Guelph Innovation District development deferred over industrial compatibility

Good afternoon, just testing.

Hi, Councillor Althuss is Grady from the City Clerc's Office. Just then you know that we can hear you.

To my friends online, if I could just have your camera go on, that'd be great.

All right, good evening everybody. It is Tuesday, September 15, 2026. It is five o'clock and they'd like to call the meeting to order right off the bat. We are looking to move into a closed session of Council. And so before we go any further, I'll just read them out. The titles are September 2026 Public Appointments, the downtown Guelph Business Association Board of Directors. And the Second is 1242 to 1270 Gordon Street and Nine Valley Road. The Ontario Land Tribunal Update. And the Third is organisational structure review update. I'm so sorry, I didn't read those out. Normally do, so I'm gonna do it. The first one is as per section 2392B of the municipal act regarding personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees. The second is as per Section 239 to E and F of the municipal app regarding litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the municipality

or local board. And advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. And the last one on the organisational structure review is as per Section 2392B and D of the municipal act regarding personal matters, about identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees and labour relations or employing negotiations. I do have regrets at this time from Council Councillor Richardson. With that, is there any disclosure pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof for those items before I look to see if we want to move into closed. Seeing and hearing nobody. Would you be willing to? Thank you Councillor Cayton. We'll move. And Councillor Busatill will second to move into closed. And I'll call the vote on that. Is anyone against. Nobody, so that's unanimous, so we'll move into a closed session. And as usual, when done, we will return for a very high level update summary, but that will all start at the six o'clock open session meeting time. Okay, thank you very much.

All right, good evening, everybody. Thank you very much for joining us. It is six o'clock. So I'd like to call the meeting to order. It's our City Council meeting for September the 15th, 2026. If we could have cell phones off, I'm just kidding. I heard that ring. So we've all done it, so it's all good. Just as we are about to begin, I just wanted to give a quick summary of, we had to close meeting. Of Council at the beginning at five o'clock. And that was on three items. One was on the downtown Guelph Business Association Public Appointments for Board of Directors. The second was an update on 1242 to 1270 Gordon Street in nine Valley Road. Excuse me, for the Ontario Land Tribunal update. And the third was an organisational structure review update. So on the first one, which is the downtown Gulf Business Association Board of Directors. After we go through a few more things on the agenda, I just will ask Councillor Clausen to move a motion on that item in open session here. On the second one, which was the Gordon Street in Nine Valley, the Ontario Land Tribunal update. We

did give direction on that matter to our staff. And on the third one, which is the organisational structure review, it was just information received from our CAO to Council, and that was it. No direction was given on that. And so that's the update. And so with that, maybe if we could please join me as we stand to recognise our national anthem, and we'll go on from there. Thank you.

So nice, we sang it twice. We're a patriotic bunch. Especially with what's going on, right? So we could do this a second time, I guess. If we wanted to. Let's just have a moment of silent reflection as we continue.

And now our Indigenous territorial acknowledgement. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work here in Guelph. It's the City built over rich Indigenous histories. And as guests here, we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land and the people who live here today in the generations to come. If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and with gratitude. And this place we call Gulph has served as traditional lands and a police of refuge for many people's over time. But more specifically, the Anna Wanaroc and the Holinesshone. This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. Guell flies directly adjacent to the Haldeman tract and is part of a long - established traditional hunting grounds for the Six Nations of the Grand River. Many First Nations Inuit MAT people who have come from across Turtle Island called Guelph Holm today. And is there any disclosure of canary interest or any general nature thereof for the items in front of us today. Not hearing or seeing any of my colleagues. Say anything. So I'll consider that matter closed. And officially I did get regrets from Councillor Richardson

as well. Before we go into the rest of our agenda, I'd just like to take a moment to turn things over to our Deputy CIO calling Clackbush for a quick presentation and announcement. Thank you, Mayor Guthrien. Good evening, everyone. So I'd like to start by welcoming and introducing Chief Cliff Eggleton, who has joined Guelph Wellington Paramedic Services as chief at the beginning of August and maybe Cliffkin wave or stand. There he is. In the gallery. So Chief Eglton, excuse me, Chief Eglinton brings more than 20 years of progressive leadership experience in paramedic services across Ontario, and he joins us from Hamilton Paramedic Service, where he most recently served as executive manager of administration and support. In his first few weeks with us, he has already demonstrated a strong commitment to open communication and staff engagement, and I'm confident that his expertise is going to further strengthen our already outstanding Guelph Wellington Paramedic Services team. You'll obviously get a chance to know Chief Eglton in the coming weeks. The community will get a chance to interact with him more, as well as those of us here. And so while I'm very excited and delighted to be welcoming Chief Eglton here to the City of Guelph, his arrival also does mark the retirement of Chief Stephen Dewar,

and I think I'm going to actually ask Steven if he'd be willing to come and stand next to me. I only made Cliff Wave, but I'm going to ask Stephen to come down. So thank you for giving me this opportunity tonight, because we wanted to take a moment to wish Chief Do, or a very warm farewell as he embarks on his well - deserved next chapter. Chief Dewar joined the City of Guelphon Secondman in 2011 and became the permanent chief of Gulf Wellington Paramedic Services in 2012. Throughout his tenure, he has been a tireless advocate for both the dedicated staff of the Paramedic Services here, as well as for the residents of Guelph and Wellington County. Over the 15 years that he has been here at the City are paramedic services experienced significant growth in call volumes, staffing resources, and the increasing complexity of community needs. Chief Dewar has played a pivotal role in champion our community paramedicine program, an initiative that continues to be instrumental in helping address pressures across the healthcare system. His collaborative leadership style has strengthened relationships with hospital partners, social service agencies, and fellow emergency service providers throughout our community. Chief Dewar has also been a valued member of the

City's Leadership team, and I am personally deeply grateful for his professionalism, dedication, good humor, and unwavering commitment to Public Service. His contributions have left a lasting impact on both the organisation and the communities that we serve. Chief Dewar's Last Day with Us will be September 30th, but tonight is the final opportunity for this Council to formerly recognise his contributions. So on behalf of the executive team, as well as everyone here, I would like to offer my sincere thanks and very best wishes to Chief Dire as he enters retirement. You're here.

Wow, congratulations, thank you, Colleen. I'm going to put you on the spot. Would you like to say anything within like 10 seconds? I'm not going to give you too long here. No, just kidding. Would you like to say anything at all? No, but thank you for that, and thank you for the recognition. It's been an absolute honour and privilege to lead an amazing team of Gulf Wallington Paramedics for a really important work in making a difference to the people of our community and actually saving lives. I don't take credit for everything that happened. All the work that's being done, because it's an amazing group of very talented, very compassionate and committed people. So, uh, been a very, again, an amazing privilege to lead them. And thank you for the opportunities. Well, thank you on behalf of Council. I could just echo everything that Colleen said. And yeah, it's going to be really different around here for sure for everyone. Really looking forward to your leadership, though, as well. And, uh, coming in, you've got some big shoes to fill, but you already know that. And, you know, we just on behalf of Council, just thank you very much. I can say personally that I learned

so much from you. Over the 16 years here. You know, stuff I thought I knew, which I clearly did not, which you then corrected me on has always been very welcome. And, uh, it's, it's a complex department and service that you run, and it doesn't go unnoticed the great work that you do. So all the best to you in the future, and, uh, thank you very much again. Appreciate it.

Great. With that, I'm just going to maybe just go right to the DGBA appointment, Councillor Colossen had mentioned that she would be willing to bring that forward for us. So we're going to throw that up on the screen. So this is coming from our in - camera meeting. We're now doing this out in the Public here, um, for everyone to see. So Councillor Claussen, I'll turn it over to you. Uh, yes, I am having to move that Denise Minster be appointed to the DGBA Board of Directors for a term ending in November, 2026, or until such a time as a successor is appointed. Okay. It looks like Councillor Galler is willing to second. So thank you. Is there anything further on that council before I call the vote? No, okay, I'll call that then. Is anyone against that appointment. Nobody, so that's unanimous. So thank you very much. Enjoy your next like two and a half months. Work very hard. All right. Uh, we have the minutes now. So the minutes are for the meetings held July 14th, 21st and 22nd of 2026 and the open committee of the whole meeting on July 7th, 2026

to be confirmed as recorded and without being read, uh, would some be willing to move that for me. So I got Councillor Busatil and Caden are willing to move in second. Is anyone need anything more on the minutes before I call the vote. Nope. Okay. Is anyone against the minutes. That's nobody. So that is unanimous as well. Thank you. Uh, we are in the consent agenda and the one item here is the 2026 second quarter budget monitoring report. Now is there anyone that wishes for that to be pulled at this time? I know a lot of us have been, uh, working with staff asking questions anyways before we got here. But is there anything further. No? Okay. You go happy to move consent Councillor Coron. Thank you. And Colossen, you're willing to second. Okay. Anything further on that. Okay. Just before I call the vote, I just want to reiterate my encouragement. That things are mitigated. To the end of the year. I have full trust in that. So all the best. With that, I will call the vote. Does anyone against. Nobody that's unanimous

as well? Okay. We are jumping right into our items for discussion with the first one. Being the proposed official plan amendment in the zoning bylaw amendment with the draft plan of subdivision for what's called the GID blocks one and two, uh, we're going to have a little bit of a presentation from our staff. And then we got several delegations that are here as well. And so, um, let's start with our staff to please come on up and get ready and walk us through what you've prepared. And we'll go from there. Okay.

Good evening, Mayor Guthrie. Members of Council staff and members of the Public Corps here in person or watching online. My name is Lindsay Sulatigy and I'm a senior planner with the City. And with me is Lucas Malami, who is a policy project manager for the city. We are providing a presentation in advance of Council considering staff's recommendation report for the proposed official plan amendment zoning by law amendment and draft plenty of subdivision applications submitted by MHBC Planning on behalf of the owner Fusion Homes. For the lands municipally known as 328 Victoria Road South and 588 Stone Road East, which are also referred to as the Gulf Innovation District, Block Plan Areas 1 and 2.

The subject lands are municipally known as 328 Victoria Road South and 588 Stone Road East. The subject lands are located at the northeast corner of Victoria Road South and Stoneherd East and have a combined area of approximately 116 hectares with 1, 497 metres of combined fringe along Victoria Road South and 874 metres of combined frontage along Stone Road East. The subject lands are primarily vacant and use for agricultural uses with two buildings located at the northwestern side of the subject lands. So on the screen here is the approved block plan for the Gulf Innovation District Block Plan Areas 1 and 2. I'm going to go through quickly what a block plan is and when this one was approved. So block plans are required to be developed the satisfaction of a city and approved by the City for each of the identified block plan areas within the Gulf Innovation District Secondary Plan prior to approval of any planning act, development application. Block plans established the pattern of development, which ensure that development occurs in orderly cost - effective and timely matter. BlockPan areas are also used

for the purpose of monitoring and ensuring achievement of population, employment, and density targets, as well as capital programming and land assembly. On September 10th, 2025, a special meeting of Council was held to provide planning information and a staff recommendation to Council regarding endorsement of the block plan. At the special meetings, City Council approved the applicant submitted block plan subject to revisions and directed the City's general manager of Planning and Building Services to issue final block plan endorsement once required revisions were made to the block plan. The applicant revised the block plan as directed by Council's motion and the final version was submitted to the City in January of 2026. So up on the screen, you'll see the applicants proposed drop plan of subdivision. The official plan in zoning by - law amendments will facilitate the future subdivision of the lands. More specifically, the applicant is proposing one drop plan of subdivision for the lands that includes low density residential blocks, multiple residential blocks mixed - use blocks. When school or mixed - use block, employment blocks, stormwater management, pond blocks, significant natural area and natural

areas blocks, Public Park blocks open space blocks walkway blocks road winding locks and Public Roads. Access to the subdivision is proposed from three new collector road connections to Victoria Road South and one new collector Road Connection to Stone Road East. The proposed development is anticipated to result in a total of approximately 4, 724 dwelling units, which is projected by the applicant. On the land's designated and zoned for residential or mixed use corridor and a total of approximately 2, 400 jobs, which are projected by the applicant within blocks 1 and 2. As outlined in the staff report, staff cannot recommend approval the drop line of subdivision at this time due to the remaining key issue of land use compatibility. However, should Council wish to approve the draft plane of subdivision. Staff are recommending the following changes be made to the draft plan. They would include proposed street sea right away with to be increased from 24 metres to 26 metres. Um, and that's because City staff require new collector roads to be built to match the complete street design guidelines. Street C and the GID is classified as an emerging Main Street as it represents the

main pedestrian portal to the site from college avenue and typical cross - sections for an emerging Main Street range from 26 metres to 36 metres. The other change that staffer requesting is that the curvature of Street O comply with the City of Guelph requirements. And the current career chair on the east side of street O does not comply with the City's Development Engineering Manual standards. So I'm now going to pass the presentation over to Lucas.

Thank you. Uh, thanks Lindsay. Uh, I'll now be shifting to discussing the aspects of the official plan amendment, starting with the amendments to official Plan mapping. This application is proposing to amend mapping in both the official plan and the GID secondary plan. The official plan amendment would amend schedule 1B structure employment areas. Of the official plan to reduce the employment area size, to reflect the employment designated lands on schedule B of the GID secondary plan land use plan following provincial modifications. As this generally aligns with Council's direction for the block plan, staff are supportive of this change. Next, the official plan amendment would amend schedule A, mobility plan of the GID secondary plan to amend the road locations and classifications based on schedule B of the GID secondary plan and the Council approved block plan. Staff are not supportive of this change as further discussions are needed with the applicant to discuss whether additional changes may be needed to the mobility plan prior to staff supporting amendments to the schedule. Following that, the official plan amendment would amend schedule B land use plan of the GID secondary plan to amend the location of the designations

for open space and PRC, residential mixed use corridor GID, employment mixed use 1, employment mixed use 2. Future City Streets and amend the location of proposed parks. Staff are not supportive of this change due to the land use compatibility issue as we'll be discussed later in the presentation.

Finally, the official plan amendment would amend schedule C, built form elements of the GID secondary plan to amend the location of the following. Two to six story, two to 10 story, four to 10 story, nine metres to six story, three to 12 story, and three to 18 story designations revised the future City streets and amend the location of nodes. Staffer also not supportive of this change because of the land use compatibility issue. Some of the textual amendments have been proposed to align with scheduled changes made through both the OPA AD approval and the approved block plan. Uh, further revisions to the secondary plan wording have also been proposed by the applicant as will be discussed in the coming slides. So over the next two slides, staff wanted to show counsel and the Public how the GID land use plan has changed over the past few years with provincial modifications. So on this slide, on the left - hand side is the GID Land Use Plan as approved by City Council as it was in effect since August 2017. On the right - hand side is the GID Land Use Plan as modified by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and in effect since Bill

162, which received Royal Ascent in May 2024. Council may recall that on December 5th, 2023, a special meeting of Council was held as then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing invited comments and information from municipalities about the modifications to official plans, including proposed changes and updates that the municipality may support. At that meeting, Council approved an amended motion directing that staff take no further action on reversal of the provincial modifications as it relates to the GID Land use plan. Staff did not support the provincial modifications to the land use plan. On this slide on the left - hand side is the same GID LAND Use Plan as modified by the Minister Municipal Affairs and in effect since Bill 162. On the right - hand side is the GID Land Use Plan Schedule as a proposed to be amended by the applicant. Regarding amendments to GID Secondary Plan Text, a number of amendments have been proposed. This includes amendments to policy to reflect the addition of an extra collector road called New Street B to remove reference to the Main Street as a transition area and to remove reference to new Street B as a local

road. Generally, staff are supportive of these proposed amendments. Next, the application is proposing to amend table 1 of the GID secondary plan. Table 1 sets out the classifications and characteristics for Public Streets in the GID secondary Planned Area. These amendments are shown on the screen. Staff are not recommending the amendments to table 1 as they do not align with the City of Guelph Complete Streets design guidelines.

Next, an amendment to policy is proposed to permit minimum site - specific Parc - size requirements to align with the Council - Approved Block Plan. Staff are supportive of this amendment as it will implement Council Direction on Parcs and GID blocks 1 and 2. An amendment is proposed to specify that the single - loaded road is provided adjacent to the natural heritage system in the residential area on the west side of the Aramosa River. Staff are supportive of this amendment. An amendment is proposed to build form and site development policies to A. require vehicular access from rear laneways to detached, semi - detached and duplex houses, townhouses, and live work units on Collector Roads only. And B, not require garages to be located in the rear yard and instead encourage garages to be set back from the street, garages for all ground - related dwellings, excluding single detached dwelling, or street townhouse dwellings shall generally be in the rear yard accessed by laneway or front driveway or be screened with appropriate landscaping. So staff are supportive of A, but staff have recommended a slight change to B to align with current urban design policies in our official plan. Next, the application is proposing to amend the maximum permitted net density to 350 units per hectare

within the strategic growth area boundary on the GID secondary plan area. Staff are supportive of this amendment. Finally, the application is proposing to amend table two of the GID secondary plan. Table 2 sets out the targets for population, employment, and density for each block plan area in the GID secondary plan area. The proposed amendment would combine block plan area 1 and 2 and modify the employment target for block plan area 1 and 2 to 1, 060 jobs. Uh, staff are not supportive of this amendment as it's more appropriate to update the GID population and jobs targets through the next growth management strategy that the City conducts. And with that, I'll pass it back to Lindsay to discuss zoning and land use compatibility. So thanks Lucas. The subject lands are currently zoned urban reserve a natural heritage system according to the City of Guelphsoning Bylaw. The urban reserve zone identifies lands which are subject to development constraints or require further study. The natural heritage system zone is intended to protect natural heritage features, provide open space for leisure and to prohibit development in the floodway.

