June 11, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Mayor J. Morgan and Councillor S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.5 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   6th Meeting of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2024-05-16 ECAC Report

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the 6th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 16, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   Planning & Development and Building Monthly Housing Update – 2024 Year-To-Date

2024-06-11 - SR (2.2) - PEC-Building Monthly Housing Update

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated June 11, 2024 entitled “Planning and Development and Building Monthly Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

2.3   WITHDRAWN - Appointment of Consultant for RFP 2024-113 Community Improvement Plan to Encourage Residential Development near Transit

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the item entitled “Appointment of Consultant for RFP 2024-113 Community Improvement Plan to Encourage Residential Development near Transit” BE WITHDRAWN.

Motion Passed

2.5   2023 Annual Report on Building Permit Fees

2024-06-11 - SR (2.5) - PEC-Annual Report on Building Permit Fees

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated June 11, 2024 entitled “Annual Report on Building Permit Fees” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-P10)

Motion Passed

2.4   Heritage Alteration Permit Application – 332 St. James Street – Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Conservation District (HAP23-107-L)

2024-06-11 - SR (2.4) - PEC-332 St James Street

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Heritage Alteration Permit application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act relating to the property located at 332 St. James Street BE APPROVED;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal delegation from G. Keene, with respect to these matters;

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

  •    a request for delegation status and communication dated June 6, 2024 from G. Keane;

  •    a communication dated June 6, 2024 from M. Ross;

  •    a communication dated June 6, 2024 from J. Brown; and,

  •    a communication dated June 8, 2024 from J. Byrne;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-R01)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That G. Keane BE GRANTED delegation status with respect to the Heritage Alteration Permit application relating to the property located at 332 St. James Street.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Community Improvement Plans Review for Increasing Affordable Housing

2024-06-11 - SR (3.2) - PEC-Community Improvement Plans Review for Increasing Affordable Housing FULL

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Improvement Plans Review for Increasing Affordable Housing:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan to:

i)    update the definitions of affordability (Consultant Recommendation #1); and,

ii)    review and update the CIP’s goals and objectives (Consultant Recommendation #2);

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the financial implications of amending the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan and its Financial Incentive Program Guidelines to:

i)    introduce the following new financial incentive programs (Consultant Recommendation #4);

A)    tax Increment Equivalent Grant Program (Consultant Recommendation #5);

B)    Capital Grant Program (Consultant Recommendation #6);

C)    Municipal Fee Exemption Program (Consultant Recommendation #9);

D)    Pre-Construction Grant Program (Consultant Recommendation #10);

ii)    amend the existing Additional Residential Unit (ARU) Loan Program to introduce a forgivable loan (Consultant Recommendation #7) and create an ARU grant pilot project (Consultant Recommendation #8); and,

iii)    introduce a Land Banking and Disposal Program (Consultant Recommendation #11);

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the following recommendations to support the Affordable Housing CIP’s implementation and the construction of affordable housing:

i)    review and report back on the coordination and program delivery of affordable housing programs across the Corporation of the City of London (Consultant Recommendation #12); and,

ii)    amend the Affordable Housing CIP to implement performance targets and monitor them (Consultant Recommendation #13);

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the following recommendations that fall outside of the legislated authority of a Community Improvement Plan:

i)    assign City staff as a concierge to act as consistent point of contact for affordable housing project proponents to help navigate City approval processes (Consultant Recommendation #18);

e)    the report titled “Community Improvement Plan Review for Increasing Affordable Housing Supply” from Tim Welch Consulting Inc. (Appendix “A”) BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that Consultant Recommendation:

  •    #3 requires no action from Civic Administration because the Affordable Housing community improvement project area is already the entire municipality; 

  •    #15 requires no action because introducing affordable housing minimums would have a negative impact on the existing housing-related financial incentive programs; and,

  •    #16 (investigate updating the Zoning-By-law to allow for affordable housing citywide without the need for a Zoning By-law Amendment) will be forwarded to the ReThink Zoning project;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a presentation by T. Welch, TWC, with respect to these matters;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-S11)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve #15

  •    #15 requires no action because introducing affordable housing minimums would have a negative impact on the existing housing-related financial incentive programs; and,

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve clauses c) i), ii) and d) ii)

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the following recommendations to support the Affordable Housing CIP’s implementation and the construction of affordable housing:

i) review and report back on the coordination and program delivery of affordable housing programs across the Corporation of the City of London (Consultant Recommendation #12);

ii) amend the Affordable Housing CIP to implement performance targets and monitor them (Consultant Recommendation #13);

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the following recommendations that fall outside of the legislated authority of a Community Improvement Plan:

ii) assign City staff as a concierge to act as consistent point of contact for affordable housing project proponents to help navigate City approval processes (Consultant Recommendation #18);

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   1944 Bradley Avenue (Z-9724)

2024-06-11 - SR (3.3) - PEC-Martin Quarcoopome-Weston Consulting-1944 Bradley Avenue Z-9724

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Martin Quarcoopome c/o Weston Consulting, relating to the property located at 1944 Bradley Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024 to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, to AMEND Map 3 – Street Classifications to ADD a Neighbourhood Connector Street Classification;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London 2016), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone and an Environmental Review ER Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-17-R1-3( )) Zone; a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (h-17-R4-6( )) Zone; a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-17-R6-5( )) Zone; an Open Space (OS1) Zone; and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised through the application review process for the property located at 1944 Bradley Avenue:

i)    the development be condensed to allow for more green space; and,

ii)    the noise and smell from nearby farm uses be taken into consideration;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision submitted by Martin Quarcoopome c/o Weston Consulting on behalf of Elite Bradley Developments Inc., consisting of 47 single detached residential lots; 20 street townhouse blocks; one (1) cluster townhouse block; one (1) park block; one (1) hydro corridor block; one (1) open space buffer block; one (1) open space block; four (4) 0.3 metre reserve blocks; served by four (4) new streets, subject to draft plan conditions as recommended by the Approval Authority (File No. 39T-23505);

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

  •    a presentation from Martin Quarcoopome, Weston Consulting;

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

  •    M. Quarcoopome; and,

  •    A.M. Valastro;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 which promote densities that efficiently use land, resources, and infrastructure, and neighbourhoods that foster social interaction, facilitate active transportation and community connectivity;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Environmental, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

the recommended amendments are appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

  •    the recommended zoning will support the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and facilitate an appropriate form, height, and mix of residential development in conformity with The London Plan, as amended;

 

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   1806 Avalon Street (Z-8283)

2024-06-11 SR (3.4) - PEC - Z-8283 - 1806 Avalon St (MC)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Darryl Neville, relating to the property located at 1806 Avalon Street, known legally as Concession 1, Part Lot 5 Registered Plan No. 33R6847 Parts 2 to 4:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Special Provision Residential R2 (R2-1(9)) Zone and a Special Provision Residential R2 (R2-3(3)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-65*R6-5 (_)) Zone;

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

i)    provide pedestrian connectivity through the site from all units to the public street;

ii)    provide adequate landscaped open space and outdoor amenity areas to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed development;

iii)    provide enhanced tree planting;

iv)    reduce oversupply of visitor parking to provide additional outdoor amenity areas;

v)    reduce driveway widths to provide additional landscaped open space;

vi)    require the completion of an updated Noise and Vibration Study to confirm the requirements to mitigate negative impacts from the rail line and ensure public safety;

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

  •    D. Murphy, Siv-ik Planning and Design; and,

  •    G. Horchover;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment contributes to the range and mix of housing options within the area;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property – 520 South Street

2024-06-11 - SR (3.5) - PEC-520 South St Demolition FULL

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the demolition request for the house on the heritage listed property at 520 South Street:

a)    the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the house on the property; and,

b)    the property located at 520 South Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    S. Rasanu, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   367 Springbank Drive (Z-9722)

2024-06-11 SR - Z-9722 - 367 Springbank Drive (NO)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Kanwal Dentistry Professional Corporation, relating to the property located at 367 Springbank Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2/Office Conversion (R2-2/OC4) Zone, TO an Arterial Commercial Special Provision (AC2(_)) Zone;

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

i)    as parking exceeds minimum requirements the applicant is encouraged to convert spaces for additional outdoor amenity space;

ii)    specify the location of the medical/dental waste;

iii)    relocate the proposed bicycle parking;

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

  •    D. French, Story Samways Planning Ltd.;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Urban Corridor Place Type; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the establishment of office and residential uses that are appropriate for the context of the site;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   1151 and 1163 Richmond Street (Z-9723)

2024-06-11 SR (3.7) - PEC - 1151 and 1163 Richmond Street - Z-9723

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the public comments BE RECEIVED;

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

  • B. Samuels; and,

  • K. Galil;

it being noted that a revised recommendation with respect to these matters was received;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   735 Southdale Road West (OZ-9567)

2024-06-11 SR -735 Southdale Road West - Z9567-T22504 (AC) REDACTED

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Royal Premier Homes, relating to the property located at 735 Southdale Road West:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024,  to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan Policy 1565_5, List of Secondary Plans - Southwest Area Secondary Plan by adding a special policy to Section 4.1 iv) a) i) Residential Development Intensity Adjacent to Urban Thoroughfares, Civic Boulevards, Rapid Transit Boulevards, and Main Streets – Function and Purpose to permit a density of 231 units per hectare and a maximum height of 12 storeys (39 metres);

b)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R5, R6, and R8 Zone (h-2h-30h-53h-75R5-2/R6-4/R8-4) Zone, TO a Holding Residential R5, R6, R8 (h-213*R5-2/R6-4/R8-4(_)) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone with the following special provisions:

i)    Front Yard Setback – 1 metre (Minimum);

ii)    Rear Yard Setback – 20 metres (Minimum) where lands abuts a Residential or Urban Reserve Zone;

iii)    Rear Yard Setback – 0 metres (Minimum) where lands abuts an Open Space (OS5) Zone, with a 30 metre buffer from the existing wetland feature;

iv)    Interior Side Yard Setback – 10 metres (Minimum);

v)    Lot Coverage – 27% (Minimum);

vi)    Height – 12 storeys or 38 metres, whichever is shorter (Maximum);

vii)    Density – 231 units per hectare (Maximum);

c)    pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  •    a communication dated June 5, 2024 from M. Frijia, Vice President, Southside Group; and,

  •    a communication dated June 6, 2024 from K. Crawley, Senior Planner and H. Froussios, Principal Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  •    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    A. Nelson; and,

  •    A.M. Valastro;

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

  •    the requested amendment is not consistent with the PPS 2020; and,

  •    the requested amendment would permit development that is not considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   323 Oxford St West, 92 and 825 Proudfoot Lane (Z-9416)

2024-06-11 SR - 323 Oxford Road West - T21505-Z9416 (SM) REDACTED

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sam Katz Holdings Inc., relating to the properties located at 323 Oxford Street West, 92 and 825 Proudfoot Lane:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan to:

i)    REVISE the Specific Policy 864B_ in the Rapid Transit and Urban Corridor Place Types, located at 323 Oxford Street West to permit development with a maximum height of 18 storeys (60 metres);

ii)    REVISE the Specific Policy 1066_ in the Neighbourhoods Place Type, located at 323 Oxford Street West to permit development with a maximum height of 6 storeys (20 metres) and permit development with a maximum height of 13 storeys (40 metres) at 92 Proudfoot Lane and 825 Proudfoot Lane;

iii)    REVISE the Specific Policy 1067_ in the High-Density Residential Overlay (from 1989 Official Plan), located at 323 Oxford Street West to permit development with a maximum height of 14 storeys (46 metres) and permit a maximum height of 13 storeys (40 metres) at 92 Proudfoot Lanes;

iv)    REVISE the Specific Policy 1067A_ in the High-Density Residential Overlay (from 1989 Official Plan), to permit development with a maximum height of 16 storeys (51 metres) only on the portion of the site that is south of Westfield Drive and east of Beaverbrook Drive;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R5/R6/R7/R8 (h-1-R5-3/R6-5/R7-D75-H13/R8-4), Residential R5/R6/R7/R8, Neighbourhood Facility (R5-3/R6-5/R7-D75-H13/R8-4/NF1), Holding Residential R8 (h-1-R8-4),  Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (h-1-R8-4(9)), Residential R9 (R9-7-H40), Residential R9 (R9-7-H46),  Holding Residential Special Provision R9 (h-1-R9-3(8)-H22), Open Space (OS1), and Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-80-h-100-R5-7()-D75-H13), Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Neighbourhood Shopping Area (h-80-h-100-R9-7()-D305-H60/NSA3), Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-80-h-100-R9-7()-D242-H46), Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-80-h-100-R9-7()-D230-H20), Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Neighbourhood Facility(h-18-R9-7()-D240-H40/NF), Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-18-h-80-h-100-R9-7()-D200), Open Space (OS1), and Open Space (OS5) Zone BE APPROVED;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting:

i)    there is no significant woodlot on the property;

ii)    people have lost their homes through expropriation to recreate Mud Creek;

iii)    construction of the stormwater drain has disrupted nesting activities of migratory birds, fish spawning habitat;

iv)    the clear cutting of trees has disrupted bat habitat, which are currently listed at risk in Ontario as well as white tailed deer;

v)    provide an annual report on monitoring the impact to wildlife that have been displaced;

vi)    believes the removal of the community garden in Block 1 is detrimental to the seniors living there;

vii)    increase in traffic, noise, speeding and accidents;

viii)    increase in GHG emissions that remove vegetation and increases car emissions;

ix)    flooding risks; and,

x)    protect and retain the farmland;

d)    the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following transportation and servicing matters:

i)    update the Transportation Impact Study and implement recommendations into future Site Plan Applications;

ii)    consider the review of a Traffic Impact Study that addresses the cumulative development impacts and potential cut through traffic; and,

iii)    ensure planned and future municipal infrastructure projects are coordinated with this development;

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

i)    provide adequate landscaped open space and outdoor amenity areas. to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed development;

ii)    provide enhanced tree planting;

iii)    consider the provision of short-term bicycle parking; and,

iv)    consider providing an enhanced landscaped view corridor and amenity space south of Westfield Drive; and,

f)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by Sam Katz Holdings Inc., (File No. 39T-21505), updated February 13, 2024, which shows a draft plan of subdivision consisting of three (3) medium density residential blocks; four (4) high density blocks; four (4) one-foot reserve blocks; serviced by four (4) local streets (Streets A, B, Beaverbrook Avenue, and Westfield Drive).

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

  •    a communication dated May 24, 2024 from C. Kuijpers and B. Hannink;

  •    a communication dated June 5, 2024 from T. de Vries;

  •    a communication dated June 5, 2024 from Mr. and Mrs. G. Dyson;

  •    a communication dated June 4, 2024 from E. Prentice;

  •    a communication dated June 3, 2024 from S. Smith;

  •    a communication dated June 6, 2024 from M. Kuijpers;

  •    a communication dated May 24, 2024 from J. Cox;

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2024 from A. Johnson;

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2024 from A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    a communication dated June 10, 2024 from J. Woodyer, Campaigns Director, Zoocheck;

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

  •    J. Katz, Sam Katz Development;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    Resident;

  •    K. Kuijpers;

  •    A. Johnson; and,

  •    M. McClure;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, that encourages higher density residential development within transit supportive areas. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Green Space Place Type, Rapid Transit Corridor, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

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

  •    the recommended zoning amendments will support the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and facilitate an appropriate form and mix of medium and high-density residential development that conforms to The London Plan;

 it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2024-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to amend clause to read as follows:

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

iv) consider providing an enhanced landscaped view corridor and amenity space south of Westfield Drive; and,

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to approve the recommendation, as amended.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   Draft Land Needs Assessment of The London Plan (O-9595)

2024-06-11 - SR (3.9) - PEC-Draft Land Needs Assessment - O-9595 FULL

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the Section 26 Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Land Needs Assessment:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Schedules 3 to 10, in Appendix “A” and related mapping in Appendix “F” to adopt the schedules as part of the Section 26 Review, as amended, of The London Plan, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting being held on June 25, 2024 and BE FORWARDED to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval;

i)    Official Plan Amendment Schedule 7 of Appendix A, in clause a) be amended with the following Specific Area Policy, as follows:

(_) Southwest Hyde Park Road and Fanshawe Park Road

In the Neighbourhood Place Type at 1790, 1828 & 1848 Blue Heron Drive, 1510 & 1568 Woodcock Street, 1605 Woodcock Place and 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West, in addition to the standard range of permitted uses and intensities within this Place Type, the following may be permitted on any street classification: fourplexes and stacked townhomes up to four storeys and mid-rise apartment buildings of up to eight storeys. Mixed-use buildings will be permitted. The provision of necessary residential amenities to create a strong neighbourhood environment will be considered through all future planning processes. The range of Commercial Industrial Uses currently permitted on the lands at 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West will continue to be permitted until such time these lands are redeveloped for Neighbourhood Place Type uses at a future date.

(__) 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West

In the Neighbourhoods Place Type located at 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West a building supply outlet, building or contracting establishment, home improvement and furnishing store, warehouse establishment, and manufacturing and assembly industries with related sales may be permitted in addition to the use permitted in the Place Type.

 

Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas, to the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the City of London Planning Area is amended by adding a Specific Policy Area for the lands located at 1790, 1828 & 1848 Blue Heron Drive, 1510 & 1568 Woodcock Street, 1605 Woodcock Place and 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West in the City of London, as indicated on “Schedule 1” Appendix F attached hereto.

b)    the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing BE ADVISED that Municipal Council declares that the schedules, above, under Section 26 Review of The London Plan does not conflict with provincial plans, has regard to the matters of provincial interest, and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

c)    the draft Land Needs Assessment (Community Growth) appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE RECEIVED and that Civic Administration be directed to undertake further consultation with the community and development industry, and during future meetings of the Housing Supply Reference Group, and that the Vacant Lands Inventory analysis be reviewed with respect to unresolved flood plain mapping issues with UTRCA;

d)    notwithstanding the Council-approved corporate growth projections for 2021-2051, the 2023 Ministry of Finance population projections BE ENDORSED for use as the basis for the Land Needs Assessment of The London Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Review, subject to further consultation with the Housing Supply Reference Group, the findings of the third-party economic consultant identified in clause e, below and review by Municipal Council at a future meeting of PEC;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage a third -party economic consultant to undertake a housing supply marketplace analysis, including engagement with the Housing Supply Reference Group and a review of the Vacant Lands Inventory, and provide recommendations on the land supply required to meet Council’s provincial housing supply pledge;

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

  •    a communication dated May 28, 2024 from J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions;

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a revised by-law for Appendix “F”;

  •    a communication from Deputy Mayor and Ward 2 Councillor S. Lewis and PEC Chair and Ward 8 Councillor S. Lehman;

  •    a communication dated June 5, 2024 from S. Stapleton, Vice President, Auburn Developments; and,

  •    a communication dated June 10, 2024 from P. Masschelein, Senior Vice President, Neighbourhood Developments, Sifton Properties Limited;

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

  •    M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

  •    S. Levin;

  •    KLM Planning;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions;

  •    S. Stapleton, Auburn Developments;

  •    J. ----;

  •    P. Masschelein, Sifton Properties Limited;

  •    P. Norman, Altis Group; and,

  •    ESAM Construction;

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

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.10   Amendments to Fees Under the Building Code Act, Building Permit Fees By-law B-7 Amendment

2024-06-11 - SR (3.11) - PEC-Building Permit Fees Review FULL

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to Amendments to Fees and Charges under the Building Code Act, Building Permit Fees By-law Amendment:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Schedule “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024, to amend Building Permit Fees By-Law B-7 by repealing and replacing Schedule “A”; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue annual inflationary increases for fees as outlined in Schedule “A”:

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to restructure and phase-in the following building permit fee increases annually, in addition to annual inflationary increases noted in b), starting in 2024:

i)    Townhouses - 2.1% 

ii)    Apartments - 5.0%

iii)    Group A (Assembly) - 1.4%

iv)    Group E (Mercantile) - 4.0% (finished) and 5.5% (shell)

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to increase all minimum fees by 21%; and,

e)    Schedule “B” of the staff report dated June 11, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information;

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

  •    M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-P10)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   (ADDED) School Block Acquisitions

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide information and associated recommended actions on school block acquisitions and report back to the Planning and Environment Committee in Q4 of 2024, including, but not limited to:

a) background on the acquisition of blocks for the purposes of a school in the context of Planning Act applications;

b) a status update on all unacquired Blocks identified in approved Planning Act applications identified for possible School Blocks; and,

c) provide options for Council’s consideration to provide the School Board(s) with additional flexibility in acquiring School blocks in future Planning Act applications;

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

a communication dated June 6, 2024 from Councillor C. Rahman and Mayor J. Morgan; and,

a communication dated June 4, 2024 from B. Mai, Chair of the Board, Thames Valley District School Board.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2024-06-11 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the June 3, 2024 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.  (2024-D19)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) 6th Meeting of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2024-06-05 CACP Report

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the 6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on June 5, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:13 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 (5 hours, 18 minutes)

Good afternoon, folks. It’s just past 1 p.m. I’m going to call the 10th meeting of planning and environment committee to order. 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 the traditional lands of Anishinaabak, Bodh Noshine, Anapaywak, and Adiran Ran. 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 alternative formats and communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact PACPEC at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. We have an extensive agenda today, and we’re gonna just take it slowly and surely as we work our way through the waters.

I just want to let everyone know that I’ll be looking for to recess around five o’clock for a break, just to have everyone keep that in mind. We’ll just see how that fits into where we’re at. At this point, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I’ll move on to the consent items.

I’ve had item 2.4 requested to be pulled, so that will be dealt with at the end of our meeting today. Are there any other items that committee members would like to be pulled? Seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to move. The consent items, except for 2.4, Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank.

A discussion, Councillor Frank. Thank you, just on item 2.5. Appreciate the update from staff regarding the building permit fees. I was curious, ‘cause I had heard in the past that there was some discussion about reviewing planning application fees, and I’m just wondering, I guess maybe this is, oh, I’m mixing up, there’s one later on that is actually talking about increasing.

Never mind, you know what? I’m gonna come back to one of the three-point items and asking that, but is regarding planning application fee review. Okay, fine. Any other questions or comments?

Councillor Perma? Thank you, Chair. Thank you to your staff 2.2, thank you for the update. 2020 for you today.

I just want to ask if you’re still gonna be receiving the monthly updates from the buildings, the spreadsheet where it has specific units, specific types, thank you for the staff. Through the Chair, as part of that housing, supply, targeted actions report, we’ve decided to change around how we do our reporting. So we will be bringing forward seasonal updates. So actually at the next committee, we’ll have an update with all of that, the detail, but it’ll only be quarterly.

And then this will be a monthly update with some other information in it. We’re also looking to continuously improve this report too. And even in speaking with the Chair, start adding in some of that historical data, so it gives a bit better way to compare what from year to date from what was in the previous year. So we’re gonna be looking to improve this report.

And then ultimately this report will be the background and the basis for an online application that you’re gonna be able to see all of the information online as well. So, but that will be coming next meeting with the more detailed building update. I’m sorry. Thank you very much for this update.

