April 14, 2026

Original link

Official minutes have not been published yet. A meeting transcript is available below.

Meeting Transcript

Duration: 5 hours, 29 minutes

Source: Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (5 hours, 29 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone, just after one, so I’d like to get the sixth meeting of the Planning Environment Committee underway. Please check the City website for additional meeting detail information. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek Odenoshanhei, Lenapei Wauk, and Adewanaran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse, indigenous people who call this territory home.

The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today, as representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternative formats and communication supports from meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact pack@london.ca or 519-661-249 extension two for two five. We are missing two members of our committee, Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Hillier, due to personal matters.

We have the Mayor joining us and we have Councillor Stevenson joining us online. At this point, I’d like to look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we’ll move on to consent items. I’ve had a request to pull 2.3, And as practice, we will move that to the end of our meeting down to deferred matters.

So I’ll look for committee members to look for a motion here. Councillor Cutty. I’ll move that here. So you’re going to move 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.5.

Thank you. I’ll look for a seconder. Mayor seconds. Any comments or questions from committee members who are visiting Councillors on this?

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I’m not part of this committee, but I do have a question regarding 2.5, which is the Pack Road sewer extension, read the recommendation.

I wonder if I can go through you to staff. I know there’s other opportunities, and I’d just like to go to staff to explore those opportunities for the developer. Okay, I’ll go to staff on that question. Yes, thank you, through the chair.

We have been working with the proponent this development and the densities that were currently shown do have capacity in existing sew ers however they have expressed an interest in additional density in which case we have identified an opportunity to install a sewer on Bostock Road as part of our strategic links program and that would go with an upcoming transportation project so that would be coordinated and use existing funds rather than having to add it through the DC and the GMIS. Oh sir. Yeah thank you for that information and just as a follow-up would that information eventually come to council or what does that process look like the transportation plan. Thank you.

Chair yes I believe that would be part of the development approvals and any funding requests subject to of course our administrative limits on contract awards etc. Councillor for other comments or questions. Seeing none we have a motion move in second and we’ll call the vote. Is there Stevenson closing the vote?

Might just be slow. Yeah, we got you, sorry. Closing the vote motion carries four to zero. Onward to scheduled items, 3.1.

This is a delegation from Mr. Metralier, the chair of our community advisory committee on planning. Please, sir, go ahead and you have five minutes. Hold on a second, just wanna make sure your microphone’s on and you turn on those folks.

We’re gonna need that mic by the look of the gallery. So let’s get it fixed up. Yeah, I think we’re good to go. Let’s see if that works better.

Sorry for the delay. Thanks, is that better? Yeah, sounds like it. Okay, my name is John Marc Metray.

I’m chair of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning. Thank you as always for your indulgence. I did just wanna briefly speak to item 3.7 of the report that’s before you. This is regarding privately initiated applications to expand the urban growth boundary.

Committee was consulted on this item and had a discussion and some thoughts. as you know we are we are traditionally known as the the city’s heritage advisory committee that’s what you’d hear from us mostly on but buried in our terms of reference are also more general planning matters and also agriculture and so while there are some I would say diverse views within the committee on the urban growth boundary we did have an interest in in the subject itself And so the comment you’ll see at 3.7, it’s not so much a feedback on the substance, it’s really just an offer, which is that the committee felt that we wanted to offer ourselves up as a consultative resource on these privately initiated urban growth boundary expansions. Should it be useful to PEC and Council to hear from us on those applications, we’re happy to receive them much in the same way as we receive heritage matters and provide our feedback. So with that we are we are certainly happy to get council’s views formally or informally as to whether they would like our feedback on those items.

I just didn’t want to get in loss in the report. Thanks so much. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for bringing out your attention because you’re right.

We looked at that committee in law for heritage but there is other functions there. The urban growth boundary was passed by council So analysis with the province for final approval and my understanding is they’re coming to the end of that time where they’re taking feedback before they kind of give consent on that. But I think in the future there is for sure the possibilities of those type of applications coming forward in your committee would certainly be of help. Okay, I’ll look for a motion to receive.

Mr. Cuddy, I’ll look for a seconder on that. I’ll second that. So if there’s a look for any comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors on this.

Okay, we have a motion moved in. Seconded, I’ll call the vote. If the motion carries four to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.2.

This is regarding property 371-373 Hamilton Road. I’ll look for a motion to go into public participation meeting. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by, I’ll second it. I won’t call that vote.

I think the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I’ll look for the applicant, the applicant would like to address the committee . Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, my name is Heather Garrett.

I’m with Salinka Pramo Limited. I’m the agent for the Canadian Mental Health Association. I first wanna thank Heritage staff for all their help with this. We’ve read their staff report and we agree with it.

So I’m here if you have any questions, thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other members of the public that would like to address the committee on this one. Please Ben, give us your name and you have five minutes.

My name’s Annemarie Valastro. I have a question that I’d like to have answered. I’d like to know if the applicant, when they build something there, If they’re going to comply with section 9.1, six of the site plan control bylaw that encourages new builds to include bird-friendly windows and native plant plantings with a new development. So can you answer that for me?

I’ll take questions and I’ll pose them after we ‘re finished. That’s the only question I have. Thank you. for other members of the public that like to address committee.

Seeing none, I’ll look for motion to close the PPN. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by I’ll second it. We’ll call the motion to vote. Councilor Stevenson, you’re discussing the vote motion carries 4 to 0.

So in the question from the gallery regarding bird friendly windows, I’m going to go first to staff to see if they can comment on the application. If there’s anything in there regarding that, and if not, I’ll go to the applicant. Through the chair, would you please go to the applicant? Okay, thank you.

All right, Ms. Garrett, can you comment on that , please? Through you, Mr. Chair.

Currently at this point, there is no development applications that are proposed. There are actually two structures on the property . There’s one that’s right on the corner that is currently in use and the other, the second one is a house. The house is in poor repair.

So the applicant is contemplating, are they going to redevelop the entire site? We don’t know at this point. So we haven’t looked into planning, But of course, any items which regards reuse of a property needs to go through planning approval. So yes, obviously anything such as birds and what materials going to be there would be looked at as well.

Thank you. - Thank you. And I’ll remind committee, and I probably should have caught this, this is just regarding removing this property from the heritage listing. It doesn’t get into things of that nature.

So I probably should have noticed that off the bat. I’ll look for committee members. Chair. Before you do that, I’ll move the staff recommendation.

Thank you. I’ll look for a seconder. The mayor seconds. I’ll look for any comments or questions on this.

Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Mr. Stevenson. Yes.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.3. This is regarding 127 fires away. I’ll look for motion to help public participation meeting.

Councilor Cuddy, seconded by the mayor. I’ll call that vote. Mr. Stevenson.

I vote yes. Closing about the motion carries 4-0. Thank you, I’ll look to the applicant. The applicant would like to address committee.

Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Through the chair, I’m Adam McGrew. I’m here from Monteith Brown Planning Consultants . And we’re here on behalf of the applicant, the Cross Cultural Learner Center.

We’ve reviewed the staff report and the staff by- law and would like to thank staff for their time on this application. We’re in support of staff’s recommendation and are available for any questions, the public council or staff may have, thanks. Thank you. Now look for members of the public that would like to address.

This is for last row, please go ahead, do you have five minutes? My name is Annamarie in the last row. I do have a question for you. My understanding is that it’s up to the applicant to install bird-friendly windows and make sure their plantings are native, regionally native to southern Ontario.

My understanding is the province doesn’t allow the city to mandate that it has to come from the applicant. And I’d like to know if the applicant is willing to comply with that section of the control site, control site by-law, which is asking new bills to put in bird-friendly windows and native plants. Do you know if your applicant is open to that? I’ll look for other comments or questions in the gallery.

Seeing done for motion to close PPM. Councilor Cuddy, seconder, mayor, second. Mr. Stevenson.

I vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Before I go to the applicant, I’m just going to ask staff, this is a two-story building. It’s not a rebuild, it’s just reconfering the interiors.

Are there any guidelines for bird-friendly windows on that type of project? Through the chair, that’s correct, that they are just using the existing building, and there’s no guidelines for existing buildings. Okay, thank you. I will go to the applicant, if you’d like to comment, do you have any plans for Berkeley, Windows retroactively?

Through the chair, I just was gonna also reiterate that it’s not a new build. We’re keeping the existing dwelling, the existing gardens, and they’re very nice gardens. That’s all I got. Thank you.

So I’ll look, I’ll open this for committee members. Chair, through you, I’ll move the staff recommendation. Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder. Mayor seconds, I’d look for any comments or questions on this.

Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Motion carries far to zero. Thank you. The next item is 3.4 and this is regarding 63 Greenfield drive.

I’ll look for a motion to open the public special meeting. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by, I’ll second it. We’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries far to zero .

Thank you. I’ll look for the applicant. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Chair and members of committee.

My name is Dan Murphy. I’m a planner with Civic Planning and Design. I’m here today representing the applicant magnificent homes for their project at 63 Green field Drive. This application proposes two three-story cluster townhouse blocks containing a total of nine units, which represents a modest and appropriate form of residential intensification on a neighborhood street.

As part of this project, we undertook our own community engagement program to involve nearby residents early in the process. Postcards were distributed to neighboring properties, inviting residents to a virtual community information session where we presented the proposal and have received feedback directly from the neighborhood. This proposal conforms to the neighborhood’s place type and which contemplates the scale of residential intensification and permits townhouse forms on a neighborhood street. This project is consistent with the PPS, which supports compact transit supportive growth and the efficient use of existing infrastructure.

This project delivers both as it’s situated within the primary transit area and is located less than a five-minute walk to existing LTC service and planned BRT. like to thank Planning and Development staff for their work on this project. And we are in full support of the staff recommendation today. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address committee on this item . Please sir, give us your name in five minutes. My name is Brian Kuto.

I’m the owner of the property next door. I feel that this development does not work with the current layout of the neighborhood. there’s no current townhouses, no current, like anything around the areas is a major change. Also, I am concerned about the two dozen mature trees that are right on the property line, about the damage that would be caused to them, possible death of the trees.

And I would like to know what, if it does go through, what kind of, what needs to be done in like, as far as I know in London, we take mature trees very seriously and upending and destroying so many trees. Also, the effect on our privacy is quite, quite significant considering these are planned to be three stories high. I don’t see how you could build a proper privacy fence going like looking right into our backyard. So I just kind of want some answers on this development.

Thank you. Yeah, I’ll bring your questions forward after you finish hearing from everyone. All right. I’ll look for the next speaker.

Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. My name is Richard Lago. And one of my concerns is number one garbage pickup, parking on the street, the location of this development, read opposites, two driveways, snow removal. And again, the concern of the trees, there’s a tree line and the amount of trees the property that are going to have to come down to put this up.

Also, too, on the street things to the privacy. I guess that’s about it. But the main concern is the tree line. But I mean, what do they intend to do to replace those trees?

I guess that’s all I have to say. Have a good afternoon. Okay. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please go ahead. You have five minutes. My name is Anna.

We have a last row trees that sit on the boundary between two properties that the government under provincial laws. They cannot be cut down. They cannot be cut down without permission from both property owners. So I also have a question for the applicant.

Are they aware that they’re not permitted to cut down those trees under provincial laws until they get the approval by adjacent homeowners? And that’s what the homeowners have to understand and they need to exert their authority because they’re not allowed to cut down those trees. So you need to make sure they are aware of that. And I’m asking whether the applicant is aware that they’re not permitted to cut those trees down without the approval of the neighbors.

This also has nine unit and 19 parking spaces. That seems excessive to me in a neighborhood that is a very low impact neighborhood. I’m not sure if the applicant has, if they’re offering that because they think It’s a better selling feature, but realistically, that is a real divide between the rest of the neighborhood as far as conformity goes. And I just want to clarify that there are no guidelines anywhere regarding bird-friendly windows in the heater plant species being put on a landscape.

all consensual. The applicant has to and with good will move forward with that. If you read, if you’re familiar with the bylaw, you would know that there are no guidelines. That is just an encouragement.

And so I also am asking you another question of the applicant, whether they intend to install bird friendly windows and use native plants for the plantings around the townhouse. So, I have two questions. One is, do they understand that they cannot cut those trees down into provincial jurisdiction because they’re boundary trees and they don’t own those trees. And the second question is, do they intend to install bird friendly windows and use native plants for their landscaping?

Thank you. >> Thank you. I’ll look to the next speaker. >> Yes.

Richard Lago again. If you look at the site plan on what they intend on doing, where the road is placed, trees and questions. >> Sorry. You’ve had your time.

Sorry. I got your point and we’ll be asking those questions. Yeah, but the point. Sir, you’ve had your time.

You get one shot. I’ll look for any other speakers that would like to address the committee. Seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Mayor.

We’ll call the vote. Mr. Stevenson, closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero.

Thank you. So I’ll go to the staff. There’s a couple of items there. Mature trees in general.

First general question, before any trees are removed, assuming that for our by-laws they would have to get the okay from the city if they exceed the diameter that’s in the city by-law can you confirm that please. Thank you and true that chair that is correct since the application is not going through sediment approval the city’s tree protection by-law and the city’s boulevard tree by-law are applicable here and are enforced so basically any tree over 50 centimeters in diameter requires a permit to be removed. Additionally there are also the boundary trees that are regulated under the Ontario Forestry Act and written consent is required from co-owners of the trees so from abutting properties to remove any boundary trees and if written consent is not provided then a tree protection zone needs to be established for that tree. Thank you.

One are the do we have any remediation or as practices to limit the amount of trees or trees are cut down to to build this development. Thank you and through the chair typically that would be achieved through the site plan process where it would be tried to minimize the amount of trees that need to be removed and this instance as this is not going through site plan it’s it’s really urban forestry working together with the applicants to ensure that all the rules are followed and that as a little amount of trees are removed possible. Thank you. And although I know that in site plan you review garbage pickup and snow removal, I might go to the applicant.

They like to comment on what ideas they have on, you know, where the garbage is going to be. How’s that going to be picked up, where snow is going to be pushed to, et cetera? Through the chair, the garbage will be stored internally to the units. Each unit has a garage and it will be brought curbside for pickup on a weekly basis.

As for snow removal, There’s an internal turnaround located between the two townhouse buildings. That’s where snow would be stored Through a private service. Thank you. And while you’re there, I’m just gonna ask about bird friendly windows Do you have any plans regarding bird friendly windows through the chair?

We’ll take that back to the the the developer here Thank you. All right, so I’ll put this on those the questions I have unless I miss something which committee members can bring forward a look for motion Councilor Cuddy a movie staff recommendation. Thank you. I look for a seconder the mayor seconds, so I’ll put that on the floor for discussion with committee members or Is in counselors counselor for thanks chair I just wanted to follow up on I guess one of the questions about the written consent between co- owners between the two properties for the trees if if that written consent is not provided by an owner of a property, I guess, immediately beside this proposed property and that I did see that there would have to be a tree protection by-law or something along those lines to be drafted up.

From, I guess, just from the setbacks that I see at the building, would you have to see , I guess, the development change to be able to accommodate those trees being protected there? Oh, go ahead, staff. Sir, can you repeat that last section on my apologies? No words if the the co-owners of the trees did not provide written consent to remove those trees Because the property setbacks or I guess I guess more narrow Would the development have to go back and I guess Replan the development to fit the trees that would be preserved.

Oh, well staff. Thank you and true to chair That’s a good question. It really depends on the situation So it’s a bit of a hypothetical situation, but it is possible that development would need to be redesigned Councilor thank you and would you happen to know and I don’t know if you can answer this if Ritten consent has been provided by the co-owners of the trees. Oh go south to the chair Thank you for the question.

I’m not able to answer that that’s ultimately a private matter Okay, thank you for that and just one more question. I see in comment three Part of that comment says the proposed site is a newly completed renovated single family home with a family of five who are being displaced to make way for nine units and then it says actually eight units as you have displaced the family who already there. Does that mean that that family of five will get one of those units? I’ll go staff.

Thank you and Trudy Chair I would like to refer that question to the applicant. I’m sorry could you read that? Thank you and Trudy Chair I would like to refer that question to the applicant. Okay I’ll go to the applicant.

Through the chair I’m not sure the exact arrangement that they have with the current property owner. It’s my understanding that there will be through the tenant act certain steps to take at once their lease is complete. Councilor okay, thank you for that as not a voting member So I can’t vote on this, but you know for I guess for that point in that comment right there, you know a framework or some type of Program that would be able to protect You know situations like this whether or not if this family were to be able to have that new unit or not would be good I know we’re gonna be discussing that on an item coming up But those are my comments there. Thank you look further comments or questions from three members or visiting counselors Seeing done we got motion movements seconded.

I ‘ll call the vote. I think the vote the motion carries 4 to 0 Thank you moving on this 3.5 regarding 350 to 356 Windermere Road all of it for a motion to open the PPM counselor cutty Seconded by a second the motion and we’ll call the vote. I think the vote the motion carries 4 to 0 Thank you, so I’ll look for the applicant, the applicant would like to address the committee . Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Thank you, my name is Kayne McAllister. I’m here with my colleague Matt Campbell, we’re planners with Selenka Primo. Here on behalf of distinctive homes for the zoning application at 350 to 356, Windham-Hert Road. This zoning application looks to rezone the lands to permit two, three-story back-to-back town houses, containing a total of 24 residential units.

As part of this application process, we held an open house meeting on January 15th and have also received some additional comments from the public. I’m just gonna provide a couple notes that sort of goes over some of the concerns regarding compatibility, traffic, trees, those sorts of nature. So a couple of notes I have on that is regarding trees has been brought to my attention. There are a few that have been removed.

There were permits acquired for that and I believe Councillor Pribble also has recorded that. It was brought to my attention that some of the trees on the sites where in rough condition and we’re posing safety concerns. Also, if you refer to the site plan as part of this development we are planning on, providing ample landscaping around all of the property lines and on the site and amenity areas as such to provide buffering of the development. Regarding parking and traffic as part of this development, we’ve proposed surface parking areas to the rear of the site behind the townhouses to screen the viewing of the parking from Winderm ere Road.

And the landscaping as well will help to screen it from abutting properties. As such, we have proposed 26 surface parking spaces providing parking at a rate slightly over one space per unit and effectively providing doubles. That is required in the zoning by-law, which requires 0.5 spaces per unit. Regarding compatibility with this development, We are proposing a modest form of development considering the use is permitted as part of a urban corridor’s place type, which permits a range of residential and commercial uses up to 15 stories.

And we believe it’s a development that can fit in with the context of the area as this area, London has lots of medium density uses with townhouses along the Richmond corridor in that area. With that, I would like to thank staff for the report and recommendation for approval. We are in agreement with the recommendation to hear to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, I’ll look for other members of the public would like to address the committee . Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. I am Keith Morrill, I live at 517 Canterbury Road. I’ve lived there since 2009 as a retirement home and I’ve been a resident of London since ‘96.

There was a high level of engagement by the property owners that reside in properties on Windermere and Canterbury Road and possibly Canterbury, Windermere and West chester. This dozen thoughtful letters were submitted. There’s a Coles notes version recap in the package. I’d like to also point out, this is a student rental area.

This property will be occupied by students predominantly second and third year. Where I live, I am surrounded by students. Three quarters of every student has a car. These are gonna be three bedroom units times 26.

And the stated number of parking spaces in my view is woefully inadequate for the number of cars that those student tenants are going to bring to those apartments. Additionally, Windermere Road, while not a major corridor, is between Richmond Street, Western Road, East West, and is jammed with cars at 3.30 or 4 o’clock when the University Hospital and unloads its staff and should have a fifth lane. And there’s no place for a fifth lane except we’re on the north side of Windermere. And that would, the frontage available for this property to basically zero.

The tenants would come out the front door and be on the street. There is no bike lane on Windermere Road between Western Road and Richmond Street. There is no place to put it. And by allowing this property to be developed, which is entirely too tall for the neighborhood, is really going to restrict the city’s vision to put proper bike lanes going east, west, on Windermere Road.

Because the only other part is the south side. In the university, there’s a real severe grade problem. And the university is not going to give up any land. So my comments then concisely are inadequate parking on the site based on 26 units considering the number of cars that second through graduate university students bring to them.

We have a number beside us across from us and everybody’s got a car and a poorly parked. So the numbers of a problem and the closeness to the street properly line just doesn’t allow the city any latitude at all to install a bike lane if that is in their vision going forward for a fifth lane that is badly needed in that section of Windermere. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name. Yes, my name is Penn Kemp. I have lived on Canterbury Road.

I moved there with my family January 6, 1950. I still live in the house I grew up in. And it was at that point, we still called it the Triangle. It was a farm country and north of the city.

The suburbs that are, it was the first suburb in London as far as I know. and it has maintained this kind of heritage point , lovely, quiet essence that I’d love to maintain in my own older years. And there are certain real concerns I have. One is as my neighbor was talking about with traffic, but especially ambulance traffic trying to get into university hospital, really precarious because it ‘s not just busy at three or four, it’s busy all the time.

And what about garbage pickup, storm removal, all snow removal, all that will impede traffic, which is already at a crisis level. And Canterbury, my mum have it, talked to City Council and had they put an end to the end of Canterbury. So it’s not a closed street. It’s it is, excuse me, a closed street that is a pedestrian way for students to come by.

And that should be preserved . I was wondering also about the trees and I’d like to ask the developer about bird-friendly windows and natural non-invasive planting. So my big concern would be to respect the existing character of re-forest London that we live in a city that is not just re-forest by name but as a reality because as my neighbor said many of our Canterbury streets and Westchester streets, trees, mature beautiful trees, were cut down and replaced about six years ago and so we lost a lot of the arc of the that beautiful arc of trees and it will take decades to replace. Oh yeah our basement was regularly flooded, Medway Creek is right there and we know it, climate change is happening , climate change has given way to floods or heating or whatever but we all through the 50s till now I don’t think the storm sewers were at any way adequate even now.

