Open Council

The 14th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

The 14th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

September 9, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 1:01 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

None.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.1 to 2.3, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   Fast-Tracking Housing - Mayor’s Direction 2025-001 - Status Update

2025-09-09 (2.1) Staff Report - Mayoral Direction - Fast Track Housing Update Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated September 9, 2025, related to the ongoing work to action Mayoral Direction 2025-001 – Fast-Tracking New Housing, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   Housing Accelerator Fund – Enhancing Housing Outcomes: Allocation Review and Incentive Program Optimization

2025-09-09 (2.2) Staff Report - Housing Accelerator Fund Enhancing Housing Outcomes

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, related to the City of London’s Housing Accelerator Fund – Enhancing Housing Outcomes allocation review and incentive program optimization, that:

a)    the Civic Administration BE APPROVED to allocate the additional ‘top-up’ funding of $7,391,000.00 across the three new initiatives to support the construction of an additional 266 units; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE APPROVED to re-allocate the identified surplus funds in the amount of $6,044,818.00, to existing Housing Accelerator Fund incentive programs as outlined in section 2.4 and 2.5 of the above-noted report, dated September 9, 2025, to support the construction of an additional 289 units;

it being noted that the Civic Administration will report back on the City of London’s overall performance, including updated target counts and milestone development, through the Housing Accelerator Fund annual update reporting process as expected in Q4 2025.

Motion Passed

2.3   Limiting Distance (No-Build) Agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and the owners of 4407 Green Bend

2025-09-09 (2.3) Staff Report - Limiting Distance (No-Build) Agreement - 4407 Green Bend

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken in respect to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, as “Schedule A” related to the limiting distance (no-build) agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and 2196998 ONTARIO INC, O/A CASTELL HOMES (4407 Green Bend, London, Ontario):

a)    the proposed limiting distance agreement as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, for the property at 4407 Green Bend between the Corporation of the City of London and 2196998 ONTARIO INC, O/A CASTELL HOMES BE APPROVED; and,

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report  BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to approve the limiting distance agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and 2196998 ONTARIO INC, O/A CASTELL HOMES for the property at 4407 Green Bend, and to delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of London as the adjacent property owner.

Motion Passed

2.4   Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Program

2025-09-09 (2.4) Staff Report - Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development CIP

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, with respect to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, related to Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Program, the following actions be taken:

a)    the above-noted staff report related to Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan program BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to revise Schedule “1”, being the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area Financial Incentive Program Guidelines, to include the following:

i)    green development measures; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, with respect to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, related to Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Program, the following actions be taken:

a)    the above-noted staff report related to Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan program BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to revise Schedule “1”, being the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area Financial Incentive Program Guidelines, to include the following:

i)    non-profits and/or affordable housing applicants; and, 

ii)    green development measures;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to approve part a) and c)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to approve part b) i)

Motion Failed (1 to 4)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to approve part b) ii)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   5th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2025-08-21 CACP Report(1)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning Report (CACP), from the meeting held on August 21st, 2025:

a)    the expenditure of up to $750.00 for the remainder of 2025 and up to $1,500.00 for 2026 to allow the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) to rent meeting space with audio visual capabilities for its Sub-Committees and Working Groups, BE APPROVED; it being noted that the CACP has sufficient funds in its 2025 and 2026 Budgets to cover the up to $750.00 for the remainder of 2025 and $1,500.00 for 2026 request for monthly room rentals for Sub-Committees and Working Groups;

b)    the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) supports the working group recommendations, with a preference for the additional flexibility opinion regarding ‘off the shelf’ vinyl and metal products on porches as outlined in the report; and

c)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 4.1 a), 4.2 a), and 5.1-5.5, BE RECEIEVED;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from J.M. Mettrailler, Chair, CACP, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   230 Adelaide Street North - OZ-25082

2025-09-09 (3.1) Staff Report - 230 Adelaide St N

Moved by S. Lewis

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 London Sports Group (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design) relating to the property located at 230 Adelaide Street North, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 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 Light Industrial (LI2) Zone TO a Holding Light Industrial Special Provision (h-4*LI3(_)) Zone;

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

-    L. Sooley, Siv-ik Planning and Design; and, 

-    D. Thomas;

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

-    a communication dated September 5, 2025, from L. Sooley, Siv-ik Planning and Design; 

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development with a use, intensity, and form that is appropriate for the site and 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 P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   825 Wharncliffe Road South - Z-25089 

2025-09-09 (3.2) Staff Report - 825 Wharncliffe Rd S

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Hafiz Qaddafi c/o Hashim Imtiaz relating to the property located at 825 Wharncliffe Road South, the revised attached by-law, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 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 Convenience Commercial Special Provision (CC4(8)) Zone TO a Convenience Commercial Special Provision (CC( )) Zone;

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

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

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

-    the recommended amendment facilitates adaptive reuse of existing building stock with a use that is compatible within the surrounding context without precluding future comprehensive redevelopment.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   1103 & 1111 Westdel Bourne - OZ-25072 

2025-09-09 (3.3) Staff Report - 1103 and 1111 Westdel Bourne OZ-25072

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the application from Westdell Development Corporation (c/o) MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture relating to the property located at 1103 & 1111 Westdel Bourne BE REFERRED to Civic Administration for additional discussion with the applicant with respect to an application amendment of reduced height and density considerations;

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

-    S. Allen, MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture; 

-    C. Hames; and, 

-    S. Welt;

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

  •    a communication dated September 5, 2025, from P. Kitson, Westdell Development Corp.; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   1911 North Routledge Park  - OZ-25080 

2025-09-09 (3.4) Staff Report - 1911 North Routledge Park

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 HLH Investments (c/o Zelinka Priamo) relating to the property located at 1911 North Routledge Park:

a)    consistent with Policy 43_ of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 the subject lands representing a portion of 1911 North Routledge Park, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Main Street Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 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 Business District Commercial (h-108*BDC1/BDC2) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1/BDC2(_)*H28) Zone;

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

i)    design the proposed mid-rise buildings to express three defined components, a human scale and active base, a cohesive yet distinct mid and a top with finishing treatment;

ii)    ensure at-grade functions in Building ‘A’ provide a positive interface with Hyde Park Road by incorporating active uses such as commercial spaces, residential units, lobbies, and indoor amenity spaces; locate the principal residential lobby and individual unit entrances to face Hyde Park Road, and provide enhanced architectural articulation through a high proportion of transparent glazing, porches with direct walkway connections to the public sidewalk, and well-integrated all-season landscaping, to promote accessibility, walkability, wayfinding, and passive surveillance; and, 

iii)    design Building ‘A’ to emphasize the corner at the intersection of Hyde Park Road and North Routledge Park through enhanced features such as a principal commercial entrance facing the corner or Hyde Park Road, wrapped canopies, forecourts or patios, a high proportion of glazing, signage, landscaping, and lighting to create an active and engaging streetscape;

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

-    A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; 

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at a scale and intensity that is appropriate for the site and 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 P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   772 Reardon Boulevard - Z-25081 

2025-09-09 (3.5) Staff Report - 772 Reardon Blvd

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 Drewlo Holdings Inc. relating to the property located at 772 Reardon Boulevard:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025,  as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025 to amend Zoning By-law No.Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R4/Residential R5/Residential R6 (R4-6/R5-4/R6-5) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    provide for an internal walkway through the amenity space to connect to Commissioners Road East;

ii)    provide an adequate all-season landscape buffer to screen the proposed parking areas from the public streets;

iii)    demonstrate that any retaining walls along street frontages will not have a negative impact on the public realm and that there will be no retaining walls along street frontages; and, 

iv)    building entrances are to be oriented towards the public street;

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

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit a greenfield development that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   1470-1474 Highbury Avenue North  - OZ-9508 

2025-09-09 (3.6) Staff Report - 1470-1474 Highbury Avenue North

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 Copia Developments (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 1470-1474 Highbury Avenue North, the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject properties FROM a Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision (NF1(1)) Zone, an Open Space (OS1) Zone, and an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7()) Zone, Open Space Special Provision (OS5()) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which directs planning authorities to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by implementing the necessary restrictions on development and site alterations;

ii)    the requested amendment is premature as it is contingent upon the results of an updated Hydrogeological Assessment demonstrating that the development will not result in unacceptable off-site impacts, including impacts to nearby private wells;

iii)    the requested amendment does not promote compatibility between developments, as it does not appropriately protect the character and function of the surrounding area and uses, including, but not limited to, onsite natural heritage features and appropriate setbacks from the centre of the high-pressure Imperial Oil pipeline; and,

iv)    the recommended amendment may constrain the ability of adjacent lands to develop in a compatible and coordinated manner, contrary to the intent of The London Plan;

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

-    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; 

-    S. Harrington; 

-    J. McNeil; and,

-    H. Jaggard, EXP Services Inc.;

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

  •    a communication dated August 6, 2025, from S. Harrington; 

-    a communication dated August 26, 2025, from J. and I. Teixeira; 

-    a communication dated August 27, 2025, from W. and M. Morley; 

-    a communication dated September 5, 2025, from L. Jamieson and H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd; 

-    a communication dated September 5, 2025, from H. Jaggard, EXP Services Inc.; and, 

-    a communication dated September 2, 2025, from J. Fraser, Old North East Neighbourhood Association; 

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   767 Southdale Road East - Z-25083 

2025-09-09 (3.7) Staff Report - 767 Southdale Road East

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1000077448 Ontario Inc. (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.) relating to the property located at 767 Southdale Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025,  as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 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 properties FROM a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone TO a Residential R1/Residential R8 Special Provision (R1-4/R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    screen any parking areas visible from the public realm with enhanced all season landscaping; and, 

ii)    provide active uses on the ground floor adjacent to the public streets with a high level of glazing;

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

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

-    M. Mankal; 

-    S. Mitchell; and, 

-    N. Al Tarhuni;

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

  •    a communication dated September 5, 2025, from D. Murphy, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

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

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

  •    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; 

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 P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   100 Kellogg Lane, 1080-1108 & 1079-1127 Dundas Street, 420 Burbrook Place, 351 Eleanor Street & 1101 King Street and 1151 York Street - OZ-25070 

2025-09-09 (3.8) Staff Report - 100 Kellogg Lane

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1803299 Ontario Inc. (c/o City Planning Solutions Inc.) relating to the property located at 100 Kellogg Lane, 1080-1108 & 1097-1127 Dundas Street, 420 Burbrook Place, 351 Eleanor Street & 1101 King Street, and 1151 York Street:

 

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, to: AMEND policy 820A in the Transit Village Place Type; to ADD a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type; and to AMEND Specific Policy Area 113 on Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan to include 1100 and 1108 Dundas Street, 420 Burbrook Place, and 351 Eleanor Street;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to amend the McCormick Area Secondary Plan, forming part of the Official Plan, The London Plan, to ADD a new policy to 4.9 Special Policies;

c)    the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 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 the above-noted part b) and c), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1/BDC2(12)) Zone; Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(19)/LI3/LI4/LI5) Zone; Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1/BDC2(13)) Zone; Light Industrial (LI8) Zone; Light Industrial Special Provision (LI7(16)) Zone; General Industrial SpecialProvision (GI1(7)) Zone; and Business District Commercial Special Provision(BDC(32)) Zone, TO a Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA1()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA1(**)) Zone, Transit Station AreaSpecial Provision (TSA2()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision(TSA3()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA3()) Zone, TransitStation Area Special Provision (TSA3()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA3(****)) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision/Temporary

(TSA3(*****)/T-) Zone and Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-2()) Zone;

d)    notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of the Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property at 100 Kellogg Lane to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined the above-noted staff report as Appendix “G”;

e)    should no objections to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 100 Kellogg Lane to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “G” BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

f)    notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of the Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property at 1097-1127 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “H”;

g)    should no objections to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 1097-1127 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “H” BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

h)    notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of the Municipal Council’s intention to designate the 415 property at 1100-1108 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “I”;

i)    should no objections to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 1100-1108 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “I” of this report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of the Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

i) ensure the Urban Design Guidelines 100 Kellogg Lane Design Guidance be referenced as part of a future Site Plan application;

ii) adherence to the Design Guidelines (found with the Heritage Impact Assessment, TMHC Inc., 2025) to the compatibility of the proposed development with on-site and adjacent cultural heritage resources;

iii) implement the recommendations from the Path Loss Study to ensure acceptable service levels, and the applicant be required to enter into a 99-year agreement with the City for the installation, maintenance and access of required new telecommunication infrastructure at no cost and to the satisfaction of the City;

iv) ensure the required bicycle parking for the non-residential uses are provided as part of a future Site Plan application;

v) ensure principal entrances are oriented towards the street to promote an active streetscape and mitigate impacts of tall buildings through the use of articulation, step backs, appropriate tower floorplates above the podium and tower separation distances; 

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

-    J. Flemming, City Planning Solutions;

-    F. Avichi; 

-    S. Barrett;

-    T. White-Lockwood; and, 

-    S. Vording, Carfax Canada;

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

  •    a communication dated September 9, 2025, from J. Flemming, City Planning Solutions; 

-    a communication dated September 5, 2025, from C. Butler; 

-    a communication dated September 5, 2025, from S. Vording, Carfax Canada;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building and Design polices, the Transit Village and Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type policies, and the Our Tools policies;

  •    the recommended amendments would permit an appropriate form of development in the Protected Major Transit Station Area at a scale and intensity that is appropriate for the subject lands and surrounding context;

  •    the recommended amendments would result in the protection and conservation of significant cultural heritage resource;

it being further noted that should an objection to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

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 (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That part j) iii) a motion BE AMMENDED to reads as follows:

Implement the recommendations from the Path Loss Study to ensure acceptable service levels.

Motion Failed (2 to 4)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Hyde Park BIA Expansion Project - Additional Consultation Reporting

2025-09-09 (4.1) Staff Report - Hyde Park BIA Expansion Project Additional Consultation Reporting 1

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following action be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, related to the request from the Hyde Park BIA to expand its boundaries:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with issuing notices in accordance with section 210 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 of Council’s intention to consider the draft proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A”, being a by-law to amend By-law No. C.P. -1519-490 “A by-law to designate an area as an improvement area and to establish the board of management for the purpose of managing the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area” to:

i)    expand the area designated as an improvement area; and,

ii)    increase the number of directors comprising the board of management from seven (7) to eight (8), with said notices to be provided to every person who on the last returned assessment roll was assessed for rateable property that is in a prescribed business property class located in the existing and proposed expansion areas;

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

  •    a communication dated August 29, 2025, from T. Delaney and D. Szpakowski, HPBIA; 

it being further noted that the verbal delegation from D. Szpakowski, CEO & General Manager, HPBIA, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the delegation request from D. Szpakowski, HPBIA, as appended to the Agenda, to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2025-09-09 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the September Deferred Matters List, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:03 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 (4 hours, 13 minutes)

[17:11] Good afternoon, everyone. I’d like to welcome you to the 14th meeting, the Planning Environment Committee. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Plano Peiwak, and Adirondron. We honor and respect the history, languages and culture of this diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

[17:49] 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 ACTPEC at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we will move to consent items. We have had a request to have 2.4 pulled.

[18:37] So as is custom, we will move that to the end of this meeting. So that leaves 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. I’ll look for a motion to move those. Councillor Cudi, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. And before we put that, those items on the floor, I just would like to go to staff, just regarding 2.2. If they just give us a little extra information on this fund and the updates before us today.

[19:14] Thank you through the chair. So with regards to 2.2 housing accelerator fund, the report identifies proposed allocations under our current housing accelerator fund. The first is in response to the additional 7.4 million that the city received in top of funding as part of a second round of disbursements under the half program. As previously disclosed to council, London was the recipient of an additional 7.4 million in March as part of a revised half agreement and London’s commitment to three new initiatives. This 7.4 million has been allocated accordingly to those three new initiatives as per the city of London’s half agreement and the desired additional unit outcomes, the breakdown of which can be found in section 2.2 of the report.

[19:54] The second part of the report details a review conducted by civic administration on our current half program. As we are now two years into the half program, we have identified surplus funds that were previously allocated to various costings associated with programs and initiatives in the half program. This surplus amounts to approximately $6 million and is being recommended to be reallocated to our currently oversubscribed half incentive programs. Both the office to residential and the transit-oriented development incentive programs are currently oversubscribed and additional funding will help these programs continue to support additional residential units in London.

[20:29] From the 6 million surplus, civic administration is recommending allocating 3 million for an additional 204 units under the TOD program and the other 3 million under the OTR program for an additional 85 units, as indicated in sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the report. A subsequent report on London’s overall half progress and performance through the half program will be presented to council in the coming months. Thank you very much. So I will put this on the floor for committee discussion. Mayor. Yes, I wanna make comments on two of the consent items.

[21:03] First one on the direction to fast track housing. First, I wanna thank a couple of people for this. I wanna thank our staff for taking the direction and putting it into action and engaging with the development community on which projects could actually be brought forward on that kind of margin between does it start in 2025 or 2026 and work with them to accelerate those projects and into 2025. As you know, we were able to achieve almost $13 million for the provinces building faster fund this year for us to be able to have an opportunity to do that in 2025, which is the final year of the existing program.

[21:41] We’re gonna need units in a year that has been challenging across the province to try to turn those permissions into actual homes. I wanna thank the development community for embracing this idea and actually working with our staff to bring forward projects that actually could move by a couple of months up and being innovative in that process. I appreciate this update report. I know we still have a ways to go, but having 2890 units in the inspection phase means we’re gonna have units that are actually gonna get inspected and count towards the target.

[22:14] Getting those other 1347 units in those seven building permits done and then really encouraging them to get in the ground for December of this year so that CMHC can count them, I think is really critical for us. And if those two things were to happen, we would be above the 80% threshold to achieve that additional provincial funding this year. So still a little bit of work to do, but I really appreciate the work of our staff and the development community on actually being able to bring some projects forward into 2025. The other piece I wanna comment on is what you just had staff highlight.

[22:49] I wanna first off thank the federal government for their continued trust in us through the Housing Accelerator Fund. The reason why we achieved those additional funds is because we have performed in our first year. We exceeded our target. There was an advocacy effort to say if not all this money is spent across the country, you should actually give it and put it into the hands of those who could actually deploy it for more units. And so I thank the federal government for doing that and trusting London as one of the leaders across this country and having the capacity to do that. And for our staff for the thoughtful submission to achieve an agreement with them on deploying that money.

[23:23] I also want to say I’m very happy to see the continued high performance of our incentive programs. The top ups to the office residential conversion program and the transit oriented development program, I think is a testament to two things. One, that we’ve actually found incentive programs that are incentivizing development to the point where they’re gonna need more money in the pod. And two, executing those programs really well in partnership with those who are interested in building our city and out of these programs, we’ve actually attracted new investment, like net new investment into London.

[24:00] People who have never developed here before who’ve said that’s an incentive program. I’m gonna invest in the downtown of the city and I’m gonna convert some of this vacant office space of which we have an excess of, convert those into residential units and create homes for people. So those are two really great things. I’m fully supportive of the allocations in the top of those programs. I don’t share with colleagues, although colleagues who are at AMO know this, but share with the public is that, these programs have gotten the attention of both the province, as well as other municipalities across the province. There are other incentive programs, particularly office residential conversion across this country that are very expensive.

[24:37] We found a way to do it at a much more reasonable cost that is incentivizing and creating units. There’s a lot of interest from other Ontario municipalities in replicating our program, working with our staff to see how we’ve designed it. And the province, as they think about how they’re going to try to drive permissions into units across this province, are looking at our program and perhaps have an interest in capitalizing these types of programs, both here in London and across the province to try to, again, change all the municipal permissions that are happening into actual units and homes on the ground. So great work by our staff. Thank you for continuing to execute a great program.

[25:10] And thanks to this committee and council for proving these programs and continuing to support them. I’m fully supportive of the consent items before us today. Thank you all for other comments. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. So I’m not going to repeat everything the mayor said. I agree with it and I recognize that the contributions right now are specific to a number of units that we’re targeting for completion. My question to staff, though, is longer term in terms of the allocation of funding as it’s available for these incentive programs.