I’m glad to hear that always improving is good. But I just want to make sure one of the things that helps us is if there’s the continuity going back and we can compare apples to apples. So I hope the information is gonna be sufficient enough to give us that information. But I have no more questions and I see the nodding.

So thank you very much. Any other comments or questions before we move on? Seeing none, we’ve got a motion and seconded to accept the consent items excluding 2.4 a call to vote. Opposing to vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, moving on to 3.1 and the scheduled items. This is regarding community improvement plans review for increasing affordable housing. This is a delegation by staff, so I’ll go to staff. We have our consultants who are here to make a presentation whether if you can help me share a screen.

I see you sir up there at the top, right? If you could give us your name and please go ahead. Is that what they’re doing to help? Okay, sir, I think we have our tech issues figured out.

Please go ahead, hold on, please. Okay, I think I got the thumbs up, it should be good. All right, there we go. Perfect, thank you.

Great, thanks very much, Mr. Chair. My name’s Tim Welch from TWC and we’re here on behalf of our, with our partnering firms, partial economics and the planning firm NPG to report on our review of the community improvement plan for increasing the affordable housing supply. Next slide, please.

To sum up quickly, the existing CIP, the city has for affordable housing is simply not working. There has been no take up in the past few years since it’s been brought into place for multi-residential housing. The current CIP is a very modest, short-term loan assistance program and was not seen to be enough to stimulate any interest in creating affordable housing. Next slide.

Counselors will be aware of many of the demographics in terms of the significant population growth the city of London has experienced of 10%, much higher than the provincial average in the last five-year census period. There’s also a significant amount of households in the city of London that are earning moderate to low incomes, 43%. Again, a greater percentage than some of the other cities in Southern Ontario and also the city of London as councils are no doubt aware has a higher percentage of tenant households than most cities in anywhere other cities except the city of Toronto. Next slide, please.

We also have measurements in the report that talk about the increases in average rent, the statistics available, again, which counselors would be familiar with, with a relatively high number of households that are currently staying in housings that they can’t afford as in paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Next slide. What our team was able to do was to do a detailed analysis about the gap. When we’re talking about creating affordable housing and I’ll come back to that word affordable, there’s a very significant gap to the cost of developing whether you are a nonprofit or a private sector developer.

In the nonprofit, we looked at even considering the current federal government initiatives under CMHC. There was still a gap in the $150,000 range, whether it’s downtown or outside of downtown, as well as a more significant gap with the private sector who typically aren’t able to access as large grants from CMHC. Next slide. In our recommendations, we talk about affordability definitions.

And I appreciate there are probably 100 different definitions of what is affordable out there, depending on individual situation. What we’re moving forward with recommendations is that there should be, we’re recommending to have significant financial assistance through a CIP. One, when there’s a level of CMHC reported average market rent, which is significantly below the actual market rent in the community. Higher levels of assistance, if you’re digging down for a deeper level of affordability, at 80% of CMHC reported average market rent, but we also recognize there’s a number of households in the community that have very low income, and we recommend for any of the developments getting assistance under this program, at least 20% of those units be made available for rent supplements so we can reach down deeply in terms of the affordability.

And that all the affordable housing to be developed should be in the city, should be eligible for these levels of incentives. Next slide. So just to put the statistics out there, to pick on one bedrooms, the CMHC report average is just below $1,200 a month, but when you’re out there looking in the market, it’s nearly $1,900 a month for apartments that actually are available for rent now. So even the 100% of average market rent level is significantly below and would have a real help for moderate income households looking for a place to rent.

So we have units created through the amended CIP, even greater levels of affordability over in about the 950 a month, which could be affordable to someone working full-time at 17 to $18 an hour. So reaching down quite a lot in terms of that affordability issue. Next slide. We have a number of recommendations for what the incentives should be, and an improved CIP, both the elimination or the non-payment of city property taxes for a 20 year period to align with some of the federal programs that look at 20 year affordability.

We’re looking at capital grants, a larger amount to top up the good program the city already has in place with its road program, as well for units that are 80% of average market rents or less, as well as a reduced amount, but still a total of $50,000 per affordable unit for units that are even at 100% average market rent or less, as well as recommending exemption for municipal fees, and for in the non-profits, for units that are 80% or less of average market rent, some subsidies towards some of the initial work that needs to happen due diligence work for affordable housing projects that sometimes is a challenge particularly for nonprofit organizations. Next slide. Back a little bit, I think. We also have recommendations that came up in terms of some of the feedback we had from different groups we interviewed.

There was a lot of discussion about municipal land banking and having municipal land focus, and we know there is already good progress being made by the city on that front, but looking to try to formalize that municipal land and also to have a pilot program focused on accessory dwelling units through some modest financial assistance. Next slide. The key thing, it’s really, really important for proponents to say there’s going to be one agreement with the city of London, not to have one agreement for the road, another agreement for CIP incentives, et cetera. So to try to make it as streamlined as possible, a one window approach so that when someone is an organization is looking at creating housing, they have one window, one staff person to connect with, and one legal agreement.

It’s also going to be very important for this to be successful if council goes forward in this direction, is to have a continuous outreach to private sector and nonprofit to make sure they are aware of the incentives that could be available under a revamped CIP. There’s constant changes at the federal level, and to try to have, so it’s important to just keep reaching out to make sure people are aware of what the new incentives are. Next slide. We also looked at the question of other CIPs that are not directly affordable housing, but could be seen as related to housing, such as some of the heritage CIP incentives, et cetera, that when we looked at the numbers on that, our recommendation going forward is to keep those targeted to those type of incentives, whether it’s heritage downtown or brownfield.

The incentives that are in place for those are focused on covering the costs related to those incentives, adding a housing affordability tied to those will complicate because, so really there’s, you know, a heritage property still could apply for a revamped affordable housing CIP, but the goal is to make it clear and communicate clearly that if you want to create affordable housing, this is where the focus is to the CIP, the affordable housing CIP. Next slide. Just the last couple of slides that show a visual in terms of closing the gap, it doesn’t close the gap totally at this point, but it makes a substantial difference for the nonprofit sector. And then at the next slide, on the private sector, it doesn’t close it quite as much, but in some of the feedback we had, meeting with stakeholders in the private sector, a significant amount of funding like this will certainly get their intention, we believe we’ll get them involved in creating at least some new units of affordable housing.

Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Any other comments from staff before I go to committee? I’ll go to the committee and visiting counselors for questions, Councilor Frank.

Thank you. First off, just want to say, really appreciate this. I think based on everything that I’m reading, I think this will really help increase our affordable units and hopefully drive some more incentives and development for affordable units. As many people know, we don’t have bonus anymore, so it’s been really a struggle to get more units into new buildings.

I did have one question on page 173 of the report. There’s a graph showing the different affordability options based on if we do have, for example, the Downtown with the CIP, the Downtown CIP, and then the Downtown CIP with 5% affordable, and then it kind of goes across from there. My main question was, so right now, Downtown with CIP, it’s like a 3.8%, I assume it’s a return, it’s like a 3.8% return, but I’m not really sure actually specifically what that— (upbeat music) Okay, sorry. That wasn’t me.

(laughs) But yeah, so I guess my first question is, is the 3.8, 3.6, 3.5, are those the rate of return? Is that what those percentages are? I’ll go to staff, or it’s all, if you’d like to address that, please, sir, go ahead. Ryan Taylor, personal economics, we undertook the financial analysis here.

Yeah, those are, it’s called the IRR, the internal rate of return. It’s a little complicated, maybe a bit too much to get into right now, but essentially, yes, it’s like the internalized— Can you just either raise, I’m not sure if you can raise the mic, we’re just having a little trouble hearing you. Is this better? That’s a lot.

Thank you, brother. Thank you. Go, please start over again, thanks. Great, yes, these percentages, it’s called the IRR, so internal rate of return.

It’s a little bit of a complicated calculation to get to detailed into right now, but essentially, yes, it’s like the compounded, annualized return over the lifetime of a project. So that 3.8 would be a building in the Downtown using the CIP, returning about 3.8%, annually, until the end of the project. Councillor? Thank you, appreciate that.

OK, so I had it right, so that was good, although I’m assuming it’s probably more complicated than I think. So then my question is, if we did Downtown CIP stacking it with the affordable CIP and having a mandatory 5% affordable units in a new building, that would only yield a 3.6% return for the developer. And then in that bar chart, it says, outside Downtown is 3.7%, so it’s 0.1% more, I guess, return. So it’s 0.1% less return if we mandate the 5% affordable.

That’s correct, based on our analysis, yes. OK, and then I guess my follow-up, and perhaps you can speak based on some of the focus groups you did with the developers, that 0.1% is significant enough that they would refuse to add 5% affordable units to their building. Please, go ahead. We talk about this in our office all the time, but no developer— developers aren’t all the same.

So really, it’s a bit of a cliché, but it depends on your goals. So for some developers, that 0.1% might be enough to say, now we don’t want to do this. We’re going to put our projects and our money outside of the Downtown. For others, there might be other metrics that play that would say, OK, we can maybe take a little bit less being in the Downtown if there’s other profit or equity multiple returns elsewhere.

Councillor? Thank you, yes. And then I also noticed, so it’s 3.7% to return to build outside Downtown, no CIPs, 3.8% to build Downtown with a CIP. So really, the only incentive there is actually 0.1%.

So I suppose it must be significant enough for them to want to develop if 0.1% return at 3.8 is enough. So in my opinion, and I haven’t run this by staff, but I still actually would like to see a 5% affordable mandatory requirement for folks accessing the Downtown CIPs that we already have, given that the numbers are so close to each other that for somebody not to do a project, because they’d have a 0.1% less return, to me, is, I think, worth the gamble in order to actually get affordable units in some of these buildings that we have Downtown. We’re seeing hundreds of units and no affordable units set aside at all. And we have no other mechanism to require them.

So I guess that’s both a statement. You’ve answered my questions. Thank you so much. And between now and council, I’ll be looking towards making some amendment to require it with 5% affordable.

But otherwise, I love everything. I have no further questions. A lot of it makes sense. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

And through you, I guess the first question will follow up on the IRR. Does the IRR calculate into its formula the cost of land purchases? I’ll go to the consultant. Yes, all of our financial modeling included land costs in the calculations.

Deputy Mayor? OK, thank you for that. And I’ll just preface it by saying, I don’t support mandatory minimums as a correctional measure, and I’m not going to support mandatory minimums as a building measure, either with affordable. I think we need to look at some of the other recommendations that are in here.

I think there’s a lot of good things. I really appreciate the highlighting, because there’s a big misconception that AMR is the sticker price to get a private unit today. So I appreciate the report highlighting that even 100% AMR is actually a discount on what you would find in the private sector rent today. That’s an often misunderstood number.

And I think it’s really important to underscore that— because I hear this all the time— oh, you only got 80% AMR. That is a significant discount from what you would see in the private marketplace today. So pointing out that even 100% is still a discount. I think it’s really important to underscore.

I also am very cognizant of the fact in hearing this over and over again that a one-stop shop for information would be quite helpful. Where my concern and the recommendations and where I won’t be supportive today is in Clause C3, where we’re talking about a communications and marketing strategy. I’ve heard over and over again. And this was set at the beginning when we haven’t had any uptake in the last two years.

It’s not that people don’t know about it. It’s that the incentives were not good enough. So I don’t think that we need to be spending money on marketing and communications pieces. I think we should be spending our financial incentives on actual unit creation.

And I think having that sort of concierge position is the communications piece, because then one person is providing all the direction to the applicants and it’s a consistent face that they’re seeing as they work through these processes. But I’ve heard a lot of positive feedback from folks who are involved in the affordable housing sector in our community, particularly from the not-for-profits. It’s been underscored how important some of these recommendations will be. And so I appreciate the work.

I am cognizant of the fact that this is also a civic administration shall report back on financials, that we’re not actually approving incentives today, because we have to get a report back on what they cost before we finalize that. So I’m supportive of that, because once again, there’s a lot of good things in here. But we have budget constraints and we’re not going to be able to afford to do them all. So I want us to focus on where our biggest bang for the buck is moving forward.

So I’ll end my comments there for now, Chair. Thank you. I’ll go to Councilor Robin and Councilor Pribble. Thank you and through the chair.

Thank you so much for the report in front of us. I think it’s a great starting point for our continued discussion. I wanted to particularly look at recommendation number eight, the ARU pilot program. I’m trying to better understand the 50,000 capital investment piece and the reason for the limited pilot, seeing what that it was done in other markets and there was some reflection that perhaps it wasn’t as well utilized or there was an uptake because of the timeline for requiring that minimum.

And I know that in the city of Toronto they did 15 years, we were recommending about 10, just wondering if you can share a little bit more about that, particularly on ARUs. Thank you very much for your question. Please go ahead through the chair. That there’s a number of municipalities who are undertaking various pilot initiatives to try and get that gentle density in through accessory dwelling units.

That there’s also emerging, I think, in a number of municipalities, a private sector response to say here is whether it’s a 600, 800 square foot unit that can fit in a number of backyards that might be 40 to 50 feet wide. So that’s good that we’re seeing the private sector saying there could be an opportunity. And so I guess the idea is to sort of mesh those two in a pilot program, get response so that some residents can say, okay, we’re gonna get a little bit of help to see both, they’re going through the process to fit these units into that. And the hope is that if there are some success stories, those can be shared throughout the community that this actually is a practical way to achieve that gentle density.

And our recommendation is try to have some of those units. And that was at the $50,000 per unit level to be affordable as well, to be required to be affordable through that financial assistance. We know that’s not enough to offset that difference fully from a financial perspective, but by having that $50,000 per unit incentive, let’s see if there are some households who want to move forward and that will be enough incentive and will be comfortable enough with that incentive to have the relative, the affordable rents of less than $1,200 a month for a one bedroom. Councillor.

Thank you, that’s very helpful. I think this is a good opportunity to look at going out with the marketing campaign around a pilot program on ARU specifically with the grants of up to 25,000 and then the potential grant opportunity for those that are looking at a $50,000 investment in order to have 100% of AMR as part of that opportunity. So I see a lot of potential with this. I do see that other communities are doing the same and launching on to these ideas and that you’re right that the commercial side is coming on board as well and creating very purpose built units that are very easy for people to put into consideration for their properties.

So from a gentle density perspective, I think this is a good idea and I think what we’re doing on the ARU side with making it easier for folks to navigate our process by way of our website is a really good way for us to now attach some of these grants and opportunities to what we’re putting out there. I’d like to see us do a little bit more on the marketing side to get the word out and specifically, I know some have done some how-tos and discussions around that but I think will be very helpful in the community as well. Overall, really pleased with what’s in front of us and I agree with my colleagues. There’s a few other things that I think we need to sort out, especially the financial piece but appreciate this as a preliminary conversation.

Thank you. Thank you. I’m going to go committee member Deputy Mayor Lewis and then I’ll go to visiting council or a promo. Please go ahead.

Thank you and I appreciate Councilor Raman’s comments ‘cause that leads me to a question for our staff around ARUs. I know this is being worked on, I’m not sure ‘cause I haven’t had a chance to, ‘cause the question just popped into my head but in terms of the zoning building permit process, particularly for prefabs where you’re literally having a unit delivered to your property and installed and we’ve seen a couple of even cops as a design one here in London. Where are we with the streamlined process for the prefabs in terms of having that template process we’ve talked about so that they can be in an expedited process so people aren’t waiting a long time if they choose to go that route. That’ll go stuff.

Through the chair, so ARUs and trying to incentivize those and provide more opportunities for the communities, one of our key housing accelerator initiatives, Matt Felberg can provide more information. That’s one of the projects that he’s leading so I’m gonna pass it on to him to give us more details. Mr. Felberg.

Thank you and through the chair. So as Council is likely aware, we’ve got a website right now where we’ve consolidated all of the information around ARUs. It’s got zoning information, permit information, all the things that a resident might need in order to put a unit on their property. There’s four different types of units we could use.

There’s the one in the additional unit added to a building to the primary residence. There’s the unit that would be converted with a basement being converted. There could be a garage being converted and then there’s the pilot programs really talking about those prefab buildings that we’re looking at. So through half initiative number two and number four, we’re working with the building department to come up with some parameters that we can put forward in order to release something that we can bring folks in, have them test out our process, test the zoning, test the building permit as you may be aware, there are significant number of changes to the building code recently as well.

So we have to balance all of that in order to develop a program. So hoping by the end of the year, they will have something ready to go out and be actually providing some of these units around the city. Deputy Mayor, thank you. I’m glad that we’re looking at that within the end of the calendar year because I think particularly if we’re going to be promoting this, we don’t want residents caught up in a long, long process if they think that they can do this and then find that they get an apologies ‘cause bureaucracy has to be served, of course, and has its purpose, but we don’t want them to get tied up in bureaucratic red tape where they end up saying, you know what, this is overwhelming, I’m walking away.

So I appreciate that that streamlining effort is happening. The other question that popped up and with regard to clause D, which is staff be directed to report back on the following recommendations, the fall outside the legislative authority of a CIP. And the concierge one wasn’t a concern for me because that’s a staffing decision that we make internally. But D1 is the creating a financial incentive programs to upgrade existing private residential stock that meet the 80 to 100% AMR thresholds.

I’m concerned when we are asking staff to do work on creating a financial incentive that can’t be done through a CIP, it’s outside the legislative authority. Even working through my BIA, I know that when we talk about things that fall outside of a CIP, we cannot start using BIA CIP money to fund those things. So I guess I’m looking to Mr. Mathers or staff to provide some additional comment on why this recommendation is in there.

If it’s outside the CIP, I’m honestly not sure why we’re asking staff to spend time to report back on this when we’ve got a number of other really excellent things that I’d much rather spend our time on because it’s clear that they do fall within a CIP. So looking for some comment on that, I’ll go staff. Through the chair, I’m gonna put the consultant speak to that question. Thank you very much.

Part of it was reporting back on some of the things we heard and also some of the incentives we’ve seen more recently, some other municipalities undertake. There is a concern overall about, while the city of London and other municipalities very much want to focus on creating new affordable housing, there’s the importance of preserving the existing stock for the longer term. There’s of course now the federal government has announced a modest acquisition program by nonprofit groups for private sector. More recently in the region of Waterloo has an incentive program.

It’s not through a CIP. It’s outside that to have a reduction in property taxes in exchange for long-term affordability of private sector or nonprofit housing. So part of it’s why it’s in the report is that that was some of the things we heard and some of the things we want to report on in other municipalities. You’re right, there are a counselor, you’re correct, that there are a lot of things already to consider in the report.

We just felt obliged to report back on some of those examples that are happening in a related area, shall we say. Deputy Mayor, thanks for that. Appreciate it. And certainly when we’re talking about maintaining the stock in the not-for-profit sector, that for me is a different conversation than maintaining and providing incentives to upgrade stock in the private rental sector.

I think those are two very different entities to be working with. And so for me, that one’s, I’m gonna be honest, I’m not gonna support that one because I think that there are higher value things in this report that we can be focused on. And at the end of the day, I know our amazing staff will say we will do whatever council directs us to do. But at some point in a 24-hour cycle, you all have to sleep.

And I wanna respect the amount of work that we’re putting on your plate to bring back reports to us when I think that we can see some higher rates of return on some of these other recommendations. So with that, I know you have some other speakers on the list, but I’d like to move the staff recommendation so we can frame the discussion moving forward chair. So I’d like to move everything in the staff recommendation with Sorry Clerk, I’m gonna make your job a little tough here. With the exception of C3 and D1.

Everything else I’m quite supportive of and so I’m willing to put that on the floor. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder. Also, you know, you’re a seconder. So motion movement seconded.

Do you wanna continue Councilor or Deputy Mayor? I’m just gonna be very brief. I think I’ve already outlined my reasons. There’s a lot of recommendations in here.

We are not going to be able to operationalize them all. We are not going to be able to fund them all. So for me, I wanna narrow the scope just a little bit so that our team can start working on some of these things and get them in place. And, you know, ultimately at the end of the day, if we task them with a little bit less, the sooner they can get back to us with something that we can operationalize.

So that’s why I’m putting this forward. Councilor Pervell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the consultant.

And as I’m not an official member of this committee, I’m not sure maybe that they did receive additional information. But my question is in the presentation, you mentioned we have comparative analysis into demographics and housing costs, but I didn’t see anywhere comparative analysis with the CIPs or any other benefits offered by other municipalities. Has this been completed as well? Go to the consultant.

Yes, through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we have, it is a fairly lengthy 100-page report, but there is a number of pages looking at what other municipalities have done in terms of CIPs and/or other financial incentives to support new affordable housing outside. I think we have eight or nine municipalities highlighted in the report.

Councilor, thank you, Mr. Chair. Follow-up, has this been submitted to us, or is it available to us? It is through the full report.

I think it’s well into the pages 40, 50 or 60, so it’s well down the document, but there is quite a full some report in that. Perfect, thank you. So it’ll be available. Thank you.

Other, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. I just like to, when we go to vote, pull it. So at the end, I’m not gonna vote yes for item number 15, which is the second last on the if-being noted clause.

Okay, I’ll also clerk to pull that. I am to vote on it separately. Okay, Councilor, we’ve got that in place. You know, their comments or questions.

Go ahead, Councilor Raman first, then we’ll go to Councilor Troso. Thank you, just on the amendment. Please go ahead. Thank you.

So I just wanna clarify that the amendment was to just separate right now. Councilor Frank just asked to separate on the amendment, or she’s asking to separate later on for item number 15. We don’t have an amendment. We have a motion that’s been moved.

And I believe Councilor Frank has asked one portion of that motion to be called separately. Okay, thank you. So I’ll look to ask that C and D be called separately as well. If you’re, so you don’t have to call the entirety of it separately, you just have to call C, D and the being noted.

Is that a last? So we’ll call all of C and D separate. Okay, does that work for you, Councilor Frank? Or is there, go ahead.

I think it’s irrelevant to my part, but I’m not sure. Okay, so here’s, 15 will be called separately. C and D will be called separately. Okay, Councilor, we’re on.

Thank you, sorry. Now that’s that sorted. So again, I am supportive of looking at having a number of tools available to us. So I think the report back under D is important so that we have all the information.

We’re not sure, I think at this point, what we’ll have the best uptake in the community. So having multiple opportunities to represent how the community can participate in creating affordable options, I think is important. I think that we have to do everything we can to not just put this on the backs of developers. I think it has to be a community response.

And for that to be a community response, the entirety of the community has to be engaged in the conversation. And this is a way to get people into the conversation. We’ve heard it here at Planning. People have come to us and through PPMs and said they’d like the opportunity to be able to do more for people in their neighborhoods.

And they have the space within their own properties to be able to create more affordable options. So we need to give them a path to do that. They want to be part of the solution. So I do think that a report back is important.

And I do think that we also need to ensure that we are making the community aware. And I see us at the home shows. I see us at these events already, providing marketing material. I think this is just another opportunity to continue to say the city is committed to finding solutions to the affordability crisis, to ensuring that we have a lot of supply.

And we’re looking at every possible way to do so. So I’ll be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you.

Councilor Troso. Thank you for recognizing me as a visiting counselor through the chair. I would just like to say, I thought this report was very thorough. I really thank you for it.

