Good afternoon everyone. It's we'll call the 10th meeting of the planning environment committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of Anesnabek, Hodnos, Lena Paywok, and Adawadron. 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, Matei, and Inuit. Today, as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports from readings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact pbeecondon.ca or 519 6612489 extension 2425. I'll look uh for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, uh we'll move to consent items. Um uh councelor Stevenson has requested 2.1 uh be pulled. So we will deal with that uh down in the deferred matters additional business. I'll just look to see if anyone else wants anything else pulled or a motion to um uh to to accept the uh remaining consent items. Deputy Mayor Lewis, you're making a motion to staff recommendation. Councelor Cuddia is second and I'll open the um floor for conversation. any anything from visiting counselors? I'm seeing none. Council Robin, >> thank you. I'll keep it brief, but I'm pleased to see the withdrawal in 2.3 U of the request by the trustees of London Congregation of the British Methodist Episcopal Church. >> Thank you. I don't see anyone else uh indicating they'd like to speak. So, we have motion moved in a second. So, we'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay, moving on to scheduled items. First uh item is 3.1 regarding 415 York Street. I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Cuddy moves it, seconded by councelor Stevenson and we will call that vote. >> Closing the 5 to zero. >> Thank you. So I'll look uh see if the applicant would like to address the committee. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Mike Davis with Civic Planning and Design. I'm here on behalf of our client BSN London Corporation. Um we're before the committee today um requesting uh an additional deferral um of this application. Um our client has retained a uh consultant to uh prepare their required uh compatibility uh study to deal with the proximity to London District Energy. Um there is I will say a very uh specialized expertise required for this study and a very narrow uh consulting pool here locally of folks who can who can complete that study. So the consultant has been retained. Um we would anticipate that study being completed within 12 to 16 weeks at which time uh staff would need to uh review that study as would affected agencies and then it ultimately brought be brought back to planning committee. So um our request today is a deferral until um early 2027 kind of at the latest. If things wrap up before that we would certainly be uh keen to bring it back to committee but that's our request today. >> Okay. Okay, thank you. I'll look for any other members of the public like like to address the uh committee. Please, ma'am, give us your name. You have 5 minutes. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Sarah Turney. I'm legal counsel for London District Energy and um I'm I'm here with instructions to support staff's report and their recommendation to refuse the development. uh but frankly this is the first that I have heard that there has been a consultant uh that's been retained and I think it's important for me to to make that submission to you because despite repeated requests to the applicant we have had no consultation at all by the proponent and I've personally reached out multiple times and I think that's important that the committee know in order to do accurate modeling the proponent needs to speak to us and otherwise they're you know they're able to use some data but they're not going to have the most accurate data available. So I'm I am surprised to hear that this is the submission being made. However, setting that aside, there are a few things that I think are important for the committee to take into account. So, as I'm sure the committee knows, the London District Energy facility is located directly across from where the proponent is proposing to develop. There have been to date no noise or vibration studies provided to you that would give you the information you need to determine whether this application is going to be compatible with the existing development, including the LD facility. Now that's important from a legal perspective because the planning act requires that council determine compatibility at this stage. Now previously the applicant had requested a hold to sort of deal with the LDE facility uh and requested that you approve the application subject to that hold. Now, what I'm I'm hearing now is is a deferral request and and certainly that's welcome if we're being consulted and there's meaningful consultation so that there is good data being provided to council. But otherwise, if there isn't going to be good data provided to you, then you're not able to discharge the duty of ensuring that there is compatibility before a zoning bylaw is approved. a hold. Unfortunately, my my respectful submission to you is is not sufficient and is not appropriate from a planning perspective. And the reason I say that is because a hold is appropriate where the underlying zoning fabric has been established to be appropriate. So the density is appropriate, the height is appropriate, the use is appropriate, but there's some distinct issue like water not being available to the lot line. Okay, those are circumstances where you approve the zoning, but you say proponent, you can't develop until you fix that small issue. Here, what had been submitted to you was an application with a hold. And really, the hold was being used to defer the studies that you need to make a proper decision under the planning act. And so right now without any information about who's being retained or whether we're going to be consulted or the type of study you're going to receive in my respectful submission uh it is within your power and would be most appropriate for you for you to refuse the application. However, if you are inclined to defer, again, I would stress the importance of asking the applicant to reach out to London District Energy because we want to speak to them. We want to give them sufficient information to be able to do appropriate studies because as an energy provider to the city, we are not against development. It's it's in LD's business interest to see the downtown thrive and develop, but it has to be appropriate compatible development. So, subject to any questions that you have, those are my submissions to you. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for other members of the public like to address the committee. >> I'll ask clerk if there's anyone online. There's nobody online. I don't see anyone approaching the microphone. So, I'll look for a motion to close the ppm. Councelor Cuddi, seconded by councelor Stevenson. We will call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay. I'll put this item on the floor for committee members. Deputy mayor. >> Thank you, chair. Uh through you. I've just sent uh the clerk an email with the language. Uh but I'm prepared to move a referral to allow the applicant to complete and submit to staff the D6 land use app uh land use compatibility study. Um so I I've sent the clerk some draft language. I hope that captures it. Uh and see we'll see if there's a seconder for that. >> Okay. I'll uh check with the clerks see if she can um get that up on there. So you're moving that. I'll also add in the it being noted that we received the the delegations and the communication from the Midtown Community Association. >> Okay. Put it all in one. >> Got it. So, I see councelor Stevenson has indicated she will second that motion. Um I'm going to wait till it gets up on Eastcribe and then I'll go back to you deputy mayor for comments. It's in ecribe. >> Okay, it should be up on escribe right now. So, if you want to just check that out to make sure that's your intention. >> Yes, that captures it. >> Okay, great. So, um Councelor Stevenson, you okay with that? >> Yeah, there is just a duplicate wording in there. It says, uh for the applicant to allow the applicant and maybe >> Thank you. We got that covered. Thank you. Uh okay, Deputy Mayor, I'll go to you. Thank you, chair. Um, I mean, it was outlined uh in the staff report that the D6 study had not been received. Uh, I think it's perfectly reasonable for staff to be saying we can't consider approval regardless of the other items in the the report that we couldn't make a determination on that without that report coming forward. Um, and I do recognize uh and and I know this to be true. It's not just the applicant saying so from the gallery. Uh that getting one of these studies done is a bit of a specialized uh skill set. There's not a lot of uh people who will undertake this kind of work uh readily available. And when you do retain them, it can often be uh weeks or months before they're actually able to start the project. So um hearing that they've retained uh and they did put that in writing to us uh so uh I'm willing to allow them a little bit more time. We've referred it once and uh to me uh while I hear London District Energy raising concerns um uh and setting aside concerns I I have with them that's between two private companies. Um and what I've also seen here is some genuine interest uh from the community, not to oppose it, but to actually be supportive of it. So I don't want to refuse this at this time. I want to give this a little bit more time to work through the the D6 process, see what comes back from that. uh and then make a determination at that time. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments, questions. Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. Yeah, I'll just say I'm happy to support the referral and uh thank you to the Midtown Community Association for their advocacy and support of this development. >> Thank you. I'll look for other councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I'm not part of this committee. Uh but I appreciate um a follow-up question that I have on the referral here. um given what I've heard uh from the public participation meeting in particular from London District Energy to uh undertake a D6 land use compatibility study. Would they need to reach out to um London District Energy? Not sure who can answer that question. >> Uh I'll go to the applicant. Um counselor is asking uh your willingness to uh reach out. Uh sorry about that. London District Energy and sure if that's me >> consultation >> sounds good. True you Mr. Chair. Sorry about the technical difficulties there. Um yeah absolutely it's not my specific area of expertise but um uh whatever is required within the scope of that study um uh will be completed certainly London District Energy uh will be consulted through this process there a required agency that the city must circulate uh on planning applications um whether it is uh necessary to uh coordinate with them prior to submission of the study that would be up to the uh consultant to determine within their scope of work, but certainly um have heard that there's a willingness to share data. Uh if that's the process that needs to happen, they'll be happy to uh to do that. >> Counselor, >> good to know. Thank you, >> Councelor Trusso. >> Uh thank you very much. Uh similarly, I'm not a member of this committee. I'll I'll try to keep my comments short. Um, I will be voting for this at council, but not not here. As I see what's in front of me right now, I will not be supporting um this referral at council. I don't understand why we would think that there's going to be um a better effort at consultation with the affected parties here. And I I I really um don't believe that this is just just a private dispute between two two parties. Um I think that um the points that were raised in the Fascin letter I I found were very well taken. I don't see any reason to to doubt the uh claims that they're making there about the continued failure to demonstrate compatibility. Um and I just I I think under the planning framework the best the the best solution here is to simply deny this application right now which of course is always always without prejudice for them bringing it back. There's there's no there's no preclusion. There's no estoppel here that would bring them back that would allow them to bring this back. But after the proper study is done, during the term