The site is currently being used for temporary agricultural vegetation based use on a portion of the subject lands for a temporary period of three years, which was approved through minor variants application by the committee of adjustment. A zoning by - law amendment is currently proposed for the subject lands to establish a zoning framework on the lands which will implement the permitted uses of the GID secondary plan and implement the associated proposed draft plane of subdivision, which includes approximately 4, 724 units. The purpose of the proposed zoning by law amendment is to change the zoning on the subject lands to the following zones. Low density residential to medium density residential cite - specific medium density residential. Three site - specific mixed - use corridor zones. A community park zone, a neighbourhood park zone, a site - specific two - site - specific neighbourhood park zones to employment mixed use. Sorry, unemployment mixed use, one zone, one employment mixed use two - zone, one - site - specific employment mixed use to zone an open space zone, natural heritage system zone, and a site - specific natural heritage system zone. Holding provisions are also required on the entirety of the subject lands to ensure development does not occur until the following. That would be confirmation of the

adequacy and availability of municipal services, including stormwater management, acceptance of the stage three archaeological assessment by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, proof of record of a site condition filing from the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks, as well as providing all environmental reports used to file the RSC to the City and a holding provision for the school block that would not allow any other use on the block until the upper grand district school board confirms that it is surplus to their needs. So more site - specific details in each proposed zone are included in attachment three of the staff report. And staff are currently not recommending approval of the zoning by - law amendment because of the outstanding land use compatibility issue, um, which I'm going to speak to in the next couple of slides. Land use compatibility remains the key issue that impacts staff's ability to recommend full approval of the proposed applications. The Gulf Innovation District Secondary Plan requires there to be regard to all applicable provincial and municipal policies, regulations and guidelines to ensure that compatibility will be achieved and maintained with regard to noise, vibration, dust, order, air quality

and illumination. The applicant identify the need to provide a land use compatibility D6 guideline study as part of a complete application in November of 2024. There are five existing Industrial facilities with potential to influence the proposed development. They are Lockhart excavators pit, Cargill, the City of Guelph Waste Resource Innovation Centre, PDI bulk. Owens Corning Composite Materials Canada. And all of these that I've just mentioned are identified as a Class 3 Industrial use with a potential influence area of 1, 000 metres and a minimum separation distance of 300 metres from a sensitive land use, which would be include residential. And this slide shows a map of the surrounding industry's VI Industries that I just mentioned. And this is an image that's taken from SLR consulting Canada. Um, it's included in their peer - review memo and I have included it in this just to. Show you the location of the five industries. And it also outlines the 1, 000 metre areas of influence are measured from

the property lines of the five class 3 heavy industrial facilities near the site. And that's like the blue cyan coloured circles that you would see. And then the mauve coloured circles are the 300 recommended minimum separation distance from the cargil PDI lockhart facilities. The City retained SLR Consulting to complete a peer review of the applicant submitted land use compatibility report. The applicant submitted land use compatibility report states that additional study is required but not yet submitted. A detailed study is required at the stage of the development process so as to not pose undue compliance in nuisance concerns on existing industries. Some mitigation measures may impact zoning regulations such as FEVAC screening requirements. It is key that the issue of land use compatibility be addressed prior to approval of the applications. The Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parcs preferred approach is for mitigation to be applied to at the source of emissions rather than at receptors as this is generally the most economical and practical approach and benefits the greatest number of affected residences. Under the MECP Guideline D6, the proponent of the

development is responsible for ensuring that the applicable guidelines and standards are met. However, once the land is zoned with sensitive land uses, which includes residential, the obligation to pay any required mitigation to ensure compliance falls entirely on the industry. If at source mitigation is ultimately required to ensure compatibility, the affected industries have no right to appeal either a site plan application or the lifting of holding provisions on the zoning, which is why mitigation cannot be conditioned through dropping conditions or holding provisions. Industries have no ability to force developers to pay for such mitigation after the land is zoned and the City cannot force a developer to pay for mitigation to be installed at a third party to be insulted at a third - party site. So I'm now going to pass the presentation back over to Lucas. Thank you, Lindsay. So in summary, while the majority of key issues from the May 2026 decision report have either been fully addressed through revised submissions received June 15th, July 29th and August 4th, or partially addressed through these submissions with additional design and revisions required as part of detailed design. Staff are recommending partial approval and

partial refusal of the official Plan Amendment refusal of the zoning Bylaw Amendment and refusal of the draft plan of subdivision applications. Staff can recommend some items of the official plan amendment that do not directly impact land use compatibility issue discussed tonight. However, staff are recommending full refusal of the zoning Bylaw Amendment and draft plan of subdivision as the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed development will be compatible with the Industrial and major utility land uses in the area. Staff have brought forward this recommendation to comply with the Council Direction received at the May 12th Council Planning meeting. So that concludes Lindsay and I's presentation this evening should Council make a decision tonight on the application. Members of the Public can be informed of that decision by emailing clercs at Guelph. ca and staff are available to take questions at the appropriate time. Okay, well thank you very much for your presentation to the both of you. Um, just before we continue to our delegations, is there anything more that staff would like to add either to our general manager of planning, Krista, or our deputy CAO. Terry Gaeman, is there anything further that you

think needs to be added after the presentation before we go to delegations. Through the mayor, I don't think so from a planning perspective, but maybe I'll just say to all of Council, I think he, from the C's perspective, is we're excited about this opportunity with the GID. We're looking forward to, you know, how do we get there and how do we work in partnership and bring housing to Guelph? And that's not lost in us as City staff. And so while the application in front of us does have a refusal recommendation, I do think, you know, we've made a lot of progress in working with the applicant over the past few months since we were more recently at Council. And I think, you know, City staff are certainly positioned and set up to continue in the spirit of working together and looking forward to seeing that as, uh, this moves forward. Okay. Well, thank you. Khrusha, thank you. No. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we have several delegations. Welcome. Maybe some of you have been here before. Maybe some of you haven't. So here's how it works. You got five minutes. Okay. You got no more than five minutes. At the four minute and 30 second mark, you will hear a chime. That is your heads

up. You got 30 seconds. Or your microphone gets turned off. Don't get to that point. I hate that. Everyone hates that. So don't get to the five minute point where your microphone gets turned off. Okay. Once you're done, uh, stick around because there might be a question. There may not be, but there might be a question from myself or my colleagues. And then we'll go on to the next one and the next one. Okay. Everyone good. Everyone understand seeing some heads not, well done. Uh, so let's start. Richard Horn, the executive director for the beef farmers of Ontario and Jason Leblonde, president of the Beef Farmers of Ontario are coming together. Or maybe it's just one. Okay. Are you Richard or are you Jason. I am Richard. Mr. Matt. Okay. Welcome Richard. Thank you very much for coming. And I will turn it over to you and your time starts whenever you start talking. Okay. Go right ahead. Great. Thank Mayor Guthrie members of Council. Thanks for taking the time or allowing us to speak today. My name is Richard Horn. I'm the executive director with B Farmers Ontario. We're in association that represents about 19, 000 beef producers across the province with me today as our president and board chair Jason Leblonde. He drove

away from Chisholm Township just south of North Bay to be here today. This issue is that important to our sector. So I'm here to speak about protecting the long - term future of cargil's beef processing facility in Guelph here today adjacent to the proposed development. Let me begin with our position. We don't support the proposed development as it currently stands. Our written submission is cosigned by six agricultural organisations in Ontario who collectively represent the vast majority of farmers in this province. Five of Witcher based here in Gulph. I'd speak to the broader importance of the agricultural community places on protecting this facility and Guelph's aggro food infrastructure. Cargill Guelph's facility is not simply another industrial business. It is the most important, one of the most important pieces of processing infrastructure and Eastern Canada. Proximately 75 percent of beef processed in Ontario with this facility. Which represents two - thirds of all federally inspected beef processing capacity from here to the maritimes. For thousands of Ontario farm families Cargill Guelph is the main connection between the cattle they raise and the marketplace where their products are sold. Processing capacity of this scale is incredibly difficult to

replace. You simply cannot find another property and build another cargil quickly. The facility like this requires enormous capital investment specialized infrastructure. A skilled workforce and supply chains developed over decades. This is why we believe the city should view this facility as critical. And strategic infrastructure to be protected and supported. I'm not a planning expert and I won't pretend to be one. But I do know the Ontario Beef sector. And I know what this facility means to it. It's difficult to imagine a worse outcome for our sector than any decision that could constrain this facility over time or ultimately contribute to its loss. Large - scale beef processing involves livestock transportation trucks refrigeration mechanical equipment odour noise and activity outside of conventional business hours. Those aren't shortcomings. Those are normal characteristics of facilities of this scale. The question for us is what happens when significant new residential development is introduced nearby. Not just next year, but five years, 10, 15, 20 years down the road will complaints about trucks, odour, noise, or operating hours eventually create pressure on the facility. Could additional restrictions make it more

expensive to operate. And most importantly, could decisions made today about cargil's willingness or ability to reinvest, expand, or remain competitive and staying Guelph. We've seen a number of processing plant closures across North American recently. Beef processing is already a challenging tight margin business made more difficult by the current trade challenges and market volatility. The last thing we want is additional pressure here at home that makes this facility more difficult to operate or less attractive for future investment. I also want to be clear that BFO is not anti - development or anti housing. We recognise Guelph needs more housing. I understand that need personally. I was raised in Gulph. I went to school here. I bought my first home here. Uh, and I chose to raise a family in this community. I understand the need for Guelph to grow and to create opportunities for the next generation. But growth also means protecting the places where people work. Manufacture things and importantly processed food. In ensuring businesses can make long - term investments with confidence. Housing can be built in many locations. A facility of this size and scale can't be moved. It simply can't be relocated. So our request accounts will straight forward. Protect what you have. Recognise Cargill Guelph as the critical and strategic piece

of infrastructure and economic activity that it is. And ensure planning decisions protects its ability to operate, reinvest and remain competitive. On the application before you today, we respectively urge Council to reject the proposed development plan. And again, I'm not a planner, but I would say accept the majority of staff's recommendations at this time. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. We appreciate you presenting. Is there any just follow - up questions at all from anybody. Okay, Councillor Gibson, please. And then Coron. All right. Thank you to you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you for joining us today. Uh, great presentation. Uh, we all love Cargill. Um, and we all love the employee, the employment represents. I guess my question is you, you mentioned in your, uh, statement that you don't support the development is that, uh, can I just ask you to finish that statement? You don't support the development at all or you don't support the development as planned. Are there aspects of the development that you could live with or what specifically are you looking for to change? Is there a further setbacks that you're looking for? Because the land is zoned appropriately in the land has been zoned for development. Yeah. Thanks for that question, Councillor Gibson. Like I said in my remarks,

I'm not a planner. Uh, so I don't feel compelled or equipped to speak to the planning question. We're really here. We're really here today to speak to the importance of this facility. And I think, um, I can't stress enough that if Guelph doesn't do everything in its power to protect this facility's ability to operate, uh, reinvest and potentially expand in the future. We'll have significant consequences for the Ontario Agrifute sector for the City of Guelph for the province and for Eastern Canada, not just within beef. In the grains and oil seed sector and all the subsectors that, uh, support this or connected to this facility. So, uh, again, I won't speak to the planning question. What's my colleague Jason wants to. Have staff and more than one organisation or group that has concerns here. I would suggest that conversations amongst them would be far better suited than for us to as the beef sector to make those, you know, recommendations. Okay. Thank you. I think Councillor Gibson is good with that. And then so just we'll finish with Councillor Coron as well. I think my questions are also better addressed directly to Cargill because they're

planning questions. Thanks. Okay. Great. Just don't go anywhere. I have one more Councillor Pusatil, please. And through the mayor, thank you very much, Mr. Horne. I just had a quick question. In the staff presentation, it said once the land is zone was sensitive use as the obligation to pay any required mitigation falls entirely on the industry. Have you discussed this at all with the proponent? Have you explored what exactly the impact might be. I would save that question for my colleagues from Cargill that I believe are speaking later today. But I will say this that there are processing facilities across Canada that have run into very similar circumstances where encroachment from development has led to detrimental consequences for that facility in terms of, uh, your question around mitigation and future mitigation. They were there first. Development comes and encroaches on their business. Constrains them on future development, reinvestment, et cetera, et cetera. And we have seen examples of processing facilities in Canada that have had to move or have shut down as a result of that. And again, we are not anti housing, anti - development. I think that, but the planning discussion here needs to be handled very sensitively given the importance of this facility. And that's the message I think we're here to

share. Thank you. Great. Seeing nothing for. Thank you very much. And at least you came up to the microphone for 30 seconds since you was going to give you a little bit of a joke that I do actually work in municipal government in a day job. Okay. So I understand it's difficult. Yeah. But just so you know, next time we do a virtual option. You don't have to drive all the way here. All right. Thank you very much. All right. So next up is from the Washington Federation of Agriculture. We have Barclay Nap, who's the president. And we have, it looks like Lisa Hearn. OFA member services representative for Waterloo Wellington and the Duffern Counties. And I believe, uh, so you're just coming up and, uh, just, just yourself. Lisa's going to help me with a questions. Okay. Just in case. Okay. We saw how it was done with the B Farm. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. All right. Well, we appreciate you coming in the clock starts for you whenever you're ready. Um. Yeah, we'll allow you time to figure that out there. So yeah, start whenever you're ready. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you Mayor and Council. My name is Barkley Knapp with me for support as Lisa Hearn of the Interior Federation Agriculture.

I am a third generation farmer from Jos South of Guelph and Poselange Township. And I am the current president of the Walton Federation Agriculture. Lisa is a sheep farmer from Walton North and Parver functions is to support County Federations. WFA is the largest farm organisation, Wellington with over 1, 500 members. We are the local Federation that is affiliated with the entire Federation Agriculture, which has over 38, 000 members provincially. Agriculture is the largest industry in Wellington contributing to Ontario's GDP with 841 million. We are a volunteer organisation of farmers who work to advocate for members to remote and preserve agriculture in Walton County and the City of Guelph. Often engaging with local politicians and staff. By reaching out to her partners of municipalities in the county, we work towards having a balance of growth while making sure there's food, soventry, and food economic sustainability. We have seven municipalities that we have throughout the county, and it is my pleasure to finally be able to speak to the Council in City of Guelf. Some highlights from our economic impact study that we did two years ago. Wellington farmers provide 5. 8 percent of agricultural goods on

0. 2 percent of Ontario's land. Wellington has become the number one agricultural, sorry, the number one beef farm and beef cattle County in Ontario. And there are agriculture that's happening just the short drive from Gulph. I'm here today to speak to the importance of protecting Cargill Limited. WFA is not against development. We understand that development is needed and that people want to live and work in the best country in the world. But development needs to be done well, have proper land use planning. Have good land use compatibility and fit into the surrounding urban environs. A quick overview. Cargill is a large employer gulf with roughly 1, 160 employees at its two facilities that process 1, 500 head of cattle a day. Cargill limited is not dislocation for Wellington Farmers to send their cattle to. It's important for Ontario and Eastern Canada. There was an option in Pennsylvania, but that location has ceased operations. The next closest option to send cattle 2 is Alberta. As well as the importance of Cargill for livestock farmers at Walton County. This ultimately can be viewed as a national security

food security issue. The importance of cargill is not just for cattle farmers to send their cattle to and for consumers to have meat, process for consumption. There is a trickle - down effect. The entire cattle industry and those who interact with it are connected to this facility in Gulf. Farmers in Wellington County are lucky to have a processing facility so close to us without it. We don't know where we would send our cattle. If the demand for beef grows and kergiel cannot grow with it, there's a lot of money that's left on the table and a missed opportunity for economic growth and golf. Gulf has a long history of egger food and agricultural related businesses. That's the school that is now known the University of Guelf is a hub of the industry, attracting businesses and organisations here. Gualth is a centre of agriculture and food in Ontario. The industry may not be flashy or extravagant, but we are a large part of Gulf's makeup. And reviewing Guelph's economic and development and tourism strategy. It has shown that Guelph knows the importance of its businesses and has a cluster in sector and focus approach. Having an innovation cluster tells us that Gualth understands its importance and

the egger food world. As one of Guelph's larger employers, we feel that Gulf's importance should be highlighted and understood. Our ask. Is that proposed.

I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you. It's okay. We'll give you an extra few seconds there because of that issue. Okay. By the way, whoever does the next budget put a new freaking clicker. And like seriously, like this is like always ongoing. Next one. Like I'm going to buy one before I leave and give it to the city as a gift. We got to get a new clicker. Okay. Over to you, sorry. Arasc is that the proposed development be directed to be further amended so that the greater distance from Cargill, which would also consider for future expansion of its operation. That the Gualth official plan be followed that the provincial planning statement be followed, that the province's D6 guidelines be followed, and that the natural heritage system areas be respected. Just a little. Okay. Welton County Livestock Farmers are fortunate to have this critical process and capacity so close to home. Ontario Hal Farmers are equally fortunate to have an in - province market, especially mid - trade uncertainty and the growing importance and resilience of Ontario food system. Our contact information, thank you very much. And I'm sorry the clicker. Nope, you

don't say sorry. We do. It's all good. Okay, thank you. You got through that. We appreciate it. Um, is there any questions at this time for the delegate. Okay, Councillor Egyptian. Thank you to Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Napp. I just want to go back to that, um, slide two slides ago. I'm trying to get to the ask or the sort of the, um, the expectation for Car Guil here. Not totally clear to me. Is it, is that that buffer that is established in that, in that photo. And that image. I think it's on your second last slide. For, yeah, that, that was just an animation of it. Um, for the specifics, we do have to refer to car Guil as I am not a planner. I am a farmer. Understood. Yep. I have a lot of good skills. Um, I help you three times a day just planning is not my specialty. No problem. I just wanted to know maybe I'll ask Cargill this question what that purple line represents. Is it 300 500. What's the sept asking for? It's just an animation I came up with to try to help explain it better. Some people market. Yeah. Thank you for all you do. Uh, I think my next, I think my question is

for cargio. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Councillor Gibson. And so, uh, just as a follow - up that maybe just because Councillor Gibson prompted me. So maybe you just answered it. That visual, you just kind of, as a, as a visual, you just kind of made it up yourself with us. Okay. So it's just like, here's a line. Nothing. Okay. Yeah. You just made it up. Okay. Perfect. I know some people learn differently and understand differently. So I thought I'd try to be a little more visual. Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, there's nothing further being asked. So thank you very much for the two of you for coming. Thank you. Okay. Uh, make Thorburn is, I think here. Michael, you are coming down. From the, I forget what the acronym is Gulf, trail and Gulf Trail user group coalition. That's what I was going to say. Yes. Just testing you. Could we move to the next slide so I actually went the next one? I don't have to. And then whenever you're ready to start, you go right ahead. Okay. Okay. I just want to see if I can use the pointer. Dina, how to use the pointer. It's not going to work. Okay.

Um, okay. We'll be switching gears a little bit here. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of Council. I'm Meg Thorburn and I've spoken to you several times in the past on behalf of the trail user groups. I realised this is the last time I'll delegate before some of you. And I want to take this moment to thank all of you for your very hard work and service to our community. The trail user groups have a very good working relationship with Fusion. And we would like to thank them for both that and for keeping their lands open to the Public. We have met with Fusion staff and consultants several times to discuss their plans with regards to trails. We greatly appreciate their transparency with us and their desire to learn from the people who actually use the trails on their lands for connectivity and active transportation. We hope for a strong collaborative relationship between fusion ourselves and city trail staff going forward. The importance of active transportation, connectivity, in the GID lands cannot be overstated. Further to this point, we were initially alarmed by this, um, 9th conceptual trail map, because it does not include the

radial and aquelt trails. So those are the blue lines, the radial, would they continue? Like they continue all the way to, um, to Stone Road. And these are trails that are used by thousands of Guilph residents on a routine basis and have been so for nearly a century. They provide the safest, most direct and certainly most scenic hiking and cycling connection between Victoria and Stone Road. I suspect that that was an awkward time to be submitting maps like this as Parks had recently without community consultation closed those trails. And the trail using community was to put in mildly very upset about that. So again, what I really want to emphasize this now tonight is how important those trails are for active transportation and recreation. And how imperative it will be for staff trail users and fusion to work together. Um, we are very happy with the proposed redesign of our beloved cliff top trail, which shows in yellow up there, sort of the edge of

the top of the cliff, which will be such a wonderful feature for Fusion residents with its stunning vistas. We strongly recommend, however, that the current Eastern end of the Clifftop Trail leading down to the railroad crossing on Stone Road, which does not appear in this, um, trail map. Be maintained as a feeder off the redeveloped cliff top trail. Um, it is a much more direct route for users continuing on the radio trail to RK and beyond. And again, going back to, um, that we have a very collaborative relationship with Fusion and would hope to bring city staff into that more. Um, so you have a very long night ahead of you. And I'm going to stop now, but I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Dr. Thar Bernardine. Any questions for the delegate. Seeing none. Thanks so much. Our next delegation for the evening is Liesel Meisner. And on deck is Cynthia Lee.

I said a group delegation. Are you coming together?

Perfect. Good evening, Mayor and members of Council, Clerc and City staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Lisa Meisner and I am speaking on behalf of Cargill. I'm joined by my colleague Cynthia Lee, who will be not providing delegation today, but will be answering questions. Cargill operates two major facilities in the City of Guelph. A value added meat processing facility, located at 180 watts in Parkway South, and a primary beef processing facility located at 165 Dunlop Drive. Before continuing, we would like to correct a clerical error in our cover letter. The Watson facility is located at 180 watts in Parkway South, not 185. Together, these facilities play a critical role in Ontario's agriufe sector. Supporting food production, local livestock producers, supply chain partners, and thousands of jobs, both directly and indirectly. Our operations are a part of an integrated agricultural value chain that connects Canadian farmers and livestock producers to consumers and markets across Canada and around the world. Cargillus here today to express our opposition to the proposed official plan amendment zoning Bylaw Amendment and draft plan subdivision amendment

applications for 325 Victoria Road South and 588 Stone Road East, known as the Gulf Innovation District Bloc 1 and 2 lands. We are concerned that the proposal would introduce new sensitive land uses into an established industrial area adjacent to critical agri - food processing operations. The Dunlop Drive Facility has operated in Guelph since 1978, while the Watson Parkway facility was established in 1998. Since acquiring both facilities in 2005, Cargill has continued to invest in wealth and remains committed to being a long - term partner in this community. This scale of these operations is substantial. The Dunlop facility is one of the largest beef processing facilities in Canada and serves as a critical piece of Canada's food supply chain. Together, our Guelph Operations employ approximately 1, 600 people, including as written, more than 1, 100 employees at the Dunlop Facility alone, making Cargill one of the city's major employers. Cargill's facilities operate around the clock and rely on the efficient receivable of live animals and the shipment of food products to customers across Canada and beyond.