It came at a time when we had a very, very busy council packet, but it was really worth reading. I think I want to speak specifically to the communications and marketing strategy and the importance of that, since that seems to be something that’s going to be on the floor. If we don’t do a robust, active communication strategy that tries to reach a broader segment of the population, then the regulars who come down here all the time and who we’re gonna know what we’re doing, we have to do this broader outreach. Because I think Councilor Raman is quite right.

This is not just going to be members of the development industry who will be called on to participate in this, but it’s gonna be individual homeowners. ‘Cause I’m hearing so much already from people in the neighborhoods who are really interested in figuring out how they can participate in creating this, gentle density, gentle, gentle density. And I don’t think that we’re at the point yet where we can say we’ve done a great job explaining to people how they go about doing this. So I think that if we don’t take the communications and marketing strategy as set out in the recommendations seriously, we’re short cutting the whole process.

And we’ve got to do a better job involving different members of the public in these programs. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments or questions?

Dr. Mayor Lewis. Sorry, Chair, but through you, I think we need to be clear. What I’ve moved and what was seconded by Councilor Hillyer does not include those things.

The communication strategy and the report back on the private sector financial incentives. If colleagues want to add those in, they would have to amend the motion that’s been moved and seconded to put those back in because they’re not in the motion that’s on the floor. I also wanna take this opportunity to say from a communications perspective, I respectfully put it back to Councilors. I look at what we do, what the city does for communications.

We received a media advisory today about the additional red light cameras being installed. And that will go out to the regular media outlets. And it might get a story, Mr. Newcomb’s right here, so maybe Hill will decide to write that into a story tonight or not.

And it will get posted on the city’s Facebook page. And it might go out in a neighborhood newsletter or something like that. But the city can only provide the water. It can’t lead the horse to the hole to drink.

But as Councilors, we have a whole different network of people that we communicate with as our constituents on a regular basis. And it falls some of the responsibility to us to communicate out to our residents where these opportunities lie. So we can ask staff with doing a communications policy. And we heard about the regulars who come down here to City Hall and yes, they will know about it.

And so will the regulars who visit the city social media page or who watch the six o’clock news. But we know already that literally thousands of people every day miss that news. And there’s nothing that our staff can do to deliver it to their brains that they aren’t already doing. That is our responsibility in part as Councilors to communicate with the public on what the city is doing on these things.

So I would encourage colleagues to not include the communications piece at this time, but to engage with staff to find out about the details and the options. I had an email with Ms. McNeely last week about an ARU inquiry that came in. And she provided all the information I needed to send back to the constituent who was asking about it.

Our staff will provide us information, but some of the communications responsibility has to lay with us. We’re the public face of this institution that is City Hall in London. So well, we might have staff help with some comms graphics or that kind of thing. I think we also have to, as individual Councilors, take some onus on ourselves moving forward to communicate this out to the public.

So that’s why I didn’t include it in my motion. But since we’ve been talking about it, I want to point out from a procedural process, an amendment to the motion would have to be made because it’s not currently included. Through the chair, Deputy Mayor Lewis, may I please ask you for confirmation? So you would like part C3 and part DI removed in the motion that you’ve passed?

Yes, when I moved the motion on the staff recommendation, it was with the exclusion of C3 and DI. Thank you and through you. So my point of pulling C and D separately is so that if this motion went through, when we went to Council, I could easily add back in, if this was called as a separate vote, the two pieces that we’ve removed, that was my intention. (mumbles) In the motion, C3 has been, it is not on the floor, and D1 is not on the floor.

Where we’re at right now is we’re going to call what is on the floor of C and D remaining and 15. That’s what we’re going to call separately. I just want to be clear on that for you. Thank you, I’m clear on that.

Precedurally, I’m trying to find a path forward that if this were to pass, that it would be easier for my Council colleagues if we were dealing with bringing the language back, that would be easy to discuss at Council, which is why I’m trying to pull it apart so that if I needed to bring it back at Council, I can then maneuver it easier than bringing the entirety of the recommendations in front of us by just re-adding to C3 and D1. That’s procedurally what I’m trying to get help to better understand, which is why I pulled it apart. Okay, that’s fine. I just want to make sure that you work clear on where we’re going on, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’re over-complicating things, folks. A Councilor can move an amendment here or at Council at any time to add something in or to remove something.

So procedurally, it really doesn’t matter. It can be an amendment now. It can be an amendment later. But what we do need to decide is what we’re voting on today, which is why I put these forward.

If colleagues want to move an amendment, they should do that. If they want to think about it and move an amendment at Council, that can be done too. Calling it separately today will change the ability to make an amendment at Council. I appreciate that.

But we’re going to proceed as committee members want to proceed, and this is the way of choosing. My purpose here is to make sure everyone understands where we’re going, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, I appreciate how you are pulling it apart. I had one question through you to staff.

Just wondering regarding the communication campaign. The first question I had was, was there going to be any cost for that? And were we going to hire an external consultant to do that? I’ll go to staff.

Through the Chair, there is a description that’s provided in the report of the marketing program. So at this point, depending on the magnitude of the program and if there’s specific concerns with the scope of it, we can definitely look at reducing that scope. The program that’s suggested very much aligns with what we do with a lot of our various programs like social media posts, city website information, press releases, periodic reports to Council, those types of things, creating information packages. So some of this definitely does overlap with work that we’d be doing through housing accelerator anyways.

But what I’m appearing is that there is a strong opinion to not spend huge amounts of funding on the actual program. So whatever is the result of this discussion, we’d make sure that it was scoped to the appropriate level that Council would like to direct us to. Councilor? Thank you, yes.

Yeah, so I mean, I want it to be well communicated ‘cause I want people to use this. So through you to staff, I’d be very happy with the regular communications work that the communications team does. It’s in-house, it’s robust. And I definitely wouldn’t be able to communicate it by just kind of taking this report and posting on my social media page that wouldn’t be very effective.

So even regardless of whether or not this passes here at Council, I still will look to staff to be able to provide the graphics, the social media posts, the media release. So regardless of where this is, I just want to provide that to staff because I will need that help. Thank you. Okay, any other comments or questions?

Committee will allow me to just, I’ve got a question and then a few comments to the consultant. Just have a question regarding the demographic numbers. We have approximately 60,000 students between Fanshawe and Western in the city out of a population of 401,000. How did you factor that in?

Does that skew your numbers? So for example, you see 43% of our population have income under 60,000, 42% renters. It’s, do those, does the impact of a heavy school population impact those numbers, just in relation to the other city averages that you gave into the provincial averages? Thank you, Council, for the question.

The data that we have in that is based on the census data. 2021, so it is impacted but not as large as those numbers because the census data, when it’s filled out, it’s based on where is your permanent residence. So for the post-secondary students, it’ll be a wide mixture. Many will fill out the census form for their parental home.

There’ll be others, graduate students who have moved more permanently into London but are still studying, so it will be a blend. But we based that off the census data as they collect that. Thank you, yeah, I realize that not all the students are coming from outside the area and there’s many that live here. And the only reason I bring that up, that’s enough, that’s my questions, that’s it.

It’s just put it in context ‘cause you look at the numbers, you go, holy smokes, London has a pretty big affordability crisis here in comparison to the others but you have to put it out in context with the amount of student population that comes in every September and leaves in May. That still has an impact on our housing. There’s no question because those folks are renting as well just to put things in context. My comments are this, when we talk about affordability, this is a very complex issue that cities are dealing with across North America.

I truly believe that it’s driven by supply and demand. Right now demand is totally exceeding supply. We’re doing what we can internally as a city through the wonderful work that Mr. Mathers is doing with his planning staff in creating the environment to encourage more building with our development community.

That being said, we have to mitigate as best as we can, the circumstances for those folks that are being armed by this until we catch up, until supply catches up with demand. How we do that is constrained, quite frankly, on city resources, it’s complex and are we really helping those that need help? So affordable housing, what is that? Is that 80% of average market rent?

Is it rent geared to income? And how is that going to be administered? And is it feasible? ‘Cause I know with bonusing, there are projects that are being delayed because the bonusing that they’re working under makes the project not feasible given the costs that are present in marketplace today.

So what we have to come up with, quite frankly, is enough incentive for these units to be built. And then who’s going to build them? And what I hear from developers with, when we have average market rent units, the bureaucracy administration to manage that, let’s say five units out of like 70 unit building is a barrier, quite frankly, ‘cause it could go on for 25, 30 years. Who’s going to manage that?

And from City Hall, who’s going to manage who’s living there? Are we going to review the person who’s living there? There are financial circumstances every year. I have heard solutions from the developing community.

It might be better to put certain resources that would go to the affordable units, maybe pool them into a separate building run by a nonprofit ‘cause then the administration is being taken off the developers who are not experienced or to those that are experienced and are used to working with the city. So I just ask that that kind of be kept in mind as you review this ‘cause at the end of the day, we want things to be built, not come up with a plan that developers will not use because it’s not feasible or the administrative costs are too high. So I just wanted to make that clear as we go down this road. We have a motion moved and seconded and we will be calling parts separately.

So I will put the motion except for C3, D1 and 15 on the floor and I will call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll put clause 15 on the floor. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one.

I’ll put C1 and two and D2 on the floor. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you. Okay, moving on to 3.2, which is 1944 Bradley Avenue.

I’ll let promotions open, the public participant. My apologies, Deputy Mayor Mathers. I got lost in the context of it. We have unfortunately another retirement of a very valued staff who’s been here with us for many years and it’s hard to see that source of knowledge and expertise leave us.

And I’d like to go to WCA manager Mathers now. Thank you so much. So I just wanted to say a few words about Jimmy and Chula who’s right behind us. The last report was his and this is his last PAC meeting.

So I wanted to just provide a little bit for the group here and a background in Jim and our thanks to him. So Jim’s been at the city for almost 14 years in his 30 year municipal career. He’s currently the manager of our core area and urban regeneration. He has immense knowledge.

He has knowledge of he’s a planner, he’s an urbanist. He’s got that architectural background, has made him so beloved by his colleagues and has that unique understanding and appreciation and development in urban design and it’s been a huge asset to the city. That’s coupled with his strong commitment to our BIAs and his desire to improve the downtown. It’s made him a really ideal person to hold this position.

Jim’s knowledge and skill has been sought after by other municipalities and he’s presented in North America and internationally on the topic of urban revitalization. Over the years, Jim has been a strong advocate for the downtown businesses. As well, he’s been a really strong community member working with the downtown BIA. He recently won an award for that work.

When Dundas Place was first approved, Jim’s leadership and his engagement with Dundas Street building and store owners, it was instrumental to the success of that project. So Jim became known as downtown Jim and was available to listen to the merchants and address all their concerns. It’s apparent to all that Jim’s passion, his involvement, positivity and pride in the state of the downtown goes over and above and beyond that of his role. So just wanted to really highlight, Jim has been an instrumental part of our team and he really sees as part of that strong definition of what a true public servant should be.

He puts his heart and soul in everything that he does and his caring nature and positive attitudes has been very much valued by all the people that work with him. We’re gonna really greatly miss Jim, his expertise, his professionalism and his attitude and that kindness that he brings to everyone. So just wanna thank Jim now for all of his many years of service. He’ll be greatly missed and we wish him very much the best moving forward.

So thanks everybody and thank you, Jim. (applause) Mr. Anchula, I can see you blushing behind Ms. McNealy back there, actually not used to that, but I just from a personal aspect, I got to know Mr.

Anchula before my time as counselor as a member of the Board on the Downtown Business Association and always appreciated the way he was, he was kind of leads on between what the city was doing and what the merchants and the BIA was doing. In his general care for the downtown, a lot of stuff has gone on over the last many years with dealing with construction, important sewer, you know, regeneration, which was, you know, a big headache to all of us, but needed and his care and understanding of what the merchants were going through was much appreciated and how he could mitigate as much as possible. The disruption and then leading up to, you know, where we are today, you know, with Dundas Place and various issues, et cetera. Your work is as much appreciated and will be missed, going frankly.

So, thank you very much. Okay, moving on now to 3.2. 1 944 Bradley Avenue. I’ll look for a motion to open up.

Councilor Robin. Sorry, before Mr. Anchula leaves, I just wanted to share one thing and completely embarrass him, but when I was 18 years old, I was part of the Downtown Revitalization Task Force for the city of Windsor. So he was downtown Jim in Windsor before he was downtown Jim in London.

And I had the fortune of doing two terms of a university placement under Mr. Anchula. So he was also my experience, my first experience with city staff and what a bar you set. And I just wanted to thank you for that mentorship and your leadership here in our city and in all of your years in planning.

So thank you so much. Thank you, I’ll go to Councilor Perbal. Very brief follow up on Mr. Anchula.

Thank you very much. And as a member of the Downtown Business Organizations, I have to concur everything what was stated by Mr. Mayders. Thank you very challenging times.

We are not out of it yet, but we are certainly on the right path. And thank you for that. Thank you. I think looking around, I think we’ll let you leave Mr.

Anchula. You’re welcome to stick around for another six hours, but you deserve some rest. Thank you. We’ll go on to 3.2, 1.944 Bradley Avenue.

I’ll look for motion to open the public participation mean. Councilor Robbins, seconded mayor on the list. I’ll call the president to vote the motion carries five to zero. Any technical questions for staff at this time?

Seeing none, then I will look if the applicant would like to address the committee. I see you sir online. If you could give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair, members of committee. My name is Martin Parker-Pone. I’m a vice president and a professional planner with Western consulting. I’m here on behalf of the owners and applicant for 1.944 Bradley Avenue.

I have prepared a short presentation to kind of walk through the approved draft kind of subdivision and how that ties into the proposed voting by law amendments. I can certainly walk through that for committee, if they wish. I am appreciative of your agenda and its links. So if you would prefer to waive my presentation, I can do that.

But if there is interest in hearing about the background of the file and the details, I can certainly bring up the presentation to walk through it with committee. We have the report in front of us. We have a rather long agenda today. So if you can keep it within five minutes, I’ll leave it to you.

Thank you. I’m not quite sure who has control. I can certainly bring up on my side, but if IT on your side could bring it up, the presentation please. I’ll just make sure.

Sometimes I don’t think we can. Okay, then I’ll do a second. Yeah, I’ll ask a clerk. Fortunately, we do not have the presentation, so we’re not able to bring it up on the screen at this time.

Okay, I can certainly raise it on my side. Okay. Okay, can we all see that? Perfect.

Okay, I have to know that I’m here on behalf of the owners of 194 for Bradley Avenue. We have submitted a draft kind of subdivision to facilitate the development of 271 dwelling units. This is a development application for the rezoning if need to rezone the lands to allow for the plan to go through. There we go.

On screen here is an aerial of the subject lands. Generally, it’s currently vacant in terms of its use. It’s an existing farm dwelling on the south inch portion of the lands, but the majority of it is vacant with a portion of environmental and natural heritage to the north of the site. A bit about the development plan here.

So what is on screen is a version of the draft plan that is draft approved by staff. I mentioned the number of units at 271. So there is a mix of 47 single detached dwellings that will have footage on a public road. Similarly, there will be 134 street towns on a public road.

And then there is a proposed future development block that will house approximately 90 kind of medium townhouse units. What you’ll see in the upper right corner of this slide here is the image of a conceptual design of that townhouse block. So as part of our submissions to staff, we outlined what this conceptually look like. And the zoning that is before the committee and ultimately counts.

So we’ll essentially permit a version of this. This would be subject to a future site plan application. So the exact details will be determined at a future date. But generally, the intent is to develop that block as to what’s shown in the upper right corner of the plan.

I noted that we did receive draft approval for this development on May the 16th last month. And we do have conditions of draft approval signed. What I will want to flag is that the proposed development is only on the north half of the property. If you can see my cursor here, this is a hydro quarter that bisects the lands.

That is also the city’s urban boundary limit. So everything on the north side of that limit is part of the draft approval in terms of the proposed development and the rezoning application, while the southern half will remain outside of the urban boundary and will remain as agricultural. In terms of the official plan with the London plan, I noted that the north portion of the lands are inside the boundary while the southern portion is out. You’ll see that with that red line that bisects the property.

I won’t go too much into the land uses. Again, that’s in staff report. So I won’t repeat what’s already been provided written. But that outlines the existing land uses for the property, while the next slide outlines the existing zoning.

Again, this is taken also shown in staff report, which outlines what the current zoning permissions are. The majority of the property is sown for residential. And the rezoning is to implement the proposed built forms that is anticipated through the draft council division. On screen here, it compares in table what is proposed to be rezoned.

Again, a lot of detail here and in the interest of time, I won’t walk through each element specifically. But what this shows is the different zones that the lands will be rezoned to from what is existing today. There are some special provisions that have been requested by the applicants. And there are also some staff recommendations that are within the report and included within the staff report and the draft by-law amendments that my client does not have any issues with.

This includes much maximum projection of garages for the single detached and the lot cited for the street townhouses, as well as the maximum density for that condo block that I had mentioned earlier. And I didn’t want to flag that there is a parkette proposed in the northern portion of the lands that will back onto a future trail system and the natural heritage features that we’re looking to protect through a 30-year buffer. So at a high level, I made it quick, at a high level, this application is intended to support the approved draft and the subdivision. The conditions attached to the staff by-law amendment my client has no issues with.

There is also a proposed holding provision that requires us to address items like servicing and access that, again, my client has no issues with. So unless we’re any further questions of me, I can hand things back over to Canadian staff. Thank you. And I just wanted to make it clear while we didn’t have the presentation available upon the screen, we did get it as an added and printed out.

So we have that information in front of us. Thank you. I’ll go to any members of the public that would like to address the committee at this time regarding this item. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes.

My name is Ann, and we have a last talk. This development should be condensed into three-story walk-up blocks to increase the land green space around this development so that people have more space to play. I’m not sure if the block on the east side is farmland. You need to consider pesticide use and how that’s going to impact the people that live there down the road, on all Victoria Road.

There’s a factory farm with cattle, breeding cattle, that stinks. And so there’s no reason to not let you can’t condense this development into three-story blocks, the way they do in Europe. So three stories are very accessible. They’re very homey.

They’re comfortable. It allows more green space. If there’s children, you can have a park. And that’s really how development should go forward.

It’s really about manageable density and how much buffer and green space there is outdoor space so people can be outdoors, be active. And you have to consider pesticide use and how that’s going to impact them on the GSA farms and the smell from the factory cattle farm down on Old Vic Road. Thank you. Any other speakers that would like to address the committee at this time?

Also, Clerk, if there’s anyone online. Sanch, online, please. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yes, hi, Sanch, Jagan.

No comments at this time. Okay, thank you. Kirk is informing me there’s no one else online. Is there anyone else would like to address the committee?

Seeing no one else, I’ll look to a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Raman, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. I’ll look to the committee now for dominant motions, etc. Councilor Frank. Thank you.

I’ll move the staff recommendation. You’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Raman, second. We have motion moved and second.

Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

We are on to 3.3. This is regarding 1806 Avalon Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Raman, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Any questions from the committee? Technical nature for staff.

Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant. If you’d like to address the committee, please, sir. Give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Excuse me. My name is Dan Murphy. I’m an urban planner with civic planning and design. Excuse me.

Representing our client, Daryl Neville, the owner and developer of the property at 1806 Avalon Street. We’re excited to be reaching this milestone with this development, which contemplates 16 two-story townhouse units and two existing single detached dwellings on this unique remnant L-shaped parcel of land located at the western terminus of Avalon Street. I want to thank Michael Clark and the rest of the planning and development staff for their work on this proposal. And we are in full agreement with the staff recommendation.

This development is oriented backyard to backyard to address privacy, light and noise impacts to neighbors. And the two-story building form is in keeping with the surrounding context. Additionally, privacy fences and enhanced landscaping will be installed around the boundary of the site to reduce overlook into adjacent backyards. Additional proposed site features include a stormwater retention area, internal vehicle turnarounds, a 30 meter setback from the CP rail lines to the north, and individual private amenity areas in the rear yards of each unit.

This proposal provides for the infill and intensification of this unique remnant parcel and contributes to a range and mix of housing options within a highly accessible location in East London, just footsteps from Dundas Street. This proposal meets the intent of the neighborhood’s place type and the London plan. We appreciate your time and consideration of this application today, and I’m available to answer any questions from the committee or members of the public. Thank you.

Thank you. Alexia, members of the public that would like to address the committee regarding this application, I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online. Gail? Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Hello? Hello, we can hear you. I just wanted to make sure my Zoom was working, sorry. Yeah, I’ve had my questions answered through emails, but the only thing my concern with this is because you’re building beside a lumber yard and the CP rail line that that one little street that the showing the L shaped, I would prefer that there’d be an exit.

So in case fire trucks have to access the town homes. And if you have cruisers and ambulances showing up, I don’t feel there’s enough room to do three point turns on the little street. So I was hoping that there would be an access point like to exit the street. And that was my only concern, along with the extra traffic that will be added.

Because there’s already a bottleneck at the Bank of Montreal at noon and at between four and six p.m. So if we’re adding 16 extra units, so if there’s two extra cars per unit, there’s going to be over 32 cars coming down Beatrice Street. And that’s all that’s all I wanted to say. Thank you.

Anyone else would like to address the committee? I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone else online. Nope. Seeing none, I’ll look for motion to close the PPM.

Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Raman, I’ll call. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll just go to staff on that one question raised concern about access for emergency vehicles. They can address that, please.

Through the chair, my name is Michael Clark. Transportation staff have an indicated any concerns with the emergency access or access for emergency vehicles. Our limit allows up to 80 units on one access. This is deciding this is 18 units in total.

And there are sufficient turnarounds built in to the design, to allow trucks to turn around on the site sufficiently. Thank you. So I’ll go to committee now, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair and through you.

I’m happy to move the staff recommendation. This is an in-field development in ward two. I recognize Gail’s concern about a bottleneck at Beatrice, but residents actually do have multiple exit options, along Avalon, along Ronald, along Patterson. And so not every vehicle should be traveling down Beatrice in terms of creating additional bottlenecks there.

But I do welcome the opportunity to welcome new residents into the neighborhood. This land has been vacant a long time. Development has been discussed. Various projects have been discussed and never come to fruition on this site.

So I’m glad to see one that the new owner is finally bringing forward. And thank the team at Civic for providing good information as well to constituents as this is moved forward. Thank you. I’ll look for a seconder.

Councillor Frank, the motion moved and seconded. Any comments or questions before I call the vote? Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Okay, 3.4. This is regarding a demolition request for 520 South Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM, Councillor Robinson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I’ll call the vote. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Any technical questions for staff?

Seeing none, I’ll look to see if the applicant would like to address the committee. I think I see someone online. Is that correct? Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, good afternoon committee members. My name is Simone Arrasenu. I’m a planner with Trickball Nellimones and the agent for this application.

I’ve reviewed the staff report and fully supported. I would just like to say that the HIA consultant architect Alicia Lesniak is also joining me today. So if there are any questions for either of us, we’ll be happy to answer them. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and I’ll go to members of the public that would like to address the committee on this particular item. And I’ll ask our clerk rather if there’s anyone online. Seeing none online and seeing nobody in the gallery, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Roman, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Councillor Roman. Staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

We have motion moved and seconded. Councillor Frank. Thank you. I had one question for staff on this item.