[25:48] I am of the mind that the transit-oriented developments were happening anyway without the incentive programs. We saw some of those come in prior to the incentive programs existing. I think at the century development that was brought forward by Auburn and Drulo along the Wellington Gateway as an example. And I see, honestly, some significant uptake and interest in uptake in the officer residential conversion piece. So in the longer term, will staff be evaluating the ratios applied to these two programs in terms of where we would be spending?

[26:30] Would this be an ongoing process where you may bring forward funding allocation adjustments to us periodically? Because obviously, if we can get office to residential and try not to use acronyms, if we can get the office to residential happening faster, to me, I mean, first of all, we’re using existing buildings. And so the turnaround time can be faster than new builds on a transit-oriented development. So I’m just wondering how staff will approach this moving forward. ‘Cause I wanna make sure that we’re not locking ourselves into long-term ratios that can’t be adjusted moving forward as we see more demand in one area, less demand in another perhaps.

[27:13] That’ll go stuff. Through the chair, there’s absolutely opportunities to readjust these ratios as we go. That’s why we’re bringing this back to you today. Annually, we’ve provided an update on the housing accelerator program and we’re gonna be doing that at the end of this year as well to be able to provide you some thoughts and ideas of how we might wanna tweak this moving forward. The idea is that these programs are flexible and council has the opportunity to make those changes on a timely basis. So we’ve developed these values and the amount of funding with each one of these pods is based on what we think that there’s a potential for applications out there.

[27:52] So at any one time, if there is an excess in funding in any of those application categories, then we can make those switches to ensure that we have this funding and to let you know as well, like one of the priorities for this funding as well is to be able to have it, you can use it before the end of the deadline in the housing accelerator agreement, which is in 2027. So that’s part of the component of as well. So we can make those tweaks over time and very open to any input that council has on accuracy. Deputy Mayor.

[28:25] Great, very much appreciate that ‘cause certainly we do want to see that federal money go at the door and not send it back to Ottawa before the deadline and whatever that means to get those units as ratios maybe change over time and opportunities present themselves. I wanted to just make sure we had some flexibility. I also want to say just on 2.2 specifically and the outcomes allocation review incentives on the housing accelerator is really pleased to see reference in the report around adopting and being more flexible with prefab and modular opportunities.

[29:01] You know, a couple of cycles ago, we approved a development on Evangeline in my ward that’s gonna see 10 prefab townhouses constructed. I was talking to some folks from Fanshawe College a little bit earlier before the meeting, you know, having talked to the developer and hearing that once we get past the sewer work that we’re doing there so that the holding provision can come off and the builder can actually start building that once that hurdle is cleared, you know, they’re projecting about three months from start to finish before from the slab being poured for the foundation to occupancy.

[29:34] So when we can bring units online that fast, that’s a really attractive option for us to consider. And so just seeing that referenced in the report and knowing the work that I know Ms. McNeely and Ms. Madden and Mr. Shaw’s division as well have been doing around these prefab considerations much appreciated and glad to see that reflected in the report ‘cause I think it’s a real opportunity for us. Thank you, look for other members of the committee. Go to the mayor.

[30:07] Yeah, not that I’m gonna get it into a cross debate with the deputy mayor, but he raised an important point. It’s true, some of the developments may have occurred anyways, some of these have permissions. But one of the things I think is an advantage of the incentive programs is they are forgivable loans. So the loans are there, liens are taken against the property. It sets a timeframe for the development to come to fruition. And so we are actually ensuring that permissions that could be sat on or prioritized across the province for my capital perspective in many ways have a timeframe to access that funding and are brought to fruition sooner.

[30:43] So I agree shuffling between the programs is a good idea. Let’s put the money where it’s most effective, but let’s also recognize that we want to turn the permissions into actual units and homes. And for someone to sign up for these dollars means they’re signing up for a timeline to bring it to fruition if they actually wanna access that incentive, which is important to us if we’re gonna achieve our goals over the next decade as well. Thank you. Other members of the committee or visiting councilors. Seeing none of these committee will permit me just some brief comments kind of echoing that. I just wanna thank staff right from the beginning for, you know, their efficient work in getting housing to market, which allowed us to be the first in Canada to be recipients of the Housing Accelerator Fund from the federal government.

[31:31] So, you know, these funding requests require a lot of work. They’re very complex. And just the success applying requires a lot of work. So thank you for that. Now we move into the administration of it. And good job there. I mean, it’s clear that we’re being very effective in using those monies and getting the results they’re desired and keeping the flexibility that we can adjust and call automobiles of the field as we move to different challenges.

[32:04] So I just wanted an opportunity to say thank you to you and your staff for the terrific efforts there. I’ll look for any other comments or questions we’ve got a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Let’s think about the motion carries six to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.1 and the scheduled items.

[32:47] We have a delegation from Mr. Metrallet, Chair of the Community Advisor Committee on Planning. So I will look to you, sir, you have five minutes. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair and good afternoon members of PEC. My name is John Mark Metray. I’m Chair of the Community Advisor Committee on Planning. You have a report from our August meeting on your agenda that has a few items I just wanted to go over for your benefit. The first is on the CACP’s feedback on some draft heritage conservation district guidelines.

[33:28] You’ll recall that council rising out of an earlier CACP recommendation asked staff to prepare a more permissive set of guidelines for newer materials in heritage conservation districts. We were quite pleased that staff came to us for some additional feedback on a first draft, those guidelines. We had a working group struck by the CACP to look at those guidelines and prepare some more formal feedback. The long and short of that report is, we certainly appreciated the work staff put into the first draft of the guidelines.

[34:09] We liked the structure of it. The only thing is we thought it could go a little bit further on the more permissive angle. We don’t have any concerns about what’s recommended. So staff, as you know, always recommend, prepare retention use of original materials, where we thought it could go a little bit further is not necessarily what’s recommended, but what’s permitted. And so you’ll see in the working group report, where we’ve gone with that is a recommendation that we start to be a little bit more permissive with the use of vinyl in heritage conservation districts.

[34:53] So there’s some examples, relatively limited we have in there where we think it is appropriate in an HCD to use vinyl on things like porches, windows, siding. Again, it’s not meant to be a carte blanche, do whatever you want in an HCD, but our focus really was on preserving the luck of these districts. And if there are ways that newer materials can be used while maintaining the luck of the district, we felt it could be a bit more permissive on kind of micromanaging those materials.

[35:30] I’ll add as a personal comment, as I usually do, that I do think recognizing some of the frustrations homeowners have with heritage designated properties is important, and in the long-term beneficial to preserving heritage in London. I think if we want to have more resident buy-in into designations and HCDs, a signal that we’re going to be more flexible in a visible way like this would be actually a positive for heritage.

[36:07] The next item in our report I just wanted to talk about was that you’ve got any agenda as well the Kellogg’s application. And I did want to reiterate the recommendation of our report, which was very supportive of what’s happening there. We’re always happy to see an owner that embraces their obligations with respect to heritage positively. We think what’s going on there is kind of reinvigorating that piece of industrial history in the East End.

[36:45] So we’re very happy with the application, and we think the owner’s continued stewardship of that property and the actual designations we’re seeing come forward as part of the recommendation. That’s something that should be celebrated and the committee was very supportive of. The last item on our agenda, and this is always my least favorite top to bring up, but it’s a request for some funding. So we’ve got subcommittees and working groups of volunteers doing what I think are valuable work for the city.

[37:20] I know some of us have had to put our own money into booking things like meeting rooms. And so we are requesting approval of some funds to book meeting rooms for working groups and subcommittees. I think we’re very flexible about how that happens, using public spaces, nothing fancy, but like I said, I think we’re doing, what I hope is valuable work, and we could use that support in whatever way you see fit. And that covers our report.

[37:54] Thanks so much. Thank you, and then I’ll look to committee two. Okay, so there is a motion in the eScribe that we can refer to in our discussion and I’ll go to the deputy mayor once. So I’ll put that motion on the floor so we can start our discussion. Look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi. I’m gonna second to refresh your screen so they can take a peek.

[39:02] You’ll find it under votes, that’s where the motion is. So I’ll go back to you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, and I wanna thank our community advisory chair for coming and updating us today as he does regularly. Let’s appreciate it. We’ve also had a chance to have a conversation one-on-one. I’m willing to support the expenditure up to for the remainder of 2025, but I have communicated to our advisory committee chair that it’s my intention to work with him to find space for daytime working group meetings here at City Hall so that they do not have a rental cost.

[39:40] And I appreciate the comments about finding public space because we do have some community centers with audio-visual, obviously some of our library branches have those things too. I recognize that clerks don’t support working groups of advisory committees, fully acknowledging that, but there’s no need for a working group to have a clerk in order to use a boardroom in our building, in my opinion. Members of council can sometimes book boardrooms for meetings we need to have. We don’t have clerk support for that either.

[40:13] I think that an advisory committee needing to do that to carry out the work of advisory committees, not an unreasonable request. Recognizing that their working groups may sometimes need to work in the evenings and that would require potentially extra security costs and things like that. And so they may need some flexibility, I’ll support the up to for rentals now, but I wanted to communicate to colleagues that we will be working to find an opportunity to accommodate those meeting spaces at zero cost here at City Hall for as much as possible. I also want to comment on the specifics around heritage alterations and using modern materials.

[40:49] I fully agree with where the advisory committee is coming here. These alternate materials simply must be adopted as part of our policy. I like the language that I heard in some of their draft about recommended and then allowed. And there is a difference between what staff might recommend, but what we would actually allow. And so I think a tiered approach where we can consider what is allowed versus what is recommended would be a really valuable tool moving forward. You know, I recall the infamous blue vinyl siding discussion from a couple of months back.

[41:27] That’s not a discussion I really want to have again at PAC. I’d like to see us update these material uses. I also think colleagues should be aware that when we’re talking about heritage designations and while this is more discussing heritage conservation districts, if you want to see the impacts of a heritage designation on costs, take a look at what’s happening in Kingston. We’re a homeowner of a century farm, saw her insurance costs spike by $21,000 a year because Council imposed a part four heritage designation.

[42:04] Insurance companies are looking at heritage properties and saying the cost to replace with like materials is ridiculously cost prohibitive for them to ensure they’re not willing to pay out on that. So if we want to ensure that we are not having demolition by neglect of heritage properties, we have to allow homeowners some flexibility in materials that are involved. Now that was a part four, that was not a conservation district piece, but I’m highlighting that as an example of what is happening around this province with heritage designations being imposed on things.

[42:39] I think that there’s value to preserving a streetscape appearance where appropriate and I’m at my time. So I’ll wrap up really quickly by saying, but I think there’s a difference between appearance and replicating materials from a century ago. I think you can keep the feel without necessarily having to use older original style materials. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I’d love for other comments, questions on this item. So just from the chair, I’ll just echo quickly what did I being mayor said?

[43:12] You know, we’ve had number of instances where it comes before this committee on questions like that. And for all those reasons, the committee has approved the other material program. A lot of reasons is energy efficiency as well. Times have changed in a hundred years when homes were built and it preserves a look, but it adds value in so many other ways. So I think when you go out from a pragmatic viewpoint, you’ll get more properties, owners may be willing to designate their properties heritage.

[43:47] And again, we’ll avoid demolition by neglect. If there are no other comments or questions, I’ll call the vote. My vote in favor. Let’s think about the motion carries six to zero. Thank you, moving ahead to 3.2. This is regarding 230 Adelaide Street North. And I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting, Councillor Cudi, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[44:25] We’ll call that vote. As a point of order. Yep. As per our last committee meeting, I don’t want to speak for Councillor Cudi, but I’m happy to be a mover a seconder on all the opening and closing of PPMs just to save us going through that extra step. Thank you for that, Deputy Mayor, it worked well in our last meeting. So let’s continue that practice. Two of you are willing to move in second on all the public participation openings and closings. Okay, clerk, okay. So we’re good.

[44:56] So we’ll open the vote on that. We’ll think about the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll look to the applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee, please, sir. Go ahead, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yeah, my name is Dave Thomas. I represent property. Excuse me, sir. Are you the applicant? Pardon me.

[45:28] Are you the person applying for this rezoning? I’d like to hear from the applicant first before we go to the general public. That’s okay, that was my fault, I apologize. There you are, okay. Please ma’am, now give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of committee. My name is Lauren Suley and I’m an urban planner with Civic Planning and Design Inc. Here today representing our client, London Sports Group. I’m also joined with, joined by Jacob Baribault, who is part of the project management team on this project.

[46:03] This application is to permit a commercial recreational use on the lands known as 230 Adelaide Street North, which would serve as an expansion of the current BMO center located at 295 Rectory, which is immediately north of the project site. The proposed development concept includes a new 122 square foot sports facility with indoor fields and administration areas, two outdoor fields, an extended parking area and pedestrian connections connecting this project site to 295 Rectory and also out to both public streets.

[46:40] The design of this facility is intended to create campus-like environment between the two properties. The proposed development will be able to expand the ability of the BMO center to provide more opportunities for programming and recreational uses as it is currently operating at capacity. The proposal conforms with the existing approved amendments to the London plan for industrial conversions, which redesignated these lands from a light industrial place type to a commercial industrial place type to permit a broader range of uses, including commercial recreational uses.

[47:17] The proposal also aligns with the city’s goals to support evolving recreation and leisure needs in the city and to work collectively with other providers of facilities and venues to address these demands. Additionally, the proposal also aligns with the city’s goals of promoting planning that creates diverse, accessible and connected communities and also aligns with the goals of increasing economic opportunities, which can benefit residents. We would like to thank staff for their work on this proposal where we are in full agreement with the staff recommendation and we are available to answer any questions.

[47:51] Thank you. Okay, now we will public and now we can go to you, sir. And please give us your name and you have five minutes. Yeah, my name is Dave Thomas. I manage a property that’s adjacent to this new proposal on 230 Adelaide Street. Our property is at 750 Little Simcoe Street and we have some serious concerns with going ahead with this plan.

[48:26] We don’t have any problem with the actual recreational side of the plan. What our concerns are is the future stormwater management on the proposed site. We experience over the years now, since the second addition to the BMO Center was put in we get flooding in our building. We have a building about 15,000 square feet and sometimes we get 9,000 square feet of building underwater.

[49:08] This is inside the building, not in the parking areas of our property. And it’s because when they initially put in the BMO, they raised the property height for the building. And when they put in the second addition, they kept that same height all the way through. And this has caused us a problem when the first part of the BMO went in. We weren’t concerned ‘cause it was quite a ways away from us.

[49:42] But we experience floods quite often. As we all know, the climate change has give us more torrential downfalls than before. And we’ve looked after this building since 2003 and we didn’t experience anything until the second addition went in. Because the way it’s raised up, it’s about 20 inches higher than our property and all of the land slopes right to the back of our building.

[50:23] Our building is right on grade. Our building was built in between 1950 to 1955 and it was built on grade. There has been no changes in the footprint of our building since then. And we have huge concerns and we would expect that the city would look into this, how the storm water management is gonna be looked after. The other thing that we have problems with is that we have concerns with is the future of the snow management storage location.

[51:06] On the proposal, I didn’t see anywhere where the snow management was looked after. There’s a lot more parking put in that site. And there’s obviously a new building. The BMO center itself can’t handle sometimes all of the vehicular traffic that for the patrons that they have. And so it swells out into the streets for different times of the year.

[51:44] And so the snow management part, we have an area at the north and west end of our property that is kind of locked in and they were piling snow in on our property. And I always approach the BMO and they look after it. They take it away, but they have piles there that are 20 feet high and then when it melts, of course it runs right into our building.

[52:28] And that’s when we see it. We don’t see it on a daily basis. And so we see in the new plan that appears on the north side of the new proposal that there’s two look like soccer fields. I would guess it didn’t say on the proposal, but I would guess that’s what they are. And I’m sure that if they’re like North London soccer on Adelaide Street North, that sprinklers their grass for the soccer fields, I’m sure if the BMO does that on their outdoor fields, they’re not gonna put a snow that has salts in it on that field and wreck their grass.

[53:19] So I would suggest that the city look into that and make sure that they have an area on their own property or that they’re gonna move it every time they plow it, which is an enormous task. Okay, thank you, that’s your time. That’s my time. - Thank you. I look for other members of the public that would like to address equity. So clerk, if there’s anyone online. Seeing nobody else, I will look to, we have a motion to already moved in seconds, so I will call the vote to close the PPM.

[54:05] I think the vote, the motion carries back to zero. Thank you, and before we go to committee, I’m just gonna go to staff with the concerns that were raised. What are the plans for storm water management, especially given the history when the second building was put up at higher than grade? Thank you, through the chair. City compliance staff have been in contact with the resident, and we are aware of the concerns. We’ve actually conducted site visits in the past. At this point in time, the best opportunity for city staff to alleviate the problem would be part of the review and approval of the future site plan application.

[54:42] We would require the storm water to be self-contained on site. The previous site plan application where there was that expansion, the resident was referring to was closed in 2016. So at this point in time, it’s considered a civil matter until that site plan application comes through our door. Thank you. Thank you, and at that time, would you look at snow removal, where the snow is being piled up and how close to the adjoining property? Yeah, as part of the site plan requirements, they have to show snow storage locations, so they also submit a grading plan.

[55:23] So we compare both plans, and we make sure that during the snow melt that the water’s not traversing into adjacent properties. Okay, thank you very much. So I’ll open this up to the committee for a look for a motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis. So since Councilor McAllister is not a member of the committee and can’t move it, I will move this out for recommendation. Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Palosa seconds. So I’ll go to committee members first before I go to visiting Councillors. Seeing none, then we will go to Councilor McAllister.

[55:59] Thank you for recognizing me. Yeah, sometimes I jump the gun. I forget I’m not a member of this committee, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I know this is a very exciting project. Falls in my ward and BMO is well used by not only East London, but all of the city. I know it’s always at capacity. I’ve had people reach out saying, they want to do more soccer. There’s just not enough spaces, right? So I think anything we can do to increase that capacity is definitely welcome news. And from the comments, Mr. Thomas, appreciate you having a conversation with me beforehand.

[56:32] I know you’ve had conversations with BMO as well in terms of trying to mitigate some of those things, but I do think as staff have indicated through the site plan, they’ll work on those issues. So that’s great to hear. Yeah, I just wanted to take this opportunity to say how exciting this project is. I know, as I said, there’s a lot of talk in the community in terms of increasing our recreational capacity. So when we can expand the current facilities, that’s always great to hear. I do just have one question recognizing, obviously this is in the first rodeo in terms of converting these types of lands, but in terms of whether staff have any concerns with the conversion and any, say, contaminants or any issues with the land itself that might arise.

[57:15] I’ll go to staff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Staff recognized that there could be possible site contamination. So they have included a holding provision to address this. Councilor, thank you. Yeah, recognizing a lot of this used to be the former rail yard, there’s always challenges with these sorts of brownfield developments. I think what we’ve seen in the past is a great use of this site. I think whenever we can take the opportunity to turn something like that into something productive that the whole community can enjoy, I think we should take those opportunities.

[57:55] So I can’t vote on it today, but I am supportive of this application. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. I’ll go to Councilor Pribble. Thank you, and thank you as well, Mr. Thomas. And I think those both the snow and the water are certainly very important things to consider. But I just want to say one thing as well, in terms of this zoning, I’m very pleased to see this coming forward. I always thought actually if it was feasible for us to move the AJ Tyler somewhere else, that making the whole block a sports facility would be absolutely magnificent, especially so close to downtown.

[58:29] So I’m very much supportive of it. The environmental study should be completed by the way with the next two, three weeks, and the outdoor fields, they should be artificial grass. So there are no plans to be natural grass. And again, this facility, the existing BMO is very much well used. And I think every time I drive by, I look to the right, I usually go from south to north, and I say, wouldn’t this be great to have this as a sports facility all the way to Adelaide? If you look to the right, when you travel, you’ll see that it’s not anything nice to look at. So very much supportive of it at the council.

