Open Council

The 7th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

The 7th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

April 29, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Items 2.1 to 2.2 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Business Improvement Areas Information Review

2025-04-29 - (2.1) Staff Report - Business Improvement Areas Information Review

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   Proposed Amendments to the Business Improvement Area By-laws

2025-04-29 - (2.2) Staff Report - Proposed Amendments to the BIA By-laws

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend By-law No. A.-6873-292, Argyle Business Improvement Association Board of Management By-law;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend By-law No. CP-2, The London Downtown Business Association Improvement Area By-law;

c)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend By-law No. C.P.-1528- 486, A by-law to designate an area as an improvement area and to establish the board of management for the purposes of managing the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area;

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend By-law No. C.P.-1519(a)- 11, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association Board of Management By-law; and,

e)    the proposed by-law as appended on the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend By-law No. CP-1, Old East Village Business Improvement Area By-law.

Motion Passed

2.3   Communication - D. R. Schmidt - Referred to PEC (SPPC/4/4.1)

2025-04-29 - (2.3) Submission - Mobility Master Plan Mobility-D. Schmidt

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken:

a)     the communication from D. R. Schmidt, Development Manager, Corlon Properties Inc./Sunningdale Golf & Country Club Ltd., referred to the Planning and Environment Committee from the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting held on March 25, 2025, related to the Mobility Master Plan – Cycling Network Maps BE RECEIVED;

b)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to the existing traffic calming policy standards through the design specification guidelines through Plans of Subdivision approvals with respect to neighbourhood connectors; 

it being noted that a verbal delegation from D. R. Schmidt, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the communication from D. R. Schmidt, Development Manager, Corlon Properties Inc./Sunningdale Golf & Country Club Ltd., referred to the Planning and Environment Committee from the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting held on March 25, 2025, related to the Mobility Master Plan – Cycling Network Maps BE RECEIVED.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the delegation request from D. R. Schmidt, as appended to the Added Agenda BE APPROVED, to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be amendment to include a new part b) to read as follows:

b) that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to existing traffic calming policy standards through the design specification guidelines through Plans of Subdivision approvals with respect to neighbourhood connectors.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.4   Fast-Tracking Housing - Mayoral Direction 2025-001

2025-04-29 - (2.4) Staff Report - Fast-Tracking Housing - Mayor Direction Report

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth the following report on the ongoing work to action Mayoral Direction 2025-001 Fast-tracking New Housing, BE RECEIVED; 

it being noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace, London Development Institute, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the delegation request from M. Wallace, as appended to the Added Agenda BE APPROVED, to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.5   Housing Accelerator Fund: Completion of the City of London Housing Needs Assessment

2025-04-29 - (2.5) Staff Report - SR Housing Acc. Fund - Completion of the CoL Housing Needs Assessment

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the City of London Housing Needs Assessment:

a)    the Housing Needs Assessment as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Housing Needs Assessment as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE FORWARDED to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as required under the agreement for the Housing Accelerator Fund.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.6   Housing Accelerator Fund Initiative 5: City Land Disposal Process Review for Increasing Affordable Housing

2025-04-29 - (2.6) Staff Report - SR Housing Acc. Fund Initiative 5 - Land Disposal for Increasing Aff. Housing

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, related to the continued improvement of initiatives associated with the Housing Accelerator Fund and the City’s Land Disposal Process Review for Increasing Affordable Housing:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate and report back on the following recommendations:

i)    a Cash Flow Model to compare different land use options by revenue and cost; and, 

ii)    a Corporate Benefits Model to weigh municipal needs and interests to guide decisions;

b)    that the Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy BE AMENDED to exempt all land that is owned by the City of London, that is to be disposed of by Municipal Housing Development from Section 4.1 Declaration of Surplus Property; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts necessary to implement these recommendations;

it being noted that the following recommendations as appended to the  above-noted staff report, as Appendix “A” have been actioned in alignment with Housing Accelerator Fund milestones and will continuously be assessed to find opportunities for further improvements:

  •    offer concierge services and contribute to making land shovel-ready prior to disposition for private construction;

  •    systematic asset reviews to review City land assets for housing development Suitability;

  •    surplus land identification to circulate lands with no clear municipal use

Internally;

  •    enhanced collaboration which would require municipal departments to justify their continued land holdings for efficiency and transparency;

  •    pair Housing with Community Assets by maximizing existing municipal land holdings and integrating affordable housing with community assets such as libraries or community centres; 

  •    a standardized land use checklist to evaluate land suitability and rationalize land use decisions, specific to potential affordable housing development; 

  •    surplus land validation review to determine cost recovery opportunities; and, 

  •    create a reserve fund specifically dedicated to support affordable housing where proceeds from the sale of lands are held and can be later used to create new housing.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   3095 Bostwick Road (OZ-25018)

2025-04-29 - (3.1) Staff Report - 3095 Bostwick Road - Talbot Village Ph9 - OZ-25018

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Southside Construction Management Ltd. relating to the property located at 3095 Bostwick Road, Talbot Village Phase 9:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to:

i)    change designation of the subject lands on Map 1 – Place Types of The London Plan FROM Neighbourhoods Place Type TO Neighbourhoods and Green Space Place Type;

ii)    revise Map 3 – Street Classifications of The London Plan to REALIGN the Neighbourhood Connector Street classification;

iii)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type on Block 21 of the subject lands to permit stacked townhouses on a Neighbourhood Street at a height of 3.5 storeys;

iv)    ADD Block 21 of the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas of The London Plan;

v)    change the designation of the subject lands on Schedule 4 and 12 of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan FROM Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential TO Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Open Space and Environmental Review designations; and,

vi)    ADD a Site Specific Policy to the North Talbot and North Longwoods Neighbourhood in Section 11.1 iii) f) to allow a maximum height of 3.5 storeys and density of 80 units per hectare.

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve UR4 (UR4) Zone, TO a Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-3()), Community Facility CF1, Residential R4 Special provision (R4-6()), Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) and Open Space OS1 Zone;

c)    that the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process if Block 21 doesn’t develop as a secondary school:

i)    to orient higher built forms to higher order streets with entrances and walkway connections to sidewalks. (TLP 291, 268);

ii)    to enhance corners with massing, entrances, signage, and glazing for pedestrian focus (TLP 290, 261); and,

d)    that the Planning and Environment Committee REPORT TO the Approval Authority the issues, if any, raised through the application review process for Talbot Village Phase 9 Subdivision located at 3095 Bostwick Road;

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

-    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.,

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The Southwest Area Secondary Plan; 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)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   1176 Crumlin Side Road (Z-9601)

2025-04-29 - (3.2) Staff Report - 1176 Crumlin Sideroad - Z-9601

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Peter Drankowski and Daniel Drankowski (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1176 Crumlin Sideroad, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend Zoning Bylaw No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM Residential R1 (R1-11) Zone, an Agricultural (AG1) Zone, and an Open Space (OS4) Zone, TO a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision/Residential R6 (h-9*R1-16()/R6-1) Zone, an Agricultural Special Provision (AG1()) Zone, and an Open Space Special Provision (OS5(_)) Zone;

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

-    Olian, SBM Ltd.;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Key Directions and Rural Neighbourhoods, Open Space and Farmland Place Types;

  •    the recommended amendment is not intended to impact the character of the agricultural area and is solely intended to recognize the existing site conditions and the consideration of the Rural Neighbourhoods Policies in The London Plan; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment will facilitate an appropriate form of rural residential infill development with consideration for the long-term protection of agricultural resources and land use compatibility;

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 P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   1140 Fanshawe Park Road East (Z-25027)

2025-04-29 - (3.3) Staff Report - 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East - Z-25027

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Drewlo Holdings Inc. relating to the property located at 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R5/Neighbourhood Facility (h-120*R5-7/NF) Zone, TO a Residential R1 (R1-2) Zone;

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

  •    C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings Inc.;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates development of an appropriate intensity, compatible with the surrounding and planned neighbourhood context; 

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. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   459 Hales Street (Z-25026)

2025-04-29 - (3.4) Staff Report - 459 Hale Street

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Grand Oak Homes relating to the property located at 459 Hale Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, 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 R6 Special Provision (R6-2(15)) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(_)) Zone to allow for a 10-unit cluster townhouse development;

it being noted to the applicant that the following comments have been received:

i)    London Hydro will require a blanket easement;

ii)    CN Rail encourages the following conditions:

      A)    to undertake an analysis of noise;

      B)    a warning clause be inserted on land title, in all development agreements,

offers to purchase, and agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease of each dwelling unit; and, 

      C)    that the owner shall grant CN an environmental easement for operational noise and vibration emissions, registered against the property in favour of CN;

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

-    S. Condon, SBM Ltd.;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design policies, Neighbourhood Place Type policies and Our Tools policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would permit residential intensification that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

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 P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   3849 Campbell Street North (Z-9614)

2025-04-29 - (3.5) Staff Report - 3849 Campbell Street - Z-9614

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Colonel Talbot Developments relating to the property located at 3849 Campbell Street North:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) TO a Residential R5/R6/R8/R9 (R5-4()/R6-5()/R8-4()-D100-H32/ R9-3()-H32), a Residential R5/R6 (R5-4()/R6-5(), and an Open Space (OS5) Zone; and,

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider design and layout

issues through the site plan process that incorporates measures to provide: an enhanced landscaped open space strip adjacent to the OS5 zone to minimize impacts on the natural heritage system; and public access through the site from the proposed terminus of Savoy Street to the future extension of Hayward Drive;

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

-    A. Vandersluis, Auburn Developments;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not

limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type and the Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates a range of housing options in a location 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)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   City-Wide: Revised Requirements for Notice of Application and Notice of Public Participation Meetings (O-25007)

2025-04-29 - (3.6) Staff Report - Revised Notice Requirements - O-25007

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the City of London relating to revised requirements for Notice of Application and Notice of Public Participation Meeting, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend The London Plan, by amending policies 1576_, 1580_, 1624_ and 1625_ associated with public notification of applications and public participation meetings related to Planning Act applications;

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

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with regulations under the Planning Act; and,

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the general intent of The London Plan, including but not limited to Our Tools part of the Plan; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2025-04-29 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:16 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 33 minutes)

[1:46] Good afternoon, everyone. It’s 1 p.m. and I’m going to call the seventh meeting of planning and environment committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapeiwok, and Adirondran. We honor and respect the history and languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PEC at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. This time I’ll look for any disclosures of beginner interest. Seeing none, I’d like to move on to the consent items. I’d like to inform the committee that I’m going to be pulling 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6, so we will deal with those after the scheduled items. So I’d like to put 2.1 and 2.2 on the floor for the committee, but to Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll move those two items. I’ll look for a seconder. Could Councilor Cutty seconds? Any questions or comments? Or a call to vote? Seeing none, then we’ll call the vote.

