the committee. Please give us your name, and you have five minutes. Good evening, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name’s Gus Mitzis, I’m from 154 Central Ave. I would like to welcome, I would like to start off by saying that I would like to welcome the addition of another residential development proposal for the downtown core. I think it’s another clear indication that there’s more confidence building in investors, investing in projects in the downtown area as far as residential goes. I would like to address the committee with two points of concerns that I have with respect to the proposed development.

As the development and intensification of the downtown core process progresses, we all know that this will create greater pedestrian and vehicle use. With that being said, my first question of concern to the committee is as follows. How does the city planning policy address sites in the downtown core at major intersections when it comes to improving sight lines for the safety of pedestrians and vehicle traffic? This redevelopment presents an opportunity for a long-term solution, and what examples could committee provide us with past solutions with regarding these impeded sight lines?

As we all know, online shopping, personal grocery/food delivery services, Uber taxis, that whole concept is here to stay, and with no on-site parking proposed for this project, and the staff report recommendation to remove the drop-off zone. My next question to the committee is, what is the city’s planning policy regarding the future road allowances for central lab between Richmond and Talbot Street, and how does the policy address or accommodate the inevitable traffic congestions in front of the proposed development, and the close proximity to Richmond Street? Being that central lab is only a two-lane road at present, and is only a two-lane road at present. I thank you for the opportunity to present, and I give back the floor.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address the committee? Is there anyone online, Clerk? George.

Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Yes, this is George Ferbos, I’ve been listening to what’s been talked about earlier this evening, and I have no further comments to add. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Anyone else would like to address the committee? Clerk, is there anyone else online or in the committee rooms? Through the chair, there’s no one in online, or in committee room five. Okay, thank you.

All right, I’ll look for a motion to close the, I’ll be present participation meeting. Acting Mayor Lewis, and seconded by Councilor Hopkins. I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

So thank you. I’ll put the item on the floor for committee discussion. King Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

Through you, I want to address a question to our staff, with regard to the lay-by. Because I’m perplexed why we would be not supportive of a lay-by at a building with only eight parking spaces. And I just looked down the road, closer to campus, where a much taller building was built. And later, a lay-by had to be retroactively fitted in, because of the problems that the building was creating with traffic congestion on Richmond Street.

So I would like a greater understanding of why staff are not supportive of the lay-by in this location. Go to staff. Through the chair, so lay-by’s are not supported by transportation within the boulevards. As a common practice, the lux was a one-off to resolve that issue there.

But generally, it’s not supportive. And it was identified at the original application that we were not supportive of a lay-by. Acting Mayor. Okay, I appreciate that clarification as to the reasoning.

I disagree with it, but that’s a matter of a councilor’s opinion, not the staff’s opinion. And I’m particularly mindful of the fact that as we continue to encourage reduced parking, we do have to allow for drop-offs and pickups. So I’m gonna, you know, whether it is an amendment to the zoning that they have now, or should they seek it, or whether we do something different with this application tonight. The policy and the transportation direction, that’s not supportive of a lay-by’s, I think needs to be revisited, because if we’re gonna continue to say 0.75 or 0.5, or in this case, much less than 0.5 spots per unit than I think we need to recognize.

As we heard from a member of the public, whether it’s Uber Eats or Skip the Dishes, or a taxi ride, or whatever the case may be, drop-off and pickup is the new reality. Now I recognize also that the London plan was approved prior to the change in reality that the pandemic brought to these services. So I recognize that staff are following a policy that’s there right now, that it’s up to council to go and fix. But I think that to my colleagues around the horseshoe, I think it’s pretty clear we’re gonna have to fix that one, ‘cause we’re not going to be able to continue to accommodate reduced or no parking without other opportunities.

And I see Councilor Hillier stuck his hand up, so I’m gonna end my comments there and see what other committee members have to say first. I’ll go to Councilor Hillier. Thank you very much. Yes, we have had an awful lot of construction in this general area, and I’m just curious about infrastructure in this area.

Are we gonna have any issues with infrastructure for this building, and how close to capacity are we in this area? I’ll go to staff. I assume, Councilor, that you’re speaking to sewage infrastructure. Yes, yes.

  • I’ll go to staff on that question. Through you, Mr. Chair, to Councilor Hillier, there was nothing identified through the circulation of this application with respect to infrastructure. It appears to be that there is adequate sanitary stormwater and water capacity.

However, there will need to be some additional information provided. Should this proceed to site plan for any subsequent application? Councilor Hillier. Thank you very much.

I’d like to feel how the committee’s feeling on this. I’d like to put a motion forward to approve this and see what committee feels on it. And I believe staff already has the wording. Okay, Councilor Clerk, can you confirm that you’ve got the wording for a motion from Councilor Hillier?

Through the Chair, it should be on your screens. Thank you. So I’ll look for a seconder of Councilor Hillier’s motion. Acting Mayor Lewis seconds.

So we’ll motion it on the floor. I’ll give everyone a chance to refresh your screens and see it. And then I’ll open the floor for discussion. Acting Mayor Lewis.

Thank you. I just wanna make sure we’ve done this in a prior application and I don’t see the language in this alternate motion. So through you, I know that the applicant has indicated that they’re going to keep the affordable units as agreed to under the Bonusing Zone, regardless. But I believe we’ve had language in a prior motion that specifies that to a site plan approval process that, and I don’t know if Mr.

Corby or Ms. McNeely might recall the language that we used on a prior application. But I just wanna make sure that it’s actually there in our direction. That includes the affordable housing piece.

Staff to, I recall that language. I’m wondering if you, but I don’t know the wording offhand. Through the Chair, if you just give us one second, we’ll be able to find it. Okay, great.

How do I keep wear those? Thank you, so well, I’m gonna give staff an opportunity to, I’m not gonna fill a buster, but I’m gonna give you a minute to look that up because I wanna speak to the affordable housing piece. And it’s been mentioned tonight and it’s been mentioned on numerous applications. I think that people need to understand 80% off of average market rent is not 80% off the market rent in that building.

It’s not even 80% off market rent in that area. It’s actually 80% off. I’ll ask public to keep their comments to yourself or I will have you removed. So it’s actually 80% off of the average market rent paid by all renters in the city of London.

So that means if you’re in a rent controlled building ‘cause you’ve been there 10, 12, 15 years and you’re paying $700. That $700 is part of the average market rent calculation. So well, it is true that a lot of rents a day for a one bedroom are going in that $17, $1800 range for a new unit that is not 80% off of that number. When we are negotiating these 80% of AMRs, when you factor in the long-term tenants and the rates that they’re paying in the city, council’s actually getting about 50% off of what the market rate is being asked for today.

So these units may come in at eight or $900 or even $1,000. I haven’t done the exact math on them, but AMR right now is coming in somewhere in those ranges. So I really think it’s important to get into just a little bit of understanding for people that 80% of AMR is not 80% off of a new unit. It’s 80% off of rent in total.

So when folks say that it’s not affordable, it is still not affordable for somebody on ODSP or OW, where the shelter allowance is only $400 a month. But for somebody who is working and who just can’t pay the market rent today, it is affordable for them. And so every unit of those that we get does help somebody reach a housing option that is currently out of reach for them today. So I just wanted to share that and hopefully as I’ve expanded on that a little bit, staff have had some time to get that language for us.

Okay, the clerk did get some language and she is inserting it now into the motion. Okay, if you refresh your screen, so you can see that in one A bracket A that the wording is there for the affordable housing units. So I’ll go to the mover of the motion and indicates that that’s okay. I’ll go to the seconder and nods that that is okay.

So we’ve got the motions before us. I’ll look for conversation, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I want to follow up a bit on that direction specifically.

In the report, I was reading that it looks like given the new lift under our old formula for bonus zones, we’d actually be requiring seven units. So I was hoping through the chair to the applicant to ask if they’ve been considering increasing the affordable housing units to seven units to meet the old bonus zones. So I’ll go to the applicant regarding increasing the amount of affordable units based on the increase in ask for the height. Thank you, Chair.

To address the Councillor’s question, I would have to go back and speak to the management at West Ellen confirm if they are comfortable doing so. You know, as you know, each affordable unit does have a significant cost associated with it. And you know, we are happy to contribute to the affordable housing supply in the city. So I can go back and I will circle back with staff on whether or not that number could be improved outside.

Thank you, yes. I appreciate that and I appreciate that discussion. It looks like this motion doesn’t direct to have just four units. So it looks like there’s opportunity here to increase that amount.

I’m also wondering just a bit about green space on the site given that there’s 91% built space on the base of the building. I was hoping to understand a bit more about what kind of green space is there going to be cash in lieu or is there going to be maybe green space on the roof or just hoping to hear a little bit more maybe from staff and as well the applicant about that. Got a question regarding green space to staff. Through you Mr.

Chair, because this is an urban type of situation essentially, the BDC zone actually doesn’t have very much in terms of green space or requirements for landscape open space. I think coverage even for the site is generally 70% for a normal BDC zone. In this particular case, the applicant is asking for a 91% coverage. So ultimately no, there isn’t much in terms of amenity or green space on the site.

Obviously by design, because it obviously is somewhat more of an urban environment, whether the applicant has considered rooftop amenity or something to that effect, that may be something that could be posted to the applicant. Councilor. Thanks, yes, do you mind if we ask the applicant if they had considered adding amenity space or green space on the roof? Well, the applicant, have you considered rooftop green space?

Thank you again, Chair. To answer the councilor’s question, we’ve looked at this building pretty closely. You know, one of the big reasons we picked the location was the fact that we were across from Victoria Park. And that is obviously a huge bonus.

You know, in doing this development, there’s really about creating residential use that can enjoy and make maximum use of the downtown and Victoria Park. We can certainly consider the councilor’s request, but I think we already are providing amenity space through a gym. I think we have a gym, proposes one of the amenity spaces within the building and each unit is gonna have its own balcony. So we can explore it, but I think right now we were thinking primarily of Victoria Park and there will be, there will be landscaping in the boulevard as my counterpart Nancy Pissado had mentioned.

Because of the area and we are redeveloping a surface parking lot, really the green space would be within the boulevard. Councillor. Thank you. Those are all my questions.