[59:04] And yeah, looking forward to having completed and those designs looks absolutely magnificent. Thank you. Thank you, other comments or questions from committee, visiting councilors. Again, just from the chair. This is terrific to see. I remember speaking to the owner of BMO Field and learning about this possibility a few years ago, and so I’m really happy to see it here today. So many cities have industrial areas from 1500 years ago in their core of a city that’s expanded like London that have left to be derelict, unused, and here we have a great example along with what we’re gonna see later on the agenda of a previous industrial area being repurposed into much need recreational facilities.

[59:54] So terrific to see it here today and be happy, happy to support it. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Seeing none, then we will call that. Vote the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.3. This is regarding a 25 Warren Cliff Road South. We’ll look for, I’ll call the vote and opening the public participation.

[1:00:38] Wasn’t the vote the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant to address the committee. So clerk, would they be online by any chance? Okay, then we’ll open the floor to public. I would like to comment on this item. I don’t see anyone coming to the mic to the clerk to see if there’s anyone online. No, okay, so we have motion already moved and seconded to close the PPM.

[1:01:14] So I will call that vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll look to committee now for a motion. Pretty mayor Lewis. I’ll move the staff recommendation. Thank you, for a seconder. Councilor Cuddy, any comments or questions?

[1:01:51] Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.4.

[1:02:26] And this is regarding 1103 and 1111 Westdale-born. We will call the vote of an opening the public participation meeting. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll look to the applicant, sir. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Afternoon, I mean Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Scott Allen, I’m with MHBC Planning.

[1:03:00] We are acting on behalf of the registered owner and the applicant Westdale Development Corporation. Westdale has provided the committee with a letter in response to the planning staff report recommending refusal of the project based primarily on the overall intensity and form of the proposed design at this location. This time I’d like to briefly touch on matters presented in that letter and also members of our project team are available in attendance to answer any questions. So as outlined in the Westdale letter, the design of the high rise tower and Stacktown House building was carefully considered by our project team and is intended to be compatible with the local development context and complimentary to the mix of uses in the river bend West five community.

[1:03:50] The project would also help broaden local housing choice and housing supply in this developing area. Our project team acknowledges concerns noted in the staff report regarding the overall height and intensity of the project and note that design includes three key elements to help mitigate these concerns, which I’ll briefly discuss. Firstly, the proposed mixed form design concentrates the density and height of the apartment building primarily along the Westdale born frontage and adjacent to the new commercial center to the south.

[1:04:24] Building height and massing is then stepped down to the three story to Stacktown House planned internal to the site and adjacent to existing residences. Also to further help height and density transition, the tower incorporates a four story podium component along Westdale born. Secondly, a century located outdoor amenity space is planned to provide shared recreation space for townhouse and apartment residents. The main amenity area is complemented by the apartment building by way of rooftop terraces and common space with private rear yards provided for the townhouse units.

[1:05:03] And thirdly, landscape elements would be provided at strategic locations within the development to help enhance the pedestrian environment and the overall aesthetics of the site. Additionally, the majority of onsite parking would be located underground with surface parking only provided to the north of the site, which also provides additional separation distance from the existing residences. In effect, this proposal would support additional housing options with convenient walking distance of developing commercial areas, employment opportunities, and park land.

[1:05:41] Project implementation would also increase housing availability and attainability in response to market demand. To conclude in light of these considerations and those set out in the Westdale letter and in submission material, we respectfully request that the committee adopt this application as proposed. Thank you, and we’ll gladly answer any questions any members may have. Thank you, and I’ll look for other members of the public would like to address committee. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Is there anyone online?

[1:06:16] Okay, thank you. Please, sir, go ahead, you have five minutes. If you could give us your name, that’d be great. Yeah, my name is Carson Hate. Good afternoon, and I am a proud resident of 2161 Linkway Boulevard, which is directly adjacent to the proposed development at 1103 and 1111 Westdale-Borne. I also serve as a high school teacher with this Catholic School Board, a role that deepens my commitment to the well-being of our youth and the integrity of our neighborhoods. Today, I speak not only as a homeowner, but as a father of two young children, ages four and six, who I feel strongly that their safety, privacy, and future are at stake in this proposal.

[1:06:53] I am here to adamantly oppose the construction of a 12-story apartment building and to support the recommendation for a scaled down three-story condominium with no underground parking. This development is not just out of scale, it is in direct conflict with the city’s own planning principles outlined in London Place, place-type policies. According to Policy 749, the plan emphasizes that each place-type must reflect a vision and guiding principles that promote highly functional, connected, and desirable places. The proposed 12-story does not reflect this vision. It disrupts the existing low-rise residential character and undermines the principle of compatibility and transition.

[1:07:31] Policy 753 of the same document outlines planning measures for use, intensity, and form. Stressing that development must be context sensitive and appropriate to its surroundings. A 12-story building and a low-density neighborhood is not context sensitive. It’s intrusive. A three-story condominium, on the other hand, aligns with the expected intensity and built form and vision for this area. From my backyard, this building would loom over our home, casting shadows not just physically but emotionally. My children deserve to play outside without the constant presence of a high-rise structure watching over them.

[1:08:06] It’s not just about aesthetics, it’s about privacy, mental well-being, and child safety. As an educator, I teach my students about stewardship, sustainability, and civic responsibility. I cannot reconcile those values with a project that would require the destruction of mature trees disrupt local ecosystems and impose unnecessary environmental costs. These trees are not just part of our landscape, they are part of our identity. We are the forest city, not the concrete jungle. They provide shade, habitat, and a buffer that protects our homes and our peace of mind. Furthermore, the inclusion of underground parking introduces risks we cannot ignore.

[1:08:41] Soil, disruption, increase runoff, and long-term maintenance burdens that will affect both residents and the city. A three-story condominium without underground parking is a reasonable compromise. One of that allows for the growth without sacrificing the soul of our community. I am not against development, I am against irresponsible development. Growth must be thoughtful, measured, and rooted in the principles of livability, environmental stewardship, and community cohesion. The current proposal fails on all of those counts. It fails by the standards set in your own planning documents. I urge you to listen to the voices of residents, educators, and families, uphold the recommendation to refuse the current application in support of development that respects the neighborhood, protects our children, and honors the values we teach in our schools and live by in our homes.

[1:09:29] Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. I look for other members of the public who would like to address the committee. Please ma’am, I want to give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, I’m Sandra Well, tonight, to live adjacent to the proposed development, and I am here to support the recommendation of the planner to not proceed with the 12-story high-rise on the property and move forward with something alternative, such as the three-story-stack townhouses.

[1:10:07] I returned to London about a year ago and bought 2177 Linkway Boulevard, which is at the rear of the property. It is unique in that when the planners have proved that building plan along Linkway, lots are truncated, so I’m on a double-lot in a bungalow that’s very short. So my back fence is five feet away from my back fence. So this proposal is for a 12-story building just over my back fence.

[1:10:40] Privacy, drainage, all those issues come into play for me on a micro level. The neighborhood plan is supportive of the three-story. That’s reasonable. This planning current designation is R1-14, one residential dwelling on a large lot. It is a huge leap to go from one house to a 12-story building with 200-plus units and over 500 individuals according to the sewage plan in the proposal.

[1:11:26] That’s a big change as your taxpayers and people coming into London to purchase houses. I’ve worked here for 25 years. I work at the Children’s Aid Society. I know about the housing crisis. I’m all about development and approving places for our homeless. This is the antithesis of this. This is something that will impact the future. I propose to you that people like me in my shoes a year ago coming into London location, the view from your bath property and your privacy are all things all home buyers consider.

[1:12:10] We put our life savings in our homes these days. Now I’m looking at a situation where a year later, less than a year I got the notice, my plans are going this, my home value is affected, my privacy is affected, it is devastating. I think it’s important for the planning committee and the counselors of London to consider the trust of your taxpayers and your future taxpayers. Don’t breach that trust by going forward on proposals and application changes that are merely for the short-term buck.

[1:12:52] Think of the long-term consequences. There’s lots of things on the table we heard about them earlier, changes from office to residential. There’s lots of large high rises being approved for economical housing on public transit with close-by amenities. This is none of those. This is an opportunity to make the wise decision and look to the future of London, the forest city. Thank you.

[1:13:26] Thank you. I’ll look for any others that would like to address committee. I’ll check with the clerk again to see if there’s anyone online, no one online. I don’t see anyone else approaching the microphone, so I’ll call the vote to close the public participation meeting. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members.

[1:14:01] I’ll go ahead to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So through you, I actually want to move a referral on this. And I have sent the clerk some language, and I do apologize for the short notice that it wasn’t circulated. I did, however, I just prefaced the referral to say, I did reach out having read the staff report after the added agenda was received to the applicant, noting that staff had said this is an appropriate area for intensification, not just what has been brought forward.

[1:14:37] And whether or not the applicant would be amenable to a referral, my understanding is he is out of the country, but I did receive a reply saying yes, he would be amenable to sending this back to staff to work with something, continue to work with them on something that would be a lower heightened density. So I’m taking him out as word for that from a conversation we had this morning, and I am prepared to move that the application from Westdale Development Corporation, care of HMBC planning, urban design, and landscape architecture relating to the property located at 1103 and 1111 Westdale-born be referred to civic administration for additional discussion with the applicant with respect to an application amendment of reduced height and density considerations.

[1:15:23] Okay, and I’ll look for a seconder for that, Councillor Cuddy seconds. So we referral on the floor, I’ll look for discussion on the referral. I’ll go back to you, Deputy Mayor. So now that I’ve shared some prefacing and confirmed or shared with committee that I’ve had a brief discussion with the applicant this morning, to me, I don’t want to get into prescribing specific form, what the actual density numbers that staff would feel are appropriate is appropriate, applicant may change their performance sum, mix up what the form looks like, but given that they’ve indicated they’re willing to go back and have another round of discussion with staff and maybe brings forward something less intense, I’m willing to give them that time rather than just doing a refusal and then having an application come in and start from scratch.

[1:16:16] I normally don’t support referrals, but because I looked at both the staff recommendation or staff report that indicated, there is an opportunity for some residential development here, there could be some intensification and the developer saying while they’re willing to come in with something less intense, again, I’m sure there’s been some discussions about that already, but I think with the refusal recommendation here and the developer are seeing either a refusal or an loyalty appeal or going back and talking with staff some more, I’m hoping that they’ll go back and talk to staff some more about what might be a more appropriate fit here.

[1:16:58] So that’s the reason for my referral. I think that there’s still an opportunity for a further conversation here before saying yes or no and potentially handing it over to a tribunal. We might be able to come to something that’s acceptable here at committee, so leave it at that. Okay, thank you, oh, Councillor Cudi. Thank you, Chair, and through you, and I was prepared to support the staff recommendation, but you know, after hearing both the speakers, you know, talk about, you’re not opposed to development, you’re opposed to, you want responsible, sustainable development, and that means a lot, ‘cause that’s what I want too.

[1:17:38] And thank you for speaking today about that. And I do appreciate the Deputy Mayor bringing this forward and I’ll be supporting the referral. Okay, thank you, I’ll look for other comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors, Councillor Plaza. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the members of the public who came out today and spoke about this. I had also had the opportunity, couldn’t get a hold of the applicant directly, so thank you to Deputy Mayor Lewis for getting that one, ‘cause I wasn’t able to catch them.

[1:18:10] And I, too, was interested in the infill and residential housing, but with staff’s report being a no, looking forward to when this comes back, what is considered behind the scenes as it comes back, knowing that other things have been approved, but not yet built in that area, looking at the heights of those buildings of what could be in line with the vision for that area, what the servicing is in that area, and I know there’s some other questions and concerns about their about people’s backyards, privacy, and the land around it, so hoping some of that could be addressed behind the scenes before it comes back to us again.

[1:18:45] Thank you, look for other comments or questions. Councillor Hawkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I’m not a part of this committee. I’d like to first of all start off with thanking the community for coming out. Your voice is important. We’ve heard from the community in the letters that we’ve received that are attached to the recommendation. I do have a couple of questions through you to staff on the referral.

[1:19:21] I was prepared to bring forward a motion. We know the refusal is only on the 12th story building. It’s not on the staff townhouses, and I am prepared to bring forward a motion to support the stacked townhouses. I know not everyone in the community would agree with that, but it is to me important that there’d be some form of intensification in this area because our policies do support stacked townhouses. So my first question is if this was referred, well, looks like it’s gonna get support from this committee to have it referred back, what is allowed with this development at the moment?

[1:20:07] What do policies support? I’ll go to staff. Through you, Mr. Chair. Through the recent heights framework review, approved by the ministry and the London plan, the heights allowed on this property is three stories. Thank you, Councillor. So we understand what’s allowed three stories. It’s always room for movement. It’s always good to be flexible. So I just wanna make sure committee members understand what is gonna be coming back here.

[1:20:46] If a request for a 10-story or an eight-story is gonna be coming back. Point of order, go ahead, up to you, Mayor. With all due respect, Chair, I don’t think we need the Councilor of Lecturing us on making sure we understand what is allowed currently. That’s laid out in the staff report. We do vary occasionally. The applicant may come back with four-story stacked towns, and we may consider that, but I don’t think we need, as a committee, to have a fellow colleague say, I hope Councillors understand what is going to come back. We don’t know what is going to come back.

[1:21:20] A discussion is going to continue. So I would ask the Councilor to focus on the referral, not a motion she was prepared to move, and respect the fact that other members of Council are quite capable of reading the reports ourselves. Yeah, I understand where you’re coming from, Deputy Mayor. But however, I think the Councilor is trying to one, maybe get across a point of view for those folks that maybe aren’t familiar with the details in these applications. So I’ll go back to you, Councillor, just keep your comments to, we understand this committee.

[1:22:02] So just be aware of your wording as best as possible, and we’ll leave that up. Well, I’ll start off and apologize if I came across lecturing. I didn’t mean to do that. I do appreciate the Deputy Mayor bringing forward the referral. I know he is not usually in favor of referrals, so I do appreciate the conversation going forward. But I do think it’s really important for the public to understand our policies and what’s allowed, and for committing members as well. My second question is around the servicing.

[1:22:36] I know I’ve heard comments that the developer would be responsible for the servicing of this area, and I would like to understand a little bit more of what is allowed when it comes to servicing any kind of development on this piece of property. So I’ll go to staff for comments on servicing development here. Thank you, through the chair. Sewers have actually been extended south along West Alborn from the Linkway Boulevard to support the new commercial development just south of that site.

[1:23:14] So the expectation would be that this site would connect to those sewers. A capacity analysis was provided as part of the zoning in capacity is available for the proposal. They do have to provide an easement when they do come to say plan approval. They’ll have to provide servicing easements for the properties just to the West on Oxford Street. I believe the addresses are 1949 and 1941 Oxford Street West because there’s no sanitary sewer on Oxford.

[1:23:47] Those properties are tributary to West Alborn as well. Councillor. Thank you for that. I do appreciate the clarification of servicing for this property at this committee. I just want to further speak to the comments that I have prepared, and as it relates to staff’s recommendation for refusal. And I fully support that, but I do think that the stacked townhouses is appropriate for this area.

[1:24:24] Councillor. Yep. The clerk has advised me just to, you know, let’s keep our comments to the referral. So tie whatever you’re saying. I know you’re well experienced. So just tie, keep your comments tied to the referral that we’re talking about, not the actual application. So on the referral then, and only on the referral as much as I would like to, I’m very hesitant about what is going to come back to us, but I am willing to see what that conversation is going to look like.

[1:25:09] And I’m going to leave my comments at that. I know this is going to go to a council as well, and I will be pulling it as council to make further comments. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions. Yeah, just for the public’s information, this is a referral. It’s not, and it will go to council. The referral could be defeated at council, in which case another motion would have to be presented. Anything that comes of this referral would have to come back to this committee for final approval.

[1:25:46] So that’s where things stand at this moment. So I’ll look for any other comments or questions. We have a motion moved and seconded, and we’ll call that vote. Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.5. This is regarding 1911 North Rutledge Park. We have a motion already moved and seconded to open the PPM, so I’ll call that vote.

[1:26:38] Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant to address us. Please ma’am, I’ll give us your name, and you have five minutes. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, committee members, staff, and members of the public. My name is Alia Richards, and I am a planner with Silen Capriema Limited. I’m joined today by the proponents of this application, HLH investments, as well as other members of the project team. I’m very pleased to be here today representing this application for 1911 North Rutledge Park. I’d like to start by extending my sincerest thanks to staff, particularly Isaac DeCuster for his responsiveness in collaborating with us over these past few months.

[1:27:23] We have received and reviewed the staff report and are in full support of the recommendation for the proposed Zoning By-law amendment. We respectfully request that committee members endorse the staff recommendation, and I’m available to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you. I’ll look for other members of the public to address the committee. I’ll ask Clerk, if there’s anyone online, there’s no one online. I don’t see anyone approaching the mic, so I’ll call the vote to close the PPM.

[1:28:10] So, seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, so I’ll open this item for our committee, looking for our motion. Councillor Cudi. I’ll move staff recommendation. Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis. So now we have a motion, moved and seconded. I’ll look for discussion from committee members for visiting Councillors. Councillor Ramen.

[1:28:46] Thank you, and through you. First, I wanna start by saying, thank you to the applicant for the engagement on this property and this project at 1911 North Rutledge Park. I appreciate the opportunity to have an early review of it, and to discuss it with my residents in the area. At the time that you’ll see, this is a bit of a different application for us. The time that it first came forward, it came as the original submission, and that was received, and I circulated that as well.

[1:29:22] And then there was a change in that timeline to a second submission in August 2025, and I appreciate the applicant reaching out on that change in the submission. I don’t see the change as significant change in terms of the density in that particular development, and the height, I know that previously, I had residents share concerns about the height, I don’t think that changes much with the height difference from seven to eight stories.

[1:29:56] So overall, I appreciate the feedback from staff and support the recommendation that’s in front of us. And I also appreciate the engagement from the BIA on having the developer explore ground floor commercial in this property as well. I think that it’s true to the BIA’s context and what they’re looking for within the main street place type as well. So all in all, just wanted to speak in support of the application.

[1:30:28] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I’ll look for other. Many members are visiting Councillors when here if they would like. Seeing none, we have a motion, move and second, and I’ll call the vote. I think the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to 3.6.

[1:31:02] This is regarding seven, seven, two, rear and boulevard. I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Okay, Mayor, losing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you all. Look to the applicant if the applicant would like to address committee, please ma’am.

[1:31:41] Give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, committee members. Cario Bryan with your little holding. We’d like to take a moment to express our gratitude to staff site plan subdivision building team for moving multiple different items on this file forward and keeping us all in line. We’ve reviewed the recommendations of staff and have no concerns. And I am available if there are any questions. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public like to address the committee on this item. Ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. No one online.

[1:32:14] I don’t see anyone approaching the mic. So I’ll call the vote to close the PPM. I think the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll put this on the floor. Thank you for a motion. Committee, Councillor Plaza. Thank you. I’ll move staff’s recommendation to get us started. Thank you. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Cuddy. I’ll look for discussion.

[1:32:51] And we have a motion moved in second and we’ll call the vote. Oh, I’m sorry, Councillor Hillier. Sorry, we didn’t see you on the screen there. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Thank you. Just a comment. I do appreciate this and I appreciate the timing on it that this is going in before the other development so the people know what’s coming around them and we’re not shoeing shoehorning in and afterwards. So I do truly appreciate this coming forward before the rest of the development and thank you. And it does have enough parking spaces for once. Thank you.

[1:33:22] Thank you, Councillor. Sorry, I missed you on that one. I appreciate you waving. Look for any other comments or questions and call the vote. Vote the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.7. This is regarding 1470 to 1474 Highbury Avenue North. We have a motion already moved in second to open the public participation meeting.