[19:04] Those are votes you asked just having multiple tech issues. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Thank you. So moving on to our scheduled items. 3.1, this is regarding 3.095, Bostwick Road. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Hillyer seconded by Councilor Cutty. We’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Let’s see if the applicant is here. We’d like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

[20:10] Good afternoon, Chair, members of committee and staff. My name is Casey Cole-Chickie. I’m a planner with Zalenka Pray. I’m a limited representing the applicant on the applications before you today. We’ve taken the time to review the staff report and our in agreement with its recommendations. I’m available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. And I’ll look to members of the public that would like to address the committee on this particular item. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. There is no one online. I don’t see anyone in chambers looking to address us. So I’ll look for a motion to close the BPM. Councilor, close the second by Councilor Hillyer and I’ll call that vote.

[20:52] Councilor, close the vote, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Okay, so I’ll put this on the floor. And Councilor, close the moving. That’s the staff recommendation. Okay, so I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Cuddy and any questions or comments? Councilor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I just do have a couple questions. I’d like to ask of staff through you. And again, this is a follow-up to a former application that we had at our last meeting. So this is phase nine in the ward that I represent.

[21:44] And my first question is around the school block that is part of this recommendation. I’d like to ask about the process and what that looks like as we approve school blocks. There’s a lot of development going on in this area. The need for schooling is very, very important in in ward nine. And I just because we were approving a school block, I’d like to find out a little bit more about what exactly does that mean. Okay, I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, thanks for the question. The school boards are involved through the entire planning process right at the consultation stage. So early on, the school boards will identify if there’s a need for a school block. And then through that, the developer works with the school board and the city to incorporate a school block within the community, much like the developer’s done today. Once we get to the draft approval stage, drawing review stage. And finally, to subdivision agreement, there is a timeline for the school boards then to decide if they actually want to go ahead and purchase that block.

[22:51] So right now, there is timelines in the subdivision agreement that stipulate three years from 70% building permit issuance. But saying that the city through a previous direction from council are investigating these timelines, flexibility with respect to school board acquisitions. We plan to bring that forward Q2 this year to committee. Councilor? Yeah, thank you for that reminder that that information is going to come back to us because I sometimes wonder when we approve things here at planning and environment, we really do not have that follow up or understanding down the road where it is. And especially when it comes to social infrastructure like schools, parks, I would probably add that in there too. But thank you very much for that information. I’d like a follow up question of staff as well. And it is around our natural heritage features. There are numerous features in this area. And I’m pleased that we’ve got that 30-meter buffering for this development. I know there’s further development happening in the north and in the south of this area but would like to have a better understanding on that environmental or the EIS that is, I assume that we do need an EIS for other developments in this area as we approve this and just wanting to have a better understanding of the process.

[24:30] Thank you. Other comments or questions? Through the chair. So right now the application in front of us, the the southern limits of the draft plan are essentially Jack England Drive, the road allowance there. The road allowance is set back 30 meters from the feature except where the city requested the road allowance align with application to the east of Boswick. And that’s just to align so that the intersections are lined at a cross essentially. When further applications come forward to the south, there will be an additional EIS which will further have to demonstrate that the developer through whatever plan they bring forward is protecting that feature. Councillor Alpens.

[25:19] Yeah, that’s it for me. I really do appreciate being able to ask the questions. I know there’s a lot of development throughout this area and residents are reaching out constantly wanting to understand a little bit more about the application process. And as you can see, there are comments made as well in the recommendation. Thank you. Absolutely. There is a lot of development in that area and coming. Any other comments or questions by committee and visiting Councillors? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Councillor Palazzo votes yes.

[25:57] And carries five to zero. Okay, moving them forward down 3.2. This is regarding 1.1.7.6 crumb and side road. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, we’ll call that vote. In the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address a committee. Please, ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Olya and I’m here with I’m a planner with SBM LTD. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the planners for all their work on this file. It’s the file that’s been around for quite some time and there has been many iterations of the site plan and we’ve worked with the planner to get this site plan exactly right as is.

[27:02] We have reviewed the report. However, we are requesting that the special provisions staff has indicated that they will address the special provisions at the minor variance stage. However, we are requesting that we review these special provisions now in order to save time and additional costs and further further this zoning amendment application will be a consent application to suffer the loss. However, we feel that it is better to address these special provisions now. I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Look for any member of the public that would like to address the committee. I’ll ask if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online. I don’t see anyone in the chambers looking to speak to us. So I’ll look for motion to close the PPM. Councillor Cudi, seconded by call that vote. I was thinking about the motion carries 5 to 0. I’ll put this on the floor for committee. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. Look for a second here. Councillor Cudi, I’ll answer questions on the motion. Deputy Mayor. Yeah, so this is a location in ward 2. Happy to support this.

[28:33] I concur with the proposal. I think it’s a good proposal coming forward. You know, there there may be some logic to the argument that the special provisions be addressed now. But since that’s the first time I’m hearing I’m hearing of this. It’s a little late at committee to to start addressing that without any previous notice. So and there is the minor variance route to address the special provisions, which typically, and I don’t know if through you, chair, our staff can comment. But I think that the the committee of adjustment schedule is moving pretty efficiently these days. So I’m just wondering what the approximate knowing that it is an approximate because there can always be some extenuating circumstances, but what the approximate time frame is from submission to a hearing with committee of adjustment. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, the typical timeline for a minor variance application is 30 days. So from the time of complete application to when they are heard by the committee of adjustment, and then it’s about 20 days after that for the appeal period, but typically between that 30 to 50 day timeline. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, chair. That sounds like they’re moving much more efficiently than they did when I was on that committee a few years back. But then again, they don’t have to deal with consents anymore. That’s that’s within the staff’s purview now. So that may save them some time. So I’m supportive of this. I think it’s good use of the land. It’s it’s not going to be any radical change for the neighborhood. So happy to support it. Other comments or questions from counselors? Seeing none, we have a motion moved in a second.

[30:17] I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving forward on 3.3. This is regarding 1140 Fanshop Park Road East. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor cutting and we’ll call that. Wasing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll look for the applicant would like to address us. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Kerry O’Brien on behalf of the applicant through the holdings. The requested zoning before you is just the result of adjusting some product as the result of an expropriation for school. We’ve reviewed the staff report, have no concerns and just want to thank staff for their work on this file. I’m available if there are any questions. Thank you. Thanks, Ms. O’Brien. I’ll now look for members of the public who would like to speak to this. I’ll ask the clerk again if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online. I don’t see anyone in the gallery today. Not as popular as we were in last. I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor cutting and we’ll call that vote.

[31:51] Wasing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay. I’ll put this on the floor for committee. Councillor Cutty. Chair, I’d like to move the staff recommendation. Okay. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Hill here, motion moved and seconded. I’ll look for comments or questions. I’ll go to Councillor Cutty first. Thank you, Chair. This is in ward five, but it’s going to be in the new ward three. I’m excited. This is a great project.

[32:38] I look forward to it. And I want to thank Mr. O’Brien and also Drillow for bringing this forward. And thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Thank you. As a current Board Council of five, where this is located very much, appreciate this and supporting this application in front of us. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Okay. We have motion moved and seconded and we’ll call that vote. I’m closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay. Moving forward to 3.4. This is regarding 459 Hill Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cutty. We’ll call that. I’m closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. And I’ll ask the if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please, ma’am, give us your name and do you have five minutes? Good afternoon, Chair, committee members, staff. My name is Sandra Konden. I’m here representing the client and SBM on this application. We’ve worked hard with staff to bring the application forward in its present form and accept staff recommendations. The staff report, if you have any questions for me, I am available. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public, like to address the committee. Is there anyone online? No online? Okay. Seeing no one in chambers wishing to address us. I’ll look for motion to close the PPM. Councillor Cutty, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. We’ll call that. I’m closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Moving forward to 3.5. This is regarding 3rd. Wow. You know, this was dragging along. I wanted to move it up a little quicker.

[35:21] Yeah. I guess we should probably deal with the item at hand. Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. Thank you. Can I have a seconder? Councillor Cutty. Now, put this on the floor for discussion. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you, just really briefly, and it occurred to me, and I said to Councillor Cutty, yes, we are getting into that phase where we have to reference Old Ward, New Ward. And while this is in the Old Ward 4, it will be in the New Ward 2 after the municipal election. And I think this is a great example of a reasonable infill cluster townhouse in a property that’s very underutilized. In fact, it can be a source of challenge for the community because the access or the street frontage is very narrow, and then there’s a large parcel in behind. So very supportive of making good use of this land and creating some more housing in the area. Thank you. Other comments, questions from the committee or visiting Councillors? Seeing none, I will now call the vote that’s been moved and seconded.

[36:37] I’ll sing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Now we’ll go to 3.5, which is regarding 3849 Campbell Street North. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Cutty for a seconder. Councillor Hillier seconds, and we’ll call that vote. I’ll sing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Please, sir, give us your name, and you have five minutes. Thank you very much. My name is Alex Vanderslose. I work for Auburn Developments. We are the applicant on the file. Just want to say first and foremost, we are in support of the staff recommendation for approval. This project has been a long time in the works. It was a 2023 application and many revisions through 2024 and 2025. We appreciate the ongoing dialogue and back and forth discussions we had with staff to get to, I think, a good resolution. The application was originally for a draft plan of subdivision as well as a rezoning. Through the revisions, we came to a proposal which was a single development block, and so it’s no longer proposed as a subdivision. It’s simply a rezoning, which is the recommendation you have before you today. Again, you know, thank you to staff and to committee for your time. If there’s any questions on anything to do with the application, I’m more than happy to answer them.

[38:27] Thank you. Any members of the public would like to address a committee here from you now? Is there anyone online? Okay, now look for a motion to close the PPM, Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hill here, and we’ll call that vote. We’ll think about the motion carries five to zero. Okay, now moving on. I will now look for a motion regarding the staff recommendation. Deputy Mayor Lewis? Yeah, I’ll put the staff recommendation on the floor.

[39:09] Can I look for a seconder? Councillor Cuddy, seconds, and we’ll have a discussion. Any comments or questions? Councillor Alkins? Thank you, Mr. Chair. For recognizing me again, this is another application in Ward 9, and the long history with this area. I want to thank the applicant and city staff. I know there’s a lot of work done to come to this recommendation, and I do have a couple questions if I can ask through you to staff, and more or less like to start off with the EIS, and like the previous application, just having a better understanding on the EIS that has been done with this application, and what needs to be done. I just want to have some clarity around the natural heritage feature.

[40:09] Again, there’s another natural heritage feature in this area that is, how do we balance development? We know we need to develop, but how do we protect our natural heritage features? So better understanding about the EIS. I’ll go stop. It’s my first question. Through the chair. So the EIS completed, reviewed the Woodland to the west, but in its opinion, not complete. In order to completely review that feature, it will be assessed through feature development applications to the west of these lands, and so for the time being, we are in the applicant recommended only zoning the buffer to the east of that, between the development and that Woodland, and the natural heritage features will be fully assessed through feature applications to the west of here. Councilor? Thank you for that, and since you mentioned the buffering, I’d like to speak to that as well. I understand we’ve got the 10 meters with the open space, OS 5, and then adding that landscaping strip with a further 5 meters on that west side.