Our operations involve truck traffic, loading and unloading activities, industrial equipment, refrigeration systems, sight lighting, and other activities that are normal and necessary components of industrial food processing operations. We recognise that Guelph, like many municipalities across Ontario, faces growing pressure to provide housing for current and future residents. Cargill supports the City's efforts to accommodate growth and create new housing opportunities. Housing and is important component of a thriving and prosperous community. At the same time, successful City building requires balance. Communities need homes, but they also need to protect the businesses, jobs, and agricultural infrastructure that have contributed to their economic success and continue to support farmers and local food production. We have recently been contacted by Fusion Homes regarding this project. While we have not had yet the opportunity to meet, we look forward to engaging with them to better understand their objectives and to share Cargill's operational considerations. We remain committed to constructive dialogue and collaborative solutions. Guelph plays an important role in Ontario's agri - food economy. With major employers and food processing operations contributing

significantly to local employment and economic activity. As the City plans for future growth, it is important that establish industrial and agri - food operations are protected through compatible land use planning. A balanced approach will allow Guelph to accommodate new housing while preserving the economic assets that support jobs and the broader food system. For these reasons, Cargill respectfully opposes the proposed official plan amendment zoning by - law amendment and draft plan subdivision amendment applications as currently proposed and encourages counsel to ensure that established industrial and agri - food operations are appropriately protected through compatible land use planning. Cargill remains committed to work in collaboratively with the City, staff, the applicant, and other stakeholders to identify solutions that support housing growth while protecting the economic assets and food processing infrastructure that are vital 12 future. Thank you for your time and consideration. We would be pleased to answer any questions. Okay, thank you for your delegation. Any questions for members of Council, we have Councillor Clausen, Councillor

Gibson, Councillor Hauser. Yes, thank you very much for the presentation. Um, and, um, I will just jump into some of my questions. I am, this, this, this development has been on the radar for many, many years. And we certainly, I don't mean to suggest that we're certainly aware of how important cargil is to our aggro food economy. My question is with regard to the discussions with Fusion or the City, um, and, and, and you said in your delegation that you recently had contact with Fusion, it sounded to me like that was a short term thing. So I was just wondering if you could talk a little bit about, um, any, any discussions there have been with Fusion or the City with regard to the development. Yes. So Cargill met with fusions representatives on May 22nd since August. We have been working with them to schedule to find a time to meet. And we have decided

on this Thursday, September 17th. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Coston. Councillor Gibson. Yeah. Thank you and great questions Councillor Claussen. I'm by no means immediator here, but I was going to ask the same question. Is there any been, have any conversations started between yourselves in Fusion? That question was answered. Thank you. Um, I don't want to dive too much into your opposition other than to say, is it, can I ask, is it primarily related to noise or primarily related to odour? I mean, I, we live just off Watson Parkway. So we get, we get the truck traffic. Uh, this is Ward one. This is the word I've represented for a while. Uh, we understand car goes part of life out in the East end, but, um, I just wanted to understand what cargills, um, deepest concerns are. Oh, thank you very much Councillor for the question. Um, we believe there needs to be more due diligence, uh, taken as noted by City staff, um, concerning that particular, um, aspect of, of the application.

Okay. I think we might have lost Councillor Gibson. If he comes back, we will tell him that your answer was great. Just in case he didn't hear it. Maybe we'll come back to him if he joins us for now. I'm going to go on to Councillor Hauser, please. Thank you. And through the mayor, thank you for your presentation and for representing Cargill, um, today. I just wanted to go back. So in previous, um, iterations of this plan. There was the employment lands of the mixed use lands that were at the buffers own. Was that acceptable. Um, in that planning stage. And it's more like the sensitive residential that you're finding is more challenging. Um, so as many of the other delegates has said today, they are not professional planners. And we do have a professional planner that is here to speak on cargil's behalf. So I would defer to his presentation. Um, and his questioning for that particular answer. Thank you so much. I would. Rather delegate. And then I'm certainly happy. To answer it. Okay. So sorry I was out of the room. Um, you are on our list to delegate anyways. Okay. Okay.

I didn't understand. Thank you. Uh, so Councillor Coron, then you have a question as well. I do. And I don't think it's a land use planning, but in previous applications, we've had employers come and speak to us, imploring us for more housing for their employees as part of the land use planning consideration being market need for housing and attracting skilled workers. And you talked about expansion in a previous delegation and your intergovernmental. So I'm sure that that expansion plan is part of the, you know, the companies, Public Facing Future. Are you hearing that in your workforce? Is housing not an issue for your workforce in our community as well. Um. I can mention that as we noted in Liesel's delegation, certainly cargill supports housing growth. And certainly that growth in the city of Gulf. Guelph. Thank you. Okay, great. Do you know if we got Councillor Gibson back at all? Not, not yet. Okay. Uh, seeing nothing further. So maybe just a couple of questions for me. And I, uh, apologise. I was out of the room. So I also apologise in advance. If I'm

asking something that you might have already said, my apologies to that. But, um, I do want to pick up on your answer to, I think it was Councillor Coston when I came into the room about meeting with Fusion. So you mentioned that you had met once in May. And then you're trying to get together for a meeting on Thursday. I just want to applaud that. I think that's great that you're meeting this week. But what in the world happened between May and now, um, was there was there nothing that was going on? Like what happened. Since August, we did have fusions representatives reach out, um, and with the busy summer months, took us a while to schedule and we landed on this Thursday. And, um, when it comes to what might take place on Thursday, is this a, is this going to be a positive meeting that you're expecting to like try to figure out how neighborly, how neighbours can be neighbours. We look forward to having a collaborative discussion. Okay. All right. I wish you all the best with that then. Okay. Um, that's

it. Then I have no more questions from anybody. It looks like Councillor Gibson can't get back on. And, uh, I too hope that it's very collaborative as well. It looks to a positive outcome. So wishing you all the best. Thank you very much for your presentation. And I guess what's next is, uh, yourself coming up here. And, uh, is it, is your name, David. Yes, sir. Okay. David, uh, Ashborn is a senior land use planner with Dylan consulting. So David, over to you and your time starts when you start talking. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie and members of Council. My name is David Ashborn. I'm a registered professional land use planner with Dylan Consulting Limited. Speaking today on behalf of Cargill Limited to express our firm opposition of item 8. 1. Cargill operates the federally registered abattoir and processing plant at 165 Dunlop Drive located adjacent to the proposal as well as the value added meat processing facility at 180 watts in Park South. Approval of these applications would grant land use entitlements for approximately 4, 700 residential units, including a high density residential tower of 18 stories next to the existing cargial

Dunlop facility, which is federally regulated at Class 3. As such, we formally request that city council defer a decision on the proposed official plan amendment zoning by law amendment and draft plan of subdivision until such time as the applicant has completed a youth - specific odour and air quality impact assessment, a stationary noise source assessment and completed a thoughtful and appropriate redesign of the draft plan of subdivision to account for those mitigations deemed necessary to protect the long - term viability of the neighbouring industrial area, as well as the future occupants of the subject site. Approval of these applications without the foregoing in hand is irresponsible and premature. In respect to land use planning, I raise the following to Council's consideration. The applicants planning justification report prepared by MHBC fails to appropriately consider critical provincial planning policies governing land use compatibility. Specifically, it omits provincial planning statement policy 3. 5. 1, which mandates that major facilities such as cargills and sensitive land uses shall be

planned and developed to avoid or if avoidance is not possible, mitigate, minimize and mitigate any potential adverse effects from odour, noise, and other contaminants to ensure the long - term operational and economic viability of major facilities in accordance with provincial guideline standards and procedures. At a municipal level, MHBC fails to refer to official plan section 912 - 1 - 2 policy two, which explicitly recognises cargil site - specific permitted abattoir and meat packing use at 165 Dunlop Drive. MHBC also omits GID secondary plan section 112641 requiring the City 2, quote, ensure that compatibility is achieved and maintained with regard to noise, vibration, dust, odour, air quality, and illumination to achieve the goals of, A, preventing undue adverse impacts from proposed development on the Cargill plant, as well as preventing undue adverse impacts on the proposed development from the Cargill plant. Furthermore, the proposal directly contradicts section 11 to 643, which mandates that the City shall

consult with the Ministry of the Environment Cargill and the City's waste resource innovation centre during the development process to ensure compatibility. Proceeding with approvals before or proceeding with approvals before Cargill has been consulted, violates this mandatory conservation requirement. Under MECP D6 Guidelines, Car Guild's large - scale abattoir is classified as a class 3 Industrial Facility requiring 1, 000 metre potential area of influence. And a recommended minimum separation distance of 300 metres from the property line. Proposing sensitive land uses within these minimum buffer areas creates a direct path of exposure to industrial noise, odour, and heavy truck operations. The applicants own RWDI study admits that cargill's 1, 000 metre influence area wholly covers the subject site. An explicitly concludes that further evaluation is required in such regard. City, staff, and SLR consulting confirmed that approved, approving zoning permissions for sensitive land uses prior to completing youth - specific odour, air quality, and acoustic modelling is fundamentally premature. Retroactive evaluation of the foregoing, as is proposed before

you via the use of a holding provision is, in my opinion, inappropriate, and not typical. Good planning requires protecting both future residents, future residential growth and economic anchors. On behalf of Cargill Limited, I urge Council to uphold the integrity of the PPS, official plan and secondary plan, and vote to defer the official plan amendment zoning Bylaw Amendment and draft plan of subdivision. Thank you. Great, thank you very much for your presentation too, and I'll see if there's any questions from my colleagues. Can I just ask Clercs, did we lose everyone online? Just because I see counts or houser. But everyone else is there now? Okay, Cossen, okay. Okay. I just want to make sure it looks like it just skips in then. Okay. Do I have a question from Councillor Downer? Go ahead. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. So you're talking about deferral. What I've heard up until now was oppose, not to turn it down. So what is the official position deferral until you work through these? So until the studies are done. Three, you madam Councillor Cargill's position is for deferral. Okay.

And are you confident as a planner that these issues can be mitigated. I am not a land use compatibility expert. My colleague, Lucas Arnold, who will be delegating is an expert, and I'm sure it would be happy to - Okay, it's all waiting to ask him. Thank you very much. Great. Thanks, I see nothing further. Thank you very much, and we'll go to Lucas waiting in the wings here. Thank you, sir. Whenever you're ready, okay, Lucas? Thank you. Perfect. Good evening, Mayor Guthrie and members of Council. My name is Lucas Arnold. I'm a professional engineer with Dylan Consulting, representing Cargill. We strongly agree with the technical findings in the City Planning staff and their independent peer reviewer, SLR consulting. As land use compatibility has not yet been demonstrated. We respectfully request that Council defer the official plan amendment zoning Bylaw Amendment. And draft land of subdivision for GIGID blocks one and two. The applicants consultant submitted a qualitative screening exercise highlighting real compatibility concerns, yet perform no quantitative assessment to measure or solve them. Under MECP and PEO guidelines, compatibility studies must account for an

industry's current operations and planned expansions. Standard practice dictates obtaining site - specific data from the industry at the commencement of these studies. This screening level exercise does not account for cargo's baseline operations, let alone their future expansions. It is unreasonable to declare a site compatible when 4, 700 residential units are proposed within the influence area of cargoes operations without any predicted analytical modelling being completed. The applicants suggest deferring these studies using a holding provision. However, Section 7. 7 of MECP guideline D11 explicitly cautions that holding symbols should only be applied when significant impacts are already proven not to exist. The ministry has no control over when a hold is lifted, and industries like Cargill have no right to appeal its removal. Passing this rezoning with a hold instantly shift the legal and financial burden of environmental compliance onto cargo without guaranteed mitigation. The land use compatibility studies suggest that receptor - based mitigation, such as air conditioning, closed windows or class 4 area designation. However, the MECP dictates that source - based mitigation should be explored first. Receptor - based mitigation provides zero noise reduction

at the exterior facade where MECP compliance is required. And it also offers no protection to outdoor spaces like parks and backyards. Furthermore, under NPC 300 and Guelph Noise Control guidelines, a Class 4 designation requires a detailed, quantitative noise assessment to even be considered. It's not a starting point to bypass technical analysis. RWDI quotes guideline D6 to argue the developer will pay for any required mitigation. But the reality is if at - source mitigation is ultimately required at CARGill, the City cannot legally force the developer to pay for upgrades on a third - party property. As cargil has no right to appeal site - plan approvals or the lifting of a hold. They also have no mechanism to force the developer to pay either. Deferring these studies leaves open, the real possibility that mitigation could ultimately be proven infeasible. If that happens, cargo will be placed in an untenable situation, unable to maintain compliance with their existing environmental compliance approval, let alone execute planned expansions. As SLR consulting pointed out, once the land is zoned residential, the obligation to fix compliance falls entirely on the existing industries. Appending a hold offers no protection against that immediate risk. We respectfully ask that you defer the official plan

amendment zoning by - law amendment and draft plan of subdivision until the required quantitative modelling is completed peer - reviewed and proven compatible for air quality odour and noise. Thank you. Great, thank you very much for your presentation too. And is there any follow - up questions. There is, oh sorry. You got a half question. Maybe I'll ask the same question. Are you confident that there could be mitigation measures? That could be implemented. To. That would be determined through the compatibility study. Through the technical studies are required. Yeah. Okay. That would drive the mitigation. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much to all of you. Appreciate it. Okay, we have Franco Nakaroto. I hope I'm saying that right. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Uh, and Franco's from the meat and poultry Ontario Association. So. Welcome Franco, and I'll turn it up. Did I say your last name, right? You set it perfectly. Perfect. Thank you, Mayor. Alright, over to you. Thank you, Mayor and members of the Council for the Opportunity to speak

today. Please bear with me. It's my first time doing something like this. So we wrap me and Poultry Ontario represents meat processors, abattoirs, independent retailers, wholesalers, and industry suppliers operating throughout Ontario. Across Ontario Meme Poultry Processors Sector generates about 11. 2 billion dollars in annual revenue and accounts for roughly one quarter of employment, uh, Frontaro's food and beverage processing sector. That's about almost 30, 000 jobs. Guelph is largely recognised as an important centre for agriculture and food, not only in Ontario. But in Canada. It's home to the Ministry of Agriculture. It's home to Agrifut Canada. The University of Gulf, wildly recognised as Canada's food university. Me poultry Ontario in the Centre for Meat Innovation and Technology. And numerous agriculture and food commodity organisations, research institutions and businesses. Many of Guelph's constituents work in agriculture and food. They work in processing plants and research institutions and government offices, farm and food organisations. In transportation distribution, equipment

manufacturing. And many businesses support the food supply chain. The City, as the Councillor recognised Cargill's one of its biggest employers, and it's also one of the most important infrastructure pieces in Ontario. As B Farmers mentioned earlier, it's one of the largest producers of beef in eastern Canada. And a significantly important to be farmers and to the further processors as well. Uh, we get a lot of our supplies through it. So food is not only simply one of Guelph's industries. It's an important fabric of everything here. I want to be clear that mean poultry Ontario is not opposed to housing. Uh, on these lands. It's increasing the supply of housing, including affordable housing is important. Housing located within a reasonable distance of employment and also benefit food processors. It gives businesses access to larger pools and workers, helps them recruit and retain employees and can reduce time and costs associated with community. If I were a business industrial area, I would welcome more housing within a

reasonable distance to my business. But the fine line between convenience and compatibility. And this is where my experience has really been over the last few years as executive director of meet and poultry. We see an examples when communities get it wrong. I'm not a planner or a land use expert. Um, but I could tell you some of the experiences that I've had, uh, when residential development is allowed to encroach on established industrial operations without enough separation. And effective mitigation. Residences complain about the noise complain about the order, complain about the traffic, even though it's written in the titles of their properties. And this is decades after these developments were made. So it's not just about today the decision you're making. It's about five years, 10 years, 15 years down the road when it's a third person that owns the house just moving into the area, not really realising what they're moving into. Businesses then face

complaints, additional studies, legal cost, operating restrictions, increased red tape, councillors get continuous, uh, complaints from residents and really end up being beaten up from both sides of the equation. Employers trying to do the best that they can do for what they're doing to grow their industry and to grow their capacity and employ more people. And then the residents are complaining about exactly them doing those things. So you end up with a lot of flux. That's why we have zoning rules, compatibility policies, surrounding these principles. They're intended to protect the residences. But they also must protect the established businesses operating those designated areas. Issues like this can stifle the growth of Ontario's agriculture and food, sec industry. Now more than ever, we got a double down. On growing our domestic food production and processing capacity. And so protecting those critical infrastructure pieces is important.

So I want to talk, so I'll conclude with, this is not a choice between housing and employment. We need both. The question is whether the development should be approved now with unreserved. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. And is there any questions for this delegate at all? Uh, Cousin Councillor Coston, please. Yes. Thank you very much for the delegation. Um, I have a question with regard to, um, you mentioned that you have some examples in other communities where, um, despite having, um, something on the title that outlines, you know, that they owner accepts that the industry happening in the area, that there's complaints being received. Could you have those specific examples. Yeah. I could give a couple. I live in Milton, um, and, uh, the farm right on the outside of town. Well, they've built up right to that farm. And so the house in that area are notified that you're moving next to a farm area. It has smells. And that farmer gets

probably 10, 15 calls by Bylaw. And sometimes, uh, complaints about the animal welfare complaints about the smells, uh, and, you know, he's been there centuries. I think it's a third or fourth generation farm. Um, there's a, uh, as a plant, I visited in Ottawa area, um, and he's in constant conflict with his neighbours. Like literally they built a house next to his facility. It's not a big facility, but still produces traffic noise air and odours. And the people right next door to them. So you're going to get complaints and it's going to be not just this generation. It's going to be the next generation that continued to have those complaints. So, you know, thinking as a city that's built on food, how do we make a positive relationship? And now you have an opportunity to set an example of a good way. And I hope I heard, uh, you know, that the dialogue between the builder and the plant. I would love to see a collaborative solution come out of this. Yes. Thank you. I

agree with you. Great seeing and hearing nothing more. Thank you very much. Are you okay your first time. Yeah. Okay. It's not too bad, right? Good. Nobody first knows. Yeah. Yeah. It's all good. Thank you. All right. We got, uh, Frank Sheen Heyfer from the Gulph Hiking Trail Club is here to also give his opinions on the matter. So welcome Frank over to you whenever you're ready. Okay. Thank you. And good evening, Mr. Mayor City Councillors and City staff. My name is Frank Shanehafer. I'm a volunteer trail coordinator with the Guelph Hiking Trail Club. So switching gears again, back to trails. The Gulph Hiking Trail Club has been building and maintaining trails and leading hikes on them in the Guelph area for over 50 years. We're proud to be a third party, trail partner with the City of Gulf. Via the Gulf Trail Master Plan. That master plan clearly indicates that trails are essential to everyday life. For recreation, health, and wellness and mobility. The master plan also acknowledges the valuable contributions made by community groups, such as ourselves and our friends at Gorba, who

create and manage these community - led city - supported trails, which connect to the rest of the city's trail network and are maintained by our own volunteers time and efforts at no cost to the city. One of our trail sections has run for many years between Victoria Road and Stone Road close to the Aramosa River. And the GJR train track. Through the natural heritage zone, which is now owned by Fusion Homes. And part of the discussion here today, it's our radial line trail. Which goes all the way from downtown Guelph for 38 kilometers over the lime house. It's a very popular and well - used walking path. Some of that trail is also shared with the aqueduct trail. Which is also very popular and well used, especially by bike riders. Soon after Fusion Homes purchased these lands that we're discussing today, we began discussions with them about these trails and developed a license agreement in September 2022. For permission to continue the use of our trails through this natural heritage zone. And that includes our cliff top side trail. Which runs generally along the border

between the natural heritage zone and the developable area. Because we share the vision along with Fusion Homes to provide a walkable connection. From the Gulph Innovation District into the rest of the city's trail network. Via that cliff top side trail and our radial line trail. We understand that the GID development will eventually create over 4, 000 new homes together with businesses, employment areas, and much more for the future benefit of Guelph. As imagined in the Gulf City Official Plan, that official plan has several strategic goals. Including this one of special interests to the Gulph Hiking Trail Club. Ensure an accessible, connected open space, park, and trail system. And sustainable network of recreational facilities necessary to promote a physically active and healthy community. Definitely a huge development area like the Guelph Innovation District should support walkable communities. So I'm here today just to express the ongoing support of the Gulph Hiking Trail Club for this fusion home's development project. And we look forward to working with