Councillor Hawkins. Yes, Mr. Chair. And just following up on Councillor Frank’s question around the affordable housing, I heard the applicant hasn’t really considered the seven units as yet and still needs to further have that conversation.

We’re looking at this motion that basically supports affordable housing. So before I prove any motion, saying that we’re going to do this, I would like to know a little bit more if indeed, that is going to be a conversation. I do have a question through your chair on staff’s recommendation when it did speak to the seven units based on the 12 stories. It says with the implementation and approval of the proposed new zone, the bonus zone would be removed from the site with no requirement for the applicant to provide affordable housing.

Should the applicant determine through site plan that providing the affordable housing unit is no longer financially feasible, even with an agreement in place, these units could be removed. And I, my question through you, Mr. Chair, to staff is if this motion does get approved, is that still the case? Go to staff.

Through you, Madam Chair. I’m sorry, through you, Mr. Chair, to Councillor Hopkins. Yes, that is correct.

So with the removal of the bonus zone, which was a, as we all know, a previous Planning Act provision that allowed for essentially locking in a particular building and allowing for certain amount of affordable housing units in exchange for additional height and density, that is no longer the case. And it is possible that through this process at site plan, if the applicant chose to no longer provide affordable housing without the bonus zone, there is no way to require or compel those units to be developed. Councillor. That’s all for now.

Thank you. Your comments or questions, Councillor Permall. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff.

I know a couple of weeks ago, we already talked about it. And I was asked this question and staff told me that now we will be able to look at the kind of the fund. And instead of the affordable units, going to the developer’s and asking them for certain financial contribution, instead of the affordable units, the affordable units, I’m a true believer that we need to build more. And I believe this is a plan demand, we are going to get to the more affordable units.

Our biggest issue is deeply affordable units. And as was stated here before, the affordable units are not going to resolve our situation on the streets, homelessness, et cetera, but deeply affordable units do. I know there are some members of this committee that keep pushing on the deeply affordable units. Sorry, affordable units, the affordable units, we are going to wait for six, eight, 10 years.

And who knows what’s going to happen? And if there is another changes over the loss, et cetera. So I really would like to reiterate this to the staff. Please, let’s look into it like what we had the CIPs before, for year one, and going up.

So at the beginning, the developers pay less. As the progress is the development, they pay more, but let’s really look at that option. I believe it’s much better than if you are going to talk about four, seven units. And as the Peter Mayor stated, 80% of market, it’s not going to resolve our situation.

The two, four, six, seven units is not going to resolve our situation. We really look at it from a different perspective. Let’s look at a financial fund. Let’s move this forward.

And let’s hope, again, behind the hands of developers, Bill 23 doesn’t allow bonus thing anymore. But as we heard from my last developer, they are willing to work with us, do something for us. So I hope our staff can prepare this because I believe that that’s going to resolve our deeply affordable units, help our homelessness, and affordable units. If the supply increases, if you keep building, the market is going to take care of itself.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor for her. Thank you, and through you. So I came here to this meeting for this specific item because of obviously what has been spoken about from delegation, from delegates up there, and from other Councillors here.

And I do see that there’s a couple of arguments going on. What is affordable, 80% AMR? Is that affordable? I would agree that it’s not that affordable.

However, it is better than what we have right now. And this is what we’re fighting for. We’re fighting for 80% AMR, which is, you know, as I said a little bit five seconds ago, it’s not that affordable, but it is better. And we’re just kind of grasping at whatever we can get.

And we’re putting ourselves in this situation where we’re kind of taking away this affordable, these affordable units. Yes, there’s only four in this unit, but we’re now putting ourselves at risk by not putting any teeth in the zoning amendment as it is right now to ensure that we get those four affordable units. Now we’re taking the applicant’s word, the developer’s word, which I believe that they will bring in the four affordable units. But the precedent that will set if we change our mind right now, who else will come to the table and say, hey, we did have some work that we did with Council a year ago or whatever, and we did have some affordable units through the voting provisions.

But now we want to change our minds, and we will give you the affordable units, but we do want to change it. And that other developer in the future could be more of a bad actor, and they may not give us the affordable units. So when do we decide when we say yes and when we say no? If we say yes now, we can’t say no in the future to another developer, and we put ourselves at risk with that unknown.

And that’s an issue for me. It also, we’ve done the work. We’ve civic administration has done so much work last year with the past Council. Lots of time and resources and people’s energy went into this application and things were approved and deliberations happened right here.

And now we’re doing it all over again. So I’m kind of concerned on how we’re doing this all over again. We’ve already put the work in, why are we here again? So what I would say is from some of the comments that I saw with the new height of the building coming up to, I think seven affordable units now or something like that, what I saw on the staff report and what was mentioned, seven or eight, and the developer is basically saying, “Oh yeah, we’ll talk about that, we’ll come back.” I feel like that should be in this motion, and maybe we should, if we do want to make a compromise, if we do want to work with this developer, we should defer this and have them come back with, yeah, we can put this in, but still, it won’t have any teeth.

So how do we ensure the affordable units? We need housing, yes, but what type of housing do we need? We need affordable housing. We have a road map to 3,000 affordable housing, and then we have a pledge for 47,000 houses.

Which one’s more important is my question. I strongly feel that they’re both important, but we do need that affordable housing component, ‘cause you all heard it at the door during your election, and you hear it all the time. We need more affordable housing. So why would we take away our teeth for these four affordable units in this building?

It’s a bad precedent, and I really hope that that would be considered, and I would hope that you would not approve this, defer this back with the developer, come back and have a little bit more concrete plans, because, you know, everything that was listed in the staff recommendation for the density, for the height, for the floor plate, how it’s a little, the mass is a little bit too big, it’s not a skinny building, the shadow component. You know, those are all, I get that, and I see why the staff would say that they’re not recommending this. With the affordable housing component as well, that’s the big kicker for me. So we’re kind of giving away a lot, a lot, way more than I would feel comfortable for.

So I would hope that you would consider that, and you would not support this motion as it is right now. Thank you, any other comments or questions over Councillor Hoppins? Yes, just speaking to the new motion that’s in front of us, my question, I guess, through you, maybe to the mover is looking at the comment in the motion saying that council is of the opinion, that the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS, and it conforms to our policies, et cetera. I would like to know how that is, to the mover.

Councillor Hill here. Oh, sorry, the thing is just, oh. And now, of course, my computer is shut, come on. Well, personally, I feel this, if we’re not gonna do intensification along this area, where are we in the city?

This is the ideal location for this, personally. I listen to the arguments, and I look like a block down the street and go, okay, well, where was the argument then? And to me, this is the perfect location. Councillor.

I thank the Councillor for his opinion. He didn’t answer the question. Can you repeat your question for the Councillor? The question is, in his motion, he refers the council is of the opinion, that this motion that is being presented is consistent with the PPS, and with our policies.

And I’d like to know a little bit more how that works, how it fits in with the policies, Councillor. Well, to be fair, I asked staff to draft this, and they put that in at the end, because I had not included that. So I have not had a chance to look at that, sorry. Councillor.

Let me think about it. Councillor. So, I guess maybe I should go to staff, and just get a, I see the action here. We have a seconder.

The seconder in motion can speak to it if you’d like. Sure, I don’t want to, I know I can go to staff and see how this works, but I’m really looking at the mover to understand the motion. Acting Mayor Lewis. Yeah, well, before I agreed to second it, I did review the provincial policy statement, and I do think it is consistent, because it is efficient use of and management of land and infrastructure.

Councillor Hill, you’re asked about the water wastewater infrastructure that is in place. We have sufficient capacity. It is the provision of sufficient housing to meet the changing needs, including affordable housing. It does create opportunities for economic development and job creation, because it is right along the Richmond Road corridor.

It does have appropriate transportation access for transit. I addressed the lay-by on the drop-off situation, and so the infrastructure needs are accommodated. And that is part of the provincial policy statement, and I believe it meets those criteria. Councillor, any other comments or questions?

Councillor Frank. Thanks, yes. I think Councillor Hopkins pointed out something that it was kind of bothering me, but I was gonna leave it, but I am wondering, given that staff say that this application is not consistent, and then Councillors are saying it is, it actually be more amenable to supporting this if we take out the second part and just support it, knowing that it perhaps doesn’t align with our policies. I’m just wondering if the mover and seconder would be interested in that.

I’ll go to the mover and seconder on that. The Councillor, the mover says no, and I’ll go to the seconder, acting mayor of those. Yeah, and actually, if, after I’m done, Chair, if staff on comment on this, that’s fine. It actually starts with not withstanding the recommendation of the director, because staff are upholding the London plan and other policies that they’re applying here.

We are saying that we are of a different opinion. Planning matters can be subjective. They are subject to opinion. In fact, we hear it all the time.

We have a planner, a professionally accredited planner from the developer who says it is consistent. We have staff who say it isn’t. There are subjective opinions in interpreting what is consistent with the PPS, but I believe, and this is where, through you, Chair, I’ll defer to staff, but this has been consistent with other times when we have not supported the staff recommendation but gone an alternate direction, but I believe to be consistent and to meet the requirements that we have to submit under the Planning Act. I think that that clause has to be in there, but through you, Chair, perhaps staff can confirm with on that or whether it’s factual or not on that statement.

I’ll go to staff for comment. Thank you, through the Chair, yes, that’s correct. There needs to be a rationale. Council needs to have a rationale for the recommendation that they’re putting forward.

Acting Mayor, I just wanna, I hope that’s helpful, ‘cause I’ve been through this three or four times now, so. Okay, just wanted to make sure you’re satisfied. Council Frank? I appreciate that.

I did not know that. This is good information to have for the next couple of years. Yeah, I’m landing very on the fence about this entire application at this point, so I’m gonna decide in the next couple of minutes, I suppose when they call a vote. If the committee will allow me, I’ll weigh in on my thoughts or Councillor Hopkins, please go ahead if you want to speak more.

I met as well, bringing forward my comments. So we’ve already approved an eight story. There are many, many reasons why it is consistent with the policies of not only the city, but with the provincial policy statement. It is in an ideal area, intensification, transit area.