It makes sense, obviously, to demolish this since it is falling apart. Quite in a state of disrepair and a clearly example of demolition by neglect. I’m just wondering, my understanding is that there are almost 50 inspections on the site since 2019, and I’m wondering with those property standard violations and inspections, it doesn’t seem that we are able to actually increase the penalty enough in a way to actually get the homeowner to maintain the property and renovate it because it obviously is continued to deteriorate. I’m just wondering, given that there’s been that many inspections, have we recouped the cost even of sending out all of the property standard staff?

Because it does seem quite significant for all the efforts we’ve gone to to try and enforce the standard that people experience or expect from us, and it clearly has not been maintained. I’ll go staff. Thank you, through the chair. I believe we’ve got staff from compliance on the line that might be best to answer this question.

Please go ahead. Through the chair, we can provide that information prior to Council. We don’t necessarily have the person online right now, so what we can provide that to Council on Committee Councilor. Thank you.

I said appreciate that because we’ve seen quite a few demolition by neglects, and I’m just wondering, one follow-up and perhaps it is also, again, it has to be a follow-up after the meeting. Does the city ever step in and do the repairs if it is a significant asset? Is that something that we have ever done or would ever do? Obviously, again, in this case, I don’t think that this is an example of that, but there are many buildings around the city that are significant, more significant than this one.

I’ll go staff. Thank you, through the chair. One of the tools that is available for heritage properties is the property standards by-law. That by-law has enhanced minimum standards for heritage designated properties, so it does allow the city to undertake works or alterations repairs, and then you either register a lien on the property or add the cost of that to a property owner’s taxes.

That tool, however, is only available for heritage designated properties. So in this case, this is a heritage-listed property where the question is whether the property meets that criteria for designation or not. So we do have that tool under the property standards by-law, but it’s only for heritage designated properties. Councilor?

Thank you. I appreciate that. We have a motion moved and seconded. Any questions or comments before I call the vote?

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries. 5-0. Okay, we’re now at 3.5, and this is regarding 367 spring bank drive.

I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting, Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor ramen, and I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Any questions of a technical nature for staff? Many members?

Seeing none, I’ll look to see if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is David French with Story Samways Planning, and we are acting as the agent for this rezoning application. We have reviewed the application as well as a staff report and who hardly concur with the staff recommendations. Simply here to answer any questions if the committee has any. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you. I’ll look to members of the public that would like to address the committee regarding this property. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

There’s no one online, and I don’t see anyone rushing to the mic, so I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank, who is it seconded by Councillor ramen? Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Thank you.

I’ll put this on the floor. Councillor, oh, Councillor Frank. Thank you. I’d like to move the staff recommendation and just say thank you to the applicant.

This is in my ward and I’m sure that many of my residents are excited to be able to walk and get their teeth cleaned. So I appreciate the work that the applicant has done, and I haven’t heard any concerns from my residents, so very happy to move the motion. I have seconder, Councillor ramen. Other comments, questions before I call the vote?

The motion moved and seconded and I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Okay, moving on. 3.6, we have a revised recommendation just to bring people up to speed just a few days ago.

The Provincial Government enacted a law that removes university lands from the planning process for cities. So it is part of, it was on our agenda, so we didn’t remove it from our agenda. However, we will not be taking any other action on this except for receiving comments heard today. So if you’re here to make comments regarding this, just be advised that city has no jurisdiction here.

I’ll go to staff, if staff would like to make a comment on where it’s at. Staff wish to comment. Okay, so yeah, again, as of a few days ago, the city has no jurisdiction on planning matters on university lands. I see you, sir.

Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Just to clarify, is this a public participation meeting still? Correct. Because it’s our agenda, we will hear comments, but I just wanted to advise the public that the committee and the city no longer have jurisdiction on this property.

Councillor Ramen. Do you need us to move to open it? No, we don’t. Oh, my apologies.

We didn’t open the PPM, right? We have motion to open the PPM and seconded by Councillor Frank and we’ll call that vote. Sorry. Close in the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Now we’re in public session, sir, and you may go ahead. Please go as your name and you have five minutes. Thank you very much.

My name is Brendan Samuels. I’m the chair of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee for the City of London. I’m a graduate student at Western University, and I’ve been following this application internally from the university’s point of view, and I guess from a city’s point of view. I’m here mainly to ask some questions about Bill 185.

I understand this is fairly new. I was especially worried about the exemption from the Planning Act and the lack of clarity in the bill itself. I tried to reach out to the province through the standing committee, and I also submitted information through the environmental registry of Ontario. Just trying to understand the scope of what this exemption actually applies to.

Are we just talking about the construction of buildings for housing, or does this also apply to things like servicing for those buildings? If you’re looking at increasing density in an area along Richmond Street, there could be implications for traffic, implications for emergency vehicles. There’s an ongoing project with the university drive bridge not too far away, and I’m just wondering about now that we have sort of siloed applications within the university lands from municipal planning processes, what the impacts of that will be on the near campus neighbourhoods. I also have a few questions I prepared, and I’m wondering if staff might be able to speak to them.

Number one, does Bill 185 apply this exemption to colleges, or is it just to universities? Number two, what happens to the municipality’s role of facilitating public consultations about developments that are happening on university owned lands? Does that mean we don’t have public meetings about these things anymore, even though there’s no site plan approval? That question about the exemptions applicability is the scope just to building construction or other aspects related to new housing on university lands.

I’m wondering about whether the city has the flexibility to pass along voluntary recommendations to the university about housing projects, even if they can’t be enforced through site plan approval. And finally, just in general, how growth of the university is going to be accounted for by municipal planning moving forward? Those are my questions, and I would appreciate any insight that can be shared. Thank you.

Thank you. Usually I wait till everyone’s spoken, but given the context, I think I’ll go to staff right now to address those questions. Through the chair, so I’ll be just very frank with committee that we can’t provide legal advice or interpretations of legislation as part of our planning comments to folks, whether it’s for the public or for council’s digestion, that would be an in-camera or an item for legal staff to provide. So what we can say is that we have done the review, and it’s very clear that the report this before you, looking for this zoning change, is not required anymore based on what the new legislation says.

So all of those other elements, as far as being able to understand how this applies to actual construction within the university campus, that will be for the university to spend that time and understanding and knowledge of. If there’s any comments that are received, that will be really at council’s direction as far as what we pass along. There wouldn’t be any requirements for public participation meetings moving forward if there isn’t that planning need in the future for a zoning application process. So that’s from the very high levels, comments and those questions.

Thank you. You have a couple minutes left on your presentation. I suppose my one final question I would ask is with respect to protections for the natural heritage system around university-owned lands, what is the role of the municipality moving forward given this exemption and ensuring that these developments are not impacting the natural heritage system in a negative way? Okay.

Is that the end of your comments? Yes. Thank you very much. I’ll look for any other people that would like to address the committee.

So, Clerk, if there’s anyone there’s no one online. Excuse me, ma’am. I see you coming. Take your time.

Please give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Kathleen Gallio and I live at 15-calorie. So, you can see the that we’re very close to this. And my point is that our back property is going to be 6.81 meters between us and this building and in terms of privacy and most importantly, fire safety and and students kind of milling about.

We think that that’s very, very small amount, 6.81 meters. We understand you can’t do much about it, but we had to come and say that today. Thank you. But for any other speakers that would like to address the committee, seeing none, hold off, Councillor, we’re still in the public petition part.

I’ll look for a motion to closely PPM, Councillor Ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5-0.

So, I’ll look to a committee to receive comments. So, I can, Councillor Ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis and I’ll now look for any comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me.

I do have a, maybe it’s just a follow-up question to the public questions that were asked. I know in the past, when provincial bills come forward, municipalities are able to bring forward comments and just wondering with Bill 185, if we were able to bring forward comments to the provincial government on the bill. I’ll go to staff for that question. Thank you through the chair.

That is something that we’re taking on as part of our work program and in consultation with legal. It may not be the next PEC cycle as we are working through and we have quite a heavy workload, but we will do our best to get it forward to committee and council. Councillor. Thank you.

I’m glad to hear that that is a possibility. Any other comments? Councillor Trasso. Yes, as the word Councillor, I’ve received quite a bit of commentary about this project and I will not go into the things that are not on the table, so I won’t be addressing the variances and et cetera.

But I really would have appreciated a heads-up from the province, not necessarily to me as the word Councillor, but through the city. Imagine my surprise when the day before the public participation meeting, I’m told that this is no longer an issue because new legislation has been passed. Now, I really want to reiterate some of the concerns that have been raised because the resident identified herself as living, I think she said Tower Lane. Now, those are private properties that back on to the university.

Those are not university lands. There’s a border between the back of the Tower Lane lots and the university and for many, many years, residents of especially the south side of Tower Lane have expressed concerns about the university. Now, certainly, the province has the ability to do what they did and they did what they did and that’s the law. However, with respect to Tower Lane, that’s still under city jurisdiction.

And I would like to think that if there are traffic and garbage and noise issues that arise because of delivery trucks on Tower Lane, which, by the way, is where the deliveries are going to be for this project, that’s something that the city would have to take a cognizance of even though we can’t really talk to the university about their building. But once you cross that boundary and the one I want to use right now is the boundary between the university dorm enrichment. The university received an exemption from having to do the traffic study, which is usually part of an application. I was hoping to raise some questions about that during this hearing.

That won’t happen. However, I just want to stress that the traffic issues on enrichment in that vicinity are not going to go away. And I just want people to think about what we had at the Lux, a few blocks to the north several years ago when the Lux development went in. And it did not go in with a very thoughtful sort of Poland bay and it created a lot of congestion and difficulty on enrichment.

I really worry that we’re going to be looking at the same thing here. Not necessarily because of this project or not necessarily because of the conduct of the students, but just because of the growth in this part of the campus area. So while we can’t tell the university what they can build, we certainly have to take responsibility for what happens on power lane and rid larger enrichment. And these issues are not going to go away.

And while the representative from the community association did not come today, because this is off the table, rest assured that these issues will continue to be raised by the many residents who are still there in the near campus neighborhood and particularly in the Brockdale Community Association. So thank you very much for hearing me out. And more to come. Thanks, Councilor.

We have a motion moving the circuit. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? No, call the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Okay. Moving on to three seven. This is regarding 735 Southdale Road West.

I look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Raman seconded by a call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Any questions of a technical nature for staff at this time? Seeing none. I’ll look to see if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please, ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Caitlin Crowley, senior planner with Zilinka Priemmo. With me here, I also have Harry Frucios, principal planner with Zilinka Priemmo.

I do also have Kyle McIntosh, engineer with MTE and Dave Haman, which is our natural heritage consultant from MTE. So any one of those people might be answering questions afterwards. Should the committee have any questions? So I would first like to thank staff in particular, Alison Curtis and Bruce Page for their continued work on this file.

We have gone through several design iterations for this proposal and we hope that the committee will support our latest proposal for a maximum height on this property of 12 stories and a maximum density of 231 units per hectare rather than the staff recommended amendments for nine stories and 120 units per hectare. We don’t believe that the staff report has provided enough or any justification for their suggested refusal of our request and the proposed regulations. We have found that there is some perhaps misleading information in the staff report as well. While we have not finalized a servicing upgrade solution for this project, it is our intent and always has been from the beginning of this project that our client will not be taking away any servicing capacity from abutting properties and that through a future proposed servicing upgrades, the lands designated medium density residential in the southwest area plan along both Southdale Road and at the corner of Bostwick and Pack Road will have the same allocated density of 231 units per hectare through various options reviewed in our servicing feasibility study.

So all existing development in the area was considered through this analysis. Low density residential sites were assumed to have a density of 30 units per hectare. So all surrounding undeveloped and developed properties will either have the same capacity they have today or they will have more capacity through our proposed servicing upgrade. Once finalized, our proposed servicing upgrade is intended to be a public benefit.

It was also noted in the staff report that the upgrades to Southdale Road West are currently planned and budgeted for 2031, which will facilitate the relocation of the wet land along the east portion of the property and allow the extension of Regiment Road out to Southdale Road. The staff report states that development of 735 Southdale cannot occur until after this project is complete. So we will be seeking to shorten the 2031 timeline that is noted in the staff report through the Growth Management Implementation Strategy or GMIS as the owner is highly motivated to coordinate development in this area prior to 2031. Neighbors to the west and south of this property, which is Southside, they have submitted a letter to the committee which was on the added agenda.

In a review of this letter, we note that Southside is not opposed to the proposed height density or setbacks, but have submitted the letter to ensure that they do not lose servicing capacity that they have right now. We have always allocated the same density or more to their lands in the area. So concerns that Southside has made in their letter can be addressed through the holding provision and through future detailed design and analysis. We agree with staff’s recommendation for the holding provision on the property until such a time that a servicing solution can be achieved.

I also submitted the letter to the committee members on June 6th. This letter was just kind of intended to explain our rationale for our proposed regulations that differ from the recommendations of the staff report. So to reiterate, the request that was made through this application was for a maximum height of 12 stories and the staff report proposes a height of 9. The request that was made through this application was for a density of 231 units per hectare, whereas the staff report proposes a maximum density of 120 units per hectare.

The request we would also like to make to the committee is for a minimum wetland buffer in the form of an OS 5 zone boundary of 20 meters, whereas the staff report proposed 30. We also request that the committee consider a minimum rear yard setback of 20 meters, whereas the staff report has proposed a rear yard setback of 25. We also require a 10 meter interior side yard setback for the proposed 12 story buildings, which city staff are supportive of. However, we also need a three meter interior side yard setback for the proposed three story townhouse at the west portion of the property.

A new conceptual development plan and revised shadow study were also submitted with this letter. In the shadow study, it provided minimal shadowing to the southeast and west of budding properties. The staff recommended regulations do not support optimal development and intensification of this property and only offers what is permitted in the southwest area plan. We don’t believe that adhering to outdated policies in light of the current housing situation is a reasonable approach in this instance.

We should be looking to go beyond the outdated policies and approach. Staff have confirmed in their report to the committee that the proposed development satisfies the criteria set out in the southwest area plan for increased density, but will not support the proposed density. As a proposal for 120 units per hectare was not put in front of staff from our side. We can only conclude that the current proposal for 231 units per hectare satisfies the southwest area plan criteria.

In our opinion, the overall vision for London is represented through the proposed amended development. Thank you for your consideration and as discussed to the natural heritage and engineering consultants are here as well as myself for any planning questions. Thank you. Any other speakers that would like to address the committee?

Ms. Velastro, you have five minutes please go ahead. So protecting wetlands is not outdated policy and setbacks are not outdated policy. There’s reasons why you have setbacks because you’re not on island.

There’s people around you and there’s technical reasons to have setbacks and that’s because it helps with drainage. It helps with air circulation in the building, it buffers, it allows you to buffer so that you can be considered towards your neighbors. So they’re not outdated policies. Okay and this is the sort of thing that we fight all the time is that developers are just looking at the bottom line, they’re not good neighbors, they don’t build buildings that make good neighbors.

So I just find that a little bit offensive. So protecting wetlands is not outdated policy and having buffers is not outdated policy and we’re trying to get the city to stick to their own policies because every development proposal that comes forward, this current committee throws those rules out and people are starting to get tired and frustrated at the fact that rules just don’t matter. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the committee?

Please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi my name is Alexandra Milson and I live across the street from the planned building D that they’re proposing. I live on Oak Grove Place and I feel that you know we’ve that area’s been in there since 2002 and it’s been farmlands all around and now it’s all of a sudden being this proposal of these three story, these three buildings, four buildings, three of them being 12 units, one of them being a nine unit is pretty aggressive for an area where we’ve been overlooking farmlands for since 2002, even before that. I was born and raised here in London and I just feel that with building D being directly across our subdivision, our low density residential area again is quite is really invading our privacy and I don’t think that was put into consideration.

So my living space and my neighbors of course I can only speak on my behalf right now but is completely affected like I will have no privacy in my backyard absolutely nothing. That’s my living space, that’s where my children want to hang out and play and I know that what these buildings it’s not going to be I’m assuming it’s not going to be owned units they’re going to be rented and I just want and I know that there’s also been some points made as far as like I if there’s a possible way to just either move that building D so it’s not directly across the street from our low density area. I just feel that wasn’t considered at all and it wasn’t thought about or it just doesn’t matter. There are some some things that you’ve mentioned in your in the language here and it does speak about like in the proposed plans that I went online looked it does discuss you we talk about height it talks about privacy and I feel like that was not actually looked at at all as far as our residential area and the land use policies content also goes on to discuss.