Our basements were flooded regularly even up till 2024 and I would think that would be a real concern for the proposed townhouses. So basically my point is not to change the zoning because that would lead us wide open to lots of change in that really special heritage neighbourhood. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for next speaker. Please sir , give us your name in your five minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Harkindar Shahal.

I am living at 360 Windermere Road that is just next to this proposed development. And these people who spoke just before me have brought out so many points and they already covered so many points. But imagine how scared I am next to this high rise coming up. When we bought the property in 2006, we bought it because of the corrector and the way this whole street is laid out.

Regarding traffic, as it is right now, it’s very hard for us to get out of our parking space. We can never get out and make a left turn. we have to always go right then make a return to come back. So I and the amount of traffic as they’re saying it’s congested and jammed during the afternoons, I find this place will be totally ruined if this development comes up there.

So I’m scared that I’m being forced to move out of that place and at the same time if I move out I’ll have to sell my property at lower it to get over because we purchased this bill this house only because there was no high rise nearby so I totally I am totally against this development I would request not to allow this change thank you thank you a lot for that speaker thank you counsel my name is George Latsko I live at 57 Westchester just to add a little bit to my neighbors by the way my neighbor here if you look at how his property is right next to the new development, it’s going to be basically overshadowing his entire property. I’m right behind, I’m not getting it as bad, but I’m right next to this property as well. I think this kind of Pandora’s box of opening up this high density permitting is going to lead to more development like this. I like the way it was basically described.

We’re almost like a triangle. It’s really the entire neighborhood is built like a small residential family neighborhood and this is going to change the character completely. I think at the very least it should be from three floors to two floors if the permitting is allowed. It should be basically reduced.

I just really am against this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the speaker please sir give us your name you have five minutes yes good afternoon mr.

chair members of council and city staff my name is Khaled Baroudi and I live at 59 Westchester’s Drive with my wife and four children I am here today to respectfully but firmly abose the proposed rez oning at 350 to 356 windermi road. First and most importantly, this proposal raises serious public safety concerns. Windermi Road, as you know, is a crucial access route to Western University and nearby hospital, is used daily by ambulances, medical staff and emergency responders. Adding 24 residential units will significantly increase traffic and may delay emergency vehicles.

Even a small delay in emergency response can have life-threatening consequences. This is not just planning issue, it’s a matter of public safety. Secondly, this deployment is incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Our community is a quiet, low- density, family-oriented area, made up primarily of single family homes.

Introducing a high-density town houses project represents a drastic and inappropriate change that does not respect the established character of this neighborhood. Thirdly, the project will directly affect the health and daily life of our children. Our backyard is not just a space. It is where our children play, learn and grow in safe and healthy environment.

I came from Syria from a war place to settle in this great country. I searched for this house for two years to find the appropriate location where my kids can play and breathe clean air. This is a business project for earning money, neglecting the rights of our kids, the future of Canada. My kids never visit my country, Syria, they know Canada.

They go to school every day, they sing the songs of great Canada. By approving this project, you are forcing many families to leave this place. for what, for money, for renting students, neglecting many old people living in this area. My next door, Professor spent his 60 years as a professor in Western University, 90 years old.

If you approve his this project, he will wake up on construction for almost one year. you are destroying his life. You are destroying by approving this my kids a dream. Please, I recommend City of London, not only this proposal, any project surrounding the hospital should be prevented.

Hospital patients need clean air. We don’t need more businesses around the hospital. Thank you so much. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Hi there. My name is the animal of elastral. This should be refused as application.

It’s a bad planning application. Hopefully council will refuse it. It won’t be refused here. I believe that developer for this site, 350, 356 Windamere is the same person that developed a house in my neighborhood.

That developer re-nagged on the site plan that they presented to council and to the neighborhood. They removed a portion of the very small existing amenity space that they had originally proposed. They shrunk it down more to put in more parking. And this idea, it’s a reality.

When you rent two, three individuals in one space , they’re all going to show up with three cars. And that’s just the way it is, whether this planning committee acknowledges it or not, that’s just the truth. This also has surface parking lot , and which means that it’s wasted space, as far as I’m concerned, that should be amenity space, that would preserve the trees that would offer buffering, and the parking should be underneath those buildings. And it also will limit, it will constrain the parking to what it’s intended to be , because it’s a hard truth that there is over parking, there is crowded parking when it’s surface parking and it’s difficult to control how many vehicles actually sit in the parking lot and which it was intended.

Anyone who is familiar or cares about near-campus neighborhoods , they would know this. I don’t have to stand here and tell you, neither would you. You don’t have to tell them if they actually took an interest and understood what’s happening in those neighborhoods because they’re decision makers, but that is what will happen. It’s predictable.

It happens always. And this developer, it was acted in bad faith in my neighborhood. And that goes unaccounted. He goes unaccounted for what he did in our neighborhood.

And so this is a bad plan. A two story with us with more amenity space for buffering to contain and carry on the a characteristic and integrity of the neighborhood. He’s not interested in that. He’s just interested in packing them in.

He charges in my neighborhood . He charges $1,400 per room. And so it’s, you know, I can’t get rid of these people fast enough in my neighborhood. They destroy neighborhoods, and your instinct is correct.

Unfortunately, the planning committee. >> Point of order. >> Yes. >> Second.

Please go ahead, Council. >> Thank you, Chair. And through you, I think that the speaker is going off the topic a little bit. Maybe she could refocus.

Thank you. >> Sure. I will refocus. >> I’ll ask you, Ms.

Lasko, to stick with the item at hand and refer just to that, please. >> Sure. >> I also would appreciate if the applicant was actually present, because I also would like to know if this applicant will comply with the site control by-law that encourages developers to install bird-friendly windows especially when it’s near Medway Creek and plant native plant species that are native to southwestern Ontario again to enhance Medway Creek and I’m asking the chair that when he poses my questions to acknowledge I ‘m asking both about birth-friendly windows and about need of plant ings on the new development and I appreciated if the representative can answer that . I would like to know if someone could get back to me on that whether they are committed to upholding the site control bylaw.

Thank you. Good for the next speaker. I understand we have someone online. Mr.

Ferguson are you online? Can you hear me? Yes I am. Can you hear me?

We got you. You have five minutes. Please go ahead. Great.

Thank you. My name is Peter Ferguson. I’m a long-term resident of Canterbury Road. I’ve been there for more than 20 years.

I have a lot of concerns. I’m speaking in opposition to the zoning application. I have many concerns given the time. I’m going to focus on traffic.

There is, in fact, a triangle between Windermere, Richmond, and Western roads, where they can’t vary intersex. Windermere Road is already an overtaxed road. There’s high congestion, especially in the morning and the end of the work day. Coming west on Windermere in the morning, the left turn into the hospital is backed up past the road split so that when there is a left turn lane and a right throughfare, the right through fare is already blocked off.

Adding more traffic is going to increase that problem. In the evening, the traffic coming north on western road, turning right on the winter mirror road is badly backed up. The traffic from campus coming out of campus on the winter mirror road is also badly backed up . Adding additional traffic in the form of this this zoning application is going to make all of these problems worse.

The assumption that it will just be 26 cars is myopic I think or or dishonest and I think you can’t also just can’t account for those cars you have to also look at the delivery drivers and the uber cars that come there we all saw this with the development on Richmond deluxe which is south of Windermere and also the north of Windermere the masonville yards which is across from the mall And both of those developments had dedicated lanes for drop-off pickup, Uber drivers, you know, DoorDash, etc. And this is, that’s just leaving aside the impact of the traffic on Western Enrichment Road. I think there’s a very important public safety issue that needs to be considered. Windermare is a major transit point for ambulances and people driving to emergencies, Despite the fact that there’s an entrance off a western road, ambulances and people accessing emergency, transit, Windermere Road, there’s also a lot of pedestrian traffic on Canterbury Road.

Students that are walking from housing north of campus come down Windermere Road and cross at the Windermere Canterbury intersection. There’s already a problem with inpatient drivers at high traffic times. I’ve been almost hit many times over the last two decades. I think that adding this amount of traffic increases the chances of catastrophic events both in terms of people accessing the hospital or ambulances or pedestrian drivers.

There’s also an issue of danger to the neighborhood from traffic because what happens is people people want to bypass the existing traffic problems by using Westchester Road and Canterbury Road to bypass these intersections. They’re frustrated drivers. They drive very fast. The city was very helpful for us probably 15 years ago putting a no through street sign on.

So we didn’t have people speeding up Canterbury only to find it blocked and then speeding back down. But there’s a lot of children and elderly residents in the area and when they use this bypass, right now it’s dangerous adding this traffic will make it worse. There’s a couple of horrific accidents at the intersection of Windermere Enrichment every year where inpatient people are trying to get across Windermere, across Richmond on Windermere and end up in the middle of the field where the Westminster buildings used to be. I would ask if there has been an existing, if there has been a traffic assessment study, If it exists, I was unable to find it in the package of information and I was noted in the document that it did not seem to exist.

I don’t think that I think you should call for a traffic assessment and if one is done, I think it cannot be allowed to have overly-optimist assumptions, overly-optimist assumptions about the number of autos. This is high-end housing for wealthy Western students that are going to bring their cars. We know all up and down the street that when the students are in houses which we have no problem with the students being in the houses but they all bring cars. So saying you’re going to create 78 residential spaces and there’s only going to be 26 cars there is dishonest.

It may fit the zoning bylaw but it does not reflect reality. We must include also if they’re doing the the the the traffic assessment, it has to include other approved housing. They could also tax the intersection like the mall area housing, which has already been approved 30 seconds place during the fall and winter terms when there’s a lot of traffic. Okay, so I don’t think the risk of this must be acknowledged.

The road was not designed for high density areas. There should be a traffic study. We need the Windermere Road to be expanded before this type of development, because this is not a modest compared to the neighborhood. The neighborhood are single houses, and this is a massive expansion of the neighborhood.

And I think this is a dangerous problem in terms of traffic. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I look for the next speaker.

Please, sir. Give us your name. You have five minutes. Hello.

My name is Mike and clear. I’m a little bit 51 Westchester Drive so I’m probably the one of the few here that it could be most impacted by this project. Currently I enjoy park like setting my neighbors behind me where this proposal is supposed to be beautiful yards pool. I’ve been there I could say 25 plus years and the reason I bought that neighborhood was because it was a beautiful neighborhood.

Over the last 20 years our neighborhood has already begun to deteriorate. We have a lot of student rentals in there. We have a lot of people parking on grass, the lawns, the streets. We have students have no respect for the community or the people that live in the community.

We have garbage issues constantly. We have skunks, coyotes, now in our neighborhoods. I have a dog, as many of our neighbors do. and at night time it’s becoming impossible to walk your dog because the last three or four months now with the amount of garbage that’s on the streets being left out being torn apart I’ve had coyotes on my driveway just just walk in the neighborhood it’s unbelievable now they want to put it these three stories units they caught you know they say they ‘re 12 units each 24 units most these places minor state are going to be one, two , three bedrooms with common areas, common kitchens.

So you’re not talking about 26 students . What you’re talking about is 4550 students going in there. We have, we will have no privacy. As far as the integrity of the neighborhood, it will be gone.

We have to listen to the noise from these students already. All the partying, the parking. It’s become a real problem. I’ve called the city numerous times to deal with this with no response.

I’ve called the city police. They tell me to call the city and they tell me to call the university. So not all support for the neighborhood from you people. Putting this up is against everybody’s wishes in the entire neighborhood.

It’s a slippery slope. If you allow this project to go, then what do you say to the next person? Because the person beside me in the corner, he’s been trying for many years to knock that house down and put up a couple more rental places. So our fear is, once this begins, where do you say no, and then where do you stop it?

On the back of my property, there’s three properties. And there’s trees that are maybe three, five feet on inside the fence line that are mature trees. I would like to know those are going to be left alone, which is nice because it does give some buffer, it does give some privacy, or they’re going to be torn down as most construction sites do, they go in and clear everything out. Again, we’ve been living there with a beautiful neighborhood.

Now, we’re going to enjoy seeing parking lots, garbage containers, noise, because now they’re going to be looking down at our houses. And we already have problems with student noises, student partying, and I don’t need to condemn students because a lot of them are really, really good and they’re great. a lot of them aren’t. So putting another 40 45 students in there, parking is going to be a mess.

It’s going to be a nightmare. Garbage is going to be a nightmare. The noise is going to be a nightmare. And that’s why we’re all against this.

It changes the whole perspective of the neighborhood and I don’t see why it has to happen. Thank you. Thank you. I understand there’s someone online that would like to speak.

Chris, if you can hear me. Can you hear me? We can. Please go Go ahead, you have five minutes.

Excellent, thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you Mayor Morgan and Councillors for allowing me to speak to you today. I have lived at 522 Canterbury Road for 20 years and I have the honor of serving as, having served as it’s the president of the Triangle Community Association for 10 years. Many members from my area, in addition to the one speaking to you today, contacted me to express concerns.

So many of the concerns I will lay out quickly for you here are those. I will say some residents were unable to participate in the public consultation processes so far for a variety of reasons because they were held in January and February because they’re elderly or because they were away from London. So there are many more people than those who are appearing before you today who are concerned. As has already been explained, we have a very deep concern as a community that the rezoning will initiate a serious destabilization of our area.

We’re very proud of the fact that Canterbury Road and Windumer Road have never had a giant out of control student party that’s required thousands and thousands of dollars of police and city expenditure to maintain precisely because we have the privilege of being a very stable cooperative community. That’s in large part because of the R1 zoning allotment and the presence of many long-term residents, such as Penn Camp and Keith Morrow, who have spoken already here today. Changing the zoning really threatens to destabilize the entire area. We don’t want another broftail.

Second, many people have already talked to you about the issue around parking. I totally agree that the parking allotment is insufficient in no small part because along with the fact that many of the residents more than one apartment have a car, you have to remember and the staff report did not know that parking near the university is public parking is non-existent. There’s enormous pressure and much illegal parking simply because there is not enough existing parking and adding more population will drive this problem into an even further negative aspect . It was quite sorry to see that the staff report didn’t include much actual discussion of the environmental impacts of this development.

I did note 37 trees are proposed to be removed. Penn camp already told you counselors that our neighborhood has been quite deforested owing to infrastructure works that happened a few years ago. We are quite concerned to lose even more forest cap in the area. I also noticed the staff report did not mention or treat carefully the proposed new developments proximity to the river basin and the river that is right across the street.

We are quite a unique area because that natural boundary is quite pristine as it stands, and I’m quite sure additional population density in that specific area will add more garbage, more pollution and more stress on the natural environment. I have concerns about the reputation and track record of the development and the city’s capacity if the counselors decide to proceed with this in their capacity to regulate and police and hold the developer to the plans laid out here. I do agree that the proposed three-story structures are incompatible with what currently exists. the plans are not compatible with the character and the single family dominance of my neighborhood.

I thank you sincerely for your time. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone else online.

I don’t see anyone coming to the microphones and I don’t have anyone online solid for motion to close the PPM. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by the mayor. We’ll call them. Let’s think about the motion carries four to zero.

A couple of questions that were raised or concerns that I want to go to staff before we put it on the floor. Flood concerns, can you comment on flood mitigation and concerns or lack thereof for this particular development? Thank you through the chair. Detailed stormwater and grading design is reviewed through the site plan process, but what I can say is per city engineering standards, stormwater flows are to be self-contained on the site, directed internally to catch basins.

From there they’ll be conveyed through private sewers to our municipal right-of-way underground and then the major flows will be directed to Winderm ere Road. So we’re not anticipating any negative impacts at this point to adjacent properties. There’s no concerns with flooding and also I wanted to point out that the existing topography is actually sloped towards Windermere Road which helps with the overall design. Thank you.

Thank you. Again, trees. There mentioned there’s three mature trees. Have those been identified or those due to come down or is that something that staff can comment on?

Thank you and through the chair. So both the application was reviewed by landscape architecture and ecology staff and no issues were identified. As part of the application and tree preservation plan was also submitted and that plan identified total 54 trees which 37 are proposed for removal. Any replacement trees will be addressed through a future site plan application and then with regards to the ecology there are no natural heritage features on site.

Ecology staff reviewed the application and addressed no concerns. Okay, thank you. A traffic study has a traffic study been done for this particular development. Thank you and through the chair as part of the complete application the TAA was not required as it’s a total of 24 units which is relatively minor compared to the total amount of traffic in the area.

Windinger Road is a civic boulevard with over 14, 000 vehicle movements a day. Western Road has over 22,000 vehicle movements a day and so the TIA was not required because the impacts of the proposed developments will be very minor on the total traffic in the area. Okay. Thank you.

Any other concerns that were raised? I’ll leave for committee or visiting councilors to address on that one. So I’ll put that out on the floor for committee right now. Councilor.

Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder. I’ll second the motion to get it going, get the conversation going here. So I’ll look for comments from members of the committee or visiting Councilor Perma.

Thank you, Chair. And I would just like to add a few more questions from the residents. The city has considered the additional bike lanes on Windermi Road. If the proposed bike lane is approved, the presence of the proposed units will create an increased safety risk for pedestrians, and drivers alike by having so many residents traversing a very small stretch of the road.

How will the safety issues be addressed? Thank you for the question and through the chair. There is an upcoming transportation project on Windermere Road to upgrade the four lanes of traffic and introduce bike lanes on the north side of the street. I believe between Windermere and Boone Drive, this is upcoming I believe it’s scheduled for 2028.

Further, as part of the application, the applicant is providing approximately 8 meters of road widening. So there will be sufficient distance between the ultimate right-of-way and the front of the building. OK, so just to be clear, I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. There’s sufficient room for future world widening with this development, is that correct?

Bruted jar, that is correct. As part of the future site plan application, the 7.9 meter road winding will be obtained by the city councilor just to follow up on this one and it is on the north side correct go staff correct the bike lanes are are scheduled or will be planned for the for the north side of the street okay thank you for that follow up as there’ll be loss of sunlight was there a shadowing study done go staff thank you and through the chair now studies shadow study was not required as this is a three-story development can I Yeah, again, just on that, the province not do away with the shadow study requirements, can you comment on that? Through the chair, no regulations have been introduced yet by the province as of this time. Typically as a city, we would like to see shadow studies from mid or high rise development.

So six to eight stories minimum is where we like to see a shadow studies and as mentioned, this is a proposal for tree study development. So no shadow study was requested. Okay, thank you for that clarification, Council or. Thank you, follow-up.

Even though it was already addressed that the traffic study was not done, but a follow-up question from a resident, if our staff, even though the study wasn’t necessary, if our staff consider the emergency vehicles and ambulances entering exiting the hospital. No, go staff. Thank you, and through the chair, as part of the transportation review, emergency access was reviewed, and no concerns were outlined. Councilor.

Thank you, where will the cars be parked? of the current proposal doesn’t have sufficient parking for the tenants. How about staff? Through the chair, thank you for the question.

The proposal meets the minimum parking standards. In fact, additional parking is provided above the minimum standards. There are also no parking signs existing on the Windermere Road. So any parking spillover onto the street would be a by-law enforcement matter, but from our perspective, sufficient parking is provided.

Councillor. Bob Garbage collection and snow removal. Go staff. Through the chair.

Those matters will be addressed through the future site plan application. Councillor. Birdfriend live in those native plant species. Go staff.

So for any new development, thank you and through the chair. For any new development as part of site plan, Birdfriend the windows are encouraged and that will be further addressed through the site plan application. Councillor. I know we have talked about the trees already and this was answered.

I just wanna confirm that I did receive emails, phone calls, concerns when the first trees came down, and I do confirm it was already stated that I did receive, that our city staff did issue permit for that. I do have, I think, last question. How is this compatible fitting neighborhood? And I believe that’s my last question.

How about staff? Thank you, and through the chair. The Alonam plan contains evaluation criteria for all planning applications, including the degree to which proposal fits in the existing and planned context. As this is an urban corridor, pretty significant intensification is contemplated as part of the vision for the urban corridor play style and staff reviews the application based on the evaluation criteria and are satisfied that the use, intensity and form meets those criteria and is compatible with the neighborhood.

Councilor? Thank you, no more questions right now, thanks. Thank you. for other Councillor Ferra, or what you’re pointing.

Oh, Councillor Cudi. Thank you, Chair and through. And I want to thank all the residents for coming today and speaking. And you know, very briefly, you’re not speaking to deaf ears, we’re listening to you and we hear everything you’ve said.

And Madam, the second speaker, I want to reference something you said, that you remember that when that was a rural area , and I do as well. I remember when they grew cattle up, they raised cattle up on that road. But you know, Western was 5,000 people then, and now it’s 45,000 or 40,000, and we’ve grown. And I want to reference what the other gentleman said earlier about students, and that students are disrespectful at times.

And they don’t respect the community or their neighbors. And I have that in my neighborhood. I have that in Ward 3. I have Fanshawe.

Fanshawe College is my constituent. But that’s for your Ward counselor to look after. And that’s for our bylaw chief to look after. And Ms.

Pfeiffer will look after that. And they will enforce by-law for parking and for noise. And it will not turn into another roughdale. But we have to respect the fact that the city continues to grow at a rapid pace.

And it’s unfortunate that it’s going into an area that you don’t want it to go. But respectfully, this looks like a nice growth. My concern is the parking. But I think that can be controlled by by-law.

And I think it will be enforced. So I’ll be supporting this. Thank you. All in for other speakers, Councilor.

