Open Council

The 9th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

The 9th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

June 10, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   Intention to Expand the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area (BIA)

2025-06-10 - (2.1) Staff Report - Hyde Park BIA Expansion

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the staff report dated June 10, 2025, related to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area request for expansion BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee in order for Civic Administration to work with the Hyde Park BIA to undertake an additional round of engagement specifically with the businesses located within the staff recommended expansion area;

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

  •    a communication dated June 4, 2025, from T. Delany, President and D. Szpakowski, GM & CEO, Hyde Park BIA; and, 

  •    a communication dated June 7, 2025, from S. Disney, Partner, Canadian Commercial (Sherwood Forest) Inc.

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the staff report dated June 10, 2025, related to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area request for expansion BE REFERRED to a future meeting of Planning and Environment Committee for consideration.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the referral motion BE AMENDED to read as follows:

That the staff report dated June 10, 2025, related to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area request for expansion BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee in order for Civic Administration to work with the Hyde Park BIA to undertake an additional round of engagement specifically with the businesses located within the staff recommended expansion area.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the referral, as amended, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.2   Downtown London: Momentum Report 2025

2025-06-10 - (2.2) Downtown London Momentum Report 2025

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Downtown London: Momentum Report, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from K. Neilsen, Board Chair, Downtown London, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the delegation request from K. Nielsen, as appended to the agenda BE APPROVED, to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   35 Jim Ashton Street (OZ-25042)

2025-06-10 - (3.1) Staff Report - 35 Jim Ashton St

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of The Islamic Educational Foundation of Canada Inc. – Neil Elhayek (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the properties located at 35 Jim Ashton Street:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 10, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 24, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy in the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 10, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on June 24, 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 lands BY AMENDING the Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC5(3)) Zone;

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

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

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

iii)    the recommended amendment would permit a complementary use that is considered appropriate within the surrounding 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 E. Peloza

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)

3.2   415 Oxford Street West (OZ-25046)

2025-06-10 - (3.2) Staff Report - 415 Oxford Street West

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 RAND Developments (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 415 Oxford Street West:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 10, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 24, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by AMENDING policy 1067B_ in the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 10, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 24, 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 properties FROM a Commercial Recreational (CR) Zone and Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a Holding Residential R10 Special Provision (h-8h-125R10-3(_)) Zone and Open Space (OS4) Zone; and,

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

i)    wrap the podiums in active uses to create an active frontage and allow passive surveillance throughout the site;

ii)    prohibit parking between the buildings and public streets; 

iii)    commercial entrances shall be provided on the south façade oriented to Oxford Street West; and, 

iv)    publicly accessible entrance shall be provided on the south and north façade oriented to Oxford Street West and the future street;

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

-    T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

i)    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

ii)    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the evaluation criteria for Specific Policy Areas, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, and the Mud Creek EA and 415 Oxford St W Specific Policy Area policies; and, 

iii)    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site at an appropriate scale and intensity within the Built- Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area and will contribute to achieving a range and mix of housing types within the 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. Hillier

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   928-934 Oxford Street West (Z-25044)

2025-06-10 - (3.3) Staff Report - 928-934 Oxford Street West

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2419361 Ontario Inc & Ali Youssef (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design) relating to the property located at 928 & 934 Oxford Street West;

a)    The proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 10, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 24, 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 R8 Special Provision (h-6*R8-4(94)) Zone and Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone TO a Residential R1/Residential R8 Special Provision (R1-10/R8-4(94)) Zone;

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

i)    Provide screening for the lower-level units fronting Oxford Street West and the rear parking area by providing all-season landscaping including trees and shrubs to ensure potential issues related to privacy, noise and headlight glare are mitigated. 

ii)    Explore opportunities to move the bike parking closer to the building and remove the sidewalk to provide more space for the common amenity area.

iii)    Explore opportunities to retain as many existing mature trees as possible, especially along the south property line.

iv)    Explore opportunities for an increased parking setback.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given; 

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

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

-    S. Aziz; and, 

-    A. Palmateer;

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

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

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

iii)    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 (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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)

3.4   743 Richmond Street (OZ-25048)

2025-06-10 - (3.4) Staff Report - 743 Richmond Street

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 743 Richmond Inc. (c/o Fitzrovia) relating to the property located at 743 Richmond Street:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 10, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on June 24, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Rapid Transit and Urban Corridors Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 10, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 24, 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 properties FROM an Office Residential/Business District Commercial Special Provision (ORD350H52/BDC(1)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)D3930H125) Zone; and,

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

i)    a publicly accessible lobby entrance shall be provided on the north façade or oriented towards the intersection;

ii)    commercial entrances shall be provided on the east façade or oriented towards the intersection; 

iii)    to align with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles the entrance underpass area should provide clear sightlines and eliminate potential entrapment spaces, and ensure the area is well-lit;

iv)    explore opportunities to provide additional short-term bicycle parking spaces on site, external or internal to the building; 

v)    the access to Oxford Street East shall be restricted to a right-in/right-out (RIRO); and, 

vi)    further refine the podium to include decorative brick cladding to further the compatibility with the adjacent heritage-listed properties; 

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

  •    G. Gilbert, Fitzrovia; 

  •    D. Galbraith, Up Consulting;  

  •    M. Attard, Hariri Pontarini Architects; 

-    M. Jarazecko; and, 

-    J. Pepe;

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

  •    a communication dated June 6, 2025, from M. Tovey, President SGGNA

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2025, from C. Butler;

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

i)    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment; 

ii)    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, the evaluation criteria for Specific Policy Areas, and the Rapid Transit and Urban Corridors Place Type policies;

 iii)    the recommended amendments facilitate the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate scale and intensity that will contribute to achieving a compact City; and, 

iv)    the recommended amendments would permit a 35-storey, 512-unit mixed-use apartment building in a form that is appropriate for the site and will contribute to achieving a range and mix of housing types within the 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 (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

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)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting Adjourned at 4:04 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 20 minutes)

[17:17] Good afternoon, everyone. And so 1 p.m., I’d like to call the ninth meeting of the Planning Environment Committee to order. Council chambers, please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of Anishinaumik, Odenoshone, Lenapeiwak, and Adirondaran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today.

[17:51] 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 hackpec@london.ca or 516-661-2489, extension 2425. At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest.

[18:27] Seeing none, we’ll move on to consent items. We do have a delegation status for 2.2 and have been asked to have 2.1 pulled. So as are some, we will move the consent items to the end of the meeting after the scheduled items. So we will move right into scheduled items at this point. So starting with 3.1, this is regarding 35 Jim Ashton Street. I’ll look for a mover to move in the public participation meeting.

[19:01] Councilor Palos is seconded by Councillor Hillier. I’ll call the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll ask if the applicant is here and like to address the committee. See anyone in the chambers, I’ll ask if someone’s online. I don’t see anyone.

[19:35] So I’ll look for any member of the public that would like to address the committee on this item. Seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hillier, and we’ll call that vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, so I’ll put this item on the floor, looking for a motion.

[20:09] Councilor Cuddy, nice to move. You’re moving the staff’s recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder, Councilor Palosa. Motion moved and seconded any discussion. Seeing none, then we’ll go right to the vote. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.2.

[20:45] I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting, moved by Councilor Hillier, seconded by Councilor Palosa, and we’ll call that. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, if the applicant is here, please ma’am, give us your name, and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, committee members, staff, and members of the public.

[21:20] My name is Taylor Whitney, intermediate planner with Selenka Priam Unlimited, the land use planning consultants representing brand developments, the land owner of 415 Oxford Street West. We are pleased to be here today with the second iteration of this application. As you may be aware, we appear before this committee in late 2024 with an application on these lands that was considered to be too intense by both city staff and this committee. That application was withdrawn with the intent of having further discussions with city staff to come up with a plan with a scale and intensity that would be more appropriate for the lands.

[21:57] Since then, we’ve had multiple discussions with both planning and engineering staff, and are happy to be here with a positive recommendation for approval on the revised proposal. I would like to thank Catherine Martin, Michaela Hines, and Brent Lambert specifically for their ongoing work and collaboration to get us here today. Together with staff, we’ve resolved the concern of over intensity by reducing the overall building height and number of units on the lands. And we have come up with a creative solution to address the fact that the mud creek channel reconstruction is not yet complete, and final flood lines not yet established.

[22:31] The open space zone boundary will need to be adjusted for the proposed development to proceed. At this time, the open space boundary is proposed to remain as is, until the mud creek channel reconstruction is complete and final flood lines determined. At that time, staff will initiate a housekeeping amendment to update the open space zoning to reflect the mud creek channel realignment, as described in the staff report. We agree with and appreciate this approach and do not object to the proposed holding provisions recommended by staff. We appreciate this committee’s consideration of the application, and I’m available to answer any questions.

[23:06] Thank you for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public like to address the committee on this item. Us, clerk if there’s anyone online, online. Okay, seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM, Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Ploza, and we’ll call that vote. Councilor Hillier, closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[23:49] Okay, before we open up to the committee, I just want to go to staff, ‘cause there is a bit of a complication with mud creek and the neighboring development. I’m wondering if you could just expand on what the applicant spoke about to kind of give us up to date. Where’s mud creek in that project? How is that implicating? What are the implications for this particular zoning request and also the neighboring development?

[24:25] Thank you and through the chair. So as the agent outlined, the subject lands are constrained by the presence of mud creek, which runs along the entire frontage of these lands. However, given that mud creek is planned to be realigned, staff are satisfied that development can occur with appropriate buffers to the future mud creek complete corridor. Nevertheless, in this case, given the open space zone boundary is dependent on mud creek, regulatory flood limits being established, zoning approval to amend the open space zone boundary is considered premature at this time.

[24:57] And for this reason, the line of the open space zone before you does not reflect what is ultimately needed for the development as proposed. And the recommended zoning was done in this way to establish the residential zone and lock in those site layout and building design features that should be carried forward in the future development of the subject lands through special revisions without the need for another zoning bylaw amendment application by the developer, specifically the recommended zoning establishes the zone that can be expanded on the larger site at the appropriate time, noting that staff have confirmed that a city initiated zoning bylaw amendment to relocate the zone line after the mud creek project establishes the development limit will occur.

[25:41] And mud creek realignment in front of the property, however, will be developed by the applicants. It also should be noted that two holding provisions are also being recommended, an H8 and an H125 should be applied to ensure the creek channel and stormwater works are completed prior to development and to ensure that servicing and access from the adjacent plan is subdivision is also received and I’ll now turn it to stormwater to give an update on the mud creek project. Thank you, okay. So now I’ll put this item on the floor for our committee.

[26:20] Councilor Plaza. Thank you, I can move staff recommendation. Okay, now the seconder, Councilor Cudi seconds. Motion moved and seconded, open for debate. So again, I’ll come from the chair. Until mud creek is completed, development will not happen on this site. Is that my understanding that correct? That is correct. Okay, and then once, and what, where are we looking at for completion for mud creek?

[26:54] Do we have an idea roughly? Thank you and through the chair. The current phase of the mud creek led by the city will be completed by the end of this year. That covers the land south of Oxford street. This component is going to be done led by the private developers to the north in a partnership. So that timing is subject to the development community as to when that is designed and constructed. There is budget though in the DC starting in 2027 for that channel. Okay, okay, so my understanding is that this developer will be participating in the completion of mud creek.

[27:33] Is that correct? It is correct that the design of this component is the responsibility of this developer, yes. Okay, all right, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Councilor Perbal. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. The comment I just heard is that the budget is going to be in, it’s budgeted in 2027. How is that going to coincide with the project or by the end of this year on the chair just set? If you can just clarify that one for me. So go staff. Thank you and through the chair.

[28:06] So what we’re calling phase three of mud creek, which is the works led by the private development community, the budgets available in 2027. That basically just correlates with the timing of the previous phases. And we’ve spoken to the developers in that timing and sufficient. Councilor. Perfect, thank you. No more questions? Any other comments or questions? Okay, we have motion moved and seconded. Don’t call that vote. You wanna say something?

[28:39] Hold on a second, please. Sorry, Chair. Councilor Travs, I was online. Sorry. Hold on, Councilor, hold on a second, please. Sorry, Councilor, we didn’t see your hand in the air, but you were able to get in there in time. So please go ahead. Well, let me start by saying that very early in my term, I was visited by the proponents here.

[29:16] And I really appreciate the fact that they’ve, you know, consulted with me a few times. I don’t have any serious objection to this project. Going through, I’ve not heard from any of the neighbors, largely because I don’t think they’re already neighbors. In terms of where this is configured. So this was easier than the one next to it. And I understand that there’s gonna be a holding provision that will take a while to be complete. The one question that I would like clarified though is the street access is not going to be, if I understand this, the street access is gonna be coming from the new roads that are gonna be built as part of the adjacent subdivisions.

[30:05] Is that correct? I’ll go south. Thank you, through the chair. That is correct that the access will be connected to the future neighborhood street within the adjacent property. We would like to limit access to our tier of roads as much as possible. So we consider that orderly development. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. And I’m not going to repeat all of the objections that I raised in the previous application with respect to the connection of Westfield and Beaverbrook and the effect that I’ll have on traffic in the area.

[30:48] I don’t think there’s anything by way of additional condition though that I can offer on this project. I think much is gonna be contingent on how the adjacent development proceeds with respect to Westfield. But if I may ask staff if they can just give us a rough estimate as to when the other adjacent streets will be completed such that this building could be put into service. Yeah, I’ll go to staff. I know that the other development has got me to spare over like many years, like 15, 20 years.

[31:26] However, with regards to our plans for streets, I’ll go to staff on that question. Through the chair, it’s my understanding that the adjacent subdivision has not yet received draft approval. So we don’t have an approximate timeframe that we can report back on unfortunately. It’s dependent on the outcome of that process. Councilor. Well, if that’s the answer, that’s the answer. And I don’t think there’s anything else that I can ask, is there a general, does the developer have a general timeline as to when they think they’ll be taking out a building permit on this project?

[32:15] Of course, I’ll go to the applicant. Maybe you can give us some clarity on that. Yes, through you, Chair. Ideally as soon as possible, but as it’s been noted, it really is contingent on the neighboring development. Right, Councilor. Well, okay, thank you very much. And I wish you luck with this project. We certainly need the housing. And I’ve looked at your plans and it looks very nice. I retain my concerns about Westfield Drive, but that is not part of this development.

[32:50] So I don’t have any further questions. Thanks, Councilor. Yeah, I mean, this is a very complex build. I think it’s with the other development, Mugg Creek, and then a new, you know, some new roads put in over many years, it is complex, but good work to staff because it’s an incredible amount of housing coming in open space right now, perfect for infill. So I guess those are my two cents. Okay, now I’ll go back to committee asking once again, if there’s any more conversation we had.

[33:26] Seeing none, I’ll call it up. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.3. This is regarding 928 to 934 Oxford Street West. I’ll look for motion to open the PPM. Councilor Hill here is seconded by Councilor Cuddy. I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[34:07] Thank you, I’ll ask the applicant if I’d like to address the committee. Please forgive us your name, you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of committee, Mike Davis, specific planning and design. You’re here today on behalf of the ownership group of 928 and 934 Oxford Street West. Excited to be reaching this milestone. As many on this committee will recall, the ownership group was previously pursuing a development of 934 Oxford Street in isolation. They had the opportunity to acquire the adjacent parcel. They’ve done that and we’re now presenting an expanded development concept.