I don’t wanna go into the reasons why the eight story is something that I’m supportive of. What I’m not supportive of is that we are taking away our affordability and giving the applicant the extra units and the four stories. And we are just doing that here tonight with really any further consideration other than we are consistent with the PPS and our policies. That’s to me, that’s something that I can’t really, just arbitrarily just say yes, just do four stories more.

We’ve heard from the public. We’ve heard from staff’s recommendation about refusing. We’ve heard the concerns around the portable housing, losing that. Bottom line to me is it doesn’t fit.

Strictly doesn’t fit. And I think we have to measure that not just arbitrarily put in four stories because we are of the opinion. It does need the policy statements and our policies. And I will not be supporting this motion because I disagree with it completely.

Thank you. I’m gonna ask the acting mayor to take the chair please. And I will recognize Councillor Layman. Yeah, you know, it’s an interesting one.

I guess what I’m looking at, I think if you go by the strict guidelines of London Plan, maybe not fitting, but the London Plan was written already many years ago. And I think we’ve all commented that it’s quickly becoming out of date with our new challenges on housing. What this does provide is 30 more units on the same footprint. No increase, no change to reduction in green space.

There wasn’t a green space to begin with. It’s not affecting that, but as the applicant said, it steps away from Victoria Park. And I look at the community. Like it’s where this pose build is, is surrounded by commercial or parking lots.

There’s no residential up against it. Around the corner, Richmond Kent, there’s, I think it’s 30 stories. I think over on Talbot, there’s a few blocks away. Similar high rise as well.

There’s high rises in the area. So I don’t think it dramatically changes the streetscape. As far as affordability, unfortunately affordability is no longer allowed through Bill 23, although it has come up in applications before the committee, but with promises. So we are taking on faith that the developer will go through with that.

You know, there’s no, this is what we talk about intensification, but without car traffic. There’s no increase in parking spaces. Parking spaces, I think there’s eight or something like that. Like this is designed for people to live and work downtown and walk around or use transit.

It steps away from Richmond Street, Transit Corridor. So I will be supporting the motion. Thank you, Councillor Layman. I have no one else on the speakers list at this time, and I will return the charity.

Thank you. So before I call the vote, I’ll look around one more time for anyone who would like to speak to this. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one.

Thank you. We’re going to, that concludes the scheduled items. We’re now moving into items for direction and I’ve got a request for a committee to consider actually going in reverse order with Carfare Street up first, followed by two to one Queen’s Ave. And then lastly, comprehensive review with London Plan update.

So I will look for a motions. Councillor Hopkins make that motion. Can I get a seconder on that? Acting Mayor Lewis, so I’ll call that vote.

Thank you. That’s a hand vote, sorry. Just a hand vote, that’s okay. Closing the vote, the motion carries.

Thank you. So we will be going first with 4.3, followed by 4.2, then 4.1. So 4.3, it’s regarding 39 Carfare Street. We have a request for delegation status from a few folks.

So I will, okay, instead of looking for committee approval to hear our delegates on each individual one, there are, I believe are three. We can do it in one motion if that’s okay with committee. I see nods, okay, so I could have a mover. Please for that, Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, and I will call that vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, the first delegation status request is from Mr. Garde, Mr. Garde, are you here?

I see you, so you have five minutes, please go ahead, sir. Hi, my name is Jeff Garde, and I own 39 Carfare Street. I have to first thank all the support from the friends, family, even past owners. Young and old, this issue about the easement has been discussed with staff since April of 2022.

Multiple attempts, including a 60 minute presentation with staff, all parties involved, and followed up with written submissions. So some people are saying it’s a surprise that I’m requesting that the easement be removed, but I don’t know how, because we’ve been talking about it for over a year. Couple points of why I want it removed. There’s so many I feel personally, that it’s a poorly written document with many mistakes, many confusing comments, and I’m just gonna pick out, you’ve all seen my presentation, I’m gonna pick out a couple.

Section 2.8E, planting of tree shrubs and vegetation, which states which would cause damage or negatively affect cultural heritage value or interest. So, I don’t understand. So, I asked the last year’s heritage manager, and was told that no city approvals required. So, but I also understand that, I’m sure if I was to plant English ivy that grows up the house, or a wisteria vine, or when we cut down the Magnolia tree out front, people are going to complain.

So, do I have to get a permit for that in advance, or do I not? There’s lots of those in this easement, which it’s up for discussion. Some you do, some you don’t. It’s not clear.

The easement itself was presented as bringing clarity and guidelines for both the city and myself, because the easement is between us two parties, the owner and the city. The easement does not use words like discuss, collaborate, or mediate. It’s all one-sided. Many of the features in the cultural heritage value or interest are not even based on historical facts.

The first one, which gets a lot of attention, the thistle. This is on top of the house. It’s been removed. We had permission from city staff to have it repaired.

The wood funeral was rotten and we need a new roof. That was then last June, 2022, and it’s in writing. This thistle did not come from Queen Elizabeth. This thistle was not given to Archie, who served, who didn’t serve in the war.

He was 51 when the war started. He was never in the war. This was even documented by me reaching out to the Royal Trust in Britain, and confirmed by Barbara Hildesen, and you have the documentation in the profile or in my presentation stuff. So the thistle completely falls.

Let’s move on to the fireplaces, because they are the next topic of conversation that city staff keep coming back to. The most recent email last week, city staff would like a discussion on how we can reinstall the blue mantle and the tile surround while meeting fire code. It’s not possible. The blue mantle was installed in 1972, which we have verified by previous owners.

We have documentation by photos written on the wall, but we also know it doesn’t meet fire code. And there is pictures of it. The reason it doesn’t meet fire code is in 1972, the Suzuki Brothers built a new fire box, drinking the old one, but also bringing it into the room, not attaching it to the original fire box, therefore it pulled apart. But by the extension coming into the room, we also didn’t meet the hearth requirements.

You have to have 15.75 inches from the face of the fire box to for the hearth, which we don’t because it came into the room. It can’t be reinstalled like that. The original fire box in the west parlor, the blue fireplace, is the same as the east parlor. One minute.

The east parlor fireplace has this tile, this tile six inches. It doesn’t fit. The fire box is only three and three quarters inches. This is six inches.

This was never original. It was installed with wooden blocking. So the end is, I would like a new easement created. The old easement thrown out so we can start fresh.

We need the easement, the current one removed, so it’s an even playing field. It’s not, we can’t have a cooperative discussion about this easement. 30 seconds. When I have no control or no input.

It’s even a quote from, and I actually, it has been told to me, I’ll wear it this way. It’s irrelevant if Jeff is accurate. It’s irrelevant if Jeff is accurate. It’s all that matters what it is said in the easement.

That, I have problems with that. So I asked the staff through the council to through PEC that we remove the current easement and staff is instructed to work with us to create a new collaborative one. And that’s your time, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Jeanette Otter, Ms.

Ma’am. If you can, I’m sorry about the hype. Can someone help her out? Just take that right, yes, right.

Thank you. Thank you. You have five minutes. Janae Otter, 20 Mayfair Drive.

I’m speaking today as a member over many years of architecture, conservancy, Ontario, London branch. ACO is a long relationship with the Car Frei Cartage and going back, of course, through Julia Beck, who took leadership roles in both the local ACO and also the provincial. She received the Lieutenant Governor’s Prestige’s Heritage Award for Lifetime Achievement in 2008. In essence, she was an acknowledged giant in the heritage sector who approached all challenges with intelligence and integrity.

I personally remember talking to Julia in the late ’90s about this wonderful little cottage that she and Alan had found and were hoping to buy. It had original heritage features and was in a scenic, somewhat secluded neighborhood across from the Thames River near Warley Village. Most important, the cottage came with a rich history through the original owner, Robert Car Frei, a carpenter who emigrated from Leith, Scotland and eventually came to London in 1827 to help build the old courthouse on Rideout Street. As longtime heritage advocates, Julia and Alan Beck lived the retirement dream in this perfect cottage on Car Frei Street.

Well, which Julia said about researching and documenting in detail. The cottage built around 1880, 1860. Here’s where my glasses are needed, sorry folks. The cottage built around 1860 is a fine example of traditional Ontario cottage architecture with a hip roof and white stucco double brick walls resting on a Rubblestone Foundation.

The classic simplicity of its three bay design is enhanced by gothic revival detailing in the steep centre gable with many unique and original features inside. In the years following Julia’s death in 2012, Alan met frequently with a small committee from ACO London to ponder and hopefully determine the best possible future for this cottage after his eventual death. At these meetings, we enjoyed the simple elegance of this home as we met in the recessed living room on the west side. In 2017, ACO London commissioned a building assessment to be prepared by our heritage architect, John Rutledge.

Over the last weeks, it has been more than uncomfortable to hear this precious home discussed and viewed through the unfettered lens of social media. As you know, the heritage easment agreement between the Beck family heirs and the city of London is not the same, but additional to its heritage designation. It was designed to emphasize the extreme importance of this particular property and to better assure its future. The current owners implicitly bought into this agreement at the time of purchase in June of 2021.

At today’s meeting, you as a planning committee are being asked to give the new owners permission to violate one part of an agreement to which they gave a cent only two years ago. Further, you are now being asked for approval to scrap the easement agreement altogether and come up with something new. This is the same document created with sincerity, forethought, knowledge, and respect for this heritage property by both the city and the Beck family heirs. It has been approved by the former latch, by the committee, former committee, and by city council.

What is the point of creating this kind of agreement if it is now and so soon to be ignored or totally revamped? The easement should not be disregarded in this way. The new owners need to work with the city, as others do, to make things work for the property’s future. I encourage you, as a city committee, to vote against both proposals.

Thank you. Thank you, ma’am. The next delegate would be Helen Beck. Hello.

Hi. Oh, Ms. Beck, there you are. Is the mic on?

Do I try it again? Yes, hello. Yeah, we can hear you. Thank you very much.

Please, you have five minutes, please go ahead. Thank you. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Corporate Cottages former owners. I’m here with my brothers.

We added into the Heritage Agreement in 2021 to conserve Corporate Cottage for future generations. We are concerned that granting either a VISTA card guard’s request will not, or harm, not only Corporate Cottage, but create an unfortunate precedent. Mr. God provides no real justification for his request.