Thank you chair for recognizing me as a visiting member and not a voting member of the committee. So I won’t take too much time. I do have just one question on the traffic impact study that is not required in this. I understand that it is a development with 24 units and it doesn’t meet the threshold for that.

But at the same time, I do understand that wind and mirror is one of those main, I guess, corridors to the emergency department, the emergency room at University Hospital. I just wanted to know, is it possible to have a traffic impact study considering that, considering that this could lead to a little bit more congestion and could potentially, I guess, slow down any ambulances moving in or out of the emergency department. I’ll go stuff. Thank you through the chair.

Yeah, if council wishes to include that as part of the direction or recommendation, that would be submitted as part of that future site plan application and reviewed as part of that. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you for that. I’m not a member of the committee, so I’m unable to do that, but I would ask the committee to consider a traffic impact study just because of that circumstance.

Thank you. I want further speakers. Councillor Trussa. Thank you very much.

When I first looked at this application, my initial response, I was wrong, but my initial response was, this isn’t so bad, to be worse. And the more I delved into the reports, or more particularly the reports that weren’t there that needed to be there in my view, the more I came to the conclusion that this is not a sustainable development, this is going to create a terrible impact on this neighborhood. But you know, beyond that, when I hear staff, say this is minor, so it doesn’t need a traffic study, I live in that area, and I go by that area all the time, and I worked at the University for 25 years. I know what that stretch of Windermere is like.

And it’s horrendous. It’s already overcharged. It’s already a dangerous situation. Never mind the fact that there’s a hospital there .

And I went through the report. I did not see anything about consulting with the hospital or EMS services. It just wasn’t there. This takes me back to the controversy that we had with the Wonderland development at Bieber Brook, where you had like a EMS right in back, where they consulted?

No, we gave out the notices to everybody. This is not acceptable. This is a public safety disaster waiting to happen. Now, let me ask something.

When you’ve got these people on the subject property, and they wanna make a left turn on to Windermere during rush hour, how are they gonna do that? Could you, could you help me with that? Thought my time. Counselor, is that a question for us?

Yes, it is a question. How are they gonna make a left turn? Yeah, how are they going to make a left turn going back towards Richmond? I’ll go to staff.

Is there not? Major Microphone. Thank you through the chair. Access locations and design will be reviewed as part of that site plan application.

Thank you. Well, thank you through the chair. I find that a totally unacceptable answer because I think there should have been a traffic study. Now, what is the criteria that the traffic division uses to determine if there needs to be a traffic study ?

Is it simply the number of units or our qualitative factors taken into account. I’ll go to staff. At what point is a traffic study initiated? Thank you through the chair.

Typically there’s about six to seven criteria that needs to happen, but essentially it’s the intensity of the development, the location in proximity to major intersections. If there’s turn lanes already within the cross section of the road, things of that nature. because this was 24 units. In the location it was, transportation didn’t feel it was needed, and I did want to remind everyone that we have a Ford Lane upgrade city project that’s tentatively scheduled in 2028 that will introduce more lanes, more storage for turn lanes and also bike lanes.

Thank you. Is someone from transportation here so they can more fully address my questions? staff. Thank you through the chair.

No, there’s no transportation staff here at the moment. Thanks, Councillor. I’ll move on. I’ll just, I’ll just move on to my next question.

This is just not, this is not a project that I’ll be voting for. I will be voting against this project, but I really think that if we’re going to try to intensify the near, the near campus area, which is an exercise in itself. I should say this is not in my ward, but it’s like my ward in that this triangle is very much like the other parcels that are right around campus. I always think of the triangle as sort of like my ward.

I think I’ve mentioned that to some of the residents, and I feel I have this very close affinity with the people in the triangle, because it’s very much like people in my ward in terms of the kinds of challenges that they’re facing. Now, if we approve this development, given the scant record that we have, no, oh, I should ask, was there any consultation with the hospital or EMS about this project? Council, I believe that’s been asked, but I’ll go to the staff anyway for a conversation. Thank you, and through the chair, as part of the circulation, Western University was notified and no response was received.

So Western University, as the large university, was notified, but not the individual entities and not the hospital, is that correct? Go staff, through the chair, the university hospital was within 120 meters of the subject lens and were notified and no response was received. Did the notice go to the hospital administrator or did it go to the university at 1151 Western Road or 1151 Richmond? Go to the south address.

Through the chair, it went to the London Health Science Center. I think that we need to do better. I think that we need to do better in terms of triggering traffic studies when you could talk to anybody that lives there or that anybody who tries to leave the campus, not just during rush hour, but pretty much all the time. And it’s just not passable.

It’s just not passable. So as somebody who worked at the university and who uses that area a lot, I’m just flabbergasted, flabbergasted, that we did not do a traffic study . And I think that putting everything else aside, is there time on the—I know the clock is running on these applications. Is there time to refer this back for a traffic study or is that going to take us outside the statutory period?

I’ll go to staff. Thank you and true to chair. We can provide the information on when exactly the 120 days’ goods ends. But this application is going to counsel in a few weeks.

So I think we’ll be challenging to get a traffic study done before that time. Instead, a traffic study update could also be provided as part of a future site plan application. Yes, I understand that there’s a big difference between doing one after the fact, after there’s been approval as part of a non-mandatory site plan. And on the other hand, doing it as a traffic study before the application is complete.

And I’m going to be asking, I can’t make a motion here. I would ask someone on the committee to defer this. I’m sorry to refer it back to staff for a targeted focused traffic study that is limited to the area between Richmond and the hospital. I don’t wanna area-wide traffic study, but this needs to be looked at.

And my sense is if there’s nobody on this committee that’s going to do that, I will certainly raise it at council. So I think I’ve set out my objections. I think that this is an accident waiting to happen. I know that people are in a critical situation when they’re in the last few minutes before they get to University Hospital.

I’ve known too many people who were in life and death situations on their way to the University and to hear that there’s not been a traffic study here, even a very, very targeted one. And to hear, well, we gave notice that we normally give under the Planning Act. It’s just, it’s so insensitive to the actual reality of what people who are using this area have to deal with. And it’s just, I find it, I find it appalling.

I will be opposing this, and I hope I’ll be able to convince some of my other colleagues, especially those who have some familiarity with the university, particularly the northern part of the university, to show some sensitivity to the people in this neighborhood and the people that are using the hospital. And I think I’ve said what I have to say, so I’m just gonna stop it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Raman. Thank you and through you, Chair. I just wanted first to thank the delegations and those that wrote in and emailed in on this matter. I represent Ward 7, so I’m on the boundary of this ward in the Triangle and get a lot of communication, have lots of friends in the area as well, so I have heard quite a bit about this development as things have proceeded, including when the trees came down on the property.

So I’m glad to hear that that was resolved. And I know Councilor Perble has worked very hard to listen to the community and to hear the feedback and submit questions. So I wanna thank Councilor for that as well. This application I would concur.

I would like to see a traffic study and if it could be done before the application is approved versus during the site plan process. I do think it would be helpful for the community to belay the concerns and the fears. When I talk to residents in my ward, they have particular concern of getting to university hospital in time. If they were to have a health matter that needed them to get there fast.

And one of the challenges is that we do not have adequate connection points into the hospital from the northwest part of the city. And so you’re rerouting yourselves around, sarn your road, or you’re rerouting yourselves down into where this traffic is already hectic. And 30 minutes, as stated in some of these letters, I would say, is an undersell at times, especially during the winter. I’ve seen people in stopped traffic for 45 minutes plus in this area.

I’m there all the time. and I know how challenging it can be. And I am concerned that even though when we are engaging with the hospital, that these matters are not perhaps taken to the level that they should, not saying by our staff, but also by the hospital , we used to have a process where the hospital would actually give us timing to the community around how long it anticipated ambulance times to be in different segments of the city. I’m not sure when that changed, but we need that information and we need it to be available when we are making these kinds of decisions.

And I know that we can’t necessarily hold up an application because of the fact that we don’t have the time associated with getting from a particular address to the hospital. But I do think that as we think about a whole community approach, we have to think about these matters. I heard it at people’s doorsteps when they were talking to me about their real fears and concerns about being in a place in their lives where they wanted to make sure that they had the ability to get there safely. So I do think that this is a matter worth raising , and I hope that a member of the committee will make the amendment here so that it can move forward.

I’d also like to better understand the timing of the road reconstruction in the area and how that will be considered around the site plan and some of the considerations with the design. And I understand that that’s more of a traffic question. I really appreciate our planning staff answering those questions that they have so far, but I also think it speaks to the need for more integration and more discussion in these meetings around how we’re moving around the city. Yes, we have the mobility master plan and we know what’s envisioned in the plan, but aligning those thought processes around our planning and our traffic I think is important and that’s a whole other topic and I won’t go off topic.

To the residents that are here, just wanted again to say thank you for the feedback. I hear you on the tree removal. It is a lot of trees in an area that’s lost. A lot of tree canopy cover because of construction, because of road reconstruction in the area.

So absolutely a concern. And again, thank you for bringing up the sensit ivities of the Medway Creek in this discussion as well. Thank you. All right, Councilor Pribble.

Thank you, sir, to check the staff. When it was discussion about the hospital that the LHSV forwarded, there was no objection. Did we actually, was there any response from the medall or there was actually a response since stating there’s no objection, no good staff ? Thank you and through the chair, no response was received, Councilor.

I’m sorry, I can hear that. No response was received from the hospital. Okay, thank you for that. My issue is, again, we all know that or I think most of us know this area.

And I have to state and I will just address it with the transportation staff. Actually our huge issue, already existing one, is actually with the lights at Sunnyside and Richmond. Because what’s happening now, and I spent a lot of times in this triangle on the traffic. During the busy times, individuals driving on Richmond, they actually, there are two lights at Western and Sunnyside.

And what happens is, Western actually has much more time to turn, and they flop that lane, and therefore, Richmond keeps standing. What happens is that Richmond, the drivers, they already figured this out. They cut through Windermere, and then turn right on Western, because actually, it’s faster than stay at Richmond. And I know this would be— I’m saying actually existing situation that we have there, and we really need to figure it out.

Doesn’t matter if there’s additional infills, developments, or not. And if our transportation, if anyone stays there and watches it, that’s really honestly what’s happening, and we have to figure it out. It’s very challenging. It’s a triangle, very busy, but there could be an improvement already now.

And as I said, in this part, when the individuals from this era are speaking, If they spend the time, they’ll see again from Richmond turning left on to Windermere and right on Western because it’s fasted and staying on. I do think that the traffic study is really truly needed here. I know I will be meeting with the residents next week because potentially those are the things or certain amendments that I can propose at the Council, not at this committee, but I really do think the traffic study is needed here. And again, traffic study including the timing of the proposed widening of this road to four lanes.

I really think you have to look at the full picture here and potentially if, again, it doesn’t matter if there is one or zero or more developments, but to really have a clear vision on this area. So we don’t potentially do one thing and then we realize it’s not coming up together and the timing is not coming together. So I really think that I certainly would support the traffic study in this case. I do realize that if you look at the number of units or it was really stated about the density that could be even higher, taller, I do understand that.

But on the other hand, this is what’s in front of us and I really wanna make sure we do our homework and everything properly done. So I’ll leave it with this committee but I don’t have any more comments right now. Thank you. I’ll go in the mayor.

Yeah, so I’ll make a few comments. First off, I appreciate the discussion. And I’ll first say, like, I support with my votes , a lot of density across the city and in a lot of different areas. I know this area pretty well as well, and I appreciate some of the thoughtful comments that have been given by community members.

You know, I tend to concur with the need for a traffic study here. Again, knowing this area well, you know, I think there’s a lot of, There’s gonna be a lot of car-based density put into this particular development. I recognize what, and I fully support why our staff would land at the conclusion they did, given the Prandtl policy statements and some of the components of that. But student rentals are very different, and looking at the type of units that the developer produces, these are going to be people who probably afford and do have cars, and they’re probably gonna try to, it’s very nice music.

they’re probably going to try to navigate three right turns, right, through the neighborhood. So they’re not gonna turn left to the councilor’s comment on wind and mirror, they’re gonna turn on to Canterbury, they’re gonna turn on to West Chester, they’re gonna turn on to Richmond, they’re gonna drive that traffic through the neighborhood. And although I do recognize that wind and mirror is a street that likely will densify at some point, there are some impacts here that I think we need to be conscious of. So I’ll be honest, I’m not supportive of the application in its current form at the time.

I hear colleagues saying, I hope the committee members refer back for traffic study. I think having that traffic study before we make a decision is appropriate in this case and not at the site plan stage. I know that will put us in a difficult spot on timelines potentially, but I think that that’s a very reasonable ask to see what this actually looks like, because again, this is going to be a fairly unique piece of density in this. If this is something that happens is going to be replicated, you know, we actually really have to understand the way the traffic flows around this particular neighborhood because this is the intersection of major streets with, you know, over 10,000 cars each around the triangle and then very low density within it.

And there is a great imbalance here between, you know, the way the traffic moves around and we could we could fairly potentially impact that if we’re not careful here. And so what And what I don’t want to see is, you know, thousands of cars going through Canterbury and Westchester Drive, you know, when we have three major thoroughfarers that they should be going on. But I just — I see that the people who are going to try to turn out of this space during significant portions of the day are going to be making multiple right-hand turns to get out of there, not the left-hand turn that is allowable but probably not feasible. So I’ll support and I’ll move a referral back to staff to discuss or to conduct a traffic study or ask for a traffic study to be conducted.

And I would invite any conversations on the applicant lowering the density in this area too. I know it’s not necessarily required but if you ‘re going to talk to them anyways, I think what I hear from residents too is this is a lot of density and a lot of cars in one spot. This applicant, when I look at their portfolio, builds all sorts of things of all sorts of different densities. Maybe there’s another product they have that fits here better.

So I would invite that conversation as well, although it may not be necessary or under the zoning permissions, I think it’s worth the conversation on that, but certainly the traffic study. So I’m sorry I didn’t give you that language ahead of time. I’m doing it based on comments from the gallery and our colleagues on the committee and not on the committee, but I’m happy to move that referral with those two reasons. Okay, so we’ve got a motion for a seconder.

Councillor, Councillor, you seconded. I’ll second it. Okay, so we have the referral on the floor. So I’ll look for comments.

Mayor, do you want to speak again to that? Are those on the floor? I think I’m going to ask for clarification for the clerk on what I said. So I don’t have the language, but I actually think it’s worth a conversation on the density too.

Again, they may not have an interest in lowering the density, but if we’re going to talk about a traffic setting, have the time for that before we make a decision. Again, it’s a developer with multiple products. there might be something else that works here because we may get the traffic study back. They may want to see that and then make adjustments to the density as well.

I would roll that into the conversation. Certainly we can’t require that, but I think it’s worth the conversation with our staff. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions from committee or visiting counselors.

Councilor Oman. Thank you and through you. I’m just wondering if it’s possible to work into the referral conversation with the hospital. I’m happy to add that.

Okay, well a friendly moment there. So we’re just working up the motion on these sc ribes so we can all take a peek. Okay, it should be up on these scribe. We’ll take a look.

How’s that look? That’s fine. I would just ask our staff to have a conversation about density too. I know it’s not actually in the motion, but if they can commit to that.

Yeah, I’ll go to staff and is that clear for a clear direction? Yes, through the chair, we will consider density as well as traffic and consultation with other partners. density as well, okay. Did you want to speak to the referral or if you go ahead?

I’ll speak briefly to it. I, again, I think what we hear from the community is there’s some unknowns here, and I think it’s a very fair thing to ask for them to become knowns on the way the traffic is going to move around this neighborhood. Again, I want to be clear, and I want to say I disagree with the approach that some of my colleagues take in their language they use. I don’t think staff have done anything wrong here .

I think they put together a very fair proposal based on the way that we normally do things. This, just knowing the area is fairly unique in the way that people will move around it. And there are large discrepancies between the major thoroughfare densities and the interior densities within this triangle that I think warrant a more careful look. But I wanna be clear, I don’t feel that’s any fault of our staff in doing a bad job on this.

I just think for those of us who are representatives and you hear from the people who know the area well, This is a fairly unique place. I’ve worked up in that area for many years. I’ve walked these streets many times. I kind of understand, as Councilor Raman does, Councilor Provost does, Councilor Troso does, that there’s a bit of uniqueness to this particular triangle.

I mean, if you just look at where it is, it is an island within a massive amount of traffic flow moving around it in all directions. It is a very unique part of the city. It warrants a very careful look at it before we make a decision that may change the entire dynamics of this small neighborhood. Councilor Ferro.

Thanks, Chair. So I appreciate the conversation. I appreciate the move to look into the traffic study and to consult with the hospital. I do appreciate the public speaking your truths and ‘cause you know better than anybody, especially I guess the one on Canterbury and the one on Westchester and Windermere.

You know the area very well. You see the traffic every day and I really think that that is a very important part the insight that we need to see here so we can actually bring something forward to actually address this. I wasn’t going to be supporting the application as it was before. If I see this traffic impact study come to through council and it gets approved, I’ll approve that but that doesn’t mean that it’s approving the bylaw amendment as it is.

That’s just us looking back to see what is the traffic component really going to look like with these developments and then we can make a decision from them. So that’s really what I wanted to see. I would also say you know like when it comes to I guess the university even though they didn’t respond or reply that doesn’t necessarily mean that they may have an issue or or not you know the responsible or the the hospital is responsible for obviously saving lives and the emergency department themselves are responsible for that triage component and we are responsible more so than the hospital obviously for you know how do you get there the roads that lead there and what happens with the traffic there when it comes to our planning. So it’s really up to us to make sure that we have that responsibility and it’s really up to us to make sure that that works for them.

So I guess you know consulting with the hospital directly is I think the best choice here. I really appreciate the motion that the mayor has brought forward. I appreciate Councillor ramen, Councillor Pribble, Councillor Troso’s comments on just pushing for that traffic impact assessment because I really think that is something that we need to look at and I appreciate you know consulting directly with the hospital and and pointing and flagging this to them just to say, what do you think when it comes to this? So I will support this as it comes to committee.

Again, it’s not approval of the zoning bylaw amendment as it is, it’s just an approval to look at that assessment coming back and then we can make our determination when we have more information as it comes back. So I’ll leave my comments there and I appreciate the work. Thank you, and with further comments, the committee will allow me from the chair. Yeah, I think we’ve come to a good conclusion here.

It’s quite evident that there is some traffic concerns. I think when you have 14,000 cars, and a 24-unit walk up, for sure, how many of those units will have multiple cars? Who knows? We heard today that Western has limited parking there, so I think a lot of students are taking advantage of transit that we have, those are living around.

being said. I’m familiar with this area and it is a bottleneck and I think that’s why staff are looking at widening in the near future. But what really concerned me was the comments about access to emergency care at the hospital. So I fully support this referral.

I was actually working on, you know, amendment myself and I’m sure other committee members were when the mayor brought this forward. So I think it’s an important thing that we look at the actual traffic impact, especially that pertains to the to the hospital access for sure, so I will support the room. Okay, any other comments or questions or I call a vote? We have a seconded, I’ll call the vote.

Housing the vote, the motion carries 4 to 0. Okay , moving on to 3.6. This is regarding 650 industrial road. I’ll look for over to move the opening of the PPM.

Councillor Cuddy, I’ll second it, and we’ll call the vote. Councillor Stephen, closing the vote. The motion carries forward to zero. Thank you.

I’ll look for the applicant. We’d like to address the committee. Oh, I can hear you. Can please give us your name, you know, five minutes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Daniel Salari with MHBC planning representing the registered owner and applicant pose some no properties. And also with me today is Scott Allen.

At this time, we would like to express our support for the findings and recommendations set out in the planning staff report. The proposed zoning by lineman is intended to solidify the boundaries of identified open space features on the subject lens. And we would like to emphasize that no development is proposed at this time. Furthermore, the proposed amendments would appropriately protect identified environmental features while also broadening the range of light industrial users permitted on the balance of the subject lens to support future development.

Finally, we would like to thank CDS staff for their attention to this application. thank you for your consideration and we would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. I’ll look for people from the public would like to address us.

Please go ahead. You have five minutes. My name is Annemarie Amal astro. I was disappointed that the environmental study wasn’t attached to the staff report.

Unless I made a mistake or I didn’t see it, I would like to get that report and it should be attached to it going forward to council. This area is right next to Pottersburg Creek and it’s a large open space. So I didn’t, I had a hard time understanding the staff report and unfortunately I had a hard time understanding the gentleman just who spoke ahead of me as well. I like to know what the application and the applicant are going to do about this green space place type .

It was confusing in the report of where that space is when I looked at the map it seemed to be not where the creek was and I would appreciate it and I’m sorry I, my guess is that the people in the committee today are not familiar with this space. I’m a little bit familiar with it because I’m very keen. I think I photographed it. I’m very keen on pockets of green space in the city and I’m wondering if someone could talk about the green space-place type, and how Pottersberg Creek is going to be protected, and all the species that are probably going to be displaced.

And when I look at Pottersberg Creek, which I walk, it’s not protected. The riparian zone is nonexistent. And now here’s an opportunity to protect that zone and also protect areas that flood, which are very important for amphibian breeding ground and fish spawning. You might think that there are just things you can throw dirt over and expand the development zone, but ecologically they’re critically important.

So before decisions made to support this, I think that the city has to establish the green space place type, something that I’ve just learned about now. And also the fact that for some reason, the environmental study was not brought forward to this committee so that they can also ask and raise the questions that I’m asking about. So my question is to the chair, and I’d appreciate it if it was represented the way I’m going to state it. Where is this green space place type going to be in relation to the creek?

And how big is it gonna be in relation to the total site? And so I asked the chair to, if you can please repeat it the way I’ve asked it. Thank you. >> Thank you.