[34:41] We feel there’s a number of benefits with this concept. Namely, it improves the functionality of the site and addresses some of the concerns around access that were noted through the previous process. We’re in agreement with the staff report with one exception. The staff report is recommending a three meter parking area setback along the rear lot line. We are providing 1.5. The stated intent in the staff report for the expanded setback is to allow for tree preservation. There is no additional tree preservation that will occur as a result of that expanded setback.

[35:17] So that’s just one point I wanted to make. And of course, it will have significant impacts to the development concept through the loss of parking or the shrinking of the building. So with that, I’d ask for your support for the 1.5 meter setback to ensure that this development can proceed. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other members of the public that would like to address the committee on this item. Is there anyone else? Oh, sorry, I’m online though. That’s fine. I’m just about to ask a clerk if there anyone was, you’re online.

[35:48] So you’re up, if you could please give us your name and you have five minutes. Sure, my name is Steven Aziz. I’m good afternoon chair and members of the planning and environment committee. Thank you for allowing me the chance to speak today. I live a few minutes walk from 934 Oxford Street West. And I’m a resident who cares about our neighborhood and the safety and the long-term impact of this development. First, I want to raise concerns about the trees on the property. I’ve personally walked the site, taken photos and measured trees.

[36:23] Some of them are over 50 centimeters in diameter. We should qualify them for protection under London’s tree protection by-law. Yet the developers’ tree report either downplays their size or doesn’t mention them at all. Some of these trees have already been cut for a significantly trimmed. Before rezoning has even been approved, which I find concerning. I respectfully ask the council to conduct an independent site inspection to verify the current tree data and to ensure the integrity of the tree by-law is upheld.

[36:59] Concern is traffic and safety. The development proposes 24 units and 20 parking spaces, all accessed through the single entrance at the top of a steep hill. That hill already poses a challenge, especially in winter. And in fact, in the 1980s, somebody tragically lost their life backing out of a driveway on that same stretch. We also have two schools, retirement residents nearby. And this won’t be a minor traffic increase. It’s a serious safety issue that needs proper review.

[37:35] Drainage is another issue. The property sits on a slope right now. The trees and ground absorb the storm water, but once it’s paved and developed, where will that runoff go? If a formal dorm, water, or drainage plan hasn’t been submitted yet, I believe it absolutely must be. And reviewed by engineering staff for any approval. Waste management is also unclear. 24 units generate a significant amount of garbage. The site plan doesn’t show where waste will be stored collected or how orders and pests will be managed, which are practical day-to-day concerns for the neighbors.

[38:14] Finally, the development just doesn’t fit the neighborhood. Surrounding homes are low density, mostly single family. There’s nothing else like this mid-size. And it fundamentally changed the look of the neighborhood. The tenants currently living at 934 Oxford Street West have lived there for over 50 years. One of the tenants is now in pallet of care in a hospital bed confined to a hospital bed.

[38:47] These buildings are not vacant and they’re not forgotten. Earlier today, the landlord’s third attempt to evict them through the landlord and tenant tribunal was dismissed, again, for not following proper procedures. In that hearing, the landlord even suggested that it might be easier to demolish the buildings and sell it to a developer. I ask that you not only review the technical planning issues, but also consider the human cost of accelerating this proposal. Let’s take time to get it right. Let’s verify the tree data independently.

[39:20] Let’s assess the traffic risks, and let’s ensure drainage and garbage plans are actually in place. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. I don’t see anyone in chambers. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone else online. Seeing no one else would like to, oh, I see a hand up, please, sir. Okay, come pass, get a come down to the mic. Give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, my name’s Andrew Palmatier. My father is actually the man in palliative care. My parents have owned 934 since, I believe, 1974.

[39:58] There’s been some major issues with the developer or Ali Yusuf to be specific. There was contingencies when we sold the house to this man that my father was insured that his terminal illness and loss of life was gonna be able to be carried out in this home. This was very important to my mother when the sale of this property was made originally. I hope there is consideration for his life.

[40:33] We’ve had multiple doctors examine him and write letters and his defense that if this is approved and the plan goes on forward, he will not survive the transition as there is nowhere to safely put him or my mother who is also very much disabled and needs her own medical help. Another issue as I believe the speaker Eve mentioned was the traffic plan.

[41:09] I personally lived there for 35 years and I know that it is a nightmare even just for an Amazon guy trying to pull into these properties and to back out safely on that hill. I was skeptical when I heard there is the previous plan for about, I believe it was 10 cars. I thought that was beyond too many. Now to basically, for lack of a better word, Sardine can sandwich 20 vehicles in there with 23 additional families.

[41:48] I truly believe that there should have been a traffic report or some sort of pollution report updated with the plan that was submitted to the city. My hope is these considerations will be taken by you guys seriously and this process could be thoroughly examined further and as I again see Steve said, not accelerated. That’s all, thank you for your time. Thank you.

[42:23] Look for any other members of the public like to address committee. Anyone online clerk? Okay, I see no others like to address all the promotion to close to PPM. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hillier, and we’ll call them. Wasn’t the vote the motion carries five to zero?

[42:57] So there are a few questions from the public there that I’d like to just ask the staff right now regarding traffic. What point is a traffic study done or has one been done or does that go at site plan? And is there room enough so that cars don’t back out onto Oxford, but they’re coming out frontways? Thank you through the chair. Typically like a traffic study’s triggered by a hundred units or more.

[43:33] So in this case, we have 24 in its own a civic boulevard. It’s got adequate separation between the intersections as well. It meets our access management guidelines and also site lines were deemed adequate as well during the review. I know it was mentioned the Hill was a concern but they are at the top of the Hill, which gives them more site line. I think there’s questions about, sorry, backing out on Oxford Street. Yeah, we through the site plan control by-law, we have a requirement for clear throat distance, which will I think is about six meters.

[44:13] So that will provide enough space for people to get out. Drainage and grading, I think we’re brought up as well. That will be reviewed and assessed through the site plan application, but what I can tell you is it will be controlled by the parking lot grading. And then the drainage will go into a catch base and then out through the storm sewer. So we’re gonna be collecting all that storm water, putting it into the ground and out to Oxford Street. Yeah, I think that’s it. Good, I’m glad you covered off the drainage.

[44:47] The waste management, is that, will that have been planned out now how they’re going to manage the waste from this building? Thank you for the question and through the chair. Only set plan potential waste collection point is located on the southeast corner of the site. And these details will be further refined through the site plan approval process. East corner, okay. Thank you, and one further question. This is regarding demolishing the buildings. If this rezoning was allowed, that does not mean the applicant can go in and demolish the buildings.

[45:28] But some permit would be needed for that, is that correct? And where along the process does that happen? Through the chair, so that would be a requirement to submit a permit to be able to allow for that demolition. So they can technically come in that with that application at any time and we’d review it and be able to provide either authority to be able to demolish or not demolish based on their submission.

[46:01] So we haven’t, that my knowledge received a demolition request at this time, but it would likely come after an approval such as the one being sought today. And finally, there was some concern raised about the purchase of sale agreement that provisions were allowed for the existing occupant to stay there for a prescribed period of time. Before demolition permit is given, do we do anything to see if there’s any, legal reason why that the buildings should stay up?

[46:43] Through the chair, we would be confirming the ownership of the property. So we’d have to be, the owner would that, submitting the application would have to have the authority to be able to act on behalf of that property. So that is something that would be confirming that just the ownership piece. We don’t have, we’re not party to anything, any agreements further from that. So that definitely would be something that would want to have a, from the applicant’s perspective, like have a good legal basis for being able to submit their application to us.

[47:18] Okay, thank you. There’s loads of other questions I had down from the public there. So I’ll put this on the floor now for committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And through you, I am not moving the staff recommendation. I’m gonna move an alternate recommendation, which addresses the three meter and the 1.5 meter parking area setback language has been provided to the clerk. I asked staff to help prepare proper clerk language for that. So that’s with the clerk to have an e-scribe now.

[47:53] So it would be the staff recommendation with the one small change that we impose the 1.5 meter parking area setback in compliance with the section 6.2B of the city of London site control plan by-law rather than the three meter urban design guideline recommended. And then once I’ve got a seconder, I’ll speak to it further. Okay, so that I’ll just check with the clerk that’s in e-scribe right now. And the only change you’re making Council or Deputy Mayor is the setback provision.

[48:27] Okay, thank you. Do you have a seconder? Councilor Hillier seconds. So do you want to speak to that right now? Please go ahead. Yeah, so through you, and we heard from the applicant, but I do want to give staff a chance to respond as well. The applicant did submit a tree preservation and protection plan for us. They also submitted, it was circulated to me through my council email. I’m not sure if anyone else saw it ‘cause it was last night that it came through, but the two maps, one with the 1.5 meter and one with the three meter setback.

[49:04] And from my read of it, it in fact, the setback difference does not preserve any additional trees according to the tree preservation plan that I took a look at. But I do want to see if staff wants to provide any comment to that or not. I recognize that urban design guidelines are nice to house, but they’re guidelines. And so for me, the site plan control bylaw with the 1.5 meter seems to be the one we should be going with.

[49:39] So just looking for any comment on that, if there is any. So I’ll go to staff on that. Thank you and through the chair. The reason that staff is recommending the three meter where parking setback has to do with the applicant requested front yard setback, which is reduced, which takes away opportunities for tree planting in front along Oxford Street. And in order to compensate and to provide as many trees as possible on the site as the development and the site are quite mixed out, we are recommending the rear yard parking setback of three meter to encourage as many trees as possible.

[50:14] But as Deputy Mayor Lewis mentions, 1.5 meters is the minimum required in the setback control bylaw. Thank you. Councilor, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, so to me, that’s the crux here. Is our site plan control bylaw says 1.5 meters. There’s minimal room in the front yard for additional tree planting because of a 6.4 meter city initiated road widening dedication for potential widening of Oxford Street in the future. So that’s land we’re taking that leaves the applicant less room to plant trees.

[50:50] It doesn’t actually prohibit the potential for public tree planting along the civic boulevard. In the event of an ultimate road widening, if that actually comes to pass, as colleagues know, we had a pretty substantive debate about wonderland road widening and the costs associated with that. So I’m not sure that Oxford road widening is necessarily immediately something that we’re gonna see potentially coming, although we’re protecting the road widening dedication allowance, I understand that, but I don’t foresee a widening happening there in, well, frankly, in my lifetime looking at city budgets and what we have on the GMSI for future and for structure projects.

[51:34] So to me, I think we have to stick to our site plan control bylaw. The other component of this being we would be eliminating because the parking stalls would no longer be long enough. We would be, in essence, eliminating 13 parking spots and forcing a redesign of the site to accommodate parking while there is transit access. We have 24 units and only 20 parking stalls now, eliminating 13 parking stalls under this plan would actually put us below the 0.5 parking minimums that are required by our own zoning bylaws.

[52:11] So by implementing the three meter urban design guideline rather than the 1.5 meter bylaw guideline, we would actually be creating a situation where we’re not able to approve the zoning because the parking minimums would not be met with the elimination of those stalls. So that is the reason I’m moving that amendment. Thank you. I look for other speakers to this. Councilor Pribble. Thank you, sir, the chair, question to the staff. If I look at your rear yard setback, it says 1.2 meters per three meters of main building that is the required proposed.

[52:46] It says 1 meter per one meter of main building. So we came up the building, if I remember correctly, it’s 13, about 13 meters. Is that how we came up? How did we come up with that 1.5 meter or the applicant? Well, staff, sorry about that. Thank you, and through the chair. Just to clarify, we’re speaking about two different things here. This is the rear yard setback from the main building to the property line and not as previous the parking setback.

[53:21] So as required, it is 1.2 meters per three meters of main building height. The applicant has provided an additional regulation that goes above and beyond that, which is what we have captured in the zoning by-law. Councilor. Thank you, follow-up. So for me to have the understanding. So it is what we are talking about here, your yard setback is between the building and the parking lot. We are not talking about the parking lot and the property line, correct? To the chair, that is correct. Thank you, no more questions.

[53:54] I think I just want to follow up on that. So we’re talking about a three meter buffer. That’s at the back of the parking lot to the back property line. Is that correct? And the applicant is looking, and the motion is to change that down to 1.5. Okay, thank you. Other comments or questions? Councillor Pluzza. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A question through you to staff regarding the tree caliper. When something is submitted, do city staff ever, I know different tree species have different calipers?

[54:28] Just looking for comments on, if there’s a discrepancy of what residents are reporting is there versus what a report said was there. If staff follows up or we just go by the report, that was submitted. Go staff. Thank you and through the chair. There are two pieces to this. One is that the tree preservation plan was submitted as part of this application. Has been reviewed by our landscape architecture and those comments are included in the appendix of this report.

[55:03] Further as this application will also go through the site plan process, the tree preservation plan will again be reviewed as part of that process and any potential adjustment that needs will be made will be done through the SPF process. Thank you. Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A question through you to, I don’t think staff can answer this one for us ‘cause Mr. Mathers kind of already has staff at it. My concern is with the current owners who are in the state of palliative care, looking to see if there’s any comments from the applicant realizing the city’s process can take some time to work our way through these approvals and then site plan before shovels actually hit the ground that two of these things can happen simultaneously.

[55:55] Just looking to see having not been privy to the purchase of sale agreement, if the intention is to allow the resident to finish out his time in the home and still meet the timelines of this application. So go to the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To Councillor Palosa, unfortunately, to be quite honest with you, like I’m not privy to all of the details of the kind of land deals, purchase and sale agreements, existing kind of tendencies in the property.

[56:30] So our role is really just focused on that kind of planning and rezoning process. So I just don’t have any additional details about the inner workings of that as someone the committee pointed out approval of the kind of zoning bylaw amendment doesn’t trigger or set in motion some chain of events that results in some type of de facto kind of removal or acceleration of that process. There are additional kind of legal measures and processes through the Residential Tenancies Act that kind of guide all situations like this.

[57:08] Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not sure if information could be provided in advance of our, if you can check with your client, in advance of our voted council. I just, I realize we have different roles that we’re filling in different legal obligations and boxes that weren’t in a process. I just would never want to think that council and our approvals will work around for another deal that was in place. Other comments for (indistinct) Thank you, Chair.

[57:40] I did want to come back. I missed providing one detail to colleagues. In changing the setback, I did include in the site plan approval authority be requested to consider there is an additional clause for explore opportunities for an increased parking setback. Well, we’re not setting a three meter setback. The applicant had indicated that, as they go through detailed design process that perhaps two meters is something they can do or somewhere in between. And so rather than box in a specific number above the site plan control, there is an additional clause that indicates the parking setback.

[58:20] Be looked at through the site plan process. So I wanted to draw colleagues attention to that. So rather than the three meters, it just moves its site plan to look at opportunities for a further setback. I also wanted to take a moment quickly to comment as well with the conditions of sale concern. And as was mentioned similarly, our role here at planning and environment committee is specific to rezoning matters. We cannot get involved in private civil matters or make planning decisions based on private civil matters.

[58:54] So that would be a matter between the purchaser and the seller of the property. And as indicated, yes, there might be residential tendencies, act components, there might be some additional legal steps. But the city is not a party to that. And we’re not a mediator between civil disputes. So I just think that it’s important to underline. We can’t consider that in our planning decision. We have to follow the zoning changes in the planning guidelines in our official plan. And civil matters are something that have to be sorted out between the buyer and the seller.

[59:28] Okay, thank you. Other comments or questions from committee? I’m gonna ask Councillor Palazzo to take the chair ‘cause I am. Thank you. I have the chair recognizing Councillor Layman. Thank you ‘cause I’m gonna be speaking against the motion. That’s why I didn’t hand to the chair to the vice chair. For me, I would have, you know, I’m okay to see this project go ahead. However, I’m concerned about the setback and those folks that live behind it, especially now that this is a more of a substantial build. You know, three meters to one and a half meters doesn’t sound like much of a difference.