of this council, I've often made the um comment observation that the application really shouldn't be complete until these types of necessary studies have been done and and I and I think assigning the um the the heavy lifting here to to the provisions of uh holding provisions over overcharges and search charges and goes beyond ond what the uh purpose of holding provisions is supposed to be. But then again, this was um I think very clearly set out in the presentation that we just heard from council. So I I think the the more prudent course of action here, understanding that uh refusing this now is without prejudice, uh I would be I would I would want to uh deny this, refuse this application. I hear what the residents of the area are saying. We cannot continue to carry this lot as a uh very very bloated and dangerous looking hole in the ground. We need to develop here. But that doesn't mean we we can we can take liberties with the public safety, which is what I think we'd be uh doing here if we push this ahead. So again, uh with all due respect to those that want to just give this more time, I think the best course of action is to refuse the application and I'll be doing that at council. Thank you, >> councelor Frank. >> Thank you. And uh I may have missed it, but I just wanted two questions uh through the chair to staff. The first being um since this is another referral, does this um mess with the timelines and essentially could be taken to the OOLT for a non-decision? Maybe I missed at the beginning. Sorry. >> I'll go to staff >> uh through you, Mr. Chair. the um 120day timeline for an official plan amendment has already passed with the first referral back. So it's already passed the 120 days. Um so this would just push it further beyond that. >> Council, >> thank you. And again, sorry I missed the first five minutes of the meeting. Did the uh applicant say that they are going to not uh take us to OLT for this non-decision at this point? >> The applicant didn't make any reference to that, but I'll go to the applicant on that concern. Yeah. Mr. Chair, sorry. >> Can you hear me? There we go. Through you, Mr. Chair. Um, yes, absolutely. Uh, the commitment is that, uh, no appeal for non-decision will be made. Um, the deferral is simply to allow for, uh, completion of the study at which point uh, we report back to this committee, uh, and bring this to an ultimate, uh, conclusion one way or the other. Counselor, >> thank you. Appreciate that. And then my final question is to staff. So, I notice on the um recommendation for refusal, there are uh eight different reasons to recommend refusal. One of them being the province's D6 guideline land use compatibility assessment. I'm wondering if that assessment submitted to staff if the remaining seven other reasons for refusal will likely still stand. >> I'll go staff. >> Uh thank you through the chair. The other reasons uh largely related to the proposed height. um staff have recognized that we're supportive in principle of development of this site subject to the appropriate compatibility studies being undertaken uh but not necessarily to the uh extent that the applicant is proposing. So uh depending on the outcome of the study as well as the proposed development that comes forward uh after that's been undertaken uh the expectation from staff was that we'd want to have some additional discussion surrounding the building height as well depending on the outcome of those discussions. Uh the recommendation could be the same, but again it's unknown until we receive the revised application. >> Councelor. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Robin. >> Uh thank you. And just following up on councelor Councelor Frank's great questions. Um the OOLT um the sorry what we heard is the verbal submission just now from the applicant on uh not taking us to OOLT for non-decision. Does a verbal submission uh at a meeting like this amount to uh something that we can actually hold legally binding? >> I'll go staff. >> Uh thank you through the chair. Uh the applicant would still retain the right to appeal non-decision uh notwithstanding their uh verbal commitment not to. counselor. >> Thank you. And through you. So, I'm just wondering also um just trying to get a sense because we hear a lot of things in these meetings and sometimes they're said verbally. Um what kind of a commitment should we assume when uh someone on behalf of an applicant speaks to an application um on a particular matter like we just heard on the OOLT decision? Should we assume that that is something that we should hold? I guess I'm trying to get a sense of is that something that we should hold as an opinion? Is it something that we hold as a submission from the applicant? because it's past the so when we do these meetings the applicant has a time to provide their submission and then there's a back and forth that's happening in questions and sometimes I don't know if that is actually part of the submission or if that's just a question and whether or not that's held as part of the submission and it's getting a little bit blurry for me when we have that back and forth. So, I'm just trying to get an understanding um because that's what we heard the last time as well is that this wouldn't be held to a decision and I couldn't make my decision based on the verbal submission. We received a written submission in between. Um I suspect that that might be coming as well. Um for me, this is a decision where we have to consider what the timeline is. We already gave an extension to Q2 2026, which is why this report is back in front of us today. I think that hearing what we've heard from Fasins, I think that it makes sense that at this point we refuse the application. The applicant is free to come back and bring another application. I hear the Midtown community. I agree that there needs to be some sort of development, but at this time I don't see enough movement to support uh a referral. >> Thank you. I'll look for other comments or questions. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Just as a followup to the concerns around the OOLT, we've got the applicant making the request that we refer it and uh my understanding is the D6 study is a requirement of the province and so it wouldn't make sense that they would go and and appeal the decision. If I could just get input from staff, that'd be great. >> I'll go staff >> uh through the chair. Um staff can't really comment on the val validity of an appeal. Um that's the applicant's prerogative if they choose to go down that avenue. >> Counselor. >> Okay. Thanks. It's not a concern of mine given that uh they don't have the information that's proincially required and it's a delay due to the specialized expertise. So I I'm not concerned about it at all. >> Okay. Uh council trust. I'm just going to see how much time you have left on that. Yes. Councelor, you have two and a half minutes. Go ahead. >> This will be very short. The fact that there are other good reasons to support the refusal at the OOLT doesn't satisfy my worry that the OOLT may may simply look at this as a very simple you failed to meet the timeline and you're out. And I don't understand why this wasn't put in writing. Um am I wrong? And maybe I should ask council if you could do this. I don't want to go into a close session for a simple procedural answer, but is it is it true that when a decision uh is appealed to the OOLT on the grounds of uh lack of time, that's sort of a procedural almost quasi jurisdictional issue that they have to dispose of first. I'll go staff. >> Thank you. Through you, chair. Uh so an appeal for non-decision is just one path to the tribunal. Um there isn't necessarily any preliminary issue or assessment that needs to occur from the tribunal in order to proceed to a hearing on the merits >> counselor through the chair. But as there's no requirement, it is a risk that whoever the uh board member who was sent down to deal with this um would look at that and say, "Well, I don't really need to get into a lengthy hearing on the other questions. It's almost like a summary judgment. It's it's almost like a um just a simple way of avoiding extended litigation which is always in the interests of a judicial economy at any quasi judicial agency. So I'm I'm very worried about this. But even if I wasn't worried about this, I'm I'm really more worried about the safety issues that are involved here. But I don't I don't think that we should be taking a lot of uh solace from the fact that something's been asked for uh not in writing and it doesn't change my position. So thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for any other speakers. Uh council for >> Okay. Thanks chair. Um I just I listening to the discussion it does remind me of the discussion we had um a few months back. I I do I am looking at the um the motion that was approved at committee and at council um in January and I do see that we have path to approval including how to proceed with respect to London district energy matters and I do believe that we spoke about uh making some type of study with respect to the emissions and the compatibility there at that discussion and I do see now that this is a referral that's specifically calling out that land use compatibility study. So, I just wanted to know with staff, are you has this um discussion between the proponent and LDE for the compatibility study have already has has that already uh um I guess been initiated or is that still yet to come? >> I'll go to staff >> through your chair. Um that is yet to be initiated, >> counselor. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and from the dis, uh, I guess from the path to approval motion that we had at the last discussion, um, that wasn't initiated then. So, we're looking at a referral now. We're looking to push it down a little bit later to have that initiated. I was wondering if we could maybe go to the proponent or to staff, whoever can answer this question on um, what has changed from then till now. >> I'll go to the uh, applicant. through you, Mr. Chair. Um, and, uh, to the ward counselor. Um, the previous deferral uh, uh, it was definitely uh, intended for the applicant to explore potential paths to approval, further discussion on the London District Energy uh, issue. Uh, it's become very clear obviously through communications uh, from London District Energy with city staff through this report that really the only uh, path forward is to complete that D6 study. Now, and and just to refresh council's memory, normally this is something that would be required as part of a complete application. Um, it was not actually uh flagged. It was only flagged very late in the process. Um, or else the the application wouldn't have gotten to this point. Staff would not have accepted this as complete. um the the issue was essentially kind of missed and that's why we ended up at the last planning committee uh kind of it was late in the game that we understood this concern and so um that has contributed to the timeline here. The intention now is to complete the study and report back with wholesome information uh to council counselor. >> All right. Thank you for that. I believe uh Pek and council we did discuss the compatibility study or anything uh something about that. um at the discussion for the compatibility study specifically. That will not only be a study whether uh this type of development would be appropriate but also would that study um speak to the height um request that we see in the application. >> I'll go staff >> uh through the chair. Uh the findings of the study could have implications on the the height uh depending on air quality emissions and things like that. Uh so the issue does kind of go hand inand but there uh is a secondary issue with the height and that staff uh had concerns with the appropriateness of the proposed height. Um so while they are separate they are interconnected in in some way >> counselor. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Um so I do believe that this is the appropriate path to get that study. I would um say that we did discuss this previously, but um if we are now seeing a motion that specifically identifies that, that'd probably be appropriate. I do want to see the area have a better use than what it is right now. Um I just want to make sure that that area is used in a way that is appropriate um with the way we build appropriate with both uh the heights um as it's as it's allowed in the area and also with respect to the emissions coming from LDE. So the study itself from what I understand will be both uh the applicant and London District Energy uh working together on the study and then that will be coming back uh for a potential report in the future and then we would redisuss this at a future meeting and that's a question. >> Who is that a question to? >> It's a question to staff. >> Okay, go to staff >> uh through the chair. That's correct. the applicant would have to undertake this study um before we could consider bringing it back. Um that said, I do want to flag that given the upcoming election and scheduling of PE um it's likely that the earliest that this could come back to PEC is December 1st. Um, again, I I also want to flag that this will be the second referral back and um given the staff time that's going to be involved in reviewing this technical study, uh, it may be more appropriate and staff actually recommend that a new application be submitted because there could be substantial changes to the proposed development as a result of this the findings of this study as I mentioned or alluded to before uh that could have uh impacts on the proposed building height. So we could see a substantially different um building design or proposal uh come from the um findings of this study. And so for that reason uh given the circumstance um a a new application is warranted here. >> Counselor. >> Okay. Thanks. Um so I believe that this could have been resolved in the past and this would have helped with the applicant with uh the individuals residing in the area with counsel and with our time and with staff's time. However, um I do see that we're on a better path now. So, um I'm not a voting member of this committee. So, um when council comes, I will have uh my decision on whether to support the referral or not at the time. But just I do know that we did speak to these items at the original committee meeting and we did request these items at the original committee meeting. So, those are my comments. >> Thank you. Look for any further speakers. Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded. I will call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay, moving on to 3.2. This is regarding the 2027 growth management implementation strategy known as GMIS update. Um, so I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Cuddy, second by councelor Stevenson, and we will uh call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Okay, I'll go to uh those of the wish to address the committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's uh Mike Wallace. I'm here on behalf of uh the London Development Institute. Just briefly, um uh we appreciate the process that uh staff go through on the GMS uh program every year. We are actively participate in that program as my members uh meet as a group with uh uh city staff and have then individual interviews. You can see the list uh there. So uh we don't always agree uh with what's being put forward or what's being re uh put back but it is a open process which we we do appreciate. I just want to make just two little remarks about um there was a fair amount in here. First of all, on the DC issue uh and we're in the midst of the process of reviewing the 2028 DC, but I I just want to be clear that in the report it talks about uh two reasons why the DCs are a little bit behind where they where they were budgeted. uh one was market conditions which we certainly agree with. The other one was the statutory discounts that are that have been required by the province and we just want to be on the record that the province is requiring them uh whether it's for affordable housing for purpose bit rentals uh housing which is great and has spurred on um development in those areas but the the burden of making that up should not be on the development side. it, you know, you need to continue to press the province to make you whole as they believe they guaranteed um uh when those programs came in. I I you need to follow up on that, but I believe that's where the that cash flow uh should be coming from and not on the backs of developers, which in turn is on the back of home buyers. Um and the other thing that um I I do appreciate stuff giving me a little bit of a heads up on uh that on 2.8.1 8.1 the Oxford wastewater treatment plant uh issues that you're having that were not discussed previous to our last GMS meeting with the staff but was in this report. Um so it came as a little bit of a surprise that where there there may be there may be some issues with the Oxford plant wastewater plant being able to uh keep up with the development that is to support and that staff are looking at solutions to making that happen. and we uh want just want to be encouraging as much as possible staff to get on that issue and see if we can get that resolved so that doesn't interfere with the future development plans that would be serviced by Oxford. But other than that um uh uh we understand the GMS program and the recommendations here that put in front of us uh staff were very clear about uh these changes u at the time and um um I don't know I don't want to say we support the the report but we uh we agree with what's uh what's in here. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I'll look for other speakers. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Sandy 11. I'm going to focus as well kind of as Mr. Wallace did on the development charge side of it because it's unclear to me how's the city going to manage a few tens of millions of lower DC revenue through the federal Ontario program when the province as he points out still hasn't come up with the promised make good payment for the current statutory exemptions that this city and every other city in Ontario are absorbing because right now if You take a look at your agenda page 154. If my addition is correct, just for the city of London, the total shortfall, both provincial and the slowdown in development, has caused a shortfall of $250 million up to the end of 2025. and it's got to be starting to approach 300 during 2026. So, yeah, only part of that is provincial, but when is the province going to reimburse every other municipality? And it's still not clear to me about the new program of when's the city getting its money back. Does it wait until the three-year period? Does it only get it when the housing targets met? There's the concern is the impact not just on development projects but on city building projects. Council's already dealt with some of it through the budget process. Projects were delayed in 2026 budget including library for the southeast, library for the northwest, and the traffic intelligence system to help close traffic. So, what other delays are in the pipeline? Cuz that's how your staff is telling you how they're going to deal with it. And I assume we won't find out until the next budget. And I want to point out that in the report in front of you, this was the third successive year where low density residential starts were below forecast. And last year, 5% of the starts was low density. 5%. when council at the end of 2025 passed an extension and an extensive extension of the urban growth boundary predicated on 40% being lowdensity residential for a 30-year time period. Now, I won't be around in 30 years, but I'm not putting a bet down today to see how that's going to come out. So supportive of what GMIS has done. Um GMIS has been around for 20 years. It's worked well and the reason it came into play was similar kind of financial stresses on reserve funds related to development. They came out in 2007. So, I encourage council to continue this process and support the recommendation in front of you. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for other speakers. >> Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Layman. My name is Charles Spina. I've been a W 5 resident since 1988. Um, you know, I I've looked at the GMS update as I have other GMIS reports and I come away with two impressions. One, a very favorable one. There's exquisite detail. If you want to know about the vacant land inventory, for instance, you go there. If you want to know about the UGB, you go there. If you want to know how building is tracking against building activity rather is tracking against plan, you go there. But if you want to discern strategy to address the current crisis with regard to DC shortfalls, you have to discern it. And my attempts at discernment haven't gone very far. So, I say this simply because um the alarm was sounded by the assistant deputy or deputy city manager of another area on May 27th, brought into stark focus by appendix A and C of her report where she on a performer basis um makes it quite clear that reserves are depleted. And in fact, if we continue on this development train with regard to infrastructure unchanged un you know without a course change we're going to be borrowing money are we be going to the tax base to fund those projects. I also need to uh mention it's not a mention I think it's probably public knowledge because it uh it came up in the really well put together report at the special council meeting that projects already commenced are ineligible for funding under this new provincial federal program and so is Ottawa as though Ottawa and Queens Park is saying okay municipalities you have the people you have the payrolls you get to place your own infrastructure bets. If you bet wrong, you're on your own. We're not going to cover those bets. So, I believe that with all the good things that are going on in GMIS, this report has to go back or it's accepted with direction to take it to the next stage. come up with a strategy, quantify it that it will allow Miss Barbin to go back to her uh her schedules to demonstrate to committee and council how um this crisis is going to be averted. Thank you. Thank you. Look for other speakers. I'll ask clerk if there's anyone online. I don't see anyone else coming to the microphone and there is nobody online so I'll look for a motion to close PPM. Councelor Stevenson second. We'll call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay. I'll put this on the floor for committee members. Councelor Cuddy. >> Thank you chair. I'll move the staff recommendation. Okay. I'll look for a seconder. Uh, Deputy Mayor, a motion moved and second. I'll look for speakers. Councelor Stevenson. >> Uh, thank you through you. I'd just be interested in an answer to the question that was just asked about uh coming up with a strategy and quantifying it in terms of addressing the shortfall through you to staff. >> Yeah. So, I'll go to staff. Um, we did hear concerns uh raised um that we've had pressures on our reserve fund uh from uh you know um DC uh revenue falling short. Um maybe if uh we can go to finance or we can start with Mr. Matherther's um do we have a strategy in place short-term and long-term strategy to deal with those financial pressures? >> Uh through the chair. So there's a couple of tools that we have to be able to manage growth and to be able to ensure that we're uh we're uh um funding it appropriately. First and the most significant is our development charges background study. So that's a process that's moving forward right now. That's going to ensure that we have the appropriate funding to be able to and we're charging the right rates and we're we're uh getting the amount appropriate amount of funding to be able to ensure that development can proceed in the future. between the development charge periods, we have the GMIS to be able to look at either advancing projects or pushing those projects um into the future if we aren't having the appropriate amounts of revenue. So, it's not there's not a lot of tools in the toolbox to be able to make these adjustments, but the main adjustment that you can do is to either put a project move it forward or push it back if you need to. So um as much as that uh you could have a a very other other aspects of a strategy um which is I think what you've seen are included in in the London plan would be looking at different ways to develop. So that's why we have very strong policies around intensification and and uh ensuring that we use uh the lands most appropriately we already have. So there's not a lot of tools that we