I’ll ask the speaker. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. There isn’t. I don’t see anyone going to the microphone.

So I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor K aye on it for a seconder. I’ll second it. And we’ll call the vote.

Mr. Stevenson. >> I vote yes. >> Closing the vote.

The motion carries 4-0. >> So Ms. Velasco has asked and I hope I get the wording right. the green space in relation to the creek and was a proportion of that to the site.

Excuse me. That’s, thank you. Any more helpful? We’re not allowed, okay?

Through the chair, the area with the green spaces is the area that is proposed to be rezoned OS5 based on schedule A of the staff report. So that’s the area that we are looking to include within the open space zone boundary and then in the future green space place type. Thank you. Thank you and regarding the environmental study is there a environmental study it was done for this?

Through the chair through the consent application that is currently ongoing submitted back in 2022 that was deferred by the committee of adjustment until an environmental impact study was completed to date that EIS has been completed and accepted by staff. Thank you. So I’ll put this on the floor for committee members. That’s what cutting.

Thank you Chair through you. I’ll move the staff recommendation and we got a mover. I’ll look for a seconder, a mare of seconding. Look for comments or questions from committee members for visiting Councillors.

Coun cillor Cudi or Mike Sond you want to comment. Thank you. Thank you chair. This is my work so I do know the area fairly well.

I you know I’ve been in favor of this. I appreciate the fact that staff have come forward with this and I think it’s a good move. So thank you. Thank you.

Look for other councilor for thank you chair. So the EIS was was accepted by staff, is that what I heard from staff? Is there the ability to release that to the public? I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, the environmental impact study can be made available upon request. Councilor. Okay, requesting that, can I request that here, or do you need like a formal motion for that? I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, if you wanted to send me an email, anyone who wants a copy of it, send me an email, and I’m more than happy to provide that copy. Thank you. Councilor. Okay, thank you for that.

And I guess just one more question. I see that there’s no development proposed right now, but we are changing the zoning. If the proponent is online, I see that this is being changed to a holding light industrial special provision zone. I just wanted to know if we can be informed on what is potentially going to be proposed for the site.

Yeah. The applicant is online. Can you give us an idea of what’s being considered with this change in zoning? Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair, Scott Allen, MHBC. Apologies, my video doesn’t seem to be working. At this time, there’s no specific development plans for the particular site. There is a permission for an additional truck transport opportunity in the southwest corner of the site, which Ms.

Vivian spoke to in terms of the original consent application. So that is the one reason for that particular zoning at that location. But the intent is effectively to have lead industrial manufacturing type operations on this site and keeping with the applicant’s professional activities that they do at that. And that is ultimately why the application moved forward originally.

And the intent at this point is simply to establish development boundaries for future consideration of light industrial activities. Thank you. Councillor. Okay.

Thank you for that. I’m just sending an email for the request for the EIS. So I appreciate it. I’ll look for other comments or questions from many members of visiting Councillors.

Seeing none, a call to vote. Councillor Stevenson. I vote yes. Vote the motion carries 4-0.

Okay, moving on to 3.7. This is regarding 845-875 Commissioners Road East . I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation. Meeting, our councilor cutting moves it.

Councilor Mayeron seconds, and we’ll call the vote. I need some votes, yes. Using the vote, the motion carries 4-0. Thank you, I’ll go to the applicant, please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, committee members, Mayor Morgan, visiting councilors. My name is Alex Vanders-Sluice. I am the development manager with Auburn Develop ments. We are the applicant for the proposed zoning by law amendment at 845, 865, and 875 Commissioners Road East.

We’re very excited by the opportunity to develop this site and build several hundred rental housing units, approximately 800 meters to the Wellington Road BRT corridor and certainly within walking distance of one of the largest employment centers in our city Victoria Hospital and Parkwood Hospital just to the west of the site. We do have a request of committee which was outlined in a written submission and is on the added agenda. I’ll explain a little bit later but first I wanted to give a brief overview of the history of the site and explain the contents of the application as far as the work that we’ve done in getting to this point. We’ve been studying these lands for years and with our application we submitted a planning justification report, environmental impact study, hydrogeological study, geotechnical study, a D6 air quality assessment, a methane gas study, a functional servicing report, transportation impact assessment, noise and vibration studies, and a full architectural package, including floor plans, elevations, renderings, and a shadow study.

Going back to the 1940s, these lands were actually used as a gravel pit, and that use continued for several decades. The lands to the east were municipal waste disposal site hence the methane gas study. Over time, the aggregate extraction operations ran their course. The portion of the site closest to Commissioners Road East was used for commercial purposes.

There were different iterations of retail uses at 865 Commissioners Road East and 845 Commissioners road east had a gas station and mechanic shop there with the exception of 875 commissioners road east which is a parcel of land that was acquired from the city of London in a land exchange for development lands elsewhere on commissioners road that were needed for road improvements. These lands actually have an active industrial draft plan of subdivision approval. They’re also zoned and designated again with the exception of 875 commissioners roadies for commercial and late industrial uses today. The city owns a right of way through the middle of the property, extending deep into what will eventually become ESA as part of this application for a cul-de-sac to service that industrial plan of subdivision.

Instead of developing the site for industrial uses, we are, of course, with this application proposing the high density residential use. I realize that there’s a fair level of public interest in the site. It’s a large development, high-profile location, and so I do want to clarify that we are not proposing to develop within the ESA. The ESA will expand through our development application and with the transfer of lands to the city to be combined with lands to the south and east to form part of the Westminster Pawns ESA.

We’re not developing within the wetland, and we ‘re in alignment with city staff about the development limits and the buffer to the natural features to the south. we are generally supportive of the staff recommendation. As I mentioned in my written submission, there’s a couple of tweaks that we’re looking for to the zoning, which will allow us to maintain the type of housing that we see fitting here and not compromise our housing product, which is residential unit designs that we’ve been working on for years to get down to efficient and functional unit types that are desirable and work for our tenants. We’re also looking for an exemption to the calculation of height in the by-law to match what already exists, which exempts outdoor amenity space at the rooftop level from being calculated in the overall building height.

The London Plan designates these lands for 14 stories. We are proposing 14 residential stories. However, when we do outdoor amenity space at the rooftop level, we pair that with a complementary indoor amenity space to allow for that indoor outdoor use and all season use at that rooftop level. So what we’re looking for is an adjustment to the zoning that staff had recommended to exclude rooftop amenity space indoor in the same way that outdoor rooftop amenity space is already excluded from height calculation.

That’s all I wanted to say and certainly, you know, following any other public comments, we’d be happy to answer any questions from committee. Thank you. Thank you. I look for members of the public who would like to address the committee.

Please approach microphone. Okay, please, sir. Give us your name. You have five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is David Wake. I’ve been a long time advocate for protection of of Westminster Pawns and made my first appearance before a council committee at the old city hall down the street.

So I’ve been following developments related to the Pawns for many years. In this case, I find because of the history of various previous approvals, the whole planning history of this project, I will support the staff recommendation. in particular the transfer of lands within the ESA to city ownership as that will certainly enhance the management of those lands. And also the holding provisions that are recommended by staff to assess some further details related to the environmental impact statement so that we can be assured of the best quality of protection for the remaining area and the best management of the buffer.

system. So I did write comments in that are on the added agenda, and I just wanted to offer those clarifications in these comments. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Hi there. My name is Jennifer Tranpluser. I am a teacher of the H3ELP program at Westminster Pawns .

This is a group of great 10 students that come from across TVDSB and they participate with many community members like we forestland and quite a few others and we call the ESA our outdoor classroom. On behalf of the students that I’ve been teaching here for seven years many of them have reached out with its concern and I’ve just kind of compiled some of their ideas together and I have a couple of students that will follow me. London must move quickly to address its housing crisis but not at the expense of and irreplace able natural systems. The lands As at 845-75, Commissioners Road East set adjacent to provincially significant wetlands and an active beaver pond that support Carolinian species already under severe pressure from habitat loss and urban sprawl.

These landscapes have been identified and protected for good reason. The proposal to introduce four 14-story apartment towers and over 850 units on this sensitive site is simply too intensive. It risks the loss of an entire wetland complex, increasing flooding, through greater overland flow, and long-term damage to biodiversity, clean water, and natural corridors that our community depends on. Introducing well over 1,000 residents, their vehicles, and their recreational activities to this location is environmentally irresponsible .

London has many alternatives. Numerous vacant and underutilized brownfield sites exist across a city that would allow us to meet housing goals through intensification, filling in and building up without encroaching on provincially significant wetlands. Housing can and should be built where ecological harm is minimal. I strongly propose that this site be zoned as open space, supporting gentle, accessible viewing platforms that allow residents to appreciate and steward the existing wetlands rather than erase them.

If housing on this site is deemed unavoidable, it must be significantly skilled back to medium density forms with meaningful setbacks and protection of wetland complexes. London’s climate emergency action plan and the London Plan clearly commit us to protecting and strengthening our natural heritage system. As a city that prides itself on innovation and leadership, London should not only uphold these commitments, but consider tightening protections for our environmentally significant areas, including Westminster ponds, metal lily, Medway and others. These landscapes are essential to biodiversity, climate resilience, community well-being, intensification, intensified housing, development adjacent to these locations should be minimized going forward.

Other jurisdictions are moving forward by celebrating and safegu arding net nature through the creation of national urban parks. Places that protect ecosystems, support climate adaptation, and general community pride, tourism, and long-term economic value. London should be leading in this space, not er oding the very natural assets that make our city resilient and livable. Growth and environmental stewardship are not opposing goals, but that balance begins by recognizing that some places are simply too valuable to sacrifice.

Mayor and Chamber, thank you for listening to my words. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please , ma’am, give us your name in five minutes.

My name is Rebecca Deering and I am a grade 10 student speaking on behalf of the H3ELP Environmental Leadership Program. Today’s decision is more about, is more than zoning. It is about whether we prioritize short-term development or long-term protection of a sensitive ecosystem that serves the entire community. I also want to acknowledge that there is a housing crisis in London and that increasing housing supply is important.

However, this specific location is not an appropriate place to address that need given its direct connection to an environmentally significant area and a provincially significant wetland. I am here to oppose the rezoning of 845 to 875 Commissioners Road East to allow for 14- story apartment buildings and instead urge you to designate this land as open space. While this site may appear vacant, it directly borders an environmentally significant area and a provin cially significant wetland. These areas are designated to protect sensitive ecosystems and the species that depend on them.

This includes species such as killed here, native plant species like snowdrops and turtles such as the midland painted turtle and snapping turtle. Both considered species under special concern. These species are already vulnerable and habitat loss or disturbance can quickly push them toward threatened or endangered status. The ESA also supports over 200 bird species including the at-risk wood thrush.

Development of this scale introduces risks such as bird window collisions and increased light pollution, which can disrupt the migratory patterns. It also increases sediment and construction runoff entering the wetland, reducing water quality and damaging habitat for amphibians and invertebrates. In addition, this site lies within a floodplain under the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. Increasing paved and built-up space surfaces reduces natural water absorption and increases storm water runoff.

This raises the risk of flooding while also carrying pollutants such as oil, metals, and sediment into the wetland system. These impacts do not remain confined to the development site. Once development occurs at the edge of an ESA, ecological effects extend beyond the boundary line. This decision is not just about one development.

It is about whether we protect the integrity of these ecosystems or allow gradual encroachment that weakens them over time. I urge you to reject this rezoning proposal and protect this land as open space. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name, you know, five minutes. Okay, hello. I’m Violet Smith and I am here today to speak on behalf of of the grade 10 H3 ELP Environmental Leadership Program.

This program is located at Westminster Pawns. Every day my classmates and I go to Westminster P awns to learn about how to better protect the ESA in all of its biodiversity. I don’t just visit the ESA for school though. I often go to Westminster Pawns with my family.

We often go on long hikes and are able to spend quality time together in nature. I know I speak for a lot of people in this room. When I say I am very grateful for being able to walk around a beautiful forest and feel connected to nature in this way. I want to be able to show my future family all of the beauty of a healthy, protected place.

Westminster Pawns isn’t your average forest. It’s also unique. Southwestern Ontario is one of a few places in the world that has Carolinian forests. A Carolinian forest is a biodiversity hotspot and can hold up to 25% of Canada’s species at risk.

As you’ve heard, we are opposed to the apartment ‘s development that encroaches onto the ESA. However , we also understand that there is a housing crisis in London. So I’m here today looking for a way to mitigate some of the factors that will impact the environment. Once the apartments are built, there will be a huge loss in biodiversity, a lot more litter being blown onto the Bieber pond, as well as having runoff from the parking garage and a lot more foot traffic creating trails through animal habitats.

So, I would like to suggest some ways to possibly lessen the amount of biodiversity and habitat destruction. If large bushes are added along the edge of the buffer zone, it will discourage people from walking through the ESA. Large bushes as well as more green space for people to be outdoors will help soak up some of the water that will be experienced because the apartments are currently zoned on a floodplain. If the number of apartments gets decreased to 2 instead of 4, there will be less litter being thrown into the ESA and less parking needed, which will help with the large amounts of runoff that will pollute the beaver pond.

If the buck forgets enlargened, leaving more of the ESA protected, this will help decrease the amount of habitat destruction. A viewing platform can also be added beside the ESA, so people who are unable to walk the trails are still able to appreciate the natural beauty that it holds. In conclusion, we are opposed to building on a plot of land that is meant to be protected. But if the bill is inevitable, we would like to help work to lessen the harm inflicted onto our beautiful ESA.

Thank you. Thank you. Pollock for the next speaker. Please go ahead.

You have five minutes. Hello. My name is Amy Schultz and I have lived in East London for about six years now , but I travel all over London and I particularly enjoy green spaces. I am low income and I have struggled with housing insecurity, a struggle that is all too familiar to so many Londoners in recent years.

I am also one of few people that I have met in my years in the city that is in love with it. Despite my love for London, I have never had much of a taste for its nickname, the Forest City. It would seem to be a misnomer to any who see the city as it stands today. There are still forested areas in the city, but far too few, and we are here today discussing whether it is worth money to destroy further our irreplaceable natural resources and habitats.

It is about money to be clear. Londoners of course need places to live. But with a current unemployment rate of nearly 10%, the highest in the country, and thousands homeless or housing insecure, the last thing this city needs is to destroy a scarce public good and replace it with something we have in excess of already. Pse udo-luxury high-rise apartments that will not be rent stabilized, never mind affordable, run by companies that can afford to build elsewhere.

I am not opposed to high rises and upwards growth . I think they are essential to city development. However, there are plots of land available already stripped of nature in this city available for projects such as this. And despite the supposed plans to mitigate the damage to habitats for the sensitive and at-risk species residing in this area, there is no replacement for what is already there.

It is an act of ecological violence on its inhabitants. The effects of this rezoning will spread beyond the boundaries of the buildings. The noise and light pollution alone are hostility against the animals. They may never return to Westminster Pawns again.

Building upon and damaging green space is not the answer to the housing crisis in London. It is not giving the people in this city what they need. What we need is rent stabilization and affordable housing. What we need is zoning of currently workable land into apartment housing, not building more outrageously expensive town houses and single family homes.

The answer to our problems is not to further des ecrate irreplaceable, beautiful, and sensitive land in animals for corporate profits. Please do not approve this build, or if nothing else, please decrease the scale. There are so few beautiful areas of London left. We do not need to burn down what little remains of the forced city to keep corporate landlords warm.

Thank you. Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. Good afternoon, my name is Maitland Shaw, I’m at grade 12. Okay, thank you, please go ahead, you have five minutes.

Hi, my name is Maitlyn Shaw. I’m a grade 12 student at Medway High School and a graduate of the TVDSB Environmental Leadership Program. I would just like to thank, over here, we have David Wake, Mr. Tran Pleasure, Brendan Samuels.

These are pioneers in conservation that have been doing this for a very long time and I definitely stand on their shoulders being here today. I would also like to thank you for upholding London’s climate emergency action plan, Section 7-1-C by having that climate lens as we regard these issues and in considering all the statements of the people in opposition to the commissioner’s East property. I stand against this proposal. I think that it should be maintained as open space.

The Westminster Pawns area is the largest environmentally significant area in London. It is an absolute treasure hosting tons of biodiversity. It is essential for flood attenuation. It’s essential for climate change mitigation.

And it is a gem. And it is what makes our city the forest city or tries to be that anyway. Another point to consider is our provincial promise. This is close to this property borders of provincially significant wetland.

and in section four of natural heritage of the provincial planning statement, we are not allowed to build on those properties and I understand that the developer underwent environmental assessment and it was determined there were no risks there, but we did not consider section four one and four one two which consider four one and four one and four one two which consider the long-term consequences of a development like that, including the connectivity of an area. And I think by having four apartment buildings right there close to the ESA, we are restricting nature’s access to the environmentally significant area. And we know that there are 265 species in Ontario that are at risk. Since, in the past 30 years, there’s been a 15% decline in species at Westminster Pond specifically.

And it is a very vulnerable population. I understand the developer mentioned in their justification that they were going to propose ecological buffers, as well as a reconstruction of a pond that they’re taking apart. But the ecosystem is just too fragile to undergo that in the time that we need it and the benefits of having that environmental significant wetland preserved definitely outweigh the benefits of supporting that housing, which might not accommodate many people in the current economy. So I would just like to say that if we consider this in the context of the municipal, a government in the context of the provincial government, but also in the context of the federal government , that if we ever hope to maintain that COP 15, 30 by 30 target, 30% of our lands protected by 2030, we need to model that on a municipal level.

and it starts with making decision now. Your decision has a tangible impact on the future of Westminster Paws and the future of all kids who go there to play on all people that go there to hike and expect to hear an avian population that is sustained, that in sea monarch butterflies that can benefit from the milkweed and the golden rod and the a sters that will be there if we do not build in this area. So please do maintain this area that’s proposed on Commissioners East as open space. It is in your hands, I’m proud to live in London, but at the same time, I would hope that you can fuel that pride and live up to the name of the forest city, so thank you.

Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes. Hi everyone, my name is Alexandra, and I wanna thank everybody for the time to listen to me speak about this potential of zoning bylaw amendment. I’m an ecologist who has worked across Canada for the last 10 years of my life.

During that time, I have worked alongside environmental monitoring projects similar to what is being proposed the development by Auburn developments. A large part of the conversation that is missing in these developments is that these developments do not happen in a vacuum. The increased pressure on the area is not limited to the footprint of the development. Rather, the impacts radiate out and unintentional impacts routinely happen post- development.

Land developers work and think in pockets of land without understanding the interconnectedness of the work that they are proposing. While this development would provide additional housing, it would also create additional trash and other anthropogenic impacts in the surrounding provincial significant wetland and environmentally significant area. We are rapidly losing wetlands across North America and this development would be one more cut in the thousands that the land has felt already. If those in attendance today do not know wetlands are one of the best carbon sinks available to us but they are often viewed as empty land that is serving no other purpose than development potential.

The proposed development will be negatively impacting London’s only listed cultural heritage landscape. This area has also been noted to have a rich archaeological significance that has been used since at least 2,500 years before present. Thinking closer to our modern time, this land is encouraged naturalist in support of the growth of London itself as the site of the Westminster Pond Centre, which functioned as an administrative building and will hopefully function as a future centre for environment and sustainability. Staying in the common era, we are currently experiencing the six major extinction event on Earth, which studies have repeatedly found to be purely human caused.

There must be considerations for the species that we share this line with, and who have called the Westminster Pawns home for generations . The increased anthropogenic impacts, including noise, outdoor cats, pollution, invasive species brought in on the heavy machinery used to develop the site, and trash will place undue burden on this urban wild space that is already under enormous pressure. As previously stated, this is a provincially significant wetland and is home to many listed species who are losing their habitats year over year. There are many more appropriate spaces to consider development, especially when taking into account the inherent engineering problems that come with developing wetlands, including having to drain the development area, and then somehow keep water out of a place where it wants to be.

London is supposed to be the forest city according to the vast amount of marketing information that is produced by the city. In fact, the city received the designation as a 2026 forest capital of Canada on February 25 , 2026. This project stands in opposition to that slogan, and I hope that the committee makes a decision that is more aligned with the tagline on their merch. During my time trying to research the development on Google, I found this report to the planning and environmental committee that has been predated with today’s date in the executive summary states that, quote, “staff are recommending approval to the requested zoning bylaw with special provisions to implement the proposed development, holding provisions to ensure necessary updates to the environmental impact statement and compensation strategy, access to the municipal sewer and methane gas study to be completed through a future site plan, unquote.

The document goes on to fit to further link this to the quote’s corporate strategic plan, which states that this development fits within the strategic plan by quote, ensuring London’s growth and development and its well planned and considers use, intensity and form. This same document states that quote, the submitted EIS is insufficient to deem it acceptable. This EIS is not visible to the public. Furthermore, I could not find any archaeological assessments for the area, how have recommendations been put forward to approve the zoning change without a full misunderstanding of the impacts of the site?

I wanna be clear, I do not disagree with development. I just think that if we are marching forward with high density at building, we should be careful of where we are placing our feet so that a reparable harm does not occur. Moreover, it is well understood in my line of work that offset and compensation plans are a drop in the bucket compared to an already functioning habitat and that they function more as a pay-to-play access for developers. There are currently hundreds of unaffordable rental units available within London.

There is opportunity to work with property owners to lower these costs rather than continuing to market units that are temporarily affordable before falling out of reach for most people. Additionally, there are hundreds of hectares of golf courses, brown fields, and vacant lots that would be much more appropriate for development as they’ve already been significantly impacted. The people here today have the ability to reconsider this development, beginning with, at minimum, a more thorough, multi-season environmental impact statement and a clean equipment protocol required by the developer before additional considerations are made for this project. We only have so much nature left, and the impacts to even small parts of urbanized landscapes are in this proposal.

