June 15, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:02 PM, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair and all Members participating; it being noted that the following Members attended the meeting remotely:  M. van Holst, M. Salih, J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, A. Hopkins, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Turner, E. Peloza, A. Kayabaga and S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest Added Item 4.4 (6.1) of the 9th Report of the Council, In Closed session and related Added Bill No. 290, having to do with the acquisition of the property located at 271 Wellington Road - Wellington Gateway Project, by indicating that he owns property within close vicinity of the subject property.

Mayor E. Holder discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 9 (5.1) of the 8th Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with the Deferred Matters Lists as it relates to the property located at 745-747 Waterloo Street, by indicating that his family owns and operates a business at this location.

Motion made by M. Salih

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the following changes in order BE APPROVED:

a)     Stage 12, Emergent Motions, be considered at this time; and,

b)     Stage 4, Council In Closed Session and the 9th Report of Council, In Closed Session, be considered after Stage 13, By-laws.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

12.   Emergent Motions

12.1   Councillors M. Salih and A. Kayabaga - Hyde Park Road Terrorist Attack

2021-06-15 Sub. - Hyde Park Road Terrorist Attack - M. Salih and A. Kayabaga

Motion made by M. Salih

Seconded by S. Hillier

That pursuant to section 20.2 of the Council Procedure By-law leave BE GIVEN to introduce the following emergent motion from Councillor Mo Salih and Councillor Arielle Kayabaga with respect to the June 6, 2021 Hyde Park Road Terrorist Attack.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by M. Salih

Seconded by A. Kayabaga

WHEREAS the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the City of London unequivocally denounces the June 6, 2021 Islamophobic Attack at Hyde Park Road and South Carriage Road;

AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council denounces, in the strongest terms, Islamophobia and commits to end Islamophobia and hate; and,

AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council acknowledges that Islamophobia exists in London;

NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED THAT the following actions be taken in response to the June 6, 2021 Hyde Park Road Islamophobic Attack:

a)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the local Muslim community, the Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, and stakeholders to help end Islamophobia and report back on the outcomes of that work, including the identification of a source of funding, if applicable, to properly fund initiatives to assist with the implementation of these initiatives;

b)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek input from the Muslim community to determine appropriate means by which The Corporation of the City of London can remember and honour the victims; and,

c)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the local Muslim community and report back on how The Corporation of the City of London can highlight and honour the contributions of the London Muslim community.

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by Mayor E. Holder

That the Emergent Motion BE AMENDED by adding the following part d):

“d)      the Municipal Council SUPPORTS the call for a National Action Summit on Islamophobia and stands ready to participate in any Summit or related intergovernmental effort to dismantle all forms of Islamophobia.”

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Kayabaga

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Emergent Motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Emergent Motion, as amended, reads as follows:

WHEREAS the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the City of London unequivocally denounces the June 6, 2021 Islamophobic Attack at Hyde Park Road and South Carriage Road;

AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council denounces, in the strongest terms, Islamophobia and commits to end Islamophobia and hate; and,

AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council acknowledges that Islamophobia exists in London;

NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED THAT the following actions be taken in response to the June 6, 2021 Hyde Park Road Islamophobic Attack:

a)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the local Muslim community, the Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, and stakeholders to help end Islamophobia and report back on the outcomes of that work, including the identification of a source of funding, if applicable, to properly fund initiatives to assist with the implementation of these initiatives;

b)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek input from the Muslim community to determine appropriate means by which The Corporation of the City of London can remember and honour the victims;

c)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the local Muslim community and report back on how The Corporation of the City of London can highlight and honour the contributions of the London Muslim community; and,

d)      the Municipal Council SUPPORTS the call for a National Action Summit on Islamophobia and stands ready to participate in any Summit or related intergovernmental effort to dismantle all forms of Islamophobia.

12.2   Councillors J. Helmer and E. Peloza - Proclamation Request - Indigenous Peoples Day

2021-06-15 Sub. - Indigenous Peoples Day - J. Helmer and E. Peloza - Full

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by E. Peloza

That pursuant to section 20.2 of the Council Procedure By-law leave BE GIVEN to introduce an motion related to a request for support from Councillor Jesse Helmer of the application from Brian Hill, Chair of CDIS Priority 1, submitted on June 8, 2021, to proclaim June 21, 2021 “Indigenous Peoples Day”.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, notwithstanding Council Policy “Issuance of Proclamations Policy” which requires requests for proclamations to be submitted at least six (6) weeks in advance of the requested issuance dates, that based on the application dated June 8, 2021 from Brian Hill, Chair of CDIS Priority 1, June 21, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED “Indigenous Peoples Day.”

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

5.   Confirmation and Signing of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting(s)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Minutes of the 8th Meeting held on May 25, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the communications BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED, as noted on the Added Agenda, as follows:

6.1     1752-1754 Hamilton Road

(Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item 9 (3.2) of the 9th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee)

1.      M. Romanoff

6.2     435-451 Ridout Street North

(Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item 17 (3.10) of the 9th Report of the Planning and Environment and Committee)

1.   M and B. Evans

2.   J. Jacobson

3.   B. Lindsay

4.   M. Loft

5.   L. Postor

6.   S. Rodrigues

7.   T. Smith

8.   N. Tangredi

9.   O. Whitehead

  1. J. Grainger

  2. C. Kelsey

  3. S. Bentley

  4. (ADDED) F. Keogh

  5. (ADDED) S. Miller

  6. (ADDED) L. DiStefano

  7. (ADDED) N. Tausky

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   8th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2021-06-01 CWC Report

At 5:02 PM, Councillor M. Salih leaves the meeting.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 8th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 9 (5.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 4th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 19, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No. 274)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 1, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”. (2021-C01/T08)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Contract Award: Tender RFT 21-63 - Hyde Park Road and Sunningdale Road West Roundabout

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 1, 2021, related to the Hyde Park Road and Sunningdale Road West Roundabout project:

a)        the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited, at its tendered price of $3,681,287.80, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited was the lowest of three bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)        MTE Consultants Inc. BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration and construction supervision in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $184,475.00, excluding HST, and in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

d)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

e)        the approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (RFT 21-63); and,

f)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-T05)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Purchase of Rotary Drum Thickener for Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 1, 2021, related to the supply of a rotary drum thickener for Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a)        the proposal submitted by JWC Environmental Canada ULC (JWC Environmental) at a price of $187,060.00, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)        the approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project; and

d)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E03)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) White Oak Road Two-Lane Upgrades from Exeter Road to 400 m South - Appointment of Consulting Engineer

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 1, 2021, related to the appointment of a Consulting Engineer for the Detailed Design and Tendering of White Oak Road Two-Lane Upgrades from Exeter Road to 400 m south:

a)        R.V. Anderson Associates Limited BE APPOINTED as the Consulting Engineer to complete the Detailed Design and Tendering Services at an upset amount of $249,568, excluding HST, in accordance with RFP21-28 and Section 15.2 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        the financing for this assignment BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this assignment;

d)        the approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents including agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-T04)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 1, 2021, related to the appointment of consulting engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program:

a)        the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Infrastructure Renewal Program funded projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)         Archibald, Gray & McKay Engineering Ltd. BE APPOINTED as consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design and construction administration of Assignment A, Hickson Avenue from Ridout Street to Belgrave Avenue and Belgrave Avenue from Hickson Avenue to Chester Street, in the total amount of $407,616.00 (including contingency), excluding HST;

ii)        J.L. Richards & Associates Limited BE APPOINTED as consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, and construction administration of Assignment C, Churchill Avenue from Spruce Street to Vancouver Street and Manitoba Street from Churchill Avenue to Dundas Street in the total amount of $354,596.00 (including contingency), excluding HST;

iii)       GM Blueplan Engineering Limited BE APPOINTED as consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design construction administration of Assignment D, Hansuld Street from Second Street to Dale Street and Dale Street from Hansuld Street to Second Street reconstruction, in the total amount of $352,742.50 (including contingency), excluding HST;

iv)       Spriet Associates London Limited BE APPOINTED as consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design and construction administration of Assignment F, St Julien Street from Major Street to Trafalgar Street, Hume Street from Major Street to Trafalgar Street and Major Street from Hyla Street to St Julien Street reconstruction, in the total amount of $421,727.90 (including contingency), excluding HST;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)        the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-T04)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.7) Emergency Repair of Dewatering Centrifuge for Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 1, 2021, related to the emergency repair of a centrifuge for the Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a)        the purchase order for emergency centrifuge repair awarded to Flottweg, in accordance with Section 14.2 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, at a projected total price of $150,000.00, excluding HST, BE CONFIRMED;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report; and

c)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E03)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at May 21, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2   9th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-05-31 PEC Report - Full

Motion made by P. Squire

That the 9th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 17 (3.10).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by P. Squire

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 234 Edgevalley Road - Removal of Holding Provisions - (H-9342) (Relates to Bill No. 280)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Ironstone, relating to the property located at 234 Edgevalley Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R5/Residential R6 (h*R5-7/R6-5) Zone TO a Residential R5/Residential R6 (R5-7/R6-5) Zone to remove the “h” holding provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) 704 and 706 Boler Road - Boler Heights Subdivision - Special Provisions - (39T-15503)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Southside Construction Management Limited, for the subdivision of land over Concession 1, Part Lot 44, situated on the east side of Boler Road, north of Southdale Road West, municipally known as 704 and 706 Boler Road:

a)        the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Southside Construction Management Limited, for the Boler Heights Subdivision (39T-15503) appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b)        the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “B”; and,

c)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) 995 Fanshawe Park Road West - Creekview Subdivision Phase 4 - Special Provisions - (39T-05512-4)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London, Landea North Developments Inc. and Landea Developments Inc., for the subdivision of land over Part Lot 22, Concession 5 (Township of London), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the north side of Bridgehaven Drive, south of Sunningdale Road West, west of Applerock Avenue, municipally known as 1196 Sunningdale Road West:

a)        the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London, Landea North Developments Inc. and Landea Developments Inc., for the Creekview Subdivision Phase 4 (39T-05512_4) appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b)        the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

c)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “C”; and,

d)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) 1600 Twilite Boulevard - (H-9345) (Relates to Bill No. 281)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Foxwood Developments (London) Inc, relating to the property located at 1600 Twilite Boulevard, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15th, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1 (hh-100R1-4) and (hh-100R1-13) Zones TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) and (R1-13)) Zones to remove the “h and h-100” holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) Building Division Monthly Report for March 2021

Motion made by P. Squire

That the Building Division Monthly Report for March, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-A23)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) 4th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

Motion made by P. Squire

That the 4th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 20, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (3.1) 349 Southdale Road East - (Z-9308 / 39CD-20501) (Relates to Bill No. 282)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Incon Developments Ltd., relating to the lands located at 349 Southdale Road East:

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Residential R3 (R3-3) Zone TO a Residential R6 (R6-5) Zone to permit cluster housing in the form of townhouse dwelling units with a maximum density of 34 units per hectare; and,

b)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 349 Southdale Road East:

i) safety;

ii) privacy;

iii) tree ownership on the property line; and,

iv) possible removal of the chain link fence;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (3.2) 1752 – 1754 Hamilton Road (Relates to Bill No. 283)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Connor Wilks c/o Thames Village Joint Venture Group, relating to the lands located at 1752 – 1754 Hamilton Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Residential R1 (R1-14) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 (h-h-100-R1-3) Zone;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter;

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

  • the recommended zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

  • the recommended zoning conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

  • the recommended zoning conforms to the policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation; and,

  • the zoning will permit single detached dwellings which are considered appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area, and consistent with the zoning that was applied to the adjacent draft-approved plan of subdivision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (3.3) Request to Remove Properties from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following properties BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources:

a) 1033-1037 Dundas Street;

b) 1 Kennon Place ;

c) 19 Raywood Avenue;

d) 32 Wellington Road;

e) 34 Wellington Road;

f) 90 Wellington Road;

g) 98 Wellington Road;

h) 118 Wellington Road;

i) 120 Wellington Road;

j) 122 Wellington Road;

k) 126 Wellington Road;

l) 134 Wellington Road;

m) 136 Wellington Road;

n) 138 Wellington Road;

o) 140 Wellington Road;

p) 142 Wellington Road;

q) 166 Wellington Road;

r) 220 Wellington Road;

s) 247 Wellington Road ;

t) 249 Wellington Road;

u) 251 Wellington Road ;

v) 253-255 Wellington Road;

w) 261 Wellington Road;

x) 263 Wellington Road;

y) 265 Wellington Road;

z) 267 Wellington Road;

aa) 269 Wellington Road;

bb) 271 Wellington Road;

cc) 273 Wellington Road;

dd) 275 Wellington Road;

ee) 285 Wellington Road;

ff) 287 Wellington Road;

gg) 289 Wellington Road;

hh) 297 Wellington Road;

ii) 301 Wellington Road;

jj) 327 Wellington Road;

kk) 331 Wellington Road;

ll) 333 Wellington Road;

mm) 72 Wellington Street; and,

nn) 44 Wharncliffe Road North;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (3.4) 16 Wethered Street North - (Z-9309)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2445727 Ontario Inc. (Phil Pattyn), relating to the property located at 16 Wethered Street:

a)        the application by 2445727 Ontario Inc. (Phil Pattyn), relating to the property located at 16 Wethered Street BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further discussion with the applicant and to report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting; and,

b)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the proposal within the context of the Near Campus Neighbourhood Policies, as they relate to residential intensification, focusing on lots that front onto neighbourhood streets, but are immediately adjacent to rapid transit place types or urban corridor place types;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the staff presentation with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (3.5) Demolition Request for Garage on Heritage Listed Property - 325 Victoria Street

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the request to demolish the garage on the heritage designated property at 325 Victoria Street BE PERMITTED, and the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED of Municipal Council’s intention in this matter;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated May 24, 2021, from C. Egerton, 315 Victoria Street, with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter. (2021-P10D/R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.13   (3.6) 135 Villagewalk Boulevard – (SPA18-067)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2560334 Ontario Limited, relating to the property located at 135 Villagewalk Boulevard:

a)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to permit the construction of a 2 commercial pads in the southeast corner of the subject lands and associated accesses; and,

b)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing the Site Plan Application;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

  • a communication dated May 26, 2021, from S. Lebert, by e-mail; and,

  • a communication dated May 26, 2021, from A. Mustard-Thompson, by e-mail;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter. (2021-D11)

Motion Passed

8.2.14   (3.7) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property - 126 Price Street

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendations of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the demolition request for the existing dwelling on the heritage listed property at 126 Price Street, the following actions be taken:

a)        the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the dwelling on the property; and,

b)        the property at 126 Price Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

  • a communication dated May 22, 2021, from W. Rohrer and C. Scott; and,

  • a petition signed by approximately 24 individuals is on file in the City Clerk’s Office;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter. (2021-P10D/R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.15   (3.8) 1697 Highbury Avenue North - (Z-9302) (Relates to Bill No. 284)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Habitat for Humanity Heartland Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 1697 Highbury Avenue North, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R5/Residential R6 (R5-2/R6-4) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

it being noted that the following site plan matters were raised during the application review process:

i)        orientation of the easterly stacked townhouse building to Highbury Avenue North;

ii)       visual access for the southerly end units to the open space area and the Thames River interface be enhanced by providing increased number of windows and/or balconies;

iii)      naturalization of the Open Space lands on the site; and,

iv)      the potential conveyance of all or part of the Open Space lands to the City;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the staff presentation with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential designation and Environmental Policies; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.16   (3.9) 1634 – 1656 Hyde Park Road, 1480 North Routledge Park and Part of 1069 Gainsborough Road – (Z-9301) (Relates to Bill No. 285)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 1630 HP Inc., relating to the property located at 1634 – 1656 Hyde Park Road, 1480 North Routledge Park and Part of 1069 Gainsborough Road:

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Business District Commercial (BDC) Zone and a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(39)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision Bonus (BDC*B-_) Zone;

the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a mixed-use apartment building, with a maximum height of 8-storeys or 29 metres and a maximum density of 169 units per hectare, in general conformity with the Site Plan, Renderings and Elevations appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law, and provides for the following:

1)        Exceptional Building Design

i)          providing an ‘L”-shaped mixed-use building that is generally in keeping with the vision of the current Official Plan as well as The London Plan by providing for continuous street walls along the Hyde Park Road and North Routledge Park frontages;

ii)         providing a 7-storey massing along Hyde Park Road that includes a significant step-back above the second storey and 8-storey massing along North Routledge Park;

iii)        providing for appropriate scale/ rhythm/ materials/ fenestration;

iv)        incorporating all parking in the rear yard and underground, away from the adjacent street frontages;

v)         providing ground floor commercial space with transparent glazing and principal entrances facing the Hyde Park Road frontage creating an active edge;

vi)        providing ground floor residential units with individual entrances and patio spaces along the North Routledge Park frontage;

vii)       providing a rooftop patio;

viii)      providing a parking lot layout that accommodates appropriate driveway alignments across North Routledge Park; and,

ix)       relocating the existing heritage structure and providing a glass link between the heritage structure and the new building along the North Routledge Park frontage, and a recessed courtyard immediately south of the heritage structure;

2)        Provision of Affordable Housing

-          a total of five (5) one-bedroom units will be provided for affordable housing. Subject to the concurrence of the City, some or all of these five (5) one-bedroom units may be allocated from the adjacent development owned and/or managed by the Proponent, noting the bonus zone requirement and encumbrance would remain specific to the Subject Lands;

-          rents not exceeding 80% of the Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London Census Metropolitan Area as determined by the CMHC at the time of building occupancy;

-          the duration of affordability set at 50 years from the point of initial occupancy;

-          the proponent enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement (TPA) with the City of London to align the affordable units with priority populations; and,

-          these conditions to be secured through an agreement registered on title with associated compliance requirements and remedies;

3)        Relocation, conservation, and adaptive re-use of the existing heritage designated structure at 1656 Hyde Park Road:

-          the owner shall enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City of London;

b)        pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning implements the site concept submitted with the application;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to tin-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and the Main Street Place Type policies;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Main Street Commercial Corridor designation;

  • the subject lands represent an appropriate location for mixed-use residential intensification, within the Hyde Park Village Core and the recommended amendment would permit development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood;

  • the recommended amendment secures units for affordable housing through the bonus zone; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.18   (4.1) 5th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage from its meeting held on May 12, 2021:

a)        M. Corby, Senior Planner, BE ADVISED of the following comments from the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) with respect to the Notice of Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), dated January 2021, from Zelinka Priamo Ltd., with respect to the property located at 850 Highbury Avenue North, previously received by the LACH:

i) sufficient information has not been received as part of the application in order to appropriately assess the impacts of the proposed applications on the significant heritage resources on this property; it being noted that:

A) the HIA should be prepared by a qualified heritage professional;

B) the HIA should include an assessment of impacts to identified heritage resources of the proposed development, among other content as identified in Info Sheet #5 provided by the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries; it being noted that the HIA provided with the application does not speak to the impacts of the proposed development or proposed policy changes on the cultural heritage resources on the site; and,

C) the LACH is supportive of maintaining the overall land use concept identified within the proposal, which is generally consistent with that in the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan (LPHSP); it being noted that this includes the proposed low density residential in the core area with concentration of higher densities along adjacent arterial roadways (the ‘bowl’ concept) and the revisions to the road and pedestrian networks, which appear to support the protection and enhancement of the cultural heritage resources;

  • the LACH emphasizes the need to consider the built heritage resources as landmarks within the cultural heritage landscape, and that the assessment of impacts must address the cultural heritage landscape including views and vistas as described through the appropriate governing documents;

  • the LACH acknowledges the differences or ‘inconsistencies’ between elements of the Heritage Conservation Easement, designating by-law L.S.P.-3321-208, and the LPHSP as identified within the HIA, but notes that these documents each have different forms and functions, and do not necessarily conflict (save for mapping discrepancies); it being noted that where these differences or ‘inconsistencies’ are identified, the more detailed description and assessment should apply;