Anyways it talks about the the land of units being only maximum of four to six units so I don’t understand where all of a sudden I was told that the municipal council was one that agreed on these 12 units and I just feel that that again we should have been considered in that decision making and that’s all I want to say thank you look for other speakers I’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online there’s no one online seeing no other speakers I’ll look for motion to close the ppm seconded by council ramen I’ll call above closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay I’ll put the item on the floor I’ll go to deputy mayor Lewis thank you mr chair and through you I circulated to colleagues earlier an alternate motion from the staff alternate motion for our consideration so there’s a couple of alternates here so I’m going to put that on the floor and I’m going to highlight to colleagues what the significant changes are with regard to that for the special provisions on the zoning which does give the 231 units per hectare and a 20 meter setback from the rear yard line and it does provide the 12 story height for the three buildings rather than the one at nine stories and I am willing to move this because as the applicant referenced an alternate plan was circulated but when the alternate plan was circulated it was it came too late for a staff evaluation of that but it removes the six story building that was in the original plan at the back and adds increased height to one at the front from nine to 12 stories to me Southdale road is is the location where you know as an arterial road we do want to see increased density nine to 12 is not a significant increase I did have a conversation with mr freja at south side and the conversation was very much in line with what the applicant outlined that they simply wanted to flag for us the need for some sanitary servicing upgrade considerations in the future as they build out their new subdivision as well but there is no single family residential behind the buildings and while I respect the comment from the public about the separation I took a quick look on our city mapping and we’re talking about a 48 meter setback from the rear yard the back of the building across the street to the lot line for 735 Southdale you know we just talked about a 6.8 meter at tower line being a concern for a resident this is 48 so with respect I don’t believe it’s too close to the properties across the street and I do believe we also have a consideration and this is referenced in the report at one point from our staff with regard to the wetland there’s already discussions underway actually with south side and the upper terms river conservation authority about the relocation of the wetland so while there is a wetland buffer provided for in this report ultimately where that relocation piece sits is a matter for a future discussion between south side and the upper terms river conservation authority and is not a barrier to this application moving forward so the alternate recommendation is in or my alternate motion is in east gripe for colleagues but it really comes down to approving the density and height and the 20 meter rear yard setback that’s really all that’s being changed from the staff recommendation and it’s to reflect the fact that the applicant has removed the six-story building in the rear and is looking for the increased height on the front to with southdale road okay we have a motion move to look for a seconder councilor robin a motion moved in second I’ll open the floor for discussion comments councilor prank thank you a couple questions since this is a motion that is contrary to the staff’s recommendation and since the staff recommendation is based on the you know the four buildings plus the six-story but then this motion has no six-story building i’m just wondering if we could go to staff to confirm that this motion is approving the one without the six-story and how is that captured in this motion i just don’t want to approve something that we’ve never seen and is not even in the staff report i’ll go staff through the chair at this point the site has not been reviewed through a formal site plan application process right now we’re looking at applying zoning and zoning regulations to the land so how tall each of the buildings are on the site and where they’re located aren’t necessarily within the purview of the zoning by-law memo at this time the focus is on the zoning and the special provisions and regulations applied as part of the zoning also thank you so then hypothetically could the uh proponent then still include the six-story because it’d be low 12 and kind of um put it back to the original design i’ll go staff through the chair that that could hypothetically happen counselor thank you um is that usual we’re just curious because i feel like i’ve never approved something that we haven’t seen before that staff have reviewed um i go deputy mayor so i guess yeah through you chair uh two things to consider by setting the density uh we are putting a regulation on things but the other factor is the 20 meter rear yard lot line would be prohibitive to the six-story building counselor thank you okay that helps that makes me feel better not that i thought that they’re going to go back to the first one but i just wanted to clarify that we actually had some sort of um plan for for how that would be enforced um i did have one question regarding servicing uh is this similar to the second street thing where it’s whoever puts in their application and their permits first gets whatever servicing capacity is available go to stop uh through the chair thanks for the question um because we have a holding provision on this specifically for sanitary we’re going to look at not only this application but other applications in this area holistically through the application process road from your homes has gone in depth with sanitary analysis to to understand what sort of sanitary upgrades are required um because the existing sanitary system wasn’t designed specifically for for this large of a density um but we will consider uh as part of the detail design process an in-depth review of the sanitary design but for all properties councilor thank you so then hypothetically if either of the properties move forward if there was existing capacity whoever went first would get it and then um if then an upgrade need to occur afterwards for the next property that was the process that would happen go to staff through the chair um because this developer does rely on lands to the south for their servicing um technically those lands will be brought forward first and then as the lands to the south get brought forward then this development would advance and then because their application is seeking additional density above what was previously contemplated they then have to upgrade the sanitary infrastructure but as part of that detail design review we want to make sure not only that we’re considering what the applicant wants here in in terms of density um but also the future lands to the east councilor thank you yes that makes sense to me um i’ll support this uh and based on the setbacks um i’m pleased to see that there’s gonna be some protection for the wetland although it sounds like the wetland will be relocated satisfactorily at a future date i do think it helps us achieve our 45 percent intensification target and further demonstrating that that’s a very achievable target so i appreciate um the deputy may i’m moving forward with this uh change thank you other comments or questions councilor thank you and through you what would be the process for the public to participate on uh this application um going forward because uh the sufficient time piece for the for this to be circulated with this particular drawing i’m just wondering what happens go to staff through the chair if you’re taking a look at the uh the resolution that’s been put forward um this would be the opportunity for the public to make that comment if you’re making your decision now councilor okay thank you so um just so i’m clear what was circulated to the public uh and was the original and so this commentary what we’re looking at right now the revised is for the motion on the revised but the public would not be given any additional notice period for this and there’s no precedence that we would do that to give the public an opportunity to to do so with the 12th story design go to staff through you chair the original application that was circulated was circulated for 12 um committee could direct staff to recirculate and bring it back but the original application that was circulated was for 12 and staff are bringing back a recommendation uh for nine stories consistent with the southwest area plan councilor okay thank you um i guess i’ll wait to hear from the word counselor to see whether or not she has any thoughts on the public notification go to other counselors or the committee or visiting counselors uh counselor options yeah thank you mr chair for recognizing me and um i i am a little bit surprised that here at committee we are making a decision that the public is not even aware of so i’m going to just start with that concern i do not feel comfortable with that but i would like to follow up with a couple questions um deputy mary louis call the point of order mike sorry mr chair from a perspective of saying that the public is not aware of we just heard from staff that 12 stories was what was circulated the nine story is a staff alternate recommendation so the public has been informed that an application for 12 stories was submitted counselor uh please please go ahead i know if it’s a point of order it’s a point of clarification um in that the public participation meeting was based on the applicant’s request just because staff um initially refused it um that uh it’s not like the public didn’t have a chance away and on that possibility i guess but black would better word go ahead please thank you if i can um reiterate my concerns that the public is still not aware of the decision that’s being made here at committee i understand the recommendation coming from staff contemplates the london plan and is making that recommendation here at committee so moving on i do have a couple questions through you to staff and i guess i’ll just start uh with the um staff’s recommendation when it comes through the site plan process and of course there’s no public process here and i wanted to just um uh through you ask um uh city staff uh regarding di the design considerations to ensure development will not have a negative impact on the natural heritage system and and i see the natural heritage system in this area is a positive it’s a feature that that can be developed in this area we know we are looking at relocating the wetland to allow for regiment road to proceed that is going to take a lot of time to make that go forward and relocate it but i i through you just asking the question regarding the other two wetland um are we doing enough uh through the site plan process to look at the remaining wetlands oh go staff through you chair just a just a point uh there is no application before it’s been brought up of a couple committee members there is no current application right now to remove the wetland there are two wetlands relocated on the property one is to the east and one is along the southern border the one to the east will be removed and relocated for the extension of regiment road um we don’t have an application before the committee in terms of relocating the wetland to the south counselor through you then that would be looked at through the site plan process for the staff that would be addressed if the applicant the applicant to the south came in and made an application to remove the wetland the wetland solely located south of this property uh not on the subject property the 30 meter buffer is all that’s on the subject property counselor so um that more or less um answers my question in terms there’s a lot of moving parts here still to be determined as development proceeds in this area so still do not know what’s going to happen there with the applications going forward um as we make decisions here at committee that is a concern uh i do have a question around the servicing and i understand there’s a holding provision um but is it enough uh i’m i’m aware that the applicant is making some suggestions to hook up to the south going towards pack road there there’s a lot more development that’s going to be uh filled in there’s already residential homes to the south of this property and uh we still don’t know how that’s going to work uh and that is a concern it was a concern from a developer in the area as well a serious concern no uh of the uh servicing that is required for this development so my question uh through you mr. chair to staff is really um look uh do we have enough information or does the public have enough information if this development proceeds for the amount of density even in the amendment and i haven’t seen the amendments so i’m just going by going um um by memory here um uh from the deputy mayor that um it’s still 231 units and there is not enough servicing regardless of the amendment or not um and my concern is that residents in this area may not know how the servicing is going to proceed with the many moving parts of not only development but allowing for this intensification so my question is do we have um does the public have an understanding of what could happen uh in their area in their subdivision to allow for this servicing which we are really not a hundred percent sure is going to take place i know the applicant has made a suggestion to go on old garrison road but i am um concerned that uh there may be other um changes in the area to allow for this servicing for this application so are we confident that there’s not going to be disruption in the area um to allow for this servicing i’ll go staff uh through the chair thanks for your question um with this being the zoning application being brought forward now staff do feel comfortable with the holding provision on there for specifically the sanitary sewer to address some of these concerns so as part of the detail design stage we’ll continue to review the sanitary servicing in more detail um and whether that rooting is through the existing subdivision or another option all this will be reviewed holistically uh and depending on that outcome um that will then lead the city to determine if um we are required to do a potential reconstruction on the existing infrastructure um and if that is the case um obviously the city would want to lead that project with uh potential development funding but we would then reach out to the residents to make sure they’re aware of those impacts but again we won’t know those impacts until we go through the detail design stage but right now this is just the zoning and we do feel we have enough information with the h holding provision on there to uh adequately support this I don’t sort of address the sanitary sorry sorry staff don’t start yeah thank you and and I think this is one of my concerns with um this application is that the public is not really aware of the potential impacts of um reconstructing the uh sanitary sewers in this area and there’s if you look to the self there’s a lot of residential development happening in this area and as the award counselor uh when I hear a committee more or less saying yes we can do this we can do that yes we need housing we need units but do we have uh the availability and to me um is this in the public interest I don’t think it is I I would encourage the committee to support the uh staff’s recommendation it’s it’s 120 units it’s nine stories it’s going to that that other end I know the applicant um mentioned uh they haven’t had those discussions but there are still opportunities for development we’re going to get something here we know we need to do um to to develop uh the other thing I I do want to um bring to uh the committee’s attention uh self-dell also needs to be developed in front of this development as well we had upgrades just uh west of uh Boswick we had the upgrades down at uh Colonel Talbot and uh self-dale with the roundabout but there is this stretch that still uh needs to be upgraded as well and I personally have concerns that if this does go through that we as a city eventually may have to um bear some extra costs to allow for this density that the applicant is asking for so I would encourage the uh committee to support staff’s recommendation thank you uh other comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors deputy mare less thank you mr chair so uh when I hear concerns about neighborhood disruptions I think it’s worth noting that the servicing connections on this particular land as proposed right now would connect over to uh to the east towards Boswick and would actually be going through lands that are undeveloped hence the reason that staff commented on the uh other applicant with the lands of the south having to come through with their proposals first because the connection slash easement would have to run through those lands um so we don’t have people living where the connection would be right now I think that that’s really important to underscore I would agree with the counselor that uh Southdale road uh has to be developed and I’m wondering because I know that there are uh our discussions and I believe it was already mentioned uh once that the the timeline is 2031 but uh uh can staff comment at all on the timeline for the the upgrades that are coming to Southdale road itself uh in the future um I know that we’ve had those discussions as as I talked about uh how to structure an amendment for this and I don’t recall the date so I’m just going to ask through you chair if staff can advise on um the ultimate timeline for Southdale road itself to be increased I’ll go staff through the chair um Southdale road is scheduled to be upgraded from two to four lanes in 2031 currently deputy mayor thank you for that so I think it’s important to note that as we move forward and seek housing uh increased density uh that comes with infrastructure improvements uh along our interior arterial roads as well as uh the fact that uh you know I would remind all colleagues um that while there are uh costs that will uh be municipal as well uh it was last fall uh that we received a 74 million dollar housing accelerator fund contribution from the federal government part of which can be put to use in terms of infrastructure improvements uh as counselor frank referenced the the second street uh development that this committee’s approved uh already uh that’s another one but there is funding sources for infrastructure that up that unlocks housing lands and greater density as well so I appreciate the concerns about uh where municipal costs may lie but I would just remind the committee that through the housing accelerator fund uh some of those funds can be used to increase servicing to unlock additional density uh in areas in the city where it’s deemed appropriate so um just wanted to share those thoughts uh with committee members because I think it’s relevant to keep those things in mind thank you any other comments or questions the committee will allow me just briefly um you know everything has implications when we go for higher density um we’ll be talking about that later on in this particular meeting as well infrastructure has to be adjusted and caught up um it makes it a little easier for me uh getting that recent communication from property owner to the south of this property um willing to um not uh oppose this type of development because the sewage infrastructure uh is affected on that uh development important development as well um so I will support this there’s no other comments or questions we have motion moved in a second and I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five for zero thank you um moving on um to 3.8 um I think what I’d like to do right now is go to staff um this is this property has had a long history um in London and I’d like to um go for staff for kind of a pretty uh presentation um to kind of uh tell us what’s led us to this uh to this point here before we go into the uh ppm through the chair can you hear me it’s so much so we can yep is just putting the presentation everybody see that can we just hold on a second please okay we don’t see it yet there we go yep we’ll get this working but this application is for 323 Oxford street west 92 and 825 profit subject lands are approximately 31.82 hectares in size and are located north of Oxford street west east of Bradford Lane and west of Cherry Hill Mall um the application is for an official plan amendment it’s only while on amendment and draft plan and subdivision the proposed subdivision is seeking to develop the lands with 13 development blocks containing high rise apartments low rise apartments townhouses parks open space and a complete corn door uh community gardens and a school block uh there’ll be three phases taking place for this development the first phase will include major infrastructure which includes uh my uh creek plea corridor development uh park two major streets and the first four development blocks the second phase will complete the connection of Beaverbrook Avenue and the majority of the remaining development comprising of two residential blocks and the community guarded the third phase will connect the Beaverbrook to proud foot and will also include the final phase with this code block issues that we’ve received in concerns over the circulation of the three plans that we’ve had um this plan that we received in 2024 continues to envision the creation of a complete community by allocating 14.02 hectares of open space uh park and general lands which comprises approximately 40 percent of the total site uh there have been issues and concerns with wildlife in the area as well uh what the redevelopment of these lands uh the proposed plan retains large area of significant water land that provides a one-to-one compensation rate for all natural heritage features uh that will be removed this plan also maintains the linkage between the significant water lands in the creek corridor creating nationalized wildlife corridors and habitats for wildlife to move freely in the area in the existing uh development there’s also a community garden that exist um through this um development of the lands it will be moved from block wind to block nine so the neighbors will still be able to use the community gardens in the future uh this plan is consistent with the PPS conforms to rapid transit and urban corner place type neighborhoods place type and high density overlay of the 1989 official plan uh proposed roads and lot patterns are compatible with existing subdivisions to the west and east and south the zoning whole divisions and conditions of draft approval will ensure that development and the solution occurs in an orderly manner uh the official plan and zoning wildlife amendments are are appropriate for the subject lands uh and just to touch on the holding provisions uh there will be in place to make sure that uh other requirements are fulfilled prior to development taking place and then all the lands will require a site plan uh to be done as part of the development I’m happy to answer any questions thank you uh thank you for that so we will go into the PPM portion right now so I’ll look for motion to open uh that answer frank and then seconded by councilor robin i’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay so any questions of a technical nature I know there’s usually not but uh given uh this context I imagine there might be uh councilor trussow yes thank you again for allowing me to speak as a guest counselor at this meeting and I’d like to address uh these these questions through you to um staff because I think it will help the public understand um particularly the timing of of these applications once you get into a uh a zoning uh application that has five different zone changes it it becomes it becomes complex and it becomes hard to follow and I’m looking at I’m looking particularly at paragraph B all five of these have um holding provisions would it would be getting into too much technicality to just ask really quickly to run through each of those five and say what what is the holding provision and also generally how does a holding provision get removed does it have to come back to council does that constitute a zone change is is there a public participation meeting when removing a holding provision these are things I think the public would like to know yeah I agree counselor I’ll go to staff to just kind of give us an education we see holding provisions all the time um a lot of folks don’t uh sometimes I have trouble quite frankly without asking questions about the meaning of that so can you kind of explain what is the reason for holding provision how do they get removed and you know what’s applicable uh in this particular application through you chair I’ll just uh start off with typically holding provisions are applied to designs where there’s some outstanding issues that can be dealt with at a later stage so it provides a little additional protection to those lands so there may be something that would have to come in uh for example the H18’s an archaeological study uh it may not be completed at the time but we know that it’ll be coming in in the future we apply the H18 to those lands and you can’t proceed until that that holding provision’s been satisfied to remove the the holding provision um it’s a simple process once the requirements are fulfilled they make an application to the city it’s circulated through the newspaper and usually within two to three weeks there’s a decision made and the city clerks and the mayor have signed it and the bylaws and force so it’s really just a protective feature that we have to ensure those those elements are captured and it also provides a little bit of transparency so if someone’s coming along to purchase the property and there’s been some agreements made for or conditions not filled they can identify that by seeing the H18 or whatever the holding provision is on the property uh with regards to the and I don’t have my agenda open sorry the I believe there’s three of them there’s an H18 which I mentioned is archaeological so there’d be an archaeological study and uh letter coming from the ministry uh the H80 is for servicing so they would have to provide adequate servicing whether it be storm or whether it be sanitary and then the H100 is water looping so that they’d have to have a water looping connection and a second access second emergency access and a second public access uh thank you my council sir uh thank you and that that would include the completion of the uh what’s known as the mud mud creek restoration um which is still still pending uh just just just last month at the civic works committee we received a request for additional um funding for um additional costs that work would all have to be done in order to remove that last holding provision you spoke of i’ll go stop through the chair thank you for the question yes that’s correct we do have the H80 specifically on there as well to assist with making sure mud creeks coordinated but also we have draft planning conditions through the draft plan of subdivision approval um that will help to address these concerns as well councilor thank you and i i know i can’t hold you to this and it’s difficult to predict the future but assuming everything goes well um and these these these these improvements are made as quickly as possible without having to come back for more money is there a rough idea as to um when that holding provision would would be um circulated for removal go stop through you chair it’s very good question and it is one that’s challenging it would really be left up to the developer coming through and their timing of uh of the developments so they would have to fulfill the conditions and whatever take length of time it takes for them to fulfill the conditions we would remove the holding provision then so the i believe the applicant may be speaking later they may be able to speak in terms of the timing of their project councilor well though but the the mud the mud creek uh the mud creek restoration improvements which are requisite to be completed before this um can can uh before building permits can be obtained as i understand it um this is not within the control of the developer this is something that uh civic administration is is is undertaking is is is that right close stop just through the chair so absolutely the first um that that project need we need to be completed that would be the earliest that they could submit so that is their outlet for this project so they would need that were completed then after that point it’s up to the applicant to decide when they want to submit but that would be the earliest they could submit also okay and you know i’m not gonna i’m not going to continue this with each and every every one but i just i just want to get a also a sense of um the the the timing of the connection of west field to beaver brook as it’s been explained to me by staff is is proceeding in two phases and um the the first the first phase would would not would not allow the through traffic to go through west field to beaver brook all the way over towards wonderland that would require the completion of the second phases is that is that correct i’m going to stop that is correct so the information that’s been provided us in terms of the phasing from the applicant would have west field connecting um in that first phase and then the second phase would extend all the way out to uh to proudfoot go to uh counsel trussa oh this is my last one because i want to hear from the public but is is there an estimate as to when that second second phase those road connections would likely happen go to stop uh through the chair i i do know the applicant’s willing to have a presentation today maybe they can address that question through their their presentation i know they’re going to talk about phasing and timing as well counselor thank you very much for indulging those questions i think it’s been very helpful i think those are good technical questions there counselor thank you okay um uh we’ll go to the applicant if the applicant would like to uh address the committee uh please sir give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon carolimin and council members my name is jake of cats i’m a partner in sam cats developments which is a local third generation family run business today i’m accompanied by my family and our ecological and traffic consultants the property in question was originally purchased from the king’s mill family by my grandfather in 1988 it has an existing draft plan approval issued in 1991 as well as an omb settlement via the london plan we believe that this project would be instrumental in assisting in london’s current housing prices the plan incorporates 3800 residential units in a multi-phase approach the property is a total of 70 acres with 51 percent being made up of dedicated urban green space our company pride itself in using an environmental first approach for example 15 acres will be dedicated to public parkland and over 1.2 kilometers in publicly accessible walking trails will be created when it comes to the economic aspects of this file this development will generate approximately 76 million dollars in development charges based on current projections and over 15 million in yearly property tax revenue this will create approximately 2 000 direct jobs and 10 000 indirect jobs over the project lifetime when it comes to our master plan you will note that we are taking a disciplined phased approach to addressing the desperate need for mixed use development the repose plan is made up of high-rise buildings stacked towns and traditional townhouses to cater towards various segments within the housing market we are confident that with council approval by the end of June 2024 we can move into detailed design and site servicing in the coming months with phase one starting in 2025 and completion taking over a decade we strive to create a master plan community one that has various types of inventory including a mix of ownership and rental units that being said we are committed to giving priority to rental stock as that is currently one of the greatest needs in our city amenities such as grocery retail transit and medical services are within a 10-minute walk forming the basis for a highly livable community we have heard from many including counselor frank about the need to consider how this development will interact with a local environment we have designed a high-quality biodiverse mud creek corridor with integrated native woodlands and wetlands we are undertaking an aggressive planting strategy and are committed to the installation of boxes for breeding of birds bats meadows for pollinators and bridge nets bridge nests for salt barn swallows we have also included a large community garden that is easily accessible all of this merges with opportunities to restore a degraded woodland area finally i’d be remiss if i did not talk about the traffic impact that has been a topic of discussion around wonderland and oxford the beaver book extension is a benefit to traffic flows in the area and what many do not know is that it has been used in all local traffic studies for the last two decades while this may not be the final answer to the traffic problem we do know that the city of london is committed to a master mobility plan and has also recently passed the motion at the civil works committee that will target this area we have worked productively with staff to fine tune and find this plan and i thank you for your time and hope that we can move forward immediately to see one of the most ambitious infill plans in the city of london come to fruition we’re having to answer any questions thank you uh now we’ll go to members of the public that would like to address uh the committee at this time i’ll go to miss vlastro you can go first you have five minutes please go ahead um there’s no significant woodland on this site um there’s a cluster of trees but a significant woodland as default is has a specific definition so that’s important to clear up and you shouldn’t really use that term unless you have a significant woodland on your property the yes some development has resulted in people losing their homes through expropriation to reconstruct mud creek into a stormwater drain for the purpose of removing the floodplain specifically for this subdivision and doing so the construction of a stormwater drain has disrupted um nesting activities of migratory birds and fish spawning habitat as a drain no longer meanders or functions as a natural creek the creek is now strained deeper steeper and performs as a canal to move more water faster the clear cutting of trees has disrupted a bad habitat which are currently listed at risk in on stereo and instead stormwater staff who are not biologists are offering or the developer is not biologists are not offering boxes as compensation for removing their natural habitat this development has ousted whitetail deer squeezing them out of a natural wildlife corridor the creek without offering alternative corridors to move safely within the city the slopes of the drain are too steep to function as fish spawning habitat or easily traverse by shoreline mammal mammals including gauzlings you cannot move or create a wetland a hole in the ground filled with water is not a wetland wetlands are sophisticated ancient ecological systems that you cannot just move or create and i’m going to confirm that with the upper tems river conservation authority whether they have plans to move a wetland especially one that’s connected to another wetland stormwater management is destructive and made worse by city staff that have no skill set in environmental or biological science for municipalities adapt low impact development to avoid their reliance on costly stormwater infrastructure we need people on the planning and environment committee that understand these issues not only because of the enormous environmental harm the sort of infrastructure causes but because of the sheer costs associated with it for example approximately 50 percent of my water bill is dedicated to stormwater infrastructure it makes me angry that i’m forced to pay for infrastructure that causes so much environmental harm when there are other options if you are going to approve this development which basically it already is approved um then please do not add amendments that are routinely ignored please ask this application be approved only with the thorough and independent public environmental impact study looking at the well-being of local wildlife including the bat population fish spawning amphibian breeding habitat and nesting activities after the installation of the stormwater drain including the fate and movement of white tail deer and that also includes whether this hole in the ground with water actually does function as a wetland city staff mentioned that monitoring will occur but there is no public information that describes the monitoring itself framework how often criteria and so on and i’m not aware of any other such monitoring at other stormwater projects these concerns were raised many times over in the internal reviews that are in the report please direct staff to report back annually with the monitoring report it is important to understand this the long lasting impacts of such infrastructure on the natural environment and i understand that the developer you know talked about barn swallows and bats and boxes but that’s not what these animals need they they need a life cycle habitat you can’t just put up a box for a bat and think that bats going to do well they need insects they need it to be dark they feed at night there’s a whole life cycle that putting up a box just does not cut it 30 seconds please note that mud creek even though it was um it had reconstruction in the past in some areas it still functioned as a creek and and had floodplains which are now removed um so i i’m here to tell you that um if you’re going to approve this plan all we see because there’s a public meeting and you’ve already paid millions of dollars for infrastructure so it’s humiliating enough so i would appreciate it if you ask staff to um detail the monitoring report and ask that they have an annual update on how um the the mud creek reconstruction is actually working for a local wildlife that have been displaced thank you thank you uh gentleman over here my left please give us your name and you can i just ask a point of order first just in the process for planning applications when the applicant does their presentation that counselors have an opportunity to ask questions before the public we have a lot of public comments but when the applicant provides their presentation the counselor should have a chance to ask questions if they have some so i just want to make sure that’s done before once we are finished with the public participation portion of the meeting tonight or today uh then it goes to committee and counselors and at that time they can ask staff or the the applicant uh any questions that they want i will go to the gentleman here on my left please give us your name you have five minutes hi thank you kindly my name is darwin garham sickie um i promise i probably won’t take all five minutes first of all i would just like to start off by thanking the cat’s family greatly as a resident of cherry hill i think that they have designed the current buildings there both intelligently and with great care to the community around them and i think that they will continue to do so if this new development and i think them greatly for undertaking that wherever mr cat’s might be that being said i do not think that the removal of the current community gardens in block one i believe was stated is conducive to the london plan of adding green spaces and community gardens i don’t fully see a reason that prior to actually you know breaking ground on this project that they couldn’t necessarily amend the proposal to keep the current community garden as is and add a second one it is not just a issue of planning it’s an issue of accessibility there is a lot of seniors in that area and not necessarily all of them can walk the distance to the new proposed garden the one where it is is within walking distance of a lot of the buildings there um i believe that’s all i really have to say is i would like maybe the plan to be amended to keep the current community garden and install a new one um i think that’s it thank you kindly thank you i’ll go to the next speaker please ma’am uh am i right uh give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon my name is kylie kipers and thank you very much for allowing me to speak my husband and i have enjoyed a quiet peaceful living at cherry hill village for the past ten years there’s little traffic on our cherry hill roads which are used mainly by our residents who are mostly senior citizens as well as a recent increase in young families and students the traffic runs slowly giving residents lots of time to cross the roads whether they be seniors children dog walkers geese or squirrels when children play soccer or other ball games on the sidewalks and the ball rolls onto the road there’s never a danger due to the very little and slow traffic we are very concerned about the proposed road extension running from the present dead end westfield drive at cherry village all the way across the farmers field and as far as angelos on one day land and beaver brook why are we so concerned about extending westfield drive we know that an extension of westfield drive will allow hundreds and hundreds of cars coming from the new beaver brook community a 3,800 unit project of high-rise apartments and town homes at 323 oxford street and 92 and 825 proud food lane right through our cherry hill village making a shortcut simply to avoid the busy oxford street intersections about a year ago our village had a taste of a substantial increase in traffic noise and speeding cars at all times of the day especially at night and on weekends when road construction was being done on plat slain and traffic was detoured and forced to enter the village we want to prevent this from happening we are seriously concerned about a very real substantial increase in traffic a major increase in noise especially at night and on weekends as well as speeding an increase in traffic accidents especially children seniors dog walkers and small wildlife we chose to live in this village because of its peaceful demeanor extending westbound drive will do nothing to enhance the village’s peaceful existence moreover the safety of our children and grandchildren especially those visiting eagle heights public school will be negatively impacted cherry hill village has has had two entrances for many many years why does beaver brook meet three we are strongly against a newly proposed extension of westfield drive at cherry hill village thank you thank you i’ll look for the next speaker um bam i don’t see a gentleman getting up to the mic on my right please sir give us your name and you have five minutes thank you not okay there that’s good thank you very much my name is angis johnson and uh thank you for the opportunity to share some ideas with you tonight on the effective developments on increasing GHG emissions we’ve objected to lots of developments complaining about developments that increased emissions because they were examples of one two emission punches that both removed vegetation and increased car emissions the effect that this development could have on both these metrics makes the punches from those other developments look like love taps the emission impact from this one looks more like a giant sucker punch our belief is that a significant number of cars in the neighborhood of seven thousand cars will be commuting daily throughout this area those are added to the cars from 530 oxford and seven seven thirty five wonderland in this community they’ll be commuting daily adding to the local area GHG emissions intensified by slowed traffic and congestion but also adding to existing emissions in every area through which they travel on commute again if the developers can devise a way to stop these cars from moving in or a way to significantly reduce their number build away if someone doesn’t figure out a way to prevent those increased emissions from 7,000 additional cars before 2050 our chances of getting to net zero emissions would seem remote also just on the topic of global warming i’d like to refer to a comment in this proposal about eliminating the risk of flooding that went realign mud creek would eliminate the risk of flooding hazards on future development and contribute to stormwater management on the subject land or surrounding area last september the first day the rodney fair only 35 miles from here was canceled because of an unprecedented infestation of mosquitoes it was caused by a rain bomb that saturated the area two weeks earlier when 7.5 inches of rain fell in two hours sadly it caused the death of one driver who drove a truck into a highway washout on highway 80 if blanco had about the same elevation as this future development at underground parking garages they would have all been completely flooded i’m not sure if realigning mud creek will eliminate the risk of flooding in this development when we raised concerns like these i hear about their efforts from this committee to balance concerns about g h g emissions with the need for housing frankly i’m not seeing much that looks like balance here maybe look up sacrifice in the dictionary thank you thank you look for the next speaker please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes hi my name is molly mr this is a really interesting application planning development so it requires a lot of consideration and there’s a lot of details to consider um first off i want to acknowledge okay sam cat’s holdings are the applicant and i would just like to acknowledge the legacy of sam cats in west london and the cat’s family and so um just at cherry hill i never had the opportunity to meet sam cats you see his photo in cherry hill mall um from what i understand as well as being a smart businessman and successful he was somebody that was a caring landlord and that tenants at cherry hill actually knew their landlord got to meet him and he didn’t care about profit at the cost of all apartment buildings go up but um at cherry hill you had affordable housing that was accessible to seniors and lots of thought given to the quality of life so um yeah sam cats often visited his tenants from what i hear and um just a lot of thought towards quality of life so gardens recreational facilities swimming pools that made the quality of life in cherry hill a lot better and um yeah so that’s a legacy coming from the cat’s family um and very different from what we’re seeing now sometimes in london with some concerns about renovations and higher rents coming up and um just all the all the changes people not knowing their landlords and a lot of issues around maintenance and getting maintenance um from what i understand he really looked after maintenance so there’s that legacy um there’s also to consider i want to go to the creek first and then maybe talk about the farmland um well i’d like to address both um the mud creek does not have a very glamorous name it’s not a name that commands a lot of respect maybe about preservation but i want to talk about the section of creek and mud creek is a real settler name you know it reflects a lot of construction and what would have been seen as the city built up and you have a lot of silt in the creek um the creek that flows from the northwest and then down in a south easterly direction currently on the property that is a not so muddy creek it’s a really beautiful creek and that’s cool clear running water it gurgles over rocks and gravel and lots of gravel beds it’s excellent aquatic habitat um with trees over top so it’s excellent fish habitat excellent well it’s for cooling so that’s a really nice stream well sometimes when we talk about mud creek and the concerns well it’s not very healthy and you’re going to talk about stream restoration there’s the other sections on the property there’s a long history of drainage and so you have the trot award drain and people can go what is an award drain and that’s kind of different that goes back way back they would have had engineers design the drainage cp rail cherry hill the farmland but trot award drain is there and it’s different laws going back all the way to 1963 but this is why we have the landowner responsible for the drains and maintaining the drains in that area and on the maps you can clearly see the difference between parts that are running straight as opposed to the original creeks so we’ve had a lot of areas in the city that have been developed and grown up around creeks so if we think about the neighborhoods around medway creek and snake creek and then stony creek and stony brook these places have residences but then the natural area around the stream they still have the streams running and i would say these are pluses for those communities people really love midway creek you know friends of midway creek and stony brook these are beautiful places for people to walk it’s maintaining wildlife habitat i would really like to see that section and it’s not so muddy it’s really clear and i hope that the city works together with the conservation authority and really recognizes the role when we talk about that creek 30 seconds only 30 seconds okay i’ll just take a bid for the farmland too this is um we have a farm in the heart of the city so uh just looking at creative waste is there any way that farmland can be protected and if something else could be done to retain that farmland because it’s pretty significant that we have a farm in the heart of the city of london thank you okay i’ll look for the next speaker i’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online there’s no one online i don’t see anyone else that wishes to address the committee so i’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting council frank seconded by council robin closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you so uh i’ll put uh this item on the floor for committee members deputy merlot’s uh thank you chair and through you uh i i know that council robin’s probably gonna put an amendment uh that she wants i’m gonna move the staff recommendations so we can start to frame our discussion and uh but i believe the council also has a uh an amendment that she’d like to add that i’ll be prepared a second so if but i’ll see if there’s a seconder for the main motion okay so let’s get a seconder for the main motion and then we can look for amendment is there a seconder for the main motion councilor robin a few seconds okay so we’ve got a motion moved and seconded do you want to go to your amendment right now councilor thank you uh and um the last speaker helped to tie in part of my amendment i won’t provide preamble sorry um i just wanted to add in under div consider providing an enhanced landscape view corridor and amenity space south of westfield drive into part d the site plan approval authority be requested part okay do you have that wording uh to the clerk self the clerk uh i do and she’s already clerked it’s amazing uh she’s good um okay well committee members and visiting counselors take a look at that i’ll look for other speakers uh to the uh motion as amended uh councilor trassa well this is a very important project to me through the chair um this is um takes up a good chunk of my word and this is probably the largest development application and i’m going to have in my word um cherry hill is a very very integral an important part of my ward and i i’ve spent a lot of time in cherry hill and the thing that keeps coming up when i talk to cherry hill residents is that they just love where they live because this is a very special community thanks thanks in good part to the uh to the work that mr. Katz has done um over the years but there were there were hard times there were hard times though this this uh this development went through a couple of different ownership um changes and um from what from what i could from what i could see the current ownership is uh trying to bring things back at least uh a little bit if that if that’s possible it’s very important to have that food court where you’re not really expected to buy anything but you can just sit there all day with your own with your own food it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s so important but the other thing that’s so important is when you walk out and you you go past 190 cherry hill 200 westfield 201 westfield you see this gate and it’s private property everyone knows it’s private property but the gate is not locked and for for for many many years people have been able to walk through there and use it as a recreational neighborhood now i’m not suggesting that the that we should deny everything there and expropriate that land and turn it into an esa that’s a decision the city would have needed to have made a long time ago they didn’t do it so yes mr. Katz is entitled to uh quite a bit of uh development in in in that space and i and i i think i should acknowledge to be remiss if i didn’t say this i’ve been very outspoken about some of the development applications that have come up lately particularly 530 Oxford but particularly particularly 735 uh wonderland there are some really good things in this development and it would be wrong for me not to acknowledge that but but i do still think that while the staff report made has made some progress there are a few things that could still be done that would improve this and council ramen uh did did put one of them on the floor and maybe during the debate on that we could we could discuss a little bit about what it means to provide an enhanced landscape view corridor and amenity space south of westfield drive um you know there are one two three four five six seven eight nine ten apartment blocks that are that are in the uh first the first block and i would really like to see uh i would really like to see the the two northern ones bordering on westfield either either removed or scaled back or or stepped or stepped where they where they um aren’t necessarily a block and i think that that could be done without the loss of any density without the loss of any housing units by me by moving some of those um units units up towards towards the front we have 18 and 18 on oxford i i i would be i would be very happy uh just to see that increase a little bit we have we have we have 25 where the swish la is sitting uh right now so i wouldn’t mind seeing node 18 18 18 and 18 go up a little bit the 16 and 16 go up a little bit and the 14 and 14 go down because that area right at westfield is what’s really important to the cherry hill residents and the broader community because that’s where people that’s where people walk out into the fields and if we could sort of preserve the landscape viewcard or an amenity space south of westfield drive i think that would uh go a long way towards uh alleviating some of the concerns that people have now um the other the other thing that i’d like to request and i’m hoping that councilor puts this on the table is uh a reiteration of uh undersea uh the uh it says already consider the review of a traffic impact study that addresses cumulative development impacts i’d like to add the words and council has already passed this so it’s nothing new i’d like to add the words and filtered permeability traffic management techniques to mitigate potential cut through traffic and that may seem to be redundant because the civic works committee and the council um approved something similar but i think it would it would it would help out quite a bit when we when we deal with the approval authority and this by the way this is not something that’s going to hold up any construction because as as we know these holding provisions can are are not are not going to uh go go away in a in a in a short amount of time so uh i appreciate council ramen putting uh d d four on the table i would i would also like to request uh uh some something that says um that addresses the cumulative development impacts and filtered permeability traffic management techniques to mitigate potential cut through traffic in in c2 i have that written down if if you don’t if you don’t have that but all in all i think that the resonance of this community and it’s not just cherry help recognize that this lot’s going to be developed everybody understands that i don’t i don’t really i don’t really hear a lot of people saying don’t build anything but we’ve got to try to balance balance is the important word here we’ve got to try to balance the um the the the the continuity of what people are enjoying there with the need for housing units and quite a few housing units can be built here uh with that without without necessarily disturbing um some of these environmental concerns that people are making and certainly i’ll have more to say about this at council and uh thank you very much for hearing me thank you thank you counselor look for other comments uh from committee members are visiting uh deputy mare los thank you chair and uh first of all i want to say uh to the applicant and their team i think you’ve got a wonderful proposal here and when we look at the community garden features the 51 percent uh open space that’s that’s included in this um the sheer number of uh housing units that you’re going to add to the inventory in the city that are desperately needed um this is a good good development i you know i hear this regular refrain um during public participation meetings that uh you know we’re adding to GHGs and we’re we’re uh getting rid of farmland and we’re you know we’re not taking uh environmental concerns seriously not only do i think that this is a reasonably good environmental project in terms of the green space is dedicating but i cannot say this enough what is far worse is allowing x urban growth can continue unfettered and paving over quality grade a farmland out in middle sex county and driving longer and longer commute times for people coming into the city to work every day because we don’t approve developments within the city as infill and not only that but then the county reaps the property tax benefit not the city so those folks are coming in using our infrastructure uh including water and wastewater because when you’re in office buildings or when you’re in manufacturing plants there are still toilets and kitchens and all the los things so you’re wearing on our infrastructure without collecting any of property taxes from folks who live out in the county so when we talk about infill and the need to increase our housing inventory in the city by doing that because london is not an island our climate is not walled off from the rest of south western ontario so when we intensify within the city limits we are actually doing from a city council perspective one of the very best things that we can do for the environment by keeping development within the city limits so that is a really important factor for me when i look at these things the other thing that i think really needs to be underscored is this project five phases we heard already that uh you know if shovels get in the ground in 2025 the first couple phases are a decade long project the entire project is anticipated to take 20 years we are not going to be adding all of this traffic tomorrow and we are not going to be adding all of these residents in the neighborhood tomorrow it will be a paced slow progressive development uh as things roll forward um so i just want to emphasize why this is so important it is staggered it is good planning as was mentioned the extension has been considered in traffic studies for years uh for the connection to to be verbrook um and in fact will alleviate some of the traffic because some of those residents right now have to come out to oxford and go up to wonderland to go around because there’s no connection we talk about cut through traffic but the majority of traffic in a residential neighborhood are residents in the neighborhood it’s been looked at in traffic study after traffic study not only in this municipality but across north america our cut through traffic isn’t truly cut through traffic it’s people who live a street are too over um because when we have winding roads and stop signs and speed bumps and those kind of things cutting through is actually not all that convenient rather than going straight and going through a traffic light i appreciate the concerns about traffic but we are not adding all of these cars tomorrow um this is going to take a long long time to build out um and i will say um i’m supportive of what counselor ramen is adding because that is a slight site plan consideration um i’m not supportive of of repeating motions that were passed by civic works and council and every planning application that comes forward this area has been given an opportunity for a more detailed design plan but that is not the applicant’s responsibility to discuss with site plan that is something we have tasks our staff with and so uh i would not support any additions in that direction um in fact i i would aggressively discourage them so those are the reasons i am supporting this i think we have a good plan here um i and i think that this will actually create a neighborhood that many more people will be able to enjoy the same quality of life that we’ve heard residents say they enjoy now we need to open that up for other people to enjoy because we do need housing units so i strongly encourage colleagues to support this thank you i will go to a counselor hilly thank you very much the deputy mayor has covered quite a bit of what i wanted to talk about and thank you for that i’m going to speak from experience uh very rarely do i support or develop or publicly but i’m speaking as a former renter and a friend of many of the tenants in cherry hill we got married when we lived at one any cherry hill circle we opened our wedding presence there that place was amazing the way it was set up by the cat’s family in the fat group cat’s group was was one of the best in the london i have to be honest and i have high hopes that they will move forward with the same type of development go in this land now and i i have faith that our staff will have traffic control measures put in place that will take that concerns away from the the existing neighbors thank you thank you i’ll go counselor frank thank you yes i just want to share i’ll be supporting this um i appreciate the work that has been done and the input from the community but i do think it’s a good example of info and again helps us achieve our intensification target which is very achievable and reasonable thank you thank you any other speakers um a lot of counselor ramen and i’ll go to counselor cuddy uh thank you and through you so i just wanted to quickly as we’re in for a still a long night uh thank the cat’s group for bringing this forward and uh thank sorry the uh the applicant for bringing it forward same holdings uh same cat’s holdings ink um this is i think a long time coming as we’ve heard um but also a welcome part of new development in the area and i do hear from residents as well about concerns around the traffic and that is something we are trying to address through the civic works motion as well as the master mobility plan and i do encourage anyone that does have any additional concerns to share those through the master mobility plan because i think that is important to to get those comments in as well um and i think a lot of us have heard from uh applicants or from from those that have seen the application and uh the free press um coverage as well as some the other coverage that you know there’s concern around oh this is all happening so fast in the area and again i think it’s really important to deputy mayor lewis’s point that this is you know stage development it’s not all at once but it is going to add just housing supply and a unit supply which i think is really important at this time so i’m supportive and again the amendment for the site plan it’s a small one again to add um an an opportunity to continue to create that uh important um neighborhood connectivity uh through when when you’re making the neighborhood connector and make it to feel like the existing neighborhood place type so it has that the synchronicity and that connectivity to the plan so i hope that uh my colleagues will support it thank you counselor cuddy thank you chair and thank you for allowing me to uh speak at your committee today and um i won’t repeat any of the uh the things that uh deputy mayor lewis said um but i will say i had an opportunity last week chair to uh meet with mr cats and take a look at this plan and i was so impressed chair with the thought and that has gone into this development they’ve not only considered all of the efficiencies for the development but they’ve they’ve added in some of the bonuses that that we would all appreciate and that’s the green space that deputy mayor lewis spoke about and also bike lanes and so pedestrian traffic and this goes back chair to the opposite of the fact that we have a family in the cat’s family that’s been here for a hundred years they have done so many great developments in the city and we are we’re fortunate that we don’t have to have a we don’t have to go look outside of our city for great developers we have them here and i am very appreciative to to all of the developers but in this particular case the cat’s family for coming forward with a project like this and uh i will be supporting this at council thank you thank you um first order of business is to um the first order of business to move uh councilor ramen’s amendment uh and then we will look to move uh the motion has amended so i’ll look for any speakers on uh the councilor’s amendment before i call a vote that’s been uh moved in seconded i’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay we have a motion uh as amended in front of us now i’ll look for any further speakers where i call that vote if the committee uh will allow me some brief comments um i just want to touch on a couple points actually if mrs.