[1:34:00] We’ll call that vote. Voting the vote the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll look for to the applicant. Please sort of give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, committee members. My name is Harry Frucio, some with Selenka Priammo Limited. I’m here together with my colleague Laura Jamison representing copiate developments for this rezoning application at 1474 Highbury. First, I wanted to thank staff for their efforts in processing this application.

[1:34:34] We respectfully disagree with their recommendation, but that doesn’t take away with their efforts in moving these applications along and bringing for this information for your consideration. We did submit a letter in advance, outlining some of our comments in response to the concerns that were raised throughout the process and that was in the added agenda. So hopefully you’ve had a chance to review that and we’re here to answer any questions you have, but I will briefly go over some of the highlights of that letter. With respect to the hydrogeology, we acknowledge its importance to ensure neighboring lands are not impacted by this proposed development or any future development in this area.

[1:35:09] However, with all due respect, we believe that the suggested impacts are somewhat overstated as it relates to this proposed development. We are dealing with uncommon situation where within the urban boundary, where private wells are still being utilized to service residential dwellings, considering that according to the London Plan, there’s an expectation that all development within the urban growth boundary will be serviced by the city of London water supply system. However, the London Plan also provides that where planning and development application is proposed in the vicinity of an existing well, the applicant is required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that the proposed development will have no negative impact on groundwater, quantity and quality.

[1:35:51] And we’re not a dispute of that policy whatsoever, Mr. Chair. As part of the original application material that was submitted in 2021, a hydrogeological study was prepared by exp services and submitted for staff review. That study was not deemed to be incomplete for the purposes of accepting the application. Unfortunately, we did not receive formal comments on the hydroge report until just over a month ago, after it was reported in the media that there were neighbor concerns of the potential dewatering related to the proposed development. While we appreciate that more information is required, this level of detail is typically provided through subsequent technical approval stages, such as site plan approval.

[1:36:31] Ms. Heather Jaggard, who is the consultant for me XP that prepared the report, has provided a response to the comments. And again, that was attached to the out of the agenda items, and that was there for your review. Ms. Jaggard, based on her experience, suggests that the current report contains sufficient information to address any concerns from a high level perspective, and that more detailed information can be more appropriately provided at the SPA stage. And our client is also online with any recommended mitigation measures that have already been reported as a way of mitigating any impacts on the neighboring wells. With respect to the imperial oil easement, we simply do not have sufficient information at this stage to determine if the pipeline is currently low or high pressure, despite several attempts to obtain this information from imperial oil.

[1:37:16] The only known fact that we have is a requirement to provide a 7.6 meter setback from the center line of the pipeline, which is based on a private easement agreement that is registered on title of our client’s lands. Notwithstanding, our client is fully aware of the zoning implications. Should the pipeline be confirmed to be a high pressure pipeline? The only impact of a high pressure pipeline is the potential reduction in units. However, it does not prevent the development from moving forward in a form that is generally consistent with the latest concept plan, and what is currently approved in the policy of the London plan.

[1:37:48] With respect to the urban design comments, we do note that the proposed height of this building is contemplated, which is 14 stories, is contemplated in the London plan and was also previously contemplated in the 1989 official plan as a high density residential area. The proposed development has been purposely concentrated to the north boundary of the subject lands as the abutting lands to the north are also constrained by the same natural heritage and imperial oil easement constraints that we also have to consider as part of this application. However, the abutting lands appear to be more constrained due to the northwest southeast orientation of that pipeline, which would angle more towards the front of their property, thereby very limiting their ability to build a high rise, let alone any other form of residential development.

[1:38:37] Of note, the UTRCA has no concerns with the proposed development, and ecology staff raised no major concerns with EIS proposal for a 30 meter ecological buffer from the existing pond to the west. 30 seconds. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We believe we’ve addressed these comments to the best of our abilities. We understand that staff is recommending a holding provision. We have no issue with that based on the fact that we’re dealing with private wells, as long as the zoning amendment that we’ve attached to our information package is approved by council. So I will wrap it up by saying we believe that this meets the provincial policy statement, the intent of the London plan and represents good planning principles and would be happy to answer any questions you have.

[1:39:16] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look for other members of the public like to address committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. I’m Sean Harrington. Thank you, Chair and Councillors. I’ll try to be brief. I’m sure you have all read the staff reports and all the letters and are aware of all of our concerns. Our property directly abuts the development to the east on Webster Street. We have lived there for 25 years. I am joined by several of the Webster property owners today.

[1:39:50] We are pleased that the city staff have recommended refusal for many of the same reasons. We and 150 petitioners object to the proposal. We are not against development and intensification. Something much lower and with less density would nicely fit on this property without negatively impacting the neighboring properties and still help achieve the city’s housing goals. Perhaps stack townhouses or low rise apartments of four to six stories. The pumping of more than 400,000 liters of water per day could likely also be avoided. Our hope is that each of you and ultimately council will agree with the staff’s recommended refusal and vote against the proposed development.

[1:40:30] This development of 14 stories and 485 units per hectare is too intensive and is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The 485 units per hectare density is three times what is permitted. The London Plan states the most intensive forms of development will be directed to the downtown, transit villages and the station locations along the rapid transit corridors. This stretch of hybrid is none of the above. While policies in the London Plan allow up to 14 stories, I also state that development must fit the character of the existing neighborhood. The neighborhood is currently low rise residential and commercial buildings.

[1:41:03] The tallest on the block is a four story long term care home. There are also new four and five story apartments on Clayley at Edge Valley. All the properties on the North End Webster Street rely on wells for drinking water. Pumping more than 400,000 liters of water per day from the aquifer could seriously impact our wells. I read in the staff report that a permit to take water from the province may no longer be required. This leaves the city as the authority to predict this natural resource and those of us who rely on it for a drinking water. We have asked for monitoring of our wells and want the assurances from the city and the developer that will not be impacted.

[1:41:38] Traffic’s another concern. This development is surely to add traffic to Webster Street, which is a county road from pre annexation. It’s barely two lanes wide with no sidewalks or street lights and many pedestrians and cyclists. Highbury residents have expressed concerns with turning left onto highbury to head southbound. With many stating they have to turn right on highbury, then circle through neighborhoods to head south. Webster is already dangerous enough with increased cut through traffic, traveling at great speeds. We’ve been asking the city for traffic calming measures for several years now. Highbury and Clayley have frequent collisions between vehicles and with pedestrians.

[1:42:12] This development at 400 plus units is certain to make things much worse. Development will impact our property value on our views. We estimate 10 plus stories we’ll have views into our home and backyard. We have enjoyed decades of beautiful sunsets from our back deck. This development of 14 stories will obscure our sunset view and negatively impact our privacy and property values. I will end by asking you again to please vote against this proposal. And I thank you for your time. Thank you. I look for other members of the public like to address. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

[1:42:46] Hi, my name is Jamie McNeil. I live at 1479 Webster Street. Sean put everything basically exactly the way I would, would have put it myself. I would also like to add, my well was personally affected, basically dried up five years ago when they did the work at Kalele and Webster Street. I’m sure there were lots of assurances from EXP or whatever company was brought in that nothing would happen detrimental to any of the water tables and my well, which was from 1964 and had maintained water levels at the exact same level since 1964 mysteriously dried up.

[1:43:21] And again, I can only assume that environmental impact assessments were done for this, the work that was done on Webster Street at Kalele. So even if things are done, professionals have opinion, things can happen, it’s nature. There’s no way to guarantee that if a company says nothing bad is gonna happen, that it won’t happen. So I would suggest or almost demand if possible that the city have a plan in place should something go awry if any of this, even if it was a two-story development, if it kills anybody’s wells, negatively affects anything.

[1:43:58] There’s the ponds that are back there which surprisingly upper Thames has no, they’re not concerned about with this massive dewatering that is right beside a pond, seems odd to me. So I would want, again, as Sean said, assurances that something would be in place, should our wells be negatively affected. That’s basically all I have to say. And just actually one more thing to item 3.6, I didn’t catch the councilor’s name online, but he mentioned that he was favorable to what was happening because it was in a newer neighborhood.

[1:44:34] So anybody moving in would know that this giant structure is happening or is there, whereas, again, this thing is being sort of foisted upon us, which, again, sunsets, property value, traffic, noise, everything else, you name it. So, right, thank you. Okay, thank you. Look for other members of the public, like to address us. Ask the clerk because there’s anyone online. Ms. Jagger, can you hear us? Hello.

[1:45:08] This is Heather, is it my turn now? It is your turn. You have five minutes. Please go ahead. Okay, thanks, everybody. Yes, I completed the hydrogeological investigation on this property a number of years ago. But yes, I think that what needs to be really sort of overstated here is that the construction plans for this development include essentially cut off walls and other systems.

[1:45:40] So there will be literally no surrounding impacts to the aquifer outside of the immediate construction within the underground building. So yes, of course, there is an aquifer on site and yes, surrounding water well users do take from this aquifer, but the developer has assured me, and this was included in my report, that the cut off wall system that will be installed will be a permanent structure.

[1:46:17] So you can essentially think about, you know, more or less, you know, a bathtub being installed into a lake. You know, if a cut off system is installed, what is inside this cut off system will be dewatered, but everything around it, there will be no impacts. So because there is a natural feature on the site, there will be essentially no impacts to that water feature. And also any of the surrounding water well users, there is anticipated to be absolutely zero impacts to any of the surrounding water well users.

[1:46:59] You know, this report has been reviewed by Jeff Hachie, the hydrogeologist at the city of London. And, you know, I work with him routinely on applications such as this. And, you know, he’s quite diligent in assuring that, you know, water well users are our primary concern, and as well as natural features. So this sort of construction method with cut off systems is to assure that there is no impact to the aquifer outside of the construction area.

[1:47:38] So, you know, if it does mean that private wells need to be monitored, you know, perhaps that is something that we do implement during construction and post-construction. And Jeff Hachie, the city hydrogeologist, did also make a remark that he does want to see monitoring wells installed outside of the construction area to ensure that the aquifer is not impacted during construction and post-construction. So to the resident that was speaking about how his well was dried up, I don’t know exactly what the construction was at the corner of Kaleilian Webster, but that was probably a construction dewatering program that was not a cut off system, that the dewatering extents and radius of influence did extend to your property.

[1:48:32] So I do apologize for that, but this is a different sort of construction method where again, you know, engineering, detailed engineering will be implemented to ensure that there will be zero impacts to those private wells. So hopefully this sort of alleviates really any concern. And with regards to the 400 liters a day of volume that is planned to be dewatered, again, that is basically the water that will be essentially contained within the cut off system.

[1:49:14] And to be totally honest, 400,000 liters a day is really actually not that much. You know, a garden hose, that’s basically, you know, around 30,000 liters a day, essentially. So, you know, 400,000 liters a day is basically like, you know, 10 or 15 garden hoses. Like it’s really not that much. You know, I’m working on other projects where it’s, you know, 5 million liters a day is being dewatered.

[1:49:48] So we’re nowhere near those volumes. And again, these volumes are essentially finite. They are within essentially a bowl that we removed, and then everything outside of that will not be impacted. So hopefully this sort of provides a little bit more context and clarification for the surrounding water well users that, again, our primary focus is so that your private well is not impacted by this construction. Thank you.

[1:50:21] I look for anyone else that would like to address the committee. Sorry, sir, you’ve already had your time. I look for anyone else, anyone else online? Anyone else online? You know, we have a motion already made to close the PPM and seconded, so I will call that vote. So I think the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members, Councillor Cudi.

[1:50:55] Thank you, Chair, I’ll move staff recommendation. Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Palosa, seconds. The motion moved in a second. I’ll look for conversation, questions, comments. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the residents coming out, and it seems to be a multi-faceted project with multiple concerns. Wondering through you, obviously I have second, I’m supporting staff’s recommendation, but just through you to staff, there was a couple of questions raised specifically around wells.

[1:51:33] I know it doesn’t pertain to many Councillors. It pertains to some of mine as well. Looking through you to staff to see if there could be answers of if there is mitigations and questions of how we do approach wells within applications, and what reservoirs they had a different concern. So just looking for an answer for that while we’re on the topic. Yeah, I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, I’m Monica McMickar, an engineer in stormwater engineering, speaking on behalf of the hydrogeology comments that were provided by Jeff Hashi, the city hydrologist.

[1:52:16] So the hydrology report that was submitted as part of the rezoning application is missing a lot of critical information to support the proposed development and intensity for both the short term and the long term. Part of that includes the wells within the area. The report does not include any mitigation or contingency plans to support the development. We cannot tell from the report if there will be any impacts to these domestic wells.

[1:52:50] We would recommend that should any development go forward that the groundwater should be monitored closer to the boundary of the property. Thank you, I’ll go back to you, Councilor Plaza. Thank you for that. And if I have a thing else, I’ll follow up offline. So thank you to staff. Thank you, further comments or questions? Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, Sharon, through you. And I want to take a moment to thank staff for the work they’ve done on this, particularly Ms. Malton and Ms. Hines. Thank you very much for working with me and working with my constituents on this Deputy Mayor Lewis as well.

[1:53:26] And you put a lot of time in after doing and I appreciate the conclusion you came to. I also want to take a minute to chair and thank my residents for coming out and Mr. Harrington for speaking and Johnny Wayne, Shelby and Jamie. Thank you all for coming out. And I just want to reference for a moment, Chair, comments that Mr. Harrington made. And he talked to, you know, he mentioned, you know, that this, the residents don’t oppose development. They know that development is coming because Rulo owns the property across the street on the, on the east side.

[1:54:05] So they know it’s coming eventually. But like we talked about earlier, when we talked about West Elborn, we talk about responsible sustainable development. And quite frankly, Chair, in my opinion, the proposal that’s on the table is not responsible, it’s not sustainable. And I do appreciate Mr. Harrington raising that. You know, I spent a lot of time on Webster and it’s not because I need to, it’s because if you walk down Webster, for my colleagues who haven’t been on Webster Street, North, I suggest you do that one night.

[1:54:38] It’s beautiful. It is a beautiful street. It’s like you’re out in the country. And residents are on well water. And despite, you know, assurances that their wells are not going to be affected, who knows? Who really knows? So, you know, this is, again, in conclusion, staff have made a, in my opinion, they’ve made a very good choice and decision. Thank you. Thank you for my residents. Thank you for advocating, which you always do. And I look forward to continue working with you.

[1:55:14] Thank you. Other comments or questions from, can we, Council, or Deputy Mayor Lewis? Yeah, I’ll be brief. I’m not going to repeat what other Councillors have said. I don’t have a lot of wells, but Kremlin side road is still a pretty rural road too. And there’s some farms out there that are still on well as well. That’s too many wells in a sentence. But I will say, you know, for me, I’m absolutely going to support the staff refusal. This is the third submission the applicant has made. And while I appreciate the consultants from Zunlika Prammo forwarding some information before the weekend, you know, I’m going to say respectfully, and I know this isn’t you because you’re waiting on your client to provide you the information.

[1:56:04] But it was known for a long time that this information was outstanding. So to get it on a Friday afternoon before this committee meeting, to me is just completely unacceptable. Considering that the original submission for this application was April of 2022, I would not make a decision based on information received on a Friday that our staff have not had an opportunity to review. Simply won’t. I’m not a hydro geotechnical expert. I need somebody with that engineering expertise to review that for me.

[1:56:40] I don’t pretend to be an engineer. I’ve learned quite a bit from engineers sitting on this committee and an infrastructure and corporate services committee, but I am not one myself. So, and to the residents, I know I actually came out and met some of you back in 2022 when you had concerns about the first iteration of this application. I think you’re expressing very clearly that, you know, feel any of those concerns have really been addressed in what is a third kick at the can. And so for me, this is going to be a no. It’s like, I am going to support the staff refusal. There’s just, this just feels like incomplete homework submission to me.

[1:57:23] And so I’m not going to be going against staff on this. There is some opportunity for some residential intensification on this site, but this plan with the lack of information is not it for me. Look for other comments or questions from committee members or visiting counselors. Councilor Omen. Thank you and through you. I didn’t get a chance to submit my questions in advance.

[1:57:56] So I apologize for that. I want to start with the Imperial oil pipeline. I’m just wondering, I don’t see confirmation from Imperial oil in the report on the status of the pipeline. I’m just wondering why that’s, where that confirmation comes from or what point that confirmation comes from them? I’ll go staff. Through the chairs, so according to city records, including as built construction plans, the pipeline is recognized as a high pressure pipeline and should be treated as such.

[1:58:30] We also did receive some comments from Imperial oil, noting that they would like a larger setback as well. Councilor. Thank you. So they’ve confirmed that that pipeline is currently active and that it is used as a high pressure pipeline and not in some parts of the city. Right now they have pipelines that are not pressurized that they’re just used as contingency pipeline. So they’ve confirmed that that’s the case. Through the chair, the information we have at hand is that it is a high pressure pipeline.

[1:59:05] As Ms. Hines has said, we have as built construction drawings labeling them as, or pardon me, labeling this pipeline as high pressure. But also additionally, Imperial oil has confirmed that it could be high pressure at any time as well, even if not currently high pressure, it could be increased high pressure at any time. And so we need to plan accordingly for that. Councilor. Thank you and through you. So just to confirm if it wasn’t currently high pressure, but at some time they wanted to activate that line, they can hold a development to our, not allow a development to move forward, asking for a larger setback or impact that development by way of future plans versus if it was current.

[1:59:55] logo staff. The official plan and zoning bylaw requires a minimum setback of 20 meters to a high pressure pipeline. So we require or we rely on the utility company itself to provide us with that confirmation. The only information we have on hand currently are those as built drawings. But to our understanding, Imperial oil has indicated that it very well could be high pressure at this time or in the future. Councilor.

[2:00:30] Thank you. And I’m happy to take this conversation offline. I just want to ensure that, you know, when we have a mandate to build in the province and the federal government is also supportive of that desire for us to increase the amount of units that there is a way to work with our utilities and companies like Imperial oil to be able to get through some of these challenges when they’re faced. I’m not saying I would support this either way, but I’m saying that that does provide some concern. The hydrological assessment and the dewatering issue, I understand the challenges and the complexity of the issue.

[2:01:13] I do appreciate the explanation that was provided today. I found that quite helpful, actually. And I will continue my conversations before council to find out if more information as we move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Look for other comments or questions from committee or visiting councilors. Seeing none, we have motion moved and seconded and we will call the vote. We’ll sing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[2:02:00] Okay, moving on to item 3.8. This is regarding 767 Southdale Road East. I’ll call the vote to open the public participation meeting. Sing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for the applicant. Yeah, looking like to address committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Dan Murphy. I’m a planner with civic planning and design. Here on behalf of our clients, a group of local developers under Ontario Inc Company for their project at 767 Southdale Road East.

[2:02:40] Part of this project, we undertook our own community engagement program to connect with nearby residents early in the process. Over 50 postcards were distributed to surrounding homes. And we later hosted an online webinar on April 16th of this year to share details and gather feedback. Based on what we heard, we made adjustments to the site design to help address neighborhood questions and concerns about the proposed development. And the result is a modest five story apartment building in 24 units. At five stories, the building is fully within the recently approved heights in the London plan, which allows for building heights of up to eight stories in this location.

[2:03:15] The building’s placement along the Southdale Road East frontage set to 45 feet from the homes to the South, ensures that no shadows are cast on neighboring properties and at privacy concerns are addressed. The project exceeds the zoning bylaws parking requirements and also takes advantage of excellent transit accessibility with the existing LTC routes along the Southdale Road East corridor and just 300 meters or about a three minute walk from a new BRT station at Wellington Road and Southdale Road East. I wanna thank Michaela Hines and the rest of the planning and development staff for their work on this proposal.

[2:03:50] We’re in full agreement with the staff recommendation and I really appreciate your time and consideration. I’m available to answer any questions. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public like to address the committee on this item. So clerk, there’s anyone online. We have two people online. If you can hear me and would like to address the committee, please go ahead, sir, you have five minutes.