  • the LACH does not support many of the proposed changes to heritage policies within the LPHSP which serve to reduce protection of the heritage resources and introduce greater uncertainty; it being noted that sufficient rationale or justification for these revisions to heritage policies have not been provided within the Final Proposal Report or HIA (examples include but are not limited to:

o LPHSP 20.4.1.4 – “Retain as much of the identified cultural and heritage resources of the area as possible feasible”;

o LPHSP 20.4.1.5.II.a) – “provide for ….and mixed-use buildings where possible”;

o LPHSP 20.4.2.2 – “Development proposed through planning applications… will need not only to consider the significant heritage buildings, but also the unique cultural heritage landscape where possible”;

o PHSP 20.4.3.5.2.III. d) “Built form adjacent to the Treed Allee within the Heritage Area shall should be encouraged to oriented towards the Allee in applicable locations”; and,

o LPHSP 20.4.4.10 - “shall” to “should”);

  • the LACH requests clarification from City of London Heritage and Planning staff on the next steps with respect to this development application, including how the impacts to built heritage resources and the cultural heritage landscape will be assessed and addressed as the planning and design phases progress (for example, can/will an HIA be required for subsequent zoning bylaw amendment applications and/or site plan applications); it being noted that the LACH respectfully requests that these assessments be provided to LACH for review and comment;

  • the LACH respectfully requests to be consulted early on any proposed changes to the designating bylaw or heritage conservation easement and would welcome a delegation from the proponent to present on heritage matters on the property; and,

  • the LACH requests information from City Staff and/or the proponent on the current physical conditions of the heritage structures on the site;

b)        on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the removal and replacement of the windows on the heritage designated property located at 40 and 42 Askin Street, By-law No. L.S.P.-2740-36 and Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED; it being noted that this Heritage Alteration Permit application is seeking retroactive approval for window replacements that were previously considered and refused by Municipal Council;

it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) encourages the applicant to work with the Heritage Planner to address the concerns raised by the LACH at the meeting;

it being further noted that a verbal delegation from P. Scott, with respect to this matter, was received;

c)        on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the demolition request for the existing dwelling on the heritage listed property located at 126 Price Street:

i) the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the dwelling on the property; and,

ii) the property at 126 Price Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

d)        on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following properties BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources:

  • 1033-1037 Dundas Street;

  • 1 Kennon Place;

  • 19 Raywood Avenue;

  • 32 Wellington Road;

  • 34 Wellington Road;

  • 90 Wellington Road;

  • 98 Wellington Road;

  • 118 Wellington Road;

  • 120 Wellington Road;

  • 122 Wellington Road;

  • 126 Wellington Road;

  • 134 Wellington Road;

  • 136 Wellington Road;

  • 138 Wellington Road;

  • 140 Wellington Road;

  • 142 Wellington Road;

  • 166 Wellington Road;

  • 220 Wellington Road;

  • 247 Wellington Road;

  • 249 Wellington Road;

  • 251 Wellington Road;

  • 253-255 Wellington Road;

  • 261 Wellington Road;

  • 263 Wellington Road;

  • 265 Wellington Road;

  • 267 Wellington Road;

  • 269 Wellington Road;

  • 271 Wellington Road;

  • 273 Wellington Road;

  • 275 Wellington Road;

  • 285 Wellington Road;

  • 287 Wellington Road;

  • 289 Wellington Road;

  • 297 Wellington Road;

  • 301 Wellington Road;

  • 327 Wellington Road;

  • 331 Wellington Road;

  • 333 Wellington Road;

  • 72 Wellington Street; and,

  • 44 Wharncliffe Road North;

e)        on the recommendation of the Managing Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking consent for alterations to the heritage designated property located at 426 St James Street BE GIVEN, subject to the following terms and conditions:

  • the new railing be 24” in height above the porch floor to maintain the proportions of the porch;

  • wood be used as the material for the alterations;

  • all exposed wood be painted; and,

  • the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed;

f)        on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the request to demolish the garage on the heritage designated property located at 325 Victoria Street BE PERMITTED, and the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED of Municipal Council’s intention in this matter; it being noted that the communication, dated May 10, 2021, from B. Jones and K. Mckeating, as appended to the Added Agenda, and the verbal delegations from D. Lee, E. Van den Steen, B. Jones and K. McKeating, with respect to this matter, were received;

g)        on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the potential designation of Labatt Memorial Park as a National Historic Site of Canada:

i) the above noted initiative BE ENDORSED; and,

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the application process with respect to this matter;

h)        clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.4, inclusive, 3.1, 3.2, 4.7 and 4.8 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.19   (4.2) 4th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on May 5, 2021:

a)        the following actions be taken with respect to Greener Homes London:

i)         the presentation, as appended to the Added Agenda, from S. Franke, London Environmental Network, and a verbal delegation from S. Franke, with respect to the Greener Homes London program, BE RECEIVED;

ii)        a representative from London Hydro BE INVITED to a future meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Environment to speak with respect to:

  • future infrastructure improvements to assist with climate change reductions;

  • alternative energy sources for providing power to the city;

  • fuel forecasting to support the Climate Energy Action Plan and net zero targets; and,

  • demand side management strategy and on-bill financing for home energy retrofitting;

b)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Planning Application, dated March 31, 2021, from C. Parker, Senior Planner, with respect to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to Encouraging the Growing of Food in Urban Areas – City-Wide:

i)         the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) supports the amendments made to date and the amendment that is currently under review; it being noted that the ACE has been involved with the urban agriculture process and development; and,

ii)         the above-noted Notice BE RECEIVED;

c)        Jack Gibbons of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance BE INVITED to a future meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Environment to speak to the current campaign of the Clean Air Alliance; and,

d)        clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2, inclusive, and 4.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.20   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by P. Squire

That the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development BE DIRECTED to update the Deferred Matters List to remove any items that have been addressed by the Civic Administration.

Motion Passed

8.2.21   (5.2) 4th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

Motion made by P. Squire

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 26, 2021:

a)        the Educational Initiatives and Outreach Sub-Committee recommendations, appended to the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee (TFAC) Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration and to report back at a future meeting of the TFAC; it being noted that the TFAC reviewed and received the “May 2021: TFAC Educational Initiatives and Outreach Subcommittee: A Few Suggestions and Comments” on the City of London Website;

b)        the following actions be taken with respect to creating ecosystems in London:

i)         a Working Group BE ESTABLISHED consisting of J. Kogelheide, A. Hames and A. Morrison, to review the creation of ecosystems in the City; and,

ii)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend a future Trees and Forests Advisory Committee meeting to provide an update on the initiatives currently being undertaken;

it being noted that the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee reviewed and received a communication from J. Kogelheide with respect to this matter;

c)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Advisory Committee Review - Interim Report VI:

i)         A. Cantell BE REQUESTED to prepare recommendations on the Advisory Committee Review - Interim Report VI and to report back at the next meeting of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee meeting; and,

ii)        the Chair of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee (TFAC) BE REQUESTED to attend a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting to provide an overview of the TFAC recommendations with respect to these matters;

it being noted that the TFAC reviewed and received staff report dated May 17, 2021, with respect to these matters;

d)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Urban Forestry Communications Strategy:

i)         Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the next meeting of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee to provide an update on the Urban Forestry Communications Strategy;

ii)        P. Nichoson BE INCLUDED on the existing Working Group; it being noted that the Working Group consists of A. Cantell and M. Demand; and,

iii)        the Urban Forestry Communications Strategy BE INCLUDED on the 2021 Trees and Forests Advisory Committee Work Plan.

e)        clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2, inclusive, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.17   (3.10) 435-451 Ridout Street North - (OZ-9157) (Relates to Bill No’s. 271 and 286) 

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Farhi Holdings Corporation, relating to the property located at 435-451 Ridout Street North:

a)        consistent with Policy 19.1.1. of the Official Plan for the City of London (1989), the subject lands, representing a portion of 435-451 Ridout Street North BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Downtown Area designation;

b)        consistent with Policy 43_1 of The London Plan, the subject lands, representing a portion of 435-451 Ridout Street North, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Downtown Place Type;

c)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend The London Plan by ADDING a new policy the Specific Policies for the Downtown Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of The London Plan;

it being noted that The London Plan amendments will come into full force and effect concurrently with Map 7 of the London Plan;

d)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan (2016) as amended in part c) above), to change the zoning of a portion of the subject property FROM a Heritage/Regional Facility (HER/RF) Zone and a Downtown Area Special Provision (DA2(3)D350) Zone TO a Holding Downtown Area Special Provision Bonus (h-3h-55h-_DA2(3)D350B-_) Zone;

the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate a high quality mixed-use office/residential apartment building, with a maximum height of 40-storeys (125 metres), and a maximum density of 500 units per hectare, in general conformity with the Site Plan and Elevations appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

1)        Exceptional Building Design

i)         retention in situ of the heritage buildings along the Ridout Street frontage;

ii)        materials on the podium of the building that are in-keeping with the surrounding heritage buildings;

iii)       a slender point tower design;

iv)       the tower portion of the building located to the south of the podium to increase the spatial separation between the tower and the Eldon House property;

v)        interesting architectural design features on the tower that will enhance the downtown skyline and break up the building mass;

vi)       terraces overlooking Harris Park and providing opportunity for activating these terraces with the proposed adjacent office/commercial uses; and,

vii)      connections between Ridout Street North and Queens Avenue to Harris Park that provide new entrance opportunities to further connect the Downtown with the Park.

2)       Provision of four (4) levels of underground parking, of which a minimum of 100 parking spaces will be publicly accessible

3)       Provision of Affordable Housing

The provision of affordable housing shall consist of:

-         a minimum of twelve (12) residential units or five percent (5%) of the total residential unit count (rounded to the nearest unit), whichever is greater;

-         the mix of affordable one- and two-bedroom units will be based on the same proportion of one- and two-bedroom units as within the final approved plan. Subject to availability and with the concurrence of the City, some or all of these units may be secured through existing vacancies in developments owned and/or managed by the proponent or associated corporate entity;

-         rents not exceeding 80% of the Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London Census Metropolitan Area as determined by the CMHC at the time of building occupancy;

-         the duration of affordability shall be set at 50 years from the point of initial occupancy; and,

-         the proponent shall enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement (TPA) with the City of London to align the affordable units with priority populations;

4)       Conservation, retention, and adaptive re-use of the existing heritage designated buildings at 435, 441, and 451 Ridout Street North

-         the owner shall enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City of London;

5)       Construction of a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified building

it being noted that the following site plan matters were raised during the public participation process:

i) design the parking and drop-off areas between the building and the adjacent streets (Ridout Street North and Queens Avenue) as a shared plaza space, using pavers or patterned concrete to:

I) tie into the design of the terraces

II) reduce the amount of asphalt

III) provide a welcoming entrance to the development

IV) provide for a stronger connection between the stairs leading to Harris Park and the City sidewalks along the streets;

ii) design the westerly stairway as a more naturalized landscape solution to soften the experience and avoid blank brick walls. This stairwell should provide for a grand entrance feature between the development and the Park;

iii) final location and design of all vehicular accesses on-site, including service access;

iv) final location, design, and landscaping of publicly accessible spaces, including terraces, staircases, and walkways;

v) the final building design is to incorporate bird-friendly design features;

vi) the applicant is to work with the City of London with regards to compensation restoration to create a wetland and other natural features (ie forest), either on-site or within Harris Park; and,

vii) the final building design is to include a fully enclosed mechanical penthouse, clad in materials complementary to the building, to screen rooftop mechanical equipment and contribute positively to the skyline.

f)        pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the changes in building height and setback to the residential component of the building are minor in nature and the illustrations circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Meeting accurately depict the development as proposed;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

  • a communication dated May 20, 2021, from C. Naismith, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 20, 2021, from D. McKillop, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 20, 2021, from R. Lacy, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 20, 2021, from K. Baker, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 20, 2021, from C. Ryan, by e-mail;

  • communications dated May 20, 2021, from E. Rath, by e-mail;

  • the staff presentation;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from C. Littlejohn, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from K. Kydd, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from U. Troughton, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from B. McQuaid, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from G. Hodder, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from M. Conklin, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from M. Young, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from M.A. Colihan, 191 Sherwood Avenue;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from B. Reilly and R. Shroyer, 574 Victoria Street;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from S. Skaith, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from S. Andrejicka, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 26, 2021, from M. Temme, 66 Palmer Street;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from M.L. Collins, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 26, 2021, from H. Guizzetti, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 26, 2021, from M. Rooks, by e-mail;

  • a communication from M. Whalley, 39-250 North Centre Road;

  • communications dated May 26, 2021, from A.M. Valastro, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from B. Spratley, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from S. Shroyer, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from C. Woolner, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from K. Elgie, Chair, Board of Directors, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from K. Peckham, Wide Eye Television Inc.;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from J. Grainger, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. Devereux, 926 Colborne Street;

  • a communication dated May 21, 2021, from P. and J. Wombwell, 174 Guildford Crescent;

  • a communication dated May 21, 2021, from M. Romhanyi, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from S. Saunders, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J.C. Garnett, University Librarian Emeritus, Western University;

  • a communication dated May 26, 2021, from S. Bentley, 34 Mayfair Drive;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from L. Brown, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from B. and S. Morrison, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from A. Martin, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from D. Rogers, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from S. Agranove, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. Manness, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from N. Bol, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from A. Warren, Director of Operations, The Wedding Ring;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. Farquhar, 383 St. George Street;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. Hunten, 253 Huron Street;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. and D. Surry, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from B. and H. Luckman, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from G. Nicodemo, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from K. and G. Patton, 20-50 Northumberland Road;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from S. Lunau, 1096 Kingston Avenue;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. Spencer, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from K. McKeating, President, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario - London Region;

  • a communication dated May 28, 2021, from A. Little, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from D. Oates, by e-mail; and,

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from C. Mellamphy, by e-mail;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves these applications for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment, as well as - enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Downtown Place Type and Key Directions;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Downtown Area designation;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan, by providing for a landmark development on an underutilized site;

  • the recommended amendment secures units for affordable housing through the bonus zone; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site at an important location in the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.3   9th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2021-06-01 CPSC Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 9th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 4th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 6, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 2nd Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 2nd Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 12, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) 2nd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 2nd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 20, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) LMCH – CMHC Co-Investment Letter of Intent (Relates to Bill No. 270) 

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 1, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021, to:

a)     authorize and approve the Letter of Intent, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, London and Middlesex Community Housing and The Corporation of the City of London to initiate a loan agreement, through the National Housing Co-Investment Fund;

b)     authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Letter of Intent; and,

c)     authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to approve any future amended versions of the above-noted Letter of Intent. (2021-F11/S11)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) SkillsAdvance Ontario (SAO) Employment Services for Manufacturing Sector Update

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report dated June 1, 2021, with respect to an update on the SkillsAdvance Ontario (SAO) Employment Services for the Manufacturing Sector, BE RECEIVED. (2021-S04)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) City of London Additional Short Term Supports for Unsheltered Individuals

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 1, 2021, related to the City of London Additional Short Term Supports for Unsheltered Individuals:

a)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)     a one-time funding allocation through a single source procurement (#SS21-09) to Ark Aid Street Mission on behalf of the WISH Coalition of up to $1,150,000 (excluding HST) for the extension of services until Dec 31, 2021, to support individuals currently residing at the York Street pop up shelter through the operation of a low-barrier overnight response at an alternate location BE APPROVED;

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore opportunities and report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee on June 22, 2021 with an implementation plan related to temporary expansion of the following support programs:

i)      temporarily increasing capacity in existing housing support programs until March 31, 2022 to support individuals currently residing in emergency shelter for a period greater than 365 days;

ii)     temporarily increasing the number of shelter or resting space beds up to a maximum of 20 additional beds until September 30, 2021 for individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness;

iii)     implementation of 24/7 staff supports model for the 13 Head Lease units until December 31, 2021; and,

iv)     work with community partners to operationalize a hygiene facility for individuals and families experiencing homelessness for July and August 2021;

d)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with community providers to determine where Day Spaces can be reopened to meet the needs of individuals experiencing homelessness; and,

e)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this report. (2021-S14)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.7) 2019-2022 Multi-Sector Service Accountability Agreement - Dearness Home Adult Day Program and the South West Local Health Integration Network - Declaration of Compliance - April 1, 2020-March 31, 2021

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Declaration of Compliance, as appended to the staff report dated June 1, 2021, with respect to compliance with the terms of the 2019-2022 Multi-Sector Service Accountability Agreement for the Dearness Home Adult Day Program for the reporting period April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021. (2021-S02)

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (3.1) Post June 30, 2021 Strategy for High Acuity Homelessness

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the request for delegation from S. Campbell, Ark Aid Mission, with respect to a post June 30, 2021 strategy for high acuity homelessness, BE APPROVED for a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee; it being noted that a communication from S. Campbell, as appended to the agenda, with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-S14)

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (4.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at May 21, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4   9th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-05-31 CSC Report 9

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 9th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, excluding Item 7 (2.3), BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Recommendation to Award RFP 21-24 Network Connectivity Services

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Information Technology Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of the contract for Request for Proposal (RFP) 21-24 Network Connectivity Services as per City of London Procurement Policy Section 12.2 (b), requiring Committee and City Council approval for Request for Proposal awards greater than $100,000:

a)     the proposal submitted by Rogers Communications Canada Inc., 800 York Street, London, ON, N5W 2S9 for network connectivity services in the estimated annual amount of $153,479.64 (exclusive applicable taxes), for a three (3) year term, and an option to renew the contract for two (2) additional one (1) year terms each at the sole discretion of the City of London, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with section 12.0 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this purchase; and,

c)     approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, agreement or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) 2022 Municipal Election Update (Relates to Bill No.’s 272 and 273)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Municipal Election:

a)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED that as elementary and secondary schools are used as voting locations, the local school boards be requested to consider scheduling a Professional Development on Voting Day, October 24, 2022;

b)      the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to establish the following advance voting dates and times:

Saturday, October 8, 2022 from 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM

Tuesday, October, 11, 2022 to Saturday, October 15, 2022, inclusive, from 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM; and

c)      the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to authorize the use of poll optical scanning vote tabulators, voting by mail, and proxy voting for the 2022 Municipal Election;

d)      NO FURTHER ACTIONS BE TAKEN with respect to adopting a candidate contribution rebate by-law or implementing internet voting in advance of the 2022 Municipal Election; and,

e)      the staff report dated May 31, 2021 entitled “2022 Municipal Election Update” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.4) Standing Committee Meetings and Annual Meeting Calendar

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the annual meeting calendar, as appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021, for the period January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 (Appendix “A”), BE APPROVED; it being understood that adjustments to the calendar may be required from time to time in order to accommodate special/additional meetings or changes to governing legislation.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.5) Agency, Board and Commission Asset Management Maturity Assessment Review

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated May 31, 2021 with respect to Agency, Board, and Commission Asset Management Maturity Assessment review BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.6) Declare Surplus - Portion of City-Owned Property - Part of Carfrae Park East

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to a portion of City-owned parkland, known as part of Carfrae Park East, as outlined on the location map attached as Appendix “A” to the staff report dated May 31, 2021, the following actions be taken:

a)      the subject property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and,

b)      the subject property (“Surplus Lands”) BE TRANSFERRED to the abutting property owner, in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (4.1) Province of Ontario – Request for Comment – Code of Conduct for Members of Council and Report on the Town of Collingwood Judicial Inquiry

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the Code of Conduct for Members of Council:

a)      the report dated May 31, 2021 entitled “Province of Ontario – Request for Comment – Code of Conduct for Members of Council and Report on the Town of Collingwood Judicial Inquiry”, BE RECEIVED;

b)      the City Clerk BE REQUESTED to include in the contract with the next City of London Integrity Commissioner requirements for reporting to the Municipal Council with respect to a Lobbyist Register, and to provide recommendations to the Council on any related current reviews being undertaken in the Province; and,

c)      the Government of Ontario BE ADVISED that the City of London Council supports the recommendations of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as outlined in the above-noted report with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Childhood Cancer Awareness Month

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated April 29, 2021 from Childhood Cancer Canada, the month of September, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (5.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Longest Day of Smiles

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated May 25, 2021 from Operation Smile Canada, June 20, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED as Longest Day of Smiles.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.3) Review of Ward Boundaries Update

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the report dated May 31, 2021 entitled “Review of Ward Boundaries Update” BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Item 7 (2.3) BE AMENDED to include the following additional wording, “and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to not proceed with changes to the existing Ward Boundaries at this time.”

