October 2, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Items 2.1 to 2.3 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Planning & Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date

2024-10-02 Staff Report (2.1) Monthly Housing Update 2024

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the staff report dated October 2, 2024 entitled “Planning & Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   Information Report on Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

2024-10-02 Staff Report (2.1) Information Report on Provincial Planning Statement 2024 - FULL

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the staff report dated October 2, 2024 entitled “Information Report on Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   9th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2024-09-19 ECAC Report

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the 9th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 19, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   9th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2024-09-11 CACP Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 9th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on September 11, 2024 BE RECEIVED and NO FURTHER ACTION BE TAKEN relating to the request to consider designating the City Hall building located at 300 Dufferin Avenue;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal delegations from J.-M. Metrailler, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning and S. Miller, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That S. Miller, BE GRANTED delegation status with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   32 Chesterfield Avenue (Z-9768)

2024-10-02 Staff Report (3.2) 32 Chesterfield Avenue Z-9768

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Pearl Investments ,(c/o MHBC), relating to the property located at 32 Chesterfield Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 2, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 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 R4 (R4-3) Zone TO Residential R2 (R2-1) Zone, a Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-1()) Zone, and an Open Space Special Provision (OS4()) Zone;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC Planning;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2020; 

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the character of the existing neighbourhood area and will not negatively impact surrounding properties; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Urban Growth boundary with an appropriate form of infill development;

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.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

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)

3.3   1350-1352 Webster Street (Z-9767)

2024-10-02 Staff Report (3.3) 1350-1352 Webster Street Z-9767

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 North Development Corp., (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1350-1352 Webster Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 2, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 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 R1 (R1-6) Zone, TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-6(_)) Zone;

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

i)    the removal and restoration of the cul-de-sacs at Croatia Road and Sandra Road to create standard Neighbourhood Street right-of-way; and,

ii)    city boulevards and driveways of abutting properties on Croatia Road and Sandra Road to be restored and a connection from the private sidewalk on site to the municipal sidewalks be provided. This work should be at no cost to City and solely on the private developer;

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

  •    C. McAllister, Zelinka Priamo 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 (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 can be accommodated on the subject lands and is considered compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and provides a range and mix of housing options;

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.

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 S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   850 Highbury Avenue - London Psychiatric Hospital Lands (Z-9577/O-9766)

2024-10-02 Staff Report (3.4) 850 Highbury Avenue North (39T-21503) O-9766 and Z-9577

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 Old Oak Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 850 Highbury Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 2, 2024 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London as follows:

i)    REVISE Map 1 – Place Types – to redesignate the subject lands FROM Transit Village and Green Space Place Types TO modified areas comprising Transit Village and Green Space Place Types;

ii)    REVISE Map 3 – Street Classifications - to MODIFY the Neighbourhood Connectors within the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan;

iii)    REVISE Map 4 – Active Mobility Network - to MODIFY the Cycling and Walking Routes within the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan;

iv)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Section 3.0 Character Area Land Use Designations to AMEND the Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1 and divide into Transit-Oriented Policy Area 1A for the corner of Highbury Avenue North and Oxford Street East and Policy 1B for the rest of the former Policy Area 1;

v)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Section 3.0 Character Area Land Use Designations to REMOVE references to the Standard Maximum Height and REPLACE references to the Upper Maximum Height with Maximum Height;

vi)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Section 3.2, including Table 1 – Summary of Maximum and Minimum Permitted Heights by Designation as follows:

i)    REMOVE references to the Standard Maximum Height and Upper Maximum Height and REPLACE with Maximum Height;

ii)    redesignate Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1A FROM a Maximum of 22 storeys TO a Maximum of 32 storeys;

iii)    redesignate Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1B FROM a Maximum of 22 storeys TO a Maximum of 30 storeys;

iv)    redesignate Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 2A FROM a Maximum of 12 storeys TO a Maximum of 20 storeys;

v)    redesignate Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 2B FROM a Maximum of 16 storeys TO a Maximum of 25 storeys;

vi)    redesignate Residential Policy Area 1A FROM a Maximum of 4 storeys TO a Maximum of 8 storeys on lands located more than 80 metres from the Treed Allée along Street C;

vii)    revise the Built Form and Intensity policies for the western portion of Residential Policy Area 1A to permit heights above the 8 storeys shown on Schedule 4, up to 12 storeys adjacent to the Transit Oriented Corridor Designation subject to the recommendations of a Heritage Impact Assessment acceptable to the City;

viii)    redesignate Residential Policy Area 1B FROM a Maximum of 12 storeys TO a Maximum of 20 storeys; and,

ix)    redesignate Village Core FROM a Maximum of 4 storeys TO a Maximum of 8 storeys on lands located more than 60 metres from a heritage designation;

vii)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 1 – Community Structure Plan to MODIFY the street network; MODIFY the Active Transportation Connection; and change the land use FROM Lowrise-Midrise and Open Space TO Lowrise-Midrise and Open Space;

viii)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 2 – Character Areas to MODIFY the street network and change the land use FROM Residential and Open Space Designations TO Residential and Open Space Designations;

ix)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 3 – Sub Area Designations as follows:

i)    MODIFY the street network; 

ii)    AMEND the sub area designations for Blocks 6 & 27 FROM Residential Policy Area 1A and Open Space Policy Area 1 TO Residential Policy Area 2 and Open Space Policy Area 1; and,

iii)    AMEND the sub area designations for Blocks 13-15 FROM Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1 TO Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1B;

iv)    AMEND the sub area designations for Block 16 FROM Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1 TO Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1A; 

v)    AMEND the sub area designations for Blocks 17 & 18 FROM Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 2B TO Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Areas 1B and 2A; and,

x)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 4 – Building Height Plan as follows:

i)    MODIFY the street network; 

ii)    AMEND the minimum-maximum height for Block 7 FROM 2-4 Storeys and Open Space TO 2-6 Storeys and Open Space;

iii)    AMEND all references to Standard Maximum Height indicated on Schedule 4 for each Sub Area Designation WITH the Maximum Height; 

iv)    AMEND the maximum height for Block 16 FROM 22 Storeys TO 32 Storeys;

v)    AMEND the maximum height for Blocks 13-15 and 17 FROM 22 Storeys TO 30 Storeys;

vi)    AMEND the maximum height for Block 12 FROM 16 Storeys TO 25 Storeys;

vii)    AMEND the maximum height for Blocks 18 and 19 FROM 12 and 16 Storeys TO 20 Storeys;

viii)    AMEND the maximum height for the western portions of Blocks 10 and 11 FROM 4 Storeys TO 8 Storeys;

ix)    AMEND the maximum height for Blocks 2 and 26 FROM 12 Storeys TO 20 Storeys; and,

x)    AMEND the maximum height for Block 1, the eastern portion of Block 3, and the western portion of Block 4 FROM 4 Storeys TO 8 Storeys;

xi)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 5 – Street Hierarchy Plan to MODIFY the Neighbourhood Streets and Neighbourhood Connectors;

xii)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 6 – Pedestrian and Cycling Network to MODIFY the street network; relabel FROM Buffered Bike Lane TO In-Boulevard Bike Lane and MODIFY the In-Boulevard Bike Lane and Multi-Use Pathway;

xiii)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 7 – Cultural Heritage Framework to MODIFY the street and block fabric;

xiv)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 8 – Urban Design Priorities to MODIFY the Priority View Terminus, street and block fabric; and,

xv)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 9 – Potential Noise and Vibration Impact Area to MODIFY the street network; and change the land use FROM Residential and Open Space TO modified areas comprising Residential and Open Space;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 2, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 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 Regional Facility (RF) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R9 (R9-7()-H105) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R9 (h-80-R9-7()-H98 Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R9 (h-80-R9-7()-H82 Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R9 (h-80-h-240-R9-7()-H66) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R9 (h-80-h--R9-7(**)-H66) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R9/ Neighbourhood Facility (h-80-h--R5-7()/R9-7()-H66/NF1) Zone,  Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R9 (h-80-h--R5-7()/R9-7()-H66) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R8 (h-80-h--R5-7()/R8-4()-D150-H28) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R8 (h-80-h--R5-7()/R8-4()-D125-H22) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R8 (h-80-h--R5-7()/R8-4()-D125) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (h-80-h--R8-4()-D150) Zone, Business District Commercial / Community Facility / Heritage (BDC/CF2/CF3/HER) Zone, Holding Business District Commercial / Community Facility / Heritage (h-80-h--BDC/CF2/CF3/HER) Zone, Holding Neighbourhood Facility/Open Space (h-*-OS1/NF1) Zone, Open Space (OS1) Zone, and Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application review process relating to the property located at 850 Highbury Road North:

  •    the proposed application needs more green space;

  •    there is too much surface parking, parking should be underneath the buildings;

  •    the buildings should not be built so close to Highbury Avenue and Oxford Street East as the pollution from car exhaust impacts both residents and pedestrians;

  •    there are too many roads on the proposed property, there should be more pedestrian walkways and green trails;

  •    with the disbanding of the Urban Design Peer Review Panel, the proposed building does not have an attractive architectural design;