[1:00:08] But, you know, that’s nine steps versus, you know, what, three and a half steps, or is that correct? So I’m like, how’s my math four steps? Or real feet, feet, it’s even less. Anyway, for those folks that have had a backyard behind them and now they’re gonna have a parking lot behind them and cars parked right up to their boundary along the back, I don’t think it’s suitable for this type of thing. So I won’t be supporting the motion.

[1:00:41] Thank you, Presiding Chair. Thank you. Let me know you’ve used 50 seconds of your five-minute allotment. I’ll hand the chair back to you recognizing Councillor Troso’s online with his hand up. Thank you. And I’ll go to Councillor Troso. Thank you very much. Just to clarify with planning, when a demolition permit is requested and there’s no heritage issue with the property, then that is something that’s issued over the counter without any need for notice to anybody else or a hearing or anything like that.

[1:01:23] Is that correct? I’ll go astound that. Through the chair, yes, that’s correct. Okay, so I think we have to keep in mind that the fact that a demolition permit is gonna have to be received from the city doesn’t really help the situation. Now, I wanna take issue with the contention that we can’t worry about what the human implications are, the people in the area. We have just been put on notice that there’s a very substantial problem with this application in terms of extreme hardship that it’s gonna cause somebody.

[1:02:02] And we’ve also been put on notice that there already has been litigation between in the form of a residential tenant board application that seems problematic. And while I certainly am not in a position to offer an amendment today or a request that we go into private session, I will raise this at the council meeting. I cannot support, I will not be supporting this application based on what I’ve heard.

[1:02:33] And I have very grave concerns about how this application is going to affect the rights and obligations of a party here. And I don’t think the city can just wash its hands and say, it’s just not our concern, they’ll have to work that out. So just so there are no surprises, I will be raising this as a member of council. And I wanna express my exceptional unhappiness with how this is proceeding. And I hope this committee votes this down because I don’t think this is right.

[1:03:07] Okay, thank you. And councilor, I might suggest that I might do this myself is to confer with our legal council prior to council meeting. So we can kind of get some things covered off or just from our, me personally, for my own information on that legal question ‘cause, you know, it’s a good point. Okay, any other comments or conversation? We’ve got a motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries three to two.

[1:03:50] Thank you. Moving ahead now to 3.4, this is regarding 743 Richmond Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councilor blows the second by Councilor Hill, you’re gonna call. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll ask if the applicant is here, we’d like to address Bitty. All right, so you’re up to the top there, please give us your name, we have five minutes.

[1:04:25] My name is Greg Gilbert, I’m Vice President of Planning for the Owner, Applicant, Fitzrovia. I’m also joined by David Galbright, Principal at Up Consulting to discuss the planning aspects and then partner at Hariri Pontorini Architects, Michael Atard. So we’ll be brief, just wanna get to talk a little bit about our firm, the site and the project in front of you today. I understand the clerk’s office has circulated a presentation to the members of the committee, so if you wanna maybe pull that up, that’s an option.

[1:04:58] So Fitzrovia is Canada’s most active rental developer. This is our first new project outside of the GTA. How we differ ourselves from our competition, we’re completely vertically integrated, we develop, build, asset manage and property manage all in house, we have over 350 staff at our headquarters in Midtown, Toronto, we have over eight towers completed to date, with 15 at various stages of construction and development. Moving on through the slides, just looking at the long-term commitment to quality and community, we are builders, but we’re also long-term owners and operators and that really drives the decisions we make when we’re designing our buildings.

[1:05:41] We’re obsessed with the details, anything you see, touch, interact with. We put special emphasis on our secret sauce as customer service and keeping our tenants happy. Our buildings are highly aminitized, well-designed and full of activity. All of our projects in those slides are actually under construction and we do our best to make them look like the renderings and we’ve been rewarded with a recent award, best new community built at the Build Awards for the 88 Queen project, just the testament of the work we do. This project is especially important to us, as I mentioned, our first project outside of the GTA in Montreal.

[1:06:19] Many of our senior staff on this project went to post-secondary education in London. It’s a very important intersection for the city, located at Richmond and Oxford. And I’m just gonna turn it over to our planning consultant to discuss the site a bit better. Good afternoon, my name’s Dave Galbraith. I’m the president of Up Consulting and a planner retained for this project. Before you today is an official plan amendment and zone change application to facilitate the development of a 35 story mixed use development containing 512 units and approximately 2000s, sorry, 200 square meters of commercial space at grade.

[1:06:56] In addition to that, 77 parking stalls are proposed to be provided within the development in three levels of underground parking. The subject property is 743 Richmond Street, which currently contains a two story multi-unit commercial building, which is primarily empty or vacant at this time. The site itself has a lot area of 1400 square meters with 40 meters of frontage along Richmond Street. Looking at the site within its context, it’s north of the downtown core area of the city, but really located at a gateway intersection of Oxford and Richmond, well served by transit and close proximity to a number of amenities, commercial uses, and parks in the area.

[1:07:40] As I’d mentioned before, the site does contain an existing two story commercial building, which is largely vacant, and there are a number of photos showing the existing state of repair of that building as it exists today. So one of the key elements of this development is that it is truly transit supportive, being located at Oxford and Richmond, connected to five existing bus routes and very walkable while connected by active transportation infrastructure as well. Within the London plan itself, the site is designated rapid transit corridor and subject to a special policy area.

[1:08:15] And then the corresponding zoning within the zoning by-law is office residential/business district commercial. All of these designations support transit supportive development, such as being contemplated here. So the purpose of the application for the official plan amendment is to permit the 35 stories contemplated, and then there is a corresponding zone change application dealing with a number of site specific matters related to tower separation bike parking as well. We’ve had a chance to review the staff report and have enjoyed working with staff on this file, and we are supportive of the recommendation today.

[1:08:50] We did note that one concern with the site plan was raised here with regards to a couple of lay-by parking spaces proposed on Oxford. We are amenable to removing those parking spaces and in that location or a general location, additional bike parking will be provided. So with that, I’ll hand it over to the architect. Not much time, sorry. I’ll be brief, I’m better at drawing than describing, but just in general, we are looking to really activate this corner. This is an idea for a project that is going to energize and bring an experience to that corner.

[1:09:26] We’ve got a podium that is working in a kind of dynamic scale. It’s activated by a cafe that’s a kind of fixture of the Fitzrovia developments that will anchor that corner that ties into a welcoming, warm student lobby. We’ve got a retail, again, that’s activating both Oxford and Richmond. All of the services are being located across the laneway that are kind of hidden and tucked away so that we can really activate the street frontage. As you move up through the building, you have your first layer above that, which is where community begins. It’s this amenity floor where students can come. They can relax, they can gather, they can eat, and socialize.

[1:09:59] It’s an important part of the building. It’s about building a community. And then as the building kind of stretches up quietly into a tower form, we’ve got this vertical expression that’s really about kind of creating shelter and a sense of containment as part of these living quarters, ultimately kind of working their way up into this rooftop terrace, again, an opportunity for community, for gathering, outdoor experience, and a view out over a pool setting. Really, this is just about creating a place that’s kind of trying to elevate the everyday, and I’ll keep it at that, I guess, since we’re forward on time. Thank you, and that’s your time.

[1:10:34] Okay, great, good. I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address the committee. Is there anyone on the line, Clerk? No, okay. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Okay, my name is Mike Jaramchenko. Business owner just across the street from this development. I guess the only reason I’m here is just parking concerns. 77 parking spots for 512 units doesn’t seem nearly enough to me.

[1:11:11] I thought I heard someone say the guideline is 0.5 per unit. We have a lot of parking issues already. We are building across the road as 15 parking spots. People are regularly sort of poaching our spots from our staff, so I just think the parking is gonna be the big issue here. That’s my only point, thank you. Thank you, look for other comments. Please, ma’am, give us your name, we have five minutes. Josephine Peppy, I also have a business close by, and we also have parking spots that are limited at our office and get poached as well, quite often by students that live in a neighborhood, boyfriends, girlfriends that are sleeping over.

[1:12:03] My snowplow removal gentleman has a really tough time in the winter, and so that is my biggest concern is the 77 parking spots. I’m excited about the development. I just think it could have some improvements as far as having more parking. I have a colleague of mine who lives downtown in one of those new buildings. I think it’s a sewer, and it’s a beautiful space, but I can never get a parking spot when I go to his place. If there’s a night’s game or even a lightning game, it is really challenging, and I struggle with that.

[1:12:42] Not everybody takes transit. I think it’s great to have a transit-friendly city, but I also do believe that we need to have enough parking spots, otherwise the businesses close by end up having problems. We have patients that oftentimes, all the time we have people that come, and they say, “Well, I’m just gonna be five minutes,” or they leave, but they overnight, especially from the students and their friends. Close by in the winter is the biggest challenge for us. Thank you. Look for other speakers.

[1:13:21] Get an ask for, if there’s anyone online, Claire? No. I don’t see anyone coming to the mic, so I’ll look for a motion to close to PPM. Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Cady, and we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I just want to go to staff with a concern about parking, and I’m not too sure if we have the right, we probably don’t buy law here.

[1:13:55] There’s a city offer parking enforcement on private commercial lots. Through the chair, no, that’s not a service that we offer, but there’s a lot of private companies that are available to be able to provide that service to line owners. Okay, thank you. Okay, I’ll go to committee members and visiting Councillors for comments or questions, or a motion. Councillor Cady, I’ll move to staff report.

[1:14:29] Okay, we’ve got a staff follow for a seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis, second. So now motion moved and second. So now engage questions, comments. Deputy Mayor Lewis. So through you, Chair, I do have a question for our staff, like some of the neighbors have said, excited about this. Looks like a great proposal to me as well. But I did note that we have less than the .5 parking minimum, but it does have a staff recommendation.

[1:15:08] So I’m wondering if staff can just highlight for us why, notwithstanding that .5 regulation, we are recommending approval on this. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, at present, the subject lands are actually in a parking exemption area. However, following the municipal housing approvals, it will be downgraded and will then require the parking. So this is capturing that future requirement. And staff also felt that it was appropriate given the context and access to public transit as the corridor’s place type is supposed to be transit supportive.

[1:15:44] Deputy Mayor. Thank you. I appreciate that. And see, I just learned something. I didn’t know we had a parking exam area in that corner of the city. So that’s good to know. And certainly with the target audience with students, in particular, I would expect that there’s an anticipation particularly as student passes are part of their student, or sorry, transit passes are part of their student fees, that there would be an expectation that it’s gonna be more transit reliant than some other buildings might be where we’re talking about, you know, single professionals or young couples getting started or older couples are retiring and downsizing to a condo type setting.

[1:16:27] So I do appreciate that. I think I’ll leave it there for now and see what other colleagues have to say. But I do think that this is a great design. It looks like a good opportunity for some infills, for some student housing in close proximity to the university and with great access to both the Oxford transit line, as well as the Richmond lines running up to Western University. So I’ll conclude my comments there for now. Look for other comments, Councilor Plaza. Thank you.

[1:17:00] I know it’s a little bit of an order, but wondering if you’d hear from the word counselor before we proceed with some of the other questions I might have. I was waiting for him to put his hand up, but I see put his hand up. So I’ll go to Councilor for her. Thanks, Chair. I was just waiting for members of committee to do the speaking first. So I guess I’ll go right into I guess the parking questions. The deputy mayor did ask a good question on that. And I just looking for the like the integration into the rapid transit corridor that we’re gonna have there from speaking to the app or the proponents. They are thinking about shortly, this project will hit the ground a lot sooner than what we’ve seen in the past.

[1:17:37] And I just wanted to know between the timelines of when they would see that. And just to confirm, I guess before I go to you, but my question really is is when would we start seeing that rapid transit designated corridor on Oxford Street starting to be constructed there relative to the actual striking of ground of the building too? So maybe I should go to the proponents first and just ask when are you expecting to actually break ground? And then just to see if we can get those to that answer kind of tied up there.

[1:18:13] Okay, so I’ll go to the applicant to just kind of a timeline projected of when you expect to put shovels in the ground. So we acquired the site in March and we’re just working through the planning approvals. This is step one of several looking at demolition probably late this year. If everything falls into place, there’s a lot contingent on that. But that’s our best guess at the moment. Councillor. Thank you. And so with that, we already have transit in front of the area off of Oxford as well. But as we start kind of bringing ourselves to a higher order public transit, I was just wanted to maybe ask staff if you had any idea on when we’d actually be seeing that rapid transit corridor.

[1:18:57] I guess when will we be seeing more information back on that on the timeline of that? And I know I didn’t send that question in advance. So I apologize if you don’t have the answer. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, we don’t, that would be part of the master mobility plan and implementing it. So we don’t have any staff here from transportation, but we’ll provide your response prior to council and give you that piece of information. Councillor. Okay, sounds good. Sorry for not sending that question in advance. So basically, you do see kind of the questions about the 77 parking spots that we see.

[1:19:33] But at the same time, I think that’s a pretty good indication of how this development will integrate into our transit system. You see the numbers, the figures reflect that as well. So I would, I would like to see, you know, and I do hear that, you know, this is being, what kind of living, what kind of tenancy are we gonna see coming into that? I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s student. I would say it’s more of an urban kind of living environment where you’ll be attracting urban tenants, which will see a good portion of the student population as well.

[1:20:08] And considering that that is right at the gateway and I’ll get to that in a second of downtown, you know, a lot of people will be using, will be on foot. A lot of people will be using our transit system as well. So I don’t foresee the parking as an issue at this time, especially when we’re gonna be bringing that higher level, higher order traffic or transit system in. I’d like to point out on the main gateway part for downtown and I know the proponents spoke to this, but that’s a very big important thing for me. It’s a very big, it’s a very big area, a very high traffic area.

[1:20:41] People who aren’t even visiting downtown are transiting through on Oxford seeing that. And I would guess that you would have all of Londoner’s eyes on that intersection within a week. And you’ll have that recurring week over week over week as time goes on. So that is a very good indication of where downtown is headed right now. And that’s on the up and up. Speaking to kind of the fit, the finish, the design, the streetscape, I’m really happy to see the proponent bring that forward. And I really appreciate the conversations that we had and the feedback that you’ve let me give you and taking that into your design. I really think that’s gonna really uplift the face of that main North gateway of downtown.

[1:21:18] So I’m very excited with that. And I really appreciate the time that you guys have given me and taken me out for the site visit today. And I really appreciate the work that we’ve done so far. I’d also wanna go to staff too. Thank you for moving this along. A vertically integrated company coming through and saying that they’re gonna strike ground by the end of the year, I think you said there. That’s quite quick. So we’re gonna see that development quite fast. And that just speaks to kind of where downtown is going right now. I guess I’ll finish it off with the last thing. And I guess I’m just gonna say this because I know the BIA or you guys might leave before we get to the BIA, but you have been asking to make a connection with the downtown BIA.

[1:22:00] The chair of the board is right there and those fancy pink glasses, very stylish. So I’m gonna make that connection right here on the public record. They have been asking to connect with the BIA. So I’m sure they have some good initiatives there. And I guess I’ll just use that to move into, they did speak to the cafe that they’re gonna have there. They did speak to how this is gonna be a community-oriented space. So it’s bringing in not only the residents and the tendency of the building once they occupy it, but they’re also gonna be bringing in people who are in the area and people are gonna visit that.