[41:22] Just would like to have an understanding. I know it’s below the EMG, but have a great understanding on the decision, more the decision going forward through the site plan process, how that’s going to all work. Go stop. Through the chair. So yeah, this site is heavily impacted by the realigned Boswick, which will move the current alignment of Boswick to the west closer to the Woodland. And so while ecology staff are not supportive of the reduced Woodland in order to balance the need for efficient development in this area, and the protection of the natural heritage, we were supporting the reduced planning staff, or we’re supporting the reduced buffer here, and yeah, largely to do with the realigned Boswick and the efficient use of the land between the area and the Woodland in this area. Councilor? Yeah, thank you for that. So as this application proceeds through the site plan process, I did read some comments coming from our advisory group about the education, the signage, also the management of the invasive species. Will that be sort of looked at through that process? Go staff. Yes, through the site plan process, there’ll be conditions of approval, and there’ll be an environmental management plan required, and that will include things like education packages, recommendations for during construction, that kind of stuff, which will be implemented through the conditions of site plan or if it was going through a subdivision through a subdivision agreement as well. Councilor? Yeah, thank you for that. I think the education piece is very, very important. I noticed sometimes when residents do by property, they really don’t have an understanding of the features around them, and then they realize once they purchase a property, they can’t put a pool in, or they can’t do this, or they can’t do that, and the more we share that information with the public, and hopefully owners pass that information down to other owners, there is, especially around these natural heritage areas that are significant, there is that, I think it’s a great opportunity for us to better communicate what is going on.

[44:04] I know with the bylaw that we have, it does state it that there’s a lot of information that the public doesn’t really see and understand, even as they purchase their property. So I really would like to encourage staff to continue doing that work, that education piece. I want to sort of acknowledge to that hedge grove that the north part is going to be removed. I’m pleased to hear from the applicant that there will be compensation needed more tree planting in this area. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to ask some of these questions, and thank you.

[44:49] Thank you, Councilor. Other questions or comments from members of the committee or visiting Councillors? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and second, I will call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to 3.6, this is regarding revised requirements for notice of application, notice of public participation meetings. I will be going to staff for a brief presentation. I want to open the PPM first, I’ll have a motion to do that.

[46:05] Councillor Cuddy is seconded by Councillor Hillier, and we’ll call that vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll go to staff looking for a brief presentation on what’s before us today and reasons for that and what staff is seeking. Thank you, Chair. The proposed changes to the notice provisions of the London Plan are meant to modernize and provide flexibility when notifying residents of planning applications.

[46:42] The Planning Act allows for and the London Plan contains alternative notification policies for informing and obtaining the views of the public on applications. Part of the proposed amendments would allow staff to use alternative methods of informing the public, such as dedicated web pages and resident subscriptions to weekly emails. It is important to note that no changes are proposed to the sign or mail out provisions. Planning is working with our communications department to help spread the word on these changes and how to receive information and provide the comments. The second part of the changes addresses city-initiated amendments on an extensive scale by allowing flexibility when determining the best approach for notifying residents on large scale or city-wide amendments. We are available for any questions.

[47:29] Thank you, Ms. Buzette. I’ll look for, well, I see a gentleman up there right now. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Mike Wallace. I’m the Executive Director of the London Development Institute, and I’m feeling bad for you, Mr. Chair. If you’re lonely, I spoke for four hours straight once at a committee. If you’d like me to repeat that again today, but I guess the rules won’t let me do that. I keep the five minutes. I’ll okay. You have five minutes left. So I want to thank the senior planner on this who we had a couple of questions come through to me from my organization, and they were answered by Sarah, so we appreciate that. The only piece that we would ask that you consider is that under 2.2, the 3rd, the bullet under the notice will be sent piece. You have all the neighborhood associations if these are known to the city. So they’re part of that notification piece. And below that, you have all landlords that an application reasonably affects is in the second part. All we’re asking for, if possible, is that move that same quote that an application reasonably affects to above all the neighborhood associations? The reason is why are you notifying our association on the east end of town of the city of London when the applications in the southwest of London? It doesn’t make any sense to have to do them all.

[49:06] That was the only issue we had, and it’s relatively minor in our view, and we appreciate this. And just so you know, I’ve lived in London for six years. I have never received the Londoner. So it’s a good thing it’s being removed. Thank you very much. Thank you. I look for others. I would like to address the committee. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online. I don’t see anyone in chambers, so I will look for a motion to close PPM. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll put this on for questions and comments. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[50:00] So I’m going to start with putting the staff recommendation on the floor. However, it may help chair slightly, if we can adapt just slightly, through you to ask a question of staff. As you know, I actually raised this with you yesterday, and then Mr. Wallace raised it during the PPM, and in communication to us, I too am concerned that we would be sending notices to all community associations. And certainly, I’ve had my own community association reach out and say, what are we supposed to do about this? Getting notices that really have nothing to do with the area. And so it creates extra work and things sort of volunteers, but then staff brought to my attention that in fact, in the bylaw piece, it says relevant community associations, not all. And since it’s the bylaw that would actually implement the change of policies, I’m just going to look for staff to confirm that we wouldn’t actually need to change the staff report. The bylaw, the language in the bylaw actually limits it to relevant community associations. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, that’s correct. And we apologize that there was that minor discrepancy between the report and the bylaw, but the bylaw is what would come into force, and it would allow that discretion to determine whether a community association is or the application is relevant to the community association, and only those would be circulated. Deputy Mayor. Okay, so with that answer, I’m happy to put the staff recommendation on the floor, and hopefully there’s a seconder for that.

[51:38] Yeah, I’ll go for a seconder, Councillor Cudi, for other comments or questions, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’ll just say I appreciate the staff’s work on this. We live in a very rapidly changing communications environment. The old approach of mailing out notices and things, well, we don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Also, it’s not necessarily the most effective way to reach everyone all the time. So I think what the staff are recommending here gives us a variety of tools in our toolbox. So happy to support this, and I’ll just say if Mr. Wallace really wants, I can bring my copy of the Londoner into the office, and he’d come and pick it up, because I get one, but to be quite honest, it’s mostly recycled London free press articles, and so I don’t really look at it myself. Other comments, questions, committee? The committee will allow just a brief comment, just echoing the Deputy Mayor. It’s a challenge for communicating things to the public, and we hear about sometimes that the right person didn’t know about a specific thing. They felt they lost the opportunity to weigh in.

[52:56] You know, as was said, there’s so many means of communication, but it’s almost more detrimental than years ago when everyone would go to one newspaper or one TV channel or one radio station for their news. Now it’s just a thousand points of information, and we have to choose, you know, what’s the most effective, effective use. So, yeah, I recognize that the challenge is something we can always, it’s ever always changing, communication is always changing. So, you know, we should have constantly been looking at improving our methods of doing it. I just, just my own opinion, I just always asked staff to present the communication in the plain as possible language. We talked a certain planning speak, sort of, you know, so to speak, and we understand we’re saying we do for quickness, but the public doesn’t often understand, you know, building, you know, zoning 3.2 blah blah blah, and they, we’re possible if you can just say here’s what we’re doing in, you know, very, you know, common language, you know, that people driving by, because a lot of times, I think signage is the most important, because if you’re interested in a piece of property, you’re the one driving by all the time, or going by on by other means, and that’s the most effective. So, yeah, keep up, keep up the good work on improving our communication. Councillor Hopkins.

[54:32] Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me again. I do have a couple of questions and maybe some comments too. If I may, I first of all want to thank the public for their comments in Pentec’s seat. I thought there were a number of good suggestions there. I do have a question around the rural component and the notification, so I would assume that we’re still staying at 120 meters of notifications in rural areas, and I find having a ward that is half rural applications, and some of them could be quite big. Come in, and maybe one resident is informed, yet the broader community has as much interest in that application as well, and was wondering if you did a review on the distance of notifications in rural areas.

[55:32] All right, staff. Through the chair, so the 120 meters is a standard for all of our applications that require notice. We also have a policy within our London plan right now that allows us to increase that, depending on any circumstances, whether that be, you know, we may want to go to the next street over, for instance, or in rural situations, for instance, if we feel that additional notification is necessary, we will also increase the circulation at that point. So, we have that flexibility built into the London plan, which also allows us to sort of make that call when we need to, when we feel that additional notifications necessary. Councillor? Yeah, I would encourage you to take that broader look and increase that distance, especially if it’s, you can usually see on the map, if that’s the next concession down, and it’s just another house, it’s not that we’re increasing it by much, but it’s really covering a broader area. Do we also look at decreasing that distance too, depending on the situation? Both stuff. Through the chair, no, we would always err on the side of caution, it would always be 120 meters at minimum, basically. So, that’s our minimum distance that we would use. So, anything that touches that 120 meters, for instance, if it fell directly between two property lines, typically, as staff, we would select all of the properties that touch that. So, we would always err on the side of caution. Councillor? And I also continue encouraging residents, even if they’re outside of that notification that they can reach out to staff and be added to that list, will that continue as well? Both stuff. Through the chair, absolutely, that is really one of the key components of our notice is to inform residents not only of the application, but also someone at the city that is able to speak to the application and accept comments, but also provide more information. Councillor? For residents, I noticed in the report here, which I think you very much for, is that there would be opportunities that residents can sign up for notification. How is that done and is that in place right now? Through the chair, I’m not aware exactly how it’s done, but from what I understand, our webpage is available right now, and any resident can sign up specifically through, I think it’s an email address, but, however, a representative from the communications department is here, Andrew Serkham, I think, and he may know a little bit better about how exactly that process is to sign up for those weekly blasts of emails.

[58:18] Councillor, are we going to get another? Sorry, Andrew’s available. Sorry. Thank you through the chair. Yes, it’s something that we’re exploring with features for London.ca and other tools that we have, and this would give us flexibility to continue to communicate in different evolving ways. So, a subscription like that, we have the R-City newsletter as well that’s a monthly email that we send out to residents. That’s an opportunity that we’re looking to explore, including information in, as well as other specific communication tactics that will be developed as part of a larger communications plan about these potential changes. Councillor? Yeah, thank you for that. That we’re still exploring it. I was going to make a quick comment through you, Mr. Chair to Staff, about the communication plan. I really encourage you to continue that conversation and sort of creating other opportunities, even spreading that information in other areas to just a few thoughts.

[59:31] With that, I did want to make a follow-up comment to the community groups that are out there, and there are quite a few of them, and I know the Urban League of London, which is an umbrella group of many community organizations, that will they still be sort of part of that communication plan, because they are a source where you don’t have to send it out to all the community centers, but through them, they can spread it out. So, I just want to know if that’s still going to be in place.

[1:00:07] Go staff. Through the chair, that is one of our key components of the communication plan. We’ll be notifying the neighbourhood groups and associations. The Urban League, as you mentioned, an umbrella group, and right now I think we notify the community associations, and I believe the Urban League as well. So, that will continue, obviously, for any particular application, but as part of the communications and rollout of this amendment, they will also be involved. Councillor. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for accommodating my questions. I want to just encourage staff as they continue that communication plan. It is very important.