30 seconds. To conclude, you open this meeting with the land acknowledgement. You acknowledge that we benefit from the land, but you do not see the benefits it supplies to us , just as it is. I implore you to consider the whole ecosystem impacts and do your due diligence not to only think of it , and not to only think of it as one point on a map .

I urge you to reject the proposal. Thank you for your time. Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. Please go ahead, you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, my name is Wendy Stone and I am a resident of 860, Commissioner’s Road East, the property that is across the street from the proposed development site. First, I would like to commend the speakers that have gone before me. They’ve covered a lot of the ground for which I wish I could have spoken and which I know is supported by very many people . On that note, I would like to say that I know another citizen, private citizen, from the building in which I reside, has put forth a letter to the city and has attached a petition with close to 200 signatures opposing this development.

On that note, I’m choosing to focus specifically on one area of the assessment that has done that I have read. And that is the transportation impact assessment which I read. The assessment that showed, as is done, basically came up with a failing grade as the situation currently exists. From my understanding of the reading, there’s something called an LOS, a level of service, and it is graded from A to F.

Most of the assessments, and the, can’t think of the word at the moment, but the ratings for those fell into the DEF category, which means the current structure for transportation is already failing. Well, I have looked on the site you have or on the proposal. There’s a figure 2.1 that shows the particular area between Adelaide Street and Wellington Road, with proposed traffic lights on there, in particular areas where they think the traffic from 900 parking spaces can be accommodated in the current 16 traffic, which I say is near impossible. I think it looks good on paper where these proposed traffic lights could be, but that has nothing to do with the lived reality of being on Commissioner’s Road.

For starters, we have the hospital next door, which again, as in previous statements, I wonder whether the hospital has actually been addressed about the services that could possibly be impacted by this development site, mainly ambulance services, which I already watched from my balcony, being slowed down because of train tracks, because of traffic, because of the impact of the busyness on Commissioner’s Road. Shift changes at the hospital happen. There is a road that is not shown on the figure, or there is an emerging, it is not shown as significant on the figure 2.1 on the plan that you have that is just slightly east of Wellington Road. It is a exit from the hospital that merges on to commissioners.

Unless you live there, you do not know that that merging, which looks very innocent on a map, and should perhaps allow people to get out easily , can back traffic up from Wellington Road to Count ies, Counties, what’s it called? Counties Western Counties Road and beyond closer down to Adelaide. As the traffic is trying to merge into the existing traffic, that already comes out. That happens a couple of times a day with shift changes.

On top of that, we have a railway line that is just a short spit away between the proposed development site and Adelaide Street, three or four times a day, trains there, we’ll back up the eastbound traffic , going close again, back towards the hospital. So there are already existing traffic congestion periods which make it impossible for people to move along that area. As I said, the ambulance traffic I have watched with the trains, the ambulances have to find a way to get around the blocked tracks already, much less through the traffic. So the impact of 900 parking units 800 more people in that area from the environmental impacts that these fine folks have already mentioned makes it an absolutely ridiculous situation for traffic.

Again, the hospital is right there. I don’t know if the hospital has had any input, probably not. I’ve worked in hospitals. They have a lot of other things to consider than this sort of thing, but I would encourage again somebody to reach out to the hospital and say how does this impact the emergency services that are constantly going into VIC and I live there so I see the ambulance is going by.

The fire trucks go by. So on that note then I will close and say I strongly oppose this development for many many reasons. My particular choice was to look at the traffic but I support the other speakers that have spoken already. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please give us your name in five minutes. Hi, I’m Brenda Machit, a long-term resident of 860 Commissioners Road.

I will state the traffic study. I don’t think is gonna be very accurate as there’s new builds happening now right on, sorry, the north side of commissioners that will impact traffic even more than what’s happening. As a person that watches out my window quite a bit, I see a lot of a a lot of wildlife that will no longer be coming through, which is part of the environmental, sorry, part of that study. Also, I see flooding on a constant basis in the field across the road, and I don’t know how they will mitigate that from happening, stopping, because there is a creek that flows along and it heads north up Adelaide anyways.

So just to support everybody who’s spoken against the project, which I will say that I do not support the project as it is. Thank you. Thank you. Look for the next speaker.

Please give us your name, you have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of the committee, visiting counselors, Mayor Morgan. Want to begin by thanking everybody for showing up today and participating in the process. And I want to also thank a city staff for making themselves available to meet with me and answer some questions.

Probably not surprising that I’m not particularly happy about this development. If I were in your shoes, I probably would vote to deny the application on principle. However, that being said, I recognize there’s not much the city can really do here, given the previous settlement agreement and the likelihood that a refusal would be taken up again with the Ontario Land Tribunal. And so with that in mind, I would recommend it to the circumstances that you should adopt the staff recommendation in full, including all of the holding provisions that the staff recommended.

I have a comment and a couple questions. It is problematic to me that the environmental impact study that was submitted for this application is incomplete, which staff noted in their report. Frankly, in my opinion, that EIS was poorly done and there are numerous gaps. The various mitigation that the E IS recommends does not appear to align with the city’s policies.

So, for example, we have a proper standard for bird safe building design, which we’ve heard a lot about today from the gallery. In fact, Council adopted the following motion moved by the deputy mayor in January 2024. “The CSA A460 standard be used as a reference by staff in building design and construction.” Of course, this is voluntary, but it’s a technical reference. It guides recommended best practices.

Yet with this application, and so many others like it, the applicants and their consultants don’t make reference to what the city is requesting and standardly using. Recommend ation 47 of the EIS talks about all kinds of design measures to prevent birds in the ESA from being and killed by colliding with the buildings, but several of these actions are not effective and are not aligned with that standard already adopted by a council resolution. That standard isn’t referenced here anywhere. So this makes me wonder how seriously the development community takes any of this public feedback and requests from the city.

For what it’s worth, I’ve not seen a single development in London voluntarily comply with the standard since council adopted it over two years ago. And so this brings me to my first question. Given the EIS included with this file in the staff recommendation, moving forward, can developers submit an incomplete application with a half-baked EIS and still get a conditional approval? This doesn’t seem consistent with the city’s environmental management guidelines.

My second question pertains to site planning and the impacts of bill 98. In the staff recommendation, clause B says the site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following design issues through the site plan process. Importantly, for the public to understand, requesting is not the same thing as requiring. Bill 98 is being debated at second reading at the provincial legislature right now.

Moving forward, if this bill passes, the public and the municipality will have even less control over developments like this beyond the zoning stage. Londoners are represented at Queens Park by Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Rob Flack, who is championing this bill. Unfortunately, he hasn’t responded to a single email I’ve sent over the years to express my concerns about the province of meddling in our local land use planning. And I suspect the situation is gonna become even more difficult.

And so my second question is, if this zoning application is approved today with the holding provisions and the recommendations or requests, what would the implications be of bill 98 getting passed, given the proposed changes to the scope of site plan control? To close, please ensure these holding provisions are reflected in your decision. This will give all parties more time to figure out how this development can proceed with sufficient mitigation that aligns with the city and conservation authorities’ recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. go ahead you have five minutes. My name is Anna Muir Milastro. So again the environmental impact study was not attached to the staff report that so the public could read it and the decision makers could read it and make the best decision they can.

The applicant has not committed to having bird-friendly windows or planting native species. You haven’t made that commitment today even though you you boasted about how you’re swapping lands and things like that but that was very absent in your presentation. The other thing is that environmental impact studies are woefully defective. With high rises, they don’t measure the impacts of lighting on the natural system.

It doesn’t measure lighting on nocturnal species. And it doesn’t measure the impact of a massive parking lot that wildlife would have to traverse, plus it gets lit all night long. there’s no rationale given why it’s a surface parking lot other than it’s cheaper than building an underground parking lot under the actual buildings so that you can plant trees on the perimeter of those buildings because you can’t plant trees over an underground parking lot. None of that was addressed.

My guess is none of it was addressed in the environmental impact study and even that study wasn’t complete and somewhere there has to be a way to hold a developer accountable. And this committee has that ability to not accept this until an environmental impact study is completed until it addresses the impacts of lighting, surface parking loss, and 900 people coming and going right on the edge of an unperventionally significant wetland. And the other thing is that you cannot replicate a wetland. You can put a hole in the ground with, you know, with heavy equipment.

You can move earth and then fill it up with water. That is not a wetland. That is a hole in the ground with water that you’ve put in there. A wetland is a very sophisticated ecosystem.

That’s why they’re protected. That’s why they can’t be replicated. I encourage this committee to deny the extra height on this building and send this back until the environmental impact study is completed and that is where the city has some ability to shape this development and also if it has the ability to bring it down it should it’s the intensity of the building not whether something can go there or not okay it has nothing to do with it being farmland at one time in history it’s the intensity of the building that people are opposing so wherever this committee or council has the ability to bring down the intensity including lighting and surface parking lots. That’s where they should be looking to ensure that whatever goes in there has minimal impact on the natural system.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. I understand there’s someone online.

Miguel, can you hear me? Yes. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, please go ahead. You have five minutes. Thank you . Yeah, thank you, Chair and the on the committee as well for allowing me to speak today.

So my name is Miguel Belcina, and I wanted to express my opposition to the proposed bylaw amendment and the overall proposed development. So as a frequent visitor to the city’s ESAs, such as Westminster Ponds, I’m deeply concerned about the condition of the city’s natural green spaces. This proposed development will have a negative impact to the provincially significant wetland and environmentally significant areas, directly adjacent to development. This area is not only beneficial to wildlife that live and breed in the area, but to the many Londoners who visit the area as well.

There’s extensive research that shows the benefits of wetlands from flood prevention, cleaning our air and boosting local diversity, as well as health benefits and social benefits for being in nature with friends. The building of the four, the building of four 14-story high rises and large paved parking lots so close to the PSW and USA do not adequately leave a buffer that ensures there’s no negative impact to the ecology of this ec ologically sensitive area. This plan is a fitting example of the shifting baseline syndrome that we continue to fall into, where we continue to move the baseline on what we consider as conservation or protecting the environment in the wrong direction. We continue shrinking our ecologically sensitive areas.

And eventually, the new baseline will be there is no ecologically sensitive area. The holding provisions in section 4.7 of the plan report also do not adequate to protecting the ecology of the area. The completed impact study that was mentioned in the report recommended buffers and mitigation measures to be made. I believe the proposed plan fails to achieve this effective buffer or mitigation development is only meters away from the ecologically sensitive area.

In the proposed drawings, you could see the ponds , which will be within feet of development that’s not paved over by the parking space areas. So this will displace the many wildlife in area and impact how the public enjoys the area. So I respectfully ask the committee to reconsider this by-law zoning amendment request and development, thank you. Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker.

Please give us your name, you have five minutes. Hi, my name is Darlene and I moved to London from Mississauga about 10 years ago. I live in Black Friars area and I love London. When I first moved here, it was like, oh my God, it’s so green here.

You walk the ESA’s, you see people photographing owls and just like all this wildlife and now I’m a nut for it. But I think if we care about our ESA’s that we need to properly protect and support the spaces that we have, especially with the city wanting to have 33% tree canopy. interesting. I saw a satellite image recently of London and really the canopy is the ESA’s and along the rivers where you really see that dark green space.

So I thought that was kind of interesting. So it seems like development is happening and if it is, I think we need to put some safeguards into play. I want to make sure that nothing moves ahead until there’s a clear plan in place to properly protect the surrounding environment with the consultation of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. If we can’t stop it, I think we can make sure that it’s done right.

Thanks. Thank you. I’ll look for our next speaker. So, Clerk, if there’s anyone else online, there’s no one online, I don’t see anyone else approach the mic.

So, I’ll look for motion to close the PPM, Coun cillor Cutty, I’ll look for a seconder, Mayor. We’ll call the vote. The motion carries. March is zero.

Okay. I’ll put this out for committee members and I’ll go to Mayor Morgan. chair just wanted to tell myself. So I’m willing to put a motion on the floor which is an alternate motion to what the staff suggested.

It has several additions. One, it addresses the 1.5 meter setback concern that would allow for the design to be a more affordable design as the developer suggested. I also don’t have a challenge with the the difference between the indoor and outdoor rooftop amenities and the way that it’s counted. So the alternate bylaw addresses that and allows for that.

It adds two pieces to the site plan approval direction one and these are for consideration of the site plan process they’re not requirements but consideration landscaping to include a minimum of 50 percent native species with no invasive species planted and utilize bird friendly policies using the adopted CSA standard which we put in other applications before for site plan approval otherwise it’s as staff recommended with those those changes, I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, Claire, do you have that up? And, okay, so if everyone gets a chance, so you can see the motion. And I’ll look for a seconder once we’ve had time to rate it.

Councillor Cudi, second that motion, Chair. Okay, Mayor, do you wanna speak to it? I do, I’m sorry, my clock now, Chair. I’m gonna take some time to address this because I’m sure there are members of the gallery who stood up and said, listen, we really trust Mr .

Wake Mr. Samuels and you’re probably sitting there wondering why they recommend us approving the development as constituted by staff . So I just really want to explain this because I don’t disagree with a lot of the concerns have been raised but people have to understand the reality of the situation it is today and what the current permissions are on the land. First it’s important to recognize that there’s already an approved plan of subdivision on this site which means without coming to council and just going to site plan authority there could be a a significant residential build on the site, a build on the site already, yes, not residential but a plan of subdivision build on the site already.

So the rezoning application allows us to actually make some changes to what is already approved there. When you look at the actual zoning on the site, there is one small piece of open space otherwise it’s a significant commercial zone and a massive light industrial zone and the light industrial zone is in the the furthest south portion of the block. It is a huge amount of development that overlays most of the area that people were expressing their concern about. What the development does is, yes, it allows for some density.

Yes, it changes it from light industrial and commercial to a smaller block of land on that site tucked up against a commissioner’s road and more to the west side of the block away from the existing ESA. And then it donates a huge portion that formerly light industrial and commercial land to the city to actually expand to protect the ESA forever. So I understand the concerns and I understand why people would say just don’t approve it but the reality of today is the site can be developed in a way that you probably would disagree with more and if there’s an opportunity for us to absorb a good portion of the site through a development agreement that allows for some density into the city’s hands and expand the ESA and protect that portion of it that’s transfer to the city forever, that’s not a bad pathway moving forward if you care about the long-term protection of the ESA. One piece I want to mention to Mr.

Wake, he didn ‘t mention it in his comments, but he did mention it in his letter, there’s also an interesting history on this site, going back to when it was Westminster Township, and I totally agree with Mr. Wake, there might be some interesting placking here about the history of that through maybe the historic Worksites Committee of the London Public Library, I’d be happy to talk to you about that in a future date. I think there is some recognition of some history on that site there that wouldn’t be part of this zoning process, but it’s something that might be interesting to add to the site. I’m sure the applicant would be interested in recognizing it on a portion of the property somewhere.

So, all that to say, I think I’m very much a prag matist, right, and I can agree with a lot of what members of the gallery said, but also recognize that there are other really intelligent members of the gallery who share your opinions, who are asking us to go with the staff recommendation. And I’m trying to articulate the reasons for that so that you really understand it. To my colleagues on council, I think that this is a proposal that balances some intensification and housing. And there are many people in the audience who said we recognize we have a housing crisis that is steps from the under-constructed BRT route, very close to major employment centers in the city like the hospital and we have the opportunity to absorb and expand the ESA and take on a series of sensitive lands into a city ownership without having to pay a tremendous cost for acquiring them through a private process , but as part of the development process we can take on and make that part of the city’s property .

So I think this is actually a very balanced proposal that is on par in the best interests of both the city and its residents to be able to to expand to protect the ESA while at the same time addressing housing. Again, I just want to be clear. We have to make decisions based on what is already allowed on the site, too, and what can move forward without us. When there is an opportunity for us to shift that through a new development application, there’s always opportunity for us to add a public good to this.

And I think our staff have done an excellent job of saying, you want to intensify this site from what’s already allowed on it? That’s OK. We can do that. That aligns with the number of our policies.

But we actually want to take on a significant portion of the sensitive lands into city ownership so that we can protect them in perpetuity. So I wanna commend our staff for going down that approach. I know that a number of members of the gallery were asking us not to do this, but I would invite you to look into this, speak with the two people who are in the gallery who articulated for us to do this and the reasons why I’m happy to engage with you too. And I know our staff are as well to further understand why we would do this if we agree with many of your comments about protecting the ESA.

So I think I’ll leave my comments at that, Mr. Chair, and I encourage staff to support my alternate recommendation. Our Councillors to support my alternate recommendation. Thank you.

I’ll look for members of the committee, comments and visiting Councillors. Councillor Trusson. If I understand it through the chair, we’re just discussing the amendment. We’re not discussing the main motion or.

This is a motion that has been put on the floor . Okay, I can’t support this. I just can’t support this. And I have the greatest respect for people who have said, We’ve got to go ahead with the holding provisions .

We don’t, we don’t. First question, is there anything in the memorandum of understanding from the previous LPAT decision that says we do not have to go through the EIS process? I’ll go staff. Through the chair, the settlement decision established the ESA boundary line.

The specific language within the settlement notes that parties, that there’s nothing that contained in them, that shall limit or restrict normal exercise direction for city staff on new applications. And we do note that, however, we do have consideration for the existing settlement ESA boundary deline ation. And through the holding provisions that we are proposing to carry forward in the site plan, we do believe that we will be able to satisfy the new application components by including compensation within the ESA lands. As the mayor mentioned, we are increasing the amount of open space in OS5 zoning as well as green space to the effect of approximately three hectares.

And beyond that, we are meeting all of our PPS requirements and again, feel that it can be appropriately satisfied with the holding provisions through site plan. Well, my question was merely whether there was anything in the, what we’ve been directed to do that says you don’t have to do a full EIS and I take it the answer to that is we still have to do the EIS. And Steph did say it was pointed out by a few people in the audience that the EIS was unacceptable, incomplete, and needs more information. So I’d like to ask specifically, in order to make the EIS complete, acceptable, and not needing more information, what has to be done to it.

Good stuff. >> Through the chair, the completeness component that we noted as part of our report was to to ensure that in perpetuity and moving forward through our policy, we would not be accepting EIS s that don’t include revisions to map five. So again, through the settlement, we established the EIS boundary, but the specific components of the ESA that would appear on map five, including significant woodlands, the various wetland components that are not PSWs, those pieces, those are complete application requirements, and we do have London Plan policy to require that . However, we do note that a blank map that says map five revisions would satisfy that component.

And then through this process and bringing the applications forward to council and committee, we are able to disagree with the process, but at least have a map to say to demonstrate, this is what you’re proposing. This is what we believe that should be happening based on the findings of the EIS. So it would just be that map five component. Thank you, Councilor.

If I made the statement that I’m trying to get to the bottom of what are the policy reasons underlying the EIS requirement? ‘Cause I think that’s crucial to this discussion. Because on the one hand, we have a lot of reasons why we have to move forward with this. We can sort of solve all of our problems with holding provisions or site plan review.

But the EIS serves as a document that should happen early in the process. The EIS should not be something that is left till after the fact. After the fact, it’s not finished yet, but we’re gonna sort of put a holding provision in to make sure it gets finished. And when I read through some of the guideline documents in some of the other cities, such as, and I don’t have time to go through all these in my five minutes, but Hamilton’s, Ottawa’s, wealth, there’s more specific language in those guideline documents that makes the specific point that the EIS has a framework document.

And it has to come early in the process. So I analogize saying, well, you know, the EIS still needs work, but we’ll fix it. In site plan review, we’ll fix it. In a holding provision, I think that’s a little bit like building a structure that has a faulty foundation .

But you’ll say, well, the painters will fix everything later. Maybe they’ll put a little spackle in some of the holes. We need to have a proper and complete and lawful EIS before we proceed. I will be asking, and that’s why what I would want to say would be contrary to that.

I would be voting against that. Before we even get to that point, I want to see a complete and certifiable EIS on the table. And the question I would ask is legal staff here? Okay, so the question I would ask legal staff is, what is the requirement for a complete accepted E IS in terms of the validity of a project?

Can a project be opposed on the grounds that the EIS was not complete? Oh God, staff. Thank you, and through you, so the determination as to whether to accept the EIS or as complete or not would be up to staff during the application review. And I expect that their test is PPS consistency.

Councilor, I understand that. And my question is, what is the remedy of the wrong? Would an aggrieved party who does not agree with the EIS be able to have a remedy to test the validity of the EIS? I’ll go and stop.

Thank you, and through you that would be explored through the council approval process. And then also potentially subsequently through an appeal process. Councilor. Thank you.

We’re in the council approval process right now. So I’m trying to ask the question again. What is the implication of having an EIS that is not complete or up to standards? Could that jeopardize the subsequent appeals?

Would it agree if party have the ability to test the validity of the EIS? Got to go ahead and stop. Thank you, through you. So Council right now is assessing the opinion with respect to the EIS.

If Council’s opinion is that the EIS is deficient , then a refusal would follow. And if Council believes that the EIS is fine, then an approval would follow. Council is already, Steph has already written through the chair, Steph is, I’m speaking fast ‘cause I know Steph has already said in the report that the EIS as it stands right now, which was dated back in September, does not meet standards and it needs more information and it’s deficient. So why would this council not feel satisfied saying we are going to, unless we can get an extension from the developer to not go to the El Papagos of the time running out and we’re going to refer this back pending the completion of an EIS.

Why would this council not just say the EIS by the staff’s own analysis is deficient. We’re going to deny this project, and of course, that’s without prejudice for the developer coming back with the proper EIS, once those deficiencies. 30 seconds, Councillor. So I’m going to ask for additional time because I have a number of questions, but could you answer that one?