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Item 7 (2.3), BE AMENDED by adding the following:

“That the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to proceed to arrange a Public Participation Meeting, including any necessary information, at a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee, with respect to the following proposed ward boundary adjustment as outlined in the staff report dated May 31, 2021 with respect to this matter:

a)      Option 4 - Ward 7 Masonville Area to Ward 5; Ward 5 Fanshawe Park Road Area to Ward 3; and,“

Motion Failed (6 to 8)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Item 7 (2.3) BE AMENDED by adding the following:

“That the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to proceed to arrange a Public Participation Meeting, including any necessary information, at a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee, with respect to the following proposed ward boundary adjustment as outlined in the staff report dated May 31, 2021 with respect to this matter:

b)      Option 7 - Ward 4 Hale Street Area to Ward 2.”

Motion Failed (5 to 9)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

The motion to adopt the Committee recommendation is put.

That the report dated May 31, 2021 entitled “Review of Ward Boundaries Update” BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 270, 272 to 285, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No’s 270, 272 to 285, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 270, 272 to 285, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 271, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No. 271, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 271, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 286, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Lewis

The Second Reading of Bill No. 286, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 286, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Council rise and go into Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

4.1     Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/9/CSC)

4.2     Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/9/CSC)

4.3     Land Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/9/CSC)

4.4      (ADDED) Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/10/CSC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The Council convenes, In Closed Session, at 7:00 PM, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair and all Members participating, except Councillor M. Salih.

At 7:23 PM, Councillor S. Turner leaves the meeting.

At 7:26 PM Council resumes in public session, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair and all Members participating, except Councillor M. Salih.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   9th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

1.      Partial Property Acquisition, 50 King Street, Downtown Loop and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, and the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 50 King Street, further described as Part of Lot 21, north of King Street, being Part of PIN 08322-0129 (LT), containing an area of approximately 2,441.7 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Downtown Loop Project, the following actions be taken:

a)      the offer submitted by 50 King Street London Limited (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $551,300.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the following conditions:

i) the City agreeing to pay the Vendor a further sum of $15,500.00 for disturbance upon completion of the transaction, pursuant to Section 18 of the Expropriations Act;

ii) the City agreeing to pay the Vendor a further sum of $42,100.00 in consideration of a Grant of Temporary Easement and Consent to Enter Agreement, with the right to renew the easement for an additional term of one year upon an additional payment of $21,050.00;

iii) the City agreeing to pay the Vendor’s reasonable legal and appraisal costs, including fees, disbursements and applicable taxes, to complete this transaction, subject to assessment, if necessary, as set out in Section 32 of the Expropriations Act; and

b)      the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

2.      Partial Property Acquisition, 399 Ridout Street North, Downtown Loop and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, and the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 399 Ridout Street North, further described as Part of Lot 21, south of Dundas Street, Part of Lot 21, north of King Street, being Part of PIN 08322-0128 (LT), containing an area of approximately 1,433.7 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Downtown Loop Project, the following actions be taken:

a)      the offer submitted by 399 Ridout Street London Limited (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $323,700.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the following conditions:

i) the City agreeing to pay the Vendor a further sum of $15,500.00 for disturbance, upon completion of the transaction, pursuant to Section 18 of the Expropriations Act;

ii) the City agreeing to pay the Vendor a further sum of $55,200.00 in consideration of a Grant of Temporary Easement and Consent to Enter Agreement, with the right to renew the easement for an additional term of one year for the sum of $27,600.00;

iii) the City agreeing to pay the Vendor’s reasonable legal and appraisal costs, including fees, disbursements and applicable taxes, to complete this transaction, subject to assessment, if necessary, as set out in Section 32 of the Expropriations Act; and

b)      the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

3.     Old Victoria Hospital Lands Phase II Disposition RFT- 21- 09

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the subject property known as Old Victoria Hospital Lands Phase II, being approximately 6.25 acres and further described as:

PARCEL 1 - Part of Lot 27 and all of Lots 26, 34 and 35, Registered Plan 172(E), designated as Part 1 on Plan 33R-17941, BEING ALL OF PIN 08315-0080 in the City of London and County of Middlesex; AND

PARCEL 2 - Lots 6, 7 and 8 South of Hill Street East and Lots 6, 7 and 8 North of South Street East on Crown Plan 30, Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 37, 40 and Part of Lots 36, 38 and 39 on Registered Plan 172(E), designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 33R-17942 Save and Except Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on Plan 33R-20703, BEING ALL OF PIN 08329-0197 and PART OF PIN 08329-0198, in the City of London and County of Middlesex, (collectively the “Property”), the following actions be taken:

a)     the Amending Agreement submitted by Vision SoHo Alliance consisting of: Indwell Community Homes, Zerin Development Corporation, Homes Unlimited (London) Inc., Chelsea Green Home Society, Italian Seniors’ Project and London Affordable Housing Foundation, BE ACCEPTED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

  1. (ADDED) Property Acquisition – 271 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 271 Wellington Road, further described as Part Lot 70, Plan 452 (4th), being the southerly 37 feet, as in Inst. No. 611376, being all of PIN 08364-0097 (LT), containing an area of approximately 4,441 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)      the offer submitted by Derek Michael Berg (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $500,000.00, subject to the terms and conditions, BE ACCEPTED, as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and,

b)      the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

9.2   (ADDED) 10th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-06-16 Special CSC Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 10th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

9.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 287, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 287, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 287, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 288, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 288, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 288, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 290, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 290, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 290, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 289, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 289, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 289, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 269, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Second Reading of Bill No. 269, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 269, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The following are By-laws of The Corporation of the City of London:

Bill

By-law

Bill No. 269

By-law No. A.-8127-185 – A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 15th day of June, 2021. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 270

By-law No. A.-8128-186 – A by-law to approve and authorize the execution of the Letter of Intent, and any future amended versions, between the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, London and Middlesex Community Housing and The Corporation of the City of London, to initiate a loan agreement through the National Housing Co-Investment Fund to support repairs to London and Middlesex Community Housing’s portfolio of housing. (2.4/9/CPSC)

Bill No. 271

By-law No. C.P.-1512(aj)-187 – A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 435-451 Ridout Street North. (3.10c/9/PEC)

Bill No. 272

By-law No. E.-188-188 – A by-law to establish the dates for advance voting and the hours during which voting places shall be open on those dates for the 2022 Municipal Election. (2.2a/9/CSC)

Bill No. 273

By-law No. E.-189-189 – A by-law to authorize the use of poll optical scanning vote tabulators, voting by mail, advance voting and proxy voting for the 2022 Municipal Election; and to repeal By-law No. E.-182-116 entitled “A by-law to authorize the use of touchscreen voting machines, poll optical scanning vote tabulators, voting by mail, advance voting and proxy voting for the 2018 Municipal Election.” (2.2c/9/CSC)

Bill No. 274

By-law No. PS-113-21070 – A by-law to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.2/8/CWC)

Bill No. 275

By-law No. S.-6128-190 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Commissioners Road West, west of Halls Mill Road) (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes on Commissioners Rd W, registered as ER1360347, pursuant SPA19-116 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 276

By-law No. S.-6129-191 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Clarke Road, north of Charterhouse Crescent)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes on Clarke Road, registered as ER1354384, pursuant to B.035/19 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 277

By-law No. W.-5577(a)-192 – A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5577-64 entitled, “A by-law to authorize the Western Road and Philip Aziz Avenue Improvements. (Project No. TS1136).” (2.3/7/CWC)

Bill No. 278

By-law No. W.-5642(a)-193 – A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5642-466 entitled, “A by-law to authorize debenture financing for project ES5263 – Southwest Capacity Improvement.” (2.2/7/CWC)

Bill No. 279

By-law No. W.-5676-194 – A by-law to authorize Capital Project TS1627 – Philip Aziz – Western Rd to Thames River. (2.7/7/CWC)

Bill No. 280

By-law No. Z.-1-212936 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 234 Edgevalley Road. (2.1/9/PEC)

Bill No. 281

By-law No. Z.-1-212937 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 1600 Twilite Boulevard. (2.4/9/PEC)

Bill No. 282

By-law No. Z.-1-213938 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 349 Southdale Road East. (3.1/9/PEC)

Bill No. 283

By-law No. Z.-1-212939 – A bylaw to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 1752-1754 Hamilton Road. (3.2/9/PEC)

Bill No. 284

By-law No. Z.-1-212940 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1697 Highbury Avenue North. (3.8/9/PEC)

Bill No. 285

By-law No. Z.-1-212941 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1634 – 1656 Hyde Park Road, 1480 North Routledge Park and Part of 1069 Gainsborough Road. (3.9/9/PEC)

Bill No. 286

By-law No. Z.-1-212942 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 435-451 Ridout Street North (3.10d/9/PEC)

Bill No. 287

(ADDED) By-law No. A.-8129-195 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and 50 King Street London Limited for the partial acquisition of the property located at 50 King Street, in the City of London, for the Downtown Loop Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/9/CSC)

Bill No. 288

(ADDED) By-law No. A.-8130-196 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and 399 Ridout Street London Limited, for the partial acquisition of the property located at 399 Ridout Street North, in the City of London, for the Downtown Loop Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/9/CSC)

Bill No. 289

(ADDED) By-law No. A.-8131-197 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Amending Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Vision SoHo Alliance consisting of: Indwell Community Homes, Zerin Development Corporation, Homes Unlimited (London) Inc., Chelsea Green Home Society, Italian Seniors’ Project and London Affordable Housing Foundation, for the disposition of property located at Old Victoria Hospital Lands Phase II, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.3/9/CSC)

Bill No. 290

(ADDED)  By-law No. A.-8132-198 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Derek Michael Berg, for the acquisition of the property located at 271 Wellington Road, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/10/CSC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourns at 7:57 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 41 minutes)

Colleagues, I’d ask you to put screens on place. Let me know. Colleagues, good afternoon and to the public, good afternoon as well. And welcome to the ninth meeting of City Council.

This meeting is virtual during the COVID-19 emergency and we would invite you to check the city website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. Make a request for any city service.

Please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489. I would look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none. Colleagues, I’m looking for support to change in order the motion required to move item 12 emergent motions to be dealt with now and move item four council on closed session and the ninth report of council on closed session to be moved after stage 13 bylaws.

And for that, I’ll look please for a mover. Pardon me, Councillor Silly, did you have a question first? No, I was just moving the motion in this room. All right, moved by Councillor Silly.

Seconded by Councillor Palosa. Thanks very much. Any comments or discussion? Then we’ll call the vote.

I vote yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Cassidy closing the vote.

The motion’s passed 15 to zero. Urgent motions. And the first is an emergent motion from Councillor Silly and Councillor Kabago with respect to the Hyde Park Road terrorist attack and I will call on Councillor Silly, please. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. I’m looking forward to bring forward an emergent motion but I’m asking council for leave pursuant to section 20.2 of the council procedural bylaw. So I’ll put that motion on the floor. And you have a seconder.

Councillor Hilliard, thank you very much. Colleagues, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero.

Thanks very much. Just leave your hand up. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

So just looking for, if I can move the motion at this time and then speak. Yeah, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, colleagues, Mr. Mayor. So my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, the survivor, family and friends and I want to thank the community leaders, organizers of the vigil, the funeral and events. Can I apologize?

Councillor Silly, I absolutely hate to interrupt you but I need a motion on the floor. Absolutely. And then seconded and then we’ll recognize you to speak. If you don’t mind, please.

Absolutely. So I wanted to move the motion that in response to June 6, 2021, Hyde Park Road terrorist attack. I’m seeking support that A, civic administration be directed to work with the local Muslim community, the community diversity and inclusion strategy and stakeholders to help in Islamophobia report back on the outcomes of that work, including the identification of a source of funding if applicable to properly funded initiatives to assist with the implementation of these initiatives. B, civic administration be directed to seek input from the Muslim community to determine appropriate means by which the city of London can remember and honor the victims and C, the civic administration be directed to report.

I’m sorry to work with the local Muslim community and report back on how the city of London can highlight and honor the contributions of the London Muslim community. And in the beginning of the motion, it reads, then I apologize, in denounce in the strongest terms of Islamophobia and commits to end Islamophobia and hate and acknowledges that Islamophobia exists in the city of London and that will be council taking a position on that. So I’ll move that motion with Mr. Mayor and I believe Councillor Kai about this right a second.

Councillor Kai about that. A second, a motion. Thanks very much, discussion. I’ll recognize Councillor Saleh.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Martin-Himas, as I was trying to state earlier, my thoughts and prayers go to the victims, the family, friends, to the, you know, and I thank the community organizers, the leaders who helped organize the vigil, the funeral and the many events that’s happening within our community these past days.

The recent love and solidarity shown by countless Londoners has been very moving, kind of comforted by the fact that when hate shows up, Londoners drown it out with love, but we need to face the reality that for many Muslim Londoners who love London, at times we haven’t felt the love back. Simply for existing, simply for being Muslim. Slamophobia is real. Accountless individual stories we’ve heard from Londoners and the headlines we’ve read and discuss about our own city in the past should be a clear picture that London is not perfect, but yet for some they will deny or minimize the real pain of slamophobia causes.

I’m here to call out my own city, London, we have a real problem. Racism has been a London since before 1826. White supremacy, racism and Islamophobia kills, period. For those hurting right now, just know that I stand with you and will bring the energy and stamina needed to ensure you feel welcomed and safe.

Counsel, I’m upset, but not defeated. I’m worried, but not intimidated. I’m asking each of you to say enough is enough. I’m asking you to never be a bystander and to speak up, especially when it’s not convenient and hold ourselves friends, constituents and city accountable.

Tonight, let’s stand in solidarity with the Muslim community and vote to put the full weight of the city of London to tackle Islamophobia in our city. The Muslim community isn’t going anywhere. London is home. We will continue praying towards Mecca.

The vibrant Muslim community will continue to grow and thrive in London, Ontario. So I’m seeking your unanimous support in response to the Hyde Park, June 6, 2021 terrorist attack by supporting the following motion that I introduced. Thank you. I now have Councillor Squire to speak.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have nothing to add to what Councillor Silly said. I rise with regards to a personal issue that I would have, but actually a professional issue.

As many of you are aware, I’m a member of the Law Society of Ontario. And the Law Society of Ontario has very specific rules and regulations with regard to the administration of justice and very clear rules to say that a lawyer while holding public office has to continue to adhere to those rules. And one of those rules that lawyers follow is that we don’t comment or reach conclusions on legal cases before they have reached the state where they have been decided by a judge or a jury, then we’ll make those kind of statements. So all I’m standing to say is that in the preamble, some terms are mentioned that are legal terms.

It is not within my capabilities as a lawyer to adopt those at this time until such time as courts have dealt with this matter. I support the motion wholeheartedly, but I cannot adopt every word everything said in the preamble. That being said, I had the opportunity to speak to Councillor Silly about the motion and my support for it. He understood where I was coming from and understood the situation I was in.

So I will be supporting the motion with those small provisos and I have nothing else to add. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Your Worship, and I’m gonna save my comments for the main motion after I moved the amendment to it. I’m hopeful that we can deal with the amendment to add to the main motion quickly and then allow colleagues to comment on it in its entirety.

The colleagues will find a letter drafted from myself and the Mayor to add a clause to the excellent motion by Councillor Silly and Councillor Caiobaga, which says the Municipal Council supports the call for a national action summit on Islamophobia and stands ready to participate in any summit or intergovernmental effort to dismantle all forms of Islamophobia. I’d like to put that on the floor. I believe the Mayor is willing to second. I am prepared to second, thank you very much.

Other comments or questions? Seeing none, we have mended motion on the floor, duly seconded with no other comments or questions. Then we will put that to the vote. Oh, sorry, Councillor Morgan.

There was one piece of context I wanted to add for my colleagues in the drafting of this motion. I did reach out directly to the National Council of Canadian Muslims. The wording, when it refers to all levels of government, says federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal. I did reach out to them to ask whether it was their intention to include indigenous representation at any national action summit.

And the answer to that was yes. They could not change the wording of the petition at the time because it had already been circulated and signed. But I wanted colleagues to know that that is indeed their intention that when they say all levels of government in Canada, they also include and intend to include representation from indigenous leadership as well. Thank you.

Councillor COBogga, I’m gonna recognize you next. I apologize when it comes up on the screen. It’s very faint hand. That’s why it wasn’t seen.

So I’m sure your voice will not be faint. Please go ahead. Are we commenting on the main motion or just the amendment? On the amendment, please.

I’ll wait to comment on the main motion. I do support the amendment. All right, thank you. And Councillor Slee, your hand is up.

Is this on the amendment? Yes, it is. Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say I think my colleagues, you know, yourself and all of council and I support the amendment.

I think it’s an important step and respond to the call from NCCM. So I wholeheartedly encourage everyone else to support it as well. Thanks very much. So we’re now voting on the amendment and then we’ll come back to the main motion as amended.

So with that, I see no other speakers. We will call that vote on the amendment. As in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. So I will, according to the wise clerk, I will need to move in seconder on the amended motion.

Councillor Kabaga, Councillor Palosa, seconding, thank you. With that, any comments or questions? Councillor Slee, I want to recognize you. I’m apologies, my hand was just up here.

Councillor Kabaga, please. You’re on mute, Councillor. This famous phrase of this section is I don’t need to apologize. It’s too true.

Thank you that I’m the seconder on. This past week has been a very difficult week for not just for the Muslim community, but for everybody who was in the city, for everybody who is in a leadership role in the city, for every person who has had to come to the realization of this act of terror that happened within our city, for every parent who has a child who has to understand that someone’s child is having to grow up without a parent, for every immigrant who’s ever come to this country with the hope of finding peace, the hope of finding a future forward, and has had to watch three generations of one family be removed at one shot because of Islam phobia, because of terrorism, but it is also a moment where from my upbringing, my faith, my culture, my beliefs, the word of God teaches us that when people mourn, we mourn with them. So we have all taken the time to mourn with the Muslim community, with our Muslim brothers and sisters, and we have committed that after the morning phase, we have to take action. And this is today what we’re doing by taking action to condemn Islam phobia in its form, and to continue to lift and prayer every single person who’s still mourning, who’s still hurting, and to also call upon every single person in leadership in our city.

It doesn’t have to be at the city of London. Leadership is something that we all participated in before we were long before we elected. Leadership starts within your home. Leadership starts within your neighborhood, within your neighborhood associations.

Many of you parents, sisters, brothers, have reached out to me and asked me how to even have these conversations within your families. I call upon you to not turn away when conversations get uncomfortable. When hate shows up in our city, we have to stand together and fight it back. It is gonna be a long road.

It’s gonna be a difficult road. There’s gonna be a lot of difficult conversations that are gonna be had, but we have to have them and we can’t shy away. Many people, in this moment, we saw a lot of people come from across the country, and we thanked them for the outpouring of love that they’ve shown across the country. Lots of outpouring of love have been sent to the city of London.

But when they’re gone, we have work to do, and this is the city that we continue to live in. So I don’t only call upon my colleagues to do this, but I call upon the entire city to think about what this means for us. And we have called ourselves last year when we were condemning anti-Blackness, we said we’re going to be a city that was going to be anti-racist. And a year later, we’re having to face this conversation again.