[2:04:28] Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Oh, wonderful. Yeah, if you have five minutes, please go ahead. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon to everyone. My name is Maha Mankal and today I am speaking on behalf of my parents who live at 855 Willow Drive and have lived there for almost 50 years. We have read through the material that has been provided so far and we understand the need for additional housing for residents of London and we are not opposed to that. With that being said, we feel that the needs and targets of the development community and desire to take advantage of incentive programs should not supersede the health, wellness, security and happiness of existing neighborhood residents.

[2:05:17] After all, with respect, I say we were here first. Our concerns were outlined in an email that was submitted to the planner and to our counselor back in July of this year. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize the main concerns now. The London Plan states that housing redevelopment is to be compatible with sensitive to and a good fit with the current neighborhood. This proposed five-story building does not satisfy these conditions in our opinion. The existing neighborhood consists of one in two-story single residential homes and the proposed building will be a large protrusion.

[2:05:56] From the existing coherent landscape, the proposed five-story building will also obstruct the view of the sky and trees from the master bedroom window, which my parents enjoy each day. They will no longer be able to open the currents without being in full view of tenants with balconies or windows on the south side of the proposed building. They will also no longer have privacy in their backyard. The proposed parking lot is directly adjacent to existing bedroom windows. This will increase the noise, toxic fumes and commotion during resting periods, which will be a detriment to the health and wellbeing of my parents, who as I said before have resided at this address for almost 50 years.

[2:06:39] The additional 14 parking spaces will inevitably spill over onto the street and increase hazards to existing residents when they’re trying to back out of or enter their driveways. The close proximity of the garbage bins will create bad orders and seepage, which will track unwanted animals and negatively impact the enjoyment of outdoor spaces by surrounding properties. We feel that a more reasonable building would consist of a two or three-story building, which would be a better fit to the existing space and neighborhood and still allow for additional housing units for the residents of London.

[2:07:19] We request that council reject the proposed zoning change to residential R8 with special provision and any zoning changes be consistent with a two or three-story building. Thank you all for listening and we look forward to a positive outcome for all, particularly the law-abiding tax-paying citizens who have lived in this area for many decades. Thank you. Thanks, Ms. McCald. I’ll look to Ms. Mitchell. Can you hear us? Are you online? Yes, I am.

[2:07:51] Yes, I am. Okay, please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thanks. My name is Sharon Mitchell and I’m reading this on behalf of my neighbor, Richard Baxter, who unfortunately could not attend this meeting. My name is Richard Baxter. I live at 879 Willow Drive and together with my neighbors, Sharon and Bill Mitchell, we have serious concerns about the proposed rezoning of 767 Southdale Roadies at the corner of South Dome Willow. My wife and I have lived here for nearly 30 years. Willow Drive is a unique pocket of the city, quiet, family-friendly with large lots that make it feel more like a small town than a busy urban corridor.

[2:08:32] Traffic, however, has already become a challenge. With bus rapid transit and overall growth, turning left from Willow onto Southdale is increasingly difficult and dangerous. I personally witness accidents and near misses involving vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. Adding a 24-unit building here will bring significantly more cars and foot traffic, worsening an already unsafe intersection and further reducing sightlines. The proposal allows only 14 parking spaces for 24 units.

[2:09:09] This is far below demand. Overflow vehicles will inevitably spill onto Willow Drive where parking is already strained. This will crowd the street near the intersection and increase hazards for both drivers and pedestrians. Beyond safety and parking, the building itself would change the character of our neighborhood. We as a family spend the majority of our time outdoors when the weather permits on our relatively large lot. Willow Drive was chosen by many of us because it has no high-density developments.

[2:09:46] I can’t help but think people on the top floor or two will be able to look all the way into my backyard and affect the privacy of residents closer to it also. A five-story apartment building will dominate the landscape and create visual pollution. The term visual pollution describes unattractive or excessive man-made elements in an environment that impair the aesthetic quality of a landscape. From our view, we will walk out our back or front door and see an apartment building, something that impairs the aesthetic quality of the landscape.

[2:10:21] These changes will also amount, certainly, sorry, these changes will also certainly reduce property values. I want to be clear, I’m not against growth or positive change, but this particular development at this particular corner is the wrong fit. It does not enhance safety, it does not respect the scale of our neighborhood, and it will harm both the quality of life and property values for existing residents. For these reasons, I urge you to not approve this rezoning. Thank you for your time.

[2:10:54] Thank you. Look to now, Al Taruni, you’re online. Hi, I will also share, so I live on Willow Drive, and the parallel parking right next to my house is always full as it is, and I’m really, really worried that this new construction will only add to the traffic jam in that area. I have two young children, and I’m unable to enjoy the front yard of my house due to how much traffic there’s been lately, especially with the construction on Wellington.

[2:11:39] Our street has, I’ve actually complained to the city and tried to get the traffic department to put the speed reduction, sort of the speed bumps, because our street has been horrible for speeding drivers who are trying to cut through. And I’m quite concerned that this development will only add to these already existing problems and make my street unlivable. Thank you. Thank you, I’ll look for anyone else that would like to address the committee. So, clerk, if there’s anyone else online, there’s no one online, okay, and I don’t see anyone else approaching the microphone, so I will call a vote to close the PPM.

[2:12:37] I was thinking about the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll look to committee members looking for a motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I will move the staff recommendation. And the seconder, Councillor Cudi, I’ll look for discussion with committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll yield to Councillor Ploza first, she had her hand up before I did. Councillor Ploza, please go ahead. Sorry, thank you. It was just more through you to staff, just residents had asked some questions along the way. If staff wanted to have opportunity to respond to some of the questions and comments we heard before we get into our Q and A, the staff.

[2:13:14] Okay, any particular question you’re referring to Councillor? I think some of them are just concerned about parking in the area intensifications, the streets are already full. What’s gonna, where are people supposed to go? Okay, yeah, there was a comment that there was concerns with the limited parking, not matching the summary units that there could be overflow onto the street, actually, where the person lives, that already has indicated that they have concerns there too. So I’m wondering if staff could comment on that.

[2:13:50] Through the chair, there isn’t a request by the applicant to request any reductions in the amount of parking. So they are complying with the zoning bylaw and they are providing what is sufficient in accordance with the 0.5 spaces per unit. And so staff are sufficient, or consider that sufficient for the property. Councillor. I think you just thought it was important for residents to know that it’s not saying that people wouldn’t ever want more parking or that more parking can never be needed, but it meets the requirements.

[2:14:23] I’ll save my rest of my comments there ‘cause we’re a committee we can always come back, just recognizing I believe this is Councillor Hillier’s area and he’s gonna end up virtually again, so. Okay, thanks you, Councillor, Councillor Hillier, please go ahead. Thank you very much, I wanted to address this because I have heard from my residents. And I agree, this is shoe warning, a very large intensive building into this corner, but the problem is we are on and one of the largest transit corridors of the city right now, and this is where all these things are gonna have exception ‘cause the London Plan does allow for this with the parking exception.

[2:15:01] As everyone knows, I do not agree with having less than one unit per unit per parking. So I will be a no on this, but I do expect it to pass. I want my residents to understand because of the location and the London Plan, it allows for this to go through, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor. Yes, thank you, Chair. And I will just say, well, I recognize residents’ concerns about parking on their street right now or traffic cut through because of the construction.

[2:15:37] Ultimately, at the end of the day, we have to take the planning approach of the intent of the neighborhood. It’s not that construction will last forever. I have construction happening on Dundas East right now. It’s not convenient, but it has to happen. And that means that people will sometimes cut through neighborhoods that’s not ideal, but that’s not a permanent situation. We heard a lot of comment about Willow Drive, but this is an address on Southdale Road. It is a civic boulevard property.

[2:16:11] I heard a comment about this building is going to increase traffic. There’s 18,000 cars a day by the current traffic volume counts on Southdale Road East at Willow Drive. This apartment building will not generate sufficient traffic to even be perceived as a change in the traffic flow on Southdale, which is where the traffic is expected to flow. So I can be supportive of this. As Councilor Hill, you’re noted, we are a short distance from the, I think he called it the largest rapid transit corridor.

[2:16:55] It may well be, I’m not going to get out and measure meters for him, but certainly it is within from the measurements on the city map, just 370 meters from the Wellington Gateway rapid transit project. So there is an expectation that some residents will not rely on cars, but will in fact rely on transit services as that rapid transit service comes online. So I just wanted to share, I’m going to be supporting this. I think I want to also take the opportunity to share, and I’m not doing this to single out the residents who spoke on this application alone.

[2:17:35] We hear this on a lot of applications. When we make planning decisions, one of the things that we absolutely are not empowered to consider as a municipal planning committee is what the impact is on property values of adjacent properties. That’s not even decided by City Hall. Impact assessments are a provincial body that make those assessments. That is outside of our purview as Council to make decisions on. So while we hear that a lot on many applications, I just want to share to anyone listening, anyone who follows along this committee, perhaps online, that’s not actually something that we get to consider.

[2:18:17] Thank you. For other comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councilors, Councilor Plosm. Thank you, and I know staff recommended it, not sure, and I know some things come through site plan, but realizing there are reduced yard setbacks, front yard and interior side yards, looking to see if we know, if we’re approving the reduction, which we would be today at committee, with it being moved and seconded, if there’s gonna be any concerns about waste management on the site as we’re already encroaching and to our setback parameters that we would normally have going from 6.2 meters to three on the interior side.

[2:19:06] And I do appreciate staff laying out with the report that the frontage would still be in line with the rest of the streetscape. So that wasn’t a concern for me, but really is the other mitigation of uses that residents need on the property for already allowing reduced setbacks. I’ll go staff through the chair, through our site plan process, we’ll look at the waste management collection. That’s my understanding at this point in time, they’ve indicated that they’ll do private collection in the rear of the property. Councillor. Thank you, I guess a point for clarification, then I know site plan comes later, but if we’ve already allowed reduced setbacks, can they still put all their waste management needs within that setback space?

[2:19:46] Just if we’ve already reduced it, they only have so much space yet, are they pushing back further against the fences? I’ll go staff through the chair. I think I’m not fully understanding which setbacks you’re concerned about where they’re putting the waste out. They’ll have to identify through site plan and ensure they have enough space to set it out so they can get collection in the rear of the site. Councillor. Thank you for clarity then. If we’ve allowed reduced setbacks, which interior side yard depth minimums are going to be three meters and six point two, do those need to be kept as a setback or can they use then use that setback space for other uses that they still need for the property like waste collection?

[2:20:33] Yeah, I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, as noted by Mr. Corby, the waste management is proposed for the rear and there are no setback reductions proposed for the rear yard. So there should be sufficient space for them to be able to put that. And then the interior side yard setback is three meters, which should be sufficient for other things. They’ll be discussed at site plan like landscape offering. Councillor. Thank you. And it goes to site plan, we don’t see it again. So should they decide that they, this applicant or any applicant would prefer a different area, can they use setback allotments that have already been reduced for other uses or is it to be protected and saved?

[2:21:21] So I think, excuse me if I’m paraphrasing. Yeah, go ahead. Like if we have a setback of three meters, can they put a garbage bin right up against the fence on that setback? So if that’s what you’re getting at, Councillor. Through the chair, there’s likely wouldn’t be enough space depending if it’s between the building and a fence, like they have to be able to access it probably by a vehicle to lift it up. So that probably wouldn’t work in this area. Again, it’s difficult without seeing it to give you an exact answer.

[2:21:54] Councillor. Thank you. So it was just looking to see. So it seems to be that even we, so I guess for me being very mindful going forward that it sounds like if we provided reduced setbacks to accommodate what they need, they could always then come back and encroach more on that space with other needs for that property. Is that— What staff is getting at? Is that a question? No, I’ve asked it three times. So I’ll follow up, I’ll fly with this. Okay, all right. Look for other comments or questions. Please go ahead, Ms. Mealy.

[2:22:26] Thank you. Through the chair, if it may help, maybe items for the site plan approval authority to consider in terms of what the, we’ll say those landscape feature areas are tended or those setback areas. And for staff to consider, ideally, as Mr. Corby has mentioned that typically it’s contained, there is an identified area on the drawing of where this storage would be, but that’s not within that side yard area. It’s within a paved area, as mentioned for easy access for vehicles to pick up.

[2:23:03] But again, if committee should choose, you may want to have items for consideration for the site plan approval authority to consider with those setback feature areas, like landscape, enhanced landscape, other mitigation measures. Councilor, do you wish to follow up on that? I will, I appreciate that. And it wasn’t even in just, I guess, there’s so many applications we have that have requests for reduced setbacks, front back side. And I guess as I’m sitting here approving reduced setbacks, I’m assuming that space is set aside as a buffer, not as a buffer for them to use later to infill with other needs for that development.

[2:23:43] So that’s where my concerns were coming from, as I know it’s frequent that staff would recommend the request, that’s where the concern is coming from. I don’t need to follow up, thank you. Okay, well, I do, I don’t think I’ll move something, but I just, Mr. Corby, if you want to go through the chair, maybe I’ll try to help now that I zoomed in on the site plan. So our expectation at site plan, they’ve identified that waste storage area in the rear parking lot. The expectation of what we would strive to do at site plan is to maintain it there and keep it within the kind of the parking area and the vehicle will drive in, pick it up and drive out.

[2:24:20] We wouldn’t generally support it in a location that’s not accessible in those reduced side yards. Just from the chair, do we have any restrictions on where large garbage containers can be located? Can they be put right up against the property line or is there a buffer that is supposed to be maintained? Through the chair, again, we would try to maintain us a buffer of about 1.5 meters we generally like to see around the entire property for parking and other things. Okay, okay.

[2:24:54] Councilor, no further, okay. Other comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors? Seeing none, we will call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries four to one.

[2:25:39] Thank you. Moving ahead to 3.9 regarding 100 Kellogg Lane and associated streets, I’ll open the vote to open the public participation meeting. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll go to the applicant, please forgive us your name and you have five minutes. Chair, my name’s John Fleming, I’m from City Planning Solutions and I’m joined today by a team at Civic Planning and Design.

[2:26:17] You can see that Mike Davis and Dan is here as well. Where the agents for this application are a client, the Ontario Limited Company that’s noted in the application who’s done so much great work in the Kellogg’s district to create that amazing entertainment complex. We believe the Kellogg’s district and this application is a legacy project for council and the community. Recently council designated the area as a transit village. This was done by this council and is one of five transit villages in the city. And the vision for transit village in the London Plan is for a vibrant commercial entertainment economic hub.

[2:26:56] The owners have sunk hundreds of millions of dollars already into the Kellogg district, creating a truly international traction entertainment hub and employment node and the proposed development that’s supported by this application will allow for the continuation of this investment. And importantly, it will add a residential community to the mix in this transit village in the form of several residential towers, including two 30 story towers and 144 story tower. This creates a sense of community and ownership of the district and the public spaces within it.

[2:27:29] So we’ll truly cement council’s vision for the transit village at this location. Also as noted in a letter from Carfax, it’s on your added agenda. This application will support business and economy in our city, it will allow for them to grow their footprint in London. They currently employ over 600 people in our city. Also important in this application will lead to the heritage designation of London’s most important industrial heritage. And it will fill those heritage buildings. This is important with economic life to sustain them over the long term. Now, we agree with staff’s recommendations to council with the exception of one clause, which I’ll get back to in a minute.

[2:28:06] But this is a big and complex application and there’s been lots of work and collaboration leading up to today. We want to thank the many staff who have worked with us through this process. This includes Scott and Heather’s team in planning, most specifically recently Isaac de Kuster and Chloe Sernanek, who are the file handlers and the management team of Catherine Matton and Britto Hagen, who did lots of troubleshooting together with us to get this application to you today. I also want to thank Kyle Ganyu, my Greg Wall, who helped to navigate the heritage designation. And also want to thank those staff who helped us through the engineering issues.

[2:28:42] And there were lots of them even leading up to the application before it was submitted. Special thanks to Brent Lambert, who’s always helpful, coordinated us through this process in terms of engineering issues. Many members of the engineering leadership team were also involved and made all the difference. We also had lots of support from Kipila Kocha from LEDC. I want to thank him. So to wrap up, as I said, there’s one clause that we’re asking for committee to help on. I have a letter to this effect on the added agenda. We submitted a path loss study that showed that there will be path loss for emergency services, communication from the construction of tall buildings.

[2:29:19] It’s not really an unusual thing with tall buildings. It does get in the way of some of those emergency services paths, communications paths. And this is something that definitely needs to be addressed through the site plan process. So we agree with this clause. It’s clause J in your recommendation from staff and it’s J3 to be more specific. We just think that the clause that speaks to a specific 99 year lease is presumptive. It’s too detailed and could get in the way of alternative arrangements to implement the path loss study and in the path loss study recommendations. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a clause like this in the planning application in the past.

[2:29:54] I may be wrong, but I haven’t seen one. We think it’s adequate for council to give direction to the site plan approval authority with less specific wording that still protects the need for emergency services communications to the satisfaction of the city. So we think site plan could be directed to implement the recommendations of the path loss study to ensure necessary emergency services communication to the satisfaction of the city or a clause to that effect. Thank you very much. We’re here to answer any questions that the committee may have. Thank you, Mr. Fleming. I’ll look for other members of the public who would like to address committee.

[2:30:28] Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Lehman and members of the committee. My name is Frank Feliche and I’m a resident of the Oldies Village and a member of a newly formed group that we call People for Public Spaces. Think what you see happening at the Kellogg’s site is what the kind of thing that we were hoping would happen when we worked on the McCormick Plan many years ago, we being the community association at the time, the Oldies Village BIA and members of the city plan and that is a node of activity where you would have kind of a mixed use residential in an area that could be seen as a destination point where people could enjoy walking around, different kinds of experiences where people could live.

[2:31:18] So this is the kind of exciting thing that we were looking for. So it’s taken a number of years, but here we are. And if you look at how the Kellogg’s building itself has been developed, it’s a beautiful building. So a sensitive owner can really refurbish a building like that and make it a real value to the community. So I think that this development needs this kind of change to the zoning, I think it is, ‘cause things have happened since the McCormick site plan was accepted that it most notably the transit, the rapid transit corridor.

[2:31:53] So I think to accommodate that, I would support whatever is required for this plan to go forward. I think that moving forward, I’d like to see this node that I’m describing somehow being connected to what we consider other nodes along the Dundas Street corridor. Of course, all these village downtown, I’d like to see it going forward to our dial and even further. So that Dundas Street becomes this wonderful corridor where people can walk along, you can drive along and wanna stop, you can park your car, you can ride your bike and experience different kinds of things.

[2:32:31] I think I see this happening, but I think it’s really important that the design is sensitive and it’s proactively wants to connect to the other kinds of things that are already going on and to connect to other aspects to other parts of the Dundas Street corridor. Our main street and all these village, as I said, for us is actually very important. So I’m excited to see this happening and I support this proposal. Thank you for that input. I’ll look for other speakers from the public. Please man, give us your name and you have five minutes.

[2:33:10] My name is Sarah Merritt. I’m a resident of the Aldis Village, past manager of the BIA, past president of the Community Association. I now remember all the Aldis Village, people for public spaces. I had the great good fortune of working with the people who want to develop this site at a time where the Kellogg’s factory was actually being decommissioned. It’s a very exciting time in the area. And my experience working in those early days with the people who are bringing forward this application is that anything they say that they’re going to do, they do and do it very effectively.

[2:33:52] I’m very excited about the fact that in their development plans, they have front-facing commercial activity facing onto Dundas Street. I think that’s gonna make a really big dent in some of the issues that we’re dealing with in other parts of our commercial corridor. I’m really excited about the fact that this development effectively links the McCormick site development and the renewal efforts for the other parts of Dundas Street, the area where we’re gonna have a commercial space.

[2:34:32] I think it’s gonna make it possible for businesses that are in the area that have successfully scaled up and have had to leave the area because they couldn’t get other residential space. We’ve already seen examples of that in the Kellogg’s building and I think that we’re going to see it again. This development, I think as well as making us pedestrian friendly, it’s also going to make the area more transit friendly. And my hope is that with increased population in the area, feet in the street, very interesting, mixed rents that they’re proposing in the area is gonna contribute and support, contribute towards solving some of the issues that parts of Dundas Street, west of the site, are dealing with at the moment.