have through GMIS, but the they are significant. It is something that we we use very often to be able to um ensure that we have that funding and it's it's appropriately uh being used moving forward as well. So um I'll just also just pass it to Travis and see if he has any thing to add on that. But that on at the high level, as much as we'd love to have a 20point strategy, we the big tool you have is you can move a project forward or we can move it back in time. Uh thank you through the chair. So um this was completed in coordination with finance and the city's development finance division. Um and this port report also identifies the coordination with the city treasures report. So um going back and looking not only at future uh development and future pieces of infrastructure but also in the life-to-ate budget of what previously had been committed uh if there are any um you know infrastructure that was not going forward because of the pace of development. Um and there were a couple of those pieces that were identified this particular year. Um and then we also have development finance here if if there's anything further. >> All right counselor. Yeah, thank you. Well, I know other cities look at potentially financing the infrastructure rather than being uh in that position of we can either do it or we can't. We have to push it forward or delay. I mean, Londoners want to see our city grow and things are going to have to happen and I hate to see us waiting um until the funding is available. So I I understand that's a big uh decision, but it is a decision I believe of council and it'd be nice if that option or different strategies were quantified as was said and put before council to make those sort of big picture decisions. So, I think um I'm going to leave it there for now, but I I do think to limit us to what's possible um is leaving us um uh in a place that we don't need to be. >> I'll look for other uh speakers to this if the committee will permit me. I just had a quick question uh from the chair. Uh I think the financial side of things um partially addressed. I share the concerns that the counselor raised. Um I think you know at the end of the day it comes down to um the amount of debt that uh the city will entertain um in maintaining as well our our AAA credit rating. I just want to know and just seeing that um primarily through GM GMIS there's been a number of projects that have been delayed and that's how we're kind of addressing it from that standpoint. Can staff tell me if that's going to affect future housing? Um that's my biggest concern right now. Well, obvious other than the financial those are my two areas. But are we going to be impeding um the availability of housing um that we're looking uh to provide in our planning? Uh or is this recognizing the pace of housing or development um that you're seeing? >> Uh through the chair. Um absolutely. I think this is very much just impacting the pace. So we are lucky that we do have some capacity. there's some lands that are available and are serviced and can move forward and then the development industry has been moving forward with those types of lands. We also have significant amounts of intensification projects which have been very positive that that we know that the development industry is also moving on. So, um I think uh there are many projects here and they will provide more housing in the future, but uh what we've heard from the development community and our own our own position as well is that this isn't going to impact that short term amount of housing because we do have lands that are available and able to to move forward and develop. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it's a challenging time. Uh I think as the senior levels of government are uh addressing the housing shortfall with statutory discounts, etc. We just went through that in the previous um quick council meeting there so we can get applications in for such um so it's challenging for our planning side um you folks as well as our finance team to uh for projections into the future. I get that. But I think we have to really keep a close eye on this one um uh you know even on a bannual basis to see uh how we're tracking uh so we don't get into the soup you know uh 2 or 3 years down the road. I'll look for other uh councelor PL. >> Thank you sir chair staff I do have a couple of questions. The first one is on the tables is the uh projected adjustments recommended by the staff. The first one on both pages is the storm water for Sunningdale. Uh timing is 27. Uh our recommendation is 29. Developers uh uh request is 28. Uh and our staff is still saying 29. Can you please tell me how it goes in terms of the communication with the developers and is it kind of that we say okay you want 28 we are going with 29 or is there actually a communication that at the end there's an agreement from both sides that 29 is acceptable again so we don't slow down the progress and the developments in that area. >> I'll go staff >> uh through the chair. So, there are one-on-one interviews conducted um each spring as part of this annual review. Um and at at the kickoff prior to those one-on-one interviews, we as city staff had a list of proposed uh deferrals based on the financial situation and the pace of growth this past year. Um there was some discussion with several developers about whether or not a 2-year deferral could be a one-year deferral. Um but as was mentioned before these the ones where there is a deferral there's no actual application on the site. So if it is if it is land designated and we can make an assumption about you know when it would happen the assumption was from the DC background study when it started but if there's no actual application on the site then there was a discussion of you know is it a one or a 2-year deferral since this process is done every year if applications start coming forward we can then look at the financial position come next spring and certain lands that may have been deferred could also potentially be brought forward by a year. Um there isn't always as as Mr. Wallace said, there isn't always, you know, perfect agreement, but there is an understanding from them. Um and it is also something that can be adjusted annually as well. >> Counselor, >> thank you. And I'm glad to hear that that it could be still reevaluated that if there is application that comes through, we can still revisit it. So, thank you for that. uh in terms of the big picture the GM uh the funding and yes it's about till 2025 we are looking at about whole of 200 close to $250 million uh do we have any information or out of curiosity how other municipalities deal with this because if I look at uh in our audit committee uh which we had a which we did ask for comparative analysis with other municipalities reserve funds we actually have them the highest so we are if I look at other four municipalities they are much lower. So if we are struggling or having this pressure in our municipality, how other municipalities deal with this if we have that information? >> I'll go staff. >> Uh thank you very much to the chair. Um we've had several conversations with some of our municipal counterparts and the general consensus is it's typically through project deferrals like we're doing. Um what's unique to London though is the GMIS process which in mun other municipalities do not have or it directly links the pace of development with projects that directly impact new housing and construction as an example. So that's unique to us. Others just have a general framework for deferring a project through the budgeting process. But again GMIS is a unique tool. But in addition to that like I'd mentioned we also go through go through our network need projects. So non GMIS projects through the budgeting uh uh mechanism as well. Thank you >> counselor. >> Okay. Thank you for that response. No more questions at this time. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look counselor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Just a couple of follow-ups to what I've been hearing on ones where um we aren't meeting the timeline of the developers. Would it be a policy change that would be needed to say, you know, if the developers are asking for a certain timeline and we can't meet it that that comes through council for a final approval or something like that? I just interested in staff's thoughts on that. >> I'll go staff. uh through the chair. So there is the option of front-ending agreements um in which case um if the project is within the next 5 years if an applicant wants to advance it themselves uh they can. We have found that there has been no uptake of that program because of the success of GMIS. Um the deferrals of these projects are because of the pace of growth and development and and the applications. It's not these deferrals slowing applications, it's that the pace of development over the last year has been slower. So the need for the timing of the infrastructure is recommended to be deferred. There is discussion about whether or not it should be perhaps a one or a 2-year deferral, but none of these lands are actually slowing down the pace of development because of the GMIS or the recommended timing. It's intended as a just in time delivery system. So, we're only paying for the infrastructure and building it at the time that the housing needs it. Um, and these are pieces of infrastructure that have to go ahead of when of, you know, their ponds and pipes. So, they have to go ahead of when the units are being built. Um, so there are other options, but GMIS has been, we think, a successful tool. >> Counselor. >> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Is there any risk that it's the chicken or the egg kind of thing that potentially we're not getting the applications because we haven't slated it for development or infrastructure earlier or do you think that's not necessarily an issue? >> I'll go staff >> uh through the chair. So there are pretty good open lines of communication with the development industry not only through this mechanism but this is done as an annual process with interviews um to ensure the timing of these this infrastructure matches their needs of when the applications are actually coming forward. So I I don't get a sense that this is causing that council. >> Okay, that's good to hear. The the only other thing I want to just bring up again is the the option for financing. So, I listened to uh a different municipality in southwestern Ontario where their staff brought a recommendation for us. They're saying, you know, we're not going to have the funding for the growth that we need. We think that we should go forward, get the financing. It may drop our credit rating from AAA to double A, but they said it's still good and we are going to drive the growth in this city and not be uh it be determined elsewhere. I think that is a conversation for council at some point to make that kind of high level strategic decision. I don't know whether we're operating on something that previous council said that we don't want to consider this. Um, so I guess through you I'm asking to staff is that something that's going to have to be council led to say, hey, we want the full range of options, sorry, available to us. Are we being driven by u, you know, more fiscally conservative policies of past councils or is this something that would be staff driven and would come to council at some point in the future? >> I'll go staff. >> Uh, thank you very much to the chair. That's a great question. In terms of the financing, as you can see in this report here, we are currently at um 30 approximately 37% when we look at the 10-year average debt servicing cost ratio relative to the revenues coming in the door. So that's a fairly high percent. Our recommended maximum will be 25% which is consistent with our financial financial statement reporting annual repayment limit. So we're over that cap. What I can say is that we are aggressively issuing debt and assigning debt where possible and we're trying to do it in a responsible way so we can continue to ensure we maintain that AAA credit rating that we've had now for 30 plus years. Um but yes, to answer your question, we do issue debt where we think it's responsible. Um there is the trade-off as well as you begin to issue more debt. There is debt servicing costs. Um