I’m sorry. I didn’t catch that? Yeah. I’ll just take that last question from Steph.

Okay. All right. I’ll look for Councillor. Oh, I’m sorry.

I thought you missed it. I’m sorry, Councillor. would this council not just say we’re with the the staff has said the EIS is deficient and we have to like not approve it at this point and they need to come back with a complete EIS why would that not be okay I’m not too sure that you’re saying you’re asking rhetorical question why council would not in a certain way I’m not sure staff can comment on that well if the staff is already admitted that these that the EIS is deficient I don’t think it’s a rhetorical question and I really think that we’re running we’re running in to some very potentially perilous situations here . I don’t want to get dragged into a closed session , but I think we could be looking at some additional litigation if we are not careful about making sure that this EIS is appropriate and complete before we finish this process.

I will say more about this at the council. I will have an alternative motion at the table, but I think we need to have a proper EIS on the table, not something that’s gonna get fixed by a conditioned subsequent, but something that is precedent to this project approval. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Frye.

Thank you, and I just have a couple questions through the chair. I’m wondering if staff can comment on if the previously approved application is better or worse for the environment in comparison to this application. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, as previously mentioned, the site is approximately 6.8 hectares in scale, and most of that would have been taken up with the previous development.

So the fact that we are getting approximately three hectares that is coming into the green space place type and can eventually be added to the ESA management contract, which I will note as part of the track to pathway to target one areas and manage at the level of a national park. We do view it as a net benefit, moving forward with the revised proposal. I’m sorry. Thank you.

And a couple more questions through the chair. will the full buffers be honored by the developer or are they asking for any exceptions? Okay, staff. Through the chair, the buffers were largely established through the settlement.

So beyond the ESA delineation, we have enacted what has been proposed and agreed to as part of that settlement. But again, we do view it as a consistent with the PPS and to the benefit of the ESA. No, sir. Thank you, and in regards to the holding provision, the R10-4, in regards to the environmental conditions, Does that include inclusion for lids or bioswales , or that require an additional site plan conditioned to be added to request that the developer include lids and bioswales near the parking lots?

I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, that would be in addition to the holding provisions on site. Thank you. Councillor.

Thank you. That is something that I would consider adding at council as I do think since it’s so close to some wetlands, nothing would be more sad than to see all of the salt used on the parking lot drain directly into the wetland. And I’m wondering, can we add the submission of a complete EIS as part of a holding provision before moving forward? That’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, I would recommend if you’re looking to approve the zoning, it that it would be added as a condition of, or a direction to the site plan authority to consider if you would like an updated EIS. We can also just require that as part of the site plan process. Councillor. Thank you, it sounds like there’ll be a couple of additions at council.

And then I just wanted to also thank the mayor for adding the native species and bird friendly approvals. We heard that was important as well for many of the speakers. So at this point, originally I had planned to vote against this, but it has been brought to my attention that this is a slightly better version than what was the previous one. So I, between now and council, do a bit more research and consider it, but I do plan to bring a couple more additions to site plan at council to try and ensure as much protection as possible to the environmental space.

Thanks. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I look forward, Councillor Frank, to see further amendments. I do have a couple of questions around the EIS as well. I’ll throw you to staff. I do have some questions coming from the gallery about the transportation assessment.

staff just give me an update on that transportation assessment with this application. I’ll go staff. Thank you through through the chair. The TIA was reviewed by transportation staff in the conclusions where the the main East West traffic flow on Commissioners Road are operating at good levels of service now and in future conditions.

However it did note that poor vehicle left-turn improvements to and from the site development were identified. So traffic signals at one of the new access locations would improve those left turn movements on to Commissioner’s Road from the existing apartments to the north and from the new development but it’s not warranted until beyond year 2030. So the city has noted that this that will continue to monitor the traffic conditions in the area and as the site plan advances. So that will still be considered through the site plan process, the upgrades on this road.

I’m very familiar with this area moving around, and I know how congested it can be. I know the BRT is coming to this area as well, so it’s appropriate for having the, I guess, the density in this area, the 14th story. I am, you know, I wasn’t sure exactly how I was going to go with this one as well. The fact that we’re getting more land to protect the ESA is something that is really, really important that we need to be able to do.

And having that extra buffering I heard from the applicant, no development on the ESA, which is also important. So with that I do want to I’m leaning towards it I know this will go to council on the 28th for a further conversation with council so I I’m going to inquire a few more outstanding questions I have but I do want to thank the public and and the students in particular for being here it’s so important that that we are that We have these conversations that we listen to one another, that we hear each other. It reminds me of an application many, many years ago that I was involved in over 20 years ago. And once you start to ask questions and hold us, your municipal government, accountable to having answers, it’s really important, this engagement piece.

We all learn, we may not all be happy with how things go forward. But it stays with us and we need to constantly be engaged ‘cause we know these ESAs, how important they are to our city. I know how I’ve heard from the public that it is so important that we maintain and we protect these areas and to have this conversation here with a development is very, very important and vital to our understanding as we go forward. So thank you for being here.

Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers, Councillor Ferri. Thank you, Chair. And thanks to staff for the report.

I do, I feel like the real issue that’s kind of being circulated around here is the fact that there is yet to be received in environmental impact study, but yet there is also a zoning bylaw amendment that could be approved here today and we’re bringing that back to site plan. And I think that’s kind of the main issue that’s coming up, that’s the main issue for me, especially when it comes to potentially approving a zoning by-law amendment and not having all the information. I don’t know what the impact, or the environmental impact study is going to have. And, you know, that would be something that would be appreciated to be seen.

I did hear that staff did say that, you know, according to our official plan policy, having the environmental impact study is something that we do require. And I did hear from Council Trustees comments having that as soon as possible rather than later at the site planning stage is something that we do have within our policy. So I guess, I know Councilor Truss would kind of ask this question, but if we were to refuse this zoning by-law amendment or the amendment that we have here on the floor because we don’t have the impact assessment, what maybe legal might be able to answer this, but like the appealability of this at OLT, would we have potentially a good case there? Can we rightfully refuse this or send it back until we get the environmental impact study and then bring it back once we get that?

I’ll go to staff. Thank you and through you to provide that response, I would need to go into closed session. Councillor, I can’t move to go to closed session. I guess I’ll leave that to committee, but maybe we should get that answer if you would move to go into closed session.

But I’ll continue with my questions. I did, just going through the report, I also saw that the climate emergency action plan not necessarily referenced there in the report. I did see in some of the comments from the public that that was considered as well. And just making note, you know, in addition to the targeting net zero greenhouse gases, emissions by 2050 and focusing on resilience, I do see it also includes protecting the environmentally significant areas.

So I do see that maybe that would, because I don’t really see that being touched on in the report And I also see that the environmental impact study is not necessarily there. I have those concerns. And when I see that, the surrounding lands to the east are the ESAs along the CN rail line. And then the south is the Westminster Pawns.

These are the issues that are coming up that would restrain me from potentially approving something like this because I do want all that information. And I did hear from the gallery. like we could be potentially approving something that could irreparably remove significant lands. And we could be risking losing the loss of our wetlands and the provincial wetlands.

And I hear, and I really appreciate the speakers who said they’re proud to be Londoners because I’m very proud to be a Londoner as well. But I have this kind of anecdote that I hear, are we the forest city? And that is something that we say all the time. but the more we make decisions, I also fear that we risk, you know, are we the Forest City or that we’re part of the Forest Cleared Forest City?

And that’s kind of the, I guess, when I reduce things down to, that’s kind of what I’m thinking about. And I have some concerns with that. So at this time, I would be a little bit hesitant to approve this. I wouldn’t approve this without that EIS.

I would like to see that EIS. And I do see that that could give us standing on potentially sending this back. And I’m not saying to not approve, I’m just saying we should have all the information available in front of us before we make these decisions. So I’ll leave my comments there for now.

Actually, I do wanna ask one more question. I did hear from a member of the public who asked a question with respect to Bill 98. And I wanted to know if we were to approve this today and this would come back to site plan with some of the design issues. Would Bill 98 getting passed, and I don’t know all the details of Bill 98, but, and I have her in down here, but if with Bill 98 being passed, would staff be able to give us an update on their understanding of the implications between the two?

I’m cautious to ask a hypothetical, but a lot of staff want to comment on the implications if Bill 98 doesn’t go through. through the chair, with respect to Bill 98, today we’re working within the current legislative requirements. Suspecting that if Bill 98 comes in at some point and the application for site plan hasn’t come in, we have to have due regard with that legislation. Having said that, there are elements that maybe the applicant is wanting to do over and above what the legislative requirements are, but that’s on the the onus of the applicant.

Councilor, I’ll go back to you with 45 seconds. All right, thank you. I’ll just, I’ll give some closing comments then. I would like to see if we could go into camera to ask to see if we can get that question answered from our city legal team.

And I’d also say, you know, it’s just kind of making these decisions and weighing out whether what’s the impact for our environment, what could be irreparably taken away for housing? Is it affordable housing? It’s just there’s a lot of things that we’re trying to weigh out here, but without the all the information in front of us I wouldn’t be able to support an application like this if I had that information if I had the EIS specifically that would help me In my understanding here, and I really believe that you know approving a zoning bylaw amendment at this stage We should really have that EIS in front of us. Thank you.

I’ll look for other comments or questions from video or account of his encounters Seeing none of the committee will permit comments from the chair I want to direct it to the students. Thank you for coming in today. It’s a tough job. It’s kind of nerve wracking having to speak in this room.

And you guys did a great job. And to your teacher, thank you for getting your class involved. This is very important. And I think it was great that you sat here today to see how it works at this level.

You can hear a lot of various opinions from those who spoke and from those that sit down here. I don’t think we’re that far off on what you’re thinking. I think Westminster Ponds and the other environmentally sensitive areas in our city are crucial to a good city. In an urban environment, we have to work with those areas.

How do we do that? And I think the London Plan speaks to something that you spoke to, and that’s a concern for our environment. London Plan encouraged a number of things, primarily with transportation. That’s why we have rapid transit, which is very close by to this development, and also encouraged to high development near where people work.

That’s why I’ve been supportive of high density downtown. What better way to keep a carbon footprint low than not to drive a car, but to just walk across the street to work there’s 10,000 people working. So this provides 8 68 units to address the housing challenges that pretty much everyone acknowledged but in a way that I think is appropriate to access high-order transit and also to where they live. I’m also encouraged by the fact that we’re not encroaching onto the environmentally sensitive area but we’re giving three actors back and that’s a lot of That’s a lot of land.

Three hectares is a lot of land. So I’m glad to see that. You know, it’s not the first time we’ve done it. In my ward, there’s a provincially recognized ecological sensitive area , Siftenbok.

And at one time, the Siftenbok was just in the middle of the countryside. Now it’s completely surrounded with residential and commercial, and it thrives. And I encourage you, if you haven’t been there lately, to take a walk on the board walk through it or the natural trails that go around it, it’s a terrific area. And you see what wetlands can be and should be.

And we’re able to do both. And I think in this particular case, we can. So for those reasons, I’m going to support the motion. I think there’s a chance to address are housing needs, for sure, but in a way, that’s environmentally sensitive for the reasons that I listed, so I will be supporting it.

So I’ll look for any other comments or questions before I call the vote. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. I’m sorry, Councilor, you’re out of time. I know I’ve called the vote.

I was thinking about the motion carries part to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.8. This is regarding the Kelly Stanton environmentally significant area of conservation, master plan phase one. So I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM.

Councilor Cuddy, I’ll look for a seconder, the mayor. I’m in favor, I’ve logged out. Closing about the motion carries four to zero. Apologize for the delay folks.

The mayor had to step out. So we’re just ensuring that we have quorum here. Okay, got that sorted out. So I’m looking for a motion to open the PPM.

Councilor Cuddy, I’ll second it, we’ll call that vote. Where’d he go? already we already opened it okay thank you so I ‘ll look for members of public would like to address the committee please please go ahead you have five minutes my name is Anna Maria Velastro I’ve documented this area extensively I’ve walked it’s all the way from the proposed Gain esville Road all the way to the mouth of the Thames River where it merges with the Thames River I’ve walked under the very scary culvert that goes under the CP rail line and we’ve walked the creek down the middle, the creek all the way to the Thames River. And while I am pleased that there is an ESA being proposed here, my fear is that it’s going to suffer the fate of the Siften Bog, which is actually not in good health.

It is dying. I’m going to contact that teacher and those kids and let them know that there are problems with the Siften Bog because it has been developed all the way around and it’s actually shrinking and that’s why the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority purchased land to help it by expanding it along High Park Road. Okay so it’s just important to understand these things. So the the Stanton we call it Sing ing Frog Creek.

We named the Creek Singing Frog Creek at the time we were walking it and trying to raise public awareness about the ESA, that in its current state it will also die because unless the city purchases the farmland, then what is now a defunct farm fields, that goes over the Hunt Club lands and out along over the Hunt Club neighborhood and then it over into the Hunt Club golf course area, that ESA will have the same fate as a sift and bog because It’s too small right now and it’s a beautiful, beautiful place and it’s worth protecting. So my understanding now that those farm fields are owned by South Southside and the city should actively pursue expanding and restoring the ESA so it can actually live and support the wildlife that are there because the city has already done a lot of damage to the lands on the south side of the ESA by turning it into a stormwater drain, and it removed all the function of the creek, the spring overflow, which again is very important because it’s amphibian spawning ground and fish spawning ground, and there’s already been a lot of damage to the ESA. And so while this is a wonderful thing that they’re protecting these two parcels of land, it’s not enough. And let’s not kid ourselves by saying that things like the sift and bog are doing well when they’re not.

And we need to understand why it’s not. And to foresee what is going to happen to this ESA, if we don’t follow the creek all the way and protect those lands all the way to the mouth of the river, when you get down to the closer to the hunt club, the houses are right up against the ridge and so the only hope there is to acquire the lands on the other side and maybe we can just do the right thing for once. Let’s just do the right thing for once, protect the lands that are here and then pursue restoring the lands that take it all the way to the river because that’s the wildlife corridor. So let’s not pretend that what we’re doing is somehow great and thriving.

It’s just a see it as a first step to expand the ESA all the way to the river. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

Last click if there’s anyone online. I don’t see anyone going to the mic. So I ‘ll look for motion to close the PPM. I’ll look for a motion for someone.

Councilor Stevenson and I’ll second it. We’ll call the vote . So, Steve is in votes. Yes.

Put this up. Sorry, clerk. Wait, please. Closing the vote.

The motion carries three to zero. Thank you. So, I’ll look for a motion from committee. Councilor Cutty.

Thank you. Sure. I’ll move staff recommendation. Thank you.

Councilor Stephen seconded. I’ll look for any comments or questions for staff. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. There’s Stevenson.

I vote yes. Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. Thank you.

Moving on to 3.9. This is again regarding Kalelei metal metals environmentally significant area conservation master plan phase one all of her motion to open the ppm counselor cutty I’ll second it we’ll call the vote yes closing the vote the motion carries three to zero look for anyone that would like to address me on this one please go ahead you have five minutes burn in Samuels and generally very supportive of the draft that you see before you one thing I really respect about London is how seriously we take these conservation master plans when it comes to ESA’s. I just wanted to highlight that in both this draft and the previous one for Kelly Stanton there’s notes about invasive plant species that are present within the ESA and I can’t stress enough that we really do not have a good handle on these. A lot of these invasive plants take over and they spread like crazy and cause massive ecological damage and a lot of these plants actually originate from properties adjacent to the ESA.

So homeowners with backyards that back on to the ESA potentially not realizing that dumping their yard waste over the fence creates secondary issues. A lot of these species are actually distributed in retail settings in London. So autumn olive for example is a popular ornamental plant. Honey suckles can be bought at many garden centers and we currently don’t have much in the way of education about invasive plants by way of preventing introductions to the ESA.

So I note that in the previous the Kelly Stanton file, there was an excerpt that said the species listed in table seven may require targeted and aggressive measures for control and where possible should be considered for management programs and activities . Something I would love to see the city become more proactive about is reaching out on a regular basis to the homeowners and renters adjacent to the ESA and letting them know about what they can do to maintain the ecological integrity, through the advisory committee that I am part of that reports to the community and protective services committee. We’re also looking actively at business licensing as a potential vehicle for making sure that consumers are provided with information at retail establishments about invasive species, much like the city already regulates establishments that sell fireworks to provide education. So just wanted to express my support and thank their staff for their work on these drafts.

Thanks. Thank you. I’ll go online. Just let me just check here.

Michael Patterson, right? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yup.

You have five minutes, please go ahead. Thank you. So my name is Michael Patterson, a longtime honore who borders the proposed ESA extension, proposed in section four of the master plan for clearly knows. I’d like to thank the time for the time today.

I ‘m opposed to the expansion of the ESA. as it pertains to my private land. I am supportive of the current USA and continue to be an active member in adding native tree species as part of Free Forest London. And I do appreciate the previous comments from the gentleman that just spoke.

I think it’s great that we educate people that live where I do in maintaining the USA and keeping it in good stead. Specifically, I believe the extension of the USA on north of the Thames River border in Wakefield Crescent does not belong. The broad nature of classification of the sensitive area in this report to measure tree cover, proximity to wetlands is not specific and loosely ecologically defined. As defined in map 11, this area that I’m talking about has not been defined as ecologically or environmentally significant.

And we’re talking about an area of 10 to 20 feet of land that would be added to the ESA along this parcel of land. And it’s defined as the habitat of the Hackery Emperor, which is as laid out in table 14, tolerant to human disturbance. It’s also defined as a significant woodland and valley land, but again, that definition would cover most of the areas along the Thames River in our city, and I don’t believe that warrants an extension of the ESA areas. As a homeowner, having the city seek control of land that I purchased, paid taxes on for the last 15 plus years, would negatively impact the property value of my house.

And I believe we can use resources to more appropriately protect lands, again, as laid out by the previous gentleman, to make sure that we’re protecting the existing ESA, which has unfortunately not been done to the level that I would expect. Much of the areas particularly behind my property have had significant erosion problems. So maybe a question to the council is, How will the extension of the ESA or how will this go about changing how we deal with erosion and how will mitigate erosion moving forward? Thank you for your time and your consideration as part of this public review.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Do you wanna speak? Yeah.

Okay, go ahead. You have five minutes. Because ESA’s will die if they’re like people, they need to expand down to the microphone. Can you just go to the microphone please?

Okay. Yeah, thank you. Okay, I’ll just do this. Thank you.

Okay, ESAs will die if they don’t have a chance to expand out, they’re like anything. They seed out, their nature is to expand out, when they’re confined like the sift and bog, over time they will die out. And so even if it’s a small piece of land, it’s important to the health of that ESA because they’re not islands, they’re an ecosystem . And that’s theoretically what you’re trying to protect.

And so a lot of developers, they tear up these natural areas, and then they name their streets Deer Park or Deer View. And the reason they want to be along that, for example, the Thames River is because they know that that’s what a natural area is a selling point. But we need to talk about the health of these ES As. They’re living organisms.

They’re ecosystems and they’re under a lot of stress. And so even expanding them a little bit gives them a little bit of breathing space. And I think homeowners, if there’s erosion issues , that’s something different that has to be addressed, but it’s not related to expanding the ESA so that it itself can expand and thrive as an organism. That’s all I want to say.

I support the expansion. I just wish you wouldn’t take the beavers out. But I support the expansion. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, go ahead. Your name and you’ll find this.

My name’s Peter Paulus-Juck and I do own a home right along where you want to expand the ESA. And I fully support it. I’ve seen lots of damage happen by people throwing stuff over their back fence and I want to protect it. So thank you.

Thank you. Please, sir, gives your name again, and you have five minutes. David Wake. I’ve followed this work that’s been done on Cal ally over the last number of years.

I strongly support the work that’s been done and the recommendation from the staff. I do very much agree we need to do a better job of managing some of the invasive species. And when budget time comes around, maybe we need to take a closer look at how we can be more effective in doing some of those things, but strong support for this very good conservation master plan. Thank you.

I’ll look for any other speakers. Just check with the clerk if there’s anyone online. Okay. I’m seeing no one else.

I’ll call. I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM, be seconded by Councillor Stevenson and we’ll call the vote. I vote yes. Opposing the vote, the motion carries three to zero.

So there was one question that opposed the staff regarding how this extension will mitigate erosion in the area. Through the chair the recommendation that staff are proposing is to establish the green space place safe on map one and then subsequently revise the ESA delineation with respect to erosion these features are dynamic in nature and so they do change over time the erosion that the resident on Wakefield Drive may be experiencing is likely due to the changing route of the Thames River again rivers meander and change over time in terms of the specific management adoption of the CMP will not be changing our existing management program. That’s location specifically, we have, we are undertaking review with the UTRCA, our management contractor in the area, and we’ll do our best to get that trail component open as soon as possible. However, it is currently closed with consideration for the erosion.

Thank you. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor looking for a motion. Councillor Coyote, are you moving the staff recommendation? Yes, sure.

I’m moving the staff for committee. Okay. Yeah, seconder. I’ll I’ll, uh, Councillor Stevenson is seconded.

So I ‘ll look for any comments or questions. Uh, Councillor Pribble. Thank you. Mr.

Chair, to the staff, Mr. Patterson, he mentioned two more things. And he mentioned the question to, uh, comments with the question at the end, map 11, defining as being not significant. And, uh, in the report, that’s what it states.

And he says, why would we, if in the report uh it states not significant why would we consider enlarging it? Don’t go stop. Through the chair just to clarify map 11 in the submitted conservation master plan is a snapshot of the existing map five natural heritage features that currently are included in the London plan so the purpose would be to amend that through the official plan amendment. We were just demonstrating what the current and then future version would be.