Fusion Homes on the Walking Connections for the Future Citizens of the GID to the rest of Guelph's Trail Network. Via our trails through this natural heritage zone. Thank you for your time. Thank you for coming tonight, Frank. Appreciate it. And, uh, is there anyone with a follow - up for Frank at all. There isn't. So thank you very much. Okay, we have four more everybody, just so everyone knows I'm going to call up Ryan Scott now from Fusion Homes. And whenever you're ready, Ryan. You can start okay.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, everyone. Ryan Scott on behalf of Fusion Homes. Nice to be back with you again tonight. I want to start by revisiting some key decisions and events that have led us to this moment as it relates to blocks one and two of the Guelph Innovation District. And for that, I want to start with Guelph's official plan and specifically the GID secondary plan. Which envisions a compact, mixed - use community that straddles the Aramosa River and is home to innovative, sustainable employment with an urban village connecting residential and compatible employment. The GID secondary plan was approved in 2014 and came into full force in effect in 2017. And has always contemplated residential uses and you're an operating cargill. In December of 2021. December of 2021, Fusion purchased these lands from the province for residential development. To establish a complete community, to execute and implement a secondary plan and official plan. Plans that were approved by Council and approved by the province. A thoughtful planning process commenced in 2022 and resulted in a block plan that was endorsed by Council in September of 25. Public engagement and Public Meetings took place during this time. The endorsed plan includes 300 metre separation between

cargil and residential uses. December 2025, a complete OPA and ZBA application was made. And at the time, our first draft plan application was made and was noted as incomplete only due to outstanding archaeology work. These applications are consistent with Council and staff endorsed block plan. April 22nd, 2026 for the first time we are formally asked for further details about Lanny's compatibility. With a focus on the city's waste resource innovation centre. Uh, in May of 2026, Cargill first noted formally their opposition to the development in a letter to Council. At the same time, City staff identified a number of outstanding planning, engineering, and environmental concerns. And our May Council meeting was deferred to tonight as stated earlier by staff. We went away and it did exactly that. And over the past few months, we and our consultant team have completed substantial work in coordination with City staff to overcome those obstacles. The process is reflected in City's own report and comments that were part of this meeting agenda. Engineering and transportation with no objection. Environmental Planning, no objection. Parks and trails, no objection. Urban design and heritage planning, no objection. The upper grand district school board

and Grand River Conservation Authority, no objection. Um, I would note that obviously we want to work through draft plan conditions and understand what conditions those object lack of objections come with. And we're working with staff to get those details. Back to May 2026, we hired our WDI and submitted a LANUS compatibility report on June 15, uh, which notes that the lands are generally compatible and that further study is required for detailed mitigation. June 15th, we submitted a complete draft plan application. And on August 26th, we received a peer review report from the Cities peer reviewer. That informed us that staff would not be recommending with approval at this time. Currently we're undertaking further study consistent with RWDI's recommendations in their June report and consistent with peer review comments from SLR and correspondence from Dylan on behalf of Cargill. Our team has expressedly noted that compatibility is achievable and the remaining implementation details can appropriately be secured through draft plan conditions. MHBC and RWDI will speak further to this tonight. It's important to note that a policy decision that Cargill and other industrial uses and residential development would coexist within the broader GID planning framework was

made more than a decade ago. This was again confirmed through the block plan and again, confirmed by our consultant. We're therefore asking Council to look carefully at what remains. This is no longer a case where the City is faced with fundamentally in complete development proposal. It's a disagreement if you will over the appropriate mechanism for completing the specific tactical exercise. Fusion is prepared to complete that work and have already started to do so. We are prepared to implement reasonable mitigation. We are prepared to accept appropriate conditions and we are prepared to continue to work with staff neighbouring institutions, industries, and their consultants. But we do not believe that the entire zoning and subdivision application should be refused while that work continues. A refusal will simply move this discussion into another process with additional time and expense it for everyone involved. We would strongly prefer to resolve these issues collaboratively with the City and Cargill and other industry. We respectfully ask Council to consider whether the applications can be advanced appropriately with safeguards rather than refused. The Guelph Innovation District has been planned for many years. We believe the work completed to date demonstrates that it's ready to move forward. Thank you. Thank you so much, Ryan. Thank you for your presentation. And is there anybody with a follow - up for Ryan at this time.

Okay, a cool with Coron and then Billings and then Cossen. Thanks for your delegation. The timeline really helps because I remember you met with local leaders and all members of Council and neighbours and you've been at this for a long, long time. Can you give me an idea of how close are we? Yeah, thank you for your question through Mr. Mayor to the Councillor. We came, when we sat down with staff in May and lined up the issues and had in - person working sessions, we thought that by September 15th, we would be a hundred percent there. As I said, have initiated the remaining mitigation studies. We believe those to be matters of mitigation and implementation. Not matters of the principle of development as outlined in the official plan in the secondary plan. Those uses are already spoken for. And designated. Uh, we look forward to implementing that. So, um, very close. Thanks. Great, thank

you. And Councillor Billings and then Clauson. So through you, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask, um, in order to carry on with this, the mitigation studies, you need all the data from the surrounding employers. Do you have all that data in order for you to do the work. Uh, through you, Mr. Mayor to the Councillor. No, we do not have that data at this time. That is one of the obstacles. We have not been able to get to receive the data from the surrounding industries. There is an ongoing FOI request at this time. Um, perhaps in working collaboratively, in our meeting on Thursday with Cargill, we can address that topic. Okay. So once that is secured, all the data is secured. Then what's your turnaround time. Uh, our WD, I will be up here after me and can answer that better than I, cause I'm probably going to hold them to a tighter timeline. Uh, but I would, sorry Brian. But for my understanding, once we have that data, we need a couple of weeks to complete the modelling and the analysis of that modelling. And then a couple of weeks to finalise that report. Okay. Thanks, Ryan. Thank you. Anto Coulson, please.

Yes. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor of the Delegate. Um, yes, thank you for the explanation and the timeline. One of the concerns that, um, and I'm sorry, I'm going to paraphrase because I, I don't have the exact reference in front of me. My understanding is that one of the concerns from the perspective of cargill and the surrounding industry is that if we approve the zoning today, it shifts the, um, the onus of responsibility for mitigation from, um, the developer or the landowner over to the industry, which, uh, and all of the mitigation efforts shift over to them and all of the responsibilities. So my understanding is like, you know, there's some, they're not entirely sure what they're going to need to do. And I'm assuming that they're waiting to understand what those mitigation needs are before they want to commit to the zoning. So I guess my question is, um, how, how do you, I know you're meeting with them a few days. What, what's the plan for that? Because I don't, we don't have the data and the mitigation recommendations don't exist yet. So, so could you speak a little bit to that or is that maybe something you want to refer to

our WDI. Um, I'll start and then, and then they can perhaps finish, uh, during their delegation. Um, it's never been our intention to put any burden on industry surrounding the site. We have, through the D6 guidelines, and I'm going to get out of my depth real fast. But through the D6 guidelines, um, the separation that we're providing and the mechanisms that are available to us, my understanding is that there are ways to ensure that those, uh, that those burdens are not put on industry and that the developer bears those. Um, and I will let MHPC and RWDI get into the technical details. Okay. Thank you. I will, I'll ask a little bit more or maybe one of my colleagues will ask a little bit more after that, but thanks to Gentle the Delegation. Great. Thank you very much. I see nothing further at Ryan. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. And Brian Soley from RWDI is now coming on up.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor Council. Uh, some of this is already been covered. Uh, I'm simply going to speak to the technical details of the work that's been undertaken and the work that is continuing to be undertaken. As has already noted, we were retained in May. Prepared a qualitative assessment to look at what studies need to be done, what industries in the area need to be identified. You know, as we saw in the peer review, those industries were correctly identified. The next step is to gather the information and conduct those studies, freedom of information requests were submitted at the beginning of August. Uh, through just through vacations. There's a little bit of a delay there. Those FOI requests went in looking for that data. Uh, my client has also been reaching out to Cargill as one of the identified industries of interest. To arrange a meeting, which we've heard now is scheduled for this. Thursday. To try to work collaboratively with that facility to ensure that the, you know, the potential mitigation, compatibility concerns are addressed. I have worked previously in other jurisdictions where we have meat processing facilities, food processing facilities. And worked collaboratively with those facilities to arrive at mitigation that worked both at the development and at the industry and through legal agreements

that that mitigation was secured. So obviously my preference is to work collaboratively with, uh, with the Industrial Facilities to ensure that that is done. Um, when we're looking at the D6 guidelines, again, that provides us with guidance on how to classify industries and those separation distances. The residential lots have been set back 300 metres away from the Car Guild lot line. Uh, there's a diagram that shows that clearly. The idea is to try to create that separation, that buffer. But again, acknowledging the fact that the development is within that thousand metre zone of influence. And identifying that that study has to be done. We're moving ahead with those studies as we gather information to ensure that those studies are done appropriately to allow us to accurately describe what mitigation is required. The use of an on - site buffer, such in the case where we have the development. Lotline goes down towards the river. That on - site buffer within the development where we set back the residential lands. That is a common practice in doing these sort of compatibility studies. Once again, there are measures that can be put in place, as I've said

in other projects we've had where we were collaboratively. And those arrangements can be put in place. Once again, through financial assurance is legal agreements and so on to ensure that the mitigation is inappropriately. Mitigation could be done at source, at receptor, combination of the two is often used. We see that in many, many circumstances. And the key thing is to come up with the solution that works best for this combination of facilities and developments. As an engineer, my belief is that usually something can be mitigated. It's a question of simply what level of mitigation is required. I'm working through that process collaboratively is obviously going to be the best solution. I think I'll leave it at that. Trying to keep things relatively simple and high level, accepting that there will be questions. Thank you. Councillor Gibson, I'm sorry, Councillor Galler and then Billings, please. Thank you. And three of worship. Thank you so much for the presentation. Um, help me understand what the normal processes would be. Because as I understand that, if there are mitigations that are identified at this point, it would be up to the developer to sort of pay for them. So I would seem to me that the five industries would want to give you the information so you can

make those plans. Have all of the five locations required that you do freedom of information requests. Is that the normal process? We start that FOI process at the very beginning when we, when we get retained to go to that next step in this case, uh, we were authorized to move ahead, uh, we started those FYI requests as the first step to ensure that we're starting that process. It is always better if we can work collaboratively with the industry. Uh, so again, my client is working with, you know, Cargill, for instance, they're reaching out. That's why we're having that meeting. Right. And what about Owing's Corning and the City's Waste Resource Innovation Centre is at the same process. And have you received information from any of the five so far? The Owens Corning Facility, some of the information is publicly available. Uh, they've been going through a site - specific standard. Process that they have. A lot of the air emissions data is publicly available. But again, we've put that request for some of the information. For the waste resource innovation centre. Some of that information is also publicly available, but we've also been working forward with that FOI request. But once again, we would like to collaborate and get that information directly. Okay. Okay. No, I appreciate that. Um, and in your experience doing these

processes, what is the timeline that normally takes to, and are you within those parameters? Have you submit this information? Are people forthcoming on a timely basis. The FOI process does seem to be taking longer, uh, that's been something we've noticed over the last period of time that that process has been getting slower. Uh, that's still moving ahead. We're working through and actually potentially have to appeal, uh, but ideally we can avoid that if possible, but just to ensure we get that, that moving along. We're in contact with the FOI office. Um, it might take more than a couple of weeks to turn around the reports. But once we get that information, we go through the process of doing predictive modelling to show what the potential impacts are. And then we can for each one of those facilities identify what potential mitigation would be required. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you, worship. Thank you. Thank you. And Billings, please. Yeah. It's already asked. I threw you your worship again. It was just once you've obtained all the relevant data, what's your turnaround time. And so you're just saying a couple of weeks, two weeks. Uh, it's, it'll be more than a couple of weeks, but typically within say four to six weeks, we'll have that,

that information turned around. Okay. Thank you. And Gibson, please. Thank you, through Mr. Marissa. One more probing question. Um, are we, are we talking probably about sound noise and odour. Are those two of the big parameters that you're looking for? We had this conversation last week at Council about balconies on the backs apartments or balconies on the backs of houses, things like that. Yeah. So, um, to answer your question, sir. I'll be looking at it from an air quality perspective. We will look at odour dust. What have you depending on the nature of the facility? My colleagues with our noise and vibration group will be looking at. The noise issues from those facilities that we cover off, all aspects of the compatibility question. Okay. Next question. In the absence of that data existing, which I'm hopefully, I'm hoping it does. How long would it take for Fusion? Like what, what type of, I don't want to talk about setbacs, but does it take a year to collect that data? Do you have to go leaf on and leaf off in the wintertime for noise? Like what are the steps. Uh, so I would need to defer to one of my colleagues on the noise of vibration side, but they could theoretically do measurements. Ideally, we would get the information directly through either the FOI process or working with the facility. So we actually have site

- specific data on their equipment. Okay. Thank you. And Clauson, did I see your hand go up again? Okay. Go ahead. And then it comes to me, I guess, for a quick question. Clauson. Yes. Um, thank you. And, uh, to the delegate through you Mr. Mayor, I just, I had another question going back to, um, the mitigation, like the potential for mitigation. You've, I'm certain you've worked with other developers and industry to implement mitigation and just going back to staff's analysis in the planning act that if industries have no ability to force developers to pay for mitigations at with the industry. So once the zoning is approved, then there's no, there's no ability for the industry to do anything about it. So I'm just curious. That's what it says in the, in, in the report. But from your perspective, could some of these like how can cargill and fusion in the city come to an agreement on these mitigation strategies? Like what, what, what's the best course of action from your perspective and experience. Uh, so again, if we're getting into legal agreements or planning instruments, again, that's not my wheelhouse. However, uh, where I

have had experience with this, what we do is work through a negotiated settlement or something along those lines where an agreement is reached that, um, the developer pays for certain mitigation at the facility, uh, but also then commits to certain modifications at their site. Again, that could range some of the things that were in my original report, you know, sealed facades, uh, air conditioning. Again, there's, and obviously, uh, warnings on title, these sorts of things are all different measures that can be implemented. And it's the combination of those that gets you across the, uh, I guess the finish line. Yes. Thank you for specifying your, your specific perspective. Um, um, negotiating settlement in agreement. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Uh, just my question before we end here with you. And thank you for your presentation is I just want to confirm you didn't have to FOI information from the city. Right. We have, we have filed one just as a blanket. I have, uh, we put those requests in regardless. But again, we'll work with the City to get that information. Yeah. Yeah. A hundred percent. Yes. So that obviously those discussions will commence. Because we're collaborative. Yes. And we're

going to give that information. We're going to help you. Two of the facilities at the waste resource centre were actually, you know, I worked on those many, many years ago. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Certainly, I know that information exists. Okay. Perfect. You have to go through the right channels to get that. Okay. I'm going to keep prodding here a little bit. So you've asked our staff for that information. We have not asked directly yet. So I'll work with our client on that. Okay. You see where I was going here. Yes. I was like, I thought you've asked us and then we're like, no, go good in FOI. I'm like, what? No, no, no. We do the FOI request right away just to ensure the blanket FOI kind of grabbed everybody such a long period of time. We try to do that first, sir. Okay. But when you ask our staff, they will help you with that information because we, we want to be collaborative and get this to a resolution. So okay. Thumbs up. Perfect. Okay. That's good clarity. Oh. For a little bit more clarity Councillor Bustil. Thank you Mr. Mayor. And through the mayor, just to clarification, I heard you say that warning on title is part of the mitigation kind of continuum. Is that correct? I've seen that used in many cases where

that'll be, um, warnings put on title, um, again, these are things that are added there just to provide some additional layer protection. And again, you're kind of the expert in here. So I'm asking a question about whether or not after there are agreements and these mitigation measures put in place, if there is ever a follow up to determine whether or not there are, you know, sufficient mitigation or if like an evaluation of this, or as here's the mitigation, here's the plan. We've got a warning on title. We've got this that. Is there ever a follow up on that? Certainly the stopping that follow - up from happening. In my experience, uh, we haven't had issues afterwards, but again, if something were to happen, uh, that would basically then turn back to, um. I guess looking at those warnings. And then also reaching out to the city through the complaints process and then potentially obviously with the industry. Okay. That's it for real this time. So thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Dave Aston is coming up from MHBC. Again, on behalf of, uh, Fusion Homes. So Dave, we appreciate you coming as well. I'll turn the mic over to you whenever you're ready.

Uh, great. Thank you Mayor. And I do have the presentation. Um, want to spend a bit of time in, I think responding to some comments providing some clarification. And then perhaps bring us back to the facts. And Ryan talked about that a little bit. Uh, so maybe if I could get a slide change, uh, first of all, from a planning perspective, uh, this post has been ongoing since about 2004. There have been multiple submissions and planning reports completed. I can, uh, assure you as author of those policies have been considered and addressed. Um, so to reference specific policies, uh, you know, it's not every planning report lists every policy, but I can assure you that the provincial policy. And official plan have been addressed. Also with regard to consultation and Ryan mentioned it, uh, fusion held the number of public information centres outside of the planning process. And we're involved with those in providing notice to adjacent landowners. So that occurred. So consultation has been

ongoing throughout the process. On this slide again, just want to bring back to where we're at. This is your official plan. This is the secondary plan. The City has identified lands for future growth. These lands are identified as residential employment, a school, parks and natural heritage. The natural heritage system is being protected. Parks have been identified. What's being proposed is reflecting what your vision is for the community in your policy document. Next slide, please. This was confirmed when Council adopted the block plan. And as you can see, uh, it also incorporates the uses of the secondary plan. The 300 metres from Cargill Property line as measured essentially comes to that single loaded road to the north. This reflects the secondary plan. That was identified for a reason when the province approved the Secondary Plant. Separation

distance of 300 metres. So the D6 guidelines have been considered the D6 guidelines are being implemented as it relates to separation distances between sensitive uses residential uses. NL class 3 facilities. And in some of the comments that you received, that was a recommendation. And I would suggest to you that recommendation is being implemented with what's being proposed. Next slide. The proposed schedules, again, are really just reflecting the block plan endorsement all skip by those. There are some details that we can work through with staff as needed, but ultimately it's implementing the block plan. Next slide, please. Their proposed zoning. This is again, implementing your secondary plan. The D6 guidelines official plan provincial policy talk about avoiding different uses. It talks about 300 metres. The lands within the 300 metres are not permitted residential. To put another way and use the D6 guidelines. Those lands are

prohibited from residential. That is coming from the D6 guidelines. That is what's being proposed. Residential uses are limited as well in those areas. As a general comment when there was reference about, this could approve 14 or 18 story buildings. That's also already approved in the secondary plan. So the zoning that you see here is really proposed to implement the secondary plan. And it's using the base information from the By - law that the City has adopted. The residential zones are the residential zones. So we're using that information. Next slide, please. The proposed plan of subdivision, I think we've talked about that quite a bit, but it itself provides the details. I would suggest to you that there's various tools available to council and staff on dealing with land use and mitigation. We talked about holding provisions to require studies to be completed in implementation. Subdivision controls are also available. Conditions of division can identify details

and can identify requirements to be satisfied. Next slide. Next slide's fine. Ryan covered this as far as the issues. This next slide, uh, with a subdivision just shows the 300 metre setback from the car Guild Property Boundary. On the draft plan of subdivision. Again, no development. Residential proposed. And then just in conclusion. Sorry Dave, that was, sorry, that was your cutoff right there. So. Oh, that was my cut. Yeah, sorry about that. Um, but thank you for your presentation. You've seen our conclusion. You've seen our letter and our proposed. Yes. Yeah. Materials for approval. Yep. Absolutely. So thank you. Thank you. Just before you go away, just in case maybe there isn't, but I want to see if the questions for you while you're here. Okay. Oh, sorry. There is one Councillor Galler, please. Thank you through your worship. Thank you Mr. Arsene. Thank you for the presentation. And I hear the frustration. I saw the open houses and I saw that my constituents attended. And I'm disappointed that the industry members did not attend.