  •    there is no space for urban gardens which are being installed throughout the world as vertical gardens; and,

  •    the owner of the adjoining factory indicated that the noise from the factory may impact the future residents in this proposed application;

d)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following:

i)    the provision of short and long-term public bicycle parking in the development of each block through the site plan process; 

ii)    the provision for publicly-accessible pedestrian and/or cycling connections through proposed large development blocks site connecting with the adjacent pedestrian & cycling networks and rapid transit stations;

iii)    the provision of enhanced landscaped open space features on large development blocks and the limiting of surface parking areas to ensure adequate amenity space and tree canopy;

iv)    landscaping to include a minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

v)    investigate renewal sources of energy such as solar for the roof and sides of the building, and geothermal for interior heating and cooling;

vi)    investigate air source heat pump options;

vii)    utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard; and,

viii)    the impacts of proposed development on the heritage designated Block 20, the Horse Barn, be assessed through a Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the City of London which considers mitigation measures such as the appropriate height, setback, and podium step backs for buildings located near Block 20;

e)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision subject to draft plan conditions recommended by the Approval Authority, submitted by Old Oak Properties Incorporated (Application File No. 39T-21503),  prepared by Development Engineering (London) Limited, File No. DEL19-009, which shows a draft plan of subdivision consisting of one (1) low density residential block, eight (8) medium residential density blocks, two (2) medium density residential/mixed use blocks, eight (8) high density residential/mixed use blocks, six (6) heritage blocks, one (1) institutional block, one (1) parkland block, four (4) open space / servicing blocks, one (1) stormwater management block, one (1) rail line block, one (1) future develop block, one (1) road widening block, served by the extension of Rushland Avenue, Howland Avenue, Spanner Street, and seven (7) new streets (Streets A through G);

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

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    M. Bierbaum, Vice President, Construction and Development, Old Oak Properties;

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

  •    A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    J. Peretz;

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, Our Strategy, City Building Policies, and the vision for the Transit Village Place Type; and,

  •    the recommended amendment will permit development that is 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.

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 C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2024-10-02 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the August 19, 2024 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Planning and Environment Committee convenes In Closed Session to consider the following:

61.  Land Acquisition/ Disposition/ Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality with respect to a heritage easement agreement for 39 Carfrae Street, London.

6.2  Personal Matter/ Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convenes In Closed Session from 2:46 PM to 3:12 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

The meeting adjourned at 3:15 PM.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

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 (2 hours, 1 minute)

Good afternoon, everyone. It’s 1 o’clock and I’ll call the 15th meeting of the Planning Environment Committee to order. Please check the City website for additional 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 Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapei Wauk, and that are out of Onderon. We honor and respect the history, languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings on requests to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact PEC at London.ca or 519-661-249 extension 2425. I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I’ll move on to consent items.

We have three. I’ll look for a motion regarding the consent items. Councillor Frank, moving all three. Okay, five seconder.

Councillor ramen. So if the consent items moved and seconded, enough for any conversation, questions, comments, et cetera. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, to the staff. Thank you for the report for the housing update for the 2024 year to date. Some really positive numbers and again increase from previous month. But my question is more the big picture.

And what I mean by that is we have the commitment by 2031, 47,000 homes. It seems like annually the province gives money from the $1.2 billion building faster fund. And I just want to ask you, in terms of our forecast for the following three months, and if you believe that we are going to be kind of on track and hopefully we’ll be able to apply or receive some of this money. If you can please update me on that, thank you.

Good stuff. Through the chair. So as we flagged in the report, this is a very exceptional year. We’re 24% over the five-year average.

We’ll of course be updating committee on a monthly basis moving forward. Looking at where we are today, compared to the 47,000 unit target that we have for this year, it will be difficult to meet that. It was extremely ambitious over the last couple years. But we have been successful in some of our applications for funding, even if we are necessarily meeting those targets.

But we’re going to keep moving forward on applications. Ideally, we could get some more high-density units, the submissions over the next few months that could really very much help. But right now we are tracking much better than previous years, but we’re not necessarily in the direction of being able to meet that provincial target this year. Councillor.

Okay, thank you for that information. Is there any way I don’t know if it’s possible to track it from this perspective, but to receive also not just what’s on the books, what I have in the three categories that you are listing, but also the forecast, forecast in terms of the year and where we potentially could be sitting at the end of the year and then see if we accomplished it or if we are over under, would it be possible? Good stuff. Yeah, through the chair.

So what we could do is look at the last five year average and use that as a basis of our projections. And also what we’re actually, we can do that being mindful of what we’re actually what’s been submitted and what we’re likely to see. But we could provide some further information if that’s something that committee would be like to see. Councillor.

Thank you. No more questions for any other comments or questions? Committee would permit a few comments from the chair. The numbers I show, I just want to talk to Councillor Pribbles points there, obviously ambitious numbers that we presented.

In 2022, Council okay, 4,000 units in 2023, 5,000 units, and correct me if I’m wrong, but we have one on our agenda, fairly substantial development before us with approximately 8,500 units. So with that, assuming it’s approved by Council year to date, we’re looking at 21,000 units approved in 2024, year to date. Is that correct? Through the chair, that’s correct.

So absolutely, as far as what Council is doing to be able to approve units, we’re heading out of the park. The piece that is always a challenge and we’re finding just with the marketplace right now is actually getting some of those approvals to permits. And of course, we’re being very much measured against the actual permits, which is both us but also the development community bringing forward applications. And as my understanding and my conversations with the mayor, it’s because of this work done by our staff and this council that we were first to access the housing accelerator fund, $60 plus million to the federal government, and then I think as Council approval mentioned, $21 million or I forgot $24 million funding to will help us increase our sewer capacity downtown, which will provide enough capacity for 17,000 units downtown.

So we’re doing our work, you’re doing your work, we need shovels on the ground. And what I see from this building report, and again, correct me if I’m misreading this, with interest rates and economic conditions improving and make the numbers work, we are starting to see the shovels on the ground that’s coming from the previous zoning applications have been approved and processed that we need to hit our targets of 47,000. But we’re doing it with work with building permits, processed quicker, faster, more efficiently from excellent work by your team, Mr. Mathers.

And now we need to develop community to come on board and start building. And I understand that that’s based just on the numbers. They’ve got the green light to go. And now we need to see that come to fruition.

I think what we’re seeing this year, especially, is that’s happening. So while it’s ambitious targets that we have to meet, we are on our way to working hard to get there. Any other comments or questions from committee or visiting Councillors? Seeing none, we have a motion moved in second.

I’ll call the vote. Losing the vote, the motion carries. 5 to 0. Okay, moving on to 3.1.

We have a delegation, the chair of the community advisory committee on planning that we’ll look to him to address the committee. There we are up there. Tell you, you know, five minutes, please go ahead for having me speak today and putting me near the top of the agenda. So my name is John Mark Metray.

I am the chair of the community advisory committee on planning. I came to speak to you about one item in our most recent report. And that is the recommendation that the city consider a part four heritage designation for the building we’re all standing and sitting in City Hall. I wanted to speak to this because I know getting a single line in a report on an agenda is not always the most useful in that it can be helpful to know the context of what discussion actually occurred at the committee.

And so on this item, the committee received some submissions from a member of the community, Ms. Miller, who’s also in the gallery here, about City Hall and the heritage value that’s there. And I can say that the committee quite unanimously appreciated the content and agreed that there is real heritage value to this building. And that includes some interior features that were identified and that are not currently protected by the Woodfield Heritage Conservation District, which this building is located in.

And so I would encourage you to hear from Ms. Miller. I see she’s got a delegation status request, or at least review her written submission to this committee. The other important context is that I think as a committee we’re increasingly trying to be respectful of property owners, which the city is of this building, and we’re cognizant of the obligations that a heritage designation puts on a property owner.

And so we were quite deliberate in choosing the word “consider” designation. I just want to be clear about that. We’re not insisting that a decision to designate be made today. We know there’s a bigger picture here about the redevelopment of this property.

And so we’re definitely not asking you to designate on the spot. I think what we more envision happening is that staff might look at the cultural heritage value of this building in the merits of designation so that at least the city is well-informed about that angle when they go to make decisions about redeveloping this property. The one other thing I wanted to note is that I think there’s a broader context here that’s also important. As this committee probably knows there are thousands of heritage listed properties set to be delisted on January 2027 as a result of provincial legislation.

And what the committee has increasingly realized is that there is a lot of protection that is not going to be affected by that, mainly in our heritage conservation districts, which mostly cover older heritage, Queen Anne, Victorian, that sort of thing. But the modernist architecture is something that’s not quite as protected. And as Ms. Miller has identified there are other buildings aside from City Hall that were designed by Philip Carter Johnson that are set to lose protection.

And so it’s just there’s a context here of a lot of protection being lost. And the committee, we’re not being defeatist about that. We’re not trying to complain about it. If anything we see it as an opportunity to try to focus more on underrepresented heritage in London, of which Philip Carter Johnson modernist architecture seems to be underrepresented, under protected, and may start to, you know, start to see that being lost because it’s not quite as covered by the HCDs.