[1:00:56] I personally found that the community is less informed, and sometimes when they come here, especially at public participation meetings, and I have, for a number of years, tried to see how we could do a better job communicating to the public. So, they understand our policies, our process, are informed when they come here in the questions that they can ask and get the information. It’s not about everyone sort of agreeing. It’s just being more informed and educated, and I really want to encourage staff to continue that work in the communication plan, and hopefully improve some participation in our public participation meetings as well.

[1:01:47] Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? So, we’ve motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Wasn’t the vote the motion carried five to zero? Okay, before moving on to items for directions, I’ll have a brief comment from the Chair committee who permits. Today, we went rather quickly through a number of items, and I just want to make it clear. It’s not for lack of due diligence. I think it speaks highly to the work that’s done by staff, and with the applicants, and we heard a couple times how some of these have been in process for years, and coming up with a application that works from a staff perspective, from an applicant’s perspective, and in a very good concise form for us committee members to read through, and then to ask questions, I know made applicants reach out and have an opportunity to explain what’s in the application, as well as staff is extremely accommodating to committee members and Councillors. If we have questions that we can ask, you know, so we’re prepared when we come to committee. So, I think what we see sometimes, like today, is we see a tip of an iceberg that, you know, other meetings, not so much, I think, like the last one, but there, I just wanted to make that comment because we’re moving rather quickly today.

[1:03:27] So, we have no items for direction. We have deferred matters. I’ll look for a motion to receive the deferred matters list, Councillor Cudi. I’ll do that with that. So, I’ll look for a motion to receive the deferred matters list. Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Hillier, and more questions on that, and we’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Okay, we had a number of items moved from consent. So, we will go to those now. We had 2.3, a communication from Mr. Schmidt, who’s requested a delegation. So, I will look to committee for motion to accept that delegation. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillier, will call that vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Mr. Schmidt, you have five minutes.

[1:04:54] Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of Planning Environment Committee. My name is Dave Schmidt. I’m the Development Manager for Corlomb Properties Seindel Golf and Country Club. For 25 years, we’ve planned and developed the neighborhoods of Seindel, and arguably one of the most interconnected and integrated neighborhoods in London, as a result of an extensive multi-use trail system. For many years, sitting on the city’s Transportation Advisory Committee and serving as its chair, we’re staunch advocates and supporters of bicycle infrastructure in the city, advancing curbside-dedicated bicycle lanes, and also the racks on the front of LTC buses during my time on that committee.

[1:05:33] This tradition continues with the development of our planned Seindel North subdivision. 51 Hector Development, located at the northeast corner of Seindel Road and Wonderland Road North, which provides for a comprehensive open-space off-road multi-use trail system, as depicted in my March 21st letter to SPPC, which is attached to your agenda today. Unfortunately today, I’m here to discuss my concerns with the unnecessary over-proliferation of bicycle infrastructure and traffic coming measures in our neighborhoods in general and in Seindel North. On April 6, 2023, we submitted our Complete Plan Act applications associated with our Seindel North subdivision. Through the review and approvals process, various matters dedicated bicycle lanes on neighborhood connector streets and extensive traffic coming measures were raised by Transportation Planning Design, which significantly delayed the approvals process. Countless meetings and written submissions were made to justify our concerns, and regretfully, throughout the month’s little justification, if any, was provided by the city’s Transportation Planning Design Division to justify these requests. Despite this, we continue to work with the city well beyond 120 days, as we believe that outcomes would ultimately be based upon existing planning policy and/or strong planning and engineering practices. On August 26, 2024, PAC recommended that the Seindel North, OPA, and ZBA be approved and advise the approval authority that it supported issuing draft approval for our proposed Plan of Subdivision, subject to draft planning conditions recommended by the approval authority. On October 31, 2024, we had a final meeting with the approval authority, plan and development, and Transportation Planning Design.

[1:07:26] At this meeting, respectfully, it seemed apparent that the city recognized that there was a lack of a policy basis and, in some cases, direct contravention of existing policy to support their proposed conditions. Despite this, we were effectively advised that the city intends to change these policies in question in the future and that the proposed conditions would continue to move forward on our application. On November 22, 2024, some 16 months since our applications were submitted, the approval authority issued notice of decision for draft plan approval complete with conditions as proposed. Conditions of draft approval numbers 4748 and Appendix A of our Seindel North subdivision require us to construct neighborhood connectors, roadways, with dedicated bicycle lanes through our neighborhoods, parking laybys, and speed cushions every 100 meters. The London Plan provides for table six, which specifically does not require cycling facilities on neighborhood connectors. Furthermore, policy 32 of the London Plan indicates that no public work should be undertaken and no by-law pass it does not conform to this plan. In addition, the Ontario Traffic Manual indicates posted speed limits in conjunction with average daily trips on neighborhood connectors, confirms that shared operating space or just the street in general is the appropriate way to accommodate cyclists, the same way many of us learned to ride bicycles in our neighborhoods when we were growing up, as opposed to dedicated bicycle lanes separated bicycling facilities, cycle tracks, or multi-use pathways. There’s no planning policy basis on our technical engineering basis for implementing dedicated bicycle lanes on neighborhood connectors through our neighborhoods.

[1:09:17] Existing London Plan policy requires sidewalks on both sides of streets and like Seindel North, new subdivisions are typically planned with off-road multi-use pathway networks. There are no specific policy direction provided in London Plan with respect to warrants or criteria for the implementation of traffic calming measures in new subdivisions. The word traffic calming actually only appears in London Plan once, in policy 225, which indicates curb extensions, narrow streets, and on-street parking may be used among other techniques for traffic calming. Thirty seconds. The city’s traffic calming policies indicate that neighborhood connectors typically can accommodate 5,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day. Our average daily trips on our roadways in Seindel North are anywhere between 100 to 5,280 to 80T. We watched the March 25th SPCC committee meeting with interest as various counselors were successful in removing various proposed bicycle infrastructure from specific higher magnitude order streets in the city.

[1:10:21] We would encourage the city to evaluate their existing policy framework and existing design standards to remove any conflicts. And until this is done, circulated and vetted, the approval authority should not be requiring the implementation of these as conditions of draft approval. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt for time. I’ll put this on the floor for committee. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I know we prefer and I think we try and enforce motions on the floor first, but I wonder if you might entertain some questions of staff before motion.

[1:11:08] Absolutely. I mean, our option would be to receive the communication, but there was based on the comments possibilities might exist. So I just want to inform the committee that Kelly Sher is online. So if there are questions regarding this, she’s available for answers. So please go ahead. Thank you. So I want to start on the traffic calming piece. I know there was a bit more focus on the cycling piece, but the traffic calming was raised. And so I do have a question and a bit of a concern when I hear that we’re requiring every 100 meters in a particular plan where I’ve been told repeatedly by traffic calming staff in evaluations and existing neighborhoods that a 300 meter straightaway is actually required on a roadway to consider traffic calming eligibility in the first place, because that’s the distance required for a vehicle to get up to speed beyond the speed limit. So I’m wondering if staff can indicate why we would even be considering 100 meter intervals in new developments for traffic calming at this time when the London plan actually, to my understanding, doesn’t support that the way it is. Most stuff through the chair. Thank you. This is Peter Kavick speaking. Just touch on the design specifications requirements manual and might kick it to the transportation team, Kelly Shearer, Sarah Grady, that’s online. But the way our design specifications manual is written, specifically chapter two, the design manual mentions traffic calming features every 100 meters apart. So it does align with those standards that we have.

[1:13:06] And maybe Kelly or Sarah, did you want to elaborate further? Thank you, Mr. Shearer. Apologies, Mr. Shearer. I’m having a little bit of trouble with my computer again today. Ms. Grady is on the call and is able to answer that question.

[1:13:41] Thanks, Sarah Grady here. Through the chair, yes, the spacing recommendations based on 40 kilometers an hour posted speed is 100 meters spacing. This has been updated based on the previous spacing, which was previously based on 50 kilometers an hour. So that’s where there’s a, I guess, a bit of a discrepancy. So that 300 meter block, really, you’d only have room for one set of speed cushions in there. And that really does typically manage speeds on its own. So yeah, I guess that’s a bit of a difference between the spacing for the 300 meters versus the preferred spacing between speed cushions. Deputy Mayor. Okay, thank you. That’s helpful to hear. I will say I’m not convinced that 100 meters is actually reasonable. That’s actually not that long a distance. But I appreciate where the recommendation is coming from. I also, so now I want to shift gears onto the cycling lanes.

[1:14:49] I recognize that part of, and listen, I’m on a neighborhood connector and I have a bike lane on my street. And I see the value in them on appropriate neighborhood connectors. In my case, there’s a community center, there’s two elementary schools, there’s a high school, makes a lot of sense. However, neighborhood connectors being appropriate and every neighborhood connector are two different things. And I actually concur that not every neighborhood connector is an appropriate location for bike lane. I also think that there are very real world implications to that, not just for the development as it’s built out, but for the long term infrastructure maintenance and upkeep as well. And eventually assumptions and then costs downloaded, not downloaded, assumed by the city when new subdivisions are assumed for maintenance, winter maintenance, all of those things. And so I’m looking to staff for a little bit of comments beyond, of course, this is all budget managed, because if we’re taking that approach in new developments, then I’m not sure that it’s actually reflected in our multi-year operating budgets. And maybe it’s captured in part in assessment growth and expansion of services as new subdivisions are assumed. But I do want to ask staff to comment a little bit on this approach of an expectation of all neighborhood connectors versus neighborhood connectors were appropriate. I’ll go staff.

[1:16:38] Thank you, Mr. Cheryl Star and Ms. Gray to me wish to add something afterwards. In the case of this particular subdivision, we are talking about painted infrastructure on the neighborhood connectors. The incremental cost to maintain that versus a parking lane when it comes to things like winter road maintenance is negligible. It would be both the same. And that would be the case around the vast majority of those neighborhood connector infrastructure pieces. This connector also provides access to a high school where there’s going to be a higher average daily to daily traffic. And they provide year-round potential for people to use active transportation versus recreational pathways, which are not maintained and to create other conflicts with pathway users. Deputy Mayor. Thank you. Again, appreciate the answer. Not sure that year-round maintenance is necessarily going to be something that we see if the province changes some regulations the way that they’re hinting they might on cycling tracks and dedicated lanes.

[1:17:41] But I do appreciate that that’s the reality that staff have to work within right now. So I appreciate where that’s coming from. Certainly understand the high school generating higher traffic. So again, appreciate that answer to this specific one. But I’m not sure that we’re necessarily all the way on the right track on the cycling lanes. But I did see Ms. McNeely might have a comment to share as well. So I’m wondering if I can hear from her.

[1:18:19] Okay, please go ahead. Thank you through the chair. Just to add to Ms. Shear’s comments, as was indicated, there have been discussions with staff and the approval authority. And I just want to make it clear that in terms of the connection, we actually did scope. So it’s not on all the connectors within this plan of subdivision. It’s connecting Sunningdale to Wonderland Road. So it’s taking that road pattern as a direct path, which then bypasses next to the school. So just want to emphasize that. Deputy Mayor. Thank you. And that’s helpful in terms of this particular connection. My bigger concern is the holistic approach. And I know part of that is MMP and not all site plan related as well. So this is where we start running into things where things land at different committees and there are different divisions and departments involved. So I think I’ll stop there for the moment chair, see if other Councillors have questions or comments, and then sort of reserve the right to come back because in addition to receive, I don’t know if I want to refer this back to staff for some additional detailed reporting coming back to us. So we have a little bit better understanding of how this integrates with the London plan and the MMP.