But just, just to double check, was there a targeted invite to the five big employers done by someone at Fusion or one of the groups just to get people sitting together at a table? Because I understand that the submitting happening next week, but you know, a year ago, two years ago, were the reach outs to the employers. Uh, through the mayor, I would ask Fusion to actually confirm if there were targeted. What I can advise is that when we were doing the public information sessions, there were mail outs to all the properties within the mail out area, which I would assume cargill being within proximity would have received. But I can't confirm if they received or not. We just sent the mail outs. Sure. Yeah. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, worship. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. There's nothing further. I appreciate your time as well. And, uh, finishing us off tonight is LipacOli from Fusion Homes who will come up and give his presentation to us.

Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. Members of Council. Uh, you've heard from Ryan about the process that brought us here. You've heard from our planning and technical experts. About the work that's been done. And outstanding land use compatibility issue. Uh, so I'm not going to repeat any of that. Instead, what I want to talk about is what this process looks like from where I sit. As the owner of this property, as a founder of a company that's been building homes in the City for over 25 years, not to age myself. And as somebody who cares deeply about wealth. We bought these lands from the province almost five years ago. Because we believed in the opportunity to do something transformational for this city. Since then, we've invested millions of dollars and an extraordinary amount of time and energy. Into planning this community. We've engaged with the community. We've hired the best planners, architects, engineers and environmental consultants in the country. We've changed our plans. We've responded to comments. We've done additional studies when they've been required. And every single time we've been asked to solve a problem, we've solved it. Last September, we were sitting in this room

when Council unanimously voted to endorse our block plan. Cargill is an important employer in the city. We don't want to interfere with their operations today. And we certainly don't want to interfere with their ability to operate in the future. In fact, we want the hardworking cargil employees to live in our development. And bike or walk to work. As we've done with every community group, we want to engage and we're collaboratively to solve these problems. Our WDI requires information from Car Guild to complete the detailed analysis being requested of us. That information has not been provided. So we're being told that our development cannot move forward until certain work is completed. While some of the information necessary to complete that work is controlled by a party actively opposing the development. These lands are critical to the future of the City of Guelph. This development will ultimately house over 10, 000 people. And provide thousands of jobs.

It means 25, 000 person years of construction employment and economic activity. It means amazing new parks, including an incredible new community park, trails, schools. It means new businesses, new commercial assessment, new tax revenue. And nine to 10 billion dollars of cumulative GDP by 2050. Most importantly, it means thousands of new homes in a city that desperate lenience housing. We understand a project the significant requires scrutiny as it should. We aren't asking you to ignore technical issues. What we are asking for is approval with conditions to complete the work required by staff. And we're asking for the conditions of draft plan to be shared with us. If additional detailed work is required, let's put the appropriate conditions in place. And let's let the development proceed. What we cannot accept is an open - ended process where the standard for approval keeps changing. Where the goalposts keep moving and where the information needed to satisfy the standard

is outside our control and is not being provided to us. When we bought the GID, we did it because we saw once in a generation opportunity to build something remarkable in this city. And I still believe that. I also believe that decisions about the future Agwell for best made here in Guelph. By the People sitting around this table. But after almost five years, over a hundred million dollars invested, multiple appearances before Council, a unanimously endorsed block plan, a unanimous direction to where collaboratively towards a resolution. And months of additional technical work, we need certainty. And at some point delay becomes a decision. And tonight we're asking you to make the decision to move Guelph forward. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much, Lee, for your presentation as well. Is there any follow - up for Lee at this time. Councillor Busatil, please. Through the mayor, thank you very much for your delegation. Just a clarification for me. Do you have the data you need to do the studies from the City of Guelph Law Cart PDI and Owens Corning? Because we've talked about cargil. But

do you have the other four industries? We do not. Thank you. Okay, thank you. There's no other questions. I guess I have one, Lee, if you don't mind. I thought I was going to get off easy. Yeah. Well, okay. I changed my mind. No, just kidding. Um, what does certainty look like for you from us. Tonight. If counsel upholds the staff recommendation? Or the deferral, as we heard already from delegates that a deferral might work. And maybe that's where we're going to go. But if it's a refuge, if it's a deferral, if it's a refusal, like what else did you need. To hear tonight about the certainty factor? Yeah. Great question. And thank you for, thank you for asking. Um, I mean, optimal, optimal solution for us is to get approval with conditions draft plan. If we were to talk about a deferral, I think what certainty would look like for us is a specific timeline to get back to Council. Number two to share with us the conditions a draft plan approval. And number three to let us proceed with some work we need

to do. In order to keep our timelines for the launch. So for example, we want to do our sales launch next fall. So next fall, we want to be selling homes at GID. What we need to do though is our experience centre needs to go through an approvals process. We can't start that approvals process. My understanding again, I'm not a planner. My understanding is we can't start that approvals process until we get draft plan approval. So maybe allowing us to start the programs on the experience centre and run some things in parallel. While we're doing a sexual work. Would again, give us that certainty and allow us to meet the timelines to, you know, get out to pre - sale and to, you know, start moving dirt and eventually develop this incredible project. Okay. I'll ask staff just to, I didn't know about that experience centre portion. So I'll ask or one of my colleagues can ask for me if you want. So, okay. With that, thank you very much. Appreciate your presentation as well. Oh, did Councillor Gibson have a question? I'm sorry, leave Councillor Gibson. Sorry about that. Go ahead. Just a, just a comment question reassurance, Mr. Picoli, also same three questions that you just asked about certainty. I'll last that of

staff in a moment. Okay. Yeah. Well, thank you. Thanks, everybody. We'll get to that. So thank you very much. And Councillor Billings as well looks at Lee as a follow - up as well. Lee, I'm sorry. Uh, Councillor Billings has her hand up as well. Sorry about that. Go ahead, Councillor Bullittings. So I apologise for that. So three. I just really, I don't understand why can't there be a condition that you, the developer pay for all the mitigation measures that would be identified within the compatibility report. I don't quite understand that piece as to why that won't work. Uh, through you, Mr. Mayor. I asked the same question. I honest to God asked the exact same question. Why can't we just agree to the, we're not going to put any of the onus on the industries around us. And I don't have a good answer for you, unfortunately. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. For real this time, there are no questions. Sorry about that. Thank you. Okay. That was all of our delegations for tonight. Thank you for each one of you for, for coming. We appreciate it. Um, I just want to go back,

I'm putting staff on the spot here, but is there anything further that staff would like to mention before I sort of take control of where, where my, my, where we can go here. Is there anything further. Looks like we're good. I think staff are good. Okay. Okay. So, um, it's back to us then council on this item. And, um, you know, if we can maybe just take a look at now the recommendations are, uh, probably the biggest recommendations I've ever seen in 12 years. But, um, I think we should look for questions first. I know that normally I would say recommendations put them down, but, you know, I do know that, um, Councillor Galler and Gibson, I believe. We're thinking about a deferral, but I think we should ask some questions first. So, um, I'll start with the two of you then. Colour and then, uh, Coron. Okay. And I'll keep looking around if the questions. And if not, we'll get to somewhere else in class. And I see your hand too. Thank you. Thank you through your worship. And I'll ask this to stuff so that I can help understand how this process should work and how maybe it's, it may not be working

as well. Um, what I heard from the, from the, from the fusion is that they are required to get technical data from the employers, uh, which is not maybe becoming. Could you help me understand? Is it that data has to be collected on their end, like the fact receptor collected data? Is this maybe, I don't know, do we have the chance to ask some of those folks that are here today? That question again, even though they already presented and they already asked questions, just, just some understanding of, could fusion be out for the next six months looking for this data, uh, in order to complete the study. Just, you know, what, what, what would we be looking at if we wore to the fair? Are we putting them in limbo indefinitely. Through the mirror, the Councillor. So this is a difficult question to ask. And I don't know the exact date when FOIs were required. It seems potentially or asked for potentially in August, but I don't know, um, if that's been submitted or not. Um, and I don't know how long it typically takes in, you know, typically I know internally when we get FOI requested staff, we, we, uh, clercs pushes us to

respond within 30 days. So that is certainly, um, the Cities approach. I don't know with others. So I don't know how long it would take, you know, and ideal world. There'd be some direct reach out, uh, with the consultants to those, uh, teams to see if they can get that information a little bit easier. But it's difficult for us to anticipate a timeline. And I know, you know, the last delegate asked for a timeline. And until some of that information is received by, um, the applicant's consultants. And it's been evaluated. Putting a timeline on for us, if you're asked to give us a timeline, it's concerning because we don't control what's happening there. And if we're told to come back in December, then we're going to be exactly where we are because we were told to come back in September. And this is why we have the gap and information. And this is why you have the recommendation you do from staff tonight because we were given a deadline. Um, so I don't have an exact timeline for that. To happen. And our city peer reviewer may be whispering some additional information to staff that may, uh, Lindsay may be able to address or the peer reviewer directly. I'm happy with the peer reviewer directly.

Just go to the, no, just no, no, no. Just go to the microphone. Krista, you can sit back down. Where you are. It's all good. It's musical chairs. What's going on? There we go. I'm sorry. Your name? Yeah. Through you, Mr. My name is Scott Henton. I'm with SLR Consulting. Okay. And so you heard Councillor Galler's question, which prompted you to get up. Is it are you wanting to speak to answering that question. Um, yes, absolutely. Okay. Go right ahead. Thank you. From the presentations that were, the episodes were made tonight. It took four months since they were retained in May for RWDI to file the FOI requests to the industries. Um, Mr. Sully admitted they hadn't actually reached out to the city to ask for information at all. Uh, I suspect the same as the case for Cargill. They haven't asked for that information yet. Uh, I suspect again that they haven't asked directly the information from PDI or the other industries. They do have some information for Owens Corning because it was publicly available because they're going through a Minister of the Environment process. So, you know, the delays in the process vis - a - vis - getting information, you know, surely

some of those are due to the fact that there have been delays in just asking for the data. Um, by fusion's consultants. Um, once the data is available, there may be data gaps that would require some additional work to be done. Um, for example, if you're dealing with odour emissions from Carville and you have to do, uh, field work in order to gather odour emission rates, the best time to do those measurements are going to be in the summer. Where you have hot temperatures and you're going to get maximum odour. You really can't do measurements of odour in the middle of winter and expect that it's going to be representative of worst case. So from a timing perspective, it's really again, extremely difficult to say. It depends on what data is available from the particular industries. Um, and then how much work is going to be required to actually do the assessment. If additional field work may be required to gather more data. Mr. Sully had mentioned that it would take about six weeks once all the data was received to do the modelling. I submit that it's going to take longer than that. Part of the mitigation measures are going to be a combination, as he mentioned of receptor - based and source - based mitigation measures. If source - based mitigation measures are going to be looked at, there have to be additional engineering studies that are going to be done at those industries to see if those mitigation measures are indeed feasible.

As an example, if a stack height increases required at the waste resource innovation centre, you're going to have to look and see whether the existing stack can support the additional weight of the stack increase. If it can't, then a mitigation measure might be that you might have to restrict the height of buildings. So the 18 story height that you're at maximum right now may have to go down to 10, 11 or 12 stories in order to pass the criteria. So again, and this is sort of the reason why. Approving the zoning before you've actually done the mitigation studies is putting the carton for the horse. Um, you really need to know what you're looking at from mitigation, whether it's feasible or not economically, technically administratively. Um, and have that plan in place before you decide what the zoning looks like. You may need additional buffer spaces, et cetera. Okay. Thank you. Uh, thank you. Thank you. And your worship, would you allow, I see that someone from Cargill has stood up. Would you allow breaking procedure just so that we get an answer from them.

So. In the spirit of collaboration, I'm hoping you're standing up because you're going to say something positive. So I'm going to allow it. If anyone wants to challenge me, go ahead, but I will not allow any more. You are standing up. Come on down. The question is I think about getting the information so we can, you know, the applicant can start to move forward in a neighborly way like neighbours should do, right? So do you have a response to that? Cause you have a meeting on Thursday. I'm really hoping that it's going to be positive. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so to clarify, uh, so the FOI request from Cargill was received on September 9th. I don't know if it was filed earlier, but we received it on September 9th. Cargill is absolutely committed to working with Fusion. In fact, Dylan consulting has been retained to start undertaking the studies that are necessary to give to give diffusion, rather. That being said, we're in the process of doing so. I believe, uh, my friend from Fusion suggested that we were withholding information. Absolutely not. It hasn't been requested. That being said, we are fully

committed to working with fusion and that is well underway. And we'd be more than happy to discuss that with Fusion on Thursday's meeting. Perfect. Thank you very much. Councillor Collar. I'll turn it back to you, but I do have others. So you can go ahead. Thank you, worship. But my final question to staff, if I could just get so some clarity, um, to the staff team, when, when did we, um, let Fusion know that we would require this information, the land use compatibility study. Just, I think it was, it was positioned as we ask for additional reports. If I can just get clear, was this provided to them, you know, at the onset, we said, okay, you're going to do this big project at some point we're going to need a land use compatibility study before this happens, just for the timeline. Through the Manor, the Councillor, I'll start, over to Lindsay for the specific details. Um, this was in, this is in the official plan requirement. So it's in the official plan, in the GID secondary plan that this be conducted as part of the development process. So it's in the OP requirements that it's there. Lindsay will give the exact details on further

requests. Um, but I also have to add that the change in lane use by the minister from employment to residential. And that was not a public process. And no one had an opportunity to impact on that. That was a ministerial decision that was supported by this council. But that was a decision that was made without public process as well. But our OP does require the studies to be done. And then I'll have Lindsay give you some exact timings on the, um, through the development application. Through the Mayor to Councillor Galler, um, so as Krista has indicated that our secondary plan does, um, specifically list land use compatibility studies and also, um, adhering to municipal policies regulations guidelines, um, and those studies are to be submitted as part of the development applications process, so which means the planning act applications, not the block plan, but the planning act applications official plan amendment zoning by law amendment and draft plano subdivision applications. And so the applicant did submit the applicant, meaning a HBC planning did submit a list of complete application requirements to us back in November of 2024 and one of them was a land use

compatibility slash D6 guideline study. That would be submitted as part of complete applications. The complete application was submitted the applications were submitted in December of 2025 and then deemed complete in January of 2026, the job plan subdivision wasn't deemed complete at that time. But we did do, do the review. And that's when the, we provided formal comments on the land use compatibility component. It wasn't a separate study. It was, uh, component in the planning justification report that was submitted. So that's when we provided those detailed comments. And that's when they had, um, gone out and retained RWDI to complete the additional study in May. Okay. Okay. That really helps me understand that. And just so that I can be clear the report, the land use compatibility, um, information that's provided by fusion that indicate that additional studies would be required. Is that correct? Yes. That is correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, your worship. Thank you. And if I, do you mind if I just jump in just a comment to try to pull

us together a little bit here too. Just, I want us to be careful that we're not here to sort of litigate sort of consultant A with consultant B and consultant C and like finger pointing of this or that. And what's the technical of that and this. And that, you know, that's where I think we would all agree that. They should all be locked in a room for an hour with a pizza. And they're the ones that should figure that out. Uh, which by the way, I'll buy the pizza. So like get it done. Um, so I just want to be careful that we're not sort of hashing out. So all this technical, um, stuff that really is very obvious to us that needs more. More, more eyes on it and more solutions being offered to get to, uh, another point. So, um, just with that, I'm not suggesting that you were going down that road, by the way, at all Councillor Corinne. But just to kind of set the scene here, if the more questions, okay. So go ahead, please over to you. I am not going on that road. I think we are all aligned here. I think all of Council is aligned staff, everyone in the gallery is aligned. We want to get to a win here. We want housing built. Uh, we want mitigation in place. Uh, that protects our employers. Uh,

I think we're all on the same page here. It's just a matter of how soon we're going to get there. And I think hopefully we'll leave here tonight. My questions were all asked by Councillor Galler. It was mostly about timelines. So I don't have any questions. Let's, uh, let's find a win tonight. Thank you. And I'm very sorry. I hide the two of you down. And then I think Clausen, if I remember had her hand up, uh, as well, uh, is there anyone after Colossian before I go? So after Cossen, I'll go to the Gibson and then to chew. Okay. Go ahead, Clauson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you to my Council colleagues who have asked some of the questions that I wanted to ask. And I just quickly since Councillor Coron also said it. I think I've been sitting here with the GID plan, the secondary plan opened in front of me and, you know, just steeping myself and reminding myself that like, we want to move forward as a council on this project. Um, but, but before we get there, I do, I do want to ask a question with regard to just, just the compatibility study. And obviously like, you know,

I'm not a planner council's not a group of planners. Um, I, I do have the secondary plan in front of me. And, you know, in it, it outlines those, you know, what is required to ensure compatibility. There's a whole clause about it. And the environmental reports and outlines, you know, they talk about what's in there. And the proposed development and may include measures at aimed at minimizing impact. So it's definitely in there, but the third part and I just, I'm not, you know, I'm asking this as a question. Maybe also as an encouragement because the third part of this is that it says the City shall consult with the Ministry of Environment Cargill in the City's Waste Resource Innovation Centre. During the development approvals process during the design process, I mean, that's, we're putting the card before the horse of it, but I'm just curious if the City's been in conversation directly with Cargill to sort of facilitate some of these conversations, um, to get sort of through some of the challenges, um, that we've been hearing tonight and that are before us. Through the mirror to the Councillor. So the consult part is this circulation and the development application, as I previously indicated, they

were not consulted by the ministry when the land use changes occurred from employment to residential. So that, that, that was out of our, as planning staff control and that that did not happen. They were circulated as part of the applications and we did receive comments, um, at the public meeting. So that's when the comments were received, um, we have not had direct conversation with Cargel other than informing them of the Public meetings and the timelines to ensure when their information was available and to the Mayor's point earlier, I think people need to be, I also agree. People need to be in a room and work through those technical issues that are, are truly beyond the planning component as well. We're looking for our technical experts to provide the input on that. Okay. Thank you. And then, so I asked a question to, um, a delegate with regard to, you know, what, what, you know, you've got in the report industries have no ability to force developers to pay for mitigation. I asked one of the delegates about their position on it. And they talked about a negotiated settlement as a potential solution. So I'm wondering as was we move forward in the timeline, you know, at what point do we kind of want to move

towards something, a solution like that where, um, you know, we had, we, we had Mr. Peefully saying, you know, we're happy to pay for those mitigation efforts. Um, in this meeting. So, I mean, and Cargill saying, you know, we want the studies, but also I think the concern is, you know, they want expansion. They want the ability to continue their, their, uh, their work and their industry development. So when do we get all those people in the room with that, with that settlement. Through the Mayor TU Councillor. Typically the process, um, takes place after you've at least done the study so you know what types of mitigation measures or mitigation, you know, selection and mitigation options is available that you're going to mediate on. Um, so at that point in time you would know what kind of source - based mitigation measures scrubbers, stack heights increases, um, noise walls, et cetera, that you might be requiring. Um, and what kind of receptor base mitigation measures you might be requiring. Uh, you really can't have that discussion right now because we simply don't know, uh, what

the mitigation measures are. Um, or what combination of them is going to be, you know, technically or economically feasible. Okay. That's, that's understandable. Um, and I don't want to, I know that Councillor Gibson is going to ask a bunch of questions. So I will let him answer go to the next, next grouping so that I get the fullsome answer. Thank you. Gibson, that's a segue right to you. Confuse. Thank you. Thanks for teeing me up there, Councillor Claussen. Um, I've heard one answer that I committed to asking on, on the data, the second question that I heard, uh, to staff. Thank you, sorry, three, Mr. Mayor, to staff the site, conditions I heard Mr. Pacoli speak to asking whether or not staff would be willing to share those with, uh, Fusion. If they're ready, if they're not ready, are there, are there gaps that staff are feeling they can't offer those, uh, conditions yet? What is the status of, of staff's ability to do that. Through the Mayor to the Councillor. So there are clearly gaps in our, our final recommendation because we do not have the study that we're mainly talking about tonight. So there is gaps that we're not able to provide in

final, uh, approval conditions. Cause we don't know what they are or if the impacts to land use. So there are definitely gaps, um, but we did reach out, uh, even I think two days ago to the consultant to say, let's sit down and talk about what we do know so far. So we will be setting up those meetings so that while the study's ongoing, we can have further discussions to ensure everybody's clear, um, as was requested on what would ultimately be required to get, uh, draft approval and then to go from draft approval to registration. So that, that will happen in the, in the near future Councillor Gibson. Okay. Thank you. Uh, my last question. I want to, I want to keep this file moving forward positively. So I don't like the idea of rejecting anything tonight. I like the idea of a referral or deferral, but I want to ask Steph about timelines. If you were, if you were to receive the reports required to sort of alleviate the concerns, um, what is staff's ability to come back to Council and sort of short order, uh, I don't know if it's this term, um, or if it's the next term of Council, but like what is staff's ability to turn around and come back for a final approvals. Through the Merit of the Councillor. So we, we definitely want to get there as well.