so there's the cost to borrow which again we're we're obviously taking into consideration as well. Thank you, >> counselor. >> I'll leave it there for now. Thanks. >> I'll look for other comments or questions. Dr. Mayor Lewis. >> Yeah, just a comment. I appreciate the work staff's done on this. Uh I support it moving forward. Uh I agree the most important tool we have is pacing. And as much as we have a lot of work to do uh and a lot of growth to uh consider where the servicing moves, uh I think there's also uh quite a number of Londoners who would not be upset if we just slowed the pacing a little bit, particularly when it comes to uh road and sewer infrastructure and their ability to get around that. Um, I would say uh I would not entertain for a moment taking on debt to service growth and put our AAA credit rating down to a double A or a single A. That cost the taxpayer far more in the long run because we don't get as preferable a borrowing rate uh at a lower credit rating than we do at the AAA rating. um that's actually asking all of the taxpayers to subsidize growth more so than the GMIS approach where we are trying to align growth paying for growth. Uh I certainly agree with both m Mr. Wallace and Mr. Leven uh that the province has frankly failed to uh still make us whole. Uh those discussions have to continue about how that uh funding comes forward. Um, and I I I think that uh those discussions are are happening not just in London but in municipalities across the province and probably uh councelor Hopkins probably knows they're probably happening at AMO too I suspect. So um there is a role here uh that requires the senior levels of government to step in uh and deliver on their promise to make us whole. um that should not be uh something that we try and achieve by placing an additional burden on existing property taxpayers to pay for more growth by uh putting it through debt financing. Uh I will also say I I think that the finance staff and and all of our staff across all the divisions have also done a very good job uh when there has been an end ofear surplus at looking at ways to avoid issuing debt and using some of that surplus uh to move projects forward uh that otherwise would have to be debt financed. So, uh, although the debt financing levels are are, uh, getting towards the higher end of where they should be, um, we have been able to do some projects, uh, moving them ahead without taking on debt. And that is also something that I think staff deserves, uh, some thanks and credit for. Uh, so I don't want to get into uh mcking about uh with issuing debt and putting our credit rating lower when when I think that slowing or speeding things up by a year or two and and listening to our industry partners as to when they're ready to bring applications forward uh can help manage this problem a little bit better until we see those senior levels of government uh resolve their commitment to make us whole. >> Thank you, Council Frank. >> Thank you. Uh just a couple questions for you to staff. Uh given that the pace of the low density housing is slower and we just expanded the urban growth boundary, I just wanted to check if that will negatively impact our financial modeling or does GMIS and the DC master plan account for the policy misalignment. >> I'll go staff. >> Uh through the chair. So, the ministry has not yet approved the urban growth boundary expansion and it is still before them to be reviewed. Um, the DC bylaw is a 20-year study. Um, and council approved the growth projections to be used as the basis for that last fall. Um, the interaction between the two is that if if the type of housing changes over time, there will be periodic reviews of supply of land. So we could report back with how many years of supply there are in future. But it's also intended as a long-term plan. So what would end up happening is if if a boundary is approved that takes longer than 30 years to build out, then it doesn't impact the DC rate because the DC separately is identifying a 20-year supply of land based on those assumptions and then using GIS as the tool to adjust year year-over-year. >> Councor, >> thank you. I appreciate that. Um, and then I have another question. So, I'm heard, we heard from the gallery that, uh, you know, developers don't pay development charges. They pass it along to the buyer. Um, and the alternative being that we finally get funding from the province to make us whole, which is taxpayer money, or we rely on property taxes to move growth forward. And I personally would rather see the people buying the houses pay the costs instead of spreading it across our property tax base. Uh, cuz it sounds like those are the two main areas where that is going to be paid from. So, I'm wondering, I know that we're creatures of the province, um, but is there a certain point where we can, um, you know, do something beyond advocacy, uh, to let the province know that, you know, at a certain point we need to collect development charges because we want growth to pay for growth. And, um, you know, I don't want to say suing the province, but at a certain point, is there a way that we can do something beyond it? because I think we're getting into a tricky pickle where we have tens of millions of dollars that um essentially we're on the hook for and I'm wondering at what point um can we do something beyond sending letters to the province and I guess my question is mostly um towards staff uh have we heard any movement in regards to making us whole or is cricket still >> I'll go staff >> uh through the chair at the current current time there isn't a lot of other opportunities that we have besides that advocacy. We try to do it at all levels. Of course, we're doing it at at the staff level. We're doing that in any of the associations that we're part of and we know that you're doing that at the level of AMO and even a council of MARO level. So, um I feel that that's uh that's important and it really is the one the one of the few very few things that we can do right now to be able to put the the importance of DC's forward. So um really that's that we are limited there and um uh the best thing that we have and the best thing we can do is is having this GMIS process to allow us to um move these projects and be able to respond to what we're seeing in the marketplace and just and uh ensure that we're not building infrastructure before it's needed because as as mentioned we really try to focus on that just in time delivery because if we have a asset that's sitting there and it's not being used then that could be it funding and that's uh that could be available to be able to provide infrastructure in a different area where um development is occurring. So uh I think the most important thing we can do is just try to be able to manage what we can um through our GMIS process. >> Councelor, >> thank you. Yes, I appreciate that and I agree. It appears we can only really delay projects, increase property taxes, which would be terrible, borrow more, which would have higher debt servicing costs and just push it on to next generations, which I don't think is fair. um use a reserve funds which would be terrible and then pretty much advocate. Um so I appreciate that staff are bringing this to us and the work that they do on GMIS because really none of the other options are viable or working at this point. So thank you Hopkins. >> Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair and just to follow up on uh supporting uh this recommendation I would definitely encourage the committee to do so. uh it is a tool that we have. A lot of municipalities do not even have this tool how we can look into the future and adjust accordingly. I do want to put my AMO hat on here too. It is a big conversation and it has been through the past couple years at AMO the need to be kept whole as a municipality. We were promised that we would be kept whole. So for us on council and throughout municipalities, we need to understand the importance of that advocacy, putting that pressure on the provincial government to make them realize that we cannot do it on our own. Um, and I, you know, I I I think the more we have these conversations uh around DCS, they're complicated, the more we will understand. Not all municipalities have DCs either. So, it's just trying to understand what's going on in our municipality and and and working with the provincial government on the need to be kept whole because we're not uh I really appreciate the public participation uh meeting here comments. I think we can all agree that we have to manage our shortfalls. This is a great tool. I want to thank staff uh for for bringing this information forward. It's important that we get it, understand it. I think it is flexible as well. Uh which is really important. Uh the uh concerns around the reserve fund I think is always um something that we should always have to ask those questions here at committee and understand that. So I would encourage the committee uh to support um the recommendation in front of us. >> Thank you. Just looking around on councelor Perl. >> Thank you sir chair. If you could explain to me again at the audit committee, we receive annually uh investments done by the developers that city assumes. We are currently in last three years roughly certainly over $150 million and it includes the sanitary pipes, storm sewer etc. How is this kind of calculated? Was this tracked already kind of before uh before our term of the council and how is this evaluated? Because yes, we are in the whole 250 but on the other hand we assumed roughly 160 170 from the developers that they that they developed and they included and we assumed it as a city. >> I'll go to staff >> uh through the chair. So uh there's a couple of different uh pieces here that will just uh maybe just raise your attention to. So there's uh of course when you're building out a new infrastructure, we have uh what we call a lot of times major infrastructure. So that's infrastructure that is included in the development charges study. Um so it'll usually be your larger size pipes or or your arterial roads, your very large roads. And then um the developer will be responsible for some of the costs and associated with what we call the local um the local servicing. So that would be the smaller pipes that are within their roadways that would be like the your local road that would be in front of a single family home. Um so the the pieces that were that has been flagged as far as the infrastructure that would be uh assumed by the city for the most part those are pieces of infrastructure that were paid for and constructed by the developer and now been passed over to the city um for ownership um as part of the subdivision process. >> Counselor. So thank you. So the way I understand it is that the the report that we receive 160 $170 million that does not include it's the smaller things not the larger ones that are included in the DC charges that we do charge the developers for. Is that correct staff >> uh through the chair? Yes, that's accurate. So it includes like the the smaller streets and infrastructure where it's in this those new subdivisions. >> Councelor, >> thank you. No more questions. Look for other comments or questions. We have a motion moved and seconded. We will call the vote. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Thank you. Moving on to 3.3. This is regarding a parking provisions update. I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Stevenson, seconded by councelor Cuddy. And we will call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Mr. Wallace, uh, please go ahead. You have five minutes. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to, uh, welcome the deputy mayor back to the the office. It looks pretty cool with those sunglasses on to be honest with you. So um really really briefly uh the uh I circulated the report to my members and uh we are supportive of the recommendation that's here in front of us. In a very in a nutshell we think it reflects reality of what is happening on the street. Most of our members were uh developing at the one parking spot per unit anyways, but it just makes it a a uh it just all the changes in here um reflect what we believe is actually happening in the marketplace. And the only other and it's sort of related uh in a sense but just to give you a heads up coming back um uh on because it's related to parking um your zoning ball has a requirement for um installation of units to be able to support EVs. Uh bill 98 takes that power away from municipality. So we'll be looking at changes to the uh current zoning bylaw for that to happen. So just a little heads up on what's happening with that be coming back to you. Okay. Thank you. Um we're supportive of the report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Look for other speakers. >> Please, sir, give us your name. You have 5 minutes. >> Oh, uh sorry, Zach Corbin. Um I'm hoping I'm speaking the right spot. Uh I recently purchased a home at 320 Horton Street East. Um I was looking to go about widening the driveway. Uh I kind of ran into some administrative hurdles. There's currently I am zoned arterial commercial. Um, so what I was hoping to just be a simple city process of applying to wide my driveway has turned into being zoned arterial commercial. I need to go to now go through the full commercial process which uh equates to a $1,300 application which may or may not be approved. Um, when it if you look at the whole uh street I am the only current piece of grass on that block. Um, so everyone else has been approved. So I guess I'm just looking for a pathway there uh to get that done. Uh, where currently there doesn't seem to be one. It was over the last 6 months I've been bounced between staff and whatnot. Oh, possible. Not possible. Oh, possible. But this, oh, we don't apply for that. So, I'm just kind of looking for a pathway forward for there. Uh, it has been indicated that staff is looking at doing that. I guess I'm just looking for a timeline and hopefully possibly an exemption in my case. Apologies. >> So, just so you know, we're not dealing with specifics at this particular meeting. So, you're going to have to take that up with your counselor and and staff uh offline. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Look for any other speakers. >> Please, sir, give us your name. You have five minutes. Good afternoon. Um Muhammad Musa. Um couple of things I just wanted to mention just to start is um it was a a very extensive and hard to follow report but there is one thing there there are a few things in the report where it refers to different sections that you know what should be replaced and what shouldn't but within the bylaw uh the proposed bylaw uh 4.19 sub 10 sub a um should be labeled residential development. And I think there is probably just a transcription error uh rather than driveway widths um just for the purpose of of you know the proposed bylaw going through the subheadings don't necessarily mean the legislation is is that but it should refer to it. Okay. So um in regard to the one unit per sorry one parking spot per unit for you know higher density development. Um I think that should be a developer decision. I mean we're we're told that there's vacancy because of not enough parking spots. I think the majority of that is because of affordability. A parking spot in a high residential underground parking spot is $60 to $90,000 per spot. Where is that going to come from? You know, if somebody doesn't require a spot, it's going to be into the added rents. Um, I think that should be left alone in in with respect to that. Let the developer, he, she, or in the case of a corporation, it should be able to be able to make that decision. That's a business decision that each should make. Um, in terms of driveway widths. Um, having a huge issue with 9 m across a 12 m lot, frontage lot. Um, question that most of this is silent on is if I put in a new driveway, does that entitle me to a drive a sorry, a curb cut? The curb cut um takes away from street parking and everybody's complaining about, oh, if there isn't enough parking, there's it's going to be on on the street. Well, if you're taking a 12 m frontage lot and taking 9 m out of that, you're left with 3 m approximately 9 76 ft. You're not going to fit anything there. Um, hardcaping if I can cover and I'll give you not a hypothetical but a real world example. I have a house in a non-HCD area and if I was to add another res an ARU. If I wanted another driveway, I could ask for it. And again, the the bylaw doesn't say as of right. So, I'm not sure whether it's an application where it's rubber stamped or whether it's an application that you have to go through, you know, the whole process of what city hall entails you to do. So, the bylaws with respect to a curb cut are different than sideyard and boulevard parking. learned a lot about this between 1994 and 1999 when parking enforcement was downstairs. Don't ask me how I did. Um, so now you've got, okay, out of that 12 m, 9 m is taken by driveway. I can put a 4ft walkway. So now you've got 5.7 5.8 8 ft for easements for utilities for water runoff. And that's going to be the next point with the hardscaping that you're allowing people to do in this case. Um, >> 30 seconds. you're going to burden you're going to burden the storm water system. So, you're creating more problems than you are solving by doing this. And I know we want more parking for arus. We want more parking for for that sort of thing, but we are creating one problem in trying to solve another. Thank you. >> Thank you. Look for any other speakers. Also, clerk, if there is anyone online, I don't see anyone else approaching the microphone. Look for a motion to close the PPM. Councelor Stevenson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. We'll call up. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to Z. Okay, I'll put this uh on the floor for committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> I'll move the staff recommendation. >> Thank you. And I see councelor Cuddy is seconding it. So, we got a motion moved and seconded. Do you want to speak to it, Deputy Mayor? >> Uh yeah, briefly, although I I may save some time to come back at the end if necessary. Um I I'm going to be really quick here. Uh I know the answer. I think it's actually in the report. Uh but through you to staff um curb cuts are not contemplated in this. This is expansion on private property only. Correct. >> I'll go to staff >> through the chair. That's correct. The curb cuts are um regulated by the streets by law. >> Deputy mayor. >> Yeah. Thank you. U so this requires people to angle a driveway for a sid spot um if that's what they're going to do uh if they need to add a spot. Um, frankly, we created a problem when we changed uh the parking ratio down to 0.5. Um, we tried the the market will decide. Um, and we've seen what's happened and we've seen it very clearly at this committee uh with hundreds of residents coming to PPMs over the last couple of years talking to us about the lack of parking in highdensity developments. So, absolutely, I'm going to be supportive of going back to 1 one. Uh, and I know that many of our local developers actually do one to uh 1.25 so that they're accommodating uh the need for extra parking spaces for some units or for visitors. Uh, and I applaud them for doing that, but that's not everybody. And, uh, I also think where we have where we have to underline a couple things. Um, I really appreciate the work the staff has done. Uh I have no problem with the recommendation to uh provide some exemp or um to exempt heritage conservation districts. I think with the small lot sizes we see in a number of those in particular uh you wouldn't be able to meet the the meter distances anyway. Um so I think preserving those obviously the work that was done uh on the Western University campus neighborhood and excluding that from these changes. Uh I know that was something councelor Trussell raised. I'm supportive of of that being in this report. uh and very supportive of of generally where we're going here uh in all ways, shapes, and sizes. Uh there are exemptions for affordable housing developments and for those developments that are happening along rapid transit corridors. So I think what we're doing here is making a a responsible decision to say, hey, in some places, in some types of builds, we can have under 1:1 parking. In fact, before we changed the rules to 0.5, we used to actually get lots of parking justification reports that came forward on affordable housing projects in particular that said and staff supported recommendations that said, "Yeah, 65 is okay here or 75 is okay here because it's an affordable housing build and we don't need one to one there." So, I think we've got some very responsible exemptions. We are putting the onus in terms of the the driveway widths piece onto the property owners. We're not asking the taxpayers uh to give up public land or to subsidize it. The owners will have to pay for a driveway widening. They'll have to get their permit. They'll have to go through all of those things if it's appropriate for them. I'm not uh particularly concerned uh with all due respect uh around the issue of storm water runoff. We know in new subdivisions where wider driveways may be desired, developers will plan for those accordingly. Uh but we're also not going to uh see tens of thousands of applications come forward for these and partly because of the factor that I just spoke of the cost. If there's not a need, nobody's going to voluntarily say I'm going to spend $8 or $10,000 to widen my driveway. If they don't need it, they're not going to bring it forward. And so in existing residential neighborhoods, I think we will see targeted spots where homeowners, particularly those with ARUS, but not exclusively. There might be families with multigenerational living situations, those kind of things where they will bring forward an application. Uh but I hardly think our path to approval uh counter is going to be stampeded by 10,000 applications for driveway widening across the city. Uh so I think staff have struck a very good balance here in recommending the exemptions uh and bringing forward something that we should move forward with as a council. I I and I hope this is something that we can be uh moving quickly on and get it done. Thank you. I'll look for other speakers. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I support the return to one one. My questions are mostly with regard to the exceptions because if properties don't meet the uh width requirements anyway. We we don't need to make an exception. It'll be ruled out anyway. So, I'm just wondering why um why we would be putting this in given that we want to have housing and we want to have ARUS and if properties in these districts were able to do it and had the land to be able to do the parking and we already have heritage rules and they'd have to do a heritage uh an application for a heritage permit anyway. why we would be ruling it out blanket um without giving the uh possibility in some locations. So it'll go through you to staff >> um through through the chair. I I think what I understand the question to be is um an exemption the exemptions that we've provided through the current bylaw uh that's proposed um with respect to your campus neighborhoods and uh heritage conservation districts. Is that what you're referring to? Yeah, I'm saying if we took out the exception for heritage, uh that's what I would I I would lean towards. Why not just allow those few properties that could have it to have that option? >> I'll go staff. >> Uh through the chair, um when we reviewed the parking um proposed parking provision changes, uh heritage conservation districts um are have certain requirements under the Ontario Heritage Act. Um and to have a bylaw that um heritage conservation districts are very specific in terms of um not allowing for front yard parking for instance, not allowing for side um certain scenarios. Uh that would be per permitted through this particular bylaw change. Um the issue is is that that would then put it in uh in at odds. basically the zoning bylaw and the HCD would then be at odds and uh could uh come up with legal issues, legal challenges, um other possible issues. Um and so because of that, it um was determined that the HCD should be exempt for that reason. Um we didn't want to cause any further grief in the future basically and um have any issues um from a legal perspective. >> Counelor, >> thank you. I I don't want to question that. Uh, and at the same time, I if we have um this bylaw that we do and we've got the heritage conservation plan, does the