And I really hope that we do not continue to face this conversation again, because the people who have to experience racism, the Muslim community was had to bury an entire family, three generations of people cannot continue to have these discussions, cannot continue to try and teach and educate what this means for people of color to live within the walls of racism. So I call upon you as you think about what mourning means and what mourning with other means and what living in a community means and what healing actually means and that we start on this journey together. I joined everyone at the Interfaith March on Friday, and I left that space feeling healed, healed by the speeches that were made, healed by the people who were there to pray together within their different faiths and different backgrounds. So this is who we actually are, is our diversity.

We’re diverse, and we are diverse in our backgrounds, in our languages, in our faith. And we have to make sure that every single person feels safe in our community. So as you heard the pain in Muhammad’s voice, and as he called upon you all of you to take action, I also echo the same pain. Racism shouldn’t have space in our city, but it has had the space for far too long.

We need to avoid rhetoric language that brings hate in people’s hearts. And we need to switch the conversation to be a conversation of hope, healing, and moving forward. It is not upon the Muslim community to teach us how to condemn Islamophobia. We have to do that.

And as leaders of this city, as we sit here on council, I ask you that you reflect on that. I ask you that you have those conversations within your circles of friends, within your family, and most importantly with your children, because our children are watching. We’ve had to have very tough conversations with our children, and trust me, they’re watching, they’re hurting to know that their fellow Fyas, who is now home without his parents is in a very tough situation. So that is my comments today.

And I just also lift prayers for the Faisal family that they continue to rest in peace and that God continue to grant them blessings on their grace. Thank you. Thank you. I see no Councillor Turner, excuse me.

Thank you, worship. And thank you to Councillor Selye and Councillor Caivaga for bringing this motion forward and for the amendments as well. They’re very important. They’re strong and important statements that we need to make in our community.

Councillor Selye and Councillor Caivaga said exactly what needs to be said, which is that each of us has a responsibility to identify and call and use our platforms to call out hate where we see it. If hate finds a home, it takes root. We can’t let it find one. And the challenge is that we see tens of thousands of people come out when an act of terrorism and macroaggression occurs.

What do we do when we see the microaggressions? And we need that same response at every level and every conversation. Each one of us, as we campaigned, you may have read Jeff Bennett’s letter about his experience campaigning. I think each one of us knew that that’s not a foreign experience, that each one of us, as we went door to door, encountered racism, encountered Islamophobia in a number of forms.

And did we push back? I hope we did. I had a lot of very frank conversations with constituents. I knew that there was a lot of votes that I wasn’t going to receive because of the comments I made back.

But I think we all need to challenge that. And that’s our role as leaders within community. But I think we have a pulpit from which we can speak, but all Londoners do, whether that’s on social media, whether that’s in community groups in which you work, whether it’s at your workplace, whether it’s in your circle of friends, when you hear jokes that are off-color and not appropriate, it’s important for us to continue to push back so that there is no home for hate. To Faisal family are sincere prayers and thoughts.

And I don’t like to use those words because sometimes they seem very hollow. But I think we saw a very, very, very heartfelt response from our community. And I hope that the community feels wrapped in love and is ready and stands ready to continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the community and push back wherever we see this, whether it’s micro or macro anyway. But I think this is the least we can do in this motion.

And it doesn’t stop here. It continues from day to day. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Turner.

Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Your Worship. I want to comment on the motion and then make a few comments on the incidents as well. First off to my colleagues, Councillor Sleeing, Councillor Kailabaga.

I want to say thank you for putting this motion together. I think it’s excellent and it covers the things that we need to cover in this. One item in particular I want to mention only because I know my colleagues have been getting lots of correspondence from residents of my ward is part B. The direction of civic administration to seek input from the Muslim community to determine the appropriate means by which the city of London can remember and honor the victims.

As I’m sure all of you know, there are many, many, many people who want to help, who want to memorialize, who want to recognize the sacrifices that have been made here. And I think it is highly appropriate to put this through a process where we can find the right way to do so, respecting both the wishes of the community as well as the wishes of the family. I know there are lots of ideas out there and I would just ask for all of those who have submitted ideas that this is the appropriate way to deal with this so that we can take the proper and necessary steps to do something meaningful and respectful to those most impacted on the incident. And I’m not really sure I have the words beyond what Councillor Saleh and Councillor Kailabaga have said.

I would say it is surreal to be an elected official and to have your constituents struck down in the ward that you represent and I absolutely recognize that this is in no way about me, but there is individual impacts. There’s also a community impact. Those who lived in the neighborhood, knew the family, are hurting as well. Beyond that, there is an impact on our Muslim community, a community targeted by this particular act of hate.

Obviously, any communities who have been the subjects of hate are feeling the same way. But then this goes beyond our ward, our city, our province, and even our country to have had an international scope and impact to it, where we saw consulate representatives come to vigils and ambassadors speak at funerals. One of the things, one of those individuals said was, in many parts of the world, hateful acts lead to more hateful acts. An attack leads to another attack and revenge.

And the way that both our Muslim community and our London community and our nation have responded with an outpouring of love and compassion. They said that is an example to the world to say, this is a way to handle the hateful act. Beyond that, we absolutely need to take the actions that are mentioned by my colleagues, but I think it is phenomenal to see the outpouring of love and support for a community and for those most impacted by this in a way that I don’t think many have seen in recent years or even their lifetime. The other thing I wanted to mention is our first responders.

I know that some of the first on the scene were residents in the neighborhood, but quickly followed by those from station 14 and station 6 out of our fire service and then multiple representatives from the police service, followed by our EMS. I had the ability to visit some of the representatives who were first on the scene from station 14 with Asana Mustafa from leadership of our Muslim community, just to say thank you for what they did. And I think we have to recognize and thank all of those first responders, as well as all of our city staff, including Ms. Livingston and her teams, that pulled so many things together this week.

With very short notice, a national level vigil with leaders from every provincial and federal party and dignitaries and representatives where we had to close the street. A few days later, closing multiple streets again to have the march against hate. I just think what they have been able to accomplish in a short period of time to support the victims and our community has been phenomenal and amazing. And we thank them for the work they do every day.

So I’ll leave it at that, ‘cause my colleagues, you know, spoke very well. And I just wanted to add those other pieces to what they have already said and thank my colleagues for all the support that they have given through this process as well. Thank you, Councillor Cassie. Thank you, Your Worship.

I want to thank Councillor Sillie and Councillor Kailabaga as well for bringing this motion forward. And thanks to you and the deputy mayor as well for the amendment. It’s important that because we’re at a turning point right now and the community is watching us. And is this just words?

Is this just thoughts and prayers? As Councillor Turner mentioned, those words sometimes ring hollow because it ends at thoughts and prayers. So it’s action is extremely important. I especially want to thank Councillor Sillie for the leadership he has shown through this.

And I know it’s been an extremely painful time. I want to make a special mention to Dr. Javeet Siqueira who is the chair of the Lennon Police Service Board who’s being personally touched by this, this act of hate. These were personal friends, their families knew each other while their children played together.

It’s been extremely painful for him. And yet he has shown incredible leadership throughout this time. And I know how hard it has been. As I said, the Muslim community is watching us and it has been, I think, uplifting to see the support that’s come from within London and from far abroad.

But there is fear in this community. And we have to acknowledge that. And I know a couple of Councillors spoke about these painful conversations. These are the conversations that have to happen.

And we cannot turn away from this. We have to confront the denialism that really does exist. People have taken exception to naming London as a racist city, but racism lives here. It lives in every corner of this country, unfortunately.

But what we’ve shown I hope in the last week is that love lives here too. And we can’t let that go. We have to continue to make love the predominant occupant of the city of London. And any time that hate and terrorism and prejudice and discrimination rears its head, we have to drown it out with love.

And I think that this motion is ting on those sentiments. As I said, this is a turning point for London. I’ve seen very few, but some public figures come out with that denialism. And I think that those kinds of sentiments being spoken aloud are no longer being tolerated by the majority of the residents of the city of London.

We know that there is work to do. And we know we have to work together. And I’m happy, very happy to support this motion and the amendments as well. So again, thank you very much for allowing this council to start here.

This is a starting point for us and we’ll continue. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Your Worship.

And I just wanna take this opportunity to thank Councillor Salih as well as Councillor Calabaga for this motion. For me, supporting this motion is gonna be quite easy to do. I think the hard work is going to be how we will change. And I recall a couple of years ago being at a vigil outside of City Hall after the massacre in Quebec, just doesn’t seem that long ago.

But how we sometimes forget that Islamophobia is real, it is a concern, we have challenges, many challenges in our city. This is one that we have to deal with. And I know as Londoners, we will deal with this. We will come together and we will change.

And listen, understand one another. I think those are the things that I’m looking forward to. I wanna do that as a person just wanting to understand as an elected official, representing my community. Those things are something that we all need to feel and to do something about.

I think Londoners with all felt that cholt, that soccer punch, what happened in the Muslim community must not happen again, and we must not forget. So thank you to the Councillors and to everyone’s comments. They’re important and we must keep speaking and doing something, thank you. Thank you.

Colleagues, I have to other speakers. We have a motion on the floor, duly moved and seconded. Oh, pardon me, Councillor Halmer, please. Thank you, it’s, I’m listening to what everyone is saying.

And it’s honestly hard to know what to say. We, I think when we were reeling from the terrorist attack in Quebec City, the targeted worshippers in the mosque at that time, I said that everyone who doesn’t have this kind of hatred in their heart, we have to push back against this kind of hate, the targeting of people based on their religion, not just discrimination, but violence, taking people’s lives because of what they believe. And we obviously cannot have that in Canada, but it’s not a problem that’s limited to London or to Quebec City or to Canada. The same Islamophobia is what’s motivating people in Norway to kill people because of their faith.

It’s what’s motivating people in Christchurch to kill people because of their faith. It’s what’s motivating the travel ban that the president of the United States brought in in the United States in 2017. Clearly targeted at predominantly Muslim countries, trying to keep people out of the country to cut off immigration based on their faith. And it’s all part of a pattern of Islamophobia.

And it’s not just Muslims who are targeted because of their religion. The same thing is happening with anti-Semitism. The same thing was a very big problem between Catholics and Protestants. Not that long ago, when my parents got married, that was the joining of a Protestant and the Catholic family.

And that was a big deal even in 1975. And we have to push back against all of the discrimination that is targeting people on the base of their religion. And right now, we have to put a special attention on Islamophobia. I really support the call for the national action summit because we do have to change things if things are going to be different in the future.

We can say that racism is unacceptable. We can say that Islamophobia is unacceptable. But what are we going to actually change? What are we going to do differently that’s going to make the future better?

And I think we have to really spend some time thinking about that. We’ve got to actually be willing to change those things. I had some emails in my inbox today that I would have previously ignored. They were not just bad opinions, but racist opinions.

And instead of ignoring those emails in my inbox, I responded to them. And I told them exactly what I thought about their stupid and racist and prejudicial ideas. And we need to talk about that the perpetrators are often young men, very angry young men who have been turned to racism or Islamophobia, whether they’re using vehicles as weapons or guns. It’s young men who are committing a lot of these violent acts.

And we have to come face to face with why that is. So I have been very impressed by the response from the community. The Muslim community, no surprise, has done an amazing job coming together and supporting the family. Tremendous work by everyone organizing the response.

And the broader London community, very well done coming together to try and support and to try and find some way of healing out of such an awful tragedy. We’ve got a long way to go before people are going to feel safe in our community. We have a lot of work to do. And myself, I’m willing to do whatever it takes to change things for the better.

Excuse me. Thank you very much. We have no other speakers. I will call the question.

The vote motion carries 15 to zero. Colleagues, on board under the recognition component, what I think is very appropriate in the light of the motion we’ve just passed in honor of the self-family so that we can honor them and remember them. We do it as well to ensure we remember why this happened and how this happened, namely, grotesque hatred rooted in Islamophobia. These acts too frequently have served the shame, dehumanize, and wound our Muslim brothers and sisters.

On Saturday, June 6th, such an act killed four members of our Muslim family, our London family, and seriously injured a fifth young face. You know, I was quite taken at the funeral attended by a number of colleagues. And at the funeral service, the uncle of Yumna and Fayyas spoke more eloquently than I ever might. And here was part of his quote, which I would like to share with you in this recognition is this week has progressed, he said.

We realize that our extended family was much larger than we could have ever imagined. Many people have asked us what they can do to help. I ask you to be examples of love and compassion. I ask you to take the time to learn from someone who doesn’t look the same as you.

And he went on so eloquently in so many ways. So in honor of those lives lost, and a nine year old boy who continues his recovery at home, I’d like us to pause for a moment of silence out of respect for Talat Asal. Asal, Madhya Asal, Yumna, Asal, and Fayyas Asal, would you please join me? Thank you colleagues.

So there is a second item 12.2, a proclamation request for Indigenous Peoples Day. It’s a two step process, so you know. It will require a mover and a seconder and voter by council to give leave to put the emergency motion on the floor. So may I turn over to to Councillor Hummer, please.

Thank you. I’ll move, leave to put the emergency motion on the floor. Thank you. And that is seconded by Councillor Palosa.

Thank you very much. Call the vote. The motion carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much.

Councillor Hummer. Thank you. Hopefully the letter, which we circulated with the agenda as early as we could, is clear. But Brian Hill, who is the chair at priority one for the Community Diversity Inclusion Strategy, priority one, which is taking concrete actions around reconciliation and healing, and reached out to see if we have proclaimed Indigenous Peoples Day here in the city of London, given the timing of the request, which was the 8th of June.

The only way to do so is to bring it as an emergent motion here to council. So I’m happy to put that on the floor that is obviously a national day. But I think it’s important that we proclaim it locally and act on the request coming from the chair of the priority one working group. So I’ll put that on the floor.

And I believe Councillor Palosa has indicated she’s lying to seconding. Councillor Palosa, seconded. Any comments or discussion? Councillor Palosa.

Thank you, Your Worship. And thank you for Councillor Hummer. Forward as it was the request of priority as we move towards reconciliation, that we first recognize the truth. And we had the choice to live with a comfortable lie or an uncomfortable truth.

And the uncomfortable truth is for too long, things have gone on, not talked about unnoticed unrecognized. So as we move through the truth coming up in the residential schools, which the Indigenous communities knew, it wasn’t a mystery to them. It’s the truth coming out to the rest of us that we all stepped forward and recognized that it’s Indigenous, June is Indigenous Peoples history month, the 21st, be proclaimed Indigenous Peoples Day here with the City of London. And as leaveners acknowledge this truth, that might be new to some of them, that they take the opportunity to learn, the library has great materials on it.

There’s the truth in real reconciliation reports, reports on missing and murdered Indigenous women. We have at Loza, Namerins, and other organizations here in town doing great work that reach out, ask, and be open to knowledge, and hopefully with the proclamation, people will raise awareness and ask those questions and be in the open. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Colleagues, I see none, we’ll call the question. Mr. Mayor, I wanted to put my hand up, but it— Well then, you’re just in time, we haven’t put it up for a vote.

Please go ahead, Councillor Kabaga. Thank you. I do apologize. I was really trying to fiddle with my computer and it was taking too long to raise the hand.

So I had to turn on my camera for that. I just wanted to thank Councillor Hummer and Councillor Palosa for bringing these motions forward. And I also just wanted to say that I support this motion. I think that it’s important that when we talk about, part of what I mentioned earlier in my comments was moving forward as a city that it continues to be anti-racist.

And it also means that we have to get in a place where we have to start having decolonized mindsets and think about this land that we really sit on. I realized that we have a lot of meetings here on council. It’s been, I’m in my third year here and I haven’t really seen any meetings where we actually have it and started to recognize a land on which we meet on. And I think that’s a disservice to the entire city to be quite frank, but I don’t think that we did it out of spite.

I think that part of learning and bringing awareness to the history of this country and the people of this country, I think we can all learn and I would encourage everybody to spend some time to figure out what it is that we can do to continue to contribute into a path forward. I won’t call it a path of reconciliation because we’re not there yet. I think that as we continue to unravel and find out and learn more about what happened to the indigenous people in this land and how we got here as settlers. I’m an immigrant to this country.

It’s important that we recognize the history. We honor it and that we also work towards resolving this longstanding dispute or I wouldn’t call it a dispute, I would call it this longstanding lack of relationship and lack of healing and lack of reconciliation. Reconciliation insinuates that there was a relationship that was built and then we want to reconcile back to that, but there was no relationship built. A lot of our history right now is we’re finding out that it’s based in colonialism and this stuff is not being even taught in schools.

So as settlers, it’s our job to also educate ourselves and to stand with the community, with the indigenous communities and support them. So this month, despite everything that’s happening, I do encourage everybody to spend some time learning and figuring out a way to contribute to this path forward. And I’m watching my words as I want to say reconciliation because we just repeat that word so much, but it is empty when there is no action that follows it. Thank you.

Thank you, Caspar Soli. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues for bringing forward this important emotion and to send my solidarity, my thoughts to the indigenous community in the wake of the findings and of what else is to learn, their truth is painful, our history is painful, our presence and our future will be painful because there’s still more discoveries, I’m sure, unfortunately to be made and there’s still more time for us to learn of the history locally that’s painful.

And we owe so much to the indigenous community and we owe so much to them to continue to work and to stand as allies. And I just wanted to send my whole heart appreciation and thoughts to them as they grieve and as they continue to go through these difficult times. Thank you, I see no other speakers, but we will call the question. Mr.

Palosa. It didn’t come up for me, but although yes. I was in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Says part of our recognitions, I will be asking in a moment for a moment of silence for our indigenous children.

The discovery last month of the remains of 215 children buried on the grounds of a residential school in Kamloops, British Columbia marked the beginning of a national reckoning. Among other things, this has resulted in the reopening of painful wounds for many residential school survivors and indigenous peoples. It has also forced all Canadians to reflect upon and confront a dark chapter in this country’s history, which until now has been largely avoided and ignored. The discovery last week of more remains on the grounds of a residential school near Brandon Manitoba, along with today’s announcements from Premier Ford $10 million for three years to identify, investigate and commemorate residential school burial sites in the province, remind us of our collective commitment and obligation to the truth.

I think it’s only appropriate colleagues that I ask us to, I’d like to ask us to acknowledge these children and ask you to join with me for 215 seconds of silence in memory of the remains of the children discovered in Kamloops near Brandon for the souls of others yet to be found. Would you please join me? Thank you. Colleagues, this has been an extremely difficult month in so many ways.

And earlier this month, we lost one of our own. Leonard’s marked the passing of a former mayor, our city’s first female mayor, Jane Bigelow. She served as mayor from 1972 through 1978, championing a host of environmental social causes. I’m reminded of a picture inside of a city hall, actually just outside the counselor’s quarters offices.

And there are two or three dozen people in the picture, just one woman. And it’s Jane Bigelow, the restaurant of the white males. Jane just didn’t break through the glass ceiling. She shattered it into tiny bits.

So colleagues, I’d ask you to join me in a moment of silence as we honor our worship, Jane Bigelow. Thank you. Most colleagues may be aware that earlier this morning, we were saddened to learn of the passing of former fire chief, Jim Fitzgerald. The flag outside city of Halton Lord, out of respect for his family and gratitude to his incredible service to our community.

You see, Chief Fitzgerald was an incredibly charismatic gentleman with a kind heart, love of the fire service, love of London, and compassion for all. Thoughts and prayers are with between Chief Sean Fitzgerald and his family as we grieve his passing. So with that colleagues, I’d ask you to join me in a moment of silence to honor Chief Jim Fitzgerald. Thank you.

There are no confidential matters to be considered in public. So I will move to the minutes. I’ll look for a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held on May 25, 2021. Is there a mover?

I see Councillor van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Lewis. Thank you. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, we’ll call the question.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you colleagues. In some petitions, we can do this all in one motion.