Essentially, he seeks to ignore or be excused from the terms of this unique heritage easement. Additionally, Mr. God has made this into a very public battle via media and the Facebook. In a media interview, he stated that the easement is, quote, “based completely on a mystical narrative, and on fraud, if I’m not being kind.” We passionately reject this.

These claims and similar ones made in his submissions to you. Our comments focus first on some context, including the significance of us entering into this heritage easement agreement when Corporate Cottage already had a heritage designation, as well as our upfront and full disclosure of the easement agreement. Second, we supplement the well-reasoned staff report by addressing points in Mr. God’s subsequent submissions.

So on to context. Our parents practiced what they preach by lovingly maintaining and restoring Corporate Cottage. They entrusted us with finding providers who do likewise. To help with this, we sought out the additional protections provided in a heritage easement agreement, including protecting features whose heritage value is recognized more now than in 1988 when the house was designated.

For example, I recall our mother specifically being concerned about the fireplace mantel’s merited protection, and she was an expert in this area. In 2021, this heritage easement agreement for a private home was unique in London. This reflects not only the heritage significance of Corporate Cottage, but our willingness to accept an easement. Like an easement, a heritage easement likely negatively affects market value.

This saving for the buyer helps us that the additional costs of heritage restoration. Mr. God is a real estate agent, so he and his partner owner were surely more aware of these factors than most buyers. We work collaboratively with the city on the agreement.

The agreement is between us and the city, not between Mr. God and the city. Future owners do not get to collaborate on the terms of the agreement. They must cooperate on its collaboration application, sorry.

The whole point of the agreement is to create an easement. It’s called a heritage easement agreement, which is registered on title to bind future owners. Their choice is whether or not to buy the property with the easement. We only want to buy us who truly wish to protect heritage and would honor the terms of the easement.

Thus, we disclose right up front before any viewings the draft easement agreement and said it would be put on title before closure. Moving on to the specifics of the roof request, we emphasize that the applicants have frustrated the city’s review, providing only two extreme quotes. Indeed, Mr. God’s own submission to this committee shows he was given more reasonable options for wood or alternative materials visually similar to wood in March and April.

That’s before the main application to alter the easement. However, he declined to pursue these options, let alone to provide them to the city. And this is that item five of his first submission. The estimates he or ballpark figures he got do not seem out of line.

This type of material is the normal alternative for buildings with the less stringent heritage designation. And we have more rationale on the reasonableness that page one of our submission. As for Mr. and God’s new submission to remove the heritage easement agreement.

In our view, this is outrageous. The heritage easement is reasonable and clear. And it’s only two years old. Our submission in the second annex has a point-by-point rebuttal of Mr.

God’s assertions regarding purported problems with the easement. For instance, he attacks the easement protecting non-original items, insinuating they are either erroneously or deceitfully presented as original, whether those such claims are made. On the minute, printing Mr. God’s litany complaints precisely the reasons we enter into the heritage agreement.

Get extra protections to conserve this priceless cottage. So in conclusion, we urge you to protect heritage or at least uphold the city’s approval only two years ago and reject both the requests. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, that concludes the delegate presentation. So now we’ll go to committee for discussion. Councillor Fray. Thank you.

I’m just wondering, I didn’t notice any presentation from staff. I’m wondering if staff of any remarks they’d like to make at this point. Staff are welcome to present. We have your report, but you’re welcome to go through it as requested by the Councillor.

Great, thank you. My name’s Michael Greigweil, heritage planner with the city of London. As noted, the subject property is 39 Carfrey Street. It’s very significant for its cultural heritage value.

As noted, Carfrey Cottage was built circa 1860 by Robert Carfrey, who was given the land and compensation for his involvement in the construction of the Middlesex County Courthouse. In 2021, prior to the sale, as noted by one of the delegations of the city and the estate of Allen Beck and Julia Beck entered into a heritage easement agreement with the city in order to further protect the cultural heritage value and the heritage attributes of the property for Londoners. The intent of the HIV, sorry, heritage easement agreement as I understand it was to honor their parents’ intention of the dwelling be preserved as a resource for the city of London and its residents. Since the property was sold in 2021, much of the communications with the current owners have been a complaint and enforcement-driven.

As you know, as staff, when we receive complaints from the public, we must investigate the validity of those complaints. And that has really driven many of the concerns and communications to date on this property. Starting in November of 2021, staff received a complaint about the installation of a new fence on the property. Staff investigated the complaint confirmed that yes and noo and larger fence was installed.

The HEA, the heritage easement agreement, does not identify the fence as a heritage attribute of the property, but there are specific provisions related to the construction or removal of a fence. In May of 2021, another complaint was received about the fence as well as the heritage plaque on the front of the property being removed. Eventually, staff were able to work retroactively with the applicant to approve the fence as per the terms and conditions of the heritage easement agreement. So that issue was resolved.

Moving on to the fissile in June of 2021, staff were contacted by the applicant in regards to the repair of the roof in the fissile, the decorative metal piece as Mr. Garde showed. As normal repairs are contemplated within the heritage easement agreement, staff confirmed. The approvals were not necessary given that this was a repair and that issue was resolved.

Later in June of 2021, staff received complaints regarding images that were posted online from a rental advertisement showing that the fireplaces had been altered. The fireplaces are included as noted with as a heritage attribute and protected. This is still an ongoing item. That brings us to the application that’s in front of you this evening.

This is for the roof. So the application that we’ve received right now is the owner has applied seeking permission to remove the existing wood roof. And I know it’s described within the heritage easement agreement as a hip to roof clad in wood shingles. I’ll also note that the current wood roof in the cottage was installed around 2001.

As you can understand, the original roof from 1860 would have been long gone by this point. In the mid 20th century, an asphalt shingle roof was installed. The current roof would have been installed by the BEX in 2001 as a part of a restoration effort. When staff evaluate applications proposing replacement options for roofing, staff are often seeking information to ensure that all the replacement options are fairly being considered.

In particular, this is very common for slate roofs. When the lifespan is about 100 years and we’re nearing the end of it, we know that often it’s not feasible. It’s often cost prohibitive to replace slate with slate. Sometimes that’s also demonstrated with wood shingles as well or shakes.

In previous examples, staff have worked successfully with owners to identify composite roof materials that replicate those historic aesthetics but are also fairly priced. In this application, as noted, there was one quote provided from a Toronto-based roofing company, upwards of $114,000 plus HST. And then a very different quote for asphalt shingles at a replacement cost of about $23,000. Staff have asked for additional quotes with regards to wood, with regards to composite materials, and with regards to asphalt.

No additional information was provided. At the moment, staff, the application that has been provided to staff to make a recommendation on has really been looking at two different alternatives. One, a very expensive cedar or wood roof, and then a much cheaper asphalt replacement at $23,000. So despite requesting additional information, we just did not receive that additional information as requested.

So staff absolutely do recognize the existing roof is beyond its life cycle and may be in need of replacement. Staff are not opposed to a replacement. At this time, the application does not include sufficient information for staff to provide a positive recommendation as such, a recommending refusal. Also note, we are encouraged to see that in the submission materials, the applicant submitted for the agenda, there are some considerations of alternative materials, one of which was a product that staff have recommended for approval in the past.

In some of those promotional materials, they note the costs for these products are often 1/3 less over the time of the product, lifetime of the product. So a property specific quote was not provided for this specific one. This type of information would have been useful and crucial for this application. I’m happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. Yes, I just wanna follow up a bit on the fencing. If you could just maybe walk us through that process as well, a little bit more in detail.

Staff, sure, through the chair, the fencing is not identified as a heritage attribute and either the heritage designating bylaw or in the heritage easement agreement. However, there are special provisions included within the heritage easement agreement that identify there are approval processes to construct or remove fencing on the property. In the complaint that we received, actually the two complaints that were received by the city, there was concern that a new fence had been constructed without proper approvals. Staff didn’t investigate that and determined yes, that was true.

And they were able to work retroactively through a heritage alteration permit process to approve the new fence. Councilor? Thank you. I think those are all my current questions for staff from now.

I think the thing that I’ve been mulling over this weekend that’s making it more complex is we really have one application before us, which is for the roof. And that is the one that the Community Advisory Committee on Planning has reviewed. I also had met with the applicant last weekend and mentioned this that today we are supposed to be discussing the roof. We are not.

It’s gone further. And so I do find this almost to be very difficult to have a clear discussion on because we have two different, I would say potentially decision-making points given that we are being moved along with lots of information. Unfortunately, we haven’t heard all sides of the story. I find we regarding the easement have not had a report from staff to fully explain perhaps the disagreements in the easement agreement that the application, the current applicant has with staff.

So I find this difficult to have a coherent opinion on at this point given the lack of information. So I’m hoping to put a motion on the floor to try and clarify some items. And I have circulated that to the secretary and the idea being if we are to be making any kind of discussion or decisions on the easement agreement, I personally would like more information. And so the motion that I circulated to staff in advance would seek out to resolve these concerns and find more information in order for us to actually have a proper discussion as committee with all of the information from all sides of the story.

So I don’t know if the committee secretary is able to pull that up. Okay, I see that’s up before us. So you’re moving that and I’m looking for a seconder for that motion, that’s our outcomes. I’ll second it, but I’ve got lots of questions.

Fair enough. So we’ve got a motion moved and seconded. So now I’ll open the floor on discussion. Go ahead, Councilor.

Yeah, okay, so the recommendation speaks just to the replacement of the roof. That’s what I thought we’re here this evening to deal with. I know we’ve got this motion that is looking into the easement and I heard from the owner that he does want a new easement. And there’s lots of questions around that because we’ve already got an easement and how does that work and what are we doing?

But I would like to personally just concentrate on the recommendation in front of us, which is to, I would hope work with the applicant to come up with alternative materials, whatever and work with staff to replace the roof. I think that, so if I’ve got it all wrong, maybe through you, Chair, if I can go to staff to just clarify what we’re doing here this evening. So I’ll go to staff. I think the Councilor is asking whether the motion in front of us is going above and beyond the roof that was originally on the agenda.

Thank you. Through the Chair, the application that is in front of you this evening is specifically related to the replacement of the roof, the application for the replacement of the roofing material. I think if I haven’t misunderstood the current motion in front of you, I think is to address some of the other items that the applicant has brought up this evening. Councilor.