[2:35:25] I think the people who are looking to do this development should be commended for the extent of the investment and the energy that they have put into this area. I’m equally happy about the fact that the planners who are bringing this forward are people who have a very deep knowledge and history of the capacities, opportunities and challenges in that commercial district. What I really like is the way this proposed development takes into account and connects into the variety of neighbourhoods that surround the development.

[2:36:02] I’m very happy to see this development happening. I’m happy to support it. And I’m sure that the issue that’s been raised around safety, knowing the group who are developing, the planners who are working on it, and the staff who are working out, I’m sure that’s an issue that could be resolved. So thank you very much for the opportunity to address you all. And thank you very much to the proponents for this fantastic opportunity for East London and the oldest village. Thank you, I’ll look for anyone else that would like to address the committee.

[2:36:39] Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon. My name’s Tracy White Lockwood. I live at 495 Burbrook Place. Right on the corner of the old Kellogg’s building. It’s a great structure. We like it, we appreciate it that it’s there. And I’m sure the zoning will get passed today. Just one question that I would like to ask to send to staff is the height of the buildings. 32 stories, possibly 44 stories is in a very aggressive height.

[2:37:14] I’ve sat here and listened to some of the people complain about 12 stories and six stories. 42 stories is the biggest structure within the neighborhood. It’s bigger than the Nova Craft building, which is legendary in the area, bigger than the McCormick building, bigger than Kellogg’s belt. I would like to ask staff if what their recommendations as regards the height structure in their opinion would be more appropriate to the area for all the appropriate reasons that I’ve heard everybody talk about today when it comes to a larger building.

[2:38:02] We are excited to have Kellogg’s as our neighbours and they have generally been really good neighbours as far as neighbours go. But again, it’s the light pollution. Burbank place have lived through the Tanzi corridor. It’s been our biggest headache, but we’ve survived. It looks beautiful. And going forward and I’m the same, I’m excited about it. And I personally feel that it will be more walkable than Watley if it’s done correctly.

[2:38:40] However, a lot of the neighbours are very, very concerned about the height that’s all I have. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much for those comments. I’ll look for other people from the public like to address the committee. That’s Kirk, if there’s anyone online. John Vording, are you online able to speak? Thanks, can you hear me okay?

[2:39:13] Yep, please go ahead, you have five minutes. Great, thank you. To the chair, the mayor, the deputy mayor, councilors, members of the Planning and Environment Committee and to other members of the community. Good afternoon, my name’s Sean Vording and I’m the president of Carfax, Canada. I’d like to thank you all for the opportunity to speak today representing Carfax. I’m not here just as a representative of a business that operates out of 100 Kellogg, but as a partner in the city’s growth, safety and prosperity. We are here to ask you for your support in approving the continued expansion at and around 100 Kellogg, an expansion that’s not just about bricks and mortar, but about people, progress and potential.

[2:39:55] Carfax, Canada began as a startup called Carproof that’s called London Home for more than 20 years. Our company has grown from a team of just 10 employees located on Dufferin Avenue to over 600 dedicated professionals working at 100 Kellogg. This isn’t an overnight success story, it’s a result of long-term investment, hard work and a deep commitment to the community we call home, London, Ontario. We’ve always aimed to be more than just a business in the community, we strive to be a partner to the community. We contribute to local charities, helping organizations that serve vulnerable populations and provide crucial services.

[2:40:32] We support youth sport, we’re proud partners of the London Knights and we provide the London Police Services critical investigation tools at no charge. Within our parent organization, we have offices across the globe and I’m proud to say that our office at 100 Kellogg is undeniably referred to as the Crown Jewel of Facilities. 100 Kellogg uniquely provides the office space, amenities, entertainment, lodging, hospitality and experiences that all combine to create a community culture. We have not struggled returning our employees to the office like many businesses have.

[2:41:08] Our employees are attracted to and are appreciative of the incredible ecosystem that we are a part of. That’s because 100 Kellogg’s has been built on people, partnerships and the proposed expansion creates an incredible opportunity to demonstrate its full potential on a much larger scale. Today at Carfax, we are bursting at the seams and approval for expansion at and around 100 Kellogg will allow us to add additional space for an initial 200 jobs, creating opportunity for high quality full-time employment. These are not just jobs, they’re careers that support families, grow the local economy and keep talent right here in our city.

[2:41:47] From a strategic standpoint, the facility is essential to attracting and retaining top talent. In today’s competitive global marketplace, professionals are choosing where to live and work based not only on salary, but on workspace quality, community engagement and career growth opportunities. Expansion will provide exactly that, a modern heritage state-of-the-art environment that makes people want to build their future right here in London, Ontario. The expansion at and around 100 Kellogg’s isn’t just an investment in new buildings, it’s an investment in the community, an economic opportunity and in the future of our city.

[2:42:25] With your support, the expansion at and around 100 Kellogg allows Carfax the opportunity to continue to expand in London to create meaningful jobs and to do our part to help the neighbourhood and ensure that our city remains a place where businesses thrive and communities grow together. Thank you very much for your time and for your consideration. Thank you, Mr. Warner. I look for other people to address the committee from either the gallery or online on us clerk, if there’s anyone else online. There’s no one else online.

[2:42:58] Looking around the microphones, I don’t see anyone approaching. So I’ll look to open the vote on closing the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Okay, I’ll put this out for our committee. Dr. Mayor Lewis. I’ll put the staff recommendation on the floor. I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi.

[2:43:33] I’ll look for committee members for comments, questions. Dr. Mayor. Thank you, Chair. I wanna say thank you to Frank and Sarah and the other members of the OEV area who’ve come out today to share some thoughts with us on this. There’s the staff for all the work on this, Mr. Fleming and his team for all the work on this as well. I will say through you, Chair, Mr. Fleming, the good news is they say only the good die young. So in 99 years, you and I can discuss the renegotiation of the line of sight response for the emergency responders, but that is in site plan.

[2:44:12] And so I’m comfortable with it being there because I think that given the scope of this development that it’s not, in my opinion, unreasonable to ask the applicant to be responsible for the cost of those relay towers, if necessary. I think we’re doing some unique and innovative things in the staff recommendation here with regard to some heights and some commercial uses and those sorts of things.

[2:44:46] I think this is gonna be a very, very exciting redevelopment for the area, for the city as a whole. And I know that they’ve got a great representative and consultant working on this who knows the London plan inside note. Not sure how, he must have read it in his spare time, but I will say I’m very supportive of this and this will 100% have my support. I also wanna thank the representative from Carfax for their commitments to our community, not just starting here, but really working hard to stay here.

[2:45:27] The value that you bring as a business in our community is not lost on us. Thank you, I’ll go to the mayor. Yes, thanks, Chair. So I’ll be very supportive of the application before us today. And I wanna thank many people who actually got this application together. It was a long time coming in a number of meetings and it solves a number of issues and opens up a number of opportunities for the site, bringing some additional residential development and an expansion to the site is expanding on something that is becoming very well known outside of London.

[2:46:05] With the opening of the Hard Rock Hotel, the first in Canada, I know Ottawa is open there, as Barbara was open before there, SARS was first. There’s people coming internationally and seeing our city for the first time and seeing this location, right? So they come there, they have their first experience from London, they branch out from there, they get to know the rest of the city. And so this has really become a really important initial destination for many people visiting the city for the first time because of the unique facilities that have co-located there. This is becoming a destination for people from Toronto to do a staycation where they can come to our city and to get a whole bunch of services and close proximity in one location.

[2:46:44] It’s a true investment, economic investment and economic driver for London. And so rightly so, I think it’s being invested in, it continues to be invested in and the expansion here is appropriate warranted and I think will be very good for the region and our city. I wanna say to Sean and the team at Carfax, I really appreciated being able to come through your space, meeting some of your employees. I understand the importance of you having the ability to co-locate and expand your business at one location, I understand your team dynamic and what you’re trying to do there.

[2:47:18] I think it’s a phenomenal success story for our city. And I know that this application, this proposal actually accommodates your ability to continue to expand and invest in that space. And so to all your employees who work in our city, thanks for the work you do, thanks for continuing to invest in our city and thank you for the jobs that you create. I think at 100 Kellogg Lane now, there’s over 800 people who are working there. Like this is a really critical job driver for the old East Village and the city as a whole. I can continue to have the capacity to expand. So, I’m very supportive of this application. I think it’s got very sound planning merits to it.

[2:47:53] I think the components of it continue to build off of the master planning for this site, which I think is visionary and ambitious in its approach. And something that we’re unlikely to see again in our lifetime, some transformation of an old serial factory into what is now a multi-residential, multi-business entertainment complex with hotels and businesses and children’s museums and just the incredible mix of opportunities there. So happy to support the recommendation for us.

[2:48:28] And I look forward to the actual build out and continue the execution of the impressive vision for this site. Thank you. I’ll look for other committee members that’d like to address or ask questions of staff and visiting. Councillor Hopkins, please go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me and maybe I can just do a follow up to having a better understanding about the heights. I know the community was asking around the height of 44 stories. Is that being determined?

[2:49:02] So maybe that is a question through you to staff. I’ll go to staff with that question. Councillor Kineg, can I get your mic? Thank you and through the chair. The such a glance are located in the transit village, which after the downtown is meant to be the most intense and high density area within the city. Our transit villages will be high density mixed used urban neighborhoods. And recently through the height framework, the maximum height for the transit village has been increased to 35 stories.

[2:49:39] The applicant has requested an official plan amendment to basically establish a specific policy area to increase this height up to 44 stories, so an increase of nine stories in the transit village. And there are a number of criteria that need to be met in order for that specific policy area to be supported by city staff. And one of them is whether the site is unique and would not have adverse impacts on other place types. And this instance, this is a very unique location as it has a large sort of industrial history and is currently being repurposed into a mixed use community entertainment district.

[2:50:20] So staff believe that the specific policy area is appropriate in this case. And as such, we are recommending approval for the increased heights up to 44 stories. Councilor. Thank you very much for sharing that information. And I do wanna just make a further comment seeing this development almost from the beginning stages going back in 11 years since I’ve been on council. It’s really a wonderful project to have seen develop.

[2:51:01] And also my thanks to staff. I know I can’t imagine the work that goes into developing this type of a project to make it all work and function. So my thanks very much to you. It’s taken a long time and to see this almost sort of come to fruition is quite exciting. And also to know that our former planner is still involved having that historical part of it too. I think does make this project also very comfortable for me and confident that the work is going on.

[2:51:43] So thank you very much. And in fact that I’m still part of this project is also exciting. So thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to Councilor Stevenson. Thank you very much for recognizing me as the Ward Councilor for the area. I am fully supportive of this development. I do understand that there’s a few streets that are more affected than others and one in particular with the 40 story height. I was expecting to hear from more residents about that issue and I really haven’t.

[2:52:17] So hopefully if there are a lot of concerns people will reach out between now and council, but I really haven’t other than there’s a few comments there hasn’t been a lot of concern. I do wanna thank the resident who did come to express those concerns and I’d love to speak with them at another time. Thank you to those who come out and support of it as well. The entire city recognizes the incredible investment and what’s contributed to our city for in so many different ways. I believe it was over $100 million private investment that has gonna benefit our city for many, many years.

[2:52:57] So there is an ask here that we modify one small part of this and I would like to understand through staff, what are the reasons, like what’s the risk to us honoring the request and shortening that one paragraph or that one clause to leave the agreement regarding the telecommunication infrastructure to site planning? If I could just hear from staff, what are the risks to us saying yes to that request? So the council is referring to the one item affecting the path law study and for people that are familiar with that which I just learned recently.

[2:53:41] It’s for critical emergency signals being transmitted line of sight and the structure potentially blocking that so that we ways to mitigate that transmission, that critical admission, specifically the paragraph that’s in the staff report refers to a 99 year agreement with the city for the installation maintenance and access required new telecommunication infrastructure at no cost and to the satisfaction of the city.

[2:54:19] So that’s that wording from my understanding is what they would like to see left out that dealt with that site plan. So I think what the councilor is asking is, from your perspective, what are your concerns and why would you like to see that wording kept in? Through you, Mr. Chair, we have included the more specific wording just to be transparent and have it on record through the report that we will be seeking an agreement and which would include a solution for the path loss at the site plan stage.

[2:54:57] So it’s really about transparency that these are some of the items that may be required through that agreement. Having acknowledging that the applicant’s consultant acknowledged that this will be a requirement negotiated through site plan. If committee feels strongly about removing those items, they are flexible at the site plan stage, but we would be okay with removing the items, but in the effort of transparency, that’s why we put them in there. Councilor.

[2:55:29] Thank you for that. And given that information from staff and in recognition of, like I said, this significant 100 million plus private investment in our city, if there isn’t any issue with staff, I would appreciate if somebody on committee would consider moving that amendment to honor that request. And if not, I’m willing to bring it forward at council. Okay, I’ll look at committee members to see if there’s someone that would entertain that. I’ll ask Deputy Mayor Lewis to take the chair, please.

[2:56:10] I will take the chair. I have one on the speaker’s list. I’m assuming Councillor Layman, you’d like me to recognize you. Thank you. So I would like to move an amendment to that effect. So I believe it’s in J if the clerk could confirm to just have the wording changed to implement the recommendations from the path last study to ensure acceptable service levels and leave off the rest and that can be dealt with that site plan. We’ll look to see if there’s a second for that.

[2:56:42] Mayor Morgan, okay, so it’s been moved and seconded. We’ll look for discussion. Councillor Layman. Yeah, so I’m glad that Councillor Stevenson asked that I was intending to ask that as well. My indications from staff is that they’re comfortable with that that we can, it would not affect our site plan discussions not having that specifically prescribed. I think that has been laid out in public now, exactly what that is about. This is an incredible opportunity and development, a huge investment and belief in London.

[2:57:23] And this is a complex development plan. One that, quite frankly, I’m, you know, when they went as far as moving with the hotel and the space at one Calgary in the main building, I thought that might be it. But here we are, where they’re investing hundreds of millions of dollars more, potential, I think at the end of the day, we’ll be reaching up to a billion. You know, when I look at private investment money, making this kind of move, not only London, but in Canada, this is a very, very ambitious project.

[2:58:04] And I applaud them for it. I applaud the primary employer, Carfax, for as was mentioned by the Deputy Mayor for believing in London and keeping his headquarters here and continuing to add to the hundreds of employees, high-tech, great paying jobs, by the way, of employees here. What a fascinating development this is, mix of incredible density and residential restaurant, entertainment, I was just at the factory with my family the other week, what a tremendous facility. This is a, you know, when I look at what could have happened at this particular place with vacated industrial, huge industrial area, decades have been sitting here.

[2:58:55] The families that have invested in this— Point of order. Deserve, I’ll come back. You’re gonna come back respectfully. And there’s no motion that’s coming up in E-Scribe or on the screen, just for what we follow along in the public and follow along. Thank you. Okay, just through the chair, please, both of you. And if the clerk can just indicate when it’s ready in E-Scribe, I know you were taking the language from, so if you can just let us know, or if you want to— Pardon me, through the chair, I just have a question, what is the difference from the wording in the current J?

[2:59:36] Aye, aye, aye. Sorry, maybe staff could help me out. What is the change? I don’t see a difference from what was submitted by City Solutions.

[3:00:10] Ms. McNeely. Thank you, through the chair, I believe it’s J, I-I-I. It would read, implement the recommendations from the path law study to ensure acceptable levels, period. Just to confirm, Clerk, so we’re just removing the piece after the acceptable levels, so it would just be deleting the rest of the clause there and leave it open rather than the 99-year piece.

[3:01:45] My apologies, that’s in E-Scribe, and it’s also projected on the screen. Thank you, Clerk. So I’m gonna deem the point of order that the motion with the amendment was not in E-Scribe being dealt with, Councillor Layman. I’m gonna uphold Councillor Palazzo’s point of order on the amendment, really, rather than the motion as a whole. So if you can bring it back to the amendment, please. Thank you, Presiding Chair. Yeah, I’ll tie it back up. So my point is this, tremendous work on this very unique, very colossal development by staff, but also on the applicant.

[3:02:26] So let’s continue in that spirit by making, this is more of a spirit of the thing. Let’s make things, when you come to London, we will work with you to make things happen, and where we can get things to site planned in a specific case, let’s do that. So that’s my attention behind the motion, thank you. Okay, so that’s been moved and seconded, so we have an amendment on the floor, and now I’m gonna move to a speaker’s list. So Councillor Stevenson, your hand is still up on E-Scribe, so I just wanna make sure that that’s still up.

[3:03:04] I did have Councillor Pribble raise his hand in chambers as well, so I’m gonna go to Councillor Stevenson first as the word Councillor, and then I will come to Councillor Pribble on the amendment. Thank you, I’ll just speak to you. Sorry, hang on Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Plaza. Sorry, I also had my hand up too, just remember, community could be somewhere in your list would be great, thanks. Thank you, sorry, I thought your hand was just up on your point of order, but I will add you to the list. So I will come to you after Councillor Stevenson, trying to still hide the floor with Councillor Layman’s moving the amendment for her.

[3:03:41] So I’m gonna allow the Councillor to speak, and then I’ll come to you, and then I’ll go to the non-members of the committee. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you very much, I’ll be quick. I just wanna thank my colleagues for being willing to move this motion and deal with this committee rather than leave it to council. And again, it’s an honoring gesture, I think, to acknowledge the significant investment that has already been made and the commitment to do even more. And given that there’s very little risk on our end, I’m asking for the committee’s support in honoring the request.

[3:04:17] Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Presoning Officer, and through you to staff, I know there’s things that staff is gonna deal with in-site plan, and I appreciate the transparency focus that we were going for. So as we change this wording on the floor, looking to see if they would need to enter into any kind of agreement, whereas the motion would read that they need to ensure acceptable levels of service. At what point in time are those acceptable levels of service need to be accommodated for?

[3:04:53] Is it just today or is it as we’re gonna be doing certain things and projects that are planned going forward just for transparency of where’s the benchmark now? Ms. O’Hagan. Through the chair. So our emergency communications team will be the ultimate approval that we’re meeting the required acceptable level of services. It would be at this point, if any future development created an issue, they would also have to do the same. We do this typically through an agreement that may require additional equipment be placed on the roof for repeaters, as well as any access requirements through lease agreement.

[3:05:37] So those are the types of agreements in addition to the development agreement we would be working through. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, and just to follow up, as this was normally done at no cost into the satisfaction of the city, would that still hold true with the change in morning? Ms. O’Hagan. Through the chair. It would be part of the site plan negotiations for costing and if there’s a sharing component or if the city would be looking for it to be covered by the developer.

[3:06:11] Councillor Palosa. Thank you. And I know we’re getting a little bit into the weeds here. Recognizing the original motion said like at no cost of the city, if something through site plan changes, it would be a larger financial burden or concern to come back. Would that be triggered in committee and council be updated or would staff implement anything and make those decisions on our behalf? Thank you for the question, Madam Councillor, and through the chair. I don’t have an answer to that question right now, but I’d be happy to come back with an answer before council.

[3:06:52] Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate the gesture and spirit of what we’re trying to do, but just making sure that we don’t accidentally hold a hand over authority or have decision-making actually comes back and costs us unexpected costs or delays or not having the proper access to infrastructure. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. I’ll hold myself for any other members of committee before I go to non-committee members, seeing any hands up at the moment. So I’m going to go now to Councillor Pribble on the amendment, no, for the main motion.

[3:07:31] Any other speakers on the amendment? Seeing none, since I don’t have a vice vice chair to pass the chair to you while I’m just going to offer quick comments, I won’t be supporting the amendment because I think when we take out the at no cost to the city piece, it creates some questions. If it was a matter of the number of years, I might be more amenable to supporting it, but I am not prepared to absorb costs.