There are two items, 6.1. It is related to item 9, 3.2 of the ninth report of the Planning Environment Committee, having to do with the application of 1752, 1754 Hamilton Road, and 6.2, which includes 16, including four added, related item 17, 3.10 on the ninth report of the Planning Environment Committee, having to do with the application of 435 through 451 right out the street, north. I’ll look for a mover and seconder please to put those into the appropriate areas within the committee reports. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you colleagues. There’s no motion. There are no motions to which notice is given.

It’s the eighth report of the Civic Works Committee. I’ll call on Councillor Palazzo. Please present the report. Thank you, Worship.

We had the eighth report of the Civic Works Committee meeting. I’ve been given no notice by colleagues deploying thing. So I’m prepared to put everything on the floor if no one has objection at this point. Does anyone wish anything dealt with separately?

I’m embarrassed, Councillor. I should have called a conflict because on item 9.5.100 referred matters, there is an issue related to 7.45 Waterloo Street, which is where my family has a business. So I will ask that that item be pulled separately and I will abstain from that item. Any other items?

Let’s repose it back to you then. Thank you. Our consent items were seven items, 2.1 to 2.7. They were all routine wastewater treatments, no irregular tenders, and just good projects coming forward with no concerns and every one of those items passed unanimously through committee.

I will put all those on the floor. With the exception of item 9.5. Yeah, without the deferred matters list, yes. Thank you very much.

Any comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, I didn’t attend the committee, but I did want to make just a brief comment on item 2.3 from the committee agenda item 4 on Council’s agenda, which is the Hyde Park and Sunningdale Road West Roundabout. This is an important project that’s in our transportation master plan and I can tell you an intersection that certainly needs improvements.

I did want to say I appreciate this project has been moving along through the public consultation. There is an exceptional amount of interest in the neighboring communities. And I know that as soon as now that the contractor, while pending the motions tonight, it will be approved that we will know soon when the traffic disruptions and construction will begin. I would invite my constituents to visit maps.london.ca/renewlondon, which is where you can find all of the information on road closures.

And that will be up there as soon as it is available. So thanks to the committee for passing this. I’ll certainly be supporting it tonight. Thank you.

I’ve come to a turn. Thanks, Your Worship. With respect to that same item to Deputy Mayor, just mentioned the intersection improvements. I don’t like to use hyperbole often, but this project will save lives.

As the paramedic, I responded very often to this intersection for some very catastrophic side impact collisions. They continue every year. This roundabout will stop those and that’s incredibly important. Even any collisions that might occur will be at significant lower velocities and not to the result in the same carnage that happens at this intersection each year.

So I’m happy to see this move forward and I was happy to be on the committee as it came through. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Colleagues, before we go to the vote, I think it’s incumbent on the chair to advise council and someone when we’ve been advised by a colleague has had to excuse themselves.

Details don’t matter, but we do. We think it’s a matter of courtesy to you to inform you. So Councillor Slee has taken his leave just to make you aware. So with that, no other comments or questions?

Let’s call the question. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Thanks very much.

Thank you, Your Worship. I will now put I am number nine, five point one unit of first matters list on the floor and being noted with that hopefully the next committee cycle this will conflict will be resolved for the mayor. We can hope that’s great. Thank you.

Any comments or questions? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Councillor Lewis. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse. Councillor Close in. Thank you, Your Worship, that concludes my report for the eighth meeting of the Civic Works Committee. Thank you.

For the ninth report of the Planning Environment Committee, I’ll call Councillor Squire. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I remember the good old days when I was chair of Civic Works and didn’t have to stand very long with those days of change.

On the ninth report of the Planning Environment Committee, we will be polling number 17, which is 435 to 451 right out the street north. I’m not aware of any other matters that are going to be pulled. I haven’t been advised, but there may be others. Does anyone wish any other item to be voted on separately?

Councillor Squire. I’ll put the balance of the report on the floor. Comments or questions? Deputy Mayor.

Yes, thank you, Your Worship. I would like to comment on item 16, which is 3.9, which is 1659 Hyde Park Road and also property on North Rutledge. This is a significant development. I should say the continuation of a significant development in the Hyde Park area that is going to transform that corner.

This is phase two of an eight-story building where there is residential on top of commercial. And this particular phase includes the retention of a significant heritage asset, one of the few that I actually have designated in my ward. I want to say it’s been a great process to work with staff and the developer on how this comes to fruition. In this case, this building will be picked up and moved a little bit to accommodate both the building, the distances from it, as well as create what will be a very wide and dynamic streetscape with all that residential development at this historic corner, having a little bit of an extra boulevard on both phases of this development and the ones that may continue to the North, which will be forthcoming to council later, is going to provide an excellent space for activation with the ground for businesses as well as the residents there.

I know the Hyde Park BIA is very excited about these opportunities because they’ve got lots of ideas for programming and drawing people to the businesses in the community, so I just wanted to draw attention to this particular development because once these are completed, this part of the city will never look the same again and it will be very active and very dynamic. For years, this has been a corner with a whole bunch of school buses sitting at it and this will certainly have a different feel as we transform Hyde Park into a very active and dynamic village. Thank you, other comments or questions? Councillor Cressy.

Thank you, Your Worship. I thought I’d add my real hand in addition to my virtual one, just to make sure. I just want to comment on number 15, which is 3.8 on the committee agenda. And it’s 1697 Highbury Avenue North.

It’s a development in Ward 5, who is being recommended for approval by the staff and by the committee. And it’s a flight twist coming to us from Habitat for Humanity. So just a slight twist on what their normal developments are like. They usually do single family homes or semi-detached even, I believe, but this is a multi-unit to multi-unit buildings with 20 units in total of affordable housing on the north side of the Thames River on a large piece of land that right now has a single home on it.

There was some concern, there have been some concerns in the community because it represents a change to what is there now. And it changed to, in some way to the surrounding area, there are some townhouses a bit to the north of this. So it’s not too much of a stretch from the surrounding residential development. I think they’ve done a good job working with city staff, making this fit into this area.

It will open up some opportunities for pathway connections for the multi-use pathway in the area, which is also a good thing and provide some well-needed housing in this affordable sector for people in the city of London. So all in all, I think it’s a very positive development and I’m happy that the committee is recommending approval for this. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Tina, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Mr.

Squire. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The, I’d like to now put number 17 on the floor, which is 435 to 451 right out street north.

I think most public about this, this was dealt with in a lengthy way at planning. So to get things started, I suppose I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation so that we have something on the floor and then the debate can begin. So noted, thank you. Comments or questions?

That’s wrong. Thank you through the mayor. I was able to listen to the committee discussion, but not the entire thing. And I just wanted to ask a couple of questions for you to staff.

One is about the section 28 permit and the issue around the floodplain, how the development of this kind of building might impact an area that, as we know, floods extensively. And I just wanted to get that answered at the council meeting so that especially members of the public who are very concerned can hear the answer to that. So let’s hear from staff. I think that’s a clear enough question as it relates to issues around flooding in that, around that proposed development that can we hear from staff, please?

Through you Your Worship, it’s Paul Yeoman. Happy to answer that. So there’s been extensive discussions between the applicant and the upper tensor or conservation authority related to the slope stabilization for the property. They’ve come up with a technical solution that meets the objectives and intents of the upper tensor or conservation authority and they’re able to sign off on it.

It’s been going on for a number of years to reach the solution. So we’re not anticipating any concerns. Should council approve the development with the section 28 permit that would occur after? Thank you and just through the mayor as a follow-up.

I remember not that long ago looking at this area and seeing that the water was just, I don’t know, a few feet below the top of the West London dike. And from a city perspective as the owner of the infrastructure over on that side of the river, we have any concerns about the development and its potential to impact flood control in that area. Mr. Yeoman?

Through you Your Worship, we don’t. We believe that the mitigation measures will be in place for the surrounding area. The building will also be appropriately flood proofed as well to ensure that there’s the protection of lives and property. Councillor.

Okay, so just some comments. There are some things I really like about the proposal and some things that I’m not such a big fan of. It’s very strange to me that we have on a brand new redevelopment like this where we’re retaining heritage buildings and building a taller building that one of the things we would retain is the surface parking either down at the bottom where the land might go to be transferred to the city and some parking would stay there. And at the top level along Queens Ave, the surface parking spots that are there now keeping those, I think would be much better and more useful to have those as some kind of a green space or some kind of building.

That being said, I think overall the proposal is a good one in retaining the heritage buildings that are along a ride out, building a slender tower in behind is a good proposal. I think that the urban design folks and their comments on it are very good. I think the stepping it aside and back as sort of as far south as possible from Eldenhouse is the right way to do a development of this size adjacent to such an important historic site in the city. So, you know, I know this one is difficult because it’s changing the skyline and around these heritage buildings.

But I think the important thing for me is that it’s retaining the heritage buildings and it’s essentially replacing an underutilized building that’s in behind in a surface parking lot with a tall tower that people will be able to live in and will be a wonderful addition to the city. So, you know, I support the rezoning. I do think that surface parking is a waste along Queens Ave, but, you know, that’s not such a big issue for me that I would vote against the whole proposal. Thank you.

I have Councillor Hillier. So that’s just a question to staff. Curious, what is the height of the proposed building at 50 King? Mr.

yeoman, can you respond to that? I think your worship, so 50 King, which was a recent approval is proposed, or sorry, is approved for 95 meters, which is 28 stories tall. Councillor, good. Thank you very much, Councillor Turner.

Thank you, worship. It’s for you too, Mr. yeoman. I have another question about height, actually.

In the report, it talks about the maximum height being 20 stories, and then with bonusing up to 35 stories, and we’re going to 40 stories. I didn’t quite get the rationale as I was reading through the report, as to why that extra, extra amount of height and density, it’s another five stories and almost 50% more density than what is prescribed as our highest amount of density associated with the official plan. Mr. yeoman, do you respond?

Three worship. So the applicant you shouldn’t date, actually, is prior to when the London plan policies are in full force and effect related to the site. So with the 89 official plan, which is the policy framework in place, it does state that there is a height limit in the downtown of 300, or sorry, a density limit in the downtown of 350 units per hectare. However, with bonusing, there is no cap on that.

So it relates to the bonusing package that’s brought before council. I will note that the density that’s proposed for the site is 500 units per hectare, which is considerably less than what we’ve been actually seeing with a number of downtown development projects. For example, the 50 King site was recently referenced at a 750 units per hectare. We’ve seen out of actually upwards of 1000 units per hectare for some sites as well.

Cash, Chair? I thank you through your worship, just as a follow up. When we provide for bonusing, I know we’ve had this conversation before planning committee about calculation of the lift associated with the extra density and height that’s associated with permissions for bonusing and using that calculation to determine what public good is associated with the bonusing provisions. The 5% for affordable housing seems a little low, 80% of market and 50 year time period is significant though, I recognize that.

But of a building of this magnitude and that much extra height, even above what we’ve contemplated in the London plan, it seems like a small trade off, I guess, in order for the accommodation for what’s being asked. I guess I would just look for a comment. Comments, Mr. Chairman?

Through you, Your Worship, so it’s an excellent question. It’s one that we often, to be honest, struggle with as your civic administration, we actually don’t have set parameters related to bonusing that actually states that for every extra story of height or every unit per hectare, this has to be provided. So what we do as your staff team is we do our best to negotiate with the applicant to get the best package that we can for bonus items. And you’ll can see that what’s recommended before you has a number of items related to affordable housing, the retention of the heritage buildings in situ, the materials of the building and so on and so forth.

So we provide that to council with our recommendation, but council is the ultimate arbiter on whether or not they believe that sufficient facility services and matters in relation to the bonus that’s provided. That’s for sure. Thank you, Your Worship. And thanks, Mr.

Yeoman. Those are my questions. I think Councillor Helmer identified the other questions flood mitigation and slope stability. Those that need to be satisfied to the satisfaction of the upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

So that’s important. I too see some merits to this proposal and some things I’m not wild about. I’m very happy to see the retention and situ of the buildings and without alteration. So there’s no demolishing, it’s not facadeism, it’s not just keeping those components, it’s the buildings in their entirety, which is very helpful.

I’m supportive of seeing density in the core because that’s one of our stated objectives. The adjacency of such a building to these sits from fairly significant historical pieces of our built heritage in addition to that proximity to Elton House, give me some pause as well. And I have concerns about those. It’s a fairly significant departure from what we would want to have prescribed through either the London plan or the official plan.

To me is where I’m really kind of on edge about whether I would support the application or not. The view shed as you come down, Queens Ave is important as you see the force of the Thames. And this will block that pretty much entirely. And one of my favorite things in the city is seeing those lights with that park, kind of light up the sky and summers evening.

But that said, that’s no reason to decline an application. I will be facing a question about temporary parking lot renewal on Queens Ave by the same applicant. And that was promised for a really big building, a nice redevelopment and it remains as a temporary surface parking lot. And so I don’t have a lot of faith this building no longer get built.

I say to the applicant, prove me wrong. I think that would be important. But I’m not quite convinced. So I’m here to listen to the arguments with my colleagues.

I came in with an open mind having read the report and having some concerns. I’m intrigued to see if there’s other pressure points that my colleagues have as well. Certainly I’ve seen a lot of correspondence from the community. Our obligation to this is to vote line with the Planning Act and our planning policies.

And that’s something I take seriously. So my final point is, would be that I don’t think 5% of the units for the level of density and height that’s being requested is sufficient in terms of the balancing trade-off. But I’d like to see more. I do recognize that that 50 years is a fairly significant commitment.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Morgan. Oh yes, I want to thank my colleagues for the comments so far.

I certainly recognize some of the concerns as well as those coming from the community. And I think Councilor Turner and Councilor Helmer outlined those well. On this particular one, I think that this project aligns with the number of our priorities for the downtown. Not only does it conform to a number of the plans, including our downtown plan, the idea of putting some density in the core in this particular spot is very attractive to me.

We’ve got a number of assets in the area that we’re looking to support. Those include local businesses, Dundas Place, the market, Budweiser Gardens. And to have this type of density, but that level of walkability, I think is important on the bonusing. And I agree with Councilor Turner.

The bonusing is always a tricky thing for me because there are other cities where Councillors are very involved in the bonusing provisions. And in some cases that over politicizes them and gets into, you know, ward-based trade-offs. I, although sometimes I’m not super happy with the package of bonusing items, I recognize that this is a process led by our staff through negotiation. And I appreciate what Mr.

Yeoman has said that certainly you could look at any one individual component of the bonusing and say, here’s, you know, we would like a few more affordable housing units. But I recognize that they have negotiated a strong package of bonusing provisions that includes both heritage retention, building design, sustainable and green materials and methods of building, as well as some other components that does include affordable housing. So although I appreciate the comments that my colleagues have made about the level, I think that the package of bonusing on this one is appropriate. And I also recognize that we as Councillors don’t really get involved in the negotiations of the details.

And I think that that’s probably for the best at this time. So I’m supportive of this particular development for many of the reasons mentioned. I certainly think that one of the really important things we need to continue to do as a council is to create as many opportunities as possible for people to live in the core. We have many challenges downtown.

Getting bodies and feet on the street allows the support of local businesses, local events and venues. And I think bolsters the downtown economy in a way that truly benefits all of London. So I’ll be supporting this proposal. Thank you, Councillors.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’m not going to repeat everything that Councillor Morgan just said. I agree with him when it comes to looking at bonusing. We have to look at the total package.

I think it’s important though here at council for the public record and to correct some misinformation that has been circulating about this policy. And I’ve seen it even on the petition that was submitted by opponents to this proposal saying that we were rezoning Harris Park. We’re not rezoning Harris Park. This is a private property application.

This is not part of the park. And in fact, one of the bonusing components of this proposal is a land gift to the city that actually allows us to expand Harris Park. Increasing public green space availability in the immediate area. I also think it’s really important to note that this proposal and of course, these would still have to work through site plan and obviously, and Councillor Turner and Councillor Helmer, both referenced the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority section 28 considerations that need to be made.

But also in this proposal, not only is there public parking, there’s secured bike parking in publicly accessible spaces and public electric vehicle charging stations included in the parking area as well. Those are important considerations as well as we think about how people get around. Obviously, we hope that some of the residents in this building are not going to be card dependent every day that they will be using other methods of transportation and this offers some of that in the bonusing package as well. So I supported this at committee.

I will be supporting it again tonight. The deputy mayor is absolutely right that really key to revitalizing our downtown is getting the residential critical mass there that creates a true neighborhood. Thank you, Councillor Squire. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair. And I also supported this matter at committee and we’ll support it again this evening. Just a few weeks ago, I was talking about downtown and that I didn’t have the ultimate faith that all of the small things we were doing, we’re going to ultimately solve what we have downtown. And I expressed it more construction, more buildings downtown of a residential nature would do that.

And from my point of view, that’s what this is. We don’t have the ability to tell people who own property privately where they shall build their next build. There seems to be some belief that we can do that. We can’t if they meet the policies that are set out.

And in this particular case, the developers follow the rules quite strictly, including spending a great deal of time with the Upper Time’s River Conservation Authority to comply with the needs that they have in that given area. They’ve also spent a great amount of time with city staff dealing with bonusing and other issues. And I agree with the deputy mayor. That’s not a matter that I’m going to step into at the last minute and try to insert my opinion on that.

And included in that is negotiations for affordable housing. I don’t believe in interfering with that and I won’t do that tonight. Lastly, there was a lot of correspondence about this being somehow not complimentary in any way to heritage properties that are located in the area. I think there’s a large amount of people that I heard from that said to me that they didn’t agree with that.

And they understand and appreciate that Elton House is still going to be there. These buildings that are not used very well now will continue to be there. So there are a lot of people who actually look forward to this type of development. So I supported a committee and I will continue to support it this evening.

Thank you. I see your hand, Councillor Cassidy, your virtual hand. Thank you, Your Worship. I have a quick question through you to staff in the report it talks about a heritage easement that will be in place.

Wondering how we envision that being enforced or how we intend to work with the property owner in the future. And I say this because frankly we have had heritage easements in the past and I’m not sure how successful they have been in our taking a proactive approach to looking after that heritage. So I wonder in this particular case, what are the plans for the heritage easement? Mr.

Hillman, can you help us with that? Yes, through your Your Worship. So a heritage easement provides an enhanced level of protection for cultural heritage properties. It’s something we actually don’t have very often.

It’s something that gets registered on title as an obligation on the owner. And it can actually stipulate certain parameters related to maintenance and retention of the building. So that’s something we’ll be looking to do with the property owner related, especially given that it’s related to the bonus as well, making sure the heritage assets are viable and are actually continuing to add value to the broader area into our community as a whole. That’s your question.

So going forward, will the plans around the heritage easement, will that become part of the site plan discussion or will there be something like written out? And I say this just because I know in one building in particular where we have a heritage easement and we really haven’t enforced it or used that the way we could have. So will there be concrete plans for enforcing this heritage easement going forward? Mr.

Hillman. Through Your Worship, I’m actually going to ask if Mr. Barrett can speak of it more to the heritage easement aspect because he has more knowledge of that. Good, good.

Thank you for your worship. As Mr. Yeoman noted, an easement generally brings with a higher degree of enforceability. There are not very many properties that have heritage easements on them now.

And the nature of those easements, I think probably speaks to their ability to be enforced. This is one in certainly understanding the concerns as it relates to these properties. It’s one that we would be working to ensure that the issues around inspection, the ability of the city to enforce the conditions of the easement would be something that we would be, we would ensure we would address. Also, this one’s a little bit different ‘cause as Mr.

Yeoman also noted, this would be tied to the bonus provision. So we’ve sort of got, I don’t know if Hooks is the correct term, but we have a number of different places where we would be able to address the easement. So certainly as part of the bonus provision, there will be a greater degree of certainty with respect to those matters that we can ensure would be addressed in the easement. Councillor Caspin.

Thank you. Thank you for those answers through your worship. I have another question about the bonus thing. Councillor Turner brings up some really good points about that.