And through you to staff, if we’re going to have further or look into the heritage easement and to the other challenges that the owner is facing, what normally would that process look like if we were going to start a new easement? Just, is this the beginning of that conversation if this motion is approved? I’ll go on staff. Through the Chair, if the request is to evaluate an amendment to the East current existing easement agreement or to enter into a new easement agreement, that would typically involve a similar process as the original easement agreement was entered into and require the consent of both municipal council and the property owner.

It would involve bringing a report through the Heritage Committee and standing committee and council in a similar way that the original easement agreement was entered into and it would involve some level of an amending agreement registered on title in the same manner as the original heritage easement agreement or potentially a new agreement being entered into with the concurrent release of the existing agreement. Councilor. So with this motion in front of us, does that address a new easement? To the Chair, my understanding is with the motion in front of us is to have the parties kind of come together and have discussions on the easement agreement and report back to municipal council with respect to that and scope in a specific manner.

That’s my reading. Councilor. And one last question, since I’ve got the mic, will it address the recommendation that’s in front of this about the roof? Through the staff.

Sorry through you, Chair, could you repeat the question? I could try to paraphrase, but I’ll go back to your council. I thought we were just dealing with the recommendation in front of us, addressing the roof and the replacement of the roof. This recommendation, would it also address that or can we make the decision about the roof tonight?

I’m just trying to understand the motion a little bit more and the process going forward. Through you, Chair, yes, we could keep the conversation going with the decision on the roof. That is the recommendation before you. There’s some additional information that was also provided tonight by the applicant in terms of alternative from that we would, we haven’t had that opportunity to look and investigate that information as it’s new information since when the application was submitted.

Councilor, okay, Acting Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So I’m gonna break this up into two parts and be looking to staff and the Councillor for some input and guidance on this as well. So notwithstanding the staff recommendation, our current planning and heritage advisory committee, regardless of conclusions that were reached by a previous latch, have actually said they do not support the staff recommendation and that they support allowing the applicant to go ahead with the asphalt roof.

And I’m quite aware of the fact as the applicant has connected with myself as well, that right now we have a roof that has some leaks. And staff have said they recognize it’s past it’s life cycle, so the longer we wait, the more regardless of the material, the more expensive the repairs get and the closer we get to demolition by neglect, which unfortunately we’ve seen many, many times in the city, both for properties, commercial and residential. So I’d like to deal with the roof tonight. And my support is with the advisory committee’s recommendation to approve the asphalt shingle roof.

Now, I appreciate that we have new information. And if there’s an alternate material that the applicant is amenable to, that creates the, I hope I don’t embarrass her, but I’m gonna have a little fun with her. If it creates the heritagey feel, that an alternate material can provide, I’m amenable to that as well. So whether it’s an asphalt or a another composite material, if both the staff and the property owner can be satisfied with an alternate material, I’m prepared to approve an alternate material.

I want a little bit of clarity though as well. And so I’ll look to staff for some comment on an alternate material, and if the chair will allow, I might ask if the applicant can also expand on their willingness to adopt an alternate material. But I also wanna talk about the schedule C and schedule the parts. And I will say, Councillor Frank, I’m gonna look to you for a little clarity in terms of some of the items that you wanna have addressed here, because from the material that I’ve been provided, and I look at the, you know, for example, the origins of the thistle from the archivist and historian of the Queen Elizabeth Castle of May Trust.

I take that as pretty credible evidence, that at least one of the two origin stories for the thistle, and there are two, they can’t both be true. Only one can be true. So I would like that sorted out and clarified in the easement. So I would like the easement amended.

I also, you know, hear what the applicant has said about the fireplace and the fireboxes. You know, I first started hanging around this building in 2014. I can actually remember minor variances at Committee of Adjustment, where we were asked to deny because of a heritage attribute, but at the same time, we had representatives from a building code saying, you can’t deny because fire code requires us to change this so that it meets modern building codes and fire safety. So what I heard from the applicant tonight with regard to the fireplace, to me, is very compelling, that there is a problem with the easement.

If it can’t meet fire code, it can’t meet fire code, and heritage does not trump safety. So through you, Chair, I’m wondering if I can first ask staff perhaps if you’ll indulge a response from both staff and the applicant on an alternate composite material. I’d like to hear on that. And then I would like to hear what the details, Councillor Frank is looking to have discussed in the class in the schedule C&D.

‘Cause I’m supportive of having this easement amended. I think six months is a reasonable timeframe. I just wanna know what we’re capturing in that from the word Councillor’s perspective. So through you, Chair, if I can get the roof answer first.

Okay, so let’s go to staff and maybe some possibilities for alternate materials. We’re doing a bit of, I think, was intended for the work in the motion quite frankly, but I’ll allow it to get some thought and then I’ll go to Mr. Gard to see his thoughts on that. We’re dipping our toe a bit into that water, but so, but I’ll, please go ahead.

Thank you. Through the Chair, the staff are absolutely willing to listen to or explore different opportunities for alternative materials. There are, I think, two materials that were presented in the additional information for the agenda this evening. One of the two materials has been previously approved for heritage alteration permit from a wood shingle roof or a wood shake roof to a composite, I think it’s a rubber material, but not mistaken.

The information that was provided did provide some just general promotional information related to costs, but not a hard specific cost or a real quote that’d be usable. So it’s difficult to determine whether that’s a feasible quote or not, but certainly in terms of a material that achieves the aesthetic appearance qualities of the existing wood roof, yes, that’s absolutely a material that staff would be willing to work with. Okay, I’m gonna go to Mr. Garde.

Comments there, Mr. Garde, about alternative materials other than wood or asphalt, like where’s the between? Yeah, so my comment is we currently have a roof with two layers of asphalt shiggles and a layer of pine shakes. The roofing system is not only pine, it’s also the two layers of asphalt.

And the reason that’s important is because the pine, we come to find out, was deteriorated when we purchased the property, and it’s actually the asphalt shingles below that is keeping most of the water out of the house. So I’m not asking for upgraded material as I feel that some parties are. I’m asking to replace my roof, which is asphalt with asphalt. I don’t want to spend $70,000 on a synthetic roof.

I don’t want to spend $130,000 for a new cedar shingle roof. That’s not, I don’t really believe that is fair when we have a asphalt roof. Thank you, I’m gonna go back to the acting mayor ‘cause this, I think, changes the dynamic and maybe goes to maybe the reasoning for your question. I don’t know, maybe you’re learning stuff as we go.

So please go ahead. Thank you. Well, it does help my questioning to some degree because I come back to our advisory committee recommendation and I am the first one, colleagues know I’m the first one to question recommendations from advisory committees, but I think that they’ve brought forward a recommendation that I can be supportive of here because there is, and I’ve seen the photos. So there are asphalt shingles under the wood shaker.

There’s no question about that. And I think it is fair to allow asphalt to be replaced with asphalt. So I would like to approve the roof tonight so that we don’t have continued damage to this property. I do think that there are a number of troubling items as I’ve outlined with the conditions that are in the easements and they may be just simply a result of the information at the time the easement was brought into consideration were believed to be valid and have since new information does surface and what was presumed to be something that was heritage can turn out to be something that was a more recent renovation to a property.

So I wanna go back through you chair to the counselor with regard to schedule C and D. I’d just like some a little bit more clarity from her on her intent to those particular clauses in her motion. I’m gonna go to Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins, I’ll let you weigh in as well. But first I’ll go to Councillor Frank.

For sure, yes. I think that we’ve all probably received some communication regarding the various discrepancies between staff and the applicant on this item. And my motion is hoping that staff and the applicant can come together and discuss the various items. I don’t have a limitation, a minimum or a maximum, anything on C or D is on the list.

But to discuss, you know, what is your understanding of it? Is there anything that you’re playing on changing on it? Should we have this change some of the wording? Does that make sense?

Essentially, I think I’d really like them to be able to work in a collaborative way. That is my goal. And if there is some things that maybe color change size, location need to be amended, I’m not necessarily against it, but I don’t think that we can just throw out this easement as is, given there’s quite a lot of items listed for that are attributes that contribute to it. So, you know, I don’t want to lose some things from it when maybe it’s just one or two items that are really the stickler.

So my goal is more just to keep the conversation between staff and the applicant going to ensure there is understanding between the two on various items. Councillor Hawkins. Yeah, just following up on Councillor Frank’s comments. I do appreciate this motion.

To me, it is about the applicant and staff working together. I hear the acting mayor’s concerns around a leaky roof. I’ve got one that needs to be fixed right now as well, but I would hope that staff would work with the applicant sooner than later when it comes to the roof. But I find this motion sort of dealing with a number of concerns before throwing out the easement, which will have a further conversation.

So I will be supporting it. I can bear those. Thank you. So I did want to come back after Councillor Frank’s comments ‘cause I appreciate, actually, I liked the fact that you want to keep it open ended.

And let’s review all the points of contention and come back with an amended easement at some future date. It is certainly easier to amend than to start back at square one and hope you capture everything. So I appreciate that. I don’t know whether the Councillor will deem this to be friendly or not, but I’d like to amend her motion that we approve the installation of asphalt shingles or an alternate composite because Mr.

Gard has options. Although if asphalt is the route he chooses to go, I’m okay with that. So I’d like to move, I’d like to amend it to approve the installation of the asphalt shingles. And then the rest of the Councillor’s motion direct staff to work with the applicant to resolve the outstanding concerns, schedule, C&D, heritage easement agreement, bring back an update in six months on the status.

It being noted that staff are to suspend enforcement measures on the existing fireplace matters until further direction from Council on the heritage easement agreement. And I think that that’s really important because I do know that the applicant was served with a letter that provided a deadline in August. If we are giving six months for a discussion on the easement, then we, I think, do have to suspend the enforcement until that discussion takes place. So I support everything the Councillor says, but I would like to include an amendment that approves the installation of the asphalt tonight if she’s amenable to that.

If not, I’ll try it as a separate motion. Councillor, I’ll go to you to see if you would accept that as a friendly amendment. I think that there are Councillors among us who might want to vote it separately. So at this point, just for that reason, I think I’m not going to accept it as friendly, sorry.