[3:08:04] When I feel on this development, we are already being generous in terms of finding ways to help move this forward. So I won’t support the amendment. I would have been open to something that just removed the 99 years. Hopefully in 99 years, we have better technology anyway. But I mean, 99 years ago, most of us weren’t driving cars. We were driving horse and buggy. So hopefully technology improves, but I’m not prepared to remove the piece that says at no cost to the city, so I can’t support this amendment.

[3:08:40] So that’s my comments to my colleagues on committee. And I’ll just look to see one more time if there’s any other speakers. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you through you to staff. What kind of a cost are we looking at here? Just as a ballpark estimator, we have thousands or millions. We’ll see if staff can give us a ballpark. I’m not sure if they have that handy Mizzo Hagen or any of the team that wants to jump in on this one.

[3:09:18] Through the chair, every situation where path loss is addressed is different and unique. So we don’t know those exact costs yet. They could range in the hundred of thousands of dollars. Thank you, Mizzo Hagen, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. As a follow up, is that a one-time charge or is that the annual amount? Mizzo Hagen. Yeah, as I said, everything will be unique, but in past instances, we require them to maintain levels of service while under construction.

[3:09:57] Also, any additional equipment. So that would be the main cost would be additional equipment. And then ongoing, there would be a lease agreement component for access. Again, we don’t have anything concrete at this point of what is specifically required for the costing, but I think the majority is just a one-time cost. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. So I’ll just say again, that this development is going to bring millions of dollars to the city in various different ways.

[3:10:30] There’s already been a substantial investment into our city. I think we’re talking about really small amount here, that we can trust that negotiations will be fair and honorable and that we don’t need to dictate anything at this stage. So I’m still asking for the committee support on this. If it doesn’t pass here, I will be pulling it at council to see if we can get support to honor this investor in our city, especially given the small dollars we’re talking about here.

[3:11:01] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. So I remember seeing a similar agreement like this when it came to other communications structures that we’ve had in the past, even on city and like ABC properties, for instance. I’m just wondering, the lease agreement to me reads almost like an easement like it’s so that we have access from an ongoing perspective.

[3:11:38] I can’t see us wanting to risk that by removing the language. So I’m a little bit concerned that maybe we need to understand the risks a little bit more at this time. I’m wondering if that can be explained to us here or if we need to go on camera. Well, let’s go to staff, Ms. O’Hagan, do you wanna start? And if you have to pass it off to anyone else, go ahead. Sure, I’ll start and others can add.

[3:12:15] So the process would be through the site plan approval. The city identifies what we require to grant site plan approval and that would be the mechanism where we would require an additional agreement or any other components of the path loss. And from the planning perspective, it could result in appeal if we do not grant site plan approval because we come to an impasse where we can’t agree on what those provisions would be.

[3:12:50] Councilwoman. Thank you. And then for a long-term agreement, can you comment on the risk? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, just to add maybe a bit of context to this. So all these items are be requested items for consideration. So it could still be the solution to have what we’re suggesting here. This is just opening up maybe all their alternative options. And I think that’s what the, my understanding of what I’ve heard today from the applicant that they’re looking for is just to know that there might be more than one opportunity.

[3:13:29] So this would still allow us if we think and feel that the only way to secure this ability to be a lover, have our emergency services functioning is to have this type of arrangement and we would still move forward in that way. But if there is other opportunities or different options that working with our community partners, as well as on this communication aspect, if we feel that that’s most appropriate, then we will go with whichever option we think is appropriate. So this doesn’t necessarily preclude us from doing that, but it opens up some other options for us as well in those negotiations.

[3:14:05] Councilor. Thank you and through you. So since we’re on the amendment, I won’t speak to the main motion in my support of that. But I will say when it comes to just the amendment, my concern is that I want to signal that this is an important piece of equipment that we need. We need the ongoing access to be able to ensure safety in our community and I want to make sure that that’s paramount in this discussion.

[3:14:38] I think that the applicants in no way, shape or form, want to hinder that in any way. So I think this is something that if it went through the normal slight plan process would be, be able to be adjusted and accommodated for, the costs seem quite minimal when it comes to the overall scale of this development. And I think it’s entirely negotiable through the site plan process. So I wouldn’t support this at committee. I won’t be supporting this at council, but thank you.

[3:15:13] Thank you, Councilor Robin. So that exhausts my speaker’s list on the amendment, final call and seeing none, I’m gonna ask Councilor, I’m gonna ask the clerk, I’m gonna ask Councilor Layman, but I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote, please. Willing the vote, the motion failed two to four.

[3:15:49] Okay, so we return to the main motion. I’ll return the chair to Councilor Layman. I will note that we have Councilor Preble and Councilor McAllister and Councilor Robin in that order on the list for the main motion. Thank you, and I’ll take the chair back and then we’ll go to Councilor Preble. On the main motion. Yes, it is on the main motion. I just wanna say that what a magnificent project this is for our city, it’s a true game changer in the most positive way.

[3:16:24] We are all very proud and grateful for the investment and division of Leech’s family, McLaughlin’s family, late Archie Leech, because they’re determination to build this honestly from nothing, or actually from not from nothing, from minus something to such a magnificent project, we are all very proud of it. Thank you, thank you to both of them to Carfax for providing such great employment opportunities to Londoners at the Council. I will be very big yes for this project. Thank you.

[3:16:57] Thank you, I’ll go to Councilor McAllister. Thank you, and through the chair, appreciate the chance to speak to this. As many have said, I think this is one of those visionary projects. I don’t get to see come our way very often. I’ve been very impressed in terms of the site development to date. I think many Londoners are anxiously awaiting the rest of the site to be developed. I don’t know if the rest of you get it, but I’ve constantly asked about demolishing the McCormick factor, you’re doing something with it, so I think we’ll all breathe the sire early when we can see that site redeveloped.

[3:17:33] I, again, I look forward to seeing it. This will eventually be in Ward 1, so, you know, welcome, it’s a great development. I think it’s brought a lot to the community, and I know everyone will appreciate when this work is done. It’ll bring a lot of people to the community. It already offers a lot of sites, a lot of amenities in the area. I know some people often compare it to the Distillery District. I like to call it the Brewery District, considering how many small breweries we have in the area, but it’s definitely one of those projects, which I think Londoners have already come to embrace, and I seriously look forward to seeing what more it can bring to our city.

[3:18:13] Thank you. Councilor Robin. Thank you. My two colleagues summed that up quite well, so I will just say, again, thank you to the developers on this particular proposal, the planners and our staff. This was quite a hefty report, and very well planned and put together, so I want to thank them for that, for making it easier for us to digest such a comprehensive package. What I like about this is how we talk about a visionary piece of development.

[3:18:48] That mixed-use component that is being proposed in this particular development. The fact that we’re involving large-scale industries that want to see their employees on site, that want to see them have a vibrancy in their workplace, I think is going to be, it’s going to attract other businesses to want to do the same thing, so thank you for that in this proposal. Thank you, I’ll go to Councilor Stevenson. Thank you very much, you know, no doubt, everyone’s excited about this project, and grateful to the families that are willing to invest in our city like this.

[3:19:31] You know, I hear mention of the McCormick property, and I’ll just remind my colleagues that we hadn’t quite had the election yet when I sat and watched the Planning Committee, and everyone was excited about the McCormick development, and the committee did not give the developer everything that they wanted. It was a small little issue about the parkette, and everyone thought that was going to continue to go on, and it didn’t, and, you know, hindsight’s 2020 maybe, but, you know, had the committee given the developer everything they wanted, would we have something beautiful there?

[3:20:05] I don’t know, I’m not in any way suggesting that this Kellogg’s development is at risk, but I am a little disappointed that we have somebody investing this kind of dollar figure, and this kind of commitment to our city, and, you know, the amendment didn’t pass, and we’re not willing to honor them in that way. But I’ll just say that’s still glad to have this. I’m sure this part is going to pass, and I’ll be speaking with my colleagues between now and Council to see if we can make this a little bit easier. I find that too many of these developments, we say thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, but we’re gonna leave you with a little bit of a sour taste, and I wish things could be different, and hopefully, by Council, they will be, and thanks for everyone’s support on this.

[3:20:52] I’ll look for other speakers. Council proposal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m not sure when the language of honoring certain applications came into our purview. I look at it through planning applications and staff recommendations and government regulations, and always happy to meet with developers behind the scenes to find out what their needs are, how to get to yes, and if it’s a no, why’s it a no, and can we mitigate it in any ways? Was really excited for this application, was really excited for the vision that was pitched years ago of what that space could be.

[3:21:28] My dad used to work in that building when it was a serial factory. Nice at this now, ‘cause they laid ‘em off back in the day in the recession, so glad to have some good memories coming back from it, and as Deputy Mayor Lewis and I are on the tourism board, what a great asset in the city, what a revitalization of an area, transformative buildings, and so much that could be done with so much potential. I’m really grateful that we’re seeing that. As for that minor amendment, if it’s the amount of years that are gonna outlive us all, happy to adjust that and have some conversations there, but overall, just thank you for all the partners that saw what London could be, what this area of the city could be, and bringing this to London.

[3:22:13] It’s a flagship area, and we’re happy to showcase it as we bring conferences and other things to town, and residents are proud of their areas, so just thank you and happy to have any conversations offline as needed, I’m always available. Thank you. Look for other speakers. We have motion moved and seconded. Seeing no other speakers, I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[3:22:53] So that concludes our scheduled items. We will be going on to the one item and items for direction, and then we will be going on to the consent item that was pulled earlier in the afternoon. So moving on to 4.1, this is regarding the Hyde Park BIA expansion. Ms. Zabakowski has requested a delegation status, so we’ll look for a motion to do to allow that.

[3:23:35] Councilor Palos is seconded by Councilor Cudi, and we will call that. Hold on, we’re voting. We have a vote to be for you. I’m assuming you’re going to be allowed to, and let’s just go through the procedure. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, now you’re on, you have five minutes. Please go ahead. Here we go, overly anxious. (laughing) Good afternoon to the Chair and Council, members that are here today.

[3:24:08] As you know, I’m Donna Zabakowski, CEO and General Manager of the Hyde Park BIA. Thank you again for your time and consideration of our BIA boundary expansion request. I think that what I would most like to do is to acknowledge and address the low-server responses that we have seen and the interpretations that have been made in that businesses are not interested in being part of the Hyde Park BIA boundary expansion, when in fact our conversations with businesses have said otherwise.

[3:24:42] While legislation requires that proper notice to be provided to potential members, the legislation does not require confirmation of receipt or that certain engagement levels be met. Despite this, the Hyde Park BIA has facilitated two additional engagement periods, beyond what is expected in the Municipal Act, and has continued to commit to a transparent and fair process. In fact, there were a total of three grounds of one-on-one engagement exercises that also included surveys. The first was conducted by ourselves during the summer of 2024.

[3:25:17] We visited with approximately 120 businesses, which resulted in enough interest to support our first request to PEC and Council in October 2024 to proceed with a boundary expansion in all four notes. Of those businesses, 29% were interested or very interested in being part of the BIA with another 39% being open with requests for more information. After further council direction, the second and third engagements were conducted by the city and the Hyde Park BIA together, each with mailing correspondences and the opportunity for potential members to attend two informational open houses led by the Hyde Park BIA with city administrative support.

[3:26:01] During these engagements, and over the past year, we have distributed detailed information that was included in your packages so that you can see to the businesses that included a very detailed brochure specific to the boundary expansion from the Hyde Park BIA, a letter from the city and a letter from the Hyde Park BIA. The surveys, both hard copies and with a QR code link to encourage online completion, online resources at the BIA website that answers questions and provides even more detail of what the BIA does.

[3:26:34] All accompanied with resources in various forms, addressing potential impacts, including financial. In addition to all of the touch points we provided, eligible persons had two engagement sessions with both the Hyde Park BIA and city involvement where they were invited to come and express their concerns and their views. The results of the surveys did reflect a low response rate, which we think could be attributed to a few factors. From experience, we know that businesses tend to not respond to surveys or even attend our AGM, unless something is really wrong.

[3:27:10] And even with compelling literature and in-person visits and in the third round, we even introduced incentives for completing the surveys in our attempt to increase the responses. The low engagement continued, which we could believe could also be reflective of survey fatigue. Our experience was that the majority of businesses that were personally visited were either in favor of or opened the idea being part of the Hyde Park BIA. Therefore, we don’t believe that low response equates to opposition. So while a majority of eligible persons did not respond to the surveys, this could suggest a passive acceptance of the expansion rather than an active resistance.

[3:27:51] And last, while the surveys were directed towards voting members, property owners and tenants, we weren’t actually able to identify, truly to verify who the responses came in from. For us, the purpose of the business engagement was to gauge the temperature and desire or not for a BIA. We listened, which did result in the Hyde Park BIA removing the nodes located at Wonderland South and Oxford Street West on our own accord. As we felt that we were not receiving the same positive overall responses as we were in the other nodes.

[3:28:30] We are catalysts for civic improvement and collectively outside of the municipal residential property tax levy. We are significant contributors to the city’s economy while positively impacting the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Our impacts from visual community improvements to activations, work to help towards the creation of meaningful jobs in this corner of the city. The expansion supports city-wide economic development, placemaking and corridor enhancement goals as we continue to experience exponential growth in the northwest of the city.

[3:29:07] More specifically, new members will benefit from Hyde Park BIA activities that include things such as beautification, hanging baskets, metal banners, et cetera, promotional program investments that currently include our growing CTB ad program, the bus shelter ad program with potential of our adding a shelter at Hyde Park South, free professional business, future Friday videos, scavenger hunts with our most recent one, attracting patrons as far as wealth to the west and wealth to the east and Windsor to the west. We also run a highly successful Hyde Park dollar program and incentive program and are currently working on a scholarship award program that youth of Hyde Park BIA of eligible families entering post-secondary education will be able to apply for.

[3:29:52] We are also behind strongly established or behind some strongly established and growing festivals and events that include things such as the Christmas events with focus on Northwest London businesses and Pondfest and much more. As substantiated by our letters of support that were in your packages, we are a highly functioning BIA with a demonstrated commitment to improve local business supports, street state escape enhancements and promote economic development in this expansion area. In summary, we believe we did actually experience high engagement rates, but we did have low survey response rates, which in part we did predict.

[3:30:37] We are respectfully requesting approval for civic administration to take the necessary steps to expand the existing Hyde Park BIA boundaries as supported in the report of the planning environment committee from planning and development, housing and community growth, day to June 10th. The motion would allow us to proceed under the Municipal Act for further prescribed 60 day objection period, managed by the city clerk that provides eligible persons property owners and tenants a formal and transparent opportunity to oppose the expansion should no more than 33% oppose.

[3:31:13] It would allow us to come back to pack and counsel for approval or further direction. And that is all I have for now. Thank you so much for your consideration. Thank you. At this point, I’d like to hand the chair over to the deputy mayor. - I will take the chair and I will recognize Councillor Layman.

[3:31:47] Thank you. So I have a few questions for staff. I just want to confirm a few things. If we were to go ahead to the next step here. First of all, if the number of no’s are received that he is equal to a third of the people I’ll reach out to, it automatically doesn’t go through, is that correct? Through you, chair, Mr. McCauley.

[3:32:21] Thank you and through the chair, that is correct. Okay, the second question I have through chair, the notice will go out which will indicate time frame of when we need to hear back of whether you’re in favorite or you’re not in favor of it. The results will be brought back to pack. It doesn’t automatically mean that this goes through. The results will be brought back to pack. At that time, we would determine whether we would recommend to council that this expansion be allowed to go.

[3:33:01] Is that correct, Mr. McCauley? Thank you and through the chair. Under the municipal act, what you’ve stated is correct. We would be entering into a 60 day objection period. We would count those objections. We would report that back to planning an environment committee and then that recommendation would be in front of council to make a decision as to whether to formally pass the bylaw to expand the BA. Okay, thank you and through you chair, the communication that goes out to members and prospective members, with that communication clearly state, one, their property tax impact.

[3:33:41] It’s levy, but it’s paid for with their property tax. Two, well, to explicitly say how it’s collected, which would be included in their property tax. And three, who would determine that levy? It is the board of the BIA approved by council, I believe. But would those things be clearly stated in the communication that goes out to members and prospective members through your chair?

[3:34:17] Mr. McCauley. Thank you and through the chair. We cannot provide a specific amount that a business or a property owner will pay because we need to wait for the actual BIA budget to be approved by council. And we would need to know whether or not the boundary has taken place as the assessment data collected from the eligible properties would be a part of that calculation, which would then roll into the levy to be raised from the eligible properties, which would then be applied to the property owner.

[3:34:50] Subsequent to that process, the property owner would then have certain lease agreements with each individual tenant, and we are not privy to those agreements. So what we have done is we can provide an estimate based on what existing businesses have paid in the current Hyde Park BIA. That is data provided by the Hyde Park BIA has indicated that it is between $502,000 per business. But again, it’s very difficult for us to actually determine that. If a property owner is concerned at any time throughout the process, we are able to speak with a property owner and provide some further certainty on what they might be expecting.

[3:35:29] But until the 2026 budget is approved and the 2026, and we’ve determined whether or not a boundary has occurred, I can’t provide a specific number. So Councilor, I’ve entertained a couple of specific questions to staff, but I don’t actually have a motion on the floor yet. I presume you hand it over the chair to put a motion on the floor. So I’m gonna look to you to put a motion on the floor before we proceed with any more questions or comments. Fair enough. So the clerk has a motion that I would like to put on the floor, which essentially is to proceed to the next step.

[3:36:05] So I’ll let the clerk handle that. It’s in the e-scribe now. We just need a seconder. Do we have a seconder for that? Councilor Cuddy. So let’s move in seconded. Councilor Layman, I’ll come back to you now to thank you.

[3:36:39] Thank you. So I appreciate the answers from staff. Those are my concerns that people be a notified, b, they understand that there’s a financial component to this, that’s just not, you know, administrative thing. It’s very important that they do that. And they have an opportunity to, you know, express or object essentially, but no. So with those, with that communication going out, I’m confident that I would have hoped for more response, quite frankly.

[3:37:13] But when it last came to PAC, I referred it back or asked for it to be referred back with supportive committee to give the opportunity for the BIA to reach out again. So I’m confident that that business has had the opportunity to find out about this. With the additional communication again, the final communication coming from the city, I also plan to augment that with my personal communication from my office to commercial property owners in my ward, and my ward is predominantly in my ward where this expansion is happening.

[3:37:48] Again, to make it clear that I need to hear no, because if they don’t respond, then it’s presumed yes. But I’m confident that there’s enough information out there to proceed to the next step. Now that being said, I’m not giving my okay or my vote. When it comes back, I’ll see what the results are. And go from there and weigh it to see how many responded, how many objected to it, and what the feedback is before we look at a final conclusion there.

[3:38:24] So I asked for your support from the committee to proceed to the next step. Thanks, Chair. Looking for other speakers, Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I also appreciate and just want to recognize how long and patient you’ve been waiting for this point in the meeting. I had concerns last time and I could say those concerns as we spoke about prior PEC still remain. By no means is it a reflection to the good work the BIA is doing, those letters were clear in support regardless if they were independent or part of a chain of just, they felt like they had community in support.

[3:39:07] And you’re clearly having an impact with those and they appreciate it. My concern lies still with the low response rate and the response rates we’re getting are still nose. My concern also extends into if I don’t hear from you, I’m going to imply consent. I have concern with that as that doesn’t, isn’t how we operate other city policies if we don’t have a response back is just not weighted in the decision making. Also, through you to staff, what would the timing of this be? Should it move forward and pass a committee and council for this engagement?

[3:39:43] Thank you and through the Chair. We would be looking to launch it relatively quick on an accelerated schedule. We do have a 60 day period that we do need to respond within as per the Municipal Act. We are trying to fit this into this calendar year so that we can get it back in front of planning and environment committee by the end of the year noting that the Hyde Park business improvement area needs to make some decisions as to what budget they’re bringing forward for the 2026 year. And then there are other municipal teams that are awaiting our progress on this file. Councilor Palosa.