Councilor. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. Will this negatively affect the value of my property, or staff?

Through the chair, we can’t speak to specific property valuations. However, what we are proposing here does not refine the zoning by-law, and it’s that zoning that would limit potential uses. So all the previously and existing uses that the residents enjoy, they will continue to enjoy. Councilor, thank you for those answers.

There were from five different individuals, there were comments and questions, and I just want to to make sure have you responded to them, have you answered them? I would imagine the comments we considered, but the questions have they been answered to the individuals? And especially I think it was Mr. Living that he had one really, some specific ones.

Do you want to stop? Yes, through the chair. All of the submitted comments were addressed either through calling the individuals if it was requested or when the report was drafted, the recommendations and questions were addressed and included in the report, notably the sections about trail compatibility and the items around implementation of the recommendations. That was some of the concerns that Mr.

Levin brought up. Thank you. Councilor, and I believe it is the comment. Thank you, Ms.

Burke and Williamson because all the emails and calls I received, which I forwarded to you, you responded to the individual’s residence immediately. Thank you for that. Look for other comments or questions. We have a motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote.

I vote yes. Mr. Cuddy, closing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Thank you, moving on to three point one zero.

This is regarding 6585, mentally road south and other lands. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM Councilor Cuddy. Seconded by Councillor Stevenson, we’ll call the vote. I vote yes.

Closing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Thank you, I’ll look for anyone that’d like to address the committee on this item. I’ll just clerk if there’s anyone online as well as so. I was part of this appeal.

And this, the city lost this appeal because of a definition of trees. And I mean, it’s done now. I’m not sure what the public meeting is about. There was a decision at the Ontario Land Tribunal , but it’s a lesson to be learned from staff and council, because decisions at the Ontario Land Tribunal are those adjudicators don’t have any ecological background.

And I felt that we lost because there wasn’t a way to address what came down to a trivial matter about a type of tree. And I just feel like going forward, we lost something here because we couldn’t argue this on an ecological perspective. And the adjudicator, just the decision was just based on a type of tree. And I just think it’s a lesson to be learned here .

So I’m not sure what this public meeting is about . There’s a decision made and you’re just adjusting the boundaries to the decision. Unless I’m wrong, I would appreciate you telling me so. Thank you.

I look for other speakers. Is there anyone online? I saw a look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Cudi is seconded by Councillor— Yes.

Closing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. I’ll put in the floor looking for a motion. Ready. Councillor Cudi, I’ll move staff recommendation.

I guess seconder, Councillor Stephen seconds. I’d like for comments or questions. Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Oh yes, closing the vote.

The motion carries three to zero. Okay, I would like to move the order of items to be considered. I’d like to get permission from the committee to go in camera to move 6.1 up to the next item before we get into items for direction. I’ll move the motion.

I’ll move the chair. Thank you, can I get a seconder for that please ? Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Stevenson seconds, and we’ll call the vote.

I vote yes. Wasn’t the vote 3-0. Okay, so we’ll be moving into a closed session for a matter of pertaining to security of the property of the municipality. The vice is subject to solicitor of client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.

Councillor Stevenson didn’t follow my lead. Oh, she’s there. We got a motion moved and seconded to go on camera. I’ll call the vote.

Chair, could you just explain what going on camera means for those guests in the gallery and that they would come back. Yeah, this is a confidential session. Sometimes we’ll move into another area, but we’re gonna stay here, so we’re unfortunately gonna have to have two folks to leave while we’re in camera. But then we’ll come back and we’ll deal with the rest of the items on the agenda.

Closing the motion carries three to zero. Recording in progress. Okay, I’m calling this meeting back to open session. I’ll go to Councilor Cuddy to report out.

Thank you, Chair. Committee went into in-camera from 4.56 to 5.35 PM. We made progress. Progress was made on matters discussed in closed session.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving on to 4.1. We do have a request for a delegation from Jay Smith.

I’m just wondering if that’s you. Is that you? Okay, he had to leave. Okay, well, we’ll have to get, we have to vote to accept the delegation.

So let’s just see what committee does. So I’ll look for a motion to accept the delegation. Councilor Cuddy, second by Councilor Stevenson, and we’ll vote on that. Vote yes.

Using the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Okay, if you could go ahead and give us your name and you have five minutes. Hello, well, good evening, Councillors. My name is Ken, I’m speaking on behalf of Jordan Smith who is the chair of the east of Adelaide chapter for Acorn in London.

For those who don’t know our history, London Acorn is a community and tenant union. We represent low and moderate income residents. You’re most vulnerable, yet often your most vocal constituents. We are here because we believe housing is a human right.

And right now, that right is under siege in our city. We are here today to talk about demavictions and the catastrophic loss of affordable housing. This isn’t just a theory to us. We’ve been going door to door and the scale of this problem becoming more apparent every day.

These aren’t just one or two isolated cases or bad apples. We are seeing a systemic pattern where long-term tenants, those most reliant on stable housing, are being forced out of their homes. The people first in line to be pushed out are the ones who can least afford to move. When you displace a tenant who has been in their home for 15 years, you aren’t just moving them.

You are often pushing them into core housing need or homelessness. We hear a lot about new supply, but let’s be clear. What is replacing these lost units is nowhere near equivalent. Even units labeled as affordable are often pegged at 80% of market rent.

In today’s market, that is still out of reach for the people Acorn represents. We are tearing down the only genuinely affordable units we have left specifically because they are rent controlled. The new units replacing them will not be subject to rent control, meaning the economic landscape for Londoners is only shifting in one direction toward more displacement and less stability. It is significantly cheaper for this city to protect existing affordable housing than it is to build new units from scratch.

Currently we are losing affordable units faster than we can ever hope to build them. Human suffering is happening at scale in London. If you want to see the results of failing to protect our most vulnerable, you don’t have to look further than our downtown core. We are seeing the city fail in real time.

Acorn members are very pleased to see Councillor Skyler Frank putting forward this motion and that it includes consideration of tenant compensation and moving costs. This represents a vital piece of what Acorn fought for last year with our advocacy for a renovation by-law. If the committee chooses to pass this motion, we would be so grateful to see the city finally catching up to the reality on the ground. This isn’t radical.

Acorn has successfully worked with councils in Burnaby, New Westminster, Toronto, Mississauga, Hamilton, Kitchener, and Waterloo to pass similar protections. What Acorn members in London really want to see is the city council take steps to protect our homes that are at risk. So please pass this motion and let’s work together to stop mass displacement and preserve affordable housing. We’re also calling on the city to implement full landlord licensing.

We need a base level of accountability where the city provides proactive enforcement of its own bylaws rather than leaving the burden of proof on the tenant. Don’t wait for the next crisis to act. protect the housing we have, protect the people who live there, and let’s build a London that actually includes everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So far as the committee and this item is concerned, Councillor Frank has put forward a suggestion for a motion and I’ll look for someone to you can see at the bottom of our letter that suggests it wording. I’m willing to put that on on the floor, but I’m from the chair.

So we only have three of us. So I ask the, if someone else would be willing to put that motion on the floor. Or I can, I’ll ask Councillor Cudi to take the chair so I can do that. Mr.

Chair, I’ll put the motion on the floor. Thank you. Okay, so I’ll second it. And then just to get the discussion going, I think I’ll just go to Councillor Frank.

It’s your suggestion. So why don’t you go ahead. Councillor Frank, please go ahead. Thank you and I appreciate the mover and the seconder for getting this on the floor as I’m not a member of planning.

And this motion came about through some of the discussions after the 550 right out streets south as well as 145 baseline road west, which is in my ward where we approved some infill projects that had existing tenants in those buildings and had a lot of discussion about what will happen to those tenants and in those cases, the applicant was willing to put in some good faith, verbal and written commitments. That being said, we don’t see that all the time. And additionally, those are non-binding. And as we continue to see and support growth and intensification in the city, I believe we also have responsibility to ensure that the people calling these places homes are not left behind in this process.

And I think that this motion is more about balance. It’s making sure that while we’re trying to build the London of tomorrow, we make sure that the tenants and residents of London are not having their housing to stabilize today. And we’ve already seen some examples where we don’t have a clear framework. 145 has been in the news.

And I do see that the efforts we did to try and protect the tenants in those buildings , I think, were good, but it has caused some confusion in the process. And I think having a clear program or plan or strategy that would deal with the conditions for the developer the applicant for tenants security, I think that would help us move forward in a good way. And I think that the two examples I give, they’re not isolated cases. We’ve had more come through in the last couple of years, but we haven’t been able to ensure that there are protections for tenants with those because we don’t have a plan.

As you can see with my additional communication, there are existing Ontario municipalities that have some form of plans or programs or protections. they come in a variety of shapes and sizes, some are bylaws, some are through the Planning Act, some are through the Municipal Act, and that’s why I’m seeking your support to direct staff to come back with a report because I’d like to understand what are the benefits and downsides of the various approaches. And I think that staff being able to provide that to us would help us make an informed and better decision, including cost and other impacts. So at this point, it’s not saying we should implement a plan today or tomorrow.

It’s simply asking staff to come back and report on what we can do. And I do think in regards to the speaker, I think this is trying to protect the existing affordable housing we have. There are reports that show for every new single unit of affordable housing we build, which is usually still, as was pointed out, much more expensive. We lose 19 units in the city.

So I think we need to protect the stock we have because it’s actually a better bang for our buck and trying to build new units. And including also keeps people housed, which is obviously what we’re trying to do. So I look forward to the discussion and would love this committee’s support on this motion. Thank you.

In port 10 to six, although we only have another item, couple items on the agenda. We’re probably going to go past. So I’m going to need permission of the committee to go past some of that. I’ll move that motion here.

Okay, and Councillor Stevenson has seconded it, so we’ll call that vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Okay, so we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll open it to questions or comments from committee members who are visiting.

Councillors, Councillor Cuddy. So a question to the maker of the motion, ‘cause I was the mover. You’re asking staff to come back with some recommendations on this, Councillor? Yes.

Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just to comment, I do have some issues with putting burdens on landlords. We have some landlords as we know.

We’ve discussed in the past that our difficult on tenants. That’s why the renovation bylaw was passed a couple of years, actually a year ago, March. We’ve made some good progress. We’ve learned yesterday that we’re making more progress with that, we’re making some changes to it.

I’ll support this motion and we’ll see what staff comes back with. Thank you. A little further comments or questions. Councillor Ferrell.

Thank you. First, thanks to Councillor Frank for bringing us forward. Obviously, I’m gonna support this. I’ve been trying to see this for a while and this, I guess I’ll speak to the first part that kind of comes to my mind and it’s the fact that we’re speaking about, I guess what you could call naturally occurring affordable housing and that’s housing that’s in rent control buildings built prior to 2018 and it’s the type of housing that people are in because they can afford it.

It’s they usually longstanding tenants usually units that are beyond one or two bedrooms and those are the type of units that people are staying in regardless if they want to leave or not because there’s not really many units out there that would directly accommodate their needs and be at the level of what they can afford. We have, you know, we have a lot of housing in London. I know housing is an issue, but usually when I hear, you know, we have a housing crisis in London, it should be confirmed that we have an affordable housing crisis in London. Like if you were to look at the last market reports, we do have vacancy rates that are escalating, that are increasing and they are doing so in short, constricted amounts of time.

But when you compare that directly with the vacancy rate affordable housing that’s very very low it’s very very low it’s I think it’s around 1% right now and that just makes it see makes it that ability to secure that type of housing for anybody who wants to move or who has to move very difficult to do and there is a real competitive market out there to get that affordable housing so a motion like this that would be able to at least find a way or a path forward at least have staff explore what can be done to make sure that that housing or other housing or financial compensations or whatever it may be exists for individuals who may be at risk of losing their rent controlled affordable housing is a very good direction that we need to go. Like our strategic directions you know we want to maintain our affordable housing we want to reduce homelessness and when you really think about that you know the first point that you can really do that is stopping homelessness before it begins and stopping homelessness before it begins really will begin at, you know, taking away or easing the pressure from individuals who might be at risk of homelessness. Like, a cost that should be referenced here is, in our last evaluation report, homelessness and a reactive sense costs the city and the province together cumulatively when it comes to our municipal law enforcement, when it comes to our policing, when it comes to our emergency department visits around $100,000 a year per person on on the street like that’s very expensive. So if we were to find some type of avenue or some type of policy that will reduce that cost , it will not only reduce the cost on the taxpayer, but it will also reduce the cost of the social cost that we see outside.

And it will also give the city what the city is asking for. So this type of motion will align our strategic objectives within our strategic plan with policies or with how we go about our planning process. And I really appreciate that. And I really think that’s very needed.

It’s not needed today. It’s not needed tomorrow. It was needed yesterday. It was needed last year.

So I really hope that we can get support for that because this is definitely the direction that the city needs right now. So I’m gonna be fully supportive of this motion when it comes to council. And I think it was, it’s great working. And I hope that this committee can support it here.

And I hope that we can support it at council. And I look forward to seeing what comes back. like clearly we can see from what Councilor Frank has indicated that there are other municipalities that have brought these extra protections. Whether it’s Mississauga, Oakville, Hamilton, or Kitchener, these protections exist and they seem to also be allowed under the Municipal Act.

So having staff look into what the city can actually do for those extra protections, I think is a great direction. So I’m hoping for full support from the committee . I’m hoping for full support at council. You’ll see me definitely support this and thanks again.

I look for other comments or questions from committee or visiting councilors. Councilor Kerbal. I’m not gonna take a lot of time because the council have proposed this motion is very clear, very much in support of it, very simple. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded. Councilor. - Oh, just to say, if anybody’s gonna be surprised, I’ll be supporting this at council.

I appreciate you bringing this forward. I think there’s a need for this, and I’ll just leave it at that today. Thank you, Councilor Rama. Thank you and through you.

So yes, I’m supportive of the direction that we’re looking to take. My concern though lies with what do we do in the meantime, because we have applications coming forward already, continue to come forward where we’re having these conversations with developers as to, or people are having conversations with developers around what kind of remedies we can do in the interim. We now know, based on what just came up in the news story, that those don’t hold water. So we’re going to have to, I guess, rely on the fact that we don’t have anything in place to ensure these protections right now and make our decisions accordingly, knowing that we have nothing to allow for these protections as we move forward until such time as a report comes back and we make a decision.

Thank you, other comments? From the chair, thanks. Thank you, Councillor Frank. We ran into this with a recent development.

The developer was supportive of finding other accommodation for the existing tenants. What is the protection for those developers that are not so inclined. At the end of the day though, it still comes to this community council when we’re deciding on such things. So that type of response, we’ll play into that.

I actually think this is a good thing that it goes into Q1 to 27, speaking with staff. They have a tremendous amount of stuff on their plate right now that we need to get finish this term. So I will support this. And one of the reasons is it goes into Q1 of 2027 .

So that will be supported for this. We have a motion moved in second, I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries two to one. Okay, moving on to 4.2.

This is regarding Meadow Valley at a wander on road, the environmentally significant area, area, encroachments and master plan. So I’m just gonna put this on the floor right now I’ll see what bubbles up as far as suggested motions because more counselors here and next year’s work counselor will be running in that area from my understanding. So I just wanna hear, you know, what comes from committee members or visiting counselors. So I’ll put it on the floor for those in attendance.

Yes, Chair, I’ll just pass for the moment if you don’t mind, Google it. I’m sorry, I’m not ready at the moment. Okay, so we’ll just pause for a second. Okay, Councillor ramen, do you want to speak to it?

Well, Councillor Cudi’s working on it. Thank you and through you. So I’m hoping that I might get support from a member of this committee to move an alternative motion. The alternative motion I’m looking to move is not withstanding the recommendation of the deputy city manager housing and community growth.

The following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated April 14th, 2026 related to the Medway Valley Heritage Forest South, environmental, environmentally significant area, Adwondering Road, encroachments, and the Conservation Master Plan. A, the above-noted staff report be received. B, notice of the following recommended actions be circulated to the abutting neighborhood, removing the planned level three paved multi-use trail east of Adwondering Road from the Conservation Master Plan and designate the passive recreation area as a park as per the historical use. to regularize the existing informal trail as a level one trail.

The next three would be plan to 10 meter naturalized buffer associated with the regener ating cultural meadow and implement the previous restoration efforts. Part C, the civic administration be directed to evaluate and identify the area behind 1630 to 1726 out of one road to be maintained as a park as it has been historically used and used for unstructured passive recreation only , that is to be maintained as a mode grass area in accordance with our standards for a park. D, the civic administration be directed to report back to a future meeting of the planning and environment committee to explore options two and three, and a report back on alternative mechanisms for individual property owners with properties abutting the open space to pursue remedies where boundary disputes exist. And E, the civic administration be directed to bring forward an update to the CMP to protect the trees and shrubs native and non- native that abut the add-a-wondering properties.

Okay, Councilor Cuddy, thank you Chair. I’ll put that on the floor. Thank you. Well, that’s put on the floor.

I’ll second that. I think that’s in should be in front of your screen, if you refresh your screen. Perks doing that right now, and it’s up. Okay, so that’s on the floor.

Moving in seconds, I’ll open it for comments or questions. I’ll go to Councilor Rhonda. Thank you if I may just provide rationale for the discussion that we’re having as I turned off my screen by accident just a moment. So I wanted to share that it was less than a year ago that we were here discussing the Medway Valley environmentally significant area and the Atawandran Road Encroachments and Conservation Master Plan.

A reminder that we got here because the Conservation Master Plan included a recommendation for a level three trail . And this triggered a lot of the encroachment issues being enforced in the area. And a lot of those encroachment issues, as you can see in the report, exist behind properties from 1630 to 1876 at Wandern Road. And they include misaligned fences, very one, I think, retaining wall or something of that sort, structures and trees and shrubs, for the most part, onto city-owned open space.

The level one trail meanders and opens into a grass park-like area. In fact, it has signage that calls it Adwondron Park. As the trail extends south through the mode area, which has been this way since the late 1970s, towards Museum of Ontario Archaeology, parking area, the trail path becomes progressively less defined as the area but the area is still firm and stable, and I’m not sure that it’s necessary to define it further in that area as it has been used as a park. I’m in agreement with the 10 meter naturalized buffer that is currently in place and when I say currently in place, the neighborhood has in their submission and the added agenda included where those markings exist and should be established along the forest edge to protect the identified features that is marked and right now contains a lot of invasive buckthorn.

existing mode open space area should be maintained in full while providing a sufficient naturalized buffer to protect the natural natural heritage features and functions over the long term. As noted in the package there was historical encouragement for property owners to plant trees and to have these tax-paying property owners maintain the landscapes of the sloped boundary area abutting the park on behalf of the city of London . I support pausing the tree removal of the non-native trees from city-owned lands within the Medaway Valley ESA until this can be contemplated and revised in the Conservation Master Plan. Many of these changes require the city undertake a PPM.

My request is that the PPM take place when the encroachment matters are also dealt with. Otherwise it will be difficult for residents to separate those discussions and may create further further complications in the public participation meaning process. Many did participate in the PPM and participate in the discussion when we were first discussing removing the level three trail. And as such, they are aware that the decision was made to move it to a level one.

Rev ising the conservation master plan to incorporate these changes would require a bylaw amendment later on to remove the planned level three trail from the sustained trail concept figures include in the conservation master plan and add a new figure to provide a more detailed concept plan for the Adwondering Road area. And with this mind that would be the time to bring all of these items together for a public participation meeting . And that’s my submission. Okay.

Thank you. I’ll look for comments or questions from members of committee or is in Councilors. Councillor Trussa. Yes, I just want to say in advance I can’t vote here today, but I’m fundamentally opposed to this amendment.

I support the staff report. I think the staff report is much better policy. I think it involves much less by way of legal risks , and I think there’s a lot of work that’s been done on this file over the last few years. And I think that, yes, there’s going to have to be a public participation meeting.

But I think it’s a mistake. I think it’s a, it’s a huge mistake, specifically D. I think, I think D is against the interest of the city. It’s prejudicial.

It will be viewed as biased and unfair by other people who have complied. And I think overall it’s, it’s bad policy. So I’m going to, um, at council, I’m going to, um , oppose this. I, I hope you will vote this down and uh recommend the staff report because I think the staff report is uh much much much sounder and I think that’s really all I can say right now please please don’t please don’t adopt this as an amendment and um I think the staff report should be accepted thank you thank you I look for other comments or questions uh council for thank you I guess further to that I can’t support this either um we see that there’s 17 to 45 properties that have already complied what are they going to say if we pause this and look into the other options um the level the removal of the level three path to level one trail is already um in my opinion um not good not a good way for it as it is but just kind of going back and just looking at these other options and continuing to potentially allow these encroach ments to exist I think is not the appropriate way to go like my neighbor has asked me who has their property a budding on city property if they could could extend their patio out onto city property.

And I was saying, no, you can’t do that because that city property, how am I supposed to explain this movement? Like in that case, when, if this were to be something that would be pursued, they may be able to do that. They may be able to just go and approach on that land, then hopefully we decide that, you know, we’ll come up with an agreement that they can take the land. I don’t think that’s a very good way to go.

I think we should enforce the city’s legal authority over the public land as the city owns it, especially when it comes to parklands. And I won’t be able to support this council. I can’t vote here, but I can’t support this direction either. Thank you, I’ll look for other comments or questions, Councilor Frick.

Thank you, I just have a few questions to staff to understand this motion a little bit more. I’m just wondering, does this then take ESA land and turn into parkland? I’ll go to staff. Through the Chair, this amendment is requesting that the historic use of the open space behind the Adewondering Homes be taken into Park land, which has established processes and would require environment infrastructure to initiate their processes.