Okay, Acting Mayor looks like we’ll have to treat that as a separate amendment that we will vote on. Do you have a seconder for that amendment? Councillor Hill here has seconded. So I’ll open the floor for that discussion on the amendment only.

The Acting Mayor can take the chair again so I can speak to this. Sure, I just want to, before you speak to this, Councillor, before you turn over the chair, process-wise, I’d suggest that I’ll introduce it as a separate amendment if necessary. And then you had talked about it as an amendment to Councillor Frank’s motion. I just want to be clear which— My understanding and the clerk can correct me is that we, Councillor Frank, was not willing to treat this as a friendly amendment, so that we will treat this amendment on its own, that we will now vote on separately.

Right, okay, gotcha. So that’s where we’re at right now. So we vote on the amendment first and then the main motion as amended or the original if the entity fails. Yeah, they might separate it out, but that’s where I see it.

I think the clerk’s in agreement. So I want to wait to see if anyone wanted to speak to the amendment before I turn it in. I’ll take that back if you don’t mind it. I’ll just leave the chair with you.

Okay, I will recognize Councillor Layman and then I’ve got Councillor Hopkins after that. Okay, so this is a tricky one. And just, I feel like I’m a judge and CSI with proof and exhibit A and exhibit B. My feeling is that the Beck family did a terrific job in restoring this to the how they felt it was of their time, or the time of, you know, when it was built.

However, that gets the question in my mind, when you do an easement, do you go based on the renovations or do you go based on the original building itself? And being that we’re dealing with the roof, I see two layers of asphalt roof and then a shake roof put on or pine roof put on by the renovation prior to the easement. The question in my mind is if a similar home in the area built in a similar time period that had a asphalt roof and it was leaking, would we require, and it was a does the inheritance, would we require a pine roof, would we replace that asphalt roof? So I want to ask staff that question, or would we allow the asphalt roof to be replaced?

Well, let’s ask staff that question. Sorry, Chair, through you. Thank you, just through the chair, just to, if I can just ask a clarifying question, are you asking whether a property with an asphalt roof, I guess it comes down to a matter of heritage status. I’m just a, I’m a little unsure on what the question, like how it’s specifically related to heritage status.

So my hypothetical question is this through your chair. If there was a similar property, with a similar heritage status in the similar area, but it didn’t have a pine roof, it had an asphalt roof like this particular property had before the pine roof was installed. Because it’s heritage, would the homeowner be required to put a pine roof on it instead of the asphalt roof? And we’ll go back to staff.

Thank you, and thank you for the clarification. To kind of speaking in, I guess, in hypotheticals in a heritage conservation district, we can use that as an example. Most of our heritage conservation districts, the Heritage Conservation District Plan, outlines that if a change in roof material, and for most of them, would require a heritage alteration permit. Now, this doesn’t specifically say, it needs to be restored back to a specific material or timeframe, it would come down to a matter of what’s protected.

So if a specific by-law or easement agreement specifies a certain material, that’s what’s protected. That would be the kind of the baseline, if you will. For, let’s using the example of slate, similar approach for a heritage conservation district property, if a slate roof is proposed for replacement, we would use the same approach. We would look at, okay, is it feasible to replace it with the same material?

If not, are there alternatives? And then we would explore those options. I’m hoping that gets to your answer, to your question. Thank you, Mr.

Grigal. Councillor Lehman, does that help you process that? Kinda not. But I guess where I’m getting at is this.

Here we have a situation where there’s a heritage property. The original heritage designation dealt with the shape of the roof, which is not being altered. An easement was sought after renovations were done, which added a different type of roof material. And it wouldn’t be so much of a question, I guess if the cost wasn’t so considerable.

I mean, that is a considerable differential cost between an asphalt roof and a pine roof or alternatives. So, it’s a judgment call. But in this particular case, I will support the amendment ‘cause it seems like a reasonable thing for me to support for those reasons. Thank you, Councillor Lehman.

I’m going to return the chair to you, noting we have Councillor Hopkins, and then Councillor Hill here on the speaker’s list. Thank you, I want to Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I won’t be supporting the motion. I understand where it’s coming from.

I will be supporting the original motion, which I think would have got us there. I think here at committee, if I’m not an expert, when it comes to roofs, heritage, I would prefer that these decisions would remain with staff and the applicant. So, that’s why I won’t be supporting it. I’ll go to Councillor Hill here.

Yes, thank you. I appreciate the acting mayor’s position. And I’m just curious, has any consideration been given in looking into asphalt shingles that look from the street, like the original white pine shingles? ‘Cause we’re looking at a white pine roof that a quick search online, I couldn’t find white pine shingles.

And we have two layers of asphalt. So, if we’re going to be going down all the way down three layers of roofing, can we get something that at least looks similar, but is cost effective? ‘Cause I cannot see forcing someone to spend almost five times what it costs for a regular roof, but I would like to see something that does fit with what we had before. Has that been considered looking at something that was similar to what was before, but in the asphalt?

I’ll go to staff for that question. Thank you, through the chair. The application materials that were submitted did not look at details related to the appearance of the shingles, the only information that was submitted with the application was the wood roof at 114 plus the HSD 114,000 plus HSD, and then the asphalt shingle estimate as well. So, those details were not submitted to the city.

Thank you, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m not able to vote at this committee, but at Council I would be supporting the amendment per the Acting Mayor, only in Council eight months, but there’s been a few heritage files that have come before us that the general public doesn’t seem to find reasonable or have common sense around them, and I think it’s really important that we are serving the public, that we are serving them in terms of what we’re maintaining in terms of heritage, and it’s something that I’d like us to explore going forward to make sure that we are serving the general public when we’re doing this kind of thing. There’s challenging economic times. I don’t want to see people not want to purchase heritage properties or not want to renovate because of maybe policies that aren’t serving.

So, I look forward to supporting this amendment at Council. Thank you, Councilor Frig. Thank you, yes. Following up on Councilor Stevenson’s comments, I was wondering if a heritage could tell me on average how many heritage alteration permits that you receive a month, how many you approve, how many you refuse.

I know in the last couple of months I agree with Councilor Stevenson. We’ve seen, I think at least one refusal, perhaps a month or every other month, and I just want to seek some clarity as to if that’s a full and accurate picture of what you guys are working on. I’ll go to staff. Thank you, through the chair.

The heritage alteration permit applications that typically come through Community Advisory Committee on Planning to Planning, Environment Committee, and then for Council decision meet the terms and conditions under the Delegated Authority By-law for referral to Council. So, you don’t often see all of the approvals that are processed for heritage alteration permits. The Delegated Authority By-law has really allowed for heritage alteration permits to be processed by staff administratively since about 2015. There are conditions for referral to Council.

Generally, they kind of fit into three different boxes. One, whether it’s a complex application, this is typically a new building within a heritage conservation district that always comes for Council decision, refusals come for Council decision, and then hops where heritage alteration permits, where the work has already started without prior approval. Those are really the three referral kind of conditions. In terms of numbers, approximately, we’re processing about 100 heritage alterations permits per year right now, give or take.

We saw a bit of a dip in 2020 and 2021, just as a result of COVID. But last year, looking at the numbers, we processed 103 heritage alteration permits. 86% of them were administratively processed through Delegated Authority. So those are ones that staff absolutely are willing to support.

So of those 103, 14 were referred to Council, only five of those were recommended for refusal. So refusal recommendations are pretty small in terms of numbers when they’re coming to this committee and to Council. For the year to date, for 2023, we’ve processed, if you include this application, 56 heritage alteration permit applications, including this one only, that’s only two recommendations for refusal. So about a 90% approval rating from staff at this point.

Approval recommendation on rating. Councilor. Thank you, yes. I was just hoping to get those numbers ‘cause I know as a new member on this committee, I had seen, I think, a couple of refusals and thought perhaps that was all we’re doing at heritage, but it sounds like 91% approval is not so bad.

So that is why I’m very interested in having my motion move forward, just because I would like to see an amicable resolution to this issue and have staff approve and be able to work with the applicant on that. Any other comments or questions before we vote on the amendment? I’m gonna ask the Acting Mayor to take the chair again. I want to call more comment here.

Okay, I will take the chair and I recognize Councillor Layman. Thank you. It was mentioned that we’re not heritage experts. No, we are not, and I’d forgotten to include this remark when I was speaking.

The fact is that the Heritage Advisory Committee recommended against the staff recommendation. They are the experts in heritage and in this particular case, it’s another factor that I forgot to bring up because, again, it’s a very gray area here and we’re acting to make a judgment call. So I just wanted to get that on the record. Thank you, Councillor Layman.

I’ll return the chair to you. Thank you, Councillor Frank. Thank you, and you reminded me of one more comment. I was wondering as staff, ‘cause I wasn’t able to make that planning meeting.

If you could just review maybe when it came to this moment, I think that there was a failed motion and then the second motion went, I’m just wondering if staff who are there would be able to relay to us. Since, again, as we noted a little bit earlier by Council Perbal, the minutes don’t kind of contain context, it contained the motion, the approval and our refusal. So I’m just wondering if staff could outline us through kind of maybe Coles notes of what happened at the advisory committee and how the vote went for the final one that we received? So I’ll go staff on that.

Sure, thank you. Through the chair, there was a motion on the floor at CACP to support the staff recommendation at first. There was good discussion, I should say, on both sides first. I would say that the attitude amongst the committee members was pretty split.

I think there was a good kind of consensus between both sides of the discussion. The first recommendation or motion to support the staff recommendation field, I believe if I’m not mistaken, it was four to six. It was a close number, something in that range. And then on the opposite to refuse the staff recommendation or disagree with the staff recommendation, it was about the same, but the opposite.

So it was a pretty close vote from my recollection. Thank you, Councillor. Thanks, yes. And I think maybe following up on council purples, comments earlier, I think maybe moving forward, it’d be nice to chow clerks about having descriptions of those resolutions.

‘Cause sometimes I think if we just get the motion of what was approved, we don’t see the context that it was a close vote. Any other comments before I call the vote? Okay, we have, I’m gonna talk to the clerk for second. Okay, we’ve got an amendment on the floor.