The staff since 20, you know, 11 when we were starting to work on the secondary plan. We've invested a lot of time and money into ensuring that this does move forward. But we do have to make sure it moves forward correctly. Um, once we receive the reports, they do have to be peer reviewed because we do not have the subject matter experts. And that's going to take a little bit of time. If there's any gaps in the information and rework needs to be done or additional information be provided that can take some time as well, um, I am very hesitant to provide a timeline because if we do, and it's not complete yet, we're going to be back in front of you with a no report. And that's not our desired outcome want to be able to have a report that's amedable. So once we have a, you know, a submission that we've had a chance to look at and is satisfactory, you know, we do have to again, advertise that's a 20 day period. And so once we have everything, uh, received and were in good shape. We could, we could turn it around within, you know, a couple of months. And we would be committed to doing that once we have the information that we can bring forward to Council. Okay. So typically my experience of referral would put staff on a timeline. I'm not sure that's the appropriate. Step today. Um, maybe

just in a couple of closing comments, Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind indulging me, just, um, these, these problems, these concerns arise, uh, regularly in the East End in my award. I'm not, not immune to them at all. We have a small craft landing strip where the takeoff and landing is directly above a set of homes that was built no less than 10 years ago. And every, every year I get a couple of phone calls from residents saying, what can we do about the landing strip? And I wanted to just give Cargill rest assurance my response to them each time was the landing strip was here first. Um, and, and quite regularly, she just started enjoying seeing those World War II plays flying over because the land ship's not going anywhere. Uh, secondly, uh, Watson Parkway, I think I mentioned already is the trucking route for the plant. Um, every couple, every couple of times a year I'll get a phone call from a resident saying the, the, the odour from the pork truck is too great. Do something about it in my insistence to them is, um, Car Guild was here first. And, uh, and that is the case that I continue to do even with, uh, we have a scrap metal company out in the east end. And my comment to the, to the individuals that live in the neighbourhood nearby is they wanted, you know, double panned windows put in on behalf

because of the, because of the industrial operation there in my response always is, I'm sorry the, the industry was here first. So I just wanted to give everyone on the, in the room, rest assurance that these then does have an industrial base to it. We do understand industrial processes go on around us and that, um, that we have to live in, in partnership with that. Um, I, I've heard from Fusion that they want to work on mitigation measures at their end. And I would just encourage, um, I would just encourage, try and give peace of mind a cargil that by no means is there, um, an unroiliness on the community to house you and hope and have you there, uh, we do appreciate the employment and the industry that goes on there. Okay. Thank you. Um. Two, please Councillor Chu. Thank you, three, Mr. Mayor. Uh, so we heard a lot about the land use commodity CETI and just the differences between the SLR report and the RWDI report. Can kind of enlighten me a little bit on some of the store space mitigation efforts that you would like to see from Fusion. Because some

of the mitigation efforts that I've seen within the RWI report strikes me as, um. Like sufficient. Through you, Mr. Mayor, to the Councillor 2, the source - based mitigation measures and receptor - based mitigation measures that are discussed in the RWA report are extremely general. Some of them don't actually apply to low - rise residential, things like pressurizing the building. Um, and that there's no detail. So, you know, at Cargill and the Rice Resource Innervation Centre, um, there may be a need to put in scrubbers as a source - based mitigation measure. There may need to be a measure, you know, need to put increased stack heights, silencers, noise barriers, et cetera. We just don't know what those receptor base mitigation measures are going to be until the studies are done. Um, I think that's the answer. It's been said a few times sort of interrupt you, but I think that's the answer, right? They need the details. They need the data. To do the work so that the work can be submitted so that staff can know what the mitigation measures are and then

it comes back. Like that, that's the bouncing ball in this room here, uh, tonight. So I think, I think that's, that's your answer. I don't mean to cut you off. You still have the microphone if you need it. No, that's absolutely correct. Am I, yeah. So my follow - up question to that. Why can't those be outlined as condition of draft plan approval. Like just general outlines for more studies that they can add on to the current landings compatibility study that they've already done. Why can't that be? I think that might be a question for our general manager of planning for Krista or yourself. Okay, go ahead. Perhaps I'll start through you, Mr. Mayor. The way the ministry of the environments, uh, guidelines work as soon as the property is zoned, whether or not the hold on the zoning, it becomes a sensitive receptor, particularly in the case of noise. So you automatically have to meet the noise guidelines on the property. Um, if you're an industry, uh, as soon as the zoning goes in place, um, and if you don't, then it's automatically your obligation to put in the mitigation measures to, uh, to,

to do so. Um, so the developer gets effectively off scot - free, which is why you have to have all of this stuff in place before the zoning is actually, um, uh, finalised. You can't just have certain generic statements about we may or may not do these sorts of things. It has to be very specific. So my follow up to that is, could that not be part of the draft condition of draft plan approval because their guidelines at the end of the day. Again, the Ministry of the Environment won't look at the conditions of draft plan approval. They're just going to say zoning meet the zoning. Okay, but these are our community partners. Kid, we emphasize as within our Planning Department as its council that we would like to see that, uh, but it's, it's a, it's a provincial enforcement mechanism from the Ministry of the Environment, not a planning mechanism that the city's under control. Under the City's control. So each, all these industries have to meet either what's called an environmental compliance approval or an environmental activity sector registration. Approval with the Ministry of the Environment and those outline, you know, that there's

particular provincial regulation standards and guidelines. And if you don't meet them, then, um, the province will prosecute you and will issue orders against you as an industry in order to install mitigation to correct that. And that's outside of the planning processes, which is why we have to look at these things as part of the planning process to not put the ministry or to put the industries out of compliance. Sorry. And if I can also add Mr. Mayor just to Councillor choose questions and line of questions and some of the themes here tonight. I do think, you know, it's important for Council to understand as city staff, our planners, our engineers, everyone, um, put the effort in to really turn over every stone with this one in terms of can we condition? Can we put holding provisions in? What are the other pathways to find an ability to maybe get this application move forward, get the approvals and get that housing, um, momentum going. But in all instances, the types of challenges that we're running into that were just described by our consultant. There's considerations from, you know, put the perspective of appeal rights and things like that, that we have to be very careful with. And so, um, you know, our staff have really done that due diligence and we continue to come back to the work has to get done so that the information

is there so that Council can make an informed decision on zoning when you actually put the uses in place. This is, this is the last checkpoint for that. And so it's just really important. And I just want to emphasize that, that we have really carefully considered all of that, um, in this recommendation tonight. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anything further of questions. Okay. So thank you. I do know that Councillor Galler and Gibson would like to, um, look to consider moving a couple of motions. I also know that Councillor Cait and Busatill would like to do a third motion. Um, so I think the clercs might have all three on one screen. But I think, um, I just, if you don't mind counsel, as you know, when a deferral motion is tabled, it's an immediate vote. There's no comments. There's no questions, right? And so I just wondered if I could take a moment to just state a couple of comments. I won't be long. Cause I've said a lot of them, I think already before the deferral motion comes down. If that

would be okay. I would appreciate that. Thank you. I don't see. It. But the clerc's actually, they don't want me to do that. They're going to say something. What's up? Through you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to, I just want to clarify that debate requirements for deferrals. Okay. You go first. If I may, Mr. Murphy. So when there's a motion on the floor and Council seeks to defer it, no debate, no discussion. When there is a main motion that includes an element of deferral for a different project fully debatable. That would be my advice to the chair. So I don't think this is a circumstance where council's ability to debate the motion is limited. I appreciate that clarity. Thank you. Yeah. So we need something to defer is another way of kind of saying it. So it's actually better for us to table the recommendations to then do a motion of both approve and defer. What are you suggesting to the clerc? Through you, Mr. Mayor. I mean, I don't want to presuppose what council's desire is you could defer the staff recommendations. But the proposed deferral motions that we were sent, my point is those can be debated by Council. Okay. But thank you. I do understand that. But from a procedural point of

view, is it actually better for the motions to be put down and then, um, a consideration of counsel for a deferral? Or can we go right to a deferral of what is just in the report? Through you, Mr. Mayor, I think that's, I think that's primarily a decision for council, but the three motions that were submitted, including a deferral, I think can be moved as motions debated and discussed if they failed. Then obviously you could go back to the stuff recommendation. Okay. I appreciate that. I think that would be the cleanest way of doing that then. Everyone's in agreement with that. Okay. Thank you. So, um, what I will do then is I will have everything the first two at least tabled. I'll leave the third one until later. Uh, so Councillor Galler and Councillor Gibson you'd like to move this if we could put them up on the screen point of order, are there, are the original motions on the floor now? Did someone? No, they're not needing to be Councillor Gibson. We're just going to go right to the, your deferral motion with Councillor Galler. And then after that's tabled, I just do want to quickly go to Councillor Alt who just had some comments once that's tabled. Yeah. So we have these, uh, we're only going to move the, uh, the first

two by Councillor Galler and by Councillor Gibson. And, um, and so I'll, I'll turn it over to anyone that has any questions on those or comments on those before we go to number three. And if, if, if no one does, then, okay, Councillor Gibson, did you want, so you've already had some comments, just a little bit earlier. Did you guys read it. This is just a complete clarity question for me. And I'm sorry if it sounds naive, but we have been, we've made mistakes before at this moment. And I just want to make sure we are approving what was suggested by staff in the original recommendations. Today, right with motion one there. The second motion is instead of rejecting, we are deferring. Is that correct? Some notes. Yes. So I'm going to go to just so you hear it from more than just me. I'm going to go to Krista that can verify that. So it's on, on record. So Krista, we are going to approve the motions within the report that we're for approval. And then we'll get to the next part. But Christo, you go ahead. Uh, through the mirror to Councillor Gibson. Yes, that is correct. So that attachment in the in the first motion is what we had previously in the

report we recommend for approval. Um, and then the second one is for deferral. So yes, that is correct. Okay. It's a complicated motion. It's a long one. A recommendation. Thank you to staff. I just wanted that complete clarity for all of Council here as well. Okay. Thank you. Do you mind if I then just have an opinion, not opinion, but just a comment. Then before I call the vote then. Okay. So I just want to say that, um, the frustration is real. And, um, this is my last council meeting. And I, I really did not want to be here tonight with 4, 700 homes on the line. Looking at a deferral motion on this matter. I'm frustrated with that. But I understand why a deferral is necessary. And to do what is right. To continue to move this forward is of utmost importance to me. I want to encourage all parties to get this done. So I want whatever that meeting is on Thursday. To

be very positive. I want staff. To please continue to work in the collaborative way in which you have been. I want staff to share whatever needs to be shared. I want fusion to get the report done and get it in. Okay. Cause I'm telling you right now, I'm going to be standing at that microphone as a delegate. When this comes back. And I'm going to tell the new mayor and counsel to say yes. Okay. So I, I want to really leave this room if the deferral is passed by my colleagues. In a plea. I'm actually pleading. Get this done. This cannot go on any longer than it needs to be. Recognising that there are steps to do. I recognise that. But all of you. Get this done. This Guelph is about being neighbours. Industry. And developers. And all of us. We got to be neighborly. You got to share the information and let's go. Let's

get it done. So as the mayor and my last hurrah speech, please let's get this done. Cause it is zoned residential. We've got to build here. We've got to build here. And we got to get this done as fast as possible as fast as possible. And so I, you know, the commitment is from me until October. No, I guess October 26, whatever it is. But you know, the commitment will be for whoever the next mayor is and whoever the next councillors are. This is this. As you've heard the timeline, it's been going on forever. I'm a football guy. The ball's been moved 95 yards down the field. It's time for all of you to move at the extra five yards so we can get there. Okay. So I hope that this gets done because I, I am, um. Yeah. Get it done, please. With that, I will call the vote on, um, on those two motions. Is anybody against those two motions. Yeah. One for

the approval portions that staff want to approve. And the other is to defer. And just to speak directly to that because Councillor Gulry, thank you for wanting to move it. I'm the one that kind of got this together with staff. So thank you. But you do see in here in the last line that staff be directed to report back to City Council with a decision report within 60 days. So that is dependent upon when the information comes into staff. But there is sort of, you know, look a little bit of a lighting of the fire. You know, let's go. Let's get this done. Right. And it's actually within 60 days. So, you know, if staff can get it, turn it out even sooner than that. And then the, here even sooner. Okay. So, um, those are the first two. And I'll call the vote dinners. Anyone against those two. Okay. Nobody that's unanimous. And so the third motion is moved by Councillor Caten and Councillor Busatil. And thank you again to the two of you. I brought this forward, but I can't move it. So you guys have said that you would help with that. So thank you. Uh, and Councillor Caden, would you like to read that one out at least? Sure. And can

I speak to the motion as well after. Okay. Uh, that City Council, direct staff and the developer to continue working collaboratively to address outstanding manners and conditions, including land use compatibility related to the proposed development application. Um. So I'm glad that we spent a lot of time talking about this because it's important. Food is important. Employment is important. Housing is important. And it's important that one doesn't come at the expense of the other. So I think that the conversation and talking about it is how we're going to be able to find something that works for everybody. And I know that the folks who live there are going to really appreciate the extra effort that went into it to make sure that it was a space that is safe and comfortable for everybody. Thanks. Thank you. And just as a question to staff on that motion, you know, the, the sharing of information as the motion said, uh, if you could put it back up on the screen, please. The working collaboratively has the motion set. You know, I, I think what is important to me

about that is that the deferral that we just passed above it doesn't mean that there's a kind of like, you know, pencils down and we're not, you're not engaging with the, you know, engaging with the developer, you're not sharing the information with the developer until the report comes in or the information comes in on the land use compatibility side. That between today and whenever that's happening, that there's this sharing of information, this collaborative effort to continue to work, to get things done. Maybe in parallel and to actually try to excel other issues that they might have sharing of information so that, you know, things are moving along and they're not waiting. Can I just get that confirmation. Uh, to the mayor, yes, that is our intent. Okay. Perfect. Um, I did have one extra question just about what the working collaboratively part. I've never heard of this. The experience centre that was talked about, um, is that something that can work within parallel because of timelines with trying to get things moving. Is that something that you could consider working with them on? So at least like everyone acknowledges how difficult the housing sector is

right now, getting the pre - sales going is actually quite important. Is there a way that that can actually transpire and we can help with that. Through the mirable continue to talk with the developer on that. It's a little complicated with a sales centre before draft approval. Um, so we do need to address that further and talk with them. Okay. I will encourage you then to think outside the box and try to figure out ways that we could maybe try to do that. And by the way, that might be something not just for this developer, but for others too in a way to try to get the pre - sales together and get things together, uh, faster for, for housing is, in my view, a positive thing, if it's possible. So with that, is there any questions on that third motion? I can call a vote. Okay. I'll call the vote. Does anyone against that. That's nobody that's unanimous as well. Okay. So that brings us to the conclusion of this, uh, this issue. And, uh, we're going to take about a five minute break right now. I think that's fair. And, um, you know, maybe, uh, maybe some of the parties in the room

can meet in the lobby on the way out. Exchange cards and extend some handshakes, uh, to try to, try to see getting to getting to a yes here on what needs is needed. And I appreciate everyone being here on this very important file. We'll go take a break. Let's make it actually eight minutes. So that will start right back at nine o'clock. Okay, everybody? Thank you.

Okay everyone, I'd like to call the meeting back to order please. So we are at the winter maintenance value for money audit, and we're going to have staff do a presentation off the top. And so I will turn it over to staff. Robert, you're going to kick us off. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Council La Mayor. Internal audit recently completed a value for money audit of the City's winter maintenance program. Overall, the audit found that winter maintenance services are being delivered in compliance with Council - approved Service Levels, provincial standards, and established operational practices. No significant service delivery is we're identified. The audit concluded that the program is fundamentally sound. However, it also identified opportunities to improve efficiency, performance measurement, technology utilization, and long - term sustainability as the City's transportation network continues to expand. The most significant finding relates to route optimization. Winter maintenance, roots, have evolved incrementally over time, resulting at inconsistencies and workload distribution and service prioritization. Public works

has agreed to undertake a comprehensive review to optimize routes and improve operational efficiency. The audit also identified opportunities to make better use of existing technology and operational data. While the City collects significant information through GIS, AVL, weather monitoring and other systems, much of the performance review process remains manual. Enhancing data and technology capabilities would strengthen operational oversight and support more informed decision - making. Additional recommendations focus on establishing meaningful performance indicators reviewing equipments suitability for residential streets inside blocks. Addressing staffing challenges associated with casual winter operations. Sorry, associated with casual winter operators and improving public communication regarding service standards and expectations. In total, the audit contains 11 recommendations. Management has agreed with all recommendations, many of which align with the planned winter maintenance service review, creating an opportunity to coordinate improvement efforts. In summary, the program is operating effectively and meeting regulatory requirements. The recommendations are aimed at modernization and continuous improvement to ensure winter

maintenance services remain efficient, accountable, and sustainable as Gulph continues to grow. I'm going to turn over to Ms. Clark Bush for some additional comments. Thank you very much, Robert, and good evening again. So as Mr. Julassic has indicated, the value for money audit found that the City's winter control program is meeting the service levels approved by Council. At the same time, the Oddize has identified several opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our winter maintenance operations. The operations leadership team, and I'll acknowledge that GM dug Godfrey is on screen and manager Public Works, Terry Dueling is here this evening. So our operations leadership team carefully reviewed the findings and the recommendations. And we recognise that a number of these recommendations were further analysis to determine their potential operational benefits, particularly where additional funding may required, and that would need to come back for Council consideration through the budget process. Based on these audit findings, staff are committing to prioritize work - related to the root optimization, root prioritization, and addressing our recruitment and Retention

Challenges. We will also evaluate recommendations that are specificly related to equipment and technology investments that may have future budget implications. And this will build on the foundational work that we've already been doing on IT improvements needed to modernize how our systems work to support our winter control operations. Now that the audit has been completed and management's response has been provided, staffer confident in this opportunity to advance the recommendations and strength in our program. Our focus will be on implementing these improvements that deliver the greatest operational benefit and value for taxpayers while continuing to provide safe, reliable winter maintenance services for residents. So as reflected in the Second motion before Council today, we believe that the most effective approach is for us to focus our staff resources on implementing the audit recommendations first and assessing their impact through the upcoming winter seasons. And then following the 2026 - 27 winter season, staff will report back to Council on the Effectiveness to date of the implemented changes. And we'll then provide recommendations regarding the scope and timing of the future operational and service level review of winter

control operations that this Council asked us to conduct. So I would like to thank conclude by thanking the audit team for its thorough review and thoughtful recommendations. Their work provides valuable guidance as we continue to improve our services. And I would also like to acknowledge the operations management team for its work in developing the management response and evaluating the best path forward. But finally, I want to recognise and thank the dedicated staff across our operations and Parcs teams, along with employees from numerous other departments who provide support when needed. These frontline employees continue to work tirelessly to deliver winter control services safely and effectively, and they take great pride in serving our community. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much to both of you. I appreciate that. There's no delegations for this matter, so the recommendations are there in front of us Councillor Alt has indicated that Hugh Bible into move those motions for us. Councillor Downer will second then. Thank you. Is there any questions or comments at this time? I'll start with Councillor. Then Gibson, then, oh my. Collar, Corinne, Katin. Okay. Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie. I do want to thank