[1:19:43] But I’m going to see what others have to say first. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to start by getting something on the floor and remove, move, receive of the correspondence. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Hayyer second. Okay. Thank you. A couple of comments and questions to staff. Recognizing that cycling infrastructure and policies is there’s always another level of government above ours. I think it’s really important to note that when someone is referencing infrastructure, it’s really just slight pain on a road. It’s not really infrastructure. Mindful of things that increase road width and construction costs and use upland, but I’m not often also hearing people say don’t do on street parking because it widens the road as well and also as a strip of paint. Always mindful of a development that seems to have, as the applicant said, like wonderful green space connectors and amenities nearby that people can use them. My question specifically to staff in regards to a follow-up question from the deputy mayor in regards to the traffic calming, having gone through other applications that we heard and this one’s already wrapped in. Is that something that we’re going to start to see of asking it to be put on the front end versus residents coming later and asking for it? I’ll go staff. Through the chairs, we work through the approval stages for draft plan of subdivisions. We do incorporate a draft plan condition specifically for traffic calming, so then the applicant does review that typically with the traffic impact study and that informs where speed cushions are raised crossings or raised intersections. Thank you, wondering on that follow-up point of are these going to be the speed cushions that we’re used to seeing?

[1:21:46] I know they’ve gone through several iterations of what we use for speed cushions and the ones that are just in the lane versus urban straight across. I know that there’s always some concerns with first responders if they encycling, if they actually impede the cycling lane. Hello, staff. Through the chair, because we haven’t determined the exact type of traffic calming measure, but in saying that, if it is the speed cushion, we will make sure there’s the ability for ease of access for emergency vehicles, for sure. Councillor?

[1:22:23] Thank you, a follow-up to that. It could be further along in the process. Is the city looking at any signal lit up pedestrian crossovers in this area too, if the developer’s looking at wonderful crossings and active transportation in it? I’m just thinking of when we have established neighborhoods, the most wish list I have coming back from residents is traffic calming and can I have a signalized pedestrian crossover to help people? Just if it could help residents have a better experience at the forefront? Go, staff. Through the chair with this application, we are looking at pedestrian crossovers as well. And saying that, depending on the type of pedestrian crossover, it could very well just be a sign or the ones with the flashing lights. So we haven’t determined that type yet. Councillor?

[1:23:11] Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, Councillor Permeau. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the staff, I just want to kind of clarification because my ward is east of Richmond, and we currently have a proposal there for the cycling network and the path, the newly established bridge that will be built there over Richmond north, north of Sunningdale, and then there will be two paths, one going north along Medway and one going south, kind of in the height of Superior Drive. And a couple of things. First of all, the developers on my side, they are all aware of it, and all the plans are including these bike lanes.

[1:23:55] And as far as I know, this was supposed to be part of cycling network all the way between Adelaide and Wonderland, and then future going down south on Wonderland and Adelaide. If you can please confirm to me, if we are still working with this, or if there were any adjustments to the chair, I might defer that question to Sarah Gradius online. Through the chair, yes, we are still planning to move forward with the connected cycling network through the various subdivisions in this area and have that all connected.

[1:24:37] Councillor? Okay, thank you for that. So I just want to just make an add that all the developers have been informed on my side, and they are counting this season, they are including these bike lanes in the plan. So I just want to let you know that the progress is there, and they are all aware of it, and they are working with this scenario which we put out there for them. If there will be any changes, then certainly it would be great if we informed them as soon as possible because things are moving forward and we try to move them forward as fast as possible. So thank you. Thank you. Other Councillors? Councillor Hopkins.

[1:25:16] Thank you again for recognizing me. I know I’m not on the committee. I just wanted to follow up on Councillor Pribbles’ comments and connectivity to me is really important when we address bike lanes. I just wanted to make that comment, and we have to have a better understanding. If we’re not going to do something over here, how is that going to affect other areas? It’s like a traffic light going up. If we adjust the timing, we have to look at all the other traffic lights in the area to adjust their timing as well. I do have a question, and it’s following up. I really appreciate the conversation, the committee is sounding here.

[1:25:53] Comment around, we’re talking about neighbourhood connectors here, and the comment around the importance of active transportation, it’s just not bike lanes, it’s also transit, and other ways of moving around. Have I got that right? That that is exactly what a neighbourhood connector is supposed to do. I know the ones in my community that are neighbourhood connectors also have buses on them as well, but I just wanted to understand exactly what that definition of active transportation entails on these connectors.

[1:26:32] I’ll go stuff. Through the chair, I think that’s correct. The intent for a neighbourhood connector is to provide higher levels of traffic through neighbourhoods and within neighbourhoods, but provide that opportunity for things like local bus services and higher levels of mobility. Throughout the neighbourhood, so I think that’s a good description you gave. Councillor? Yeah, thank you for that. Other comments or questions from committee member? Thank you, and thanks for giving me a chance to come back on this, because I appreciate the conversation we’re having too, and I will say I’m struggling even more now with the traffic calming piece. If we’re going to have transit service in the future and have speed cushions every hundred metres, I’m frankly very concerned about the ongoing maintenance costs that that presents to London Transit, as well as the impact that that has on emergency service vehicles. I know police and fire are capable of bobbing and weaving and straddling those speed cushions if they’re the traditional kinds based on the axle length, but transit is not. Can’t bob and weave a bus around, nor should we want them bobbing and weaving a bus around speed cushions. neighbourhood connectors are intended to be higher-order streets, so I’ll say I’m really uncomfortable with this idea that we’re just planning them as of an expectation in developments now. There has to be places where traffic flow is not impeded by speed cushions, and particularly, and I see it in my own ward, and in fact, I was responding to an email this morning about it.

[1:28:34] We’ve had speed cushions implemented on Edmonton, and now we have requests for speed cushions and a neighbourhood vote happening on Vancouver, because the traffic has simply moved over a block, because the speed cushions on Edmonton are impeding the traffic flow there speed-wise, and so they move over and take Vancouver, and now the residents on Vancouver are concerned about the cut-through traffic there. So, I’m really not comfortable with what I’m seeing in this communication, and what I’m hearing in terms of some staff answers today, and I do appreciate, you know, I want to be clear with staff. I appreciate the answers you’re giving. I know you’re giving me the answers that are set out in the book for lack of a better way of saying it, and that’s the approach that you have to take, but I’m increasingly concerned about what I’m hearing in some of these answers, particularly what I’m hearing around the traffic calming. I’m a little more comfortable hearing the bike lanes are intended to be some paint, and, you know, although I’m not a big fan of Sherro’s, if there’s going to be some green paint at intersections indicating where the bikes are intended to be safely, and we’re not talking about separated curb infrastructures, and the wind road challenges, and things that those present. I’m a little more comfortable with that, but I’m really struggling with the traffic calming piece, so I think I’m going to move an amendment to the motion to receive, and that would be a part, a second part, so Part B, that civic administration be requested to report back to a future planning and environment committee with respect to existing traffic calming policies for, I guess, would it be plans of subdivision? I’m going to look to staff for a little bit of guidance here, or traffic calming policy impacts on planning applications, site plan, plan of subdivision, just looking for staff to what needs to be here, because the intent is for you to come back and give us an outline of all the policies that apply right now to your assessment of applications in terms of traffic calming measures being expected upfront on things, particularly with respect to neighborhood connectors, residential streets, neighborhood level, residential streets, not a concern, neighborhood connectors are a concern, so kind of looking for staff to provide some guidance on, is it site plan policy, is it subdivision policy, what area are you implementing these in? The clerk is drafting something up right now, can you maybe make that available and describe it, then maybe staff can take a peek at it and see what needs to be modified, yeah. Through the chair, so I have the partial part of the motion up on the screen, if you could just help out with the ending, as Deputy Mayor Lewis was asking about the site plan policy, or where it falls under. Through the chair, I’ll pass this to Sarah Grady, who’s in the transportation planning and design team, she has an opportunity to look at the screen there. Through the chair, Sarah, I did not hear that question if you don’t mind repeating it.

[1:33:09] Yeah, Miss Grady, we’re just trying to craft an amendment here by Deputy Mayor Lewis. We have kind of the gist of it, but he’s asking for maybe some appropriate clarification for better direction to staff, so if you could kind of take a look at what the clerk has up right now and give us your input. Sorry, it’s very small on my screen, so I actually can’t read it. I’ll have the clerk read it out. Thank you. So what we have so far is states that civic administration be directed to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to existing traffic calming policy impacts on planning applications, and we’re just looking to know what part, what policy this falls under. An example was site plan policy. I’m just looking for your assistance to help finish off this motion.

[1:34:17] Tim is Grady. There is a policy in the London Plan, where virtually Mr. Schmidt referenced a 25 that talks about implementing traffic calming measures. It’s not specific to site plans or subdivisions. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m going to let Miss McNeely or Mr. Mather’s chime in first, because they were indicating they’ve got some comment to share. Okay, please go ahead.

[1:34:52] Thank you. Through the chair, just need a little bit more clarification in terms of the direction. The staff review a design specification requirements manual. That takes into consideration site as subdivit plans a subdivision as well site plan in terms of these measures that we apply. I believe that’s what you’re trying to focus on in terms of the direction, in terms of versus impacts on planning applications. I think it’s more of the approach in terms of the standards that are applied, and then that would be that technical bit that our transportation staff would support us on. Deputy Mayor. Yes, and that is what I’m trying to get to, because we rarely see, in fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen them around, you know, a ZBA or an OPA, application that’s coming forward for a new high rise or something like that.

[1:35:45] They do seem to be more focused around site plan and plans of subdivision approvals, which often don’t have to come here. But I do want a report back on those that we can look at and see if there’s anything we wish to change from a council perspective. So I’m completely open to traffic calming policy or, you know, traffic calming guide specifications, whatever staff feels, languages that meets that intent of bring those guides to us to take so we can take a look and decide whether they fit or not physically nearly. Through the chair may I suggest that that the language be civic administration, we directed to report back to a future meeting of the planning environment committee with respect to existing traffic calming standards or through the design specification requirements manual in terms of related to plans of subdivision and site plans. Deputy Mayor. What she said. All right, so I’ll have to clerk work up a amendment here.

[1:37:09] And being mindful chair, if you don’t mind me interjecting, as I indicated, I’m really, my concern is really focused around neighborhood connector policies. I’m less concerned about where we are on residential just neighborhood level streets. I know we don’t implement traffic calming on arterial roads. So if it shortens the amount of work staff has to do, I’m quite happy for there to be a caveat at the end that says with respect to neighborhood connectors. Check your e-scribe. It’s been updated. See if that works here. May I suggest taking out the reference to impact specification impacts because specification is specific to technical versus impacts are the result. Deputy Mayor, is that okay to remove board impacts? Yes, in fact, chair, I was going to suggest through design specification guidelines and plans of subdivision approvals with respect to if that’s but whether the guidelines needs to be there or if we just need to get rid of impacts. Again, I think I’ve expressed my intent to staff and the language that’s required for them to get theirs, whatever they’re comfortable with. Ms. McDilly. Through the chair, just by having policy standards is enough direction for us.