And so whether it’s City Hall, whether it’s, you know, other pieces of modernist architecture that get identified now or in the future, I would say that the committee is just respectfully asking that Pec and Council keep an open mind about this. We’re losing a lot of heritage. I think, you know, you’re going to see us try to ask to claw a little bit of that back, especially in areas where it’s under represented. And so I think that’s that’s mainly what we’re respectfully asking for.

Thank you. Thank you. As was mentioned, we do have a request for delegation from Ms. Miller.

So I’ll look for motion to approve that. Councillor Frank and seconded by Councillor ramen. I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Ms. Miller, you’re up. Please go ahead and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon. Thank you chair and committee for this opportunity. In the context of Jean Marx comments, I support and reiterate many most of, well, everything he said, just sort of as a quick sort of opening context. I’m not, I wasn’t born in London, but I’ve become a Londoner.

I moved here 25 years ago to come to grad school. I’d never been to London. Didn’t really know much about the city. And in the first summer I was here, one of the options that I saw that came across my radar was a tour of downtown London, including City Hall, which is where the tour started.

And that became sort of a touchstone for me. And it became, it began my love affair with this city. And over 25 years, I have fallen increasingly in love with this city, with its challenges and its pros and cons, its beautiful buildings, is really what started it for me. And so you never know what people are gonna fall in love with.

We’re always encouraging, especially students, to stay in London and to make it their home. So that’s something to think about as people are moving to London, more and more and more, our city is growing. I think students and young people and middle-aged people, like me, may be part of your target. You will forgive my shaking hand.

I have a tremor that I don’t share widely, but it is something that I deal with. So, okay, I should have asked for a lectern. Sorry, this isn’t gonna work. Sorry.

If you can hold it for me, thank you. It’s not a nervous thing, I just have a tremor. Thank you, much appreciated. As you all have seen, I sent an email, which I hope you have read with many of my comments about this building.

Your predecessors, the people who have served our community and the decisions that have transpired under this roof, have marked many important changes that shape our growing city. It is the heart of our city and continually evolves to serve the needs of you, our elected representatives, and our fellow Londoners, appointed as staff to manage the myriad of day-to-day services provided to Londoners. This building was purposely designed and can continue to be a flexible space and a contemporary environment for people to work in and be inspired to help create a vibrant, sustainable community for all. The design and the construction of our city are always funded by citizens of London.

It was built for Londoners by people of London, and it’s the seat of our civic government. We are the stewards of that legacy, the caretakers of our predecessors work and vision. Much of what we protect and maintain heritage buildings such as the houses of Parliament and Ottawa, Queen’s Park in Toronto, among many others, so must we protect and maintain our city hall building. Whether it remains our seat of civic government or not, it takes on a new role to serve a new purpose.

Cities including Hamilton, Ottawa, and Toronto have all honored their modernist city hall buildings with heritage designation, winning awards for upgrades and restorations. These important recognitions mark the historical, architectural, and cultural heritage criteria outlined in the Ontario Heritage Act. London City Hall, like its contemporary landmarks in other cities across Canada, is also worthy of conservation and celebration. Our city hall was designed by prominent London architect Philip Carter Johnson.

He was renowned for building houses of worship. He’s the only London area, indeed, southwest Ontario architect, to receive the Canada’s highest honour in architecture, a Massey Medal, whoops, my page. He won a Massey Medal in architecture, and the Massey medals are now known as the Governor General’s medals in architecture. He was honoured in 1952 for his modernist design of Knox Presbyterian Church in Goddard, which still creatively serves its community today, some 73 years later.

By honouring this important building, his final project, we also honour him as an accomplished Londoner. The striking design of this building is a rare southwestern Ontario example of expressionist architecture, created in two interconnecting sections. The black oval base of Parabonka granite from Quebec, representing the people and you are elected representatives, and the white marble tower from Tweed Ontario representing and housing the administration who served council and the people of London. These substantial high-quality materials were carved from our ancient landscape and shouldn’t be cast aside and destroyed for landfill.

The greenest building, after all, is the one that’s already standing. It is maintained and upgraded, and it can evolve over time to serve new functions and new occupants. As I noted in my email to you, there are a number of key architectural elements that divine the heritage character of City Hall, including the white maple sound baffles on the side walls that you can see in this chamber. The next time you walk the Grand Tarazzo marble staircase from the lobby, stop about halfway up or down, and you’ll notice something on one of the steps on the east side, an odd anomaly in the marble.

When they were pouring the staircase, a workman accidentally dropped his pipe into the Tarazzo mix while it was being poured. Unable to retrieve it, the pipe is left in place and sand it over. 30 seconds. This is one story of hundreds of our City Hall.

It may feel odd and even confounding to designate heritage buildings constructed in our lifetimes or some of our lifetimes. Does that mean we’re heritage? I think it’s important to remember there’s no minimum age for heritage. It’s the historical architectural and cultural significance that is recognized.

You? This building holds history. It tells the story of our growing city and the people who live here and who serve it. And you can help reignite London or civic pride by embracing our history, our landmarks of all eras, and our place is a mature, confident, and sustainable city.

I urge you to consider designating our City Hall building under Part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Time marches on, and so does the meaning of our heritage. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.

Miller. Okay, so we have a report for another committee right now. I’ll look for a motion. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, at this time I’m going to move to receive a take no action, and then I’ll, if I’ve got a seconder for that, I will share the reasoning why. Okay, look for a seconder, Councillor Hill, you’re a seconder, so I’ll move back to you, Councillor Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. So, through you, the first reason to take no action for me at this point is that we have the cart far ahead of the horse on this one.

We have a long way to go with regard to what we are doing with a master accommodation plan and a new seat of government for this city, whether that involves remaining in this building with a new building beside it, whether this building is removed, whether it’s converted into office to residential at some point in the future, we are a long way from getting to a decision point on what that means, and so I’m not comfortable asking and tasking staff with work right now on a building that’s already in a heritage conservation district. I don’t think that we would, anyone would argue that there is some cultural heritage to this building, but asking them to start looking at a part four designation, which is above and beyond what the conservation district requires at this point, I think, is getting way ahead of the situation. I would also say with respect to, and we heard references to interior features, heritage features, should a decision be made in the future that ties this building into some sort of office to residential conversion, for example, how that interior preservation could work with an office to residential conversion would be extremely challenging, particularly if we are looking to include affordable housing options in that in the future, so I do not want to start tasking staff with an heritage analysis today that would bind a future council, because this council has two years left, I’m not sure that we will have a decision on a new city hall within the term of this council, and also frankly binding future taxpayers in terms of the limits that we might be placing on this building if we do this today, so I think that there will be an analysis done when we make a decision on this building, because it’s within the heritage conservation district already, so our staff will bring forward a report at the appropriate time, but I don’t see the need to rush this into the work plan today. Look for other comments or questions, Councilor Pray.

Thank you, yes, a couple questions and some comments through the chair. I’m just wondering if we can learn a little bit more about what happens if this building doesn’t have this process undertaken and like investigating the heritage aspect before the provincial guidelines lapse? Golo staff, thank you for that question. Through the chairs the property is in the Westwoodfield Heritage Conservation District, at the outside of the building would remain protected.

Heritage alteration permit approval may be required for alterations affecting the outside of the building or property, however as it’s been noted there are no interior heritage attributes identified. It’s not possible to include interior heritage attributes under a designation as part of a heritage conservation district, therefore any interior alterations would not require heritage alteration permit approval. Councilor. Thank you, yes, and I can follow up to that through the chair, just wondering if you know doing a report to consider designating the city hall would be putting the cart before the horse or would that force our hand in any way just to have staff look at writing a report for this?

Golo staff, thanks again for that question and through the chair an evaluation of city hall using the criteria of Ontario Regulation 906 could be completed if council were to direct it and it’s important to note that council would remain the decision-making authority in terms of issuing its notice of intent to designate should it wish to pursue a heritage designation under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act Council would remain the decision-making authority. Councilor. Thank you for those answers and also thanks to the committee and Sandra and thank you Mr. Wallace for holding that paper.

I appreciate everyone’s efforts to move this along. I think that we make decisions all the time at council that binds the hands of future councils that to me is not one of my considerations currently. I’ll say I wish I had lived through the 70s it seemed like a really cool time and working this building perhaps is as close as I’ll get to that so I’ve enjoyed that experience so far and I imagine it’s just as groovy as this room is and while I don’t love absolutely everything about this building I think a lot of the interior attributes do offer an exceptional experience and provide a lot of heritage aspects to the community and I can see how they all contribute to the larger part of this building being considered heritage and having a lot of history within it so at this point I won’t be supporting the deputy mayor’s motion to receive I think we could test staff with looking at considering designating I think given how long it takes some times and no offense to staff but for us to get all of the information at the same time and consider all of the information together especially if we are looking to the future of this campus and this building I don’t see any problem with having staff look into that and give us a report a future date so I won’t be supporting the deputy mayor’s motion at this time look for other comments or questions Councillor Stevenson thank you I don’t know if it’s possible to ask the CACP you know if there was any evaluation criteria or anything that they used to make this recommendation to the council is there something about this building like is there any information that you can share that says it was a strong recommendation to for us to consider this Councillor are you asking who are you asking that question I was asking John Mark if we could have a question to the delegation I’ll go to the chair if you could respond to the councilor’s question so the CACP did not itself prepare a report identifying specific features I can say we relied on the contents the submissions for Ms. Miller the features she identified in in her submissions and that was that was the impetus for the recommendation from the CACP as Ms.