[1:22:32] So I’m excited what’s to come. And I appreciate working with you. And I appreciate moving forward on the work that’s gonna be coming. Thank you, Councillor Closer. Thank you, I would also encourage the applicant to endure a little bit longer with us today as the downtown BIA does have their downtown momentum report coming up, which will be some great highlights as well. Question through you, reading with the report about the long-term by school parking that they’re looking at of 200 in some spaces, but zero short-term.

[1:23:06] Realizing this building will have, it appears to be a mix of indoor and outdoor amenities space and some commercial purposes. If there’s a lack of parking already and it’s a scariest commodity looking to see if people choose an alternate mode of transportation being by school to get to there to support the businesses and/or visit people, where are they supposed to go? Like, not everyone can walk everywhere. If we wanna come and visit you or be a patron of that business, so just where is that supposed to go? Either to staff or the applicant, I’m good either way.

[1:23:38] Okay, I’ll, if the applicant is comfortable answering that question, I’ll go to you. Through the chair, we’ve heard the feedback, some public comments, both from staff as well. We have already implemented those updates with bike rings all around the site for the upcoming site plan submission, which is targeted to be made tomorrow. There is 214 spaces. Our experience with these types of buildings, it’s generally, we’re very aspirational in active transportation, but they’re generally around less than a third per unit, 0.3 bike, they just sit there empty if we’re being honest.

[1:24:20] So we think 214 for around 500 apartments is quite adequate and we’re gonna put them all around the site, which was feedback from staff and you’re gonna see that in the upcoming submission. For council. - Yep, sorry, councilor. Thank you and that’s for public use as well when they come to be patrons versus just tenant use. Go ahead. There were spots around the outsider for public use, commercial use, supportive of businesses, supportive of retail and for visitors, councilor. Thank you, question three to staff. The report outlines a lot coverage of maximums of 70%, 70% and it’s running roughly at 80%.

[1:24:58] Looking to see as it was recommended by staff, if that’s just made up ‘cause there’s green roof and an outdoor amenity space that would compensate some of that normal requirement we’d have. Go to staff. Go to the chair, so the 80% is because it’s a quite constrained site, it’s not very large, but they are still providing that amenity space on the rooftop and they also have amenity also provided in the building as well.

[1:25:36] Councilor. - Thank you, as I had stated that. So for clarification, that’s why staff was okay with the recommendation of that space’s alternated elsewhere. Go to staff. Through the chair, that’s correct. Councilor. - Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilor Hill here. Yes, thank you. The 15% parking does concern me, we’re looking at 77 spaces for 512, but I’m also wondering through staff, are there any engineering servicing issues regarding wastewater or anything like that in the future? ‘Cause we are going for a big increase in density.

[1:26:09] Go to staff. Thank you through the chair. There’s no capacity concerns for this particular area. This area is not tributary to the forks of the Thames where their constraint is. It actually takes a different road to Greenway. So in this particular area, there’s no capacity constraints. Councilor. Other comments or questions? Councilor Pervil. Thank you, sir, Chair, to the applicant. I actually have a question in terms of the parking and in terms of the access.

[1:26:42] When I look at the layout, there’s going to be access to the garage from both Richmond and Oxford. We’ll go to the applicant just on access points. He’s asking if there’s going to be two access points, Richmond and Oxford. Through the chair, there’s only going to be the one access point off of Oxford Street. No access point off of Richmond. Councilor. Okay, maybe I misunderstood. Maybe I thought in the report it stated there’s going to be a created lane lane way on the south side of the property. So there will be no lane way.

[1:27:16] Through the chair, there’s an existing lane way that runs on the west side of the site. So that will be used for access purposes. And then there’s an exit onto Oxford as well. But the lane way exists already. Councilor. Okay, thank you for that. And this, again, one of my curiosity. By the way, I love your dynamic and consider a design. It makes it much easier to see the setup of the building podium facade. And I want to ask you on the northwest corner, those four or five floors, the facade. I would imagine it just the facade and behind there will be rent the units as well behind the facade on the brown color on the proposal you send us.

[1:27:58] Through the applicant. Say to the chair. Yes, that’s correct. Above level two, it becomes units again to the first few floors. Councilor. Thank you. No more questions? Other comments or questions? Just a second, please. Councilor Trassau. Thank you very much. I’ll start by asking what I think is an easier question. And that is from what I can tell, the building looks to be an old-glass exterior. Is something being done to encourage the proponent to use bird safe glazing, at least up to the fourth story in alignment with standards?

[1:28:37] I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, through site plan, we have limited components that we can require in terms of materials, but we will work with the applicant to look at bird-friendly materials where they are proposing large expenses of glass. Councilor. Yes, and I would like to see that put in as a condition for the approval of this project, ‘cause I really worry about our ability to execute mandatory site plan requirements later on. I mean, after all, there is a provision in the London plan that talks about this.

[1:29:18] The last thing we need is a bunch of bird carcasses sitting in this wonderful gateway that we’re creating in front of the capillary and everything, but I just think this is something we should get on with. That’s gonna be simple enough to fix. The next one, not so much. I am familiar with the challenges that the merchants in this area are facing in regards to their parking being used as overflow, because when we had a big application up in September, I did take it upon myself to canvas a lot of the smaller merchants. I just cannot conceive of how we can put a building in of this size without a lay-by.

[1:30:02] How can we not have a lay-by? Because where are the delivery trucks? Where are the taxis? Where are the parcels? Where are the ubers, the all the delivery, all the delivery trucks? If you’re gonna have a building full of students, which seems to be where this is going, which is fine, you’re gonna have a lot of people who are just gonna be there for a minute, but they’re gonna be there. So, where are they supposed to sit? Is there a question, Councilor, that you’d like me to pose to the applicant?

[1:30:35] Where are the very, very short-term people who are just gonna be there for a minute doing a delivery pizza, what have you? Where are they gonna stop? Where are they gonna go in the applicant? The way the project is designed in front of you, it’s been revised a little bit. From feedback we’ve got from staff, the lay-by will be removed from Oxford. We have a parallel pickup and drop-off area to the rear lane that goes north-south on Oxford. That’s specifically designed for temporary access, pickup and drop-off, ubers, Amazon, that kind of thing.

[1:31:15] And then there’s three parking spaces lay-by within that drive-through area. So, we’ve put a lot of thought on this, and we think it’s adequate for the pickup and drop-offs in temporary traffic. Whoa. Oh, sorry, hold on a second, Councilor, the applicant was gonna add something. Something that’s very important to us is the move-in experience, especially in a building like this. We have a dedicated loading space for pickup and drop-off of garbage, and then beside that, we have a separate loading space for U-Haul’s moving vans that you could book out with direct access into the rear of the elevators that would be booked out.

[1:31:50] So, getting those folks off the lane way for smooth movements, it’s their first time experience in the building. It needs to work and it needs to be done well. That’s something we would have a lot of experience in. Okay, Councilor. Yeah, I’m not raising a concern about the move-in. I’m raising a concern about the persistent deliveries. I see what happened on the locks further up the street, and it was just an absolute disaster. It was just an absolute disaster until the lay-by was put in. At the corner of Richmond and Oxford, you are asking for, I think, a lot of accidents to happen.

[1:32:31] And a lot of ruffled nerves and a lot of people being rear-ended, and I think a lot more thought has to be given, and again, I am not opposed to increasing the density here, because one point you made in the slideshow that really resonates with me is this can have the effect of depressing the demand for some of the single-signal unit occupancies in the interior of the neighborhood, and I really support that. And I think you’re creating a wonderful experience for the students.

[1:33:02] I don’t doubt that. I will say, though, that even though students will have the bus pass in their pockets, that doesn’t mean they’re not gonna wanna have a car downstairs, because experience does show that. So I guess my biggest concern, I think you can deal with the glass, but I am very concerned about the parking, and I’m very concerned about what’s gonna happen at that intersection, and I’m very concerned about the lack of a lay-by. And again, at council, I will be, I can’t support this project unless those issues are dealt with.

[1:33:34] So thank you very much, and I hope this is something that everybody here takes seriously. Thanks, Councilor, Councilor Almond. Thank you, and through you, Chair. I wanna thank the applicant for the proposal that’s in front of us today. And for the presentation, I would say that most of my questions were addressed through the advanced presentation, especially around the issues of parking and pickup. And I know it’s a difficult concept for us to wrap our heads around the decrease in parking in this area, especially at a main intersection where we see so much congestion right now.

[1:34:11] So we’re being asked to be a bit more future-thinking and to think outside of what we’re normally constrained with in terms of transportation in this area. I will agree, I am struggling with 77 spots. I agree with the business owners that are around the area as well. I know how difficult it can be. And for some, it’s a deterrent for them to go to their businesses. So I do hope that you will take the invitation from Councilor Ferreira and the downtown BIA into consideration, some of them are outside the BIA, but to be able to have those kinds of constructive conversations around how to be good partners and neighbors.

[1:34:54] And as you work through site plan, if there’s other opportunities for consideration with parking, I think it would be important. But I do see that you are targeting a demographic that you’re asking of that demographic to consider using less cars and having less access to them. And I think that you may be rewarded with those types of tenants. So good luck and thank you for your application. Good for other comments or questions, Deputy Mayor. So it’s come up once and I know the applicant’s response and I saw it in the presentation as well.

[1:35:33] I share Councilor Truss, I was concerned about the lack of a lay-by. And I remember what happened with the Lux too. And I’m not necessarily convinced that delivery drivers be it Uber Eats or Uber or Amazon or whatever are going to pull off into an alleyway, corridor to park and do their deliveries. But my understanding is it was staff’s direction to remove the proposed lay-by. So I’d like staff to comment on their reasoning for removing the lay-by, particularly given our experience at the Lux.

[1:36:11] I’ll go staff. Thank you, through the chair. The lay-by was deemed unsafe by the director of transportation. It creates unsafe movements right at the intersection and it’s directly adjacent to the access to the site. So when you’ve got the access plus the lay-by there, there’s multiple interactions with the vehicles. And being right at the intersection kind of creates an unsafe situation. So that was the direction that we received from transportation, thank you. Deputy Mayor, thank you.

[1:36:46] So I appreciate that. I hope and I think we’ve heard we’ve got an applicant here who’s very willing to work with the city and has listened to concerns and is doing their best. So clearly for me, one of the things that I hope you’ll take into consideration is very clear signage about delivery drop-off locations. But I will say I’m concerned that notwithstanding the concerns from the director of transportation, we’re not just gonna have vehicles putting on their foreways and stopping and blocking a lane of roadway.

[1:37:21] And to me, that’s even more dangerous than a lay-by because those vehicle movements are even less predictable when somebody is just parked and put on their foreways to run in and do a delivery. So I’m supporting the application right now, but I’m gonna think about this before council and whether or not I wanna consider asking the applicant to reinstate the lay-by or perhaps work with through site plan to look at other alternatives for vehicles.

[1:37:55] Because in my experience, where we have not put in lay-bys or where we have had side parking for short-term parking, the reality is it doesn’t get used. They put on their foreways and block the roads. And while I’m thrilled to see the increase in traffic enforcement from LPS, and I know we’ve got parking enforcement through our own municipal compliance division as well, we also have 4,000 kilometers of road in the city and they can’t be everywhere all the time. So I’m concerned that we’re just trading one potential problem for another by not implementing a lay-by.

[1:38:31] So I’m gonna let that bounce around in my head prior to council, but I’m not sure where I’m gonna land on that. But I do appreciate the answer. I understand where the thought process is coming from, but I’m just not sure that we’re not trading one problem for another there. Okay, Council Perbal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One more question for the applicant. On the west side of the building, there’s the lane way. And then if I look at the building, it looks like there’s almost like a, there’s nothing on that side under the building, under the first floor.

[1:39:08] And I thought that potentially that’s a kind of a, like a drive-thru, or what is that gonna be? Because it’s currently, it looks like an empty space to the west of the building. Go to the applicant. Yeah, that area is a one way going northbound so that we can accommodate deliveries and drop-offs and ubers and things like that. That leads back to the lane way and connects to Oxford. So it’s, the building is overhanging that space. It’s a covered pickup and drop-off for residents and short-term usage.

[1:39:43] Councilor. Okay, thank you for that, because that’s actually, when I look at a picture, that’s how it looked like that to me, so I just want to call information. Thank you. Other comments or questions? I’ll ask the Deputy Mayor to take the chair, please. I will take the chair and recognize Councillor Layman. Thank you. So I share the concerns about the lane way, ‘cause I’m familiar with what happened at Lux, like that was blocking up traffic on Richmond at a very critical point, ‘cause we had that median right there and it was very, very dangerous.

[1:40:18] And in this particular corner, if we have people stopping in front, either on Oxford Street or worse yet on Richmond, where there’s a transit stop right there, it’s gonna cause chaos. So I just wanted to share the concerns, but I do have confidence with staff in the site plan and also with the applicant. So I just want to ask staff, did you have a chance to visit current sites that the applicant has built in Toronto, Mr. Mathers or Ms. McNeely?

[1:40:57] Thank you, through the chair. Yes, the Director of Building and myself and Mr. Blazek from the Mayor’s Office, we attended the site, we saw several sites, and this site would compare in terms of the constraints that we’re talking about today, and they were able to make it work. Okay, thank you. And that gives me a great deal of confidence. I’m glad you did that because this is a big city build, where I’m very high dense, high traffic corner, very visible corner for the community.

[1:41:34] And I want to have the utmost confidence that they’ll be able to pull this one off. I like the renderings and have faith that the renderings will come to fruition based on your experience in seeing what they’ve been able to produce in Toronto, but it’s also that Toronto experience that they’ll bring to London with regards to things that we’ve been discussing here, laybys and transit and cycling, et cetera, that more familiar in the builds there than here we’re getting there, and also the actual construction.

[1:42:13] This is a very delicate, this is a very tight area to put up a 35-starred building, and it requires some expertise that obviously this group has. This is an important building for downtown. This is, as was mentioned by Councilor Ferra, the Northern Gateway into our downtown. I think it’s really going to encapsulate how London is changing in the core. We have a number of very high structures already built more that have been given zoning approval by this committee that are in development stages.

[1:42:52] I think this is going to tie a lot of stuff together, quite frankly. I understand the concerns with merchants in the area, with recurring parking, and it’s kind of that give take. You get the economic vibrancy that comes when you have 500 people moving into this area. Also bring some challenges with protecting your parking for your customers and staff. I understand that it’s an ongoing issue that downtown businesses have compared to a line areas and malls. But it’s that economic vibrancy that I’m excited about.

[1:43:26] It’s seeing, it will be pedestrians because the parking, which again, I’ve always been of the standpoint that the people who invest, they know better the parking needs than I do. They know the customer they’re going after to be in their building, and they would know, based on their experience, that these folks that they’re going after will depend on other modes of transportation. This is, even though it’s, you know, us who have a transit route was canceled by this, by this council, doesn’t mean there’s no transit here.

[1:44:04] It’s a lot of transit here. And the transit is going every direction. And that will enhance with frequency I’m hoping as demand goes there. Fantastic anchor, as I said, to the northern top end of our core. That will bring foot traffic down Richmond and down Dundas and over to Talbot and all the great things that we have downtown. So looking forward to seeing this building go up and fully support it. Thank you.

[1:44:36] Thank you, Councillor Layman. Return the shirt of you noting, Councillor Ferrer has us to come back on the speaker’s list. Thank you, go to Councillor Ferrer. Unless I misread his. No, you got to turn it off. There we go. You did, Mr. Read my text, but I did just make a meeting with you to connect with the proponents about the lay-by discussion. So that’s what I was just texting you just to get that and moving along. So here you go, on the record for that one. Thanks.