[1:39:20] Thank you. Is that okay, Deputy Mayor? Okay, so we don’t need it. Can you check the update e-scribe and see if that you want to go? So again, I’m comfortable with that if staff is comfortable with it. They’re the ones that I actually have to report back. So if that meets the intent that they’re hearing from me, I’m fine with that. I’m looking at staff. I see noting heads, but I’ll make sure. Through the chair, we’re satisfied. Thank you. Okay, so you’re good. Okay, so I’m going to move that as a second part. Yeah, you’re moving that amendment. I’ll look for a seconder.

[1:40:25] Councillor Cudi has seconded. Did you want to speak to it? I’ll be really brief. I think I’ve expressed my concerns here. It’s not about everything. It’s specifically around how we’re impacting neighborhood connectors, how that potentially creates just cut-through or traffic transfer to other streets, those kind of things. I think we as Councillors hear about all the time that maybe are always reflected in the policy. So by getting these guidelines back, it gives us a chance to read through them. I staff questions so we can better understand them. And then we can consider whether or not we want to make any changes from there. At this point, it’s for me to give us some more information, to have an opportunity to understand how we’re impacting the neighborhood connectors with the policies we have on the books right now, and whether or not we want to make any changes. So hoping folks will support this so we can get some more information back. And then based on that, we can take it from there. Okay, any other conversation on the amendment? So just on the amendment, we’ve moved and seconded. I’ll call that vote. So now we’re back to the main motion to receive the communication with the amendment. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries back to zero. Okay, moving on to 2.4, this is regarding the mayoral direction, 205-01 regarding fast-tracking housing. We have a delegation request from Mr. Wallace for the London Development Institute. I’ll look for a motion to approve that delegation. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hillier. I’m losing the vote, the motion carries back to zero. Mr. Wallace, you have five minutes. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for submitting my delegation. Just a brief couple comments on this report. It is a report on the Mayor’s direction for the fast-tracking of new housing, which we are very supportive of the Mayor in his direction. We do like to highlight the wording in the recommendations ongoing work, just so you know that not only is the industry very supportive of the Mayor’s efforts, through the customer service reference group that we’ve had, there were some questions came forward. We hadn’t seen this report yet until last Wednesday. And for actively Scott and his team, Heather Nellen met with a number of us on Wednesday morning to talk about what was going to be in the report. And we just want to make basically two real highlights. One, we want to make sure you understand that that list that’s in here, this appendix A is not an exhaustive list. Since this report’s come out, I’ve had a number of my members reach out to me and I’ve moved them forward to Scott and his team. There are other projects that are not on this list that we think we can, our development community thinks we can fast-track and meet the the time was required to be able to get shovels in the ground, holes dug as part of the Mayor’s directive before the end of this calendar year. So that’s good news and we just want to make sure that we’re on the record to let you know that this is a live list, not a dead list in terms of this is it. We have some opportunities going forward. And the one comment that I think the press actually asked me about was that the reality is we want to make sure that the applications that are in front of you, they get priority because staff time is limited. And so if you’re going to prioritize applications, we want to be sure to support the Mayor that those are applications from builders who are actually going to build and not just putting planning in place and that they will pull the permits.

[1:45:57] They get to the point that they pull the permits and actually put shovels in the ground. The other point that we want to make is obviously we’re going to work very hard to make that deadline in terms for for this year. But going forward, this process that’s in here listed for permits and so on, we would consider those draft and that my improvements working with the industry and Scott has committed to working with us and Alan to work forward and making sure that we have those permits that process for permits goes forward, not just for this year, but it’s effective going forward for the number of years that we will need to be able to meet your goal of the 47,000 new homes over the next number of years and meeting that demand. So we appreciate the efforts that that we appreciate the direction that the Mayor has put forward. We really appreciate staff pushing the priority list and the how we’re going to get there through this permit process and we really want to be on the record that this is an ongoing discussion and that we’ll be there as an industry to help you meet your goals and our goals at the same time. Thank you.

[1:47:15] Thank you. Before I go on the committee, I’ll just ask a follow-up question to staff on that. The reference is made to a list of projects on Appendix A. Is that a static list or can projects be added to that list? Through the chair, absolutely. That was just starting point list that we’ve drafted over 9,000 units and we’ve received five additional applications and we’ve added those to the list and we’ve actually in between the time of providing the report to committee and today we’ve actually started contacting all the folks that are on the list just to make sure that they have an intent to be able to move forward this year. So very much a living document. Thank you. Okay, I’ll open this to committee. Deputy Mayor less.

[1:48:02] Thank you chair. So I do appreciate hearing it’s a living document in noting in particular a project that and please I support getting this project going absolutely but we recently approved a project at eight stories that’s listed at six stories because a change was made at council. So it certainly is important to make sure that this is a living list where things come on and off. I do share Mr. Wallace’s trepidation a little bit about making sure that we are doing this for folks who are actually building and who are not just enhancing land speculation.

[1:48:48] But I did want to ask about in particular one thing that stood out for me in section 2.5 of the report so that’s about page 31 I think the issuance of partial permits to facilitate early stage construction the city has adopted policies permitting the issuance of personal of partial permits for site servicing foundation work prior to so really and maybe it’s just semantics but is this meant to be we have some draft policies that we’re piloting like and you know if I’m just taking the language the wrong way and misinterpreting it please let me know but I don’t recall council itself through planning committee and through the council cycle actually approving a new set of policies for for issuances this way. So when it does say the city has adopted it doesn’t say council has adopted and it says adopted policies not draft policies so I’m looking for a little clarification here on you know are we going to get some policies at some point that you’re going to be looking for council approval on is this an administrative process and are we working with policies that are subject to change as we identify bumps in the road just looking for some clarification around that language ago stuff. Through the chair I’ll just start off and I’ll throw anything but I can’t either back to Allen so this is a very it’s a small P policy so like administrative procedures probably another way to refer to it so this is just making it looking some changes of how we do our work internally and ensure that we’re consistent moving forward. I’ll let Allen speak to and just the actual approach and then moving forward what we might be looking at as well. Through the chair to the councilor the authority in regards to issue you know the permanence is realized to the delegated authority of the chief building official and is not subject to input from the council it must be made independent. Having said that council has approved the building by-law which does permit partial permits to be issued and that’s the emphasis in regards to the making this effort in regards to getting permits issued a little bit quicker than what we have in the past.