plan not take um priority over this? Like we wouldn't be putting it uh we wouldn't be speaking against it. We would just be not be putting exceptions and just allow it to operate under the the restrictions that it has already. >> Good stuff. uh through the chair. Um as the city, we can can't enact a bylaw that's in contravention with the HCDs. Uh and that's part of the reason that obviously we've um um recommended the exemption. >> Council. >> Okay. Um, so my other question I'll I'll maybe circle back to staff around that between now and council cuz I I would like to understand it better. There the the little bit that I looked at there's lots of reference to parking within the uh heritage and exceptions. It usually says uh you know if if at all possible we wouldn't allow this but it allows for possibility. Um why why are we doing the western university near campus neighborhood and not the fansaw one? >> I'll go to staff >> uh through the chair that was the direction of council >> counselor. >> Thank you. So I I know why western I don't know why not fansaw as well cuz I don't think we I don't believe we directed on heritage and that's come through. So I just wondered if staff had thoughts on the fans >> uh through the chair as as part of the recommendation clause. It was only uh directed that Western be looked at. >> Counselor. >> Oh, any concerns about uh adding fans as well? >> I'll go staff >> through the chair. This whole recommendation was at the request of council. So, um it's not something that staff looked at. >> Counselor. >> Uh I see hands. I I'll leave it. Um I it just feels inconsistent to do one instead of the other. I'm open to hearing from my colleagues as to why we would do one and not the other. >> Uh I'll go ahead, Deputy Mayor. >> Thank you, Chair. Before this was brought forward, I had conversations uh with both councelor Trussau and councelor Cuy and the realities between Western uh and its near campus neighborhood and Fanshaw and its near campus neighborhood are considerably different. Uh and it was felt that Western was the school where the exceptions uh were needed. Um there's a lot more um uh differentiation in both the demographic uh at Fanshaw, the length of stay at Fanshaw uh and in consultation with councelor Cuddy uh we chose not to bring it forward uh because we think that it's actually needed uh to allow some driveway widening around Fanshaw uh where we have more off-campus uh residential uh occupation and students who are driving uh rather than students who are taking the bus. Uh they're more mature students in some cases uh as people go back to retraining at Fanshaw uh and they are utilizing a different source of getting around and how they're living in the neighborhood. So, uh that's why Fanshaw was not part of the council recommendation and that's why I would not support putting it back in again today. >> Counselor, >> thank you. I appreciate that. Truthfully, I don't want to add Fanshaw. I I don't understand why we have Western here as an exception, but I do feel like consistency and and I hear what you're saying, but I I hear a lot of concerns about parking in that area as well. And there's a lot of illegal parking. this would allow us to at least have an approval process to go through to be able to look at it. Um, and open to, you know, I understand the ward counselor maybe is in support of this, but it just seems um I don't know that we're giving a different treatment to one area of the city when we have issues with illegal parking and and needing parking for residences in it seems like all areas of the city. Councelor Frank. Councelor Frank. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Sorry, I was getting my computer on. Um, yeah, again, not a member of this committee, but I don't plan on supporting this at council being consistent with past votes. Um, and also just having read the report and seeing all of the concerns from the various staff departments, you know, forestry, heritage, urban planning. So, uh, I won't be supporting this, but I am wondering through you to staff, uh, is there a way for us to make a requirement for the use of permeable pavement or gravel if they do get a, um, if they are able to move forward? >> I'll go staff. >> Uh, through the chair. Um, there may be changes made to the zoning bylaw to allow for u a portion of permeable surface or fully permeable surfaces. Um, but it would require more than just adding a clause. I think there would need to be additional changes to definitions, things like that through the zoning bylaw. So, um it would be um more than I think was anticipated through the original circulation of this notice. >> Counselor, >> thank you. Yes. So, then it sounds more like um I've heard from colleagues that they want this to move forward as quickly as possible. So, probably a furrow is not uh desired, but perhaps a future uh direction to staff to add that in the zoning boil would be great. Um, and then the other question I had is, are developers still able to request special provisions moving forward? So, if they wanted to build an apartment building with 75, will will they still be allowed to? >> I'll go staff. >> Uh, through the chair. Yes, that's still uh an avenue available for all development applications, >> counselor. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. I'll look for other uh council. >> Uh, thanks, chair. And through you. Um, so I I remember this coming up and I remember the way I was voting on the last one, I wasn't necessarily supportive of it. Um, I do between uh councelor Stevenson's comments and myself, we don't necessarily align, but she's right on this one. Um, I have a near campus neighborhood and my part of my ward has a near campus neighborhood and I do see that there are concerns with parking. However, I'm still not supportive because I did make the arguments um at the last cycle of this about the permeability about um the storm water and the issues that may lie therein. However, I do see the motion that we're going uh the direction that we're going today and I do support not expanding it in the um near campus neighborhood area of my ward just because I feel like as we start picking up our public transitability as people start using alternative modes of transportation, we might see some uh easing off of of the car centricity that we have. And I'm just hoping that, you know, making some permanent changes today may uh directly result in having those permanent changes um still existing, you know, tomorrow once we do have those other modes of transportation. I do want to go to the delegate who spoke about 320 um Hamilton or Horton. um he has reached out to me and I do see that this is focusing on uh the expansion of private property parking and there it's not focusing on the expansion or it doesn't have really a focus on the public aspects. The delegate has a very specific um I guess issue that has arisen because his parking is fully on city property and he is looking to expand his uh driveway but it doesn't fit within the parameters of this boulevard parking amendment. And my understanding is is that um there could be something coming forward with an an internal administrative process to help uh the delegate in his in his um in his quest to expand on his parking. So, I just wanted to go to staff and ask when would we be able to expect that internal administrative process come through to help the delegate so he doesn't have to come through committee here um and go through the process. >> As I said to the the person who spoke um I prefer we're going to stick with the the issue at hand and not get into specifics. you you're welcome to confer with staff about with that question uh off the floor but uh at this time let's just stick with the uh the bylaw in front of us. >> Okay. Thanks chair. Is there any way I could just get staff to just I do know that they have an internal process. I was expecting it to come on this one on this um motion. >> Okay. I'll go to staff on generalities. If there is some sort of additional process in the works that would tie into this item that we have before us, we I can entertain that one >> uh through the chair. Um so for that uh particular applicant they would have to go through um the process that's established in the Boulevard parking bylaw currently which would be bringing a report um a staff report to PEC um and council for approval of that boulevard parking um and then in the future we will have to do kind of a wholesome review of the boulevard parking bylaw um to establish that administrative process but we can kind of um manage that particular case ahead of time. >> Counselor. >> All right. Thank you for giving me that leniency to ask that question. I do have a follow-up on when we'd expect that, but if the chair deems that out of order, I'll take the chair's recommendation. >> Well, for generalities, again, I'm I'm trying to keep it to the generalities thing. if there is something in the works, if you can give us approximate time frame of when that would happen >> uh through the chair. Um after receiving uh direction on this report, I would uh assume maybe by Q2 of next year um we'll be able to have a review and a new process. >> Counselor. >> Thank you, Chair. That's it. >> Uh Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. Uh I just want to follow up again on the heritage exceptions. So on page 211 just as an example um in Wartley Village Old South uh section 8.3.6.3 it says front yard or boulevard parking is discouraged unless unavoidable and permitted by zoning regulations. So, I'm just wondering if we are to pass this as it is with the exception of properties located within a heritage conservation district, does this now mean that front yard and boulevard parking would not be permitted by zoning regulations? >> I'll go staff >> through the chair. The uh that would still be permitted just under the existing regulations that currently exist. councelor. >> So, I just want to be clear. So, what what what is coming to us recommended for this committee to approve will not impact the ability to be able to have the front yard or boulevard parking per this conservation district plan? go staff >> through the chair. I would refer to the previous um provisions which uh would then likely require if there was something u potentially a minor variance or something to that effect in order to review. >> Counselor. >> Okay. I just want to understand what I'm voting on here. So, if a property in a heritage conservation district wanted to have front yard or boulevard parking, what changes? What how does it work now and how will it be different after we pass this? >> I'll go staff >> through the chair. The current bylaw does not permit front yard parking um at all. So, the provisions would continue to apply for an HCD. So therefore, if a uh property in the Heritage Conservation District wanted to uh include front yard parking, they would need to um obtain a minor variance or something to that effect in order to be able to park in their front yard. >> Counselor. >> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. And then if we were to remove the exception, what would a property owner need to do? Um no, that's not the right question. Um >> give her the m so a minor variance is needed and is there also a heritage alteration permit as well? >> I'll go to staff. >> Uh that's correct. A heritage alteration permit is also required. >> Council, I'm just going to remind you're kind of coming up to the end of your time. >> All right. Okay. Um, and so if we did not have if we took these that exception out, it would still have to go through heritage for them to have what we're offering here. Correct. >> I'll go staff >> through the chair. Yes. That means that they would need to go through the uh they would still need to receive a heritage alteration permit. However, the issue would be that uh front yard parking is also at odds with a lot of these HCD provisions. Um and staff I think would be um have faced with a an issue in that the bylaw would permit it. However, the HCD does not. >> Counselor >> and the HCD overrides. Correct. >> Go a staff. >> Uh I believe yes, >> counselor. >> So I support this. I would prefer to take the exceptions out. I don't know if any of my colleagues feel the same way. I'm going to leave it for today, but I I would prefer to not have the exceptions. >> Okay. I'll