[1:45:07] Thank you. Just one last look around for any other comments. Council purple. One last question for the applicants for the chair. Going back to you, then I tried to look up a few more photos. How many currently in that drop off area, which I was questioning before, how many cars could fit there? Do you believe how many spots will be able to stop there and to do the drop off pick up for the building? I’ll go to the applicant. Through the chair, there’s three queuing spaces shown on the site plan currently within that area.

[1:45:45] Councillor. Currently, potential more or kind of distance it as per design or is there potential additional spaces? Go to the applicant. In the current design, there are three. We’d have to take a look at it. Councillor, thank you. No more questions? Any other questions, comments? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Losing the vote, the motion carries four to one.

[1:46:25] Thank you. So that completes our scheduled items. And we will go on to the consent items that were moved to the bottom of the agenda. So I will start with 2.1, the intention to expand the high park business improvement area, noting that there’s been communication from Mr. Delaney and Ms. Zabukowski, both I see here today. And Mr. Disney from the Sherman Forest Mall. So the BIA is here to answer questions from the committee.

[1:47:13] We’ve got, I’ll just put on the floor to get the conversation started. Okay, we can put the staff recommendation on the floor.

[1:48:11] We can have a discussion, ask some questions before we do that. Mr. Councilor Hill here. Given the nature of some of the communications that we’ve received, I’d like to move a referral to put this back one cycle so that the high park business improvement association could have more discussions with the people they’re trying to bring in. And do I have a seconder for that, Councillor Cuddy? Okay, just a second. So the clerk just wants to clarify your motion, Councillor.

[1:49:01] Sorry, I’m just curious. Are you looking for a referral back to council or back to PAC? I’m just looking around the committee before I weigh in here, Councillor Permall. I have a procedural question. If it’s referred now, if it passes, is there gonna be an opportunity to ask some questions so we kind of potentially move things forward or get some answers today?

[1:49:37] Or if the referral is passed, it’s passed and there will be no discussions? Or questions asked? Councillor, I’m fully prepared to have discussion now. Like you can, I’m not gonna just call the referral vote. So if you have some questions or comments, please go ahead. I do, so I would like to, oh, sorry, Councillor. Go ahead, you’re point of order. Thank you. I know in the planning application, I asked to hear from the visiting word, Councillor, but there are committee members with their hands up on this item before we go to visiting Councillors. Respect.

[1:50:10] I didn’t see any— Deputy Mayor. Okay, sorry, I didn’t— Sorry, that’s okay. When I went to the councilor, I didn’t see the deputy mayor’s hand up. I’ll go up for sure. I’ll go to the deputy mayor. Is the deputy mayor? I thought Mr. Newcomb was here just to cover my return to committees after my absence for the last month, but so thank you, Chair. Through you, on the referral, I’m not comfortable with the referral as it’s been tabled. I do think a referral is actually necessary because I’ve got several questions around the low volume of response that we’ve gotten from the businesses in compared to the numbers.

[1:50:56] I realize that there is some language in provincial legislation that says no responses are counted as affirmative, not really comfortable with that either. Recognizing that it’s provincial, I’m not sure if we can go beyond the provincial standards and require a minimum threshold or anything like that for responses. I don’t think one cycle’s enough time, quite honestly. I’m even concerned, and I say this with all due respect to Mr. Delaney and Ms. Bukowski, but even in the communication there in referring to the desire to become the uptown London Business Improvement Association, the Hyde Park Business Association was centered around that Gainesboro Hyde Park Road sort of village feel in the small businesses there, and that was its impetus for creation, and I’m not sure that there has been enough discussion with current membership around potential rebranding, but I’m also really not comfortable with the low volume of response we’ve had, and that we’re just going to count non-responses as affirmative, and I recognize staff have to follow what’s laid out under provincial legislation, but I’m not sure that we can’t potentially set our standards higher, so I’m not comfortable with a one cycle referral.

[1:52:26] I would be much more comfortable if we were just moving a referral to direct further engagement with the potential new businesses in the recommended area, because I note that the request from the Hyde Park BIA was a massive area, and there was a return back from staff is not that area, it is a more limited area, so I’d like to see some more engagement specifically with the businesses in that more limited scoped area, particularly along Hyde Park and along Gainesboro, but the communication from the Sherwood Forest Mall raises some red flags for me too.

[1:53:06] I’m not sure that it’s been clear to all businesses in their responses that there is an additional cost on their tax bill if they’re in the affirmative for this, and I know it’s got one communication, the Sherwood Forest Mall’s a pretty substantial property within this proposed expansion, so I have a number of concerns and questions, I can’t support the referral as is, I think it’s too limited and far too tight a timescale. I think that there needs to be more discussion and involvement, and I’ve sort of shared my thoughts around scope of what that direction might be, but I also think that there needs to be some directions in a referral for it to be in order, and I’m not sure that with the general direction of some more engagement that we’re actually getting to the root concern here, which is the low volume of responses, whether or not this area is actually the area that we should be looking at, and whether or not, given the communication we’ve had from the Sherwood Forest Mall, if even the affirmative responses are fully understanding, that there is a levy impact on their property taxes that comes with this, so I know the mover and seconder put a very specific one cycle, I’m not gonna support that, but I also don’t have word smithing yet for a more substantive referral, I need to give that a little thought here what some others have to say, but I don’t think that a one cycle referral is something I can support, there’s more to explore here in what we’ve got before us.

[1:54:44] So the clerk advised me that a possibility would be future pack, as opposed to the next cycle, and I’ll go to the mover, or we can make an amendment, you’re okay with doing a future pack, okay? Seconder is okay with that, is that okay, Clerk, to do that? So we’ll now change it to a future pack as opposed to the next cycle. Do you have comments on that, Deputy Mayor? So I would be more comfortable with that, but I still think that we need a little bit more direction in terms of what we’re looking for here, I mean, I’ve shared some thoughts, but I guess through you, I’d like to ask our staff, first, I recognize that there’s a provincial legislative component, is there anything that borrows us from meeting that legislative requirement, but also setting the bar a little bit higher ourselves and saying we want to aim for a number of like, 50% plus one responses?

[1:55:45] Oh, good stuff. Through the chair, there is very specific requirements in the act, however, if you’re looking to collect more information and have us present that as part of any report coming forward, we could lay that out for council and get down so we’ll decide how they want to proceed. So in reality, like for this proceed, you’d have to very much follow what’s in this black, but if council will have an opportunity to make a decision, if you want us to collect the data and be able to show more than just, like you want to show the affirmative responses as well, we can provide that to you in that committee report that comes forward, then you use that as a basis of whether you’d want to move forward.

[1:56:22] Deputy Mayor. Okay, that is helpful. So I think then I want to amend the referral to provide some direction. I know I have to do that while I’m speaking now and I would like to have heard from the area councilors first, so I’m not sure if the chair might be willing to let me come back with an amendment after the ward councilors have had a chance to weigh in. I know procedurally it’s, we’re bending the rules a little bit, but.

[1:56:55] It’s committee. Okay, so I’d like to come back to amend some specific scope here, but I’d like to hear from the area representatives before I do that. Okay, so this does affect councilor Raman in the north end, it affects me for sure along Hyde Park. So I’ll let councilor Raman go ahead first and then I’ll hand the chair off and I’ll go. Thank you, and through you, just to clarify, do I have to speak only on the referral?

[1:57:32] The referral’s on the floor, but it’s for pretty broad discussion, so I’ll give a lot of leeway there. Okay, thank you, I appreciate that leeway. So first I want to start by saying thanks to the Hyde Park BIA for the engagement that they’ve done on this matter. I want to first let members of PAC know that this has been quite an undertaking for the BIA. So they started this process last summer, they went out to the community first and had conversations with the community members around this expansion.

[1:58:12] They did that on their own with summer students as well as at opportunities for engagement with residents and at events. So there was a lot of engagement there, this was an ongoing discussion probably for the last year, actually more than a year, but with the focused area plan about a year. And then there’s been really great engagement with staff and Mr. McCauley and his team around a team of one, maybe even around a lot of this as well. Great insight from his team, the additional step that the BIA and Mr. McCauley put in place around involving community connectors to go out, so not once, but twice to the businesses and have these conversations.

[1:58:59] They did have a brochure, they did have information with them, it included the tax, the special levy assessment in the documentation that was provided to each business. So I think they tried their best to make sure that those groups were aware. On top of that, I did my own engagement as well. When the boundary came back has changed to a smaller, more concentrated area, whenever I was meeting with a business or a developer, I was having the similar conversations around, hey, this is coming and this is what’s planned.

[1:59:35] But no matter how much we try to engage, sometimes maybe not everyone has all the information until a decision point is coming. So in the case of Sherwood Forest Mall, I think that we’ve received the communication that’s in front of us. I think there’s a way to address that, and that would be to remove key three from this proposal. And that’s something I know the BIA is also considerative, the fact that their letter has come in. One thing to consider is they are one vote when it comes to them all, but they are the owners.

[2:00:15] So it’s a different vote. But really, all of the tenants would also get a vote on whether or not they want to be a BIA. That levy increase is actually passed on from the owners to the businesses. So however we want to look at that or handle that, we should consider that it’s very similar for other BIAs. Maybe the owner doesn’t agree, but maybe tenants might agree. And I did take a look at how to chance to review the responses, just to see kind of who was responding in which direction from landowners to tenants.

[2:00:53] I agree that the response rate could be better. I agree that it would be great to see more engagement. But as we all know, and especially those of us that sit around BIA tables, most often people don’t tell you something unless they’re really upset or they’re really against it. So I think that is something to consider with these types of approaches as we move forward. I’m sure other BIAs will want to do the same. I agree with the collecting more data when we do the vote. So however we go about that, I like the idea of collecting the supporters of, but I do think 50% would be too high of a threshold.

[2:01:33] I think the Municipal Act maybe doesn’t have the numbers completely right as well, and only counting those again, so I think is a challenge. But perhaps if we ask for another level of detail where we can see within the new area who was supportive, I think that might help to help us to finalize our decision. So those are just my initial thoughts. If key three was removed, that would basically take the gains per portion out of consideration.

[2:02:05] So turn it to the word counselor for word eight, which would have the majority of the increase or the new area. Okay, and I’ll ask Councilor Palosa to take the chair. Thank you, I have the chair recognizing Councilor Layman. Thank you. Yeah, so I echo those concerns as a member of BIA, I see great value in being part of a BIA. Makes sense to me to go down Hyde Park, but I’m not the one impacted by it. Like what I don’t want to see is someone looking at their tax bill or the communication they get from their landlord when they recover common area costs and property costs, et cetera, and go where did this come from, I never agreed to this.

[2:02:55] That’s my concern. I think there has to be a bit more of an in-depth job in selling the benefits of the BIA. Like I said, I think the value is there for sure. Pretty clear from short, first mole that they’re not interested. Their tenants might be, or maybe not. I don’t know, I can’t speak for them. It makes sense to me, though, not to just like I didn’t like to see it to go to Wonderland Fanshawe.

[2:03:29] Just stick with Hyde Park and come down the park to Oxford Street down to Ward 8, which is a wonderful spot for this shop. But I would like to see, as the Councillor said, I’d like to see more responses, like whether it means getting on the phone with some folks and then let’s do it, and then I can see, okay, we spoke to 150 people. We couldn’t get ahold of 50 people, and of the 100 people, 70 said yes, or 70 said no, I don’t know.

[2:04:03] It would just help me, because at the end of the day, I vote, and we vote whether to approve this or not, then goes on to Council. It would help me, ‘cause we don’t have to have a specific 50 plus one, but the bigger majority of those who’ve actually made contact and the affirmative, it helps me make that call. I don’t think the hard work done by the BIA is for not. They’ve made terrific effort in this. They’ve made a lot of contacts. Let’s just go one step further, because we’re talking about taxes here, property taxes, and the business has no choice.

[2:04:44] Once you’re in the BIA, you’re in it, and you have to pay it whether you liked it or not, so I wanna be very cautious before we go down that road. So, I don’t know if it’s, if at this point, and I’d like to hear from other members of the committee, if at this point, do we take out Sherwood Forest Mall, or do we leave that in for further consultation to see if they wanna speak to their tenants? I’d be fine, based on what I’ve heard of removing that as another part of the amendment, but I would like to hear from my fellow committee members.

[2:05:24] Thank you, Mr. Chair. You’ve used two minutes in 52 seconds, and I know I’m on your speaker’s list, not sure who else is. Thank you for keeping such a great track of my time, Councilor, I’ll go to you. Thank you, maybe it’s just practice for tomorrow’s budget meeting. Question through you to staff. Appreciate the process the work put in, and I know sometimes we put work in, and we don’t always see the return and the response and engagement with residents as we had hoped. I know with other planning applications, we are on a strict, provincially designated timeline to make a decision and get things back.

[2:06:00] Are we in such a position on expansions of BIA? I see a no, but just confirming. Go to staff. Thank you, through the Chair. No, there is no statutory timeline requirement with this process. Thank you, follow-up question through you, Mr. Chair. We were looking at the response rate. Just wondering if those responses were strictly through a mailed-in survey they had to do. If there was an email reply available, I know some departments are shifting, especially with the Canada Post issues that we live in, or if we’ve advanced anything to do a QR code, just looking for ease of how some people might want to engage with us.

[2:06:38] Oh, good staff. Thank you, through the Chair. They were all email responses through the QR code. Looking to see if they would like to add anything on, I just see some discrepancy in. Go to staff. Sorry, could you repeat the question, Councilor? Sorry, it was just a question that was completely accurate as you’re speaking, your colleague next to you shaking their head no. So we’d just really like to know which the answer was. Go to staff. So through the Chair, the initial consultation process was a combination of a physical mail sent to all property owners and business tenants, followed up by the community connectors visiting approximately 66% of those businesses that should have received the envelope from the city.

[2:07:33] And people were provided options of responding. Some chose to respond through a QR code that was included in a survey, and some chose to complete the survey manually, physically, and scan and email it back to us. So we got the responses through a variety of ways. Councilor. Thank you, and thank you for that clarification that this department as well as some others are using all means to try and gather feedback, which I appreciate using the technology available to us. Some concerns, and I think colleagues for their discussion on this, I don’t know if it would help that when it came back to us, if we knew as you already have a scheduled index map that’s numerically ordered, if we knew which ones in those areas responded in a certain way that we might be like, oh, this one met a certain threshold.

[2:08:29] We saw where the votes came from and are more comfortable putting it in. I’m still concerned though with a 9% response rate. Yeah, it’s a single digit response rate, and of those yeses were 36% and noes were 51.9 roughly. That’s my concern that we only have 9% replying, and of those replying, we’ll just call it 52% said no, thank you. So just as well with anything for taxes, everyone, if they didn’t realize that this would have a financial implication to their decision-making model of yes or no, that we know that we’ll hear back when it’s time if you just raised my taxes as much.

[2:09:13] I’m already struggling as a business and now what can you give my BIA to alleviate these pressures to help make some of the verge of financial closure? So those are my concerns of just, I don’t question the way forward of if it’s looking at in sections, saying the BIA back to doing some more detailed engagement to see what their instructions would be, or just simply saying no at this time, ‘cause for me a 9% response rate in 52% of those people saying no is a concern. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor.