[1:51:11] Everybody mayor. Yeah and so again helpful appreciate that granted there’s you know definitely a difference between small P and capital P policies so wanted to make sure I was reading that correctly and not misinterpreting it and of course when we do get into the you know alignment with the mayoral direction and some of the improvements and you know this this will come to the next item that we have to deal with too but when we start getting into resources and things those might become matters of a council decision around budget business cases so well the delegated authority rests with mr. Shaw and I’m happy to leave that in his capable hands there may be some other factors here where council might need to be aware that there might be some council decisions around resource allocations and things in the future if this turns out to be a successful approach which I hope it will be so I do appreciate the the clarification on this being a small P versus a capital P policy adoption as an internal process council proposal thank you mr. chair a few questions recognizing this was mayoral direction versus council stuff that came through here and I do have some developers reaching out for clarification I don’t have any so hoping to get some today looking to see if looking at the appendix so you’re when you pick the priority site plan applications is it your vision that this would be a semi-annual update versus an annual update if you reach out and people aren’t interested or ready at this time is it a staff capacity of ideally you’d have this man to go at a time or you’d pick like the top 12 just looking to see how that list would be managed realizing staff constraints exist and might be a future budget ask I’ll go stuff through the chair I’ll just start that so the mayoral direction was very specific to just this year 2025 so the approach that we’ve highlighted as far as going out and asking for people if they’re gonna be building it’s very specific 2025 right now so this could be something that we look at in the future as far as trying to determine these type of priorities and it’s very much a link to of course the provincial pledge and then being able to try to achieve some the building faster funding moving forward so the idea is if we can really put it be all in this year that’s be able to maximize that funding and what we’ll get for this in the future so it’s very much focused on this year doesn’t it doesn’t mean that we won’t have some learnings that might be improvements that we move forward with throughout the future a lot of the work that that tether and allen are doing looking at that concurrent process is something that we could roll out and throughout the future but what’s in this report is very much focused on 2025 also thank you I just know that there’s some applications that we haven’t quite seen yet at PAC who are very interested in this and we’re just worried that if they were one cycle too late that they might not have an opportunity to get in so some panic has been or concerns have been raised in the community for that um I know I get a bit in the weeds but that’s why you appreciate me um also in the appendix a I’ll highlight um 1901 jalna boulevard um three year ago a wonderful affordable housing um first in in south London for sure uh faith-based led group um but they’re also waiting for a small slice of property going through tax sale office so like they’re hung up in that um and we have other policies that would be perhaps hole in the back would this allow them to have extra help getting through that process as they are ready to go just held up with uh realty and tax go stuff uh through the chair so as far as that this mayoral direction it’s it’s not just to our group of course it is like a corporate direction as well so whatever we can do to try to to line people up we have support staff of course in our municipal housing and industrial development group and then also with uh this planning connector and the app and the planning uh a group of course and uh so this is very much is focused on everyone so if uh if they’re really interested in moving forward this year and they provide us uh back a letter and where we’ve gone out to everybody at this point um we were very happy to try to support him on it council thank you i’ll note that former councilor herald ushers involved in that one so i’m sure you’ll be hearing back from them as it’s uh his church um if we’re looking at places like 400 south dale east they they’ve come here they have affordable housing units as well uh they got approved they came back to us again for brownfield uh funding to help remediate a site um then i believe they’re on pause again looking for perhaps a better deal um with this process as you see it help flesh out any people who have i know ideally it’s make your decision or step aside um if things like that are coming back i’m also concerned that if developments like these have money set aside from the city of London for brownfield that if they’re not going to use it does that money have like a timing component to it because if they’re not going to use it i’m sure others in the city would actually like to capitalize on that money and funding and do something instead go stuff um through the chair so there is a reserve fund that handles those cip payments so there is um adequate money to be able to fund future brownfield efforts so i’m not super concerned if they’re not moving forward in the in the short term as long as that we know that they’re interested in moving forward ultimately um and part of this activity very much is wanting to provide some level priority because if everything’s a priority then nothing’s a priority so if we can get that commitment that people are interested in moving it forward and it looks like that uh it’s going to be a sizable development that is very much going to provide some housing that we want to try to put all of our our support in to be having it move forward very quickly. Councilor. Thank you mr. chair can you remind me if this has been moved for receipt yet i will move it for receipt then put it on the floor um we yeah please move it for receipt yeah it’s a mural direction so we’re not doing anything. Yeah we can yeah so moved i’ll look i’ll look like councilor cutty as seconded so thank you we at least got it on the floor uh councilor coppins yeah thank you for recognizing me again really appreciate the conversation i did have some concerns about exactly who was giving the direction i appreciate deputating there’s questions around exactly what we’re doing here so um i i still would like to proceed with um my question around um the letter of intent obviously we’re not going to get a report back or anything like that but are there consequences if the letter of intent is not fulfilled or how is that going to be dealt with just asking the questions here at back. Good staff through the chair so um of course with any of these applications even if it is very much something that the developer wants to be forward with and the city wants to move forward there could be even other agencies for example like cn or someone else that might be have an impact on the timeline i think what we’re releasing this is is it the good faith gesture to be able to to know that we that people actually have that intent that we have that in writing so that we know that if we are following up with them that like it is in their core to also be able to put the the foot on the gas as far as even their consulting and design teams as well so um there isn’t anything like formal we’re not taking like um funds from them we’re in upholding them and and not giving their deposit back if they don’t don’t move forward but uh it’s at least an indication that uh that they are interested and that’s really what we want to see that commitment on on both sides no sir yeah i appreciate the um the relationship of working together so um i think that’s what’s really important in moving uh housing forward does um any concerns about i want to use the word leapfrogging but maybe as it relates to the gmis and implications to that or maybe i’m all this thinking it go stuff through general very a fair thought um what we’ve tried to do is start with people that are very well on with their applications right now so of course our our uh we have significant amounts of applications that are currently been submitted in the building permit process that might be have been an under review for um since even last year so those are most closely going to be able to provide a permit and have a building constructed hopefully in the coming months so there’s a kind of a tier of the people of where they are in the process but we want to ensure that everyone that uh very much is very interested in moving forward especially in these uh tough uh terrible written economic times can move forward so uh we’re going to be there to be able to try to support them through it but from a gmis process um one of the those indicators that we’ve had in developed in this list was to ensure that there’s servicing required because if you’re not going to have servicing you’re not going to be able to get a building permit so not a significant concern from a gmis process tell us sir really appreciate that information thank you for that and I just want to make a further comment about uh office to residential conversion really really um I think that’s a great idea as we try to especially in the downtown area develop uh housing so um yeah I just wanted to thank you. Other comments or questions committee will permit me in just a couple of quick ones when the province looks at numbers we have a target and is it true that the number like we have zoning applications site plan building permits we look at a lot of different things to track how we’re doing they look at foundations is that correct through the chair absolutely so they there’s there’s three different components that uh are relate that are counted as far as our pledge targets so one is building starts so that is from cmhc it very much is based on somebody actually driving around and seeing a foundation being built so that is why one of the reasons why it’s very specific with what the mayor has said so if we can at least get those pieces started so that’s part of it um next is uh conversion so if you do have like your commercial conversion it’s going to residential that’s another piece that’s included and then there’s also like even a long term term bed in uh in sorry beds and added and upgraded and long-term care homes is also counted that’s a value we don’t even we don’t track but is added by the province at the end of the day so um so those are the three different components but uh yeah very much uh having those foundations and that building starting is what triggers that uh that unit to be counted and that has financial implications in the city regarding dc charges in the province is that correct absolutely so um there is different uh i won’t go through all the details of what the dc has it in right now but there’s a variety of different um opportunities in the province is provided for like development charges freezes and opportunity to defer the costs of dc’s but uh one of that one of those uh thresholds is that submission of the permit and having that permit approved and i think we’ve experienced some frustration because we’ve had like um starts come in a previous year and they weren’t counted in one year even though we’ve had tremendous activity through city hall doing our bit um that wasn’t recognized so i think it’s what we’re i think the intent to bear isn’t here to to confirm that or not but if if this is how that we’re being measured then then this is what we have to really um really push to take advantage of the work that’s done before with uh you know site planning zoning etc yeah absolutely and uh now that uh what i always i feel is is a fair thing to be uh scored against is when you understand the rules you understand where you need to go and you understand how how to get there um there was uh there was a lot of understanding gained over the last couple years and really feel now we have a have a good uh we know what we need to do to be able to bring forward and how those units are going to be counted um there was literally thousands of units that that weren’t counted in the past even though they were some of those units still haven’t people aren’t living in them and we’re actively spending a lot of really good valuable time in inspecting those buildings and making sure that they move forward so the people have that housing so the good piece of it though is that uh now that we uh understand what’s being counted we can very much focus both on on meeting those objectives and getting more housing for lenders okay so yeah for me i think this is this is good um i think it’s good for the mayor to bring this forward um to you know really um address what the what’s important to the province like the number that’s important to the province and i think the offshoot is also identifying excuse me new processes that maybe we can use you know uh going forward i know this is for just for 2025 but hopefully there’s all identified ways that we can um you know uh integrate into our you know the way we work uh and getting things moving uh faster and quicker thank you okay i’ll look around one more time to see if there’s any more comments or questions we have motion moved in second so i’ll call the vote using the vote the motion carries five to zero okay thank you and we’re moving on to 2.5 this is regarding the housing accelerator fund completion of the city of London housing needs assessment and i will go to staff here for a brief presentation um what’s before us today thank you mr chair also we have online today our uh consultant is here uh colliers uh i’m not sure how many folks are on online but they are available for some of the more detailed questions if you have them um but what i wanted to share with committee is that uh this the housing needs assessment which is 2.5 it’s a requirement of the housing accelerator fund uh and it was actually the scope was dictated by cmhc and specifically the content of the reports themselves um what the report really is it’s a historical assessment that’s based on the 20 2021 census on uh some of the um housing um matters within the city of london when we get to 2026 there’s an opportunity for us to update that once the census has been um uh completed at that time uh some of the key findings um so we have a shortage of bachelor and one bedroom units um there’s also a shortage of extra large units um it also is identified that ten households are more susceptible to affordability issues um and that some of the priority groups such as seniors uh single fan uh single parents and uh women are also like more likely to experience some of those affordability issues uh of the households that we have in london there’s about eight hundred uh eighteen thousand seven hundred fifty households that are in core housing need and what that means is that folks are spending more than 30 percent of their income on uh rent um so as we’re starting to think about how we translate some of this information into our programs and policies um to meet our current future housing needs we’ve got a scale to a diverse set of housing options so we need to be able to respond to both the single families and the bachelor’s that are required but we also need to be able uh to build uh family housing as well in order to support some of those multi-unit needs that are out there um what we have done already with this report so we’ve incorporated um in preparation for our housing stability action plan update which is a requirement under the housing services act we’ve already started to incorporate some of this data into that report which will be coming forward to council at a future date um and then we’ve also built some of the uh some of the geographical information into some of our um land assessments for our future RFPs and where we might be bringing out more affordable housing uh projects in the future which really key is that this is data that will help us drive decision making but it’s not going to be the thing that makes the decision for us we’re going to use this data in order to inform the decisions that we make uh as we move forward uh happy to take any questions that you have and I also have uh makes undercock here who did uh bulk of the work with colliers and supported us on this project thank you I’ll put this on the floor for committee councilor plows up looking for a mover and then absolutely that I will move it and then I will save a comment thank you and we got a second to write councilor halyer questions thank you uh just I thank you to staff for this uh was having some um meetings with developers uh and was just using this report to actually highlight if they’re interested uh what staff have already done as an industry standard uh scan of what’s needed uh currently for identifiable needs should they want to consider where the gaps are uh as they bring planning applications forward and through realizing that there’s already a deficit um of some of these offerings so just thank you for that like you know that I know it’s on the agenda today but I’ve already started sharing it out uh in some meetings so thank you thank you other comments or questions jimmer Lewis so uh first of all um again I appreciate all the work that went into this um what really one of the things that really stuck out for me is the identification of the priority groups um you know the the core housing need uh where 55% of uh those are are led by women the 36 and a half percent of households and core housing need led by seniors over 65 um I think that seniors number should be of concern um in a significant way for us uh because I think that that’s a number that’s been growing um and and I know that it’s something that uh you know I have certainly flagged for our housing development folks and I appreciate the great conversations with Mr. Felberg and the work that’s happening at Duluth Crescent that will see some seniors uh units being created um I will also say uh you know I referenced earlier that uh committee of adjustment seems to be much more efficient than you used to be um appreciate uh seeing Ms. Sondercock here because uh I first met her through committee of adjustment and and happy to see that she’s continuing to do some serious work for the city one of the things that really really stuck out for me here and it’s something that has been coming up again and again and again in our other discussion around homelessness and response is the significant need for affordable housing in the Northwest in that N6H N5G FSA code and I really do think we need to be looking very seriously about that uh you know I’m not going to speak for Councillor Cuddy but I know you’ve all heard East End Councillors in particular saying not everything can go in the East and this data uh this report emphasizes and underscores that again there has to be a better distribution of affordable housing across the city um so I appreciate that being identified in the report um I do have a question about one piece of data that was of concern for me and sorry I’m just my notations are on the PDF on my laptop not the one on the east scribe so I’ve got to cycle through to find it uh if I don’t have the number exactly right uh I apologize oh there it is um so when we talk about 1,825 affordable units tracked up to the end of 2023 uh with 498 built and occupied uh 598 in progress um and actually I received some uh photographs from Southside today about progress both at the Soho site and at Elm Street so I know that there are certainly ones that are nearing completion but we have 729 in planning and I’ve said this before and and I’m raising it again how many of those reflect ZBA’s that have been approved years ago where nothing has moved since uh because we implemented bonusing uh requirements um in previous councils uh which have made the projects economically um not viable and so I’m concerned that we’re reporting 729 in planning when some of those exist on paper only and unless new applicants or existing applicants come back with new applications and and seek new ZBA’s are only ever going to exist on paper so I wonder if we can get a comment or or if staff can provide any sort of number in terms of ones that have been sort of on the list a long time as planned but nothing has happened with them I’ll go staff uh thank you and through you mr chair that’s great question and it’s actually something that we wrestle with when we’re looking at the roadmap progress um one one note for you the the numbers that you have in the report uh we actually updated that as part of the annual development report this past February we’re closer to 2100 units but a little over that actually um so we’re actually doing better than what was identified in this report when when it was finalized um what I would say in regard to bonus units specifically bonus units the what the other ones are really ones that we have some um some control over their shovel ready properties or their projects that have actually advanced through contribution agreements or what not similar to the report that we added caps uh community community and protective services yesterday but there’s probably somewhere in the area of about 300 bonus units uh on that list that are in planning uh we’re actually uh mr p’s and i are actually starting to work on a report right now to bring something back to planning committee to talk a little bit about that specifically hit that nail on the head so that we can have a look to address that in the future but w mare thank you i’m glad that that’s on your radar too and that you’re looking at a way to to bring that back to us for for some consideration because that continues to be an area that i’m really concerned about where we’re counting units that there’s a realistic chance we may never see um i i also wonder though and and i’m going to ask this uh again through you chair to our staff uh you know when we identify or or when there may be nothing we can do about this because this may be really tied to cmhc’s definitions um but when we talk about the suitable housing in the core housing need information um there’s three metrics and and for me it’s the suitable housing one um that kind of sticks as a i’m not sure that this is necessarily reflective of every person’s reality when we’re tracking this data uh you know when we talk about housing which has enough bedrooms for uh the number of occupants based on the national occupancy standard which is probably why we can’t do anything about it um but we talk about requires one bedroom per couple or single individual including children and then says you know for example a two-parent household with two children would need a minimum of three bedrooms for their housing to be considered suitable i don’t think that that necessarily reflects the reality of every family um you know i i think of uh the power’s family and in my ward uh well they’ve actually relocated so they’re not my ward anymore but um four boys and and three bedrooms and the two oldest boys share a room and the two youngest boys share a room and they get along just fine doing it that way um and uh you know obviously if you’ve got uh bigger age differences um gender differences between children yes those those individual bedrooms might be necessary um but they’re not always um and for younger families you know children under two or or under three uh individual bedrooms might not be necessary now but they might be at a different space in the housing continuum than where they’re going to be when the children are 10 12 13 so i wonder to what extent the suitable housing metric contemplates the actual reality uh that families are experiencing because i feel like it’s probably just a generic metric and isn’t very nuanced so i’m just looking to understand better from staff uh whether my my sense that this is just a generic metric uh is accurate or whether there are some nuances to it and and reflected in that report i’ll go staff uh through you mr.