Miller made a presentation to us identified things like you know the wood paneling in this room the marble in the main entranceway and of course the exterior architecture the involvement of Philip Carter Johnson so I can’t offer you anything new that we considered that you haven’t heard from Ms. Miller Councillor thank you very much you know as this comes to council I’m not going to be supporting this if we have advisory committees and they make recommendations to us to consider I’m not sure why we would say no and and I’m not sure I understand to me this is the perfect time to do this because we should know if this is of significant heritage value and it is something that this city and council believes in we have a heritage department we ask this of our residents who own heritage property we ask them to adhere to and to protect the things that are valuable to our city then I think we should lead by example and do the same thing and so to dismiss this to not consider it and not to ask staff to give us their expert opinion on on that I just I just don’t understand how we can do that and then sit in these chambers and ask the owners of heritage property in this city to behave in a different manner and to take it with serious consideration the Hamilton City Hall was designated with a heritage designation in 2005 so it’s not unheard of for people to do city halls and when we talk about affordable housing again it’s not something but maybe this is a bigger discussion for council to decide what value we have in heritage because it does make owning heritage property more expensive more expensive to rent and that if we’re looking at you know if we’re looking at that the costs of maintaining heritage property and making our decisions based on wanting to afford to offer affordable housing then I think it opens up a bigger discussion so to me it’s not a receive and take no action it’s a receive and take some action to decide as a council how important heritage is to us what what is what is the policy or procedure when a recommendation comes from an advisory committee and and at what point we do look at it is it at the earliest point that it’s brought before us or is it deferred so I personally will not be supporting this and I would I would support some sort of action being taken to discuss heritage and and the resources that we allocate to it as a city and the asks that we make of our residents maybe it’s a wider discussion about heritage that we get to have rather than one specifically about this city Hall I’ll go to deputy where Louis and then I’ll go to council. Yes thank you chair so I need to take the opportunity to respond to a couple of those comments because respectfully this committee has refused a number of heritage designations not only in this term of council but in last term of council well there are absolutely challenges to property owners who have heritage designated properties those properties that were designated by prior councils are in place and and that has some challenges for them absolutely but that doesn’t require us to just continue to designating every ask that comes forward and we have not done every ask that comes forward we’ve as a committee been selective about how many criteria have been met on this and things like that but it’s also been a result largely of when applications are brought forward it it is generally the process that a heritage impact assessment is brought forward in conjunction together with a potential development proposal not typically on its own and so that’s why I’m suggesting we take no action at this point because we don’t have yet a proposal for this campus and what that may look like in the future and so that’s why I’m moving that direction I think it’s also really incumbent to address as well the idea that a take no action is just a no it’s not it means we’re not doing anything this year we’re not asking staff to come back with a report standalone but that they can come back later and would have to come back in part because of the heritage conservation district that this building is in regardless of what proposal comes forward for this piece of property in the future whenever that happens and so I just needed to take that opportunity to respond and acknowledge and I think that the council is right it does speak to the need for a larger conversation and that’s why we’ve directed staff to come forward with a list of alternate material opportunities for heritage properties to decrease the costs as well as other things I think there’s also a question here that’s been raised and and well I know that the planning committee the advisory committee is working within a list of heritage culture lists we regularly get advisory committee recommendations and requests that come forward that have never been asked for by council and I think that that’s a bigger discussion we need to have too are the advisories there to advise council on councils direction and plans or are they there to operate and create their own work plans and do whatever they feel is within their mandate I would suggest the former advisory committees are there to advise council on the items the council is dealing with as elected officials not to create work plans of their own I know council Pribble at a recent community protective services meeting had issue with an advisory committee bringing forward a report on mitigating goose activity which was certainly not something that had been asked for by this council so I think that we have to be cautious when we say what our advisory committees therefore I think that actually is a discussion that we need to have on a larger basis and is one that is actually on the work plan at governance working groups so that discussion is happening and I think needs to happen those are Pribble thank you and I would like to make some comments by the way just the last one and I just want to let you know that I do attend four or five different regularly advisory committees and actually right when I started I said I’m here to learn more and to see always the both sides of the coin but I always tell them that it will be probably that I will certainly not always agree that’s what’s coming forward do I value the opinion absolutely I do but again it doesn’t mean that we or I will always agree with I will not when it comes to this come to the council this topic I will not be supporting it either and I don’t I would prefer not staff to have the additional work to work on it I’m gonna tell you currently this classified down the district five and additional would be the four as was already mentioned I like both our council and future council not to have tight hands and to to be charged of our destiny and be flexible I’m gonna tell you one perfect example and again some people I’m quite sure will not agree with me but I just want to let you know I by the way do as it with my European background I love heritage history no doubt I’m getting a perfect example the two buildings in Soho which was all the Victoria Hospital we proclaimed it as heritage and we are redoing it as a affordable housing operated by indwell if we if we didn’t do it we could have had already roof over the heads of people at half probably at half cost so does the thing that I will never agree with this because again for me priority currently when we look at our situation our society homelessness is number one issue I don’t want to tight hands and as I said I don’t think it worked for us in Soho for us because if we did we had more roofs over the head of London is thank you council Roman thank you and through you I just first want to take a moment to thank the committee for reviewing this the advisory committee sorry for taking the time to review this and have this discussion and just so I get some clarity with respect to what we’re speaking of right now the take no action is on this the recommendation coming out of the advisory committee I’ll go to staff died while I counsel I don’t believe they’re saying take no action you heard what we heard sorry I’m just seeking clarification on the motion right now it says that the report of the planning of CACP be received and take no action as it relates to all matters on the agenda or is it with respect to the request to be considered for a heritage designation so I’ll go to the the mover for for clarification yeah so the intent is to take no action on the request for consideration yeah thank you I’m looking for I guess interpretation on whether or not it would be seen as contrary to have a motion that staff be requested to consider it apart for designation for City Hall my reading of this is that the committee was actually asking for the designation what we could do differently is we could ask for the consideration outside of the request for designation is that correct well I believe if you want to do that you would vote against this motion then and put on your own motion so that’s not contrary though that I could do that I’ll ask the clerk through the chair that is not contrary the community advisory committee on planning is requesting council to consider designating the City Hall building if council wishes to consider designating that is up to council Council thank you my understanding and if we may be go to staff on this just for clarification my understanding is a request could go forward for an evaluation of the property the way I read what’s in front of us from CACP is that they’re saying designate what I’m asking for is a request to evaluate are those two separate thing and distinct things we’ll go to staff not clarification through the chair there’s a few technical items that we need to be addressed in order if council were to wish to issue its notice of intent to designate namely being a statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the property in question as well as the identification of heritage attributes those are required under the legislation in order to issue of intent to designate so I believe operationally there would still need to be some sort of work undertaken should this committee choose to support the consider recommendation arising from the CACP in order to be able to take those next steps towards designation but is the next I guess through you is the next step an evaluation of okay so in my reading of what CACP had here it was actually skipping that evaluation what I would like to do is I would like to see us evaluate then make an informed decision based on the evaluation that’s in front of us so as long as it’s not seen as contrary and I can bring that motion following whether whatever direction this motion takes then I’ll look to do so okay I’ll go to the clerk again if you’ve listened to the councilor should this motion fail and she puts her intended motion on the floor is that contrary can she able to do that through the chair if this motion fails the council can certainly bring forward a recommend a motion to evaluate whether or not City Hall should be designated Council thank you that was very helpful I appreciate you taking the time to help me to better understand that and the process I will say I appreciated the history lesson I appreciate the opportunity to hear about the heritage of the building I’ve spent I’d say a fair amount of time in this building not just as that as a counselor but when I worked in the mayor’s office as well it is a very unique building up in and of itself and sometimes you don’t realize the significance a building has or the feeling that the building has to it and why you fall in love with it I won’t say have a love affair with this building because I do not but the architect himself actually built another building that I’m very familiar with a church that I grew up in and it holds a lot of significance for me so I was actually pleased to see that that that he had also played a part here as well for me this is an evaluation this is an opportunity for the community to better understand the attributes in the building as well although the exterior of the building is already classified and protected under the current designation I do think that the interior features need to be considered and even if during that consideration council moves in either direction I think it is it is a good opportunity for us to look at some of those assets and attributes and see whether or not there’s opportunity to protect and preserve so I’ll look to bring that forward if that’s an opportunity thank you I’ll look for other comments or questions Councilor Stevenson thanks I just had a follow up through you to staff is it fair to ask for staff’s opinion on when would be a good timing to do an evaluation of the heritage for this building knowing that we have an RFP going out for work on it when when would be good timing to address that issue I’ll go to staff thank you through the chair typically we would normally review these heritage attributes as part of any planning application and in terms of the City Hall review it be no different than that and we would set out requirements of what we would need and this would be one of those given it’s in the Woodfield Heritage Conservation District Councilor thank you so would it be part of the RFP letting people know that that is on the table go to staff through the through the chair we’d have to confirm that with our partners in finance that are leading that procurement but we can confirm that for you for Council but as far as like I this is a unique situation where we’re both the approvers as the City but also the applicants so we would be very mindful of how we interact with our other group being very consistent what we do with the rest of the development community when they bring forward an application so we’d be looking for the same kind of information that we would receive as part of any of the application as Heather had suggested council thank you just one last one then and that’s to heritage staff saying having read this report and the recommendation coming out of the committee what is your opinion in terms of the importance of taking the next steps or evaluating so that council can consider it if that’s a fair question go to staff through the chair as we would for any application we would do the evaluation at that time whether it’s now as if council decides to to go down that path but typically we would want to do it package it up as part of any application or RFP or whatever that next step in the process Councilor yeah thank you sorry I probably wasn’t clear my question through you is to heritage staff to ask them for their opinion on what has been coming coming out of the CACP so that what what Ms Miller has shared and and what the other delegation has shared can they just give us their sort of expert opinion to guide this committee and council in terms of councilor I’m not too sure if I want to go for opinions to be honest with you okay you know if you have some factual questions that you need in response well it would just be you know is there an idea of whether there is enough heritage attributes to warrant it like I mean that’s for the recommendation coming out of committee I guess I’m assuming is that if they feel that there’s likely to be enough heritage attributes to meet the criteria I understand that it’s a decision of council but to know you know we get to be guided by the experts on our city staff I think they give us opinions all the time but yeah I you know there’s enough I don’t want opinions here I want factual responses to factual questions but I think there was enough in that question and maybe give some guidance the councilor I thank you through the chair a comprehensive evaluation of City Hall would take that opportunity to identify any features or attributes of the building that do have significant cultural heritage value or interest and at this time an individual evaluation of the City Hall property and building has not yet been completed its identification as part of the West Woodfield heritage conservation districts beats to the outside of the building but not the interior I hope that was sufficient to thank you Councilor good any other questions or comments I’m gonna ask the deputy mayor to take the chair so I can weigh in on this conversation and I’ll take the chair go ahead Councilor Layman thank you and as been said I want to thank the chair and Ms. Miller for bringing this forward I think this is a good time to start this conversation that has been recognized by fellow committee members and visiting our Councilors I’m gonna be reaching you out to you because I want to are of the modernist buildings of a few examples I’d be interested in getting educated on that so I’ll be seeing you hopefully in the next little while to do that but I guess where I land on this is I agree with the deputy mayor this is too early in the process and I’m concerned about two things one is as been mentioned the phrase about putting handcuffs on on proposals coming forward I think this can be a very exciting opportunity in looking at the home and the seat of government for London for the next you know many decades and to at this point to get too constrained of what creativity could be brought forward I’m a little cautious on at that at this point I’m also concerned when we get into design heritage status especially interior the the extra cost of taxpayers on preserving features was a nice to have but in this term of this time of you know fiscal concern for our taxpayers is this is this the right time to look at that before we have all the information and in front of us as to our options so I agree with the deputy mayor the take no action for a year is appropriate here and to I’m not saying to take it off the table for sure I do believe this is iconic building from the outside I think in inside though there’s a lot of concerns there especially from fiscal standpoint so I will be supporting the motion going forward thank you thank you chair layman and I have no one else on the speaker’s list I’ll return the chair to you okay council Frank thank you yes I just wanted to add that I’d like to go on this council air heritage tour for modernist buildings thank you any other comments or questions we have a motion movement seconded I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries three to two okay moving on to 3.2 this is regarding 32 Chesterfield Avenue I’ll look for motion to open the PPM council ramen moves it seconded by sorry council ramen thank you am I allowed to introduce a separate motion I did provide language I don’t know I’ll ask the clerk to the chair the recommendation that was asked was to receive the community advisory committee I’m planning report and take no further action on the request to designate City Hall so the motion requesting staff to undertake an evaluation at the time a planning application is received would be acceptable it would be accepted yeah so you can barely you go out the green light to bring forward a motion thank you I’ll look to do that so I’ve provided language to the clerk basically at this point I’m I’m looking for staff to be requested to undertake that part for designation evaluation at the time of planning application is received deputy mayor thank you chair through you haven’t we already heard from staff that a heritage impact assessment would be part and parcel of the planning application making this motion redundant perhaps if staff if our planning department can I’ll go I’ll go to staff I think what we’re trying to do is based on the motion I think there is concern that this might be contrary to the motion that was passed sorry chair could you please repeat that question counselor please put your question to staff we’re trying to I think yeah so through you the question is sorry is a deputy mayor that’s a floor yeah is a heritage impact assessment not part of the process that would undertake when an application is received for this property already go stuff I thank you for clarifying deputy mayor I’m through the chair a heritage impact assessment would be required as part of a complete planning application however that heritage impact assessment would consider the existing heritage attributes that are identified for the the property those being the exterior heritage attributes as identified as part of the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District okay I’m gonna go and clerk again based on the question and the answer what is your advisor with apologies the motion is contrary if if the motion that was approved had failed then it would be okay for the con for the alternate motion however the motion passed so it is contrary I apologize for the confusion councilor you know you’re welcome to between now and council craft something that would be acceptable or wait to see how this the committee recommendation does the council yep please go ahead thank you okay it’s unfortunate the way this is played out I will say I understand the difference between the Woodfield designation and a part four designation and why an application would be where we’d have to make the request at the time of a planning application to do something above over and above the current designation that’s what my intent is and so I do not see it as being outside of the the scope of the conversation we just had nor do I see it being contrary to what we just discussed to me it’s it’s an added discussion that came from that topic so I don’t see it as contrary but if you feel that it needs to be dealt with a council instead I’ll wait to do it there okay thank you now moving on to 3.2 32 Chesterfield Avenue I’ll look for motion to open the PPM deputy mayor moves it I’ll seconder please Councilor Hill your seconded call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero any questions for staff of technical nature seen on all look to the applicant if you like to address committee leave us see online there we are mr.