[2:09:49] Thank you, Chair. So I’m gonna get a really pointed question building off of what Councillor Ploza just asked. And so Mr. May, there’s, did I understand correctly when you responded earlier that you could report back with more data and to Councillor Ploza’s point, when you do that, if we were to direct you to do that, you could actually break it down into key one, key two, key three, and show us where the positives and the negatives were in each of those keys. So I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, absolutely that would, I think that would be very important information for community to be able to see, because of course these are even including like the existing areas within the BIA.

[2:10:27] So I think it would be very prudent to be able to show that information broken up by the geographic area. Deputy Mayor. Okay, so that’s very helpful. So I would kinda lean towards leaving key three in for now, having that additional round of engagement and information that can be fed back to us and then making a decision whether to leave it in or take it out, I will say, and I’m just gonna take this opportunity to follow up on a comment I made earlier, that I don’t think, and staff, I will ask you to correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think we’re discussing the potential rebranding today, but I do wanna share to the BIA, that I actually disagree with the labeling of uptown, as sort of a unilateral renaming yourselves, well certainly when I think of the Hyde Park BIA, I think of it as the Hyde Park area.

[2:11:22] I think of that Hyde Park in Gainesboro corridor and the Fanshawe Park and Hyde Park corridor. If I was gonna label any district of London as uptown, I quite honestly would consider that to be Masonville, running up from the Richmond Road corridor. So I think that a rebranding like that does take away the uniqueness of the neighborhood character, and I think that that should be a further discussion with agencies like Tourism London, the other BIA’s, and get more feedback than just the board members on that sort of rebranding exercise.

[2:11:55] That said, I appreciate the work and the quality work, and I sit on a BIA too, the quality work that the Hyde Park BIA does for its businesses in the area, and I didn’t say that earlier, but I wanna say it now, because they put on some great events, Pawnfest, the Santa Claus Parade, among others, I think that the beautification efforts are excellent. There really is a quality job, and businesses in the BIA do get value back for their dollar, and I think it’s really important to share and underscore that I firmly believe the work you do is excellent, and the businesses in your current catchment area do get value for the dollar, but I do share the concern about the 9% engagement, so I do wanna take the opportunity now to amend the referral, and this item be referred back to a future meeting of Planning and Environment Committee that civic administration be directed to work with the Hyde Park BIA to undertake an additional round of engagements, specifically with the businesses located within the staff recommended expansion area, and report back with those findings.

[2:13:10] I can email that over to the clerk if it helps, ‘cause I’ve been kind of playing in Microsoft Word as we listen to get some language, so I’ll send that over. Okay, can you just give us a second here while the clerk words both set up? Councilor Poza?

[2:14:52] I’m just getting on your speaker’s list, Mr. Chair. I’m just gonna add it. (mumbles) All right, so the amendment is in each grab, and I just need a seconder on that.

[2:16:33] Councilor Cudi is seconded. Deputy Mayor, can you just have a quick read to make sure that that’s what you intended, and then I’ll be going to Councilor Roman. Yes, that captures my intent. We’re looking at vote three, that this item be referred back to and civic administration be directed to work with the Hyde Park BIA to undertake an additional round of engagement, specifically with the businesses located within the staff recommended expansion area and report back to a future meeting of PEC.

[2:17:11] Okay, I’ll go to Councilor Roman. Thank you, and through you. So I’m just wondering, I don’t know, it can be amended further, but just throwing this out there for consideration, I know I can’t amend it myself. So the question I would have is, what do you want the BIA to go back to the businesses with? So if we’re asking them to go back to the businesses with hey, a vote is going to happen. And the way it’s written right now as the next step is the only consideration, then you may not get the folks that are going to say yes, because right now they don’t have to, right?

[2:17:53] So whatever the parameters of the vote is going to be should be what they’re out communicating so that everybody understands the intention of what data is to come back. Right now the way this reads is that at least one third of owner’s tenants object in writing, and be that those objectors collectively pay one third of property taxes on either the existing or the proposed new area. So if for instance, you require additional data points that we need to, or the BIA needs to communicate out to the public to say, if you want to say yes, this is how you do it, I think that has to be part of the engagement or it would be difficult for the BIA to ensure that they’re communicating the vote and the process effectively if there’s a change in process later.

[2:18:47] I don’t know if that makes sense, but that’s something I think we have to consider if the vote process is being considered differently at council in the future. Okay, just trying to think about a proceed. I know councilor Plozer, you’re next on my list, but do we want to, I’m going to go to staff to see if they have any suggestions that might help us out? Through the chair, what I’m hearing today is that you’re really looking to be able to understand like the people that are very supportive of this, and then if people have those formal objections that they’re also heard.

[2:19:28] The survey that was provided in which we only got 52 responses does is an attempt to try to collect that information. So I think if we reframe it for folks that we really do need to hear back from you either way, like we need to know whether you’re in support, you’re a no or a maybe just like what was in the survey, and we try to enhance and get this a larger number than 52 responses. I think that would provide you with part of the information. And then if we are able to show it to you geographically to say this is where we have those responses, then you’ll be able to assess that in an next round of decision making.

[2:20:04] So if you put it back to us and the BIA to collect more of that survey information, I think you’ll have all the pieces that you need to make the decision. Councilor, what do you think of that comment? Thank you, through you. I do appreciate staff’s perspective on this. I agree that the survey asks for that requirement of the yes, no or the maybe. It’s going to be difficult to get anything else, I think, for the BIA and staff outside of perhaps similar results to what we’ve gotten, right?

[2:20:45] So I am trying to find a way forward that gives us that opportunity, but if that’s the direction that is there. Ultimately, I think people are going to respond best when they’re asked to make that written formal vote, right? Like that’s, I think, where we’re actually going to see a result come in. So this is, again, just a temperature check, and then we’ll have to decide what we do from there. So happy to further this discussion at a future PAC meeting. Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:21:21] A couple of questions for you to staff. I know as we says, this committee, is there anything legislatively saying that we would have to expand a BIA? Good staff. Just making sure that it’s a no before I make further comments. Thank you, through the Chair. As Council, you have the authority to designate a business improvement area. You have received a request that has been approved from the Board of Management of a business improvement area. There’s no requirement for you to expand that area. It’s entirely up to your discretion as a Council.

[2:21:56] Councilor. Thank you, through you to staff. As we follow this conversation, I would say that Mr. Mathers did encapsulate, and I think what most of us are trying to get at as information and intent of owners in the BIA is alike. Looking for you to see if they have the staff complement as our staff is you doing many things, currently available and free to do this engagement. And roughly how many hours are they expecting? This is gonna take of our staff time to go out and redo this work. Go staff. Thank you, through the Chair.

[2:22:43] I will admit it would be a difficult to quantify some of the staff time we’ve allotted to this. We do have within our work plan time set aside to support all the different business improvement areas. With what is being asked of administration with the motion on the floor, I do believe that we can accommodate that within our existing work plan that we have scheduled over the next couple of months in order to get the information that Council needs to make a proper decision. Councillor. Thank you. I’m up for considering the referral on the floor. I still have concern with the 9% response rate, realizing the expansive time and effort it seems on all parties involved that actually went into this.

[2:23:24] And a concern that in the added agenda was a letter from the Hyde Park BIA, saying that they’re fine with the response rate ‘cause they’re asking us to move forward and do all the expansions today. My opinion is different. I am not fine approving their expansion today. I have many more questions. Up to committee, I’m fine with voting for the referral. I’m also fine just voting no. I’ll go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. I don’t know how much of my time I’ve used up if I need to ask for more, but I want to just ask a couple of pointed questions of staff. If you go back out to do this, would you be sharing with the businesses that you’re engaging with the proposed expansion map?

[2:24:04] ‘Cause I suspect it would be different than the earlier round of engagement, which was a much broader area. And would you also be, would the communication also be sharing the levy rate as well? Would you be able to tell them in this communication this to respond to Councilor Robbins’ concern a bit? This is coming back to Council for a vote in August or September, like whatever the timeline is you need. Council needs your response by X date so that they can consider it at a planning meeting in September, something like that.

[2:24:38] So they realize that there’s, Council is going to be voting on this this year. And we do need to hear from them by some sort of drop dead deadline. So I guess those are the three things. Could you provide them a deadline? Could you provide them the new map? And would they be provided with the levy rate that the BIA has on its membership? I’ll go staff. Thank you, through the chair. So when we undertook the initial round of engagement, scope was much broad. As we’ve revised that boundary, yes, we would go out with the motion on the floor. We would go out and engage the businesses with the revised proposed smaller area.

[2:25:15] And we would provide that information to the individuals we are engaging with for their opinion. We can set a deadline, like we can definitely forecast when we want to bring this back to Council. And definitely when it comes to levy information, we can provide an approximate amount. It’s until the 2026 property tax rate set and until the 2026 BIA budget levy is set. It’s difficult, but we can use some data that the BIA has previously to provide an estimate. I will let committee know that to comply with the Municipal Act, so we would be conducting this second round of engagement, returning back to you with the results of that engagement for your decision point to then determine whether or not to proceed with the Municipal Act process, which would be a third round of engagement.

[2:26:10] So just letting everyone know that that would be a 60-day process, that would occur after we come back to committee. Deputy Mayor. And that’s where the businesses actually vote, right? That third round, after Council has decided we’re going to approve an expansion contingent on the outcome of a vote. Thank you, through Chair, just to clarify, they respond to the notice that we mail out of this, indicating their objection to the proposed expansion by-law.

[2:26:50] Okay, thanks. So just hearing that information, I hope that that addresses some of the concerns Councilor Raman had. Also happy to work with either the word Councillors or have them bring forward an amendment to this referral at Council too. But I think that hearing what staff can do to bring back a little bit more data for us before we make a decision, I’m comfortable with that at this point in time. Because I do think that there’s some merit in expanding the Hyde Park BIA, particularly down that Hyde Park Road corridor to Oxford.

[2:27:29] I think there’s a lot of businesses in there that identify with the Hyde Park identity and would benefit from being in there. So I have the concerns about the low response rate, but I’m not prepared to say no. I’d like to get a little more information and I do think that there’s an opportunity for an expansion here. So I, but I just want to make sure we get it right when we do it. Thank you, other comments or questions? Councilor Primmel, sorry, you had it in case. Thank you, and I have a few questions to the staff and based on if this referral passes or not, they will still be valid.

[2:28:09] I just want to ask you, it states, according to the policy that we have at least one third of owner’s tenants object in writing, is the one third of all proposed in current era, which should be about 250, or is it only the one third of the responses we receive, good staff? Thank you, through the chair. It is all a current and proposed members within the expansion area. Is what the one third calculates to? Councilor. So again, not based on responses based on the total number of current and potential members, correct?

[2:28:48] That is correct. Thank you for that. I assume if the owner and tenant, if they object and it’s the same address, would it count as one or as two objections? Good staff. Thank you, through the chair. They actually are counted as separate votes. So if you have a single property owner who owns a building with 10 units and there are 10 tenants within that, there are 11 eligible voters within that single property. Councilor. Thank you for that. If the 60 day objection period currently, which is in the policy, can we actually extend it potentially?

[2:29:24] Or it has to be 60 good staff? Thank you, through the chair. It is 60 days under the Municipal Act. So that would be the legislation that we are complying with. Councilor. Okay, thank you for that. By the way, I don’t think that the BIM may be demonstrated, but I don’t think that they are asking for the expansion today. I think there was that 60 day objection period still in place. And clarify one thing is I was under the impression that there were about 50 responses. There’s potentially 250 new members that certainly is more than 9%.

[2:29:58] So I just want to clarification on that. Go staff. Thank you, through the chair. The recommendation, sorry, the original recommendation in front of you was for to direct staff to send out that formal notice, which was the trigger to provide businesses with the opportunity to inform us and formally object to the expansion process. By referring this, that process will not take place that notice will not be sent. And instead, we would be going out for another round of engagement. Councilor.

[2:30:31] Okay, thank you for that. But can you clarify the information I received roughly 50 out of 250, which 50 out of 250 is more than 9% go staff? Through the chair, the 9 or 10% was a response rate for the original wide expansion area. So not for the recommended expansion area that is before you today. So the 52 responses is associated with the initial consultation for the wider expansion area.

[2:31:07] Councilor. Okay, thank you for that. No more questions, just two comments. It was what I stated here, but I certainly would not support Renee and me rebranding to uptown. And I just want to say one more thing that we have currently in two BIA’s similar centers to Sherwood that they actually do participate and they do pay the levy. So at the stage, at the stage, I would not also, I would not support excluding Sherwood for a small firm this. And I would certainly encourage conversation with them and their tenants.

[2:31:41] Thank you. Other comments or questions? Committee would permit me. I’ll just say this. At the end of the day, you present us with the data that you collect. And there’s no 50 plus one, there’s no primer set by the Ms. Plack. It’s essentially our judgment call for my understanding. Is that correct, staff? Chair, yes, at the end of the day, you would not be able to move forward if you had that more than that objection amount value.

[2:32:15] However, it’s your choice whether to move forward either way. Please go ahead. Through the chair, if I could just clarify, I think there might be some confusion. There’s a, I think you’re talking about sort of an informal survey process, which is separate from the formal notification process. So there’s a notice process which is under the act and you have to comply with that notice process. And it’s the notice process that then determines the number of objections, whether you can proceed with a by-law or not. So that notification process is very important.

[2:32:53] Okay, thank you for that clarification. I appreciate that. And that’s why it’s important at this point that we have a fairly high degree of confidence going forward that we’re gonna get through that official count. That’s the way I see it. And I think we’ve heard from various people here and I feel I share that. I don’t have that confidence, not because of the response, but because it’s just a low response rate. We just don’t have enough people telling us what they want. I think it’s helpful now we have more direct thing. I ask that the levy implications be as clear as possible.

[2:33:31] I understand what I get a little troubled with is as well as a percent of a percent of this and that. There’s some way you can say that your property taxes are gonna go up by 0.001% or some way to tie it. To their current property taxes, it might be surprising on the low end as opposed to people think, oh, my taxes are going up by a huge amount and it might not be the case. So as much as possible in clear speak as you can, I think that’ll help. And at the front, at the top, not buried down the bottom, but very clear.

[2:34:06] Here’s what we’re asking, here’s the cost. Here are the benefits. And we need to hear from you by this is not such and such a date. ‘Cause Kel’s is gonna vote on this. So I think that would add impetus to people responding. And when it comes back, I hope we have some better data that we can hopefully go forward. ‘Cause like has been said here, I hope it does. I’d like to see the BIA stretch down, I part for sure. Okay, I’ll look for any other comments or questions before I call the vote on the referral.

[2:34:42] We’re gonna do the referral first and then we’re gonna call it on the main vote. So we’ve got the referral now. That’s before you, that was moved by Councillor or Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Cudi. And I’ll call that vote right now. All right, Councillor, Ramen. Sorry, we’re just still on the amendment to the referral. I’m sorry, thank you for clarifying. The amendment to the referral. So we’re talking about the amendment, correct. Thank you. Everyone else knew what I was talking about ‘cause they’re used to me the way I speak. That please go ahead with your question.

[2:35:16] Okay, thank you, and through you, I just wanna thank the Deputy Mayor as well for pointing out that we have time between now and council. If there’s any further amendments on the referral to be put forward, which I am considering bringing, just for clarification of what the BIA and staff should be doing in order to collect the information that’s needed. I will say, I think we have an opportunity right now that we have to seize and that is to get our process correct because this won’t be the first BIA to come to us with an expansion.