And I agree that we’re not gonna get into the negotiations at the phase of the planning application when it’s being negotiated with staff and with development staff. However, can we have that in policy where we’re getting set to work on our inclusionary zoning policy? Can we not have something written rather firmly in policy that says what the trade offs should be, what the minimum percentage of units we would like to see, et cetera, et cetera. And if we’re going to go to exorbitant heights then we would expect a greater degree of affordable housing, things like that.

Are these the kinds of things that will be put in that inclusionary zoning policy? Is it something we have to look at as a different policy? Mr. Ewan?

Yes, through you, your worship. So the parameters around bonusing is something we’ve actually had on our work plan to lock out in greater detail. Unfortunately with COVID, a lot of our resources, including those that were in the former city planning area were devoted to processing applications. So it’s something we haven’t been able to advance as quickly as we would have liked.

We’re also mindful to the problems with the 108 is abandoning the bonusing framework as well. So it’s coming to an end in the not too distant future as well. So that’s sort of the impact of prioritization as well too. But we do recognize the need for greater clarity in this going forward and we’ll do our best to move something forward in the near term.

Are we good to answer, Keshka? I’m sorry. Sorry, just a couple of comments now really quickly. I hear the concerns of the community.

We have received some degree of support as well for this building. I don’t necessarily agree that heritage and modern new can’t live side by side. I think, for example, the as your tower that the previous council approved, right beside heritage church actually opened up opportunities to have greater views of that church that had previously been hidden by another heritage building. So there are ways and means to bring in the new where the old already exists.

And so I am hopeful that this will add to and enhance the downtown area. We do need more residents there. We need the more feet on the street. We need that vibrant living downtown.

And I’m one who has expressed some serious doubts in the past about applications coming from this particular applicant that don’t ever seem to get built. So as previous counselors have said, we make our decisions based on the legislation based on the Provincial Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement and our own official plan. And based on all of that legislation and our staff who are professionals in this realm, I’m supportive of the application. I like Councilor Helmer and Councilor Turner have some some reservations.

I would like to see surface parking lot go away and have more green space or perhaps another building. But overall, this represents I think good planning and I think thoughtful juxtaposition of old and new. So thank you, Your Worship, I will be supporting this application. Thank you and less to be said, Councilor Cassey, that I was trying to inch you off the microphone.

I would just wasn’t sure I thought you might have been done, but thank you very much, Councilor Hopkins. Your Worship, I think I put my hand up just in front of the ward counselors hand and I would like to listen to the ward counselor before I make my comments. Well, that’s the chair’s prerogative. Councilor Kayabagu, go ahead, please.

Thank you, Councilor Hopkins and the mayor for letting me speak. I just, my internet has been in and out and I just wanted to ask a question on the mitigation part, the flood mitigation part. This, I think Councilor Helmer had asked a question and his staff responded. And while the screen looks frozen now, so I don’t know if you guys can hear me.

We hear you fine, please go ahead. So I, if I could just get from staff to answer that question a little bit, I had some questions around the flood mitigation. Was it, sorry, just before I directed over Mr. Young, was there a very specific question about flood mitigation that you wanted to direct to Councilor?

Yes, so given that this area is an area that is a floodplain, so I just wanted to know what this is, you know, quite a big application that they’re submitting. I just wanted to know if there are any plans around that. Mr. Chairman.

Through your Worship, my apologies for not being more clear the first time. So there’s a number of measures that are being put in place. One is the flood proofing of the building that’s really important. The other is that there will be site plans that’ll be prepared to address floodplain cut and fill and compensation measures to ensure that there’s no net loss of floodplain storage, which is really important given the location of the area.

The valley embankments are going to be remediated as well as part of it too. There is going to be a two year time limit in place for the section 28 permit to ensure that that encourages the construction of the building and also to ensure that the approvals that are put in place make sure they mitigate what’s going to be occurring. And finally, the erosion control plans are going to be addressed the site plan stage as well too to make sure that there’s no impact on the surrounding area. Councillor Karygiannis.

Thank you. Another question I had or I would say reservation I had about this application was, and I think I raised this last year when I was on the planning committee. We talked about our zoning around affordable housing. And last year, we were in a process of having a policy that was specific for the city of London in terms of having some written document that would encourage developers to create more affordable housing.

And I’m a little concerned that to this point, we still haven’t had that policy be in place. So, I mean, 5% is better than nothing, obviously. But I think that given the situations that everybody finds themselves in, especially with COVID, we can all agree that we need more housing that is accessible to different incomes across the city. There are a lot of people who, young people want to live downtown and can’t afford to live downtown because rent is getting expensive.

And the provincial government has not been able to satisfy the rent control around the entire province. So, that is a concern of mine as we continue to approve developments, we really need to be mindful and proactive on creating a city that’s accessible and affordable. I also have reservations around the fact that, and I’ve mentioned this in the past, the applicant has not been able to, for me in my opinion, has not been able to meet a lot of requirements in the past of promising, over promising and under delivering. So, this was a concern I also had.

I recognize that staff can’t answer that concern, but I just really want to know if anybody or not this application, if it passed, if it was supported and passed all the requirements that it needs to pass, if this would actually go into place and this is something that we would see because we are in a place where we do need more development downtown, we do need more housing downtown and we need more people to live downtown. But my reservations, again, are that we have approved a lot of spaces where development was promised and nothing has happened. Can any staff member comment on that? Mr.

Yeon, yeah, we’re talking specifically to this project, Mr. Yeon, would you wish to comment or add anything to this? I’ll do my best of worship. What I can say is that the applicant, as far as developments, has expressed to us their keen desire to develop this site as a bit of a catalyst of further development in the downtown.

That’s the information that’s been conveyed to us through the application process and unfortunately the applicant isn’t here to speak to their intent, but I think that’s the best I can provide to you. Thank you. Anything else comes to care about that, please. Thank you, you know, as— I’m sorry, just that last part of that last line, it was very, very low.

Could you just repeat your sentence again, please, so we can hear it? Yeah, I was just saying that I was making my last comments and my last comments are, you know, I encourage development downtown. I think we need to see more people, more foot downtown. There are a lot of issues that we’ve experienced in the core in the last two years of the pandemic that are also related to the lack of activity in the downtown, to the lack of people being physically in the core.

I’ve received a lot of communications from different members of the community asking us not to support this application and I’ve also received equally a great amount of support and the support part of the emails that we got. There’s a lot of mention around having more people move downtown and live downtown and encourage development in the core. And I support that. I think that is the best way to move forward in order to continue to revitalize our downtown.

I also, you know, shared my reservations. I think that as many of my colleagues had made comments. I think this is something that we should support. My reservations, again, rely on the fact that we have had misleading applications that did not come through.

So I was concerned about that. I was also concerned about the flood mitigation and also the biggest part of it was the affordable part and asking our staff to really take that seriously and come up with a policy that would encourage all developers across the city to continue to build housing. That is affordable for every single income, especially younger people, especially people who are within the lower middle class of our city. So I will continue to listen to the comments that my colleagues make.

But I have been, this follows the Planning Act. It meets the requirements. And I think that as I’ve done so in the past, I’ll continue to support developments and applications that support the revitalization of the downtown and that meets the requirements of the Planning Act. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And thank you to everyone for your comments. I have been listening very intently. And as you know, I did not support this at Planning Committee.

I had a number of reservations, even though I do believe some kind of development on this underutilized area should happen. But I’m not sure if it’s this application that should happen. And that’s what we are approving. I wanna just make a comment here.

I received an email from a resident saying, I should leave Council since I do not support the London Plan. And I do wanna go on record here saying I ran in 2014, supporting the London Plan as well as in 2018. I’m not sure about, I think there is this missing middle sometimes when we approve developments. Even in the downtown area, do we always have to go to the highest possible degree?

I’m not convinced that we should. And in this application, a 40 story, not sure how that bonus thing worked out either, but a 40 story built on a floodplain that still has a number of concerns, if that can even happen in a heritage district, is still a challenge for me. I know our policies may support it. And as a Council, we are bound to our policies and plans.

But I’ve heard a number of comments here, even tonight about the challenges of downtown. One of the challenges of downtown is how do we get our buildings built? There have been many applications that I’ve supported in the past, I think, four or five years that I’ve sat on planning, and these buildings are not being built. I agree with the Councilor Turner, even if this building will be built, as we speak to the importance of building and regenerating and getting people in the downtown, I want that.

I want that just as much as each and every one of you want that. And supporting, just for the sake of putting it there out there and just supporting it and having all these questions and concerns, especially around the floodplain mitigation part and how that is even going to work, how the parking structure is even going to work. I know there’s a lot of unanswered questions, and that still concerns me. The biggest part of my concern here is this has great public interest to Londoners, and the public process of communication that we have on applications such as this to me is a grave concern, how we reach out to the public.

It was even mentioned tonight here that there’s a lot of misinformation out there. One of the reasons there’s a lot of misinformation is how do we engage with the public? How do we educate? How do we as a council, ward counselor, a developer, builder, city staff, how we do this communication?

I know it’s being difficult within a pandemic, even more so, but it becomes even more important that we work harder, that we get that information out to the public so they can understand the process. And what we can and can’t do with this application, there still remains a number of unanswered questions. And I’m not going to be supporting it, even though I appreciate the comments from each and every one of you on the reasons why, but I have still a great doubt that this is going to be the best thing for downtown London. Thank you, any other comments or questions?

Councillor Ann Mirberg. Thank you, Mayor. Clearly this is a classy development. It checks off a lot of boxes.

Very positive all around. Are you, you’re done, okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Any other comments or questions? Colleagues, seeing no more questions, we will call the questions. Councillor Palazzo. Thank you.

Just having issues getting my screen to shrink enough. I’ll vote yes. I’ll vote in the vote. Motion carries 12 to two.

Thank you, Councillor. Okay. Thank you very much. Now for the ninth report of the Community Protective Services Councilor Homer.

Thank you. I’m not aware of any items that need to be pulled. So perhaps I’ll just pause to see if there are any, otherwise I’ll put the whole report on the floor. Anything anyone wish to vote on separately?

I see none, Councillor Homer. Okay, I just wanted to point out a couple of things. First, and I think, you know, very significant, even though it’s a letter of intent, doesn’t seem very exciting. The letter of intent with the Community Housing here in Mother Middlesex and CMHC federally to allow for the renovation and repair regeneration of over 2,000 units of community housing is remarkable.

This is a major part of the multi-year budget and very significant investment from the federal government in community housing here in London and Middlesex. Just a couple of things that are important, I think from a high level is that after these projects are undertaken with the financing provided through this loan, part of which is forgivable. 25% of the emissions from these units will be eliminated. 20% of the units, so of those 2,000 units, just over 400 will be accessible.

Very significant improvement in community housing stock in London and much needed, and my gratitude to the federal government in particular and everyone who pushed for significant investment in community housing over the many years to make this as possible. We’re getting closer and closer, and I’m really looking forward to seeing the community housing units be rejuvenated. The Skills Ontario Employment Services, there’s an update report there, and I just say this is a very good piece of good news, something the province did that City started out, pilot program to see if we could work on skills training for people who did that in partnership with Fanshawe. The program has been fairly successful at the small scale that we ran it at, and this is something that’s expanding into the wider region in Southwestern Ontario as it can be run by the workforce planning board.

So I wanted to commend our staff for working on that project and also the province for funding it. I think that was a great move by Minister of Labor, McNaughton. You’ll see that there’s a contract award to the ARC, and we’re gonna have another report about this coming forward in the later part of this month about extending services that were temporary. We’re gonna have them probably in a different location as you’ll see in the report, potentially in a different form, but to continue to provide supports for people who are experiencing homelessness.

So this impacts the operations at York Street to temporary shelter, which was extended to the end of June. And we’re gonna have a second report coming about additional actions that we take and which are outlined in this report. I wanna thank staff for turning that around so quickly and all the people who are working on the various responses to help people who are experiencing homelessness get some housing stability and it is a place to live while the pandemic is raging around us. That’s it.

Any comments or questions from colleagues? I see none, we will call the question. We’ll not call the question. I think I have Councillor Lewis who wishes to respond.

Thank you, Your Worship, and it’s not a respond. It’s more of a question through you to staff. We just dealt in the planning committee report with an application where affordable housing was a component of that. And one of the interesting things about that application was that the affordable housing is going to be made available in an existing build so that it’s not going to be three years until the new building is built.

If that timeline is correct before those units are available. So throughout through you to our staff, on the committee’s deferred matters list is of course the motion through your worship that you brought to the committee with regard to the goal of building 3,000 affordable housing units in five years time. Are we continuing to, as we look at these housing options, can staff indicate if there’s some coordination with planning on getting some of those units advanced and existing builds similar to what we just saw in the previous proposal? Can we hear from staff in that, Dickens?

Would that be you? Thank you, Your Worship. I’m actually going to pass this over to Mr. Kotsabas as the question relates to some of the policies around the development side of things.

That’s fair, go ahead, Mr. Kotsabas, please. That’s through your worship, but we are proposing to come back with a report this fall on advancing some of these initiatives. And I think at that time we should be able to address most of the councilor’s questions and inquiries.

Councillor Lusch. That’s fine. I look forward to both the coming report on June 22nd that will update us on the report that we’re receiving tonight as well as that report in the fall, thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments? I see none. We’ll call the question. Mr.

Chair, those in the vote, motion carries 14-0. Councillor Humber? No report. It is indeed, thank you very much.

I now have the ninth report of the Corporate Services Committee, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I will pull a number seven from the council agenda 2.3. And I have not heard about anything else to be pulled, but I see Councillor Hermit’s hand up.

Does anyone wish anyone dealt with and voted separately, Councillor Humber? Getting on the list. Okay, you’ll make first on the list when it’s that time. Anyone wish anything dealt with to be voted separately?

Seeing none, back to you, Councillor Cassidy. So I will put the rest of the report. That’s all of the items except for seven. And I’ll just comment on number eight, which is 4.1.

The province of Ontario requests for comment on code of conduct for members of council. And I just wanted to say that the committee’s recommendation was that we received a report on the town of Collinwood, judicial inquiry that the clerk be requested to include in the contracts with the next city of London integrity commissioner requirements that he or she report to municipal council with respect to a lobbyist registry. And also we wanted to advise government of Ontario that city of London supports the association of municipal municipalities in Ontario and their recommendations regarding the code of conduct. And that’s what was passed by committee and that’s our recommendation to council.

Thank you, I have Councillor Humber. I can’t answer for 2.3, I think we’re dealing with all the rest. We are dealing with all but 2.3. Oh wait.

You’re still on the list. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Councillor Morion, closing the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. Councillor Cassidy. Worship, so 2.3 or item seven on the committee report comes to you with no recommendation and in order to have a motion on the floor, I would move with the staff recommendation which was receive the report and take no action at this time on adjusting the ward boundaries. So that motion will floor.

Thank you. I’ll now look then for a speaker’s list. I have Councillor Humber. I’m happy to second that motion.

Okay, thank you very much. So noted, those wishing to speak. Councillor Humber, why don’t we keep you on the list? So I’m gonna try and I kind of unsuccessfully made this argument at committee.

We had a tie vote at committee about how to proceed. I really don’t think that the ward boundaries need to be adjusted right now. I’m more open to the arguments that Councillor Morion, Deputy Mayor Morion has made around the significant under representation that you’ve got with Ward seven where you have a lot more people in that ward than in some of the other wards. And so their sort of effective vote is lowered.

And yeah, I think that that is an issue and as it gets close to the 25% threshold as it is in Ward seven, we’re gonna have to act on that. But, you know, when we’re managing through a crisis, I honestly think people need, you know, if something doesn’t have to change, like why are we going out of our way to change things? And the clerk has looked at the ward boundaries and said, you know what, nothing is above or below 25% threshold. I don’t recommend making any changes.

Just leave it the way it is. I think a comprehensive review which is outlined in the report is necessary. And I think that that can happen sort of in the early part of next term of council when the pandemic will be in the rear view mirror. And people will be able to fully engage in a discussion about how the ward boundaries should be arranged.

We’ve had massive population growth in London, you know, over the last little while, very significant. And I think having the benefit of the census, which is just coming up, like we’re underway now, the census week was just back in May. We’re gonna have the results of that at the beginning of the next term of council. We’re gonna have federal redistricting, right?

I certainly hope that we’ll get another electoral district federally in London, which we are long overdue for, I think. And we could have some significant redrawings of the political boundaries in the city. And then when we have the benefit of all that, we can have our own conference or review, try and understand what’s going on with the student population, which doesn’t really get captured very well by the census, and then make the adjustments then perhaps more significant than what has been proposed by Deputy Murmorgan or by Councillor Lewis. Speaking very specifically to the change that has been advocated for between Ward 4 and Ward 2, I will say based on the feedback that I’ve had from people, there are some people who think this is a great idea and we should do it right away.

There are some people who think, yes, these are an idea, but why would we do that now? There are some people who really don’t have a very strong opinion and there are some people who are dead set against it so far just in hearing from people. And generally, I would say really heard from a pretty small fraction of the people who would be affected, we’re talking about 650 people. It’s obviously almost 10 times as many people in the other change that’s being proposed between seven, five and three.

So I’d say just leave it alone. I don’t think it’s really necessary to move an area that’s three and a half percent over to an area that’s 12% under when our thresholds are 25% plus or minus. It’s just not a pressing urgent problem. And I think we should leave it alone and wait for next council term and deal with it then.

Thank you, I have Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, Your Worship, given my understanding of what the committee passed and what’s on the floor, which is just the component of the motion that said that the report for Ward Brown to be received that the committee did not recommend any take-no-action motion, I am going to attempt the amendment I made at the committee again. I also like Councillor Halmer was unable to convince people or enough people to support it. And I’d like to put that on the floor and I can explain my reasons for so, which I will do so if I have a seconder.

And I’m going to, at the committee, I put two amendments on the floor separate. I’m only gonna put the one related to my ward. Everybody’s represented in council, they can take the actions that they feel unnecessary. So the amendment I would like to attempt to make is that the clerk be directed to proceed to arrange a public participation meeting, including any necessary information at a future meeting of the corporate services committee with respect to the following proposed Ward boundary adjustment as outlined in the staff report, May 31, 2021, with respect to the matter.

Option four, Ward seven, May civil area to Ward five, Ward five, Fanshawe, Park Road area to Ward three. You have a seconder in Councillor Lewis. Any comments or discussion on this? I have a point of order, your worship.

Councillor Cassidy, go ahead. So I misspoke in that the committee made no decision. The committee received the report, but I did make a motion that said the staff recommendation. And although my wording was incorrect, I still made that motion.

And so I believe that that motion should be on the floor. First. Just bear with us, please. Just confer, just bear with us a moment.

So, Chair, you brought up a thoughtful question to the point that we think we’re going to ask the clerk to just give a little direction on that, because there’s some question relative to the original motion and taking no action. So with that, perhaps I can ask the clerk to put some clarity to this, please. If you, Mr. Mayor, I’m assuming you meant the city clerk and not the clerk in the room, just to verify.

Well, it’s in the room. We’re lucky that all the clerks are nice and have wisdom, but I’m looking for the city clerk for this, please. Okay, it’s more difficult when you’re not in the room to see what’s happening. So I just didn’t want to step in.

Mr. Schultz is just going to answer. So the motion that it came from committee is to receive the report, which is in order, and the chair has put that on the floor. It is also in order for Councillor Morgan to put forward an amendment to that motion.

So what would happen is the receive part would become, if the amendment passes, the receive part would be A, just that you receive the staff report and then B would be whatever the amendment is. Understood. I see the chair has a question about that. Councillor Caster, go ahead.

So my words were received the report and I wanted to move also the staff recommendation to not change the word boundaries. And Councillor Helmer seconded that motion. Whether I needed to say the words, I amend the motion, I made my intention very clear that I wanted to make that motion. Does my motion not count?