McClure raised um yeah when she spoke to us uh i’m glad she pointed out uh the unfortunate name of mud creek it’s it is a person it’s not because it’s muddy um it’s uh it’s a lovely creek uh that flows uh conservatively through that area um and she also spoke to the cat’s family you know you know this this application the first one who was mentioned like 33 years ago 1991 and i’ve always been concerned about who would actually develop this property um i was very pleased to hear the cat’s family uh taking this on um there are wonderful local family that has been um proven to be uh a good local developer and followed through as an operator um in a number of comments uh that have been made uh today the guarding of the creek um when i first uh heard about uh this coming here and without seeing the plans i was very concerned i think this project could have gone in a number of ways and still um gotten through with with it the London plan um uh in a way that might not be as um livable let’s say uh and as the plan is today i went through the plan uh extensively and i was happy to see um the number of the amount of green space um pathways um the appreciation of mud creek which um you know council ramen some menmen to further enhances um those will make it a very livable but yet intensified section in the heart of uh London um i i can vision the uh the walkway along the creek and so in my ward which is across the street in wonderland and oxford there’s actually been a mud creek that goes that connects kitty corner on the south west corner that we’re currently working with staff actually to highlight because uh years ago i don’t know when um there’s some really interesting stone formations and block formations along that creek that is quite beautiful there’s existing pathway and i look forward to uh to getting that project uh completed to really enhance that and highlight that so i know what can be and from my understanding is um that that will be uh along this intense intensification um and please as well that we haven’t boxed ourselves in with regards to an exit to the east we have an exit to the west the next to the south at some point um you know over the next summer years uh that might be um useful to have that option still alive uh should uh transportation needs uh need um as was mentioned as well this is uh 20 years out for completion is not going to happen tomorrow um we will evolve with uh our transportation needs as this comes along we have the master of building plan and um counselor truss house um motion as if he works as well to make sure that um our transportation infrastructure keeps up with the intensification um that we need quite frankly to meet our housing needs um and as we heard with affordability and as i mentioned demand uh supply has to catch up to demand in a way that mitigates you know urban sprawl as uh deputy mareluis alluded to as well and i think this is a ideal example of uh infill um that can be done in a proper way that will provide housing but also enhance uh the experience of those that uh live in the area so i will support i’ll look now for any other comments or questions before i call the motion so we emotion uh moved and seconded as amended i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you um moving on we are at three point nine um which is uh land needs assessment i’ll be looking for a staff presentation uh overview on that we’re going to staff now for give us some brief presentation thank you through the chair uh so before you this afternoon is the proposed first phase of the official plan review under section 26 of the planning act and the draft land needs assessment for the community growth uses uh so that’s the non-industrial uses and that’s for the purpose of continued consultation with the public in the development industry um as background there have been some recent changes to provincial policy uh a draft provincial planning statement was released in april 2024 um not yet in force but showing the provincial direction and some of the changes that are included in that do relate to the land need assessment that we’re undertaking so in part that’s applying ministry of finance 25-year population projections as the basis for land needs the identification the municipality should have a greenfield density target for large cities including london and then it also identifies a planning horizon range where as previously it was um a specified number um before it was up to 25 years and under this latest draft it’s 20 to 30 years as the range uh so if you look to phase one a of section 26 review that’s before you um it includes industrial conversion sites previously directed by council so those ones that came to planning committee in march uh and were approved by council on april there are appendix a schedules three through ten and that’s changes from industrial to non-industrial land uses uh then also there’s appendix f which is in the added agenda that’s map seven changes corresponding to those industrial conversion so maps to go along with site specific policies for a couple of them then there’s a greenfield density target policy consistent with the new pps which is in schedule b and a change to the planning horizon from 20 to 25 years which is following direct direction from council in april as well and is consistent with that draft pbs um this is to be adopted by council and then sent to the province for ministry approval because that’s the approval process under section 26 so council is not the approval authority on this one uh all of the industrial conversion sites are included in the presentation it was also in the added agenda so there’s maps in there and there’s also three additional industrial conversion sites to note one is a reevaluation of 24 96 Dundas Street which was deferred in march it’s recommended for approval based on additional information received there’s also two additional sites where no change is recommended and it’s not included in that package for council adoption one is 2550 Dundas Street uh it is on Dundas south of the airport and it’s within the noise exposure forecast um which is the transportation Canada’s long-term noise exposure related to airports and airplane noise um and it is greater than the 30 NEF forecast and there’s prohibitions in the pps for residential sensitive land uses if it’s over 30 and then the other is 33 17 white oak road that request came in it’s immediately west of a class 3 industrial plant plant plant on white oak’s road uh kel coatings known by cloverdale paints class 3 industrial operations require 300 meter distance separation for compatibility and safety in accordance with the provinces d6 guidelines a d6 study was provided by the applicant uh and it recommended a change to class 2 but it didn’t provide sufficient evidence to warrant that reduced classification relative to other recent d6 evaluations of that same paint plant in that area related to other planning applications um so the landowner was provided with those other recent d6 studies and and confirmed their position that they still thought it was a class 2 but staff are not recommending it based on that part um and then the third piece is the draft land needs assessment for community growth uh for continued consultation with the industry and the public so this is again not including the industrial the industrial we brought for it separately uh there has been continued consultation through the housing supply reference groups since early 2023 all the way in leading up to the targeted actions report in april uh meetings there a meeting is already scheduled for the housing spy reference group in july for continued consultation on this draft and so far i would note that the focus of the conversation has been around contingency and market responsiveness so the land needs assessment draft is based on that ministry of finance projections um it does mean the city will be able to accommodate more than double the number of units related to the 47 000 target because the ministry our numbers identify over 107 000 units it’s also market responsiveness for periods of higher than anticipated growth noting that the land needs are needed to be reviewed at least every five years and the ministry of finance numbers are significantly higher than past construction that we have seen almost double um so the land needs assessment draft identifies projected demand for housing commercial and institutional uses it evaluates potential supply based on units within the development pipeline in various stages of development applications as well as permissions through the london plan uh it identifies a preliminary land need or surplus at the end of the planning horizon for each of those land uses and then it also includes proportions of housing for singles townhouses and apartments on the housing side and on the non-residential side it includes standalone land use versus mixed use commercial with other place types there’s also at the end of this report draft evaluation criteria to identify criteria that candidate sites where landowners are requesting inclusion in the urban growth boundary would be evaluated against as part of a forthcoming ugb review once the land need is finalized we would complete that review and then any additional landowner requests received would be evaluated against that same criteria this draft is again intended to be received for continued consultation and the purpose is to include that market responsiveness thank you uh thank you um now we’ll want to go to the public participation uh portion of the uh meeting i’ll look for motion to open that deputy mareluis seconded by counsel ramen i’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay i’ll go to the public and i see mr wallis um is uh already chomping at the bit so i will go to you sir you have five minutes sure thank you mr chairman it’s mike wallis i’m the executive director of the land and development institute and uh i’m not going to get into the details of what’s actually in here today uh i want to talk to you a little bit about the process getting here as indicated by staff the housing supply committee had been meeting for uh uh well over a year uh uh we had been working very well with staff not naturally agreeing but uh least working with them the report in front of you tonight is draft it’s actually called a draft land needs assessment what we are asking for is that this report in its entirety be referred to the committee just so you know we did not see this uh in you’ll see in the next public meeting uh what i consider appropriate uh the consultation process but we worked hard as a industry working with staff for a well over a year on these issues that came forward um this was presented to us at the at a gmis meeting uh a wrap-up meeting it was never reported to the housing supply committee for their review prior for it coming forward on an agenda for us to properly speak to it so what i’m asking for tonight is that this committee refer this report 2000 supply committee we can make a commitment as you heard we’ve already have a meeting scheduled that we we will be back to you after a review likely sometime in september with a comprehensive full opa record that would look at what lands are coming in and out if there’s any coming out lands are coming in an actual line on a map that would need to be changed in the a London plan so you can make a proper decision on what is in it and out if you look under schedule a it’s an opa and i’re scheduled there’s some issues we have with some of the pieces that are identified there staff might be absolutely correct but they never asked us to confirm so we need that opportunity so we’re asking for a referral on that we also uh there is a motion i think coming from one of uh from the uh counselor lewett uh deputy mayor lewis and counseling him on an economic consultant we’re very supportive of that they should be at the table with us over the next number of months looking at where we what is the actually going to happen what we need for the growth and i remind counsel this is 25 years the current urban growth boundary was passed in 97 i have a map of it 99 but it hasn’t changed in over 25 years we are making big decisions that will have a long-term effect on how the city grows and it is growing you know nobody’s kidding themselves that it is growing and we need to do this right and it’s a proper consultation with the industry those who are actually going to build the city that we that we do this so that there are opas in here i’m not going to comment on the industrial part because that is not our interest uh our interest is uh things like is the vli correct the the vacant land inventory how correct is that we’re spending many hours and money on making sure that the information we get from the city on the vli is accurate other issues in terms of units per hectare we got to make sure we’re all on the same board i am confident mr chair that working together the industry and the city in the fall would be able to come together with a proposal for you to review on urban growth boundary that i’m hopeful that we both can agree on in presenting it to you i can’t guarantee it but that’s what i want for but way this has been rolled out now i can guarantee it that that that isn’t going to work and so i’m asking for a referral this whole document to the housing supply reference group for the lightest complete work thank you thank you all look for the next speaker mr let me please take your name and uh you have five minutes sandie levin i went through this exercise when i was on council in 97 and a lot of it was about pick me pick me because land in the urban growth boundary is more valuable than land outside of it and it’s a balance sheet issue now the important part that i think i encourage council to agree with is a set of criteria to determine what gets included i don’t think the council i was on did a really good job of that and then i have to say i worry about the idea of a recommendation coming back from a body that doesn’t include any kind of public involvement uh little worried about that piece now you are as your staff said you’re kind of stuck with the ministry of finance projections i think they’re optimistic but you know uh you know it’ll be wrong whether it’s the high side or the low side uh one done after annexation was wrong on the high side by five years i also wonder if some of the growth projections are driven by immigration which might change with a new government in ottawa now i’m really unclear and maybe not convinced either that an expansion particularly beyond the 450 that’s in the report i’ll create housing in the short term let alone affordable or attain in attainable housing in the short term five to ten years out and here’s why because the amount of available land doesn’t lead directly to more supply of housing and certainly not at lower prices i heard one uh member of the industry say some divisions take 10 years to build out maybe it’s even five years to develop the first phase don’t know and while the the motion on your agenda is reasonable on your added agenda to look for additional information there’s really only two consultants who do exclusive work for municipalities so keep that in mind housing is about 400 dollars a square foot right now so more land doesn’t change your labor and material costs i’ve heard say that you need more land in the urban growth boundary to keep people from moving outside the city well since the 20 2006 census so for four straight senses the split between middle six county and the city has always been 85 percent city 15 percent county i’ve heard you need more land to meet pent up demand well you still need service land and secondly if there’s pent up demand the prices go off they don’t go down and the folks in the industry are damn good business people they built to meet demand they don’t overbuild and significantly in the report it points out that your actual builds has been 2,500 per year for the last 10 and even at the peak the city people who build the housing haven’t built 4,000 units a year i’m really curious how you’re going to get enough labor out there to build 4,500 for 25 years each and every year on average and finally you know as mr mcbeth said there’s responses when this built in the projections i think the ministry has argued for a higher number to help municipalities create the opportunities for more housing but the people who create the housing are the people in the industry you just facilitate the opportunity so i’m not opposed to mr wallis’s idea of referring this back although you’ve got some asks of the province in the meantime i really am concerned about it coming from a process that doesn’t have involvement from outside staff sorry that only involves staff and industry representatives i’ve been at this for a long time i’d like to think i can provide perspective in a cooperative manner i think mike would agree i’m not a bad guy anymore thank you thank you mr levin i’ll look for the next speaker please sir give us your name and you have five minutes good up good afternoon mr chair members of committee staff and the public my name is ryan mino lehan lehan i’m a registered professional planner and partner with klm planning thank you for the opportunity to speak today i’m here this afternoon on behalf of the owner of the property of 3317 white oak road which mr mcbeth had just previously referenced in his introduction to the subject matter the subject lands are located at the northwest corner of white oak road and the future bradley avenue extension and there are approximately ten acres in size we’ve had an opportunity now to review the staff report from the deputy city manager planning and economic development respecting the ongoing land needs assessment including within that a review of the industrial land conversions our particular interest today before you is with respect to the industrial land conversions as mr mcbeth had pointed out there are nine subject properties which have been the subject of the review by staff seven have been uh recommended for approval uh for conversion to have not and one of those being my client’s lands i’m here before you today with a request to support the industrial land conversion of my client’s land at this time through a designation of the property as neighborhoods within the london plan but with the inclusion of a site specific policy that requires my client to provide an updated d6 land use compatibility study which will be peer reviewed at my client’s cost on behalf of the city basis for my request is rooted in the following considerations we have been working diligently with staff since february of this year providing supporting materials including a functional servicing brief conceptual architectural drawing set an archaeological study planning opinion and of particular importance a provincial d6 land use compatibility study prepared by qualified professional staff did request this study of us through the initial discussions as a result of the paint facility that mr mcbeth had previously referenced i’m pleased to advise the planning and economic committee at this time that my client’s environmental consultant a professional expert in the field of air quality and land use compatibility impacts concluded in that study that the introduction of residential mixed use development on the property would not result in adverse impacts based on provincial policy furthermore our consultant’s position did not change after having the opportunity of reviewing the studies that mr mcbeth had spoken to uh and provided to us as part of our review the fact of the matter is is our consultant has indicated that it’s a class two facility not a class three facility however as you will note in the staff report staff are not recommending conversion of the subject lands based on their opinion that insufficient evidence has been provided at this time through our study so we’re in a situation right now where we’ve done the work that suggests that mixed use development can occur in the city’s uh disagreeing with that request based on further discussions with staff we understand there’s no expert member within within the city of london that is able to review a land use compatibility study and we’ve also learned that these past studies were all peer reviewed in an effort to support the city so given all of this we believe the positive conclusion that the paint facility is class two facility and that there will no there will be no adverse effect with respect to the introduction of residential mixed use on the property we would respectfully ask that planning environment committee support and neighborhood designation but that it included site specific policy that requires an updated d6 land use compatibility study subject to appear review my client has had indicated previously would be more than happy to fund the peer review and provide any additional information the city in the peer peer review consultant would require in my opinion there’s no risk to the city with our request if my client and his team of consultants is unable to demonstrate that the introduction of residential uses on the property would not result in any adverse impacts to the satisfaction of the city and its peer review consultant then the underlying light industrial designation would remain should planning committee today decide to support the request my client wishes to advise that he’s willing to work with the city and staff to get all of this done and concluded this year we don’t want to sit we’re ready to move forward the provision of a provision of residential mixed use is on the subject lands would contribute to much needed housing and support the ongoing housing shortage in the city of London and in Ontario and would support London’s pledge to provide 47,000 housing units by 2031 as noted in today’s staff report as we’ve heard today these lands have been vacant for a very long time the owner wants to bring new houses to London and I’m here today to ask for your help to do that in closing we respectfully ask that the the planning committee today support our request to redesignate the subject lands as neighborhood within the London plan and include a site specific policy that requires the submission of an updated d6 study subject to appear review thank you for your time and I’m happy to answer any questions thank you I’ll look for the next speaker this last show you have five minutes please go ahead the largest population boom in the 20th century was between 1964 and 1943 and it peaked in 1960 which means that the vast majority of that population will be deceased in the next 10 to 15 years and since then there hasn’t really been a big population boom and the death the death rate is far greater than the birth rate in Canada and for better or for worse there is a real global movement to curtail migration and I think that these population projections are just they’re not tangible and I think you should just build a good city and just remove targets and just build a good city support good development and I also think that the cost of living here is going to also take a toll just how people are leaving the city of Vancouver they can’t live there if this city becomes also very expensive people aren’t going to live here so I recommend that you just accept this report I understand that there’s political limitations as well or pressures but in the end you just have to build a good city and recognize that the population is dying it’s not being replaced and the trend is that immigration is there’s pressure to curtail immigration so if you can just accept this report and move forward with good intentions and build good housing that should be the priority and this report should just be put in the in the drawer and taken out on occasion thank you thank you all look for the next speaker please give us your day we have five minutes thank you mr. Chair John Fleming and I’m the principal city planning solutions nice to see everybody today my clients are York development sea cubed holdings and cop a realty and I want to start by thanking staff planning staff today who’ve worked with us through the process this is process that started in july of last year and we’ve been to committee this would be our third time working through the industrial land conversion process so this is very focused on those lands that would be converted from industrial in this case commercial industrial to residential I want to thank Travis Mcbath Brandon Kavney Joanne Lee and of course Justin Ataman Heather McNeely so we do appreciate that the staff report is recommending a conversion from commercial industrial to the neighborhood place type this is what we requested and we appreciate that staff recommendation we hope that committee will support it we do think however that a specific policy is needed in order to address some of the issues with the neighborhood place type as it applies to this land and what the goals would be for the development of these lands over time the first part of the specific policy would be to clarify that the cops lands which is a portion of this overall block can continue to do what they’ve been doing for the last 65 years which is the the build-all and the lumberyard the second part relates to the intention to build a mid-rise form of development now the neighborhood place type that’s been recommended on its own would only allow for structured low density single detached row housing nothing over three stories in height and the idea here is to take advantage of a great site for medium density mid-rise development and so on that last point we think that this is an outstanding site for mid-rise in fill and the missing middle that council has been working hard to facilitate in the city of London and we’re talking about stacked townhouses we’re talking about mid-rise apartment buildings up to eight stories in height this is close to Hyde Park’s main street and that kind of density can add some economic vitality that will support the main street and that kind of business that it’s looking for this area is within a five-minute walk to the Hyde Park Power Center which provides groceries retail uses services employment so it would make for a great opportunity for a walkable community it’ll take advantage of existing expensive municipal services that are in place rather than squandered on single detached units allow for that missing middle that we’ve all been looking for it’ll also take advantage of some of the great amenities that are in the area including the storm pond the woodland the paved walking and cycling trails and finally I think it’s really important to understand there’s no residential neighborhoods to the site it’s a great infill opportunity that isn’t going to be upsetting a surrounding residential neighborhood and and can support that kind of height I just briefly conferred with Mr. Wallace and he indicated that if there is any way to decouple the the industrial land conversion sites from the larger issue and he could confirm this but that if that is something that council or committee would be prepared to do that’s not something that would be offside from what he’s looking for with the industry and I’m hopeful that that might be possible on this site to move it forward thank you very much and I’m here to answer any questions you may have thank you thank you I’ll go to the next speaker at break please give us your name you have five minutes thank you Stephen Stapleton Auburn developments in addition to our course spent correspondence we submitted and it’s included in your added communication I just wanted to speak further on the urgency to develop the proper methodology on this step I think it’s critical that we have that discussion at our home supply committee the work that we were able to do since the presentation a week or so ago concerns me a lot it concerns me greatly that the information on the vacant land inventory is incorrect in anticipation of so many units in areas that is unlikely to to yield so many units these are the types of things that would be better dealt with in a committee level a subcommittee level and not on the council floor so we would ask for your referral I support mr. Wallace’s request for a referral in that stage I didn’t speak to this in my letter but I’m also in support of the industrial component moving forward tonight and if we could decouple as mr.