Allen you have five minutes please go ahead thank you mr. Chair and members of the committee my name is Scott Allen and with MHBC planning in my apologies I had difficulty accessing there we are acting on behalf of the applicant and the registered property owner at this time we’d like to advise the committee that we support the planning staff recommendation to permit additional single-detached dwellings on the subject lands by way of future severances we also agree with planning staff that the proposal promotes residential intensification that’s compatible with the neighborhood character additionally we like to thank city staff for their attention to this application because it concluded in particular several complex elements that required considerable amount of back and forth with city staff as so outlined somewhat in the planning staff report finally mr. Chair we’d like to advise the committee that with council approval this rezoning proposal the applicant intends to proceed with the severance application to establish six small single-detached lots on the subject property thank you and we’ll gladly answer any questions many members may have thank you I look for members of the public that would like to address the committee seeing none in chambers us clerk if there’s anyone online no one online I don’t see anyone up top so I’ll look for motion to close PPM Council Frank seconded by councilor ramen I’ll call about motion carries five to zero thank you I’ll put that aside I’m on the floor looking for a motion councilor ramen and we have a seconder from deputy mayor Lewis we have motion moving second so any comments or questions seeing none I’ll call about those in the vote the motion carries five to zero okay moving on to 3.3 this is regarding 1350 to 1352 Webster Street because you might look for a motion to open the PPM councilor ramen seconded by councilor frank I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you any questions of the technical nature for staff seeing none I’ll look for the developer or the applicant rather to address the committee please sir give us your name and you have five minutes thank you my name is Kayne McAlister what’s the link a pre-ammo here on behalf of the applicant both development corporation we’re here for the zoning application at 1352 Webster Street to permit the rezoning to allow for 56 townhouse units mixed between three story townhouses and two story townhouses we’d like to thank staff for their positive recommendation and are in agreement with it thank you thank you I look for members of the public like to address the committee on this item seeing none the gallery I’ll ask a clerk that went online I look for a motion to close the PPM councilor frank seconded by councilor ramen I’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you I look for a motion from committee deputy mayor Lewis what the staff recommendation on the floor look for a seconder councilor ramen we have motion moved in second look for conversation I’ll answer questions or I call the vote councilor cutty thank you chair and through you and thank you for allowing me to speak today although I’m not a member of this committee so through each year I’d like to to address mr. McAllister if I may and I’m sorry that mr.