Mr. Jelassic for the work that he's done on this in many audits. And I think that this is indicative of our intention taking one of the most important financial reports that we get on a regular basis. Um, very seriously. Uh, the internal audit is something that I'm not certain than people understand really clearly, but, uh, when we do this, we are at the very foundations of how we spend money. Um, I think there was something like snow clearing. We always believe that it can be done better. There's, there's no doubt in my mind. There are frustrations with things like snow clearing leaf, clearing and so on and so forth. But if we don't move in a logical sequential fashion from the recommendations from the internal audit, then we are not sequencing things appropriately. So I think this shows the community, we take, uh, our finances very seriously. And we want to do things in a careful, effective manner. Great, thank you. And Councillor Gibson, please. Thank you through Mr. Mayor. I'm going to couch my comments with, um, these are by no means or reflection of the effort our staff put in last year to try and keep the roads clear. I know there was a lot of circumstance to what went into last year,

uh, in terms of winter maintenance control. And Mr. Godfrey and I have had many conversations in the midst of that. Uh, I don't want to call it crisis, but in the midst of that experience, but, um, I just, I struggle with, uh, I struggle with the findings of the audit. I'm not, I'm not, I struggle with the messaging of the audit cause I can assure you not a single member of the East End, not a single resident of the East Endless satisfied with the snow clearing last year. And it's something that we do have to get to the bottom of. I understand there was salt and sand shortage. Um, I understand that we had a serious, uh, winter event where freezing rain had a lot of accumulation. Um, but there were other circumstances where we didn't have the quite the accumulation in one single event to clear the roads. Um, that sort of triggered our, our, our deployment of our resources into a residential streets, but there were probably two or three smaller events that happened over a 10 day period that accumulated into what was essentially ice for weeks, uh, in the east end. So I, I accept the findings of the audit, but I don't, I don't accept it from a lived experience in the East end and in Eastern Guelph and probably

other parts of Guelph as well that, um, we really, um, we really struggled last year. And I, I am committed to trying to get to the bottom of what we did from a service delivery perspective. I've had this conversation with staff many times. Um, maybe I can ask a question to Mr. Goffrey. Can you couch, uh, the study, the audit findings a little bit with the experience of last winter and what occurred last winter that gave such a negative experience for people in the city. Through the mayor to Councillor Gibson, as you know, one of the, what we experienced last year was, uh, some challenges with salt delivery. So, uh, salt was, uh, prioritized for the main roots and, uh, residentials we applied sand and limited supply to the salt, which as you aware caused some writing, um, through the, the auditor's report, um, they're indicated taking a look at, um, looking at the equipment that we use on the residential streets to see it improved. But as, as the audit found, we are meeting

the, uh, the service level standards and as well as the minimum maintenance standards that are set up. Through the verif. You can just jump in and also just add Councillor Gives and if it's okay. We, I think the audit shows and certainly our own operational staff reviews have shown that it's by no means not acknowledging the, um, the experience that residents and Gulph had last year, um, we also know that other municipalities struggled last year with a lot of the same challenges, as you acknowledged it was a tough winter. But I do think that the changing climate, um, we used to, you know, be able to experience more ebbs and flows from one winter to the next. And I think more and more, we're seeing more harder winters. And we need to be a better position to respond to that. So I think, um, I think I can speak for Mr. Godfrey when I say that we welcome these audit recommendations and we do feel that, um, making a focused effort to implement the audit recommendations will help us address the, the, the increasing weather challenges, but also the very diverse weather challenges that we're seeing, um, are increasing. And we need to be ready to respond to that. And we acknowledge that. Okay. Thank

you. I appreciate it. I still, I still struggle all those answers are fine and all those answers are accepted. Um, I still struggle with the, um, the road conditions for weeks on end last winter. Um, I struggle with telling the public that that's meeting our standard. I feel like the more explanation there, uh, from a you, you could just tell me that the salt was the issue, but I just remember seeing cars sliding down shackleton, sliding down Henderson sliding down, um, summit ridge sliding down these main streets because they just weren't being treated properly with sand because we had such a shortage assault. Uh, I have to ask another question from the audit from the audit finding. We used to deliver this service a different way. We used to do a call out. Uh, for residential ploughing. And we would have a 24 or 36 or 48 hour service standard for the, uh, contractors to have their, to have their residential, uh, areas cleared. Uh, and, and quite frankly, residents were very satisfied with that, with that service. I think that was 2014, 2015, 2016 timeline. Uh, what, what approach did we take? What has changed in that? I'm not talking about identifiable individuals. I'm just simply saying what, what service delivery model did we

adopt since then that has changed that service delivery. So Southern Mayor, I'll start and then I'll let Mr. Godfrey provide more detail about the service delivery. I do want to maybe clarify that, that one of the challenges when we are talking about meeting people's expectations is that the minimum maintenance standards don't necessarily meet people's lived experience expectations. And so what is required of us by the ministry in terms of those maintenance standards. And, you know, I think, uh, I think for an example, um, hard packed snow on streets will still meet the minimum maintenance standards, um, but that may not be what the residents on that street are looking for and expecting. And so that disconnect can be a challenge for us. And some of that does come down. And as you saw in the audit, some of that comes down to what equipment we're using and on what types of streets. And to your point, um, salt usage, um, this council was very clear with us about the goals of minimizing salt usage. So notwithstanding the salt shortage. We also have a salt management plan where we do try to reduce salt usage because of the concerns about source water protection. Other municipalities that maybe haven't put as much of a focus on that, um, do potentially use more salt. So there is, the number of different factors that haven't been said to your

specific question about the change in approach. I think if you, what I'm understanding you're referring to when we used to use contractors to come in and now we do it all in - house, um, and so there was a couple reasons for that. One was predominantly related to, uh, availability of contractors, um, and when we, uh, we were, we were struggling to find contractors who were able to meet, um, the insurance requirements, um, to provide the work. And the ability to be more nimble and flexible if we're using our own staff. But I'll let Mr. Godfrey jump in and provide you some more detail on that. Uh, through the mayor to Councillor Gibson as DCO Clack Bush indicated, uh, re - experienced a number of contractors who are providing the service indicated that they would no longer do so. Uh, when we went out to, uh, tender to seek additional, the response was limited. And it was a little bit costly. Uh, previously we would, uh, wait to a snow event ended. We've contact the contractors to come out and clean, uh, clean City streets. Uh, bringing it in house, uh, allows us to, uh, commence that work a little bit earlier. So, uh, rather than waiting for a storm to end, we, we, we,

we deploy, uh, staff and equipment at the start of, uh, of a snow event. And then we continue, uh, operating them through the City Streets repeatedly on the residential streets until the work is done. Um, but again, as, as the auditor indicated, one of the reviews that we will undertake is take a look at the equipment that we are using on the residential streets and seeing where we can first. Okay. Thank you. So it's my understanding that the, the main arterio roads have always been done by in - house staff, but it's the residential areas that have been since changed from contract staff to, um, permanent sort of in - house staff. Is that correct? Uh, through the mayor to Councillor Goodson, that's correct. The main and the secondary streets have always been ploughed by City Resources. The residential streets were once contracted. Okay. Thank you. My last question. Um, what if there was no, uh, salt shortage this winter. Our staff, uh, to staff have the instruction to lay salt down on residential streets or are we simply laying down sand. Uh, through the

Meredith Council Gibson, as you recall, you know, one of the, one of the directions of Council was to reduce our salt use. So we, we, we deploy a process of being smart about our, our salt usage. We, we deploy it when it's needed, but we don't deploy it when it'll be ineffective. So we, we do use various materials as required. Uh, this past winter because of the challenges in receiving delivery of salt. We prioritize its use for the main roads such as Armas, a Victoria, uh, reduced its use on the residential streets. But this going into this year, we don't, we don't anticipate that occurring again. So sorry. Thank you just for clarity. Reduce but not eliminate. Salt on residential streets. To staff knee direction, this may be the last time a counsel of Gulf meets before, uh, December to talk about this issue, uh, to Steph knee direction this evening to, to, to ensure the residents that Salt will be used or residential streets. Through the Mayor to Councillor Gibson has indicated we will use salt on, on all City Streets where we're needed,

but we will, uh, apply it with an environmental and a cost effective. Yes, there will be soluced when needed. Okay. My last question. Is there a service standard that is deployed following an ice event, not a precipitation or snow event, but is there a separate standard that is applied across the city when an ice event happens. Um, I think, I just think to that January week where it was, I think it was over New Year's or something like that where we literally had two, three inches of ice. Across most of the city. And we had no salt to treat. So we were, we were asking residents to navigate streets that had, uh, a sheet of ice on it. Notwithstanding, if we don't have assault shorters this year, that's great. But is there a separate standard that occurs in the event that an ice storm happens, not just a precipitation event. Through the merit of Councillor Gibson. As with a snow event or, uh, every, um, the Ontario Minimum maintenance standards will provide direction to, uh, staff as to how and to apply, uh, materials, uh,

when responding to icy conditions on the roads. So we follow them in Ontario minimum maintenance standards. Okay. So we are followed as a city we're following the Ontario Mendom Nate missiners, not necessarily the Council directed minimum maintenance standards. We're the mayor to Councillor Gibson, the Council of Proof Service Level is the Ontario. Okay. I thought you would say that. Thank you, Mr. Guffrey. Okay. Uh, thank you. Uh, so I'm going to go to Galler Coron and then Caden. And then I got a quick circle back to Alt. Thank you, Thiry Warship to staff. Thank you for all this work. I am very excited to see that we're going to review the routes and explore using the equipment differently. That's going to be very welcome, uh, by my constituents. I did want to follow up on an issue that I didn't see explicitly outlined in the report. And that was on a few times when there were snow events that require people that could normally park on some streets year round for them to move their vehicles for the plowouts. Uh, some folks never got those notifications last winter. Um, and then they got tickets because

they left their cars on the roads. Could you help me understand? Was that, is there a plan to make sure that every resident and wealth is going to be notified when there is a plough out that doesn't rely on people following the city on social media. Through the American Councillor Gallers, this was one of the, one of the recommendations relates to addressing our communications and how our, our, how our operations team works with communications. And we already had some preliminary conversations. Um, we use as many different methods as we can. The best method that we always ask people to use is the Voyant alert. Um, notification system. And so we're going to do some targeted communications this fall to make sure that people are signing up for that because that is the best and most reliable. And we will make sure that, uh, we are accurately using that system to notify residents of the start and the end of the snow events. We will still use our social media channels because that is another great. A lot of people do follow us on social media. Um, and so our, our, our, our request of, of residents is that they take that proactive approach of signing up for those alerts because that's our best way to reach people, but to your question. Yes. That's one of the recommendations. And it's a takeaway for us in terms

of management's responses that we'll be working with our comms team to see how we can improve that notification process going into this winter. Perfect. I really appreciate that. And this follow up to that. I think one of the challenges that I heard from many of my war too residents is that if they, if they did not see a notification, none of it receive it. They would go in the City website and it wasn't clear. It would say that a snow event started, but it wasn't clear that it was ongoing or when it had finished. Will that be addressed before winter? So through the Mariner Councillor Gully, that's certainly one of the things that we'll be chatting with our comms team about how to make sure we need to make sure that the information that we're providing is timely and quick. And so we do tend to use social media for the quickest way to get information out. Um, but hearing the feedback that will definitely be taking that away going into this winter to look to see how to make our website also a useful tool for people who are going to look for the information that way. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you, worship. Thank you. And Corona then Keaton. I hate to open this topic. But sidewalks is part was part of our review as well. And our comparators burying Cambridge don't in the report that you said that one of the key differences was that sidewalk level of service.

One of the reasons we do continue with our sidewalk services that we did a sidewalk review and our residents told us they wanted to continue that service. It was something they were willing to pay for. So my question is that at that time that we did that side work review, we were one of like four municipalities in all of Ontario of our size that offered that service. And I understand that many have now added it that that is something that, um, for liability reasons or just customer service reasons, many communities have brought back into their operations. And I wonder if you could comment on that knowing your whole operations world, uh, and all the colleagues across Ontario is that becoming more of a trend to be adding that service, even though our comparators in the study, Barry and Cambridge, don't offer that service is that, uh, is that something that's changing in the operations world. So through the mayor, um, again, I'll start. Mr. Godree will jump in. So absolutely you, you, you, you've identified the issue and certainly our legal staff aren't here tonight, but previously we brought, when we brought this back to Council, there are legal and liability implications of not, um,

of, of, of not addressing the sidewalks. There's also challenges too. There's a lot of sidewalks in the city that are actually Public that we would have to do the removal of the snow anyways. And so from an efficiency point of view, if we're out with a sidewalk ploughs anyways and there's, you know, if, if you think of a park location, we're responsible for removing the snow on that sidewalk. And so there is also an efficiency to us just continuing on and doing the rest of the sidewalk. And so there's absolutely a desire on residence. I think that is something that we do here. Um, and so all municipalities, even including burying camber do have to do sidewalk work on all of the sidewalks that they are responsible for. And so we do still ask residents wherever possible to be a good neighbour and clear the sidewalk if you can in front of your house because they may get to it quicker than we do. Um, but, um, it has not in the past when we've been asked to cost it out proven to provide a significant enough level of financial savings. I think that if it was of interest. So, um, I'll look to Mr. Godfrey to see if he thinks I missed anything. Uh, he's not in. I think we're good. Uh, Kaden, please. And then just back to Alt. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. In my reading of the report, which by the way, thank you so much for getting this to

us quickly. I know that we asked you and gave you not a lot of time to do this. So you did a great job. Um, I'm seeing that aside from the communication piece, uh, a lot of it's not going to be complete this winter. It seems like there's all going to be a lot of changes and studies, but the implementation that's going to be happening. Next winter. Uh, just I want to manage people's expectations so that they don't think that it's all going to be magically changed. By the first snowfall. Is there a way to kind of, when we're doing the communication of that, explain that process and how long that's going to take to people. Sure. So through the mayor, so very much communications is a priority for us. Also the root review root optimization work is something that we will, uh, begin tackling right away. Um, and that is something that I do think, uh, we could see, um, see outcomes, um, for the community. Um, there are broader longer term things. For example, purchasing of equipment, it is September. Lead times in procurement being what it is, um, purchasing of equipment is going to take a longer lead time and is going to require us coming back to Council as part of the multi - year budget to seek approval on that.

So, um, I do believe that there is still a lot here in this audit that we will be able to implement this year that we'll see some meaningful, um, impact. And as I say, and I'm looking to Mr. Dueling, the root reviews and the root optimization. Um, would be the two. And so, but yes, to your point, this is not, you know, it is September the 15th and it's going to snow probably within about three months. And so we will do everything we can to address, um, the concerns that our most easily addressable in this year, but this is going to be a multi - year process for sure. Um, again, if I think Mr. Godfrey or Mr. Julie needs to add anything, but, uh, no, I think we're good. Thanks. And when we're doing these reviews and studies, is it possible to, um, do a costing on what it would take to change the service levels beyond what the province has, because I know that for the experience of folks, especially those who use wheelchairs, um, the provincial standards don't allow them to have freedom of movement. Certainly. And thank you for the question through the mayor. So that's what motion number two speaks to. So this was a two part process. You asked

us first to do this value for money audit. And then you asked us to do the operational service review level, uh, service level review. Sorry. I got my words backwards there. So what we're recommending to you tonight is that, uh, we immediately focus on the audit recommendations now. Try to see what meaningful impact. And we can have and report back. And then we will come back and do that, um, operational service level work at a later date. We can't do the two concurrently. We just don't have the resources to do it. Um, and we really want the opportunity to focus on the audit recommendations and come back to the next term of council to report on the impact of that. That service level review is still work that we will, we are still coming back. That is still an outstanding motion of council. All we're simply, uh, doing tonight through that second motion is letting you know that it won't be coming in January. Um, which was when it was originally tagged to come back, we are going to get, uh, through these audit recommendations first and come back after the 2026, 2027 winter and report back. Thanks. I just want to say again, thanks so much to the team. I think that this is, uh, great progress. And I know that people really appreciate that we're looking into it and we're trying to improve and when we're looking at it for ways to do

better. Thank you. And Alt, please. Thanks Mayor Guthrie. I'm sorry about this, but, um, during Councillor Gibson's questions, uh, it came up to me that one of the things I wouldn't mind a comment perhaps from CAO Baker, uh, because I don't think Mizzo Dwyer is here. Or Mr. Julassic is we're talking about the 2027 and beyond multi - year budget when we're trying to address snow clearing. It is quite conceivable that we could have a significant snowfall in December. Um, and, uh, this gets to communications as well. Um, and wondering how we can, uh, square that we're talking with the inevitability, uh, global warming accepted, um, we are going to have a winter that starts earlier than the new budget. Um, and I don't know whether it's Ms. Baker or it's somebody else that can, can please comment on that because that's the kind of communication that, um, inevitably will, um, will fall through the cracks. Um, so, uh, through the mayor to Councillor Alt, I think, um, you know, through budget and through our

annual updating, even through multi - year, um, we look at the historical trends on a lot of different lines and winter maintenance is one of those, uh, services. And then we also look at projecting forward. You know, winter maintenance is a little bit harder to do that than compared to say something like fuel where you've got pricing and you can kind of do more current immediate trends and some forecasting. Um, but, uh, but so we update those trends. We update those budget amounts from a, from a trend perspective. And then we also have a reserve fund that we, we use to mitigate in those really exceptional years. Uh, and, and, you know, earlier tonight on this agenda, there's, um, the language in that report that talks about, you know, this wasn't an exceptional year. And those are those reserves that we're going to look to dip into, if necessary, uh, we're trying to mitigate to the fullest extent. But if necessary, that is what those contingency reserves are for. Um, and, uh, and that's our strategy when it comes to winter control. Um, but to

DCO Clark Bush and some of the comments, whether patterns are changing climate change is a real, is a real factor. And these are things that, that we are, you know, monitoring and we're facing. And so, uh, you know, as successive budgets come, that's something that's always, that we're always looking at. And thank you very much. Because when the supply of snow is high, the demand for clearing is really high. All right. Thank you. Some rapid fire questions for me then. I can call the vote if you don't mind. Are we good on the salt issue moving into this year. Uh, through the mayor, uh, to the Mayor, sorry, um, we have not heard of any challenges with, uh, salt supply this year. Not to say that wouldn't occur, but at this present time, we're unaware of any concerns. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um. Can I just ask again what it would cost for the windrow

option. On the equipment side? I don't know if Mr. God for remember. It was multi millions of dollars to do both the equipment purchase as well as the additional staff. Um, and I will also say we're hearing some feedback from other municipalities who added it, who are seen higher costs than experiencing challenges. But I don't know, um, Doug, do you recall what the number was when we provided it? Previously to the mayor, unfortunately at the president time, I do not recall. I know it was, uh, it was substantial. Yeah. Thank you. Uh, and I'm just wondering too, you know, I'm thinking about. I know that there's. Potentially labour sort of issues here, but. You know, I think about some of our bus stops, isn't it? Just as an example, okay, in our city and, you know, why can't we, why can't we pilot some sort of. A service where for like youth employment or something like that, that like when there is a really bad

storm and our staff are required in other key areas that like there can be a call out to the community to go. And they could do it and they can get paid 25 bucks or 20 bucks or whatever to clean, clean that. Like why can't we leverage other service models for. The clearing of certain areas. That could be helpful. Uh, to the mayor, we do hire casual part - time staff. Um, they don't necessarily have to have a DZ license for all of our, um, winter control positions, I don't believe. Um, no, Mr. Dueling has confirmed. And so we absolutely do higher, um, casual winter staff to assist as you need and on a call out basis. Um, and so, anybody who is interested, um, I assume we're probably well into our recruitment for that already. But, um, any positions would be posted on Gulph. ca. But to your, to the short answer is we do have casual part - time positions and we would be very interested in hearing from anybody students or otherwise who were interested in working with us. Okay, that's good.