Fleming has suggested I would support that as well so thank you thank you I’ll go on the next speaker and gentleman on plan left please give us your name you have five minutes my name is john kadalka I’m the owner of J two bouldering and indoor rock climbing business located at 1828 blue air and drive in the Hyde Park industrial lands that have been proposed for conversion to neighborhood use we now have over 500 members and just had our second birthday firstly I’d like to emphasize I understand the urgency around building housing and that our property owners are well within their legal rights to pursue the conversion to neighborhood designation support the intensification desired by the previous speaker and I’ve had some professional reassurance that development of our property is years away although I think it is less reassurance than those who are offering it to me might think I do think one detail that is being missed in the conversion conversation around this as it as it specifically applies to our property and a couple others nearby 1828 blue heron is zoned light industrial three on paper it’s just one of many industrial neighborhoods around London but in fact it’s a rare example of the only industrial zoning that permits commercial recreation uses and as a result our building at 1828 blue heron is a hub of fitness and recreation businesses not just ours but a dance studio weightlifting gym goalie school indoor golf and more these businesses every one of which is independently owned are what makes it neighborhood desirable to live in builds community and help Londoners live in health and we do so without pollution or noise that is typically associated with the word industrial it was auspicious having mr cat speak before me it was his family’s fleetway business that made up some of my best memories of high school most recreation has a very specific has very specific building needs building needs we need extra space and height to do our sports having large classes our groups needs additional parking getting the space we need simply isn’t affordable in high rent spaces like the commercial power center across the street where there’s a premium placed in being in a high profile location a premium we do not need 1828 blue heron is a unicorn a magical thing and evidence for its need is clear given the concentration of recreation businesses on the property and in that high park neighborhood once it’s developed and i’m confident one day it will be developed our businesses and our original plaza will be just not just facing the cost of moving and reinstalling our specialized and expensive equipment that’s fine i mean it’s not fine but it’s what the risk i signed up for taking on a business but additional properties of this zoning and type simply don’t exist in northwest London if we are closed we will not reopen and hide park we will probably not open it anywhere on the west side of the city and i already have a location on the east side of the city so i’m kind of good there i’ve unfortunately had no communication for our landlord i have no idea of their intentions i am not asking you know there’s a the any issues between us or between us perhaps you’ll be fortunate and our little collection of businesses will carry on for decades but even if that happens i wanted to go on record saying that while i believe the current London plan is comprehensive and ambitious it is failing to ensure that adequate properties exist for this undervalued use there are more types of properties than stores factories and houses it felt important i felt it important for councils to know that high park risks losing the original and innovative businesses that make the neighborhood desirable and unique and so i invite the city staff and the councillors at the meeting to find ways to ensure that zoning and buildings exist for all types of businesses ideally in the next three years as that’s what my lease expires so thank you thank you i’ll look for the next speaker please sir give us your name and you have five minutes thank you mr. chair film ashland from sifton properties limited is your sure my con it is maybe thank you good afternoon mr. chair members of committee film ashland from sifton properties limited we did make a submission in writing so we reiterate what mr. wallis and mr.

stapleton had submitted as well referring it to the supply committee we also have altis i believe altis consulting who’s online i believe we like to have them have five minutes to present some market observations that we’ve we’ve retained them to give some information and look forward to their submission okay thank you i’ll ask clerk do we have that uh person online i believe that is peter norman mr. norman um if you can please uh you have five minutes and please go ahead okay thank you very much mr. chair um and good afternoon so my name is peter norman and i’m a professional land economist and i’m chief economist at altis group which is a major professional services firm in canada responsible for our national economic advisory practice i’ve been a practicing economist for 30 years in the province of ontario and with experience across the country and also considerable experience in the city of london i have been retained many times a number of times by the city itself to do demographic and household projections at various op and dc reviews over the gradating all the way back to the 90s uh today i am appearing here on behalf of uh of sifton properties as as you’ve just heard i’m here to address uh the demographic and housing projections that are embedded in the land needs the draft land needs assessment that’s uh under discussion right here and i guess i’ll just start off by saying that i do that i do agree and and like the new population projections that staff have brought forward since the ones that were developed in 2022 by an exterior consultant like the new ones are good they appropriately reflect the ministry of finances latest work and they also appropriately reflect more recent demographic trends which is appropriate but the art and science of projecting the need for housing and ultimately development land is complicated and i don’t think that the city staff got that right in the lna contrary to the needs of the underlying demographics uh as provided by the ministry of finance the lna simply doesn’t provide for the proper range and mix of housing to accommodate the growth in london’s families over the projection period first of all the city is planning for households that are simply too small the n-out the nla is planning for households smaller than 2.2 persons per unit or persons per house which is well below the current levels in london which they’re around 2.4 and and yes point two percentage points makes a big difference across the across this amount of growth uh the mix of housing units in the lna is driven uh is is driving this strange result the lna expects fully 45 percent of future households will be accommodated in apartments apartments are for small households usually single people or couples generally are not the accommodation choice of families certainly not families with kids currently apartment households in london support about 1.7 persons per unit on average well below the the average family across the board and certainly below the current value of 2.8 persons that we see typically in a london single detached home the apartment mix in the lna is in part based on the percent of apartment permits in recent years which has indeed been elevated but that was an unusual period and based on plant and basing planning on the past performance of an unusual period will not properly accommodate future growth now let’s just look at what the ministry of finance is projecting for the next 25 years relative to this past you know decade or so think about people who are age 35 to 50 this demographic tends to be the parents and the heads of households that have children in them they also tend to be the demographic which is dominantly looking to move up in the housing market into a larger type of housing and i’m also looking at the demographic of kids age 0 to 19 because they’re of course the kids of those families looking at the ministry of finance projections for middle sex census division those are the ones that are under study here relative to the past in the past 10 years that 35 to 40 to 50 year old cohort has accounted for 7.3% of overall growth but the projections in the next 25 years are for 20 or almost 22% of growth it’s almost three times the rate of growth sorry proportion of growth going forward and if you look at the kids the same sort of thing they’ve accounted for 14% of overall in the past rising to you know over 21% going forward in the next 25 years and finally what about those young adults the demographic that was really driving the apartment demand in London over the last 10 years well those persons age 20 to 34 accounted for over 30% of population growth in the last 10 years but that is moderating fairly quickly ministry finance has added about 26% in the period going forward there’s always a question about whether families these families I’m talking about could be accommodated in apartments all of our research suggests that that’s not predominantly what families are looking for and all of our historical demographic data you know London suggests that’s not what London families are seeking there is a risk of not planning for the right type of housing 30 seconds if you plan for two if you plan for two little housing you risk shortages and you exacerbate affordability problems we’re already in a housing crisis which it was shortages and an affordability crisis our research suggests that adequately providing supply for the type of demographic that’s that’s looking for future homes is the key to addressing all of that we I’ll ask you to wrap it up please okay so with so with all of that we’re we’re looking at we’ve done research that looks at a mix of apartments we’re not saying no apartments what will you think that apartments require about 35 percent of the planning going forward not 45 percent and we think single detached housing will probably represent about 44 percent of of need going forward rather than the 27 percent that’s accommodated in the lna there’s a sharp mixed match a mismatch of the supply and demand in there thank you mr. Norman I’m going to have to cut you off there I’ve already extended your time a bit but there’s lots of good stuff there that perhaps can be discussed at another another I appreciate that mr.

thank you I’ll look for the next speaker please sir please give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon my name is Amir Shinuda from SCM construction I just wanted to add to some of the comments that have been made with mr. Wallace and the presenter from Altus I just want to high level just give a synopsis of what it is that this report is proposing this report is proposing to add 450 hectares over the next 25 years to accommodate potential growth of 50 percent of London’s population did anybody realize that this is 1 percent increase to the land size so currently London so when we add 450 hectares we’ve grown by 1 percent of land size how can we accommodate 50 percent increase in population by increasing the land size with only 5 1 percent so I think that we truly need to look into this report truly in depth to make sure that we are not making a wrong decision that’s all thank you look for the next speaker I’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone else online Diana Petramala please ma’am give us your name and you have five minutes Peter Norman spoke on behalf of myself thank you thank you there’s no one else online I don’t see anyone else coming to speak solid for motion to close ppm councilor frank seconded by councilor ramen i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 60-0 okay thank you i’ll go to committee deputy mergers thank you chair before committee today I circulated an alternate motion to colleagues on the committee pulling this report apart to deal with the various components has been complicated to say the least because there’s a lot in here so I want to just if you’ll allow me to indicate the motion is in e-scribe it’s listed as motion number four there’s a lot of language in there and I chair what I want to indicate is the intent of the motion rather than every specific line which is to address the conversions that were already supported by council back in april along with a special area provision for the Hyde park location and and the cops use of the land as mr. Fleming had indicated so that we can deal with those conversions today that the the schedules in the report do get forwarded to the minister of municipal affairs and housing as part and parcel of our requirement under section 26 that the land needs assessment growth report that we have here today and mr. Wallace did underline that this is a draft and so that we receive this draft but also that we direct civic administration to undertake further consultation with the community industry during future meetings of the housing supply reference group and that the vacant lands inventory analysis be reviewed with respect particularly to unresolved floodplain mapping issues with upper tems river conservation authority and that we do empower mr.

mathers and his team to go ahead and proceed with the third party economic consultant to review these recommendations and that and then the final one is is just the authorization for that so this would allow the consultant to review this report also engage with the housing supply review housing supply reference group refer all of this to the housing supply reference group for some further discussion with civic administration although we’re accepting the draft we are also sending it back so it’s it’s a referral and everything but name for from the process point because in order to forward to the minister of municipal affairs and housing we do have to still accept the draft as a received and then we would approve the developments the Hyde Park development the Trafalgar development the one around Kellogg’s Lane where we’re recommending the conversions go ahead so that’s the intent I know it’s a long motion I want to thank staff who very patiently put up with my multiple questions and helped me pull this apart I’m sure Miss McNeely is not looking forward to any more emails from me for the rest of the week and I’m going to try to respect that for her but I hope that that covers off the intent of what I’m trying to accomplish here so I’ll look to see if I’ve got a seconder for that I think I do the councilwoman is indicate who will suck in that motion so now that I’ve I’ve provided the intent of the motion I want to very briefly just speak to a couple of reasons why I’ve heard a lot about this report since it became public last week a lot I’ve done a lot of engagement with folks and you know when I look at things like a particular concern about as many as 7,000 units in our projections potentially being restricted by unresolved issues with upper tems in their floodplain mapping which I know we’re working on through a separate process I think we have to be very cautious about counting those units I think when we when we hear about the housing mix that we’re going to move forward with potentially that we really do need not just from a planning perspective but from a market analysis perspective we need to understand what is driving the types of units that people want to purchase and call home whether that is an apartment or whether that is a townhouse or whether that is a single family home we need a better understanding because we can have all the land we put all the land inside the city limits within the urban growth boundary but if it’s not zoned and it’s not dedicated for the right uses we’re still not going to have things built and we have to also have land aside for for industrial and commercial uses so I think it’s really important that we have this discussion continue a little bit further I want to also share and and I heard mr levin talk about growth and and how a previous council had the projections high for five years but I’m going to refer to the Moffett report by economist mike moffett and the growth of london outside of london which was circulated just at the end of the last term of council in the past five years while single detached home construction was up 10 percent in the city of london relative to the previous five years in the rest of elgin middle sex outside of london it’s up 80 percent x urban growth is real it is happening we cannot just pretend that it’s not and part of the reason is we don’t have it’s not necessarily that we don’t have the land it’s that we don’t have the right match of land to where people want to live what is industrial what is commercial what is residential and so there is more work to be done on that we can’t ignore that and I think that we really everybody and I’m happy to circulate it through the clerk if people want it because I know I’m not sure if the new councilors would all have it but the Moffett report produced by mr. Moffett is really worth a good solid look through when you want to take a look at where the land needs are I think that all of the the I do also want to say I think that the arguments that not arguments the comments made by mr. Fleming with regards to the opportunity in Hyde park are very very appropriate I think that there is opportunity we we heard from a business owner but I think there’s opportunity through legal non-conforming status and through residential amenity status that there’s an opportunity for him to continue to operate in Hyde park in the long run as well and I think that’s a discussion to take to his landlord because I think there’s potential there but that’s why I’m moving this forward is I think we should approve the lands that are we’ve already discussed and had evaluated for conversion but I think we have more work to do on the overall land needs and that’s why I’m putting this forward I hear a cold look for the others that would like to speak to this council for thank you I appreciate the work that staff has have done on this I know that it’s taking a very long time and a lot of work so thank you very much for the collaboration that you’ve shown I did have one question and I’m not sure staff will have the answer but I’m curious to know how much the economic report that’s going to be done by consultant would cost and where that source of funding would come from although staff through the chairs that economic work if it was approved it would likely be under that hundred thousand threshold so it’ll be something we could act on fairly quickly but we would we don’t have a source currently we’d work with finance to identify a source councilor thank you appreciate that it’d be great if we had that information by council if possible perhaps it’s some of the submission and I might echo some of the comments from mr. Levin but I really actually quite like the industrial process where industrial and owners submitted an application to staff they had criteria it was vetted by staff and then staff made a recommendation based on policies I found that to be very transparent open it made sense we got to show us the criteria as we know that there are criteria metrics that are included in this report I review them and appreciate them I do think if we are sending it back to LDI and the housing supply reference group it’s a bit like a fox in the chicken coop if they’re able to make a map and choose which parcels they think should be included and not included I don’t feel like that is overwhelmingly transparent to the public so I’d prefer I don’t mind them having a review of it but I do not want a housing supply reference group making a map and submitting that map to council and I also want to comment on a few items regarding supply generally I find people will buy and rent what is available and affordable and if people aren’t buying or renting what you’re trying to market is not available or affordable so I mean if there was single-family homes that were going for 400 or 500 thousand new I think people would be buying those but unfortunately we don’t tend to see those anymore and I had one further question regarding the the motion from the deputy mayor and the chair I’m just curious is the requested report more significant than what we’ve just actually heard from Altis online or would it be different than that kind of information I’m not too sure the deputy mayor wants to comment on that sorry can I just get you to give me that again please sure just regarding the request from yourself in the chair in the motion if they the report that you’re seeking to evaluate the work that staff have done if it’s significantly different than the information we were just provided pro bono from Altis deputy mayor so the answer to that is you know we had a three minute three and a half minute five minute presentation from all this I I want to see things in writing I want to see an actual economic analysis I can’t speak to what would be significantly different because I don’t have the report to compare to what we just heard but I do think that they touched on the Mr.