[2:35:51] So if we’re not okay with the expansion process under the Municipal Act, having nothing to do with Hyde Park BIA, they just happen to be the ones that are in front of us today with us. We really need to take the time to clarify our own process and what we’re comfortable with and make it uniform for all of the BIA’s. So I appreciate the referral. I’m not sure if I’ll amend in the future so that we get that process right before we take it one step further. I do think if we don’t do that and we send the BIA and staff out to go out and do the survey again, we’ll end up with similar results and it won’t give us or satisfy the need for us to really clearly understand what it is we wanna know in order to support a BIA expansion.

[2:36:34] We have to think about this in terms of economic benefit as well for our city. We have to think about how we seize the opportunity to make our centers around the city more vibrant. This is an opportunity to do so. The work of the BIA speaks for itself. It’s phenomenal if you have a chance, come out to Pondfest this weekend, thank you. Thank you. We’ll look for any other comments or questions before I call the vote on the amendment. Seeing none, I’ll call the amendment vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[2:37:21] Okay, now we’re on the main motion as amended. I’ll need a mover and a seconder for the motion as amended. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hillier. Any comments or questions? Again, through the committee program. So I’d just like to follow up on Councilor Robinson’s point. Hyde Park is kind of getting any pay here.

[2:37:58] And maybe it might be helpful once we’ve gone through this exercise to actually look at maybe having a process in place so we don’t have to repeat this if it comes before us again. But let’s work our way through this and then we can talk about that. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Just want to make sure ‘cause you’re saying that the main motion as amended, but you’re actually talking about the referral as amended ‘cause the referral takes precedence. Correct. There is no main motion if the referral passes. Everyone knew what I was talking about right here. The referral as amended.

[2:38:36] I’ll see wunks. Okay, any other comments or questions on the Chair’s ability to handle a meeting? Seeing none, I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Yeah, I’ll just say this from the Chair. Thank you for coming down today. I know this is a long drawn out process. It’s an important process and you can hear the discussion here.

[2:39:11] Unfortunately, you’re the first kind of to go through this. So be patient and I think you hear our comments here what we’re looking forward to help staff out and working together with them to get what I think you want and I think what a lot of people have, you heard support for where you’re going as well. So thanks for making the effort and for being here today. Appreciate that. Okay, moving on to 2.2 and this is a request for a delegation status from the Board Chair from downtown London.

[2:39:49] So I’ll look for motion, Councillor Palazzo seconded by, Councillor Hill here to allow that delegation and we’ll all the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Welcome, Ms. Nielsen, please go ahead. You have five minutes. Excellent, thank you. Kristin Nielsen, Chair of the Board of Directors of the downtown London BIA. First off, thank you for allowing me the time to address the esteemed chair and the committee.

[2:40:26] The title of the report that is presented as a momentum report and this group of talented and dedicated individuals put this together and I’m just here to bring their words to life with my enthusiasm. So we’ve asked for the opportunity for the downtown London to speak and to bring forward its appreciation for and to define the investments that the city, its partners and the private sectors have made to the momentum of downtown and the future we can expect. Sorry, I can’t see this, but now I can’t see you. So we’re going with it. The programs that, sorry, I’m just gonna jump into the investments and start with the city’s programs through the London Community Recovery Network through 2020 to 2023 where the city partnered with the LDBA to deliver more than 500,000 in direct support to businesses, including COVID recovery grants, facade and patio improvements, construction dollars, holiday window displays and $276,000 in activation funding to support initiatives such as the downtown for the holidays and then.

[2:41:31] In 2024, the city committed 1.16 million in grant funding to the downtown London BIA to address challenges, stemming from homelessness and social disruption. This funding directly enabled the expansion of the clean team, graffiti removal, business support and downtown activations, including $623,000 in grants that were distributed to 261 member businesses. The LDBA has delivered more than 1.3 million in direct to business grants through Main Street London supporting safety improvements, storefront upgrades, signage and beautifications initiatives.

[2:42:11] Other initiatives have included the Office to Residential Construction Grant and the Commercial Space FITOUT program. The downtown London Loop, a key component to the city’s bus rapid transit system, is now substantially complete improving transit access to and through the core. $24 million of a provincial investment in wastewater infrastructure has unlocked the capacity for more than 17,000 new residential units citywide. Private sector investment is also gaining visible momentum. Between 2020 and 2024, downtown saw more than 646 million in verified construction activity, including the addition of 1456 new residential units that have been approved under where completed.

[2:42:57] And as we’ve discussed today, with proposed projects, more than 900 million in private sector dollars, increasing this number to 4,000 units. This reinvestment spans a diversity of projects including residential developments, commercial renovations, tenant fit outs, signage improvements and essential upgrades to aging infrastructure. The total investment picture reflects a downtown that is not only attracting interest, but actively being reimagined and rebuilt. While this brings construction, and that has its own temporary challenges, including noise, detours, disruptions to business and operations, these are the parts of the pains of progress.

[2:43:35] Long-term benefits are clear and fueling the momentum for the future. The downtown London BIA will continue to support our businesses through this disruption. I’d like to touch on vibrancy and culture. Strategic partnerships are the fuel to the fire of this momentum. It is through the efforts of the LGBA along with the city of London. Tourism London, Dundas Place, Covenant Garden Market, the Chamber of Commerce, cultural organizations and community groups that the downtown has seen revitalization. For major festivals to neighborhood skill programs, the LGBA has helped bring thousands of people downtown by supporting sponsoring and hosting and promoting a wide range of events.

[2:44:12] In 2024 alone, more than 1.18 million people attended events in the core, with more than 4,700 events being hosted since 2020. These events, each gathering, each celebration in every visit to the core supports our retail and hospitality businesses. Beyond this, it contributes to the extended work environment for our office tenants. And if we think creatively and collaborate with other great London organizations, such as the LEDC, we can capitalize on the story of success and use it to market to other areas to drive up Tennessee in our office market.

[2:44:47] Inclusion is an important factor to consider. In my conversations with counselors to describe the discussion wrapped around the topic of how to make downtown open to every Londoner. There’s opportunity here to foster new relationships and create spaces for everyone. This includes ensuring that our business ecosystem continues to encourage and optimize the diversity. Cultural momentum in downtown isn’t just about aesthetics, but it’s about impact. According to the role of culture in downtown London’s evolution of report by the Chamber of Commerce, arts and culture play a measurable role in economic growth, quality of life, and perceptions of safety and vibrancy.

[2:45:27] Public art and music, drop foot traffic, support local businesses and strengthen community pride. Private and public spaces can be leveraged not only for events, but also for placemaking and storytelling to shift perception and invite new audiences. To touch on a few successes, we have sun fast rocked the park to award winning downtown trails, graduations, Dundas Place markets, cultural events of Victoria Park, through the LGBT and all of our efforts in facilitating and supporting these events, we ensure a positive impact on our businesses. Together the efforts of downtown, gather the efforts our downtown, we are taking, raises our downtown London from just being maintained to being animated.

[2:46:07] So on the topic of security and vacancy, this is one of the most visible and persistent challenges downtown has, both at street level and above. Initiatives such as the office to residential conversion, vacant space, outfit plan are meaningful, but we need to capitalize on the opportunities to work with other organizations and drive employers to our core. Our cityscape now boasts beautiful new residential construction, vibrancy and culture and activities and improved public transport. These are the factors businesses consider to attracting talent.

[2:46:40] This is what we can use to drive interest in our office market, but it will be the efforts of the LDBA along with the city and others that help tell the story of success. As for safety and security, it has been a deterrent to both businesses and foot traffic and it is a problem we are facing together. The initiative of the London Police Services with the support of the city and controlling, excuse me, open drug use has had a positive impact. We don’t have metrics, but the anecdotally in my conversations, we have heard of vast improvements to reportable security events, increased sense of safety and an overall improvement to the real and perceived security of the downtown London population.

[2:47:19] For this, we are grateful. So to the future with gratitude. The LDBA gratefully acknowledges the city of London’s targeted support through its 1.16 million grant in 2024, as well as the committed funding of $300,000 for both 2025 and 2026 respectively. We extend this appreciation to all partners, community groups, the LBS who have contributed to the momentum we have built. To accelerate us to the future, we must build up these successful collaborations and drive feet to our streets, turn the wave of pessimism towards the beautiful present and a bright future.

[2:47:57] We cannot coast. It takes all of us to tell the story. We’ve cared enough to make the investments and seen the results. These results are not theoretical progress, but are happening now. Through the launch of targeted quick-start actions, the ongoing contribution to the downtown master plan, the increased police presence, enhanced outreach, public washroom, beautification and vacancy reduction initiatives, the city has demonstrated a willingness to act quickly and collaboratively. Continued investment in the downtown is not just about preserving what we have, it’s about maximizing what’s possible.

[2:48:32] But this transformation isn’t driven by dollars alone, it’s powered by people, by Londoners who attend events, support local businesses, bring energy to public spaces and choose downtown as a place to be. These investments, both institutional and individual, support jobs, grow the tax base, draw tourism, strengthen downtown as a place to live and elevate London’s civic brand. With momentum building, a strong foundation in place and continued support from the city, higher levels of government are partners and the public, downtown London is poised for lasting transformation.

[2:49:06] 30 seconds. Special thanks, good. Special thanks to the city of London, tourism London, Covenant Garden Market, Dundas Place, the Chamber of Commerce, downtown event organizers, private developers and the broader community for helping to make our downtown better every day and accelerating us all to a downtown as pride of place. Thank you. Thanks Mr. Nielsen. Okay, so I’ve got a committee looking for a motion to receive that report. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, any questions, comments, committee members, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[2:49:38] Well, I’m wondering if we can get Ms. Nielsen to come to council and read out our reports from closed session, ‘cause those are rather long and she’s very good at getting a lot of information and very quickly. But I want to take the opportunity to say thank you to downtown London and to your whole team who are up there. And of course, that goes beyond just the team that’s here today, but I’m thinking about the folks at Covent Garden Market and at Canada Life Place and at the Central Library and all of the other, the Grand Theatre and all the other great destinations we have downtown because I’m hearing it from my residents out in the east end too.

[2:50:19] And I’m hearing it from people that I pass on the street or interact with at events. Hey, downtown’s starting to get better. Hey, things are looking up. Like we see the cranes in the sky. I was down to a night’s game and I came out and there was a street festival going on on a Friday night. And I’ve never seen that before. That kind of feedback, when I’m hearing it, you know, sitting on a patio at Chuck’s out in our ground mall that people are saying, oh, I was downtown and something great was going on. I want to share that with you because when I’m hearing that, it tells me that the work you’re doing is making an impact.

[2:50:57] And the work that all the partners are doing that includes our planning staff here, the members of this committee and council who are approving those new housing builds. I know for a while the narrative has been, you know, oh, I would never go downtown. Oh, things are terrible downtown, but that’s not the narrative that’s out there anymore. And there’s lots of good stories to still tell. You know, I missed the opportunity, but I know that everybody did a great job putting on Knight’s Court again this year for the Memorial Cup. Thanks to Mr. Craven and to Mr. McCauley for their work on that.

[2:51:33] Still have a banner in my office, commemorating the first one. And that’ll always be a prized souvenir because those are the kind of things that we want to see happen. Those street gatherings, that excitement, that energy, that really adds to the vibrancy of the community. So for a long time, I will be honest, it felt like whether it was the business owners, the BIA, the other community partners. It seemed like everything was negative, negative, negative. And to hear the positives from you and to hear the positives from the residents that I talk to as I go about my daily excursions in the city, it’s encouraging.

[2:52:11] We’ve got a lot of work to do still, we know that. But the team that you’ve put together, the impact that’s already happening, it gives us a lot of hope for where we can take our downtown moving forward. So I just wanted to say thank you. Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair, and through you. And thank you, Ms. Nielsen, for coming today. And you know, you’re a business person, you’re a businesswoman, and you’re also the chair, but you’re not accountable because you are chairs. You have a CEO who hasn’t been available for a few months now.

[2:52:50] So what I’m interested, I think what this committee’s interested is your leadership, the leadership of the BIA for the going forward and what we’ve seen for the past few months. So maybe you could just elaborate on that a bit. Ms. Nielsen? I’ll rephrase it. I’ll rephrase it. So you have a bit of a vacuum because you have no leadership at the time. So I mean, you’re a businesswoman, I own a business. So I understand how this operates. If I’m not there to tell people what to do, maybe it doesn’t get done.

[2:53:22] And they’re probably the same with you. So maybe you can do understand that. Yeah, I do. Okay, thank you. Ms. Nielsen. Thank you. So this team right here has been operating without an ED, who has been off for the interim. And all of this that has been put together is because of their dedication and their commitment and their talent. So if there has been a vacuum and there has been, each one of these people and the board has stepped up. And that’s why we’re seeing these successes, and that’s why we’re feeling the improvements.

[2:53:57] So yes, we are anxious and excited to experience what’s next for the team. But in the interim, like these guys are just showing up and doing what needs to be done. And I have a part-time job now. So which is supporting them and standing up here and cheerleading for them. Councilor, thank you very much. So they really didn’t answer my question, but I appreciate that.

[2:54:30] I appreciate the work you do and the work your staff does. Is your CEO expected back in the next few months? Or what’s the direction? Ms. Nielsen. Yeah, I can’t comment directly to that. It wouldn’t be prudent of me. She is off on leave and we’re keeping everybody updated as best we can. Councilor, thank you. I just have one other question. Last year, I went looking for your office because I wanted to buy some downtown bucks. And I’m a cyclist. I ride everywhere downtown. And it took me a while to find your office ‘cause it’s now not on Main Street. It’s on the second floor.

[2:55:04] When I look at a BIA, I expect it to be Main Street, and it’s not anymore. It’s on the second floor. I find that probably a step backwards if you don’t mind me saying so. I would like to see it on the main ground. I don’t know why you relocated, not my business, because this is the way you operate. But I think a Main Street office, a Main Street BIA should be on Main Street, not on a second floor. By the way, I couldn’t access your office. I had to come back to my office and call and then access it again. I think you’re doing a wonderful job, Ms. Nielsen. I think your staff are doing a wonderful job.

[2:55:40] I agree with the wholeheartedly, with Deputy Mayor Lewis’s comments that we’ve seen some huge improvements downtown. And I think we’re moving in the right direction. Sorry, I’m almost done. I think we’re moving in the right direction. And I applaud you for the work you do. Thank you. Councillor Preble. I’m sorry to Councillor Ferri, I do next to the list. Thank you, Chair. Okay, so there’s always challenges for the downtown BIA, but, and I see that Councillor Cudi has raised some, but in the end, we are having some serious progress moving forward.

[2:56:19] So there are always conversations that we can have to amend some of these concerns that are being brought up. And I would be more than willing to have a chat with you in the future regarding that. I wanted to speak to kind of the momentum, you know, like I love the book and the momentum report itself. Like that, the way I see it is, you know, there’s a huge mass here. And this momentum of that mass is gonna be hard to stop. And there’s a whole bunch of people behind it pushing that along. And as the Deputy Mayor has said, and as Councillor Cudi has also alluded to, this is all hands on deck.

[2:56:53] We’re all working on this together. And I’ve seen some great support. Every time I reach out to either the chair or to staff, you’ve all been very receptive, very responsive. And I can really see that effort, that coordinated effort to work all together. We have our trails going on right now. We have the Councillor, I guess, guided tours for the trails as well going on right now, just to kind of increase that engagement to answer questions one on one. I really appreciate that we’re doing that. And you can see from the momentum report itself. And the chair has spoke to most of them, so I’m not gonna go over them again.