Thank you. Um, and then, uh. I guess I would just, all my other questions were asked. I guess maybe it's just a comment of encouragement. That this to me is like one of the top basic municipal services. Pick up my garbage. Cut the sports fields. Palm I Road, fix my sidewalk. You know, like those are like the basic front porch issues, as I call them. And notwithstanding last year, which through the conversation with Count Circups and with Doug Godfrey, rightly pointed out all of the, like all of the challenges that just hit last year. I will just say moving into just a citizen role. That this does need attention. And if we can get the basics, right on this kind of stuff, I think it

bodes well for other areas. I would be very interested to see when the operational review comes out. Because frankly speaking, we all know it. That if you want to go instead of the MTO standards and you want to do Gulf standards and it's the ploughs are going out more, that is more money. If you want, you know, if you want to have windrow or, or whatever fill in the blank kind of extra, it is more money. And then the same people that I have found that complain about my road isn't ploughed are the same ones that will email us at budget time saying my taxes are too high. So this is the way that it goes. But I really appreciate this audit. And I just want to remind everyone, in fact, I just remembered it, as you guys were doing the presentation, this was a staff led audit request. Okay. So it happened to land like in the middle of the storm, like literally, of, of sort of the winter. And it's like, it kind of felt like we were leading. Like we want to

have this, this audit done or whatever. But like our own staff recognise that this was an internal audit that needed to be done. And so yes, we expanded it a little bit to do the operational later. But I just want to say kudos to staff to recognise this. Be open and transparent about what an internal audit and consultant can do to look into this matter and to, you know, really grab the findings. And now we're going to try to implement those things. That is what a good government does. And so I just want to say thank you to my colleagues. Obviously for this and the upcoming operational review. But a big thank you to staff that were the ones that led this to actually happen. They're the ones that put it on the work plan. So, um, good timing. And hopefully we can work on this as it moves forward. And I really do want to also just mention, uh, the communications part that Councillor Colour mentioned to. That has to be better. I mean, I would, I would argue that that voyage or whatever

thing. Okay. But like there's some pretty darn easy tech out there that people can just enter their phone number in and do it. And just text everybody at the same time. And it's similar to the app thing as well. But like, you know, when it comes to fixing that issue, because it has to be fixed, I would just encourage you to explore like other real customer front facing easily done ways of communication. Um, I actually think that that could be actually solved really quickly on the communication front. Um, and then I know we shouldn't be talking about it maybe now, but, um, because this is my last time to do it. I will just say to whoever's here next time, um, you know, when we're speaking about this issue, it will probably conflict with some people, including myself that want to continue with the parking on, on, on street parking. That happens throughout the winter. Um, I think in my view that we need that, I think we should allow parking throughout the winter on, on street. But that is going to conflict with the, with the snow ploughing. And so as you move into

that operation overview in the future and we're doing this, the on street review parking as well. I hope that you are combining those two things and looking at how they work together or do not work together. Um, as a, as a move forward position for this for the community. All right. It's been moved in seconded. And thank you for letting me say my comments. Is there anything more before I could please call the vote. Oh, okay. Councillor Gibson. Sorry. It's a theme tonight, Mr. Mayor, but I came in a little hard with my comments on the audifying. I just wanted to finish with something that you mentioned earlier about being good neighbours. If just, just a theme, maybe a little bit of levity here, but if, if there's a disagreement with a neighbour, if there is, if you let your grass out a little too long in the summer or your dog barks or something like that, then friction, you plough their windrow once a winter. You will be greeted with a smile every day. And it's, it's a great neighborly thing. And it really is a fantastic theme on our street. It's like we all raced to do each other's windrows. And it's a nice feeling to have if you can have it. And again, I just wanted to end with that. The windrow thing, you can be a bit of a bonding experience too. If someone has a plough and they're willing to someone has a snowblower and they're willing to do a couple extra, you'll never have an argument with your neighbour

again. Thanks. We should all be neighbours with the Councillor Gibson apparently. Maybe he'll come out and help us. Oh, you know what? I'm sorry. 30 more seconds. You know, there's a, there's a program in Kitchener. Called the Love Your Hood. Program. Okay. It's a program where grants basically given out to different neighbourhoods for neighbourhood things. Google this later. Um, one of the neighbourhoods actually got the grant. I think it was like maybe under 5, 000 bucks for a community snowplow. And so they, they knew that there was, I think the bunch of seniors in the area or some people that needed some help or whatever. So the neighbourhood said, we're going to put in our grant and we're going to do all the sidewalks and we're going to do all that kind of stuff. And they got a grant for that. And it's called the Love Your Hood thing or whatever. So anyways, just thought I would suggest that. It's always good to steal some ideas from other communities. Maybe that's something to look into as well. All right. I'm going to call the vote. Does anyone again, Steve's motions. Nobody that's unanimous. Thank you so much. Moving right along Councillor Downer has a support

motion for us to consider about the OLT, the Ontario Land Tribunal. I'll turn it over to her. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just a little bit of background. I saw this, um, I think late last June on the information reports. And it sort of caught my attention because about 10 years ago, I was working with a number of councillors around the GTA and Mayors on the issue of this similar thing working to, um, asked the province to review the mandate of the Ontario Land Tribunal. And at that, and we held a big symposium and we had planners. We had developers. It was, it was great. And ultimately we were fairly successful. And the work was done by the previous government on that. They got rid of the Novo hearings. And there was more of a triage when you went to, um, if you were going to the, what was then called the LPAT to determine whether if it, if we conform to provincial policy, if it conformed with the Cities official blinds, then they would, it would, they would not hear it. It was more like a real hearing. Um, however, that sort of now

swung way far the other way. Um, now. And there's no, it's come back more like the old Ontario Municipal Board. And so the motion started in Whitby. It has had 10 municipalities now. Support this motion, including the one, including Puslinch, but the other municipalities. And the other municipalities, um, considering it right now, too. So I sort of just are continuing on that work from them. It's the advocacy to sort of look again at asking the province to look at gain at, do we have the right balance between, um, municipality planning decision making and the provinces appeals. The emotion originally had from Whitby a number of whereas is with them. And I'll put the motion on the floor that there it is. And it's going to be seconded by Councillor Caden. And I just want to read the Whereas is and I'll just say a few brief things after that, but what they had was, whereas the local Councils are elected by residents to make planning decisions that reflect the needs and priorities of communities. Whereas

municipalities rely on extensive Public consultation, professional planning advice, engineering studies, and technical reports when making land use decisions. And whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal has the authority to overturn municipal planning decisions, often requiring municipality suspends significant dollars defending decisions that have already undergone a local review process. Whereas lengthy and costly appeals can delay housing projects consume municipal resources. And we do see the ability of municipalities to focus on delivering services and residents. And whereas local governments should have greater certainty and authority when decisions are consistent with approved official plan, uh, provincial policies and sound planning principles. And then, and then this is the motion that sort of comes out of that. So, you know, they try to speed up the OOT appeal process. And I think some of the appeals are being held sooner, but the decisions are taken like eight to 10 months a long time, creating more uncertainty and unpredictability. So again, you have to look at the process. Uh, I've recently heard that the, um, that they do, the province does review

their, their agencies, including this one and this one would be due in 2027. So just to put the province on notice that these are the concerns that municipalities are having around the current processes, um, mandates of the OLT and that. Local decision making is important. Right now when you go into a new hearing, they don't even hear what, um, Public Input has been. It's like a whole new hearing. So it's not like a regular, uh, like the courts where you have to prove that their mistake has been made, uh, interpretation is something is wrong. It just goes into a whole new hearing and sort of everything that happens locally is basically thrown out the window and thousands of hours of staff time environmental planners, heritage planners are taken up in these appeals. So this is an advocacy piece to the province. And I think it's something that, um, the city should even consider, you know, at ammo next year when they're meeting with the ministers, something that they should talk about, uh, at that time as well and continue on with this kind of advocacy work. Because I think we're going to hear a bit more about it in the province from other municipalities. Great.

Thank you. Thank you so much Councillor for bringing this board. Um, and I just have a question from Councillor Alt to staff on this. Thank you Mayor Guthrie and I do want to thank Councillor Downer for the motion. Um, I'm concerned because the loss of authority by big government by a result of the big government in Ontario is shocking to me. And, you know, I'm just, how can we streamline things in Gulf if they're going to be held up because of provincial mandate by the provincial government. That's big government at its worst. Uh, so the question to Ms. Baker is, uh, it's a somewhat cynical. Is this going to have any impact? What do you think? Can we have, can we get results because of a concerted effort by municipalities. That's a. Political. So, uh, through the mayor to Councillor, I will always continue to support and believe that, uh, you know, we have to speak up when, when something is not going well. And when we're seeing negative outcomes, uh, for our community. And so, um, maybe, maybe not initially, but if enough people, you know, if the United voice around, around these types

of raising these concerns, um, then, then we can start to get some traction. So that, that's my, my optimism. To your question. And I thank you for that, Pollyanna approach to life. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. I don't see anything. Oh, sorry. Councillor Gibson. Yeah. Thank you. I saw this motion in advance. And I'm going to support it, but I'm also going to speak to a little bit. Um, I think municipal councils, I'm not going to sound preachy here, but I think we could help ourselves a little bit too. Uh, quite often like the, the first comment there and the motion about giving us more, uh, decision making ability. We have the decision making abilities, uh, the developers of the proponents have the right to appeal that. But they also have the right to appeal it when we don't make sound decisions based on planning justifications. And I think we have even ruled against our own staff recommendations before, which have landed us in OLT. And I think that is a cautionary tale. And I'd love to see a breakdown of how many, how many appeals go to the OLT based on council's, um, voting against something just because they don't like just because they don't like it. Or giving, giving sort of faulty planning rationales as to why they don't want to

support. So I think the OT serves a purpose when it comes to like sound planning, four and against municipal councils. I will say that. But when a municipal council makes a decision based on feeling and not necessarily based on sound planning justification, I think the LT does serve a purpose. So, uh, I'll leave my comments there, but I will support your motion. Councillor Downer, because I think the stability to it, but the also car scenario tail around why it exists in the first place. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. May I just, oh sorry, the mover of the motion just wants to wrap up. I completely agree. Actually. I think that, you know, and then attempt here to relitigate any planning decisions from the past counsel. I think we could all look at separate votes and different votes and have seen, I've seen votes of everybody around the horseshoe voting against Africations. Um, so there's always a time for that. Um, and but we have a plan and we have the planning appeal process. So I'm not suggesting we get rid of the OLT at any form. Uh, I think that an appeal process is important. And it's just how it's different than most appeals. Like

what you would do from a court as I said, where you'd have to prove different things. It's a complete new hearing that can have complete disregard to everything that happened before it. And it takes up a lot of time. And there doesn't seem to be any difference right now towards communities decision. And, you know, you want to make sure that. I don't want to question anybody around the horseshoes right to make any decision on any planning decision either. So that's why I don't want to be litigate that. The motion is asking the province to step back and look at the system itself. So whether the OOT's current mandate empowers strike the right balance between provincial interests and the authority of democratically elected municipal councils. But the point taken Councillor Gibson, definitely. Great. Thank you to the both of you. Um, so I'll be supporting this motion. I'll look to maybe call the vote here. I just want to give just one little comment, which is, um, you know, this reminds me of, uh, the mayor of Aurora, Tom Rackers. Yep. That's what we did. You know, his leadership on this issue for years now. Has been really fantastic, not just for his own community, but

on the OMB reform, uh, sort of. I was part of the group. You know, yeah. And it, it really spread across the province. It's, it's, some things were changed for the better. I really believe because of his leadership actually. But now it's come to a point where I think we all know that the province is doing some reviews of this work. And, um, I think maybe if I heard correctly, it might be in the new year when it might be due or something like that. But this, this is kind of the right timing to send our voices in because if they're doing that review, then it's, it's going in and it's the right timing for us to try to get others to get there as well. I think the main point on this one that I really appreciate is just the delays in decisions. Okay. Like I'll just, I'll name it right now. The Scottsdale decision. On whether or not on whether or not the developer pays 15 million dollars or more in development charges. Or the citizens of Guelph have to pay 15 million

dollars in development charges. Eight months. Yeah. Eight, nine months coming on. No decision yet. And that doesn't give certainty to us. But it doesn't give certainty to the developer either being advised. So like that's just one example. Where. You know, making sure that the province understands some of these real world scenarios, not scenarios. Real world issues that are impacting. So, um, anyways, I think the, the ongoingvocacy is important. And yeah, I just remember, I remember you wearing that OMB reform button or whatever that Tom Rakis made up for everybody. And, uh, and it worked. So, uh, with that, I'll call a vote. Has anyone against the support motions. Nobody, that's unanimous. Thank you. We're on the last one, everybody. Lucky me. It says Mayor Guthrie gets to speak to the item. So, um, this item,

it's called, uh, Wyndham Street Street Scape. Basically what's happened here is that a couple of councillors, councillor Gibson and Councillor Hauser. Were made aware of what was thought to be quite a, not thought to be, which was quite a surprise when some of the infrastructure was placed in this section of Wyndham Street. And I've heard from some other councillors as well about this. And, uh, in talking to staff, staff have been really great. In kind of hearing out the situation and working with me to try to bring this type of emotion forward for your consideration. Um. To put it simply, there was a sort of a known bird's eye view of what that area was going to look like. And I'll ask staff, if you can put it up on the screen for everybody. And that was what was considered the 90 percent detailed design. So literally you heard my football analogy earlier. The ball

has gone 90 yards down the field and we only got 10 more yards to go and we're done. So if you look up above here at the more colourful map, you can sort of see where that green spot is there. Um, that was the 90 percent detailed design back in 2005 last year. Exactly. When a year ago. But today you can see especially where the planter has completely moved to the left. And it's completely blocked an area that was quite known as an established for five, six years now. Um, very large patio. And I think the, the main takeaway that I believe rightly got from staff was, and I was very specific in my wording. Uh, if you go to the wording of my motion, in the middle of the first motion, it says, while protecting the newly created area. And that's a very important line because I am not wanting to obstruct or try

to, you know, move something, uh, to then block the other businesses on this stretch. Right. I, I'm trying to look at this and, you know, staff said the word to me when we were talking about it through an equitable lens, equitable, meaning like the other businesses there too. And I agree. I fully agree on that. Um, I have last week I put a call out to the, to the store, the building owner there. Just haven't heard from him yet. But I put a call out to, to, to him, uh, to make sure that this isn't about just like, Oh, move it back or anything like that. And in fact, tonight I don't want to get into, Oh, should we do this or should we do that staff were very clear. It's like, Hey, we're absolutely willing to look at this. But let us look at it. And we'll come back in Q1 next year. And we'll give the Council of the day the kind of options that are there. Um, and, you know, staff recognise and it's okay. But staff recognised that there could have been some better communication here on these changes. And when you look at them, like it is pretty drastic, right? So that's the first part of the motion, not to try to eat away at this issue tonight. It's to let staff go away and figure it out. The second

part of the motion is just to kind of ask, staff, Hey, we're not going to have any more of these issues, right? Like, can you, can you, can you look up and down the street a little bit and make, just make sure that what we had is 90 percent detailed design isn't going to end up something else that is not really what we all kind of thought. And they're willing to do that as well. Now before I even table it, I want to make sure I have said everything correctly and not, uh, misspoke on staff's behalf. So. Um, am I in the rate arena here? Am I saying everything correctly. Yeah. Through you Mayor Guthrie. Appreciate the opportunity to comment on this. I think staff are working really hard to balance all of the feedback. And I appreciate your nod to the sort of equitable, uh, lens and approach here and listening feedback from businesses and thinking about construction conflicts and council direction around tree canopy and Public seating and all the competing interests that go into decisions like this. And so, uh, we're happy to look, um, at this in a bit of detail these, you know, if, if changes were a consideration in the future, they don't happen, you know, with the snap of a finger. So we've got to look at some design requirements. We've got to look at potential costs and

make sure everyone understands that. Um, and so that's the ask here. Just let us take that away. We'll come back in Q1 with a fulsom analysis. And then, you know, we can have those conversations in a clear and transparent and public way. Great. Thank you. Now Councillor Gibson and Councillor Hauser. Who were the original ones that kind of brought this to light have agreed to move and second this, uh, for me, uh, and, uh, you know, I just think, I do think just as you, as staff go away, they're just, the factors to look into this. As you rightly said, the equitable part, the tree canopy part, the benches part, the infrastructure underneath part. But I will just say that I would love it if you could also use the lens of sort of tourism. Vibrancy. And jobs. Like when, when, you know, when these things are. Are done. And if they impact, you know, they can, I can tell you right now, there's probably four or five people that will lose a job. At McCabes as an example. Because their patio that they've had

forever is now unusable. And that's, that's, so as you move with the different lenses, if you could look at through the economic development lens, the tourism lens and the infrastructure and the environment. Make sure you're looking at all of it as you kind of go up the street. And as we look at this as well. Any questions from anyone before I called a vote. Okay. Gibson and then Caden. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No questions. Just a quick comment to thank you specifically and to thank staff for reconsidering this in my world. And the footprint is finished. What you're talking about is nuts and bolts and screws and like drainage and things like that, but you're not talking about moving the planters. And this, we call this a planter. I called it the swimming pool. Like there's literally, it's the size of a small swimming pool. This concrete pledger looks fantastic. It might just be a little bit too big. The only addition I would make that you didn't touch on Mr. Mayors and when I went down on it when I went down for lunchtime, uh, just to see the, the work, the comment from the local businesses down there was that the sun is perfect right upwind them. And when you lose this planter, you put the, you put patios into the shade and maybe on a 30 to five degree day, people want

to be in the shade. But for the most part, people really enjoy the sun, uh, when they're sitting out on the patio. And so that eliminates like the, the large planters kind of eliminates the ability for people to sit on Wyndham when the sun is shining for most of the day and for the McDonald, if you've ever walked it, uh, at lunchtime or later, most of it is in the shade, uh, on that, on that south side of McDaniel. So, um, that was something that I received that maybe, um, just a little bit more context as to why this, the interest in having this Wyndham site preserved for, for patios, um, I do appreciate everyone's effort on this short term and it's, it's coming down to the wire here. So thank you, Mr. Mayor, for, for, uh, for advocating for this motion. Thanks. And then Caden, please. Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor staff, I was just wondering, I know it's not very far from now when that work is supposed to be done. Um, is there any other work that's going to be pushed because of this? Because I know you all have a finite amount of time. Through the merit of Councillor Caden. So I, you know, I do think there's enough work here that we just need to pause and take a moment, but I don't think it's an overwhelming amount of work. Um, that we need to sort of pause another construction project or anything like that. We do also understand, you

know, in the interest of time and active construction, our contractors are continuing down Wyndham Street. They're moving really fast. They're doing a great job. We're really happy with the progress. And so we want to keep that momentum going. Um, and just sort of balance this need on the side. But, um, we just need a little bit of time and space to get some of that analysis done, get a bit better handle on some of the options and thoughts and considerations that the mayor and others have flagged and then put some dollars and cents to it so that Council can think that through. Thanks. So long as it's not going to affect the rest of the construction process, then I'm totally fine to support. Yeah. That's, that I never thought of asking that. That's good. Okay. I think I can call the vote then. Is anybody against this. Nobody thoughts unanimous as well. All right. Don't let anyone tell anybody we don't have unanimous boats here. Okay. We are at, I think that's it, right? Yep. It is Councillor Alt. I need you to help me out with the, uh, Bylaws reading them if you don't mind. Yes. Um, thank you Mayor Guthrie. I certainly do that. Um, since, uh, my colleague Councillor Richardson is not here. I'll be seeking a second here from someone else.

Uh, I moved that bylaws inclusive 21 291 21 292 21 300 21 305 21 307 21 308 be approved subject to section 284. 11 bracket four of the municipal act. Looking for a second. Thank you. And Busatill said that, uh, she'd be happy to second. And so with that, is there any comments or questions on the bylaws. Nope. Okay. I'll call the vote on that. Is anybody against the bylaws. Nope. That's unanimous as well. Uh, Mayors announcements. I have a half an hour of announcements. My last council meeting kinda. I guess we have another one November the third. But that's kind of like the goodbye everyone cries and hugs and everything like that. But this is the last meeting for some of us. That, uh, from a decision meeting process. This is it. Right. So Caden myself billings. Placin. Anybody else want to back out

now? No. It's too late, the clerc says. I just want to say, uh, thank you to everyone. I guess we'll have more to say on the third. But it is. A little bittersweet. Anyways, it is what it is. Um, I'm going to go to two members that aren't returning again to do a German. So how about Caden. And how about Billings. Maybe on the 3rd of November, uh, I'll remove myself as the chair. And I'll move adjournment. And Claus in consecuent. That'd be fun. But for this one, I'll call the votes anyone against a German. No one. All right. All the best to all of you knocking on doors.