Campbell’s not here because my discussions have been with mr. Campbell and not with mr. McAllister but I’m gonna give you a little brief overview of this first of all this is in my ward and I highly support this project it’s a wonderful project and while the developer can go higher and do more things I respect what he’s doing however there is an issue that several of my constituents had been in dealings with the owner of the property to sell their properties to to the developer so that they could access Webster Street as opposed to going through Croatia and Sandra streets because I always felt and I mentioned this to mr. Campbell in the first virtual meeting we have that that much traffic flowing onto two small streets and then on to Benson was just a lot of traffic but I was told at the time that they couldn’t find the property on Webster Street that it wasn’t available after speaking with the two constituents chair I thought up that’s not true so there’s some there has been some there’s a certain amount of disingenuity in disingenuity here that that’s that’s in play I I don’t know where this is just there’s just too many moving parts to this right now for I think for us to approve it I think and I think staff’s done a great job with the recommendation but I think we have a couple of constituents I have a couple of constituents that are quite quite upset that they were in dealings with with with the planner and with the owner as of lately as six weeks ago in selling their property and then you’ve backed out without telling them so I have some real issues here chair that you know despite the fact that I want to see new development in this area and this is a perfect area for it I’m feeling it’s putting some of my constituents at risk it’s been disrespectful to them I think there’s other ways to access to Webster Street as opposed to just going through Croatia and Sandra I think there’s just there’s just too many unknowns at this point to move this one forward and well I can’t make a motion chair because I’m not a member of the committee I would encourage one of the committee members to move that we we maybe do a referral on this to a later date so that we can we can do further discussions and in conclusion chair because I don’t want to go on but in conclusion I think that we need to show some respect to constituents of our wards when we’re doing development and in this case there hasn’t been any respect whatsoever to my constituents and as much as I’d like to see this development go forward I just think it needs to be we needed to back it off a little bit and we need to come back and meet with the constituents to see whether or not we can find another solution to access Webster Street as opposed to going through to residential streets so I don’t know if there’s a if I have a member of the committee that is willing to to move that I haven’t had that discussion but that would be my recommendation thank you okay now I’ll go to committee members Council Frank thank you yes I that preceded some questions so I was hoping through the chair to staff so my understanding is it’s the two cul-de-sac are being opened up to be able to have access to this parcel I’m just wondering the rationale if we have maybe some of your transportation as to why we’d want cars to go on quieter streets then to go on higher order and busier streets if that could be kind of explained to committee perhaps I’ll go to staff thank you through the chair these roads were always intended to be extended based on the registered subdivision agreement the previous one so from our perspective we had no issues with what was proposed to us that’s what thank you and my understanding is that cul-de-sac are like the most expensive for a miss pallious service and that they get their snow removal done last so I’m just wondering if perhaps we could have staff maybe comment on you know our cul-de-sac is something that we want generally in the city or or why I guess do we end up with so many of them in new subdivisions just curious go to staff thank you through the chair these cul-de-sac are being recommended to be removed to actually as part of the development so we actually want these removed standard cross-section with sidewalks and curb and gutter and we’re going to be obtaining a municipal easement as part of that development for our municipal vehicles to use the turnarounds within the site elsewhere thank you yes it did exactly answer my question but that’s okay I appreciate it I’ll be supporting the staff recommendation on this I think at this point sounds like there was already an agreement to access this land through the cul-de-sac access point as well as I think that you know the cars or people have to get out somewhere and it seems to make more sense to do it on a quieter streets than right onto Webster which is busier and we want traffic actually the volume throughout flowing on those kinds of streets so I appreciate the counselor the word counselors concerns I think it’s important that those are shared at these meetings so people feel heard but at this point I think that it makes sense to support the staff recommendation look for other comments for questions from committee to have to wear those yeah so I’ll pick up where Councillor Frank left off because I do appreciate when the word counselors share their concerns acknowledge that for some residents this is going to be a change to their neighborhood but that’s true of any of the applications that we bring forward I will say like Councillor Frank I think cul-de-sac are actually not a great planning tool in the first place the old grid patterns are certainly much more efficient for maintenance and service for snowplows and things like that so I understand where the resident concern is at the same time I think we have to look at the scope and intensity as well and the fact that there would be a split with Croatia and Stonehenge and so again there’s not everything is going to flow out of one entry exit point onto a residential road the the more important thing that I wanted to share though is you know with the 90-day statutory decision times we have deferring this would actually just mean that it’s appealable right away for a non-decision and so well it sounds like there were some discussions about whether or not an additional property or properties could be acquired and those have not advanced by deferring it we would actually be I suspect not having continuing discussions but in fact seeing an appeal for a non-decision and so you know with these statutory deadlines imposed I’ve been very consistent I don’t support referrals because I don’t want our legal and our planning staff spending time at the OLT so I can’t support a referral I’ve got to support the staff recommendation on this other comments or questions Councilor Robin yeah thanks to my colleagues for their comments I agree at this point I couldn’t support a referral I do appreciate that there are some lingering neighborhood concerns and hope that the applicant will continue to communicate with them as to the final outcome of those conversations other comments from the committee are visiting counselors can you permit me from the chair be brief I am hesitant to do a referrals well however when Councillor Cudi brings concerns such as those I take them very seriously and I think I’ll meet with you Councillor before now and Council so I can learn a bit more about you know where you’re coming from but it will have to be pretty pretty big for me to you know look a referral for you know reasons mentioned by my other committee members so I’ll support I’ll support the motion there’s no other comments or questions we have a motion moved in second I’ll call them up I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay moving on 3.4 this is regarding 850 library Ave I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting Councillor Frank seconded by Councillor Robin call the vote deputy mayor Lewis need your vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay I’m go at this time to staff for staff presentation on this exciting exciting project through you the chair I’m just pull up the presentation quickly through you the chair my name is Michael Clark a planner with C in the subdivision planning we are here talking about 850 hybrid Avenue north which is located at Oxford and hybrid just to the southwest of Fanshawe College the site is approximately 58 hectares and size are over 140 acres and it’s quite distinctive with herishes designated landscapes and buildings across the site the site is also along the east bus rapid transit corridor with two stops planned and even under construction adjacent to the site there’s the site has a quite a long history it’s back was first used for medical uses back in the 1870s around then and then since then has been used continuously since then in 2011 the London psychiatric hospital secondary plan was adopted by council to help transition from those medical uses to a mixed-use community then in 2014 the St.

Joseph’s health care center as it was eventually known moved to Parkwood Hospital and then in 2019 the property was sold to Odoke during that time in 2016 Council adopted the London plan as you know which designated these lands as a transit village and contemplated much greater heights and densities up to 22 stories in this case and so Old Oak brought forward amendments to to the secondary plan to bring it in line with that transit village place type that amendment was passed by council in 2022 to permit up the 22 stories and a significant increase in residential density on the site since 2022 we’ve been in constant discussions and revisions with Old Oak and their consultants to update the plans and that is resulted in the applications before you currently which align with the the recently adopted London plan Heights review that council adopted at the last council meeting and so these these new amendments as well as the associated zoning by-law amendment will permit just shy of almost eight and a half thousand residential units on the site once it’s fully built out just to give a kind of broad conceptual overview of the plan the red blocks you see along hybrid and Oxford that’s intended to be the highest and densest transit oriented uses near to those bus rapid transit stations the blue blocks kind of on the west central portion that’s intended to be a mixed-use village core adjacent to those at the central heritage campus shown in Brown on the plan which includes like the original infirmary building the chapel and recreation hall the green blocks with the site that represents the planned open space network including the heritage designated tree dalei and other landscapes throughout the site as well as a future missville park on the east side of the site the balance of the site is intended to be medium to high density residential shown in yellow on the plan including a possible school site in the northeast portion of the development this is just comparing the what was amended in 2022 to what’s currently being proposed and so site heights up to 32 stories are being contemplated and these will generally transition down as you travel east and south across the site and towards the central heritage campus in terms of the zoning it’s a very large site with a large number of different zone variations but in general the the transit oriented corridors intended to be designated sorry zoned R9-7 zone which is based on similar permitted uses and regulations to what council adopted in the recently approved transit station area zones and those would permit a wide range of active commercial and other uses on the ground floor of residential developments the interior kind of residential blocks within the plan would permit a range of townhouse and load image vice apartment developments and the heritage buildings are intended to be zoned to permit kind of community facilities and business district commercial uses to allow for their adaptive reuse the site is also as I said along the bus rapid transit corridor construction is currently underway on the hybrid Avenue portion adjacent to the site and staff have been working very closely with the property owner to in advance of this subdivision get the road required our road dedication to allow the construction to be accelerated into a line and coordinate the necessary infrastructure upgrades with the bus rapid transit improvement those infrastructure upgrades for this development I’m saying that’s anticipated to be completed in early 2025 and then Oxford Street is planned to begin next year as well and so there is lots of activity already adjacent to the site I’m here with a small team of of the larger team that was working on this application and we’re here to answer any questions that you may have or the public has thank you okay thank you for that presentation I’ll look for the applicant now if you’d like to address the link to address the committee please sir give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon chair and members of the committee for those of you who have not met yet my name is Michael Beerbaum a vice president of construction development at Old Oak I really appreciate the brief time available to speak today about our project I initially like to thank all staff counselors and consultants that were involved and their ongoing support and collaboration over the last five years and those prior to that in the past few months we’ve seen significant efforts from the city staff as they’ve worked to meet tight deadlines and ensuring this project can be brought forward to you today this infill redevelopment spanning approximately 150 acres is expected to be a major shift in the city of London with the potential to welcome 15,000 Londoners this exciting project it’s not only about constructing buildings it’s about building a community and a community that people will call home. Old Oak looks forward to the next 20 years plus of redevelopment and economic growth as we have done before and will continue to do we’re committed to ensuring this project is a beacon of progress and of economic opportunity for London thank you for your time your trust and continued support I’ll turn it over to Mike Davis to speak further thank you thank you you have about three and a half minutes thank you mr. Chair and committee I’ll be super brief with my comments and appreciate that the staff presentation that was a bit of a throwback and makes my job but very easy I think you heard from mr. Vierbalm obviously but the excitement level at Old Oak to be reaching this milestone today this plan is ten years in the making starting with the decommissioning of the psychiatric hospital the secondary plan process that was led by the city to reimagine these lands as an urban neighborhood the acquisition of this property by Old Oak the investments and planning that have been made in the East Link BRT and then ultimately here today with this zoning and draft plan a subdivision framework for your approval really the magnitude of this can’t be overstated and I think it’s in the best of hands with Old Oak from a planners perspective I see this really as a kind of a perfect marriage between public and private investment coming together and a really good case study in city building mr.