In addition, we just would like to note that all ESAs are currently located within Park land per se and that there’s a variety of different Parkland components, whether those be activated, whether they be ESAs and preserved for ecosystem preservation. So although, so we would be potentially changing the maintenance mechanism and associated zoning. I’m not sure. I’m sorry.

Thank you. And then I do see some similarities between the staff recommendation and this one. So the buffer, I’m just wondering if there’s, if the buffer changes at all between the two motions. Go ahead, staff.

Through the chair, staff are recommending a buffer associated with our recommendation as well. However, just based on the council’s comments, I would be unclear what line work she is basing it off of. It does appear that the submission by the neighborhood is noting that the line would start within the feature and then be 10 meters off of that versus our line work does start at the drip line of the feature and includes areas that have already been natural ized as part of Friends of Medway Valley and other ESA standard practice works. Councilor.

Thank you for that clarification. And then in regards, I heard some comments but saving non-native trees. So I’m just wondering, ‘cause I’m not as familiar with this file as some of the other counselors are, is there a proposal to remove some non-native trees because they’re in the ESA and they’re non-native ? I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, I believe that the trees that are being referenced as non-native are those that are currently on city property but located within the fenced boundaries at the encroachment sites of the residents. So I think that they’re, I am assuming that the concern is that there would be a loss of shade in the existing backyard areas. Again, those are currently on-city property, but we would look to municipal compliance to address those items. Councilor.

Thanks. Yeah, I’m probably gonna have to sit with this a little bit more, but at first glance, I’m not supportive of the alternative motion brought forward. Staff’s motion seemed to have addressed most of my concerns, but I would like to perhaps chat with the council a little bit more between now and council to get a better understanding. I was happy though with the direction that staff initially proposed in the report.

Can I look for other comments or questions from committee members or visiting counselors? Councilor Ferro. Just a question, a follow up. I see that part E to bring forward an update to the conservation master plan to protect the trees and shrubs at a future meeting.

I just, well, to bring forward an update. So I just wanted to know when would we expect that update? Go ahead, staff. the chair that affects our work program so we don ‘t have any timeline at this point.

Councilor. Okay thank you and then I guess same question with with D that administration be directed to report back to a future meeting a peck to explore options two and three would we be able to know when to expect that item to come back. Good stuff. Thank you through the chair that would be the same response they would come together but at this point we don’t have a timeline.

Councilor. Okay All right, I believe that we should probably have a timeline put in there. I can’t do that at this committee. But just knowing when to expect this to come back , especially when it comes to extending the time to explore, meaning we’re not gonna be enforcing encroachments that just can push things out.

And I have risks with that. There are risks with that. Go staff. Through the chair, that was a comment or question.

Councilor. It was just a comment. about the risks associated with extending it out and not having a timeline coming back and I would wonder when it would come back. I think we should resolve this matter quickly.

We have a good report back in front of us. I think option one answers all the questions and puts us in the best position for any type of exposure. So those are my comments. Look for other comments or questions.

Thank you. I just wanted to address some of the questions and comments that have been discussed so far. So first, as it relates to Part C to direct to evaluate and identify the area, it was through my discussions with staff that I realized that without defining this as a park land, if we want to use it as passive recreation space, being that this is the only open space that residents in this area have without having to cross either Wonderland or Cross Fanshawe, we would have to be able to have a level of service attributed to the area. And right now, and for the last number of years, the property has been mowed almost at the same level as a park.

So it hasn’t been every nine weeks. It’s been regularly mowed so that people can use the space like a park. And so in this case, I’m trying to find a way that we can direct what that standard of a park of maintenance related to a park would be like. And that’s where I’m asking for an evaluation to come back so that we can include the appropriate use of the passive recreation space.

This is space that’s used by school children. It’s used by the museum. I was just there today where there were two full buses of school children. There is a sign on this property that calls it at a wandering park.

For that reason alone, is used as a park space because there’s no differentiating factors. So what I’m asking is, if we’re not planning to mow it as an open space, if we’re saying we’re not going to mow it for nine weeks, how is it going to be utilized as a passive recreation space? So that’s why I think we need to define it as a park in order to or evaluate it from the perspective of how will we maintain it and come back with a maintenance standard that is similar to a park. And lastly with the buffering area.

In the drip line that’s associated with the drawing that’s included in our package, it is very difficult to understand or see. So what I did was I went and I visualized it and residents provided that visualization in your package so that people can get a sense. But I do ask my colleagues, please walk it between now and counsel and see where those markers are. Our neighbors will likely welcome you there and take you for a tour and show you because this area has been naturalized and there’s about 50 meters, I think there’s quite a distance there already between where that drip line is, where the natural, the restoration activities have taken place and the rest of the ESA.

So I just wanna give people a chance to go out and see it and hear from neighbors on why that, as it’s in the report summarizes, that it actually cuts into a lot of the open space that was already defined behind these houses. And so, just wanna make sure that we’re all speaking of the same area when we make our decision at council. Thank you, Councilor Toussaint. This motion does not speak to a public participation meeting, and I thought I heard the Councillors say that there would be one.

I think this motion fails to speak to that. It just says you do it. Doesn’t say you have a public participation meeting, which I think is another flaw in this motion, ‘cause I think a public participation meeting is required. The other question I have, which maybe could be answered before Council, I don’t know, if we’re going to start doing the kinds of maintenance we would have in a park, what’s that gonna cost?

And I think it’s reasonable to ask if we’re gonna make this change, what are the budgetary implications of that? And this doesn’t address that, I think it should. And I’m not gonna try to improve this ‘cause I think it’s wrong as it is, but I think that that’s something that should be addressed as well as the public participation meeting. I’d really like to get a better idea as to when the public participation meeting will be.

And I know that that would be very, very difficult for staff to give us a date right now because they are so backed up and pressed, particularly with respect to planning applications that are under statutory deadlines. But I just think this is, there’s so many holes in this. Thank you. Thank you.

I don’t look for any other comments or questions. Councilor Ferri, do you need to raise your hand higher? I can’t see your pen, thank you. Please go ahead.

Thank you, I just wanted to clarify. Like my immediate concerns are not only with the removal of the level three, which I know we decided on the last one and putting in or looking into level one, for the level one trail. My real concern is the fact that there are enc roachments, that there are individuals who have complied, that we’re encroaching, that we have cases before with other types of encroachments that have complied. And my real concern is kind of what this direction is subtly implying to the rest of the city.

Our city lands, our public lands, able to be encroached and then potentially taken by adjacent property owners. And I feel like that is the real risk that we’re running into. So I just wanted to clarify that. >> Thank you.

Look for other comments. Councilor Pribble. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff.

I know I heard word precedents and please remind me, I believe that within last one, two years, we had a situation with one property in Old South. to do and backyard to the parkland and I believe we have approved it and we did allow encroachment . Please remind me if I’m correct. Go staff.

Through the chair there is one instance at which time we did sell parkland. I believe that Realty can speak to this further but I believe that the instance for that one was with respect to land lock and that there was no municipal need identified. I’m sorry, or would you rather go to yeah, thank you through the chair Yes, that that land has been declared plus with the intention of selling that particular piece of property Unfortunately, we haven’t come to resolution this time and it will be subject to a future report committee council council Okay, thank you for that and one of the council’s mentioned additional costs and yes There’s certainly I’m quite sure there would be certain additional costs by I think the primary as we are talking about our a recreational master plan that we discussed yesterday. We do need green space for young people as we heard.

It’s used by the museum, it’s used by schools. There were a couple of school buses today. So I think yes, cost this certainly should be associated with it, but on the other hand, the use as well. And we all realize that we do need that.

I do have actually questioned a specific one to what’s in front of us, but actually feedback from the staff, what is actually in front of us. If we can receive any feedback, because I just saw it recently, what’s in front of us, and I’m not sure if staff has seen it before, before if they have, if I can receive feedback, or go staff. Through the chair, we just want to be very clear that we brought the committee report forward, and we have a recommendation associated with that , so that’s really what our thoughts and recommendations are related to. we’re happy to progress and to move this forward as committee and council sees fit, but from a staffing perspective, we’ve laid out our position.

Councilor? I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor, just for the chair. I’ve missed the last three, four of words he said .

Please repeat. Through the chair, so the committee report that we submitted in our recommendation that outlines what our recommended, what we would suggest, but we’re happy to bring forward our council and committee would like us to bring forward in the future. Councilor? Okay, thank you for that.

And I will also, I certainly wouldn’t decline what’s in front of us right now, but I will, before the council, I will have still communication with the council and the staff what’s in front of us. Because again, I do think that when I hear that it’s being used and by children, by the classes, by the school buses. And as I said yesterday, when we talk about parks and rec plan, we do need these facilities for Londoners. Thank you.

Thank you. If the committee will permit me on just a couple of comments here. I want to thank Councilor Raman. Coming up with a way to get out of this, we’re in a bit of a pickle here.

Very complex issues, a number of issues that I’ve been dealt with here. Yeah, I mean, I think we had a movie in the park here a couple of years ago. So there is confusion on where this stands, especially for those people that abut this area. Pretty supportive of all the things here.

It’s still questioning D with encroachment issues , but I’m gonna have to work through that. But for now, I’m gonna support this just so we have something to start with and between now and council, whether there’s amendments and vote on things separately. We’ll see, but I’m gonna support it as it stands right now. we have a motion moved and seconded, I’m gonna call the vote.

I think the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Okay, thank you. We have a consent item that was pulled 2.3 regarding the deferred loan payments, the community improvement plans, the financial incentive programs. I’m going to go to Councillor Stevenson who requested that to be pulled.

So please go ahead. Thank you, I appreciate that. I have an alternate motion. The clerk has the wording.

And if I could ask for their support in reading it out, that would be appreciated. Okay, the clerk. It extends the deferral program to March 20th. Right, okay, so if the clerk could post that and actually read that out, that’d be helpful.

Through the chair, Councillor Stevenson’s alternative motion reads that the staff report dated April 14th, 2026 related to the deferred loan payments community improvement plan and finance incentive programs be referred to a future meeting of the planning and environment committee to direct that specific administration work with the OEV and Downtown BIAs on an extension. So it’s straight interrupt. That’s the wrong one. There’s a motion that extends the deferral program to March, 2028, we had two motions ordered.

Did you, Councillor, did you email that to the clerk? She did, apologies for the confusion. There were two. I’m gonna pull it up here.

That’s probably it. Yeah, okay, I think we got it, Councillor. Okay. Let’s try this one.

My apologies, okay, so the motion at hand that the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated April 14th , 2026 related to the deferred low payments, community improvement plan and financial incentive programs, A, that the report be received, and B, that the deferral of loan repayments under the facade improvements loan program and upgrade to building code loan program previously approved by municipal council in response to the economic impacts of COVID-19 be extended for an additional one year period to March, 2028. Is that for you intended, Councilor? And honestly, it is, and it is, and it was, and I apologize, let me just pull it up. I did approve this wording, but it’s just instead of in response to the impacts of COVID-19, we had a wording that said, so if we could just change the, in response to the economic impact currently being felt in this area or what it was supposed to say was in response to our current strategic goals and the crisis that we just declared or we asked the province to declare.

So if we could change in response to the, if we could change economic impacts of COVID-19 to in response to the current conditions our strategic goals and the crisis. I’m not sure if you cut off, but you said and the crisis. I’m not sure if there’s anything further to that. So you might be frozen, sir.

You permit me? Yeah. What Councillor Stevenson was saying what I heard before she cut out there was she was looking to change the part where it said COVID-19 and she was saying in response to the economic impacts currently being felt. I don’t wanna be speaking for her, but that’s what I heard her say, I believe, before she cut out.

She’s, yeah, I think you’re right. I think she’s logging in again. I’m going to find out from her directly. Okay, we got you.

Okay, apologies. I’m back and— All right, so can you, Councilor, can you read out after in response to what you’d like to see? Yes, just give me the one second. Yeah, I’ve experienced the glorious V01 internet.

I know what you’re going through. We might have found your version, so we might have just one second. She’s getting her earphones in. Councilor, can you hear me?

I can now. Okay. The clerk read it out. I think we found the wording you intended.

So I’m gonna have the clerk just read out that after a response. Response to the current conditions, the crisis, and the city’s strategic goals be extended for an additional one year period to March, 2028. Sounds great. Okay, you read the rest of it.

It’s just the communication. Okay, all right. So you’re putting, you’re moving that, right, Councillor? I am.

And I’ll second that. So that’s on the floor, go ahead and speak to it. Yes, thank you. I appreciate this, you know, as we know we had, we had hoped that this was a temporary measure and that we would have, you know, a different situation than we’re currently facing.

We just, I saw a six to zero vote supporting the agencies yesterday and given the crisis that we have, we’ve asked the province to declare a state of emergency and our businesses in this area need the extra support. So this is a request to extend it to March 2028, which takes us to the next multi-year budget, and hopefully will be in a different situation at that point. And if not, we’ll need to find a source of funding or make a decision. The next council is gonna have that task.

So I’m looking for committee support and council support around supporting our businesses through this crisis. Okay, I’ll look for other comments or questions from the Zing Councilors or Committee Member, Member. Council Member. Thanks, Chair.

So this is something that I was seeking. I wasn’t seeking, I guess, a full blanket, I guess, deferral for everything, which is how I read this . I just wanted to know, ‘cause I did read in the report that some of the deferring, the deferrals for the loan repayments required, I think, contribution from the community improvement program reserve fund I believe in the past. Can staff just confirm that and can staff if you can let me know on the likeliness of having to have a contribution from that reserve fund or any reserve fund to for this deferral?

I’ll go to staff. Thank you and through you Mr. Chair so yes the these programs the particular loan programs in question here they do flow through our community improvement program reserve fund. So what that means is that the funding to fund the loans themselves upfront comes from this reserve fund and then the ultimate repayments of these loans then replenish the reserve fund in order to then fund other financial incentives under the various community improvement plan programs that the city offers.

So as it currently stands we would have some concern with this this motion as currently on the floor. If the repayments that are currently anticipated to resume this September, if they do not resume now until March, 2028, that would put the CIP reserve fund in a very precarious spot, I would suggest. And so we would have some concern about that our ability to fund that. So I think our preference or perhaps suggestion if there is a desire to head in this direction of providing a further deferral is to have staff report back on what that might look like, what the financial impacts of doing that are, and if there is a need for a source of financing to address that, that would be the opportunity identified as part of a report back.

There could be multiple options or ways of going about addressing the financial impacts of what is proposed here, but I think it’s probably best articulated in our report back. Councillor. Okay, thank you for that. Like the Councillor’s right, so a lot of these properties are dealing with economic conditions that are not necessarily conducive to being able to pay it back right now.

So I am with her on that. I just maybe on more of like a blanket kind of deferral for the entire program may there might be a better way forward. Like I do see that these repayments are supposed to go as supposed to begin again August 2026. Sorry, September 2026.

Okay, so we do have a little bit of leeway here. And I do like my concerns are I guess business or properties that are the most impacted and and whether, and I did have some properties that I’ve been discussing with that have been recently impacted by the N-Wave Steam D commissioning as well, so they have these extra challenges that are coming up as well. But at the same time, I do see with the community investment reserve fund being, I guess, at a critical balance. What would be the balance after, I guess, would you even know how much we would have to contribute from that reserve fund?

Oh, good stuff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t have that exact amount here today.

I do know that in terms of the monthly repayments that are in question here, we’re talking probably in the neighborhood, and Mr. McCauley can confirm this as well, but probably in the neighborhood of around $60, 000 a month. So it adds up over the course of what’s proposed here is 18 months of further deferral from September of this year to March of 2028. So you are looking at probably north of a million dollars, but we’d have to do some work to kind of refine that a little further, Councillor.

Okay, thank you for that. I think I said the community investment reserve fund. I meant the community improvement program reserve fund. All right, something has to be done.

Like a deferral needs to be made, but maybe there’s a better way forward. that would be less impactful on our budgets. But I do support where the council is going with this because I know that we need this as well on my side of Adelaide. So I guess without further information, I’m gonna reach out to the councilor and see if we can find something that might work a little bit better, but a deferral needs to be had.

And if we can be a little more maybe surgical and kind of identify properties that may need it more, I know that the BIA from downtown was speaking about a 12 month. The last 12 months of the program being used and then looking into having repayments for everything beyond that. I know I was speaking about the N-Wave D commissioning and kind of identifying those properties. I’m sure a council of Stevenson has other needs from properties in her ward on her side and the BIA would be able to speak to that too.

But I guess I will be reaching out if the council is okay with that if we can find something better. But if we can’t, then I would be supporting this as it is ‘cause it is needed. Councilor Stevenson. Yes, thank you.

And I appreciate the questions. And what I would like to say is maybe an amendment to this motion where we ask staff to come back with the details on how much might be needed and the options for where we can find the money, but that we agree to go ahead and do the deferral given the circumstances that these businesses are facing. We also just reported the highest unemployment rate in the country, and so we need to support these businesses and the jobs. And so whether it comes from the Economic Reserve Fund or what our options are, if we can maybe make an amendment to ask staff to come back with a report on the details and our options for funding.

Okay, yeah, I see where you’re going. I’m just gonna go to staff to see if an amendment would work If we pass this, but also like a B would be to report back with potential funding other than the current funding sources. As you mentioned, you spoke to the Reserve Fund hit at this would take. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, I’ll start. And certainly, I think we would be more open to an amendment. I think maybe the concern we would still have though is committing to a further deferral without Committee and Council fully understanding what the implications of that are, and how we’re gonna go about addressing it. So, you know, just in terms of a potential suggestion, maybe Part B is amended to have staff report back in prior to September of this year on options, financial impacts, and if required, potential funding sources to facilitate an extension of the deferral period to March, 2028, something to that effect.

Counselor, did you hear that? Counselor’s frozen. Through the chair, just to let you know, if that was the case, Mr. Murray, it would be contrary to what B already says.

So when either a new part would need to be made or the B would need to fail. Yeah, I was wondering what that, okay. We’re just waiting, the Councillors lost connection again. So we’re just waiting for her to reconnect.

While we’re waiting, just a question to staff, would it be possible to have that kind of… Oh yeah, we’re not quorum. Sorry, sorry. We’re not quorum of the minor.

Yeah. While the Councillor is disconnected, we don’t have quorum. So we cannot continue the business of the Coun cillor. Welcome back.

I’m not too sure where we were at. the idea of having amendment to have a report back, but still go ahead. The clerk has ruled that, that would be contrary. So I’m just gonna ask a question from the chair to our finance guru.

Would it be possible between now and council to have that kind of information available for council? Let’s say we pass this motion, but then when we go to council, it can be asked of view these questions regarding the reserve fund and concerns you have there. Through you, Mr. Chair.

So we’ve been conferring here amongst ourselves here and staff in the last couple of minutes. And I think we are able to quantify the total amount of the monthly payments over the 18 month term to be approximately to maybe $1.2 million. So that’s kind of the order of magnitude that we would be looking at as far as lost infl ows, I suppose, to the CIP reserve fund. In order to offset that, maybe could consider directing staff to fund it from an alternate reserve or reserve fund.

The top of my head, probably the operating budget contingency reserve , would be the engine that we would go to. short notice and absent, you know, opportunity to do a full review. So approximately $1.2 million and from the operating budget contingency reserve. Okay, Councilor, did you, did you hear that, um, uh, report from finance?

I did hear that, um, recognizing well, though, this is a deferral, the payments will come in, uh , we’re just giving people time. I understand the money still needs to come from somewhere, but this is a temporary draw. So, wherever finance feels, yeah, is the appropriate place and the work in details, so I just approved the emotion as currently that works for me. Okay.

So, I understand where the counselor is coming from. It’s not like we’re forgiving. It’s a, it is a deferral, but I understand also that that still has to be accounted for somewhere . so I understand finance concerns so we have a motion moved and seconded this will go to council between now and then I think again I’m speaking from the chair but it’s getting late and I want to get things moving here I think you know there is a feeling of you know with the you know unemployment rates so high the tariffs taking it ‘s a toll is there a way to provide some sort of deferral so the merchants that are facing this payment start in September can have some assurances because until we do something that’s what they’re expecting and I think there’s concern there so I’m just going to put it out there this is where we’re at we have a motion we have a council in a couple of weeks I’ll look for any other comments or questions from Councillor Ferri or Councillor Cutty or Councill or.

Councillor Stevenson, please go ahead. Yeah, I’ll just say quickly that I’m happy to work with staff between now and council on any amendments that are required. Okay. Okay.

Councillor Ferri? Chair. Sorry, Chair. Thank you.

Sorry, Councillor Cutty. Yes, thank you. I’ll support this motion, but I, you know, I have heard what Mr. Murray said, and I think we, that’s serious.

We have to consider that because we don’t need to put any pressure on our on our reserve fund. So I’ll support it now, but it I’m glad that that Councillor Stevenson will meet with staff. Thank you. Yeah, okay.

Councillor Farr. It sounds good to me. I believe we’ll see I guess a little more information in direction by council, but appreciate the discussion. Okay.

And then from the chair, yeah, I concur with comments that Councillor Cutty made. Money is money, but it is a deferral. So we’ve got to figure out a way between now and council. I’m sure I trust we can with councilor Stevenson working with the highest department.

Okay, that being said, we have motion moved and second ed. I’ll call the vote. Think about the motion carries three to zero. That leaves.

I deferred matters list. So I’ll need a motion to accept that list. Councilor Cutty moves it. I’ll second it.

We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. Thank you.

So I think that’s just a motion to adjourn. I’ll look from motion to turn, Councillor Cudi, I’ll second it, hand vote. Motion carries. Please focus that way longer, then.

Thanks everyone. My apologies for the intermittent internet.