Move as Ms. Westlake power, you have your hand up. I’ll go to you. Thank you, through the chair.

Can you hear me? Okay, I’ve had to switch my audio. We can hear you fine. Perfect.

Okay, I just wanted to point out for the committee’s information that the community advisory committee on planning is not the decision maker on this. And none of our advisory committees, we don’t record the votes at any of those advisory committees. It’s a simple majority to pass any motion of recommendation that they may have. I, through the chair and with your indulgence, I will indicate, I understand that there’s also perhaps members of the community advisory committee on planning in the gallery.

I don’t know if you wanted any additional context from any of the members who may have been at the meeting. Thank you, Ms. Westlake power. Being that the votes were, or the discussion advisory committee process was raised, I think that that’s good information to have.

So I’ll go back to the committee before I call the vote. Acting Mayor Lewis. Thank you, chair. Just through you, if the committee is amenable.

And I saw Mr. Wallace waving at somebody across the gallery. So if we do have members from the advisory committee, would either one like to make a, okay, he’s waving me off. So I will listen to him and just let you call the vote.

The committee members are welcome to ask, you know, who they want to, but I’m cautious in the committee. We could go down the second debate here, you know, in the gallery between maybe opposing views. I don’t know, just supposing. It’s up to committee members.

I’ll leave it at your hands. Okay, I will call the vote. The clerk clerk will read the amendment. So the motion reads motion to direct staff to work with the applicant to resolve outstanding concerns with schedule C, pardon me, schedule C, and schedule D of the Heritage Eastman Agreement and bring back an update within six months on the status.

It being noted that staff are directed to suspend enforcement measures on the existing fireplace matters until further direction from council on the Heritage Eastman Agreement. That the motion be amended to include the following as a new part B, B. That the Heritage Alteration Application to install asphalt shingles or an alternate composite material for the roof replacement of the property located at 39 Carfrae Street. Okay, I want to confer confirmation that we are just voting on the amendment, not the motion as amended.

We never, it was not a friendly amendment. It was, sorry folks, we will get the motion on the floor. It will just be on the amendment. Clerk, if you could read what we are voting on please.

That the motion be amended to include the following as a new part B, B. That the asphalt, sorry, that the Heritage Alteration Application to install asphalt shingles or an alternate composite material for the roof replacement of the property located at 39 Carfrae Street. Adding the words be approved. So refresh your screens, take a look at the motion, and I’m putting that on the floor now to vote.

Closing the vote, the motion passes three to two. Okay, so now we have a motion that has been amended that we can deal with separately. As I suspect the mover and the seconder would want to deal if that’s correct, yes, yes. Okay, so Clerk, if we could separate that motion into two parts, then A and B, possible.

Okay, so we have the motion on the floor. It’s split into two parts to allow voting, A and B, B being the amendment. Before I call that vote, any final discussion? Seeing none, so I will call the vote now, just on A, vote on B.

Okay, we’re gonna have two separate votes, one on the original motion, then we’re gonna vote on the amendment again. So the Clerk has the wording up for the Part A, which is the original motion. I’m gonna call the vote on that. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

We’ll be opening the vote on Part B, which is the amendment. Call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries three to two. Thank you.

We will now be moving on to 4.2. These two 21 Queens have. I’ll look for a motion to open the public, oh no, we don’t have a public participation, sorry. We do have a request for a delegation from the applicant.

So I’ll look for a motion to approve that delegation committee. Acting Mayor Lewis makes the motion. Can I have a seconder please? Councillor Hill here, seconds.

I now call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, so I’ll look to the applicant. Please give us your name and do you have five minutes?

Good evening, my name is Alex Hossen and I’m here with you on behalf of the applicant and owner of the land, sift and properties. I’d first like to thank members of committee for their time and reconsideration of the application this evening. We have reviewed the staff’s report and we’re in favor of the recommendation to grant extension of the temporary use zone for a period of three years. We have prepared a draft conceptual landscape enhancement plan, which has been added to the agenda this evening to demonstrate how the streetscape could be improved through the addition of plantings along the frontage of the lands.

It would be sift and preference to maintain the existing number of parking spaces in order to uphold our tenant obligations, but we are committed to working with staff to provide a landscape enhancement plan at a satisfactory to both parties during the three year temporary zone extension period. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll open the floor for discussion, et cetera, with the committee.

Acting Mayor Lewis. Thank you. I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. I know I didn’t support this the last time where I supported the one year and then I changed my mind at council.

I really appreciate the applicant providing a conceptualized enhanced landscape. That helps me get there. I also appreciate the communications we had between the last time this was that committee and then Dr. Council and to come back in terms of these spaces being fully leased, not just not for customer use, but keyable use for employees and the importance of maintaining those spaces so that employees can continue to come to work.

So this gets me to where I hoped we would get to when the one year kind of expired and we’re there months early. So happy to support this this time. Thank you and I’ve got a second from Councillor Hillier. We got motion moved in second.

I’ll open the floor for discussion. Councillor Hopkins. I’ll be supporting it. I do have a question through you to staff as we try to reduce parking lots, temporary parking lots in our city.

I would encourage the staff to work with the developer to see how we can and some of these temporary parking lots. I know there are a number of other ones. We should have some consistency when we have these temporary parking lots come to our planning committee and we have to make these decisions. So I’m really encouraging not only that we have reduced lots at this site, but looking at other temporary parking lots that come forward, how we can reduce the temporary placement.

We must be able to do a better job in dealing with other developers. So I’m getting really tired all of a sudden and my mind is just starting to wander, but it is really important. I recall the letter from the developer. We shouldn’t signal just one developer.

We should signal all the developers that hold these temporary licenses or the parking lots to do something about reducing them or getting rid of them. So I would really like to encourage that to continue those conversations, see how we can implement them in our policies as well. Thank you. Oh, Councillor, I’m glad to hear.

I’m not the only one facing fatigue at this late hour, it’s been a long day. Councillor Frank was that expression of supporter? Did you want to speak to this? Okay.

Any other comments or questions seen on that I’ll call the vote? Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Okay, we are moving on to 4.1. Our last item for direction, dealing with a comprehensive review of the London Plan update.

Another ripple from Bill 23 changes. I think before, there is a request for delegation status. Before I go to that, I’d like to go to staff for just a verbal presentation on why this is before us and a brief outline of what this entails. Thank you, through the chair.

So the purpose of this report is to seek council’s direction on the comprehensive review. Given recent changes to the provincial legislation and the draft new provincial planning statement that was released in April, there’s an added presentation as well to this effect. And it’s also the second purpose is to initiate the industrial lands review and specifically the re-designation review, whereby landowners can request properties be evaluated for their potential to be considered for re-designation to other non-industrial place types. If we look to the timing of the new draft PPS, it was the day before Easter that it was released by the province and it was the day after that long weekend that the terms of reference for the comprehensive review came to this council or to this planning committee.

So it does include the terms of reference within based on the 2020 PPS, which is the predecessor to this draft new one and there are significant changes to growth management policy in the new draft PPS, which would require amendments to the terms of reference. Comprehensive review, it was initiated primarily to discuss and address the land need question around land supply and the ability to accommodate projected growth and employment and housing. But the comprehensive review was initiated under section 26 of the Planning Act. And in section 26, one of the requirements is to have consistency with policy statements that are issued by the province.

So by having a new draft PPS, there will be some substantive changes. There’s many changes that came out of it. One of them being the change of the definition of employment land whereby the commercial industrial place type would need a fairly extensive review. But it’s not limited to that either.

There’s the length of a plan and other definitions as well. And the review then being issued under section 26. If it is a comprehensive review, it would extend the timeline to get to the land need assessment result. So the report is recommending to close the comprehensive review that was issued under section 26 to initiate a new official plan amendment consistent with the new policy framework once that is finalized by the province.

But in the meantime, continue the land need assessment work that is ongoing right now as identified in the terms of reference. And the benefits of this approach are to intended to focus staff resources on completion of the land need assessment, which supports the housing pledge and housing supply initiatives. It reduces the overall timeline for completing the land needs assessment by decoupling it from those other policy reviews that will be required and then reducing the work that may be invalidated by the new PPS. And then as the second element is initiating industrial land review, that is again for redesignation and taking in requests from landowners to have their properties evaluated.

Preliminary evaluation criteria are appended to the report with you this evening. That process does have an impact on the land supply and the land need study because any re-designated lands could be considered for housing or other land uses. And a future public meeting would be held to consider those re-designations and staff recommendations for properties to potentially be changed to other land uses. And happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes.

I was just curious. So I noticed that there are a bunch of amendments and are there any delegation statuses on this? Yes. Oh, okay.

Maybe I’ll let them go first. I was gonna ask committee if they’d like to hear from the delegate before we go. So I’ll let her motion to Councilor Hopkins. Second by Councilor Frank to approve the delegate.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Mr. Wallace, your dedication to LDI has not gone unnoticed for you to be here at 10 after nine.

Well, I do appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. And I had a longer speech plan, but I think I’m gonna narrow it down. First of all, I wanna thank staff for bringing forward to us at an earlier stage, not just like last week, given us the heads up that they are changing, they’re making a recommended change from the comprehensive study to the, our focus to land needs assessment piece, taking into account what they believe in, what we believe in, what we know is gonna be true of what’s actually gonna get passed in the PPS in the fall. So they’re taking a very progressive proactive approach to this, and we appreciate the heads up.

Being that, to be honest, it’s our industry that will be the main discussion of our industry over the next year. I’m here about part one, not about the industrial review in terms of flipping those lands to different use. We may hear comments from me on that in another public meetings and so on going forward, but just we read the report over, we highlighted lots of things. At the end of the day, the benefits for closing, the comp review are well articulated in the report.

We agree with everything that’s actually in here on what the approach. And there are going to be changes, a minimum of 25 years, just for example, the removal of identifying the built area boundary. There’s a number of things that are in here. It doesn’t, we’re working with staff, everything is on the table for discussion.

We’re working closely with them on the land needs review, which is already well underway under the housing supply committee. It’s been a very good relationship so far and we look forward to the results. Our concern was things would get stopped and then we’d be here this time next year at getting things up and running again. And so you should know that your staff are taking a much more proactive approach to this, identifying that there is a need for all forms of housing within the community over the next decade.