[3:40:18] Thank you. I appreciate knowing the timelines is one, the PEC committee changes potential composition as of December 1st. Secondly, we’re running into budget fun coming into the end of the year and we’ll have better numbers that we’re running with. And then also, as it turns into next year, we’re entering an election cycle ourselves in mindful of campaigning versus advocating for city business as we try. We’re both at the same time ‘cause we don’t get a leave of absence from work to do such things. To Councillor Lehman’s question, I know you can’t predict into the future what the next budget update would be, but would you consider doing a rough information to those businesses should this pass and go forward of what the current rate is and what the dollar value would be on average just to help them make an informed decision.

[3:41:09] And I believe this information come from the city. This would be a city process to send it out of just with that, ‘cause it’s us collecting information at this point going forward for the next step, I believe, of just what our information would look like and could we give them an idea of the potential current tax levy and what the current rate would be of a financial impact? Estimates and ranges, not— Thank you, through the chair.

[3:41:41] Based on the current levy rate that the Hyde Park is working with in 2025, we can provide some communications with regards to different ranges that could be applied to a property based on their assessed value. We can also provide the information that the Hyde Park has provided us with regards to what their current membership pays as a levy rate. Again, what we can’t provide is if there are any leasing agreements between actual business tenants with the property owner and what those amounts might look like in that flow down process.

[3:42:18] Councillor. Thank you, I appreciate that. Still not supportive, which is just my prerogative. I appreciate what the BA is doing and the engagement and impact you’re having just doesn’t seem to be a big uptake and/or support when we do have a response right now. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. Just gonna check to see if any committee members wanna speak. I have a list of non-committee members seeing no one else on committee with their hand up. I am going to go to Councillor Pribble.

[3:42:53] You’re next on the list. I also have Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Robin. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Chair. And I’m sure you actually do have a question for to Ms. Pacowski and the question is, because last time you were here, when we asked if there was a certain amount, potential amount to be charged the levy, you said that there was a certain formula that was sent or communicated to the owners. Could you please clarify that? I will go to Ms. Pacowski if she can provide some insight.

[3:43:30] So I might defer to Mike on this. I don’t have the paperwork in front of me, but the formula for working out one potential BIAA levy against their assessed value was included in all of the communications, but I don’t have that formula with me. But there was a formula that was provided. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. And thank you for that. I wasn’t actually looking for the exact formula. I was looking that there was one in place so the information was there.

[3:44:02] So now I’m just gonna thank you for adjusting the boundary. This makes much more sense to me. This looks more like a BIAA before we had one, it was kind of more of an island for me. So this makes more sense to me. And I will be very much supportive to go to the next step to move it forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I apologize if this is in the report and I didn’t see it, but is there the option to make it an opt-in percentage rather than assuming that no response is a yes?

[3:44:44] So I’m just gonna use this opportunity to, ‘cause Councillor Clowser referenced the assumed yes as well. This was answered the last time it was before us. I will go to staff, Councillor Stevenson, to provide that answer. But it is governed actually by the Municipal Act. It’s not a local policy, it’s a provincial policy. Mr. McCauley, can you just provide a little detail on that? Thank you, and through the chair, that is correct. The process to expand a business improvement area is legislated within the Municipal Act. We do not have a policy or procedure that supersedes that.

[3:45:20] If Council would wish to explore that avenue, the best approach I think would be for us to come back with a recommendation on what that might look like. We haven’t done that work. I don’t know. Certainly we would want Council input as to what sort of threshold they would be looking at in terms of numbers of eligible property owners, and tenants opting into a process like this. And it’s really not something that we have explored before in this process. Councillor Stevenson. Yeah, thank you for that.

[3:45:52] I’m gonna look into it more. I do think that this is a long-term commitment, a financial one that will impact property owners and potentially their tenants at a time when things are really tough, really tight. And business owners and property owners, they tend to be really busy, sometimes not checking the mail, they’re busy doing other things. So I feel uncomfortable. We don’t put speed bumps down without getting 50%. And we’ve got other BIA’s that also want to do expansions. And I think it might serve us to do something that supersedes that and ensures that we have a certain percentage that have actively chosen in.

[3:46:37] It also gets the BIA doing the legwork required that we’ve got that buy-in rather than need assumptions and we have to deal with them and take menses. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. I have Councillor Ramen next. Thank you. And through you, I know Mr. McCauley has had his hand up. I don’t know if he wants to respond first before I launch into a whole other thing. Thank you and through the chair. I just to clarify, we would still have to default to the municipal act process. And that would be to be the governing piece of legislation at the end of the day that council would have to base its decision on.

[3:47:13] However, in basing that decision on, we could have some sort of further consultation as we’ve done similar to that in making your decision when we do come back with the bylaw. I’m not sure if legal has anything to add on that though. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. No, I think that that makes sense to me. The process set out in the municipal act is a minimum process, meaning that if one third of the business tenants and the businesses in the area say we don’t want to do this, then that’s the process. If council wanted to add something on top of that by bylaw, then I suppose that could be done.

[3:47:52] But the municipal act is the minimum requirement. Mr. Rollman. Thank you and through you actually, that’s very helpful. So I just wanted to start when I am currently the member of council that’s on the Hyde Park BIA. I represent the ward where the majority of the BIA exists right now. And the expansion, although a lot of it is concentrated in key six, there is expansion in key five as well that’s been identified, which is within ward seven.

[3:48:28] I will say that I appreciate the work that the BIA has done to engage with residents, sorry, with businesses in the area. They’ve done a lot with social media media, as well as the engagement sessions. No Councillor Lehman and I attended one of those this summer as well as city staff. So thank you for your ongoing participation in this process as well. I will say that I think the BIA has done everything it can to try to raise the attention to this matter in the area. And I do think it’s going to be a challenge.

[3:49:06] I appreciate that you kind of went first, ‘cause I know there are a number of BIA’s that are also interested. And so I appreciate that we’re kind of learning through this experience. And I hear my colleagues quite clearly as well, that this is a challenging process in terms of the overall governing process from the provincial side of this, as well as what we would like to see in place, maybe for some sort of a higher threshold or something of that sort in order to really truly understand what we’re hearing from business owners. I think from that perspective, I just wanted to ask a couple of questions.

[3:49:44] My first question just in terms of, I know initially we mailed out to 574 businesses. And then in our second mailing, we did it to Keith five and six, so that was about 124 businesses. How many businesses in total would be able to participate in the vote? Thank you and through the chair, when we would do the objection period as per theming us a plaque, it contains not only those in the proposed expansion area, but also in the existing Hyde Park BIA area.

[3:50:19] We are gonna work with the Hyde Park BIA to get an updated list as to current businesses, knowing that business is open and closed on a weekly basis. However, we are estimating that there’s approximately 509 tenants and property owners within the existing area, and then an additional 114 tenants and property owners in the expansion area, Councilor. Thank you and through you. So conceivably everyone in the new area could technically vote no, and this could still pass. Mr. McCauley.

[3:50:55] Thank you and through the chair, conceivably yes, Council would have that option to determine when we report back on how they would like to proceed. Council is only not permitted to pass the bylaw when we reach that 1/3 threshold. As we have identified approximately 114 tenants and property owners, and we out of an eligible 623 members who have the ability to object, that is correct. Your statement is correct, Councilor. Thank you and through you.

[3:51:30] So the reason I just want everyone to be clear on the math on this and where we’re headed with this conversation, in the report back, will we have a breakdown of where the responses came from and how many responses were received from each part of the existing as well as key five and key six. Mr. McCauley, Mr. Mathers. Through the chair. So I just want there’s been a lot of discussion about different ways to be able to present this information of different mechanisms for it.

[3:52:07] And I think one of the things that we can do is be able to provide that analysis in this report. So breaking down by the area of the existing and the new and what percentage of people had those votes and then also looking at being able to just be able to take a look at the percentage that actually said yes versus no, so that you can see all that information in a single report ‘cause at the end of the day, it will be up to committee and council to decide whether they want to proceed. I think what we can do that could be very helpful is to be able to provide you with that analysis within the report so then you can make the decisions and to be able to move forward or not.

[3:52:46] So we absolutely will break that out by those areas and look at some other ways to do that analysis and allow you to make that decision coming forward. Councilor. Thank you and just to clarify, Mr. Mathers, would we actually have the names of the businesses or would we just have the area by which they’re in? Mr. Mathers, through the chair. So we can’t share the actual names of the businesses but we will aggregate it by the area. And because the areas are fairly large, we don’t have a concern from a privacy perspective as long as we keep the areas fairly large.

[3:53:25] Councilor. Thank you. How about square footage? Mr. Mathers. To the chair, that wouldn’t be a problem if square footage is something that’s a waiting factor that you’d like to consider than a square footage that would be something we could do. Okay, thank you. Again, I’m just looking for my colleagues to have as much information as possible as we go through this process. I am supportive of us moving on to the next step as well so that we have the opportunity to have the full engagement.

[3:54:02] Similar to Councillor Lehman, I will look to engage with all the businesses in key five of my ward as well as look to engage with those that are in the existing BIA already. Part of the concern I do have around key five as well is that it is also part of the urban growth boundary expansion area that is also being communicated to and asked to be part of the get involved at the exact same time. And so I’m not sure if they understand the difference as to what the city is coming to them for at this point because we’re talking about a BIA expansion and urban growth boundary expansion all around and one is residential for growth and the other one is for business growth.

[3:54:51] So it’s a lot of information all at once. So I will take that time to engage, to try to clarify that messaging in that time period. Again, I just want to thank the BIA and city staff for all the work that they’ve done so far. Thank you, Councillor Raman and a lot of information at once is our daily existence as well as staffs so they’ll get a flavor for that. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. I just want to thank Councillor Raman for her questions. They were quite helpful.

[3:55:26] And I want to thank Councillor Lehman for bringing forward this motion to proceed forward with the process. We’re not making decisions here today on should we or shouldn’t we expand the boundary? I think we need to get the feedback and I think it’s the transparency that I’m looking for for engaging again with the community. It’s a 60-day objection period. We know we need to get, if we get over 33%, it’s not going to go forward.

[3:56:00] But I am looking for feedback. So I can’t make a decision. And we’ve heard staff are going to be able to give us some more detailed information. We’ve heard that there could be further consultation and we as a council will eventually make the decision when we get all this information back. So I would encourage the committee to support the recommendation going through. I do want to make a quick comment on surveys though, just because I’ve gone through two surveys in the past two months on traffic calming, for instance, where residents are not forwarding their surveys and we do need that data at least 50% to get the information that we need.

[3:56:46] And when I go door knocking, I find it’s sitting at the bottom of the pile on the kitchen counter and it is still important to that resident. And I’m not sure when we do these surveys how important the community thinks of how important they are, that we need that information. So I’m not surprised with the low turnout and responses, but I think that feedback is vital to me to make a decision here.

[3:57:23] So thank you for bringing forward the motion. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Let us ask our speakers list, final call. Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Think about the motion carries four to one. Thank you colleagues.

[3:57:58] So that concludes that item. We will move now to our deferred matters from the beginning of the meeting and I will turn the chair back to Councillor Layman. Thank you, Deputy Mayor for filling in for me on that one. So we pulled a consent item 2.4 regarding updating the program guidelines for the transit oriented development community improvement plan. So I’m just going to put that on the floor and the committee can receive it or they can go from there.

[3:58:35] So I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So through you, Councillor Frank provided a draft motion in our communication. In addition to receiving the communication, I’m prepared to put that on the floor and then I’ll yield to Councillor Frank to speak to it first. I’ll speak to it afterwards, but I will, Chair, ask that. So it’s a three part motion and I would ask that, so we have one, two A and B and three. I’d ask that two A and two B be called separately because I’m supportive of one and not supportive of the other.

[3:59:16] But I’m still prepared to put the motion on the floor so we can have the discussion. Okay, so I’ll ask the clerk if that has been updated to you, Chair. It has, so if you refresh your greens and now that we can have a chance to read it, I’ll look for a seconder for that. Councillor Cudi has indicated is second motion. So as your member of committee, Deputy Mayor, I’ll give you the first crack at it.

[3:59:54] Well, while I will speak to it, I’m actually going to yield and allow the Councillor Frank to speak first if she’d like to since it was her motion. So I’m happy to go after she’s had a chance to speak. Okay, okay, Councillor Frank, we’ll turn it over to you. Thank you and I really appreciate getting this on the floor. I was very excited to see this evaluation scheme as I saw an opportunity for us to support green building measures without requiring them or making them mandatory in any way with this measure, if it is approved, it would be adding essentially if a developer is going through and they have some green measures, they get some extra points because that’s something that we want to work towards.

[4:00:38] It’s part of our climate emergency action plan. It’s part of the city strategic plan. We want to make sure that the buildings are building now, we’ll be able to last well into the future and ideally not have as many impacts on the environment. And they have tangible benefits to the residents. There’s a reduced utility cost. So if it’s a condo or if it’s a rental property, there are reduced utility costs and reduced long-term operating costs, healthier indoor air quality. So there are many additional benefits to moving in this direction. I also think that we’re setting clear expectations that the money that we use, this is half money, which is federal money, but we’re able to allocate it through this program in many different ways.

[4:01:18] But I think that we are setting the expectation that when we incentivize development, we want a clear return of benefits, not just to the developer and of course not just units, which are amazing and are definitely things that we’re looking for, but we’re also looking for these benefits to the community and to the environment. It doesn’t preclude any developer from applying. It’s simply ranking applications and those who are going to the added effort of reducing emissions or adding more green measures will be recognized for that additional effort. Many developers I talked to are already heading in that direction, so this won’t be a problem for them. But I think when we have the opportunity to provide a carrot, we should make it a great carrot.

[4:01:55] And I think that adding some of these green measures will improve that. Additionally, in my submission, I did add a slightly higher waiting score if it’s a nonprofit developer that has a proven track record of developing housing. There already was a qualification in that section just that if you’re a developer that has, whether you’re nonprofit or for-profit, if you have a proven track record, you get extra points. I do think again, given the extra community benefits that nonprofit developers generally provide, which is almost either their entire building is affordable, if not the vast majority of it, and more deeply affordable often than the for-profit developers, I saw that being a good opportunity for us to further recognize the hard work that is going on within that, again, not taking away from anyone, just saying if we’re going to be handing out money, let’s recognize where the benefit lies.

[4:02:47] So again, I appreciate getting this on the floor. I will support all of it at council. And as an FYI does have to come back to a future PAC meeting just because staff would have to go through and make some adjustments, but that is essentially what I’m hoping for. So thank you, and thank you to staff for helping me work through this process. I kind of just gave them my idea and then they helped refine it. So I appreciate their support. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. So happy to jump in here, put this on the floor and be semi-supportive.

[4:03:22] I think that there is definitely opportunity to put in some bonus points for green development measures being included in projects. Unlike a zoning application change where Bill 17 doesn’t allow us to consider or hold up things beyond the Ontario building code, this is an incentive program. It’s not a zoning bylaw amendment. And so I think we are well within our purview to implement that. The piece that I’m not going to support is differentiating between the non-profits and the for-profit developers.

[4:03:55] I think we need to recognize that anybody who’s building is bringing a benefit to the community. I will also say that in working through some of the various, trying to say this diplomatically complicated, layered, multi-layered applications that we’ve had in some respects around the city, I’ve actually found sometimes our private sector developers are they take the incentive that’s offered or the bonusing in past terminology that was offered and they do it.

[4:04:33] And I have found some, and again, not painting everyone with the same brush, but I have found some, not for-profit developers in some cases, keep coming back. We need a little more, we need a little more, we need a little more because our pro forma has changed, our fundraising isn’t where it is. We had some unexpected complications, even though those things happen to everybody. To me, I don’t want to start differentiating because we need housing across the spectrum. We do need affordable housing.

[4:05:05] There’s already in the chart proposed points for affordable housing units. So for me, I’m really not hung up on who’s doing the building for points. I’m the points are there for the number of units that are affordable or the percentage of units that are affordable. And so I’m okay with, you know, even with the barrier free and stuff like that, there’s points for those various things. I don’t want to start to discriminate though on who should or shouldn’t apply for incentives to build ‘cause I want as many folks building as we can.

[4:05:42] But I do think that the green measures that Councilor Frank is proposing do have some value in this process. So I’m happy to have staff take a second. Look at this with the recommendations that are in the motion. As I said, I won’t support to, sorry, be I now as it’s written in eScribe, but I will support BII. Okay, I’ll look for other comments or questions from committee members who are visiting Councilors.

[4:06:26] I’ll just ask the deputy mayor to take the chair so I can make a brief comment. I will actually pass the chair to Councilor Palosa ‘cause I’ve got the motion on the floor, so. Okay, Councilor Palosa, would you take the chair please? And I’d like to speak to this. I recognize Councilor Lehman and I am timing. So please go ahead. Yeah, so briefly, I agree with the comments made. I know this is not about who builds the houses. We want to get the housing built. As far as the green development measures, I don’t mind some marks for there as long as it’s not onerous and overweighted because I’m also aware that adding those things that increase the cost of the house, which increases the cost of the end user.

[4:07:14] So, but I don’t mind some measure to be encouraged, I guess, for developments to recognize our green potential. So that’s just, I’ll support it. I’ll support to AB, BII, and C. Thank you, I’ll hand the chair back over to you. Thank you. We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll look for any further comments or questions before I call the vote.

[4:07:48] And I’ll be calling the vote and correct me, Clerk, if I’m wrong, we’ll call, let’s call A and C together, if we can. And then we will call B separately, B-I and then B-I-I, if that’s okay with you, Councilor Palosa. Sorry, thank you, a technical question, as I have touched so many things on my screen. As we’re looking at the green development measures and hearing support of it being added in, and Councilor’s Frank, original motion, having the layout of scoring.

[4:08:33] Was the green development measures on that scoring sheet, Councilor Frank’s numbers, or was that in the original one? Sorry, I guess I got so many things open. I’ll go to staff. Thank you, through the chair. The green development measures were not included in the staff report. That is part of the Councilor’s amended motion. So Councilor, my understanding is here, they will include measures and then bring it back to back with those measures. In that time, we will look at that. So just making sure that that’s accurate, the timeline and staff will determine the proper waiting to make sure that everything’s still equal.

[4:09:10] I’ll go to staff. Thank you, and through the chair, yeah, we will, once we’ve received direction from Committee and Council, we will look at the overall evaluation matrix, ensure that Council’s recommendation is embedded within that and report back accordingly for your approval. Councilor, thumbs up. All right, so any other further comments or questions? Mr. Mathers. Sorry to interject. We just can’t see the actual resolution is, what’s the date? I remember from Councilor Frank’s motion that there was a date that— There is no date.

[4:09:44] Okay. It just indicates the date of the staff report. Perfect, thank you. I’m gonna go at the clerk comment. Through the chair, we just change part C to read to a future planning and environment committee ‘cause it doesn’t hit the council cycle, so it has to be a different meeting. Thank you.

[4:10:17] Okay, so I’ll open the voting. I’ll have the clerk open the voting. Okay, the voting is now open on A and C. Taking the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[4:10:57] Okay, and I’ll call the vote on B-I and B-I-I. Okay, so the vote is open now on B-I. Chair, just for everyone’s clarification, B-I is the distinguishing between not-for-profits and private sector and B-I-I is the green developments. Correct, so right now, B-I, you’re correct. Seeing the vote, the motion fails one to four.

[4:11:42] Okay, now I’ll call the vote on B-I-I, which is regarding the green development measures. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I’ll just note that I’m incorrectly voted on I. I’m not gonna ask for reconsideration.

[4:12:16] It’s gonna go to council, so we’ll just let it be. Okay, so that concludes by four. All right, so that takes us to the deferred matters list. I’ll look for a motion to receive that. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, any comments or questions?

[4:12:54] I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Look for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Lewis, hand vote. Motion carries. Thank you, folks.