Because I’m the chair of the committee. Through you, Mr. Mayor, if I could assist. So what you would do is put the original motion from the committee, which is to receive.

And then you and Councillor Helmer could put an amendment on the floor to receive and take no action. I assuming that’s what that motion would be. And then yes, then that would have to be dealt with. And then if that fails, then Councillor Morgan could hit the amendment on the floor.

All right, so then I will ask the clerk now because the motion to receive with, I appreciate where the chair of the committee is indicated and duly seconded vote taking no action, which is a specific step. And we also have Deputy Mayor Morgan’s amendment. And so to the city clerk, if I might ask, then will we, based on what you’ve just said, it sounds like we should be dealing with Councillor Cassie and Councillor Helmer’s amendment first of a taking no action before we go to the amendment. That’s what I’ve heard you say.

Is that correct, my understanding? You, Mr. Mayor, that’s correct. I apologize, when I was listening to Councillor Cassie at first, I did not hear the part about take no action.

I just heard the receive. No, we heard that. So yeah, so she, Councillor Cassie and Helmer’s amendment would put on the floor. You’d have to vote on it if it fails, then Councillor Morgan could put his motion on the floor because Councillor Morgan’s would be contrary.

So I will rule that the chair’s amendment, seconded by Councillor Helmer, takes precedence over the amendment put forward by Deputy Mayor and duly seconded itself. With that, we have an amendment on the floor, which is to take no action. Would and seconded, is there, are there comments or questions around that? Deputy Mayor.

Yes, and let me just say, I think I agree with the ruling that has been made, and I agree with the process of it being an amendment from Councillor Cassie and Councillor Helmer. So I will speak against the amendment, and I will make an articulate argument in case for the motion that I would like to make on behalf of my constituents when you will allow me to do that. And I will ask Council, please, allow me to be on behalf of my constituents, put that motion on the floor, whether you want to vote for it or defeat it, so that it can be definitive and that I can represent them to the best of my ability because I do have very strong views about the democratic components of the way that my ward is constituted. I will absolutely respect the final opinion of council, but I would ask you to defeat the amendments so that I can, at the very least, put it on the floor and make my case.

That is all I’m gonna say about the amendment, and I would hope that I have the opportunity to make the case for the amendment that I would like to make. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, I too am rising to speak against the motion that’s on the floor. Not only do I support Councillor Morgan having the chance to get his motion on the floor in the interest of democratic fairness, but I would have a subsequent motion with respect to my ward boundaries.

At that time, I would speak to that as well, but I do want to add one other very significant component. We heard in bringing this forward, why would we have to do this now? Well, the reality is colleagues, if we do not do this now, if we do not allow Councillor Morgan to get that motion forward and at least consider public options, we are then not going to make any changes to ward boundaries until 2026. I support the call for a comprehensive review, I really do.

In fact, and I mean no disrespect to those who are returning Councillors from the previous council, but I think it should have been done last time. However, it didn’t, and we don’t have time to do a comprehensive review now, but the last council did make some minor ward boundary adjustments, and I think that this council, in the interests of the demographic changes that are facing our city need to do that. So I hope that you’ll let us get these motions on the floor, which by the way, would trigger public participation meetings, not a final decision on ward boundaries. Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Your Worship. Thanks to my colleagues for your comments. That’s for you, to the city clerk. If this, the motion as put forward here, which is basically be received and directed not to proceed with changes to the existing ward boundaries at this time, what would be the time?

Would this be something that would be brought forward? Or do you need direction to bring this forward at the earliest opportunity in the next term? Let’s ask the city clerk. Okay, Mr.

Mayor, we would bring it forward near the beginning of the next term of council for, because we would need to go through a request for a proposal process and need approval to do that. So it’s, you can give us direction if you wish, but it’s certainly our intent to move forward without comprehensive review shortly after the election in 2022 and early 2020 and into 2023. Councillor Turner. Thank you, that’s helpful.

So I’m supportive of the motion as put forward on the table right now. I’m not supportive of the proposed amendments. And I think one of the concerns that I’m hearing too is kind of that slippery slope, okay, well, what about my ward, what about my ward, what about my ward, and that gets messy. I think it does need to be in a very purposeful and clean way, and I think it’s something that does need to be done at the appropriate point and it needs to have enough runway.

It needs to have enough time for the community to be consulted in a meaningful way. It needs to be done with enough background and enough information and full meaningful public participation. And I don’t see that being done in the next six months. And with challenged opportunities to do so over the next six months as we have some gathering limits and restrictions on our abilities to congregate, we can find alternatives to providing public input, but I would much rather see these in community centers and libraries so that we can have the discussion with constituents and do so in a meaningful way.

The clerk’s response is helpful to me because I think it does need to be done right at the outset of the term. If we wait until two to two and a half years in, it’s too late and it’s not the appropriate time. Councilor Halmer makes the appropriate points about the variance from the midpoint of the amount of populations in each ward. I recognize that the deputy mayor is concerned about the size of fourth seven.

I understand that. I understand the perception of disproportionality. I understand the increased workload that comes with that. I’m not on empathetic to the arguments that are being made.

I don’t think it’s the appropriate time. I think it is needed. I think the appropriate time is at the beginning of next term. Thank you.

Councillor Cobaga. Thank you, Councillor. (muffled speaking) I have said most of what I wanted to say. I also do support the amendment on the floor by Councillor Cassy and Councillor Halmer.

And I agree that we don’t have enough time, the six months, you know, we’re almost at the end of the year and it’s not going to give us enough time as we know that not everybody has been vaccinated and we’re still dealing with the pandemic. We’re still in the pandemic. So I think that this would leave a lot of people out, a lot of people’s inputs out. And I support the staff recommendation that doing it in next term will be the best outcome.

But I also don’t want to dismiss what Councillor Morgan has mentioned about his ward. I do support this motion and I think that that could be addressed in the next round, one day they do revise the war boundaries. And the number of growth across the city is not that significant that we can’t hold off until the next round, after the next election. So I think that we have very limited time and any change that we may make will leave an impact a lot of people, especially, you know, people who don’t normally find it easy to access to city services and to participate in the electoral decisions.

And we’re trying to work to that. We’re trying to get more people to be involved, younger people to be involved, be people of many diverse communities in our city to be involved. And doing this right now would be a quick reaction that would leave a lot of people out. It’s not everybody who’s paying attention to what the city is doing every two seconds.

So I will support the amendment. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. And I really appreciate the conversation that we’re having about the ward boundary discussion tonight.

I hear what Councillor or Deputy Mayor Morgan and Councillor Lewis are saying about wanting to represent their constituents. And I hear that and wanting to have that opportunity. I’m not exactly sure what that opportunity would look like. And I really do appreciate the comments or the question from Councillor Turner as to when the comprehensive review will take place, which is not that far off.

And at that time, I see that engagement, Ward 9 will probably be part of that conversation as well on how to look at the growth in population, having the consensus done, is really important. I looked at the report and saw what other municipalities are doing when they have discussions about ward boundary changes. They get a consultant, it takes a year, a year and a half to get that done. So I think to have a really good understanding about the need to make these changes, I think that will happen and it’s not too far off.

So I will be supporting the motion on the floor. Thank you, any other comments or questions on this? Councillor Cassidy, this is to the amendment. Yes, thank you Your Worship.

And first of all, I understand exactly where the deputy mayor is coming from. And I want to say from the start that I know for him, this is not about workload. He doesn’t feel like he’s working harder than any other Councillor. It’s about adequate representation.

So one person is spread amongst a certain number of people. And so he wants to make sure that his constituents are getting the right percentage of a Councillor compared to other wards. I completely agree with that rationale and that motivation. I don’t think that this is the right time.

Councillor Helmer or Councillor Turner pointed out this same idea, but I will say that the idea of community engagement, public engagement is extremely, extremely important. Last term, just before the election, there was a little bit of a re-jigging amongst or between wards five and six and seven, I believe. And I know for ward five in particular, and Councillor Hopkins is waving her ward as well. So I know personally in ward five, about a hundred voters were transferred from seven to five.

There was a lot of uncertainty when I was knocking on doors about, and not everybody in the best of times knows who their ward Councillor is. And that’s fine as well. It means that their life is good, I guess. But I think we would be talking about moving a substantial number of people around.

My concern is undoing that. So already that would require quite a large amount of communication, quite a large amount of engagement, public participation, meetings, I believe more than just one would be required. And so what happens after this comprehensive review, after the census data is released, after a consultant is hired to do that count on students that we really, really need. What happens after all of that?

And then we have to maybe turn around and undo some of the changes. So that’s how we made changes this term of council. We do this review. Then to go back and undo some of those changes, it’s just going to add more confusion than what already exists.

I’ll share just that minor change of adding polling stations. I added a couple of polling stations for voters in ward five in the last election. I had a long-term, very engaged voter contact me on voting day to tell me he was very sorry he wanted to vote for me, but he wasn’t voting at all because he wasn’t aware that now he had a new polling station and he had to go somewhere else after years of going to the same place. So this kind of communication has to be done very thoroughly, very thoughtfully, and it’s too important to rush it along.

I also want to point out students. There are a substantial number of students living in ward five. People might not know that because I don’t have student residences and I don’t have a lot of high-rise apartment buildings in ward five. There are a lot of townhouse condo developments along Richmond Street and along Windinger Road.

Substantial student population in their ward six has a huge student population. Ward three, these students are not being counted right now. If you see the report, I think a couple thousand Western students are included in the count. We know that there are tens of thousands of Western students.

So I think we have to take our time. We have to do this, right? It has to be done, absolutely, but it has to be done slowly, methodically, and it has to be done right and once in a few years, not a few times every single year. So that’s my reason for the amendment.

I’m not against the rejigging. I’m against doing it at this time. Thank you, Casablosa. Thank you, Your Worship.

I voted in favor of considering the public participation meetings at committee and I’ll be doing so again tonight. Even for ward 12, we went from Mill the pack for ward populations up to third. I do consider word 12 to very diverse that we have an urban area, plus we still have all the rural countryside. And I did take part of Council Hopkins work came over last time.

And even next time when we go back out, many of us will help brand new subdivisions of new Londoners, we get to talk to, who never were engaged with us, which is an exciting opportunity. Just for anyone watching, certainly the polling stations do change. That was a report that we accepted earlier as part of this process, recognizing accessibility standards, parking requirements, and now civic administration is gonna look at active transportation requirements and bike parking as well. So things are changing, but I have to acknowledge when Councillors come forward wanting to speak on behalf of their constituents regardless if we do accept what they want or not, that they have an opportunity to be heard, especially when they’re talking about a large population that they represent, making sure that they have equal representation and say at the table, I do take that very seriously in democracy as we’re colleagues sitting around this virtual horseshoe that everyone feels they have an opportunity to raise those concerns on behalf of their residents.

And public participation does look different right now as we go through multiple waves of COVID, but I am interested in those conversations. So I will be voting no on the amendment tonight and hope there’ll be discussion later about what to do. Councillor Hillier and I, we discussed our words and part of it in a staff report was potentially some of Councillor Hopkins coming over and we did want the deep dive of a full look into what could be done as we have a diverse population and we decided we were happy to wait for that report for the next term of council to make a decision then. But I do respect those Councillors who further awards are saying they want that conversation now and I will vote to support them.

Thank you. Thank you. I see no other speakers on the list. This is voting for that we have in front of us colleagues, the amendment put forward by Councillor Cassidy and Councillor Helmer.

We will call the question. Was in the vote motion fails at seven to seven. Thanks very much, Deputy Mayor Moore. Thank you, colleagues.

And thank you for the opportunity to put my motion on the floor regardless of how you vote. I would like to move an amendment to this to put option four on the floor as it’s articulated in the committee report. I’ve read it out before and I’d like to have the opportunity to make some arguments for that. And you have your seconder with Councillor Lewis.

Thank you very much. Comments or questions colleagues? Deputy Mayor. Yeah, I’ll just go right off the top ‘cause I know a lot of people spoke to the arguments.

And first off, let me say I appreciate everyone’s perspective on this. And I, again, appreciate the opportunity to put my motion on the floor. And I will tell you why I want to do so, some of which you’ve heard. If we do not make an adjustment now, the residents that I represent will be stuck with the current ward boundary and all of the growth that will occur to it until the end of 2026.

And to me, that is not acceptable. I know given the, I said I can reasonably project given the growth rates that are in the staff report and how close ward seven is to the 25% threshold that for those who think that number is important, there is a very, very strong likelihood that ward seven passes that. And I would like the residents of my ward to have the opportunity to be represented relatively on par with the rest of the city. And I believe this ward in particular is out of alignment with the others.

And a small correction or even what will end up being a large correction ‘cause it is so far out of line, I think is reasonable. And for those who say the timing is not good, I agree. This is not the ideal time to do this, but we don’t have much of a choice unless you wanna leave it this way until the end of 2026. When we wanted to move to a system of ranked ballots, we were willing to push the boundaries on timing and the time that the regulations came in and it was important for democracy.

In my opinion, and in my ward, I believe this is important for the democracy of my ward that the residents who are represented by a counselor are represented as equally as we can possibly make it across the city within reason. And so I accepted there are different boundaries for reasons with different counselors. I accept that and I will stand by council’s final decision on this wholeheartedly. But I do appreciate the opportunity to make the case because I do feel personally that ward seven needs a correction before the end of 2026 to ensure that those representatives’ voice is magnified at a relatively similar level to the other voices across the city and that the 37,000 people or whatever it will be do not have to funnel all of their perspectives and ideas and wishes through one counselor, whereas other wards more like 20,000, 24,000 have the opportunity to do the same.

So that is my case. I appreciate all of the arguments that have been made and I appreciate very much so the colleagues who allowed me the opportunity to put this on the floor regardless of whether you support me or not at this point. Thank you. Thank you.

Again, dealing with this specific amendment, does anyone have anything else they wish to add to the discussion? Councillor Elmer. Thanks very much. Through the mayor, I’m interested to know, has anyone talked to Councillor Saleh about what he thinks about changing word three boundaries?

Are you directing Councillor Morgan who’s proposing that change if you have any insight on that front that we’re talking about moving 4,000 people almost into word three? So are you directing that to the deputy mayor Councillor Hauer? Seems like a reasonable person to ask. Will these are reasonable person, let’s ask them.

Yes, no, I have not had specific conversations with Councillor Saleh. I have made all my motions at public meetings and I don’t think it’s any surprise that this would be on the floor tonight at council. But no, I have not had any specific side conversations with Councillor Saleh about this. Councillor Hauer?

The only point I would make about this one and I think that, you know, Councillor Morgan is quite right to be concerned about the growing population between now and 2026. You know, that’s when the sort of next opportunity for changes would come into place. It’s very normal to have boundary adjustments basically on a 10 year cycle. And it’s really only at the local level because of our own policy where we’re looking at the boundaries every term of council.

So every four years rather than every say 10 years, which is what happens at the provincial and federal levels. And we made some changes not that long ago to relieve some of the pressure in word seven. Other areas of the city are also growing. Downtown, we just approved new developments down there.

A lot of what has happened in word seven is not going to be repeated. You know, entire subdivisions that are now in place are not going to be added in. And so I’m not, I guess I’m not as concerned about the future population growth in word seven compared to where it is now. And I don’t want us to kind of assume that what has happened in the past is going to be what’s happening in the future.

If we execute on the London plan, that shouldn’t be what happens. We should start seeing more and more population growth in the core and a little bit less in the suburban parts of the city. Both of the areas that are identified for moving less or extend the part that’s further east. Our areas where I expect there to be significant off-campus student housing based on what we can see in terms of unoccupied dwellings.

These are dwellings not occupied by usual residents, right? That’s what shows up in the census. And certainly the area that sort of to the west currently in word seven that’s being proposed to go to word five is one of these areas where you’re going to have a fair number of students, not as intense as other parts of the city, but a fair number. And I just want to point out that we really have no idea how many people are in there.

We’re really under counting those people because the only student numbers we have are for the residences and none of them are in this area. So, you know, I just think this is a good example of the kind of change that we shouldn’t really make until we have better information on it. And I know it kind of sounds like a boring thing to do, which is we’re just going to make any changes till we get better information. But it may be that there’s a better solution to this problem than the change that being proposed right now.

It could involve moving this exact same area after we do the comprehensive review. It could be suggested to move it somewhere else. And then you have moving people and then moving them again. And that’s what I’m really trying to avoid is like unnecessary changes that we can just avoid.

So I’m not convinced, I think we really need to listen carefully to the advice from the staff who work in the city who look at word boundaries and make recommendations rather than, you know, really being motivated by political preferences around, you know, we should change these word boundaries for these reasons. I just think this is an area where the more neutral, the more staff driven the process is and community driven the process is, the better. You know, I’ve got my own preferences around how these things should be drawn out, but I actually don’t think we should make those kind of changes in this way. So I hear what Council Morgan’s saying.

I think that this area is probably one that could move in the future. Once we have a good sense of how many students are living in that area, we’ll have a good sense of how many people are actually being moved. For now, I would just say I would leave it, you know, I have less strong feelings about it than the one in word four and word two, but I would leave this one alone. Thank you, Councilor Lish.

Thank you, Your Worship. First, I just want to, through you, with staff, get some clarification. Right now, we’re just dealing with an amendment to the motion to receive the staff report. Specifically, we’re dealing with the motion that you seconded, moved by Council Morgan.

Yes, so we’re not dealing with the main motion, so there will be an opportunity for an additional amendment to come. Checking with you through Clerk’s. That would be my presumption, Clerk. What I believe, Councillor Louis is saying, he does not want his component of this to be impacted and his ability to put that forward.

So, City Clerk, do you have a comment on that? Mr. Mayor, I concur with you the motion that’s currently on the floor only deals with option four. And to deal with the option as we know that Councillor Louis intends to present, is that in order as far as you are concerned?

Yes, it would be another amendment. Thank you, Councillor Louis, are you done? Thank you, Your Worship. So, I’ll wait to deal with my own amendment until after we’ve dealt with this one.

I think that’s appropriate. I just want to, on this specific amendment, emphasize again what I said on the original motion that was defeated, if we approve this tonight, we are not authorizing changes to be made to the ward boundary. What we are doing is initiating a public engagement process. And I’ve heard from colleagues who voted both ways on the original amendment, that a public engagement process is very important to them.

And I agree, it should be. But that’s what we would be voting on if we approve this, to move forward with the public engagement process. The results may come back and tell us we’re completely off base on this, on the piece that I’m interested in, but it’s an opportunity to have that discussion. And yes, we are still in a pandemic.

We are making decisions on planning applications as well, during a pandemic. We have virtual meetings. In fact, for some individuals attending, being able to attend a meeting virtually by phoning in, may be easier than them attending that community center or that library. I certainly understand the desire that was expressed by, and I’m sorry if I’m attributing this to Councilor Turner, when it was Council Cassidy.

One of them made this comment that it would be great to have these in community centers and libraries. And I agree that there’s a benefit to that, because residents can have an exchange with each other. But there is an opportunity for them to engage with us, still through this process now. So I’m gonna be supporting this.

I think Ward 7 is particularly important to address, because of the demographics, because of how close they already are to the threshold, and the projected growth that will be happening there over the next term. And the fact that the next time, well, we can start the comprehensive review in early 2023, changes to representation will not come into effect until the 2026 election cycle. So I think it’s really important that we adjust this Ward so that the citizens there have an opportunity to have fair representation by population through their Councilor. Thanks very much.

I have no one else on the, I do have someone else on the speaker, so this happens to be Councilor Squire. I’m not gonna be very long. I, in the past when issues like this have come up, I’ve always supported a comprehensive approach. I think an approach where we look at the entire picture at one time and say, “Here’s all of the wards and here’s how we need to do it.” And I don’t think we should be encouraging ourselves or staff to come to us at the end of a term and say, “Let’s make that change now.” I don’t think this is that urgent that we can’t do it in a comprehensive manner.