Vierbalm mentioned Legacy Village is going to be home to almost 15,000 Londoners a home in place of business and I think while the housing piece kind of gets the headlines those numbers get the headlines this is actually deeper than that this is creating a complete new urban community with heritage preservation with new commercial opportunities with new parks and amenities completely new active transportation network all on the doorstep of the of the BRT project so really fortunate and excited to be here today I don’t want to also extend a massive kind of appreciation to all of the staff and planning development who have touched this project in one way shape or form over the last ten years there’s a core group here with you today a glad they had an opportunity to speak and there’s many more inside City Hall that have put their fingerprints on this with that said the the work’s not done this is really the start of a 20-year process where we’re going to see multiple planning applications and site plans and engineering design work and so we really look forward to continuing on that amazing cooperation with City staff so we’ve got both although and us here today to answer questions thank you thank you I’ll look for other members of the public that would like to address the committee on this item please give us your name and you have five minutes take a play I’m sorry I know that must be somewhat online I’ll go to you sir I’ll go to you sir in a minute I’m going to you first up upstairs okay my name is Ann and we have a last one I’m here to address some of the things that were in the staff report so the heights are going to increase now so that means that that should result in more green space this development has very little disproportionate amount of green space the original lands had buildings on there it had federal government buildings it had a hospital it had administrative buildings it had three heritage buildings one went up in flames and so there’s no reason why if you’re can if you’re increasing the density per building it that should result in further green space there is not enough green space there for 15,000 people the staff also made recommendations on the site plan requirements those are good recommendations they’re looking at there’s way too much surface parking on this land that should be converted to green space there’s no reason why the parking can’t beam under those buildings or massive buildings those high rises should not be along a high berry av and Oxford Street because the pollution levels are not good for the for the people that live there everyone is somebody just behind me said this is not just about buildings it’s about building a community where your consideration should also be on what’s good for the residents that they’re going to live in that building and there’s ample research that says that pollution from car exhaust impacts people that live next to those roads and those and as far as a pedestrian is concerned they’ve had the walk along green space than a wall of of a building but some of the recommendations in the site plan don’t go far enough there’s too many roads on this site like you don’t need a street B a street F and a street E those should be pedestrian walkways or trails green trails so I and also I I’m sorry we no longer have an urban pure urban design peer review panel because someone decided it was red tape and so now I feel free to say that I don’t find this unattractive architectural design it’s vertical and horizontal they just build big fat building blocks there’s no space for urban gardens I’m not sure if you realize that people all over the world are building buildings that support urban vertical gardens and that’s not someone putting a pot on their balcony they’re built into the building design and it increases oxygen for those communities it it’s better for birds everything about it is progressive and for some reason in London are we get the most boring buildings or knockoffs that are already passing in other cities and so the recommendations for the site plan and the staff report they’re good they don’t go far enough we shouldn’t have those surface parking lots there’s no reason why they can’t be built under those buildings and and if you’re gonna go higher than that has to translate directly into green space and you have to recognize that people’s health are important when you build what you call this new urban little micro city so people that live next to busy streets are more susceptible to chronic illnesses and that’s in the science and if you’re gonna care about the people that live there then you build so it’s good for them it’s healthy it’s green and there’s lots of oxygen in an intersection where the traffic sucks all the oxygen out of the air and if you’re pedestrian you would know that so I think the staff recommendations on site plans are good they don’t go far enough there’s too many roads you’re gonna increase density then it has to directly be shown on green space and there should be no surface parking lots except if you’re handicapped or you’re a delivery truck or for emergency vehicles everybody else can park underneath the ground thank you thank you I’ll look for the next speaker I believe we have someone online yeah yeah my name is Jacob Perret please go ahead you have five minutes thank you chair and thank you committee I own the property and commercial asset which is immediately the east of far the 850 highway avenue property just around block six I bought quite a bit since 1991 I first approached the hotel corporation in 19 2006 until the event the corporation when they announced the hospital into well residential and I expressed my concern I attended a number of meetings every time there was a meeting I attended it there was a pause for a while not not much it happened and then in 2010 I had the filming going on go to reach out to the city also and express the concern for me the link up again there was a period of quiet and in the last three years I also hired the lawyer I hired the sound consultant I had a city consultant I spent a lot of money and I’m not a big computer company it’s a small business I operate with my son my son is running it right now there is noise there’s a certain amount of noise out of the property and I just want to make sure that when people move in they will be aware that there is no I don’t want to start getting calls from the city or from people that have to shut down my business because people can’t live there years ago what do you call it though although higher the consultants and sound consultant they came with some accommodation I think they were going to do some more accommodation but they came up with certain things they’re helping sound level to accommodation to do to mitigate the sound and the noise from the factory and I just want to make sure that the constantly the well of my concern I employ people they’ve been walking for many years they live in the city they walk in the city and it’s affecting affecting their life thank you look for the next speaker that would like to address committee I’ll see anyone in chambers I’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone else online no seeing none I’ll look for motion to close PPM Councilor Robin seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis I’ll call the vote those in the vote the motion carries five to zero okay I’ll look for motion committee Deputy Mayor Lewis through you chair happy to move the staff recommendation on this and once there’s a seconder I’d like to speak to it I look for a seconder Councilor Frank seconds I’ll go back to you Deputy Mayor thank you chair so through you first of all I want to say to the applicant and their the applicants and their planner thank you for all the work you’ve done on this as well as to staff I know there has been a lot of back and forth I know that Councilor Cuddy and I in particular have had a number of meetings with staff about water wastewater sanitary sewer capacity in this area over the last year and as much as the construction right now on the east London link is frustrating for many myself included because I have to go through that traffic schmozle as well seeing those large new sewer pipes on the side of the road ready to go into the ground and open up this land for for housing opportunities and for business and school opportunities and those things is really exciting and I know it won’t just benefit your property as I said Councilor Cuddy and I have had a number of meetings with staff because there’s some other projects along Oxford that are looking to bring some housing into the area for Fanshawe students as well so it’s it’s been a long time coming and we really I know you’ve made the time to meet with all three impacted ward Councillors and all three of us are here today and and we listened and heard what you were proposing here the heights that are in this staff recommendation are very consistent with what we just passed as recently as last week at Council with the Official Plan amendments on the Heights Review which is off to the province now so I think that all in all this development pretty much checks all the boxes we’ve got a potential school block we’ve got green space in there we’ve got some heritage repurposing in there that will create a village core and a business district there we’ve got high density housing that’s going to create thousands and thousands of units on this site as I said when I shared this with the public this site is going to provide more homes to people than the town I grew up in had for a population and to see and to have a London developer with local roots deep family roots in the community seeing the potential for the east end and I’ve been saying for years it doesn’t all have to go west I know Councillor ramen’s hoping that there’s some transportation relief in the west in the near future for the huge amount that she’s had in her ward and Councillor Layman’s ward but having this come to the east and in an area where new housing opportunities are very much needed where access for people to Veterans Memorial and Highbury so that they can get two jobs in the manufacturing areas of our city places where we’ve got great schools John Paul II secondary school is right across the street Fanshawe College is right there so I just cannot say how much this is appreciated I do recognize that some folks are asking about transportation impacts in the future I also have to keep reminding them this is not a two-year or five-year plan that things will will come out here over the course of the developments overall application I did hear the business owner reference the sound coming from from their business in off the back of first street I know that’s a consideration for I think it’s phase three or phase four whichever one of the development phases it is but I know that that our staff as well as the applicant have been listening to that and certainly as the word Council I’ve been listening to that concern as well because it will impact residents in the new neighborhood if we don’t have proper sound mitigation but I think that that’s already on everybody’s radar and so we will cross that bridge as we will there has not been a redevelopment like this in the history of our city there simply hasn’t for all the the talk that we have given and rightly so to the vision so-ho alliance and the redevelopment of the South Street Hospital lands the magnitude of this is its magnitudes of order higher and it’s going to be a fantastic development when it’s all said and done and it also speaks to having this located on the East Link bus rapid transit route that not everybody is going to be driving some people will be taking cars the fact that we planned active transportation routes into the community from day one makes it a lot easier for people to get around as well so this this project for me is is fantastic and I look forward to seeing the individual site plan