[2:57:26] But there’s lots of points of engagement that we’re bringing on with the local business community, with Councillors, with residents. And I see some really positive things happening here. And I am myself. I get a lot of feedback from residents downtown who live downtown there. I’m the main point of contact. And I am getting a very concerted amount of communication coming in, telling me that they are seeing improvements, that they are seeing it’s better this year than it was last year, that they are seeing it’s better this year than it was two years ago. And I know that will increase.

[2:57:58] And that is efforts by this council as well, with all of the funding that we have helped the BIA with and how they have activated that funding, and with the work that staff is doing themselves, and with the board of directors as well. So that concerted effort, that momentum, that’s all of us pushing that. That’s all of us bringing that forward, and I know it’s gonna get better. As it’s already been better today than it was in the past. And I guess I may come back for more comments again on this, but I do wanna say to the staff, I think you guys do a great job, a really great job.

[2:58:33] You’re like, I reach out to you, and I ask for a guided tour with council members, and immediately I see an email coming to my colleagues saying, hey, come out, let’s do these tours. I ask, I call the chair of the board. You answer every one of my calls. We are working together on a lot of things. I think you’re doing a fantastic job, like a very good job to the chair of the board. She’s new, and she’s doing an amazing job. So you hit the ground like sprinting. So I really appreciate that.

[2:59:05] We are in good hands here, and things are gonna get better, and I am more than willing to have conversations with anybody here to answer as best as I can with the current information that we have now for any concerns that you may have. But I will say, we recognize the work that you’re doing. I recognize the work that you’re doing. I really appreciate what’s happening, and the city is seeing it. And I know a year from now, you’re gonna see what the deputy mayor is speaking about more. So I’m happy with that, obviously, ‘cause as we all know, the downtown was in a state a few years back.

[2:59:41] It’s not in that state today. That state is much better. And that momentum, this momentum report, is literally speaking to that, and it’s still moving. We’re still moving, and we are like a very heavy boulder that’s gonna be impossible to stop, ‘cause we have everybody behind it, including everybody here, staff, and staff up there, and the board of directors pushing that along. So I appreciate everybody’s help. I appreciate council supporting the budget amendment that I brought to the budget update for the extra funds for the downtown BI.

[3:00:12] They’re using it very well. And I’ll leave my comments there for now, but I’m very happy with the state that we’re in right now. I’m very happy with the direction that we’re going, and I wanna continue that. So, good job. I’m fine if you would decide to speak of the chair of PAC, the same way you speak, the chair of the BIA, any time, councilor. The chair of PAC is important. Councilor Primmel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Nelson, and thank you to the entire team for the hard work and for the excitement and positiveness about downtown.

[3:00:48] I will just add, I don’t know if it was stated, but certainly the businesses downtown, they feel the same way. They feel that we are on the right track, both the council supportive actions that we are doing, as well as the BI’s work, and, but still, you know, long way to go. But certainly, we are on the right track. If I look at two weeks ago, we had the Londonites great celebrations. Last week, we had the music festival, and every day, almost every day, people singing, dancing downtown, having a great time. Now we have thank you to Western and Fanshawe for bringing their graduation downtown, and Canada Life Place, 130 events, half of the weekends, half of them, half of them weekdays.

[3:01:28] Tremendously important for us, so thank you for that. And I do have a few specific questions. We did have a strategic plan or downtown BI 821 to 25, which has now ended. And what work is gonna be done to evaluate kind of this plan, strategic plan, what has been accomplished, what we have learned, what can we do better? Ms. Gilson. Yeah, excellent question. The metrics that have been driven by the strategic plan are posted quarterly, I believe, on our website. We feel that we have been successful in that strategic plan.

[3:02:07] We are looking at doing an interim strategic plan that will tide us over to the or coincide with the implementation or the results from the master plan, the master downtown master plan, which I believe is coming at the end of 2026. So there will be an interim strategic plan that will get us from 2025 to 2026. We will build up the successes, but that period of time, 2021 to 2025, was recovery. That was COVID. That was, how do we get people here? How do we approach businesses and recover? What I think we’re looking at for the future is to build on that, take the momentum that we’re feeling and say, how do we drive bigger successes?

[3:02:47] How do we drive pride of place to everybody in London for our downtown London? Now, am I allowed to refer to a comment that a previous councilor made? I’ll, yeah, sure. Thank you, sorry. Just in response to the comment about not being mean street or not at retail level. And I respect that comment greatly. We do find ourselves at, sorry, Dundas and Talbot. And there was a decision in order to incorporate our office tenants. We are an office tenant. We have office tenant who contribute to our people. So there is nothing that says, and I appreciate BIA’s or typically focused on retail ground level.

[3:03:31] And we are very focused on that. But we cannot do that to the detriment or to ignoring our office tenants when we’re facing a 30% vacancy rate. So we’re looking at solutions for every member what cross our area. So thanks. Okay, Chair, may I respond to that comment? No, we’re not going to get a new question today about this. No, we’re still at the councilor Pribble. So councilor, please go ahead. Thank you.

[3:04:03] So this route plan ends this year 25. What is the plan behind beyond the 25? And in terms of the BIA and also in core, I know you mentioned it as well, the downtown master plan that we are preparing, but I certainly hope it’s going to be before end of 2026. And maybe I can have a confirmation from our staff on dead one timeframe. But anyways, I just want to know how it’s going to be done, when it’s going to be implemented and how you are going to implement it in coordination with the downtown master plan.

[3:04:36] Ms. Nielsen. I don’t have specifics to answer that question. We are at present putting together what will be incorporated into our interim agreement that will take us from 2025 into 2026, where well, and we will incorporate the master plan and the responses and the results of the master plan into a further and longer term of a strategic plan. But I will certainly bring that forward once we have it in place. Councilor, thank you for that answer to the chair. I do agree with that by the way, because I do think that BIA strategic plan needs to be aligned together with downtown business plan.

[3:05:13] So even if it’s something interim to buy a certain number of months, but I’m going to go through the question to the staff. Ms. Nielsen, she mentioned by end of 2026. I know currently we had a timeline 13 months, which certainly would be less than end of 2026, which I was hoping to be even shorter. What timeframe are we looking right now at the downtown master plan to the staff through the chair? Thank you. Go to staff. Thank you through the chair. We are still on schedule progressing with that project. We are anticipating a return to counseling Q2 2026 is our intended delivery date for that.

[3:05:49] Actually, while we’ve been sitting here in your inbox, we have released the get involved survey. So our public engagement session has now launched. Councilor. Thank you. Have there been conversations with the consultant and trying to decrease the certain month so we can push certain things forward faster? Go staff. Thank you through the chair. We have bi-weekly meetings with our consultant, regular project updates.

[3:06:25] We are cognizant of Council’s appetite for this plan and to have it in front of them to make some decisions. We will work with them to try to get this as soon as possible. It is a process. We want to make sure we take the process diligently and work through it and make sure that we cover all corners that we can produce a well thought out, confident plan that can provide a good service to Londoners for the next 10 years. So we are working through that project. We are on schedule. We continue to be on schedule. And if there’s any delays or any changes in that, we will update Council as appropriate.

[3:07:00] So. Thank you, staff. And one last question to Ms. Nelson. And I know you mentioned it during your presentation but project pathways. And I’m hearing positive things from our London, about our London police initiative. And there’s, for example, a city plaza if the number I have correct that they feel that, not that they feel that their start shows decrease of incidents by 40%. But I know you said the matrix are not available yet but can you just elaborate a little bit more on this project and London police initiative? Ms. Wilson.

[3:07:33] Yeah, thank you. It’s been hugely impactful. So for the time that it’s been in place, as a resident of downtown London as employee of a developer, I can tell you anecdotally that we have seen a decrease in incidences just as city plaza has in reportable incidents. Now what we’re trying to develop is an across the board, report as to pre-implementation of project pathways and post and what that looks like to reportable incidences. But it hasn’t had a felt measured positive impact onto the streets and the businesses within our BIA.

[3:08:14] John, sir, thank you very much. No more questions, the only comment I will have. And we do have some media present here. We do have positive things in downtown London and I hope the media is gonna spread this positive word throughout the entire London. So actually half a million of Londoners get to see how wonderful downtown is. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Councilor Closa. Thank you. Maybe we just make it contingent upon any media interviews, making sure that they put out the good word of what London downtown is doing.

[3:08:52] Just kidding, I’ll still talk to you. A question or a comment, a couple of things, realizing I take care of south to south. I do appreciate staff recently engaging counselors for a walk about a downtown. I know we come really comfortable with our words and what’s going on, but I always appreciate knowing who has the best patios going on downtown, what the walking tours of those are. In addition to other things, realizing we serve on other boards, so I know the tourism London board we hear about the money from Matt tax and stuff going into the murals that are being painted and going up, but really lovely to have someone on site with you showing where that mural is, why it was considered for that place, the artists and the impacts and what local businesses see as the investment.

[3:09:42] I also share Councilor Cuddy’s comment about, I know there’s always fiscal concerns availability of space, but I do miss the downtown BIA not having a door on the streets. I would walk in, I would chat with staff and see what’s going on, and I know other business owners, as I do go out and engage and frolic in different words, sometimes they question too, if my door can be opened onto the street, why can’t the BIA’s? So just mindful of that, two questions for you to staff or the board chair, page 34, I guess, it just talks to the London town, but the music and arts trail, celebrating our UNESCO city of music, looking to see if any of that has had consideration of reaching out and looking for additional partnerships with tourism, London, realizing the music opposites there and there is musical accommodation, tax grants available when we try to do greater promotions to come and get more people here in heads and beds.

[3:10:50] Ms. Gilson. If I’m sorry, I can’t comment directly to that, I don’t have direct knowledge of it. I believe that any opportunity for collaboration is gonna benefit everybody, so I’d be more than happy to have our team reach out and see what those opportunities are. Would staff be able to comment on that? Ms. Gilson, if you have a staff member that could speak to that, but if you don’t, that’s fine too, it’s so— I’ll invite Brent. Okay. Good afternoon, I’m Brent, the Brent Hudson, the marketing and communications manager of downtown London.

[3:11:24] Councilor Palosa, it was music and arts trail celebrating UNESCO designation, looking at additional partnership with music office and grants. Can you, sorry, can you just repeat a little bit of your question? Yeah, so just looking at as we have different partners in different spaces and I’m meeting different things, looking to see, I know that there was a team up with the Tourism London for the mural painting. That was lovely, looks great. Looking to see what kind of other opportunities have you considered realizing there is money out there to help elevate some of the events that you’re doing to get more, not even just Londoners, but other people from the region and elsewhere to come in and fill our hotels and enjoy your events and patronize your businesses.

[3:12:10] Okay, so please go ahead. So what I’m getting is two different discussions here. One is the arts and music trail is a self-guided trail program that people are able to check in once they’re at those locations where they receive points that they can then redeem for downtown dollar gift cards, swag bag prizes, as well, recently in the last couple of months, we’ve done some pop-up pricing with a kind of life place and the grand theater and giving people the opportunity to win tickets to some of their events. And then with our actual events, we are sponsoring some of the stuff with the music office, including their market lane programming that is coming up.

[3:12:53] We have not had a discussion about other grant opportunities with them, but of course, our doors open to those discussions as we have a lot of event coordinators coming to us looking for funding opportunities for their events that take place up Richmond Road, Victoria Park, Dundas Place, and the other, soon to be the COVID market new space one. So that’s finished renovating. So we are definitely open to those discussions. We just haven’t had that many yet. Councillor. Thank you. As there’s Dundas Place activations, I’ve spoken to business owners, they love it.

[3:13:30] They love to know when it’s coming so they can plan things accordingly within their businesses. Can I ask, how has the communication been for one way, when it’s possible to let the businesses know of just looking to see how that information is shared, that we’re going to activate something or one party is going to activate it, the BIA is going to know, business is going to know where the BIA wants to do something and the city gets a heads up. Yes. So we sit on a activation board with Dundas Place, museum London, the Grand Theatre, tap creativity, kind of life place, Fanshawe.

[3:14:09] There’s quite a number of partners that meet regularly to discuss what’s going on for each of us. So there is that that we learn from each other on what’s coming up with Dundas Place. We also work with them quite closely in looking at their events. We share a lot of their information on our social media. Plus, we also include their events in our monthly calendars, which are created by the mid of the month. So right now we’re looking at creating July’s calendars, so we’re accepting all that information. Once that’s completed, we have it printed and delivered, not this month due to the potential Canada post strike, but next month, possibly.

[3:14:47] A copy of that calendar is distributed by Canada post to every business in our downtown area, as well as it’s posted online and sent out through our business insider, which is our member focused newsletter. So that goes out to all the businesses as well. So they have access to all the events that we’ve been able to collect and put on our lists. Councilor. Thank you. I don’t believe that counselors or members of councilor on that list. If you consider adding us, I would love to know and help cross promote stuff within my circles as well.

[3:15:21] Perfect, we will definitely add that to you. Other comments or questions? The committee will permit me a kind of question from Ms. Nielsen. You can see by the questions and just the day-to-day stuff that the staff at the BIA goes through and the board. And there’s a challenge unique, I think, to the downtown BIA in that there’s a lot of overlap with city led initiatives.

[3:15:56] And yet you represent your members who, they pay you levies to improve the business area that they, how do you manage that? How do you manage the requests of the city, the city led initiatives like Dundas Place, et cetera, with your mandate to serve your members? So if I’m understanding correctly, we work very, like we work closely with the city in order to create the opportunities that we then pass on to our members.

[3:16:30] So we have four pillars, and of course I’m only gonna remember two of them right now, but one of the most important is advocacy. And that’s where our alignment crosses over with the city, and we come presenting information and points of view that are specific to the members of our BIA. In serving our BIA, the funds that translate from the city, from the levy, translate through us into initiatives that directly support dollar for dollar to our businesses. They support clean initiatives and beautification and all of the things that make it worthwhile to have a business downtown.

[3:17:10] And the third one that I like to consider sort of the really important part, or one of the important parts, is then we have to project that image to the greater community so that we drive the business back into downtown. So that’s where we work at, but the interface between the city and our board, we look at through advocacy and implementation of funds or process. Okay, thank you, it was a tough question. I know that because it’s a unique piece. So I’ll just say from the chair, I echo what other councilors have said.

[3:17:43] There is for sure a change happening, a positive change. I wanna just comment on the your members and your staff and board. Resiliency comes to mind, that’s the word, ‘cause there certainly have been dark days in the past summer years through the situation downtown, COVID, et cetera, et cetera, that I honestly believe are changing, as has been mentioned. And I think the challenge for the board and your staff is to, and I think you’re doing that today, quite frankly.

[3:18:20] So continue to do that, to get the word out, ‘cause there’s an narrative out there. I’m out in the West End that, you know, oh, I don’t go downtown anymore. Maybe for night schemes, but I don’t go downtown anymore. It’s changing, we have to continue to tell people the story that is changing. And as that virtuous cycle happens, which I think we’re seeing now, we’re gonna see great things. I think is a very exciting time for your staff and your board to be part of this story, as I think this council reflects as well.

[3:18:59] And London, I mean, without the heartbeat, I think Councilor Trusso said that, really, which I agree. Every great city has a great heartbeat, and the downtown is that. So thank you for your work. Thanks for bringing this report to us today, to continue that conversation, to highlight that the positive things that are happening for our downtown, thanks. So any other comments or questions? Okay, we have a motion to receive, and second, I’ll call that vote. Wasn’t the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[3:19:46] Okay, so we have no items for direction, deferred matters or additional business. No, it leaves a German all of promotion to adjourned. Councilor Cuddy, second by Councilor Hill, your hand vote. Motion carries. Thank you, we are adjourned.