And that’s it for tonight and Wakey, Wakey. Thank you, Mr. Walson. Yeah, go your comments there.

Thank you, ‘cause I think we’re all on the same page here. We have a big target and I appreciate your department for doing, identifying critical paths to get there and it helps us do our job. So now I would go to Council Frank. Thank you, that didn’t answer my question.

So, but that’s okay. Mine are more for, I’m curious as to why we are and I’m happy to do this, like switching industrial land to potentially residential land. I’ve got kind of a two-parter. One, if we do this, do they just not have to do a ZBA because then it’ll already be deemed residential?

And two, how come we don’t look at like other zoning levels? I’m also running out of words, zoning? Classification. Thank you, classifications other than industrial to open them up to residential.

Like, why isn’t this kind of like a feast for all? Whatever you want to be residential, if it’s within reason, let’s give her. So that’s my question, two-parter. I’ll go to staff on the thank you, give report.

So through the chair, under the previous PPS, the main means by which you could re-designate was during the comprehensive review. And then it tied into your overall land supply. The broader we make the scope of this, the longer it may take, the definition, as well as the definition in the new draft PPS for employment areas changed. So it used to be that other related types of uses could exist.

Now it’s only if they are secondary to the industrial. So for example, commercial industrial, which has a lot of standalone, commercial and standalone office or institutional buildings, would no longer be permitted under that definition. So as long as that goes through in the final version that gets approved, that place type in particular is gonna need a much closer look. So policies and mapping will need to be updated for that one.

As part of a official plan review, we certainly, the city certainly can look at changing any land uses, but this was a matter of, it was only within the last five years that the London plan was approved. It does take time for lands to develop. It’s only these sorts of legislative changes that might be the, that was the thinking behind why we might be considering these rather than all lands. But if there are issues that are brought to our attention during the official plan review, they could be considered as well.

But again, it’s also trying to scope it such that we can get to the land need result for the supply question faster, Councilor. Thank you. So then hypothetically, if somebody did come to you and they didn’t have industrial and it’s something else, commercial, and if it was reasonable, would you then consider converting to residential without zoning by-law amendment as part of the land needs assessment? Sorry, I don’t know if I got achieved full clarity there.

That’s tough. So through the chair. So it would be an official plan amendment, land plan amendment rather than a zoning amendment. This isn’t addressing the zoning.

If it is a one-off, then they would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This is kind of a broader city-wide policy issue related to a change in the legislation. But we are open to hearing from the public about concerns. So if there is something that’s broader or repeating pattern of an issue, then it may be something that would be addressed at a broader scale like this rather than on a case-by-case basis.

I’m sorry. Thanks, I don’t know if I perfectly understand, but I’m okay with that. My second part of this question was another one. Oh, the other issues that people have identified about the comp review that people wanted to make changes to the official plan, since we’re kind of putting this all in hold and just doing the land needs assessment, are those issues that people had?

Are we gonna look at those later just at a case-by-case, like it might come as like one item on a peck agenda or how will we resolve issues that people have brought to us? We’ll go stuff through the chair. So the conference review is no longer actually a defined term in the draft, new PPS. So there’s no guidance as to what it actually would include.

But the section 26, sorry, the official plan amendment that needs to be done is within the first 10 years of the plan being approved. So by January of 2027, staff would have to bring back a new official plan amendment and with a new scope of work we have to identify. But there’s nothing preventing members of the public speaking to staff or other specific issues or other official plan amendments in the meantime as well. If there are issues that need addressed sooner, but this is just a matter of putting the review on pause so that the land needs can be decoupled from other policy reviews.

And then a new plan of work would be brought back to council based on the new policy regime in the fall once we know what that is. Councilor. Thank you, yes, I think that seems wise. And I think that maybe we won’t ask you guys to look at anything else for the next year while you finish all the other stuff you’re working on.

So thank you for streamlining this. Thank you. I’ll go to Acting Mayor Lewis and then to Councilor Hopkins. Thank you.

I’ll remind Councilor Frank of that the next time she wants to refer something to staff for a review. First of all, if that was the short version, I’m glad that we didn’t ask Mr. Wallace to speak on the prior matter. But I appreciate his input there.

A question for you, through you, Chair, to our staff. There’s a couple of communications on the added from a JFlemming, the staff aware who this person is. He seems like he’s, oh, there he is, up in the gallery. I just wanted to acknowledge our prior city planner, Mr.

Fleming, is here tonight. Thank you for the communications on here. I know he and I have actually had a discussion about the Kellogg’s area in very preliminary, what could be seen there in the future. And I’m quite excited by that.

And so I’m glad to see that communication is here. But I do, in all seriousness, have a question for staff with regard to this. And actually, it was Mr. Fleming’s letter that sort of triggered this for me earlier today.

When we were talking about industrial land place types, are we including that communication out to those areas that are designated light industrial, and not just the heavier industrial? And the reason I ask is similar to the Kellogg’s, there are a couple of pockets in Ward 2 that are designated for light industrial that are honestly, they’ve been vacant properties light industrial for a long time. I know at least one applicant is going to be coming, looking for a change to residential. But I think there may be some others there.

And not only are they a change from light industrial to residential, but at least in one of the two where I’m aware of there being some interest, it’s in fill as well. So will this be covering light industrial as well as general industrial? That’ll go stuff through the chair. So this is intended to be circulated and made known, and any landowner can request their property be evaluated.

The evaluation is going to be based on both, it’s continued use as an industrial use, and then it’s potential for other uses. So if it is a heavier industrial, there may be more brownfield types of conditions, or it may be that if you don’t want it to sterilize existing industrial operations, if one or two properties wish to change and they’re surrounded by active ones, but staff are open to receiving requests from any type of industrial use. So that, I guess, actually answers the part B of that question. We’ve got a number of added communications on the agenda tonight regarding areas that people want considered.

So you don’t need direction from us, as long as those communications are received, staff will take them from there. So that’s, and I see everybody’s heads nodding on that. So I hope they’re not nodding off to sleep, that they’re just nodding in agreement. So final, I guess, request then, through you chair, is can that notice please be circulated to council as well, so that if property owners in our wards may have some interest in reaching out that we can share that information with them too.

Staff, through the chair, yes, we can circulate, yes. I see Councillor Robin has joined us because she has nothing better to do at 10 o’clock in the evening. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, and through you, can you hear me okay?

We can. - Oh, sorry, do you want to go back? You go back to your members of committee and then come to the meeting. So thank you, I was rude there, and then see Councillor Hopkins.

I’m gonna go to Councillor Hopkins, first if you don’t mind, Councillor. Let’s go ahead, I apologize. No need to apologize, I would have been quiet. Okay, Councillor Baum, I went ahead.

I just wanted to follow up on acting there as comments acknowledging our former city planner, John Fleming, it’s so good to see you here again. And really appreciate the comments coming from the stakeholders in the community. We’ve got quite a package here, and it’s really important that we understand what’s going on, thoughts, comments coming out from the stakeholders. I understand we need to do this comprehensive review.

It is separate to the comprehensive rezoning that is going on too. I just wanted, I see lots of nodding heads, which is really important, so I understand staff have a lot of work going on. So I do have a quick question through you, Mr. Chair, about the comprehensive review being done completed before we look at the Urban Growth Foundry Review, or is that parallel conjunction, just what’s the process like?

Good stuff, comment on the timing of the two. Yeah, through the chair. So the land need assessment is an element of the conference review, but the rest of it then is policy reviews to ensure conformity with all your provincial policies and provincial plans. So the intention is that the land supply and the land need evaluation is to continue so that we can get to that Urban Growth Foundry discussion and look for the housing supply initiatives, like the things that it supports.

But the other policy reviews that are related that are part of a comprehensive review would be what would be put on pause until the fall when a new scope of work is determined. Council. Yeah, so lots more information to come to this committee in the future, so thank you. Good luck with all the work that you’ve got ahead of you.

Council Raman now, I will over to you. Thank you and through you, can you hear me okay? We can. Wonderful, thank you.

First, thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak at this late hour and I must say this has been a marathon meeting and thanks for all of your hard work on planning tonight. Yeah, I wanted to speak to this item as it relates to the Hyde Park area and welcome the opportunity for further discussion with this topic. I do know that this has been an area of interest, specifically looking at converting this area to residential, but more and extensive conversations need to happen with residents and business owners in the area. So I am very supportive of the next steps in the process and making sure that it’s as extensive as possible because there are from the conversations I’ve been engaging in the last few months, there are many people interested in looking at the potential of this area and not just for residential.

So I appreciate all the questions that have come from other Councillors on the committee so far around how that discussion is shaping out with the comprehensive zoning and the comprehensive review. Part of this discussion and how those kind of intertwine but are separate, I think is really important in this area. And I welcome the opportunity to have some of those conversations with our staff around some of the challenges that businesses in the area have faced because of this type of zoning at this point and the permitted use. So based on what I’ve seen tonight, thank you, I want to say thank you again to Mr.

Fleming and to those that have submitted communication thus far. Looking at this area and potential for residential, I do see the value of residential in this area. It is as others have stayed an excellent opportunity to see development in this area, which is as I can see and you can see from the letters that have been provided in this package have not met the industrial needs of the community or the business community or the industrial community that’s looked at this property that have looked at opportunities and have not been able to maximize that potential in the area. For those of you that haven’t had a chance to walk or take a look at this area, as mentioned in the letter, this is a beautiful piece of land.

It backs on to a stormwater management facility or I should say it is later a stormwater management pond as well as a beautiful trail that’s being developed and continues to be worked on. And so I see the value of looking at this property differently and I do think that it will be seen as an attractive place for the city to grow within our urban growth boundary. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor.

Any other comments that look for a motion to receive? Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Acting Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, and thank you, Councillor Hopkins for recognizing Mr. Fleming up there. It’s not used to that angle. (laughs) We’ll forget that fellas here side.

We’ll move on to deferred matters. There’s an added 5.1 to A3 port, the community advisory on planning, look for motion to receive. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Acting Mayor Lewis and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

And folks, I believe that’s it. Motion to adjourn. Acting Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank, all in favor. For adjourn, thank you, folks.