So I’m gonna stay consistent to that, and I’m gonna support, I supported the early motion. I’m gonna vote against these motions for that reason, because as much sympathy as I might have for anyone in a ward, there’s a lot of wards that may have other reasons why they want their boundaries to change, preferences, things like that. So I’m gonna continue on that course and look for a comprehensive solution to what may or may not be a problem. Thanks very much.

Anyone else wish to comment on this? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, motion fails, six to eight. Councilor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. Well, I’m gonna rise, although given the way the votes have gone, I will probably be back to receiving the report, but I’m still gonna put an amendment on the floor, and I will let the clerk for the sake of brevity insert the language from the corporate services report. It’s the option seven, which would move a small portion of ward four into ward two. It would transfer about 650 individuals over into ward two.

Certainly my ward is one of the smaller wards. First, I’ll look to see, make sure I’ve got a second or sorry, getting into my argument before. Let’s see if you have a seconder, let’s do that. That’s probably thoughtful.

Councillor Plowser, thank you. Go ahead then, Councillor Lewis. With thanks to Councillor Plowser for seconding there. Well, this may not seem to be a significant change, and certainly as one of the Councillors who represents one of the smaller wards, I’m actually offering to take on more individuals and more work when I could choose not to do that.

But the reason I’m supportive of this, and the reason I’m asking for colleague support, is the principle of communities of interest. And there is a strong community of interest tie in making this change. And communications were received at committee from the Argyle Business Improvement Association. This change would move the entire BIA into a single ward.

Communication was also received from the Argyle Community Association. That community association would then be represented by Councillors in two wards instead of three. Communications were also received from two of the church parishes who are divided right now by a congregation that’s half in ward two and half in ward four on opposite sides of Hale Street. This is a small adjustment population-wise, but it is an adjustment for a community of interest that’s important to the residents who are involved in any of these organizations, and it’s important to me as well, that they have their chance to be heard.

So again, I’m asking for support to have a public engagement process on this, see what the public thinks. I know that Councillor Halmer to his credit has engaged with some folks already. He’s gotten some mixed responses. I’ve engaged with some folks as well.

My responses have been more positive. I haven’t had any opponents, but I understand Councillor Halmer has, which is why I would like to hear more on this and have that public participation process. So I hope that folks will support it. I recognize this might be a little bit of a long shot, but that’s my reason for asking for this.

Thank you. Any other comments on this figure amendment? Councillor. Councillor, we’ll go ahead.

Thank you just on this particular proposal. Until councilor started advocating for changing the word boundaries, this is not something that people bring up very often. I will tell you that because this area is in provincially Ilana and Fanshawe, and it’s on the other side of hybrid, people are confused sometimes about which ward that they’re in when I was first running in 2014. People were confused with what their Councillor was.

Some people are still confused. It happens all along all the adjacencies around the wards. It happens in Kipsley and between Councillor Salih and I, it happens sometimes pretty far into other people’s wards or contacting the wrong people. That happens and I don’t really think that’s a good reason for changing word boundaries.

I would say that the communities are divided by hybrid, but they have a lot of things in common. So the people who are living on the other side of hybrid, on the west side of hybrid, basically are contacting me about the same kind of issues as the people who are on the east side of hybrid. They both have a lot of rental units along the main corridor. They’ve got a pretty stable residential neighborhoods on either side of hybrid.

And they use basically all the same recreational and cultural facilities that are in the area, like they’re in basically the same neighborhood. And what I’m seeing in the responses from people so far since I’ve been forced to contact people and say, hey, how do you want to make this change that the city clerk is not recommending? People on the west side are very keen on keeping people in word for. They just don’t see the reason for the change at all.

And a lot of people who are supportive of it just say, why would you bother with this now? Like of all things to be working on, why are you talking about changing word boundaries, especially this particular change? And then there are people who are closer to the hillside. So on the further side, on the right side, who they’re very oriented towards our gal.

And so they’re like, yeah, sure, like we could change. And some of them say we should change right now ‘cause it’s a great idea. And some of them are saying, you know what, it’s not. And I get, isn’t that evidence right there that like, why are you bothering to deal with this?

Like it’s not a problem. We have a lot of real problems that we have to focus on. And this particular problem, like my board has got 3.5% more than the optimal number of people. Is that a problem?

No, it’s not. Councillor Lewis’s word is a little bit under, like it’s 12, 12.8% under. Is that a problem? Yeah, it’s a little bit of a problem.

So they have more voting power than some other places in the city. And so we’re gonna take it away. That’s our urgent problem is we gotta dilute the voting power of people who are two by adding some more people into word two. It’s not really an urgent problem, right?

And I think people in this area would prefer us to work on stuff like property crime, the noise that comes from hybrid when there’s something that’s disconnected from the road and people are banging on it with their freight vehicles. These are the kind of issues that people are contacting me about. They do use all the same services. They go to the same churches.

They do that from the west side of Highbury and the east side of Hale. It’s all sort of one big community. And I just would not make the change right now. It’s not worth doing.

I do think that this change in the long run, this probably changes could be made, is move that part of the East of Highbury into word two. But don’t do it now. It’s just not necessary. It’s like going out of our way to find problems that don’t need to be fixed right now.

So I just leave it. Thank you. Any other comments or questions on this very specific amendment? I see none.

We’ll call the question. Okay, I beg her. Using the vote, motion fails, five to nine. Do colleagues have brings us back to the original Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Hummer, I believe that seems like a while ago to, I believe it is to receive the report we report where you clarify that clerk?

Yes, that’s correct. Thanks very much. Any comments or questions with respect to receiving the report? Seeing none, we’ll call the question.

Closing the vote. Motion carries, 13 to one. So there’s, oh, back to you, Councillor Cassidy. Report your question.

Thanks very much. Aren’t you lucky that you weren’t here where you’d have to stand for all of that? Thank you. There are no deferred matters, nor inquiries that I’ve been, for which I’ve been made aware.

Colleagues, perhaps for the benefit of the public, we’re gonna go through some bylaws. And just to let you know, we will then go into closed session. When we report out of closed session, we will also have the most recent report of the Corporate Services Committee. There was one item that was dealt with, pass those bylaws as appropriate, and then conclude the meeting.

But it’s my intention after we go through the bylaws and prior to confidential session, it being 10 to seven that we have a break, I think just a brief pause, and do that for 15 minutes sharp, and then do it at that time, and then we’ll move right into confidential session. So if that has, if there’s no objections to that, I’m going to go with now with the bylaws. And Colleagues, we have bills 270-272-285 inclusive, for which I’m looking for a mover and secretary of introduction. First reading, do I have a mover?

Councillor blows the seconder by Councillor Vanholst. Let’s call the vote. Was it in the vote? Motion carries 14 to zero.

Colleagues, I look for mover and seconder. Second reading of bills 270-272-3285 inclusive. Do I have a mover, seconder by Councillor Lewis, any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the question.

Was it in the vote? Motion carries 14 to zero. Colleagues, I look for mover and seconder. Third reading and enactment of bills 270-272-3285 inclusive.

Do I have a mover, please? Close it. Seconded by, call the vote. Was it in the vote?

Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Now I’ll turn your attention to bills 271 in two. We’ll deal with 435 through 451 right out the street.

So for first reading, we’re gonna look for mover and seconder of introduction and first reading mover. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. We will call the question. Sorry, your worship?

Yes, Councillor Layman. Can I ask for 286 to be called separate? Oh, I apologize. Thank you very much.

Councillor Turner’s asked for that 286. So we’ll split that into two bills. So 271, Councillor Lewis, Councillor Layman, you’re comfortable with moving in seconding. It’s just bill 271, colleagues.

We’ll put that on the table now. I’m so nervous with us as we make that adjustment. With apologies, Mr. Mayor, can you please indicate who the mover and seconder were for me, I missed that.

I’m sorry, that didn’t all come through. What clarification are you looking for? Sorry, I missed the mover and seconder of first reading of 271. Councillor Lewis, seconder of the Councillor Layman.

Councillor Turner. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Please, on a look for mover and seconder, seconder of bill 271.

Moved by Councillor Van Mereberg and seconded by to Lewis. Thank you very much, any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Councillor Hopkins, close in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to one. Reading an act when to bill 271, I will look for a mover and a seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Halmer, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. We’ll call the question.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one. Now to bill 286, I’ll look for mover and seconder for introduction of first reading. Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Palosa.

Thank you, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote. Motion carries 12 to two. Colleagues, your second reading of bill 286.

Moved by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 12 to two. Finally, call the bill 286. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Van Moles.

Thank you, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote. Motion carries 12 to two. Thanks very much, before we go into closed session, I’d like to ask the clerk to advise the public of the items that we’re dealing with in closed session.

City clerk. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We were going into closed session for three items related to the corporate services committee meeting, held on May 31st, three land acquisitions, and as well, there is an additional reason related to the special meeting of corporate services that was held on June 14th, which is also a property matter.

Thank you very much, therefore on that, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder to go into closed session. Moved by Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Layman. We’ll call the question. And as I do that, colleagues, we will reconvene at 715 in closed session to give those who have an opportunity to have a short break as we then finish the rest of our council business.

We will call the question. Councillor Lewis, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Colleagues, we’ll see you at seven.

Well, thank you very much. We have a motion to recess, please. Thought that’s what closed session kind of did, but I guess we need to look for a motion recess. Sorry, I know I’m being picky, but.

Yes, you are, but that’s why you’re the clerk seconded by Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you very much. Would you accept a show of hands just to move this along, Madam Clerk? Certainly, I’m sure the Deputy Clerk can tell me it’s carries based on what he’s also seeing.

Forever show of hands, those colleagues. Good carries. Thanks very much to the 715, thank you. And thank you, Clerk, without you.

We would be without you. Colleagues, welcome back. And I’d also like to welcome the public back. And the first thing we’re going to do in terms of added reports is 9.1 on our agenda, which is the ninth report of Council on closed session.

And to report out, I’m going to call on Councillor Layman, please. Thank you all, report out, ninth report of the Council on closed session. One, regarding the partial property acquisition of 50 King Street, downtown loop and municipal infrastructure improvements. Then on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Finance supports the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager Environment and Infrastructure and the Director Construction Infrastructure Services on the advice of Director of Rolley Services, with respect to the property located at 50 King Street, further described as part of Lot 21, north of King Street being part of Pin 08322-0129LT, containing an area of approximately 2004 and 41.7 square feet is shown on the location map as Appendix B.

For the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the downtown loop project, the following actions be taken. The offer submitted by 50 King Street London limited the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $551,300 be accepted. Subject to the following conditions A, the city agreeing to pay the vendor further sum of 15,500 for the disturbance upon completion of the transaction per second to section 18 of the expropriations act. B, the city agreeing to pay the vendor further sum of $42,100 in consideration of a grant of temporary easement and consent to enter agreement with the right to renew the easement for one additional term of one year upon additional payment of $21,050.

C, the city agreeing to pay the vendor’s reasonable legal appraisal costs, including fees, disbursements, and applicable taxes. To complete this transaction, subject to assessment, if necessary, is set out in section 32 of the expropriations act. Two partial property acquisition, $3,399 right on the street north downtown loop and municipal infrastructure improvements. Then on the recommendation of deputy city manager finance supports on the concurrence of the deputy city major environment structure and construction and construction infrastructure services on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the property located at $3.99 right on street north.

Further described as part of lot 21 self-adundant street, part of lot 21 north of King Street, being part of pin 08322-0128LT, containing an area approximately 1433.7 square feet is shown on the location map. As a appendix fee for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the downtown loop project, the following actions be taken. The offer submitted by $3.99 right on street London limited, the vendor to sell the subject properties of the city for the summer, some of $323,700. Be accepted subject to the following conditions.

One, the city agreed to pay the vendor further some of $15,500 for disturbance upon completion of the transaction, pursuant to section 18 of the expropriations act two, the city agreed to pay the vendor further some of $55,200. In consideration of a grant of temporary easement and consent to enter agreement with the rate to renew the easement, for additional term of one year for the sum of $27,600, three, the city agreed to pay the vendor’s reasonable legal appraisal costs, including fees, disbursements, and applicable taxes to complete this transaction, subject to assessment if necessary, is set out in section 32 of the expropriation act. Three, regarding the old Victoria Hospital Lands Phase Two disposition, RFT-21-09, that on the recommendation of the deputy city major, finance supports on the advice of director of real estate services with expected subject property known as old Victoria Hospital Lands Phase Two, 6.25 acres, the amending agreement submitted by Vision SoHo Alliance, consisting of in-well community homes, their and development corporation, homes that limited London, Inc., Chelsea Green Home Society, Italian Senior’s Project, and London Affordable Housing Foundation be accepted. Regarding properties, acquisition, 271 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway Project, now the recommendation of deputy city major, finance supports with the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services.

On the advice of director of real estate services with expected the property located at 271 Wellington Road, further described as part lot 70 planned 452/4, being southerly 37 feet, as in institution number 611376, being all pin 08364-0097LT, containing an area of approximately 4,441 square feet, as shown on the location map as a appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken. Hey, this offers amid my Derek, Michael Bird, the vendor, to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $500,000 subject to the terms and conditions, the acceptance set out in the agreement as a appendix C, thank you. Thanks very much. Do you have a seconder for that report?

I see Councillor Palosa, thank you very much. Any discussion, Councillor Turner? First, if I might recuse on the final item on the address at 271 Wellington Road, as I own a property in proximity, I’m not sure exactly what the proximity is, but on the abundance of caution, I will declare an interest. So noted, I’m wondering, Clerk, if I can just ask you, would we separate that out to allow Councillor Turner to vote, I’m inclined to do that, to allow him to vote on the other reports that we’ve approved in closed session?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, you could do that. I see Councillor Van Mirberg and how to stand up as well. Councillor van Mirberg.

Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to vote against 50 King, 399 right out and 271 Wellington. So it strikes me then, it probably makes some sense, we’ll take those items that we have deliberated on and we’ll deal with them individually and vote on them for that purpose. But having said that, I’ll give the clerk an opportunity just to be able to set that up appropriately for voting purposes.

Clerk, unless you’ve got a better idea than mine. City clerk. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, no, that’s probably the best way to do it and I’m assuming we’ll be calling the bylaws separately as well.

I’ve already reckoned that as well. Thank you, Clerk, but we will. We will call all the bylaws separately as well to deal with potential conflict of interest. They’re part made, a beginner interest and also various positions on these matters.

So that’s fine. I’ll just ask the clerk when he’s ready. I’ll also ask the clerk just to clarify in order, which are the items that we’re voting on for this purpose and we’ll work through it all. Thank you.

Just bear with us a moment. First item will be 50 King Street. That has been moved and seconded. We will, let’s deal with it this way, any discussion.

Then we’ll call the question. Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one. Next item is three.

Thanks very much. Again, we’re using the same mover and secondary. Any comments or discussion? Call the question.

Clerk Iabaga. Councillor Iabaga. Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one.

I’ll go ahead, clerk. - Hold the hospital. Again, delete, duly moved and seconded. Any discussion?

We’ll call the question. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Next matter is the amending agreement.

Again, the same mover and secondary comments or questions. And we’ll call the question. Close in the vote. Motion carries 12 to one with one.

Thank you, Councillor Lehman. I appreciate that. Our colleagues, under 9.2, we have the 10th report of the Corporate Services Committee. Councillor Caster, if you could present that report, please.

I’ll just put the report on the floor, Your Worship. So noted, any comments or questions? You know that that’s what we just dealt with as we all know. Seeing none, we’ll call the question.

Your Worship, if I may, just for the clerk, ‘cause this is the report, I’m not quite sure whether I should abstain or have a vote on this. So noted. Okay, so noted, clerk, any advice? This is the 10th report of the Corporate Services Committee.

Be approved is on the floor. To assist as well. It’s just the disclosure of pecuniary interest, noting that no pecuniary interest were disclosed. That’s the only thing on the report.

Is that helpful, Councillor Turner? Yes, thank you. Will layman, who’s in the vote? Motion carries 14-0.

We’re now going to turn our attention to the bylaws based on the meeting we’ve just had. And I’m going to call all of them individually as a result of the report out of closed session. I think that’s appropriate and prudent. So I’ll turn your attention first to added bill 287, you know, with the downtown loop project.

And for that, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, please move by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Thank you very much. We’ll call the question. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 13-1. Seconder, seconded reading of bill 287. Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion?

Well, then let’s vote. Councillor Turner, close in the vote. Motion carries 13-1. I’ll now look for third reading and putty seven.

I’ll look for mover, please. Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Hillier. We will call the question. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 13-1. Colleagues, now we’re dealing with added bill 288. Again, dealing with the downtown loop project for first reading of added bill 288. I will look for a mover, please.

Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Palosa. We will call the question. In the vote, motion carries. For seconded bill 288, I’ll look for a mover, please.

Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Thank you very much. Any discussion? Then we’ll call the question.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 13-1. Colleagues, for third reading and putty 88. I’ll look for a mover, please.

Moved by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Hillier. We will call the vote. Close in the vote. Motion carries 13-1.

Added bill 290, which is the Wellington Gateway Project. And I’ll look for mover and seconder of introduction for introduction of first reading of the bill. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman. We’ll call the question.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 12-1 with one recuse. Second reading of added bill 290. I’ll look for a mover, please.

Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. Any discussion? Call the question.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 12-1 with one recuse. And now, fine. To add a bill 290.

I’ll look for mover and seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Hillier. I will call the vote. Councillor Carabaga, close in the vote.

Motion carries 12-1 with one recuse. I’m going to deal with added bill 289, which is the old Victoria Hospital lands. For introduction of first reading, I’ll look for a mover and seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you. We’ll call the question. Councillor Carabaga. I’m going to vote yes.

I’m going to vote. Thank you. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14-0.

Colleagues, 2-89. I will look for a mover, please. Councillor van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Any discussion?

Let’s call the question. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14-0. Very much.

And now for third reading and enactment of bill 289. I’ll look for a mover and seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. We’ll call the question.

Councillor Hillier. I vote yes, frozen. Thank you. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14-0. Thank you. Now here’s the bill colleagues I really like. This is bill 260.

This is for the benefit of the public. The by-law that confirms the proceedings of the council meeting that we just had. We kind of like to say the best for last. So with all of that for bill 69, I’m an introduction of first reading.

I’d like to have a mover, the Councillor van Holst. I knew I’d get you excited about the Councillor van River again, seconded. We’ll call the question. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14-0. And now for second reading of bill 269. Seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor van Holst.

Thank you. Any discussion? Let’s vote. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14-0. And finally colleagues, for third reading and enactment B9, I will look for a mover and seconder. Moved by Councillor van Holst, seconded by Councillor Hillier. We’ll call the question.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 14-0. Thank you. We’ve covered a lot of business tonight.

Before we adjourn, just some closing comments if I can. And here’s what we know, all of us that London, our community’s been tested like it ever has been before. And I would say to you with deepest respect, it’s been hurt like it has never been hurt before. But where I take some comfort is that we’re all family.

And this family will come together with love and not hate with unity and not division. I look forward to that. And part of what has made that task as we work through this process of grieving and mourning has been the tremendous work that our staff have done. I mentioned it was made earlier about our first responders and frontline workers who just who stood tall through this last week and weeks, but in particular this past week.

And our staff has so much to do with how well we have a community has it’s helped us respond. And we will work through this. We will work through this process of healing, but I just want to thank all of you as counselors as well. I know this has impacted all of you, all of us directly and how we help our community heal.

And people look to us for that. And I’m inspired by the caliber of colleagues around this table because you all genuinely care and you love the city. So thank you and may I also say again to staff, thank you. So with that, let’s look for a motion to adjourn.

I see Councillor Squire is like always doing that. And Councillor Lewis second, let’s do a show of hands. They’re all those in favor. Can you count us down, Clerk?

In favor. Motion carries. Thank you all, please enjoy your evening. We’ll talk as we all do.

Be well.