look for any other speakers to this. Council Ramen. >> Uh, thank you. And through you. So, I'm trying to understand um with the bylaw written the way it's written, um there's no way to vote on uh the high and medium density um one to one and not the rest of it. Oh, >> staff. through the chair, they would need to have a whole new bylaw because it's all one package. Counselor, >> thank you. And I would be interested in separating the bylaw for that reason. Um, my main reason is I think there are still some unanswered questions when it comes to the rest of the residential components like we discussed here with the heritage issues. Um, I personally wasn't supportive of uh the onetoone on the single family and other um uh forms of housing um or sorry not the one to one but the driveway with extension um mainly because it does uh create too much hard surface uh in the area. I do worry that it will impact our tree canopy. Um I do see and as it's in the report stated that it creates some conflict with pedestrians uh with that extra driveway width and and sight lines and things like that. Um I wanted to ask a question though about the affordable housing agreements and how that comes into consideration for the onetoone parking. So, um, what I'm trying to understand is I can understand that the onetoone parking would be exempt if it was an affordable housing project. But if it's just a project that has affordable housing agreements on it, so four units that are affordable housing, how would you determine what the ratio of parking change would be outside of the 1:1 >> staff? uh through the chair it would be for lack of a better term prorated based on the uh number of affordable housing units >> counc >> okay so let's say 4 to 10 in a building that has you know 300 units right and let's say there's somewhere between four and 10 affordable units are we talking about uh considering uh you know a.9 a 7 like how would we make that. How How would we determine that? >> I'll go staff. >> I'm sorry. Uh, can the counselor through the chair, can the council possibly repeat that? I was having a discussion. Sorry. >> Thank you. And through you. So just to clarify, okay, I'll say if it was 300 units, let's say 10 of them were affordable, what would be the the size of the adjustment on the ratio? >> I'll go st uh through the chair. Actually, no, it's a full-on exemption. It is not prrated. There is nothing in the bylaw that says anything about it being prrated. It is if any component of affordable housing is in it, it is exempt from those provisions. >> Counselor, >> thank you. So, one unit of affordable housing would exempt on a 200 unit, let's say, building and let's say the applicant wanted 20 parking spaces. One unit would then exempt them and make that applicable. >> I'll go staff. >> That's correct. Through you, chair. That's correct. >> Um, Mr. Mr. Mathers, did you want to jump in >> uh through the chair? Um that that wasn't the um that wasn't the intention. We're just getting some legal interpretation of the language that we have in the by in the bylaw currently. So, um if the direction is that that that's not an appropriate strategy, which I would suggest that it's not, then uh we would be cleaning up the bylaw language when we bring it forward to council. we have some time because this isn't going till the council meeting in July. So, and any other permutations of bylaws that folks feel like if you want it broken out um into different components so that you you're able to be able to vote on that separately at council, we're happy to be able to provide that. But my suggestion would be us refining the language in the bylaw that we bring forward to to look at a prorating for um uh related to affordable housing. >> Council Ramen, >> thank you. Thank you. And I'm happy to continue this conversation offline and look to uh an amended bylaw that would help to straighten out some of this um because because I do think it's important that we we put that in that framework together before we approve it when it comes to the high and medium residential units. I don't want uh the development community think that we're now reintroducing bonusing in a sense by doing this because that's kind of how it feels. Um, so just wanted to bring that up. And um, back to the driveway consideration, um, I would personally prefer and I see in the urban design guidelines that it's more about it also mentions the driveway form matching the current form. So for instance, if we had something um, permeable and you had something hardcape beside it. Um, from a design perspective, that also may not look great. So, not supportive of it as it is, but I also want that to be considered. If we're considering permeable, I think the look of it also would would matter. Um, I think it would change uh the form within some of our subdivisions otherwise. >> Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah, thank you. And, uh, I think my first question was answered that this is going to go to the next council meeting, not tomorrow. I'm listening to the conversation here at committee, which I really do appreciate. uh the more I listen the more concerned I am becoming uh in particular with the bylaw uh itself the way it's written uh I represent sub uh subdivisions in W 9. I don't think I've ever seen an application that had less than one ratio. I'm glad to hear that it's up to the developer if they want.5 that that could be part of the application. So, I'm really not sure. Um, I don't think I have a clear understanding right now exactly how this is all going to pan out. Um, my concerns, I think I heard from the public, it could be creating a few more problems that we really don't get right now. uh in particular um the hard surfacing and um the tree canopy, things like that that can really add uh to the neighborhood. I heard loud and clear and I appreciate u the the counselors coming forward with wanting to make it better. Um but I'm not exactly sure how um we're doing it. I it it's very um unclear. So, um I'm I'm glad there's going to be a little bit more work uh and with on the bylaw as this comes forward. I know we heard loud and clear. I hear it too. You know, neighborhoods want want um you know, less parking on the street. Um and I I understand the intent of the changes and some of them are good uh but not everything. So, um I think uh there's a a lot more work that I need to do to understand uh the bylaw as it comes forward to the next council meeting. >> Thank you. Look for uh Dr. Mar Lewis. >> Thank you, chair. So, we've already established that um the streets by law and curb cuts are are not at play here. So, there's no change in the boulevard width. So based on that, I'd actually like to understand from staff how they think this is impacting the tree canopy. It's not within the city's power to mandate people to plant trees on their private property. We've established that this is the widening of private driveways on private land. So, I actually find the comments that I'm hearing about tree canopy impact uh to be without merit because we can't force tree planting on private land and there's no change to the city boulevard. So, there's no change in opportunity to plant in the city boulevard. So, I'd like staff to comment, please. I'll go staff. Yes. 10 seconds left. uh through the chair. Um yes, that is correct. There will be uh there won't be an impact on on the right ofway and that's the program that the city has for being able planting trees. Um that uh is the where we chiefly uh plant trees of course and if there's less frontage of a property, yes, that will limited the ability to plant trees or any other type of uh greenscaping. But um from the perspective of like the city and our uh for the most part what we're dealing with as part of the development process, it it wouldn't impact uh the right the right of way. >> Okay, I'll go back to deputy mayor. You're kind of coming up on the end of your time. >> That's okay. I'm going to end it there because I think that that addresses it. I do uh I want to say I appreciate councelor Ramen's uh uh question about the affordable housing exemption uh because that wasn't certainly uh my intent when I introduced the motion uh to have this reviewed. So I appreciate staff uh tackling that one. Um quite honestly it wasn't one that I caught in the reading of the report. So I appreciate councelor Ramen reading it and if staff can tidy that up prior to council that would be great. >> Councelor Frey. >> Thank you. Yes. I actually just wanted to read the section from urban forestry onto the record because I don't actually think it uh completely aligns with what was just shared. So from forestry >> so a point of order chair. >> Um point of order. >> The report is already on the public record. The councelor does not need to read it to us. >> Councelor that is a good point but if you'd like to comment on on their comments I'll I'll give you some latitude. So go ahead. >> Yeah I appreciate that. Um so I'll comment on their comments. uh forestry indicates, I'm paraphrasing because I don't want to read it, indicates that um the proposed amendment would compete with permeable planting spaces for trees. So, it would remove spaces for trees to exist in private yards, which provide a significant opportunity. And many private yards um a significant portion of their area still belongs to the city. And so, there are opportunities within front yards to put trees. Additionally, if there are existing trees in people's front yards and someone wants to expand their driveway, potentially they might want to remove said tree in order to expand their driveway. And there are number of other things that I won't read but are included in the report from forestry in regards to how this would create significant conflicts with having space for trees. So, it does actually indicate that it would impact tree planting and our urban forestry cover. Councelor Hopkins. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'd just like to make a response to my comments around uh the hard surfacing and the trees. I represent a lot of subdivisions in Ward 9. We're starting to see uh smaller land, smaller lots. It's that simple. the frontages become smaller, the harder spaces become more, and less opportunities uh for landscaping. That's my perception. Uh a lot of subdivisions that I've seen um develop in W 9. >> Thank you. Look for further comments or questions. We have a motion moved in second and I'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Thank you. We have no items for discussion. We would do have five deferred matters additional business. We have 2.1 from the consent items that we've moved down uh to uh to that area. So I will put that in the floor now for uh committee. Someone would like to move that. Councelor Cuddy. >> Yes. Chair, I'll move the staff recommendation. Can I get a seconder, please? Deputy mayor seconds. One conversation. Councelor Stevenson. >> Uh, I'd just like to vote on C separately. >> Okay. Any other comments or questions? So, I'll ask the clerk if we're able to vote on C separately and we can tie the A and B together. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, we'll if there's no other, we can do that. So, if there's no other comments or questions, we'll call that vote and we'll call it a A and B or whichever the clerk prefers. Uh yeah, we can do A and B first. >> We'll call A and B first then we'll call C. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to Z. >> Okay. Now we'll call C. Closing the vote. The motion carries 4 to one. >> Okay. Thank you. We do have one item uh for confidential matters. I'll look for a motion to move in camera. Councelor Cuddi, second by councelor Stevenson. And we will call that vote. Uh councelor Lewisville will vote. Yes. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. So ask the clerk to prepare the room for in camera chair while you're uh adjusting the Okay, I think we're good to go. Okay, we are back in public session. I'll go to councelor Stevenson to report out. >> Thank you. Progress was made for the item uh for which we went in camera. >> Thank you. I think that exhausts our items on the agenda. I'll look for a motion to adjourn. Councelor Stevenson, second by councelor Cuddy. We'll call a hand vote on that. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you everyone.