[2:17:42] chair so i i think you uh you identified something that we wrestle with when we’re dealing with um a report that was mandated by CMHC so they they’re looking at their policies their programs they’re looking in the national housing strategy looking in national occupancy standards but they’re looking nationwide they’re not necessarily looking in london specifically i think where we have an opportunity to influence that is potentially how we work through our wait lists and how we’re working with people uh in our gi housing and and how we assess those different populations that are here locally that we need to respond to and be able to put them into housing uh as an example uh just to bring it back to some of the core housing need if you look at the uh 18 750 households that are in core housing need about 1200 of those folks are not living in subsidized housing so uh the report that we brought yesterday in regard to on terra renovates where we’re looking to help people age in place specifically seniors and single single parents those types of programs are the types of programs that we can deliver in order to keep people in housing and potentially get them out of that core housing need and potentially have them be successful so we have some flexibility in how we approach things um and we can look to do that as we develop our programs moving forward what do you matter uh thank you chair so again appreciate that answer glad is know that there’s the flexibility in our side particularly in tenant placements and and those sorts of considerations moving forward and that brought me to the other thing that i i raised a question for me and again i don’t know how we necessarily measure this i don’t know how it’s considered in this scenario um and maybe there’s not a way to but the other part for me and and i know this from my experience with uh lmch where we have tenants who are overhoused and how does you know now we’ve got a you know a single senior who’s occupying a three bedroom town or or a two bedroom apartment uh when they they really their core housing need is for one um so how how do we factor in when we talk about our unit counts for the need for bachelors and and single bedrooms um and larger units with how do we balance that out with knowing that we do also have a population that is overhoused at least in our subsidized market i obviously in the private sector if people want to remain overhoused there’s that’s their choice um although part of that even concerns me around the aging in place piece where maybe we’re encouraging seniors to stay in a home that perhaps we shouldn’t be encouraging them to stay in but maybe we have no other option for them to move because we’ve got these singular or bachelor shortages so i’m just wondering how the overhoused factor plays into some of the recommendations and and some of the highlights in this report i’ll go stuff uh thank you and through you mr chair uh it kind of buried somewhere in the report it talks about suppressed household formation and so i think what you’re talking about is specifically that it’s the opportunity for young people to move into housing that suits where they want to go and where they want to where they want to grow where they want to raise a family um when we’re working with the social housing partners and working with some of those overhoused folks that are overhoused on the rgi really what we need to do is we need to have those uh one bedroom units for them to move into so um i believe last year uh my colleagues in planning and development approved over 20,000 units citywide some of many of those are high density apartment buildings that would have those one bedroom units there would be a potential opportunity to open up i recognize they’re not affordable units they’re likely at a higher rent but it’s adding to the stock that we have in london that allows us to uh potentially move those folks out into the future projects like vision so ho the deluth project those are all things that we can do to support that work so it’s it’s really all of that happening at once all of that happening and that will allow us to deal with some of those challenges you’ve identified counsel or sorry deputy mayor that’s okay i’ll take either one um but also uh so i thought i was done but that that response mr. Felberg actually gave me just one more um consideration here uh and yes the suppressed household formation was part of what i was trying to get with at with the overhoused piece um but i will say that i know a whole lot of uh Londoners in that suppressed group in in their early 20s um who are are not who are living in mom and dad’s basement and would love to get out um they really would love to get out but they are not in a position to do so and for them it’s not necessarily the availability of a one bedroom because it’s not about moving out solo it’s about not being able to find locations to move out with a roommate um that they can manage you know and it’s not it’s not necessarily a partner it’s just a shared living arrangement where you’re sharing expenses and living independently uh with a friend a co-worker whatever in a roommate situation and so for me i wonder if we were missing the target a little bit on the two bedrooms as well because some of that household suppression information is not actually family unit formation but simply independent living and the need for uh and lots of us for generations um typically when we moved out of home out of house and home with our parents it wasn’t to live in a one bedroom by ourselves roommates are a normal part of the housing continuum especially for young people and i don’t see that necessarily captured in the research here and i’m just wondering if there’s any comments staff can provide on that i’ll go staff uh thank you and through you mr.

[2:23:47] chair i don’t have any particular comments about that one uh the one thing i would also add that’s also contributing to this and i probably should have mentioned it last time was student housing and the fact that western and fanta are starting to build some residences they’re able to open up some space within the neighborhoods near uh near the campuses so that also helps with the issue that we have but that’s something we can take back and we can do a little bit of research and we can incorporate that into our future plans on where we want to target uh around the city is around the two bedroom i mean deputy mayor great again i i’m very helpful i know this is a very layered complex moving targets and moving pieces all the time uh i know a lot of work went into this uh you know certainly i appreciate the consultations that we’re had with with other partners at uh you know when i first started reading it and saw you know the 2021 census and i thought well this is going to not be all that helpful because the city has changed dramatically since 2021 but then i looked at all the the industry partners that were involved all the other data sets that were being taken into account and i i think this gives us a good blueprint i i think there’s probably some changes that can be made along the way as we move forward but i’m already hearing from staff that those things are being considered uh here that i’ve given them some more food for thought to look at moving forward as well so um you know i i’m supportive of where we’re going here i just think there’s there may be some more nuanced situations and and certainly um cmhc’s need to consider some more nuanced situations as a conversation i’ll take up with our federal members now that the election is over and there will be some sworn in soon for other comments or questions we have a motion to receive that’s been moved in second i’ll call a vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you uh moving on to 2.6 this is regarding housing salary or fun initiative five city land disposal process review for increasing affordable housing and i’ll go to staff again for a brief verbal presentation on this thank you uh mr chair so this is another one of the housing accelerator uh initiatives that we had to deliver on so i’m going to pass it over to megs undercock and she’ll provide a summary of what you’ve got before you and then we also have mr. Warner here if you have any questions specific to realty and we’re happy to answer any questions you might have thank you very much so what you have in front of you is the land disposal policy process review this report is part of this report is part of an ongoing process improvement in the way that the city disposes of land assets for the purpose of affordable housing as a continuation of housing accelerator fund initiative number five to streamline the disposal and development process so the report was developed through an environmental scan of the city’s current policies as well as consultations with the cities of hamilton auto and calgary uh who each have interesting and unique land disposal and affordable housing strategies through which call yours project leaders our consultant has extrapolated best practices and included in the report as recommendations for consideration in refining our process many of the best practices that we observed are already activities that city staff have implemented to simplify the disposition process and in further support of simplification we are recommending the immediate implementation of the recommendation to amend the sale and other disposition of land policy to include lands to be disposed of by municipal housing and industrial development to align with the existing policy exempting industrial lands from the process we are also recommending further investigation of the cash flow model to compare different land use options by revenues and cost and the corporate benefits model to weigh municipal needs and interests to guide decision-making thank you thank you and i’ll go to committee members right now for discussion uh council closing sorry i’ll put on the floor to start with thank you i’ll look for a seconder deputy mayor seconds i’ll look for comments or questions deputy mayor uh so again just a couple questions for staff um this is one of those planning committee meetings where the consent agenda is taking longer than the items for direction but that’s okay uh these are some important items uh for our consideration um i guess my main question uh through staff and it’s reflected and i believe it was the hamilton model and i don’t see it necessarily reflected yet knowing that there’s some investigation to to deal and come back with a couple of different uh recommendations but what i don’t see yet is the involvement of the word counselor which hamilton has and which i don’t see reflected as a recommended process for us here and i know uh cherry yourself and and counselor ramen uh have certainly on many occasions raise some concerns about municipal lands perhaps being better suited for open space or or community center space or many space um because there are multiple uses for municipal surplus lands obviously affordable housing is our primary um driver right now because that’s the largest area of need obviously when we’re talking about you know parklands or things like that there are um different budgets involved in in parks uh and recreation program budgets and and the operations of those um but i do think that the word counselors bring um a unique neighborhood perspectives to things uh you know i referenced in the earlier report the seniors buildings uh that were happening uh on diluth crescent and you know certainly that is something that i brought to mr fellberg very very early on with a lot of community feedback to share with him already um that when the land was going to be acquired the number one ask of arga residents was seniors units please and we’re delivering on that um but i’m not sure that that would have been captured in the same way um frankly had i not stuck my nose in a little bit um it may still have been captured but perhaps not with the same prioritization and so i see that reflected in another community’s model that we’ve looked at i don’t see it reflected um right now in terms of where we may be moving so i i’m looking for some staff comments on where if they will be considering the direct counselor consultation involvement uh when they bring back recommendations for us both staff thank you and through you mr chair uh it’s a very good point and a very good question um i what i would point to is uh recommendation a to a corporate benefits model so that’s where we would go and look at the different properties that we’re proposing for disposition and we would work with our colleagues around the organization to ensure that uh everybody’s needs are being met and we’re considering that when we bring that report back we can include something around that how do we have political decision-making and how does council get to weigh in on some of that and then that would be something that committee would be able to consider and then provide direction on the deputy mayor satisfied with that answer sounds good other comments or questions now just a brief comment from the chair committee permits you know these two things that we spoke of um what’s the needs assessment and the disposal process brought forward by you know uh required by housing and selling fund but probably good uh good exercise to go through for sure and uh you know i agree with uh deputy mayor’s comments about involving maybe local counselors at some point because we do have a pretty in-depth um view of our of our particular words however i understand as well the city has uh a broad plan of of where certain amenities go housing needs etc that might not drive with what we want particularly in our uh in our area so thank you very much for both reports uh i know a lot of work has gone into them and i hope i hope um that they’re used quite frankly by not just our playing department by other departments uh in at city hall um because it’s very good information here that uh other than just that we had to do it that um we benefit from it so thank you okay we have a motion to receive moved and seconded don’t see any further comments so i’ll call the question losing the vote the motion carries back to zero so i think that is the end of the agenda thank you very much all the promotion uh to stop thank you uh counselor kai seconded bye councilor hand vote motion carries thank you everyone i go a lot faster if you want to stop you can hit remind i accept it but i’m sorry i’ll be a little bit longer i’ll be right up