Norman touched on a couple of key things but that’s being offered as a PPM contribution I don’t know the depth of the analysis that they’ve done and that wasn’t I don’t believe that was done in consultation with any parameters from our staff so I would you know I want this to to be something that Mr. Mathers and his team can scope and and find somebody who’s appropriate to do the job to provide that information back to us so counselor thank you yes I appreciate a bit more of that background um so I don’t mind any of these items I will reiterate that I um I’m hopeful that staff follow the process that they’ve already outlined I don’t notice materially here that we’re actually explicitly asking the industry to come up with the the map um as staff report to council and not to that supply reference group uh so I am okay with these additions and um as long as again it’s it’s more of a review and and comment as opposed to direction from that group thank you thank you further speakers Councillor ramen thank you and through you so um again I’m supportive of what’s in front of us today I appreciate uh what staff have put together the work they’ve done on this draft so far um again I on the Hyde Park area want to speak specifically to that um I think that what’s in front of us today uh supports what I’m hearing about with this uh potential redevelopment in the the Hyde Park area um and I do believe that looking at a mixed use and up to eight stories isn’t um onerous on the area um for the business owners that are currently there my understanding is and I want to confirm with staff that um again that those uses would still be permitted until such time as that neighborhood place type is uh is is look to be used but I just want to confirm I’ll go to staff yeah uh through the chair so as part of the package for adoption to be sent to the ministry there is site-specific policies which identify lists of commercial industrial uses um and for the blue heron site it does include commercial recreational uses so map seven is the policy is the map to go along with site-specific policies recognizing existing uses. Councillor thank you and and that’s important because I do know uh my kids would be out of programming if I didn’t have that so um joking uh but uh I do think that um this does give us a chance to deal with the Hyde Park piece separate uh and be able to move forward or have the developer to move forward with that um I appreciate Councillor Frank’s comments I also uh want to be very clear where the reference group sits and what we decide here at this table and what council decides because it’s very important that the public understand that uh that we have that independent body to appear to make those decisions and to be able to review what’s provided uh and and take into account not only the information that’s given potentially through this third-party economic consultant but also based on uh you know what we’ve what we’re hearing from the community in general um and so I do think that this is important to you have further discussion and appreciate the opportunity to do so with this motion in front of us thank you thank you the mayor has joined us online I will go to the mayor yes thank you chair um so let me first say I’m supportive of the motion and I’ll um I’ll commend the deputy mayor and the chair for uh taking the time to our I don’t know if the chair was in on this part but you’re in on part of it so I’ll just commend the deputy mayor um taking the time to go through staff listen to a number of concerns and put together a motion that pulls out the various pieces uh to allow us to move forward on some previous council directions as well as um gets more information and and respond to the the need to ensure that we get this right in the long run I don’t have any concern uh with the direction of engaging um the economic consultant or the housing supply reference group in fact the way I read the specific clause uh it’s civic administration that’s being directed to engage with different people and then civic administration will provide recommendations on um the land supply required to meet council’s potential housing pledge et cetera et cetera so I don’t have any concerns with that because it’s always going to be our staff who are going to do reports right recommendations back to us and uh and I think this is an appropriate way for us to get a little bit more information on something that we want to absolutely get right given it is critical to the growth of the city over the next 25 years um we know that in the past um we’ve not gotten this perfect in our official plans we know that things can shift very quickly uh we can’t presume I know I heard some delegations say things might change in the future you know we have to plan with the information we have today and then we could be nimble in the future should conditions change uh if we have to be but for now let’s do our very best to project well um understand the market conditions uh move forward with the types of things we can move forward with now but ultimately get uh get this right in the long run and um so I’ll support the motion uh as it’s constituted uh today and uh appreciate the work on it. I’ll go to any other uh committee members who are visiting councilors would like to weigh in seeing none of the committee will permit me just make a few comments um I’ll just follow up on on the mayor’s comments there um we’re projecting um 25 years down the road hard hard to do things change um but that doesn’t mean you you don’t do the best job you possibly can at getting those projections as close as possible given the information we have today these are important numbers um that our city uh relies on for future planning long-term planning and those that build our homes uh rely on as well um economic growth uh does contribute to demand so I’m fully supportive of having an economic review and weigh in with that uh that information in that perspective um having it go through the housing supply reference group also important as well this is by no means saying that staff’s numbers are are way out or not but I think the more um resources that staff can rely on to bring to us best possible recommendation given all factors uh is important we’ve developed a great relationship with our development community I believe we’re in a better place than we were five years ago or ten years ago for sure um there’s expertise there that I think um they’re willing to lend uh to the city and city staff uh to again or find that right uh estimate um going forward but as the mayor said it the development community or LDI they’re not making the call here um neither is staff we are um and so from my perspective uh I want to see staff bring to us the best possible recommendation based on the information that they can gather through these various groups so uh I will support uh I will support this motion I’ll look for any other comments or questions before I call we have a motion moved and second I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries six to zero thank you so uh we still have three ten we’re at five thirty right now I mentioned at the beginning we’d break at five so um I think I see counselor ramen do you have an idea of how much you’d like to how much length of time you’d like to yeah thanks three y’all move at fifteen fifteen enough with committee members fifteen good counselor frank seconds the hand vote right okay so we’ll adjourn until quarter six four one craps we say we’re just yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah but next time he’s getting cute enjoy okay okay um I’m going to call the uh about tenth meeting of planning environment committee back order we are at three point one zero regarding um amendments to fees under the building code act building permit fees by law b7 amendments it’s like to go to staff for a brief overview please through the chair so today we brought forward a proposal to make changes to our building permit free structure building fees recover the cost related to building inspections um drawing review and all the other work that’s required into the building code and its legislation um the review was undertaken by watson associates and they’ve completed similar reviews for over 40 other municipalities so very strong hands as far as uh coming up with this uh this new revised structure uh the increases account for those increasing complexity of the current buildings that we’re starting to receive the requirements of uh the new requirements in building legislation and our staffing needs to improve the speed of our approval process and meet council’s housing pledge so we’re we’re very mindful in developing this uh this work of the housing affordability um we wanted to make sure that uh that that was a key component of what we were the work that we had completed um so that’s why you’ll see that there’s a phasing of several of the more significant increases so uh when we looked at those housing units and some of the impacts the the largest impact which was to the highest density apartment units it would it would go up approximately four 40 dollars per unit um based on those 2024 changes so uh something that we felt was was much uh was very much within that affordability context uh so these increases will result in London’s fees being still at the the low end to the medium range variable municipalities and it’ll ensure that our building services we provide remain sustainable so if uh staff and uh and i believe our consultant is online here if you have any questions then we’d be happy to address those questions okay thank you um so this is a ppm so i’ll look to for a motion to uh open that up uh councilor ramen seconded by deputy mayor lois and we’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries for zero i think technical questions for staff at this time from committee seeing none um we’ll go to the public uh mr wallace please go ahead you have five minutes chair and it’s mike wallace from uh ldi i just again uh want to talk a little bit about the process we we will we’re accepting the numbers that are in the report in terms of uh building fees and we appreciate the work that staff have done on this um what we liked about the process mr chair is that there was a presentation of where we could have been or what was going to happen there was lots of uh feedback from the industry but uh and they uh staff took that back and um uh we looked at the processes and could be done and they came back with fees that uh you know we’re never supportive of more fees of course but uh we understand these fees that are being provided and we appreciate that they’re going to help provide the service that we need to be able to put houses in the ground for the growing population so overall we’re very happy with the process that was um presented to us and the consultation that was provided to the industry to come up with today’s report so thank you very much thank you oh for anyone else that would like to speak to the committee i’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online john michael steven uh please go ahead you have five minutes give us your name through the chair that’s our consultant is that your okay my apologies that’s uh with the voice staff so i’m sorry yeah okay there’s no one online i don’t see anyone else in the gallery so i’ll look for motion to close the PPM.

Councilor ramen seconded by deputy mayor lewis closing the vote the motion carries four to zero go to committee deputy mayor lewis uh thank you chair i i suspect it’s not in order for me to add an additional fee for every time mr walla speaks at a PPM so instead i will move the staff recommendation that could i have a seconder please councilor robin uh any comments or questions councilor ramen thank you i’d like deputy mayor lewis to bring that to swore going he has a chance please unanimous any other questions or comments i just have a question those um when you will permit i just want to concern about the effect of affordability how is this going to affect like small builders and um you know individual homeowners uh when they go to uh get building permits through the chair so um a lot of the the small builders they not necessarily but a lot of them are in that single family home class so we’re not proposing any kind of increase to a single family home at medium density uh we are uh proposing a 2.1 percent increase but again like uh that increase will be less than uh in the 30 dollars approximately per uh bill per building so we don’t think it’s cost prohibitive on the overall value of a home that they’re selling thank you um you know the costs go up and um we have to adjust accordingly um i’m confident knowing that we still fare well compared to uh other municipalities competitively um so i will we’ll support this there’s no other questions or comments um i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries four to zero there are no items for direction so we’ll move on to minute please um you’re right we have a consent item i apologize must be six o’clock okay um we have 2.4 that was pulled um by the deputy mayor so we will go to the consent item 2.4 regarding heritage alteration permit application at 332 St. James street um i’ll go to deputy mayor Lewis uh thank you chair and i’ll just add we’ve got uh items for direction uh that councilor ramen and the mayor uh submitted a communication on as well um but i i would like to deal with 2.4 first as we do still have uh some members of the public in the gallery uh for that item uh and i pulled that uh this because the staff recommendation is to recommend refusal uh i am going to recommend that we approve um the heritage alteration permit uh which would be consistent with uh the earlier direction we provided to staff to start developing a plan for substitute materials on heritage properties i know staff still have to make the recommendation they have to make because the policy hasn’t officially changed yet there’s still work to be done on it but i think moving approval of this would be consistent with the direction that council has provided i’ll look for a seconder councilor ramen seconds property owner has requested uh delegation status so i will look to uh committee um a look for motion to accept that deputy mayor Lewis seconded by councilor ramen and we’ll uh vote on that closing the vote the motion carries forward to zero um please sir um your delegation status has been approved so you’re welcome to address the committee please go as your name and you have five minutes my name is Greg keen thank you so much for having me today um i’d just like to talk about my front porch at three three three two st james street i built it in 2010 i tried to make it look heritage i built it out of wood it deteriorated over the years i’ve replaced the decking boards and i’ve replaced the railing i’ve replaced the railing uh spindles down the front steps twice already they did they were already rotten agandos will be the third time um the products nowadays are just not the same products that we had years ago they are laminated pieces of wood they’re substandard we don’t have oil paint anymore it is substandard it is not standing up over time i just feel that more and more people are going to be moving forward with this um it’s become a major problem i believe in our neighborhood where posts and beams and everything is just rotting away so i’d just like to please hear me out and and know that things need to change thank you thank you i’ll look for a motion um okay so we have a motion moved and seconded i’ll look for any comments or questions for our call a vote i’ll just make a brief comment from the chair i think this is a classic example of why we need this reviewed materials have changed dramatically um you know the applicant uh replaces railing a couple times rotting out uh he’s he’s going on with a spirit of the heritage so i will support the motion here do you know their comments or questions i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries four to zero thank you and now we will move on to deferred matters um for matters list i’ll put that on the floor sorry oh hold on a second please clerk wants me again counselor ramen i apologize i’m going from my old i’m not going for the current one my apologies i am for direction uh there has been an added um and so i will go to you uh thank you and through you so this is a letter that’s been submitted uh by um mayor morgan and myself and i want to thank staff for their input and discussion around this topic um so in october 2023 we heard from tems valley district school board they wrote to council and asked for a review of the city’s timelines for reserving land for schools and new developments um they’ve since done that again and there’s a letter here on the added as well um and so what the motion that is included in the letter reads as follows that civic administration be directed to provide information and associated recommended actions on the following matters in quarter four of 2024 uh provided report to the planning and environment committee that includes a background on the acquisition of blocks for the purpose of a school in the context of the planning act applications uh be a status update on all unacquired blocks in identified and approved in approved planning act applications identified for possible school blocks and see provide options for council’s consideration to provide the school boards with additional flexibility in acquiring school blocks in future planning act applications um so it is our desire that uh colleagues support the motion that’s in front of you today to go on the deferred matters list to be able to uh address these items in quarter four twenty twenty four um or before i know there’s a lot on our staff’s plate so again uh just trying to set a reasonable expectation but uh i do think this is an opportunity for us again to um show that we’re working in partnership and i appreciate tems valley has brought this forward but of course it’s applicable to all four school boards um it’s it’s timely it’s something that we need to be doing and uh i do think uh based on what we we’re seeing in terms of the growth in the area um we have to really start to think about how we’re going to set this land aside um as we continue to build our city and ensure that we’re working within the same timelines and timeframes that the school board is working within uh i know one of the additional challenges now with tems valley is with having to set aside larger parcels of land with this whole eight acres to be able to support the types of schools that we need larger schools and in some cases um it also possess present some challenges so we have an upcoming meeting with tems valley district school board that we’ve been invited to that’s the community planning and facility collaboration opportunities meeting and i think this is uh timely that we’re bringing this forward here so that we can have this discussion here and they know that this is something that uh planning environment committee had a chance to discuss earlier this week before we met with them so thanks again to the mayor for for his support with this as well i know he’s had productive conversations with tems valley district school board and thank you to staff for their help i’m and do you have a seconder for this motion the deputy mayor loris is seconded um so any comments or questions deputy mayor thank you chair so through you uh my first question is uh to our staff in regard to uh the queue for timeline uh we’ve got rethink zoning going on we’ve got half applications we’ve we’ve got a lot of different things going on so is that timeline reasonable or is this something where uh you might need a little bit longer runway uh to to bring back uh a report to us on uh the updates on status and and some options because i particularly with clause c and the options i wonder if that timeline is something that can be met or if it’s perhaps ambitious not good enough through the chair so we are we are comfortable with the timeline mostly because it it uh very much complements some of the other work that we’re doing including like our land needs work and and the work we’re doing on zoning as well in general so um we don’t think it’s overly ambitious for that queue for and then we provide you with an update it and update that timing and the deferred matters if that’s uh that is required extra time um deputy mayor thank you for that i appreciate it i uh i’m unfortunately already uh booked with a ward item that i can’t move so i’m not going to be able to attend the joint meeting um but i’m glad that it’s happening uh and i know that uh counselor ramen and counselor cuddy having been at that board before will likely have some insights to share with us i my other question and and comment i guess they’re kind of a little bit of both um and i’m going to uh through you chair ask staff but i would welcome any thoughts that counselor ramen might be able to share with us as well on this is do we need another clause or could there be can it be interpreted in terms of options for council under clause c um where we’re considering additional flexibility for the school boards can we also um as part of this start engaging in some more thorough discussions with our school board partners around co-build opportunities for neighborhood amenities um you know i’m cognizant of the the budget pressures that the library has been facing yet we have very serviceable library spaces in our schools i’m cognizant of the pressures that our parks and recreation department are facing with the parks and rec master plan and the funding for that and i know we already have some shared use agreements with the school boards around we get to use their gymnasiums and some of their sports fields and they get to use some of our pools and arenas and that’s great but i think there’s a tremendous opportunity for more efficiencies and more more frankly more complete neighborhoods if we’re investigating co-builds a little more aggressively and so i just wonder if we can if both the councilor and staff could provide a little bit of comment on that and whether further direction is needed or whether that can be taken as part of the the clause c how good staff counselor would you like to go first okay go ahead thank you and through you so i do know that that’s been part of very recent conversations i know you’ve been involved in those as well and then these conversations have been going on for a very long time but how we do that better is part of it part of that and i do know there’s willingness on the school board side to sign an agreement to facilitate more of those discussions going forward so that’s uh another discussion i know that is very timely i believe thursday will that looking at the agenda for that meaning there there’s that’s part of what we’ll be discussing as well as how do we work as better partners as we’re building things out and i do think one of the great things that i have seen is that on the school board side we’ve a really great back and forth in relationship with staff and so when projects are coming forward that there is that discussion but as budgets are getting tighter i agree with you that’s something that we need to put more attention into i’m not sure if it fits in with part c here but i do think it could be a separate um it’s a separate discussion that we then bring forward so that we have an indication from the school boards what they are looking for in terms of their specifications around what they’re able to get funded through a co-build as well um so i think we might need a little bit more flushing out with that but perhaps that’s something we can talk about uh at the meeting this week and then bring back and i’m happy to update you when that meeting happens very good with that type of repair too uh i mean that’s that all sounds very positive i i wouldn’t mind hearing if staff has any comments to share if they don’t that’s okay too i certainly didn’t uh uh tee this up so that they didn’t know this was coming this is coming kind of on the fly um and i do appreciate and agree with what Councillor ramen was saying this has been going on for years um and yet i see other communities advancing co-build a lot more proactively than we are in london and so i it’s a concern for me that we keep talking about it just as we’re talking about being good partners with them on transit and looking for options for secondary school students i also want to look for options to help with their builds and and sharing library spaces and gym spaces and all those sorts of things so i don’t know if there’s uh any any comments staff can share as well but i am certainly going to take Councillor ramen up on the opportunity to sit down and uh last time i think i came towards seven for lunch so maybe i can have you out toward two for lunch and you can update me on how the the meeting goes but uh if staff has anything to share i’d like to hear their thoughts too i’ll go staff through the chair um uh this of course crosses several different service areas of the city so and i know this has been a topic that at our senior leadership table that we’ve discussed so this is definitely something that i know that as as a senior leadership team here that we’re very supportive of and uh of course would want to talk a lot with uh with uh Cheryl smith and the neighborhoods and community wide services area because a lot of these might toucher area might be other areas as well but uh i know that s uh that the senior leadership team is very much engaged on this and uh happy to provide any kind of support and uh or engagement that does uh that’s not definitely where thanks appreciate that and and i think i’m hearing uh from part of that response that it’s something i may want to work with Councillor ramen on to bring something to sppc where all of our service areas are present rather than come through planning committee so i’ll wrap it up with that and i can be very supportive of this motion thank you any other comments or questions i’ll just uh like me will permit um it’s interesting that we’re all kind of coming at that conversation from different angles i have had extensive conversations with the chair of tems valley um chair mary and she’s also our local trustee of our ward on how to think outside the box um as we both mentioned face uh challenges with uh costs space um how can we coordinate um with our schools and the city um as we do now with our various facilities would to take it to the next step but it does require some thinking that’s not the norm um which i would think makes would make for some interesting discussion so i look forward to more work being done on that um thank you Councillor ramen for bringing this motion forward we’ve seen uh the consequences of um and frustration quite frankly of planning in school locations because funding doesn’t come from the province at the right time and land has to be let go unfortunately and it causes problems retroactively down the road when we all of a sudden have needs for for school locations so as much as we can do in coordinating our our teams um to mitigate the impacts of that i think is terrific so i will support this for sure um seeing no their comments or questions i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries four to zero because advise me i now may move on to different matters um so we have different matters list i’ll look for a motion to receive that deputy mary louis seconded by Councillor ramen any comments or questions i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries four to zero we had a long meaning today folks a very complex agenda and i just want to say thank you what no when we already say okay so i keep getting these added every time i came into my office today we had another added on top of the added on top of the added we haven’t added and this is dealing with the six meeting the community advisory committee on planning so i’ll look for motion received that Councillor ramen second by deputy mary louis any comments or questions now i’ll call that vote send the vote the motion carries four to zero now i think that’s it looking at the clerk she says okay so we had a heavy agenda today i want to thank everyone on committee visiting councilors and staff especially for letting us work through this complex agenda as well um in the best way forward i think we uh we did a good job at getting to where we need to come so thank you i’ll look for motion to adjourn how so ramen second by deputy mary louis and vote closing the vote the motion carries four to zero. We are adjourned.