applications come forward as the different phases roll out other Councillors comments or questions Councillor Cuddy thank you chair and through you and thank you chair for recognizing me as a visiting member of this committee and I don’t want to repeat anything that Deputy Mayor has so eloquently said but I do want to take a moment to recognize both Robert and Michael beer bomb and if you don’t mind the vision that you have and the vision that your dad had in this project you know Deputy Mayor Lewis said this is the largest project of its kind in London this is the largest cut this is the largest project of its kind in Ontario maybe in Canada 142 acres 7300 units I think the eighty six hundred units but we can’t service that much but eighty six hundred units if we could fourteen thousand five hundred residents it’s a 15 to 20 year project this is Deputy Mayor Lewis said this checks all the boxes you know the only unfortunate things I have to share this with both Councillor Stevenson and Deputy Mayor Lewis because this is really why in my word and but this is so big that it encompasses three words it is exciting it’s I can’t say enough about this chair and again to to repeat to not to to to to repeat what Deputy Mayor Lewis said but this is this is this is this is a change this is such a major change in the city and we’re not likely to see this in our life in our life in our lives again so I am so excited about this project thank you Michael and Robert and your family for doing this and again I will recognize that the beer bombs are London family and you know we don’t have to go outside to Toronto or to the GTA and find investors to come we have the investors here and I’m so excited to have you thank you for contributing thank you for continuing to be great corporate citizen and this is just a wonderful project chair and I look forward to moving ahead thank you other comments or questions Councillor Frank thank you a couple questions through the chair I was wondering I noticed that on one of the areas it looks like there’ll be a new municipal park and I was curious to know if there be an opportunity if there was available space and funding to also perhaps have a community garden in that public park area is that a question for staff or for the applicant alright I’ll go to staff first to see if they want to comment on that through the chair that’s something we would have to discuss with our parks and forestry folks but maybe a question for the applicant how go to you mr. beer bomb we might want to heal and have to but if you want to comment on the counselors inquiry please go ahead yeah through you mr. chair to the counselor I think you know there’s all kinds of opportunities in that park space that are going to be explored that being one of them so I know the team at Old Oak is very open-minded and looking forward to when the time comes discussing programming of that space and what that looks like Councillor that sounds good and then the other question I had again I’m looking at the map on page 10 of the attachment in the PEC report and I’m just curious as to understand so at the bottom there’s kind of a strip of trees which I know if you go there and look right now there’s some beautiful majestic trees so one I was just curious if to the earth to know if those are staying and two I’m just trying to understand what those like loop in dense are on the road if you I don’t know if you guys are able to look at it on the map but essentially it’s like a significant looks like turning space and I’m just wondering what that is in reality thanks I’ll go to staff for that so that circle you’re seeing on the map that is currently a roundabout I guess on their lanes in the kind of heritage landscape where as much as possible trying to use alternative cross sections and stuff to save as many of those trees that north-south kind of access to the site especially the southern portion is designated under the heritage and it’s protected through an easement with the Ontario Heritage Trust so that will remain and be managed as we’re moving forward with the development of the site but then the roads there will be some tree loss but whereas much as possible trying to use alternate standards to save as many trees possible throughout the site Councilor thank you yes I guess I’m still confused though as to what those two like I don’t want to call a perfect circle because it’s not like what is that going to be like if cars are driving through that it would be very confusing so I’m just trying to understand if it’s a throughway or if it is going to turn into a roundabout because it looks very awkward and weird and I’m just I don’t know what it is go to staff deputy mayor to do I might be able to assist with that if we’re talking about the feature that I think the Councilor is referring to so in the staff presentation slide there’s the development proposal site location and context where there’s an aerial map and you can see there that in from the aerial map right now that there is already a roadway there with a green space center to it with some trees there so I think that that is is on the block map just appearing as a white circle or like semi-circle but that’s I think the feature you’re referring to if that helps clarify what’s there currently I’ll go to staff if you want to add to the wisdom of our planter over here I’m not my right yeah through the chair that is essentially not a traditional roundabout but it will be we’ll have traffic flowing in each direction basically and it has been designated I guess to maintain the existing function of the the heritage easement Councilor thank you okay so my understanding is it’s gonna be around about but probably not one that we designed now and it’ll have trees in the middle yes okay I’m seeing nods so I feel good about that you don’t need to answer that I feel good you nodded thank you okay I just wanted to make sure I clarity because I thought it was just awkward looking I’m happy to support this I think it’s a good use of space I think we do need a site facility but perhaps not on these lands and I’m looking forward to seeing the high density along the transit corridor and all the park space thanks thank you Councillor Roman thank you through you I just had one question before some comments it’s on page 273 around the parkland dedication for block 58 I’m just wondering if staff can comment on that go staff the note that’s in our in our file so that the parkland dedication on the east side that is roughly the five percent that we typically get as a parkland dedication for the area of the plan the parkland dedication doesn’t include all of like these heritage designated tree landscapes as well so that’s additional opens based on top of the parkland that is would be required to do the planning act okay thanks the way this reads to me is that parkland dedication for block 58 wasn’t entirely desirable for our parks department so that if that was coming in as parkland dedication it would be at an amenity cost to the developer and not on our end so I’m just looking to clarify because I haven’t seen that before in an application just wondering why that was mentioned in that stuff through the chair that’s referring to it’s a little very small block to the side of the tree LA there’s a sewer running to the storm the storm upon there and so we can’t it’s very narrow anyways we can’t count it as as parkland so that was just clarifying that council thank you happy to see that the rest of the parkland dedication is sorted and that it is usable space again very pleased to see this application coming forward I do think that it is going to change the landscape of the area and and have positive benefit in that area and I’m very pleased to see it come forward from an established London development family thank you look for other comments or questions Councilor Pribble just I could comment very happy to see what’s in front of us and fully will be supporting it at a council thank you Councilor Stevenson thank you hard to resist the opportunity say thank you to old oak and it’s an exciting time for East London and the businesses out there will be very excited to have more residents out there to support the businesses so it’s gonna it’s gonna be a big change and even though change is difficult there’s it’s it’s a very exciting time so thank you the other comments or questions from many are visiting councilors the committee will permit me a few comments from the chair um yeah this is in fill with a capital I it’s yeah it’s been commented by previous councilors and deputy mayor nothing as significant as come before us before so I want to thank as councilor cutting you mentioned and then others the beer bomb family because this has been a long project I know I want to thank art not only this staff but staff that have come before you and previous councils as well that have shepherded this vision along because I couldn’t think of it coming at a more opportune time given our housing crisis and when we look at infill boy when I visit my counterparts counselors in the East End I see all sorts of opportunities there Councilor ramen and I coming from the northwest we’re full up there are some pockets left but boy it’s time for other areas to see to be explored and I think the East End has great potential and I think you’re leading that charge and I hope others follow follow your footsteps there to hit our target of 47,000 homes we need a few home runs and this is what it this is that we have had others with Soho and and other developments around the city this is crucial for us to meet our housing challenges so I look forward to getting shovels on the ground as I mentioned before and getting getting going on this because we need it quite frankly the fact that it’s on a transit route you know when I supported that leg this is one of the reasons that I saw this coming that I could see that we would see the necessary population at that end that could have transit supported in just yeah we’re fortunate I’ve said this before it was referenced earlier we’re fortunate in this city to have local developers and when you have local developers they build with the knowledge of a sense of pride quite frankly that their families have invested in our community they live in our community they’re building for future generations so I think we benefit from that as opposed to those that might be coming from outside they’re purely purely profit driven quite frankly and that gives me confidence that this will be a development that lives up to its building so thank you from the chair on that one so those are my comments if there’s any other comments or questions we have a motion before us moved and seconded I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay thank you we have no items for direction on to defer matters we do have that report to accept or receive a look for a motion to receive that report Councillor Robin seconded by Councillor Frank any discussion on that before we all the vote okay I’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero before us now the last piece of business we have some confidential in camera matters one dealing with a land acquisition disposition and another personal matter so I’ll look for motion to go in camera Deputy Mayor Lewis seconded by Councillor Robin I’ll call that vote the motion carries five to zero yeah the committee is going to stay in this room so I’ll ask those visitors to we’re back in public session I’ll go in the deputy mayor to port out thank you chair and through you happy to report out that items 6.1 land acquisition disposition and solicitor clank privileged advice with respect to the heritage easement of 39 carefree and 6.2 personal matter identifiable individual with respect to the 2025 mayor New Year’s honors list progress was made on both items thank you a lot for a motion to adjourn Deputy Mayor Lewis seconded by Councillor Frank all the vote the motion carries folks