November 16, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:00 PM with all Members participating; it being noted that the following Members were in remote attendance:  Councillors M. van Holst, M. Salih, J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, P. Van Meerbergen, E. Peloza and S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 6.2 of the 18th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, having to do with the property located at 150 Wellington Street with respect to the Wellington Gateway Project, and related Added Bill No. 551, by indicating that he owns property within close vicinity of the subject property.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by J. Helmer

That pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, the order of business BE CHANGED, to permit for dealing with the 16th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, and the related by-law, at this time.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   15th Report of Council in Closed Session

Released in Public - To attach to the November 16 Council minutes

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

1.     Property Acquisition – 297 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 297 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lot 206, Plan 498 (4th), except easterly 2 feet, being all of PIN 08363-0037 (LT), containing an area of approximately 4,962 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 Sparkles Cleaning Service Ltd. (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $642,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions 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”.

3.     Offer to Purchase Industrial Land, Synergis Tooling and Machining Inc., Innovation Industrial Park, Phase I

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to industrial land located in Innovation Industrial Park, Phase I, containing an area of 4.0 acres and municipally known as 2445 Innovation Drive, legally described as being Part of Block 3, Plan 33M-544, more specifically shown as Part 1, Plan 33R-19843, being all of PIN 081970291, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “C”, the following actions be taken:

a)     the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by The Corporation of the City of London (the “Purchaser”) to repurchase 4 acres of the subject property from Synergis Tooling and Machining Inc., for the sum of $252,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement; and

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

4.     Partial Property Acquisition – 4270 Lismer Lane – Bradley Avenue Extension Project Phase 2 – Wharncliffe Road South to Jalna Boulevard

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 4270 Lismer Lane, further described as Firstly: Part of Lot 33, Concession 2, Westminster, designated as Parts 9 and 10 , Plan 33R-20821, being part of PINs 08209-2872 (LT) and 08209-2388, Secondly: Part of Block 1, Plan 33M-786, designated as Parts 11 and 12, Plan 33R-20821, being part of PIN 08209-2861, containing an area of approximately 0.41 acres, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Bradley Avenue Project Phase 2, the following actions be taken:

a)     the offer submitted by Goldfield Ltd & Goldfield 1 Ltd (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $172,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”;

b)     the City agreeing to pay a further sum of $40,000.00 for a Grant of Temporary Easement and Consent to Enter Agreement with the option to renew this agreement for a further twelve month term, for an additional sum of $40,000.00, wherein additional compensation and additional terms have been agreed to between the Parties, being the “Related Transaction”; and

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

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

2.     Property Acquisition – 150 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 150 Wellington Road, further described as Part Lot 25, Concession Broken Front, Geographic Township of Westminster, as in Inst. No. 919914, City of London, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 08358-0010 (LT), containing an area of approximately 9,375 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 Nick Vurajic (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $476,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions 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 (10 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No.’s 550, 552 and 553 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Second Reading of Added Bill No.’s 550, 552 and 553 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No.’s 550, 552 and 553 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 551 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 551 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 551 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 0)

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

Bill

By-law

Bill No. 516

By-law No. A.-8181-362 – A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 16th day of November, 2021. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 517

By-law No. A.-8182-363 – A by-law to authorize and approve a Stewardship Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and London Symphonia for its exclusive use and custody of the City’s Music Library; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Stewardship Agreement. (2.4/15/CPSC)

Bill No. 518

By-law No. A.-8183-364 – A by-law to authorize and approve a standard form Rapid Housing Initiative Agreement” (RHI) (Schedule 1) with Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and to delegate the duties of the City as it relates to the administrative and development activities for capital development within the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI). (2.6/15/CPSC)

Bill No. 519

By-law No. A.-8184-365 – A by-law to approve and authorize the execution of the Credit Agreement, the Operating Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London, the London Middlesex Community Housing Inc. and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and to approve the Guarantee between The Corporation of the City of London and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2.2/15/SPPC)

Bill No. 520

By-law No. A.-8185-366 – A by-law to ratify and confirm the Resolution of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. (2.2/15/SPPC)

Bill No. 521

By-law No. A.-7657(d)-367 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7657-4, as amended, being “A by-law to repeal By-law No. A.-7495-21 and to adopt an Emergency Management Program and Plan” in order to repeal and replace Schedule “A” to the by-law. (2.3/15/CPSC)

Bill No. 522

By-law No. A.-7766(a)-368 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7766-366, being “A by-law to approve and adopt a standard form Licence Agreement for the use of recreation spaces and assets; and to authorize the Managing Director, Parks and Recreation or the Managing Director Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services, or their written designate, to insert information and execute Licence Agreements not exceeding $10,000, for the use of recreation spaces and assets, which employ this form and to repeal By-law No A.-6690-195 and any amendments thereto” to reflect the current organizational structure. (2.2a/18/CSC)

Bill No. 523

By-law No. A.-7821(a)-369 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7821-84, being “A by-law to approve the Grant Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Grand Theatre; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement” to reflect the current organizational structure. (2.2b/18/CSC)

Bill No. 524

By-law No. A.-7820(a)-370 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7820-83, being “A by-law to approve the Purchase of Service Agreement between London Arts Council and The Corporation of the City of London; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement” to reflect the current organizational structure. (2.2c/18/CSC)

Bill No. 525

By-law No. A.-7834(a)-371 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7834-109, being “A by-law to approve the Purchase of Service Agreement between London Heritage Council and The Corporation of the City of London; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement” to reflect the current organizational structure. (2.2d/18/CSC)

Bill No. 526

By-law No. A.-7332(a)-372 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7332-16 being “A By-law to approve and adopt the standard form Grant Agreement (London Community Grants Program); and to authorize a City Representative to insert information and execute agreements which employ this form; and to authorize a City Representative to insert information and execute agreements which employ this form” to reflect the current organizational structure. (2.2e/18/CSC)

Bill No. 527

By-law No. A.-6790(a)-373 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6790-81, being “A By-law to approve and adopt the standard form for Purchase of Services Agreements for Community Services” to reflect the current organizational structure. (2.2f/18/CSC)

Bill No. 528

By-law No. A.-6690(a)-374 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6690-195 being “A By-law to approve the standard form for Office/Storage Space Licence Agreements” to reflect the current organizational structure and to repeal By-law No. A.-5962-42 and By-law No. A.-5962(a)-126. (2.2g/18/CSC)

Bill No. 529

By-law No. A.-5505(y)-375 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-5505-497 entitled, “A by-law to authorize the implementation of a pre-authorized tax payment plan for The Corporation of the City of London” by changing the multiplier to determine the pre-authorized property tax payment from 1.025 to 1.030 effective January 1, 2022. (2.3a/18/CSC)

Bill No. 530

By-law No. A-8-21030 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A-8, as amended entitled “Property Tax Collection By-law” by changing the calculation percent for the Interim Levy from 41.0% to 41.2% effective January 1, 2022. (2.3b/18/CSC)

Bill No. 531

(REVISED) By-law No. C.P.-1284(wl)-376 – A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 560 and 562 Wellington Street. (3.7a/16/PEC)

Bill No. 532

By-law No. C.P.-1480(a)-377 – A by-law to amend the SoHo Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to add an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the CIP. (3.1/16/PEC)

Bill No. 533

By-law No. C.P.-1523(a)-378 – A by-law to amend the Hamilton Road Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to add an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the CIP. (3.2/16/PEC)

Bill No. 534

By-law No. C.P.-1538(a)-379 – A by-law to amend the Lambeth Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to add an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the CIP. (3.3/16/PEC)

Bill No. 535

By-law No. C.P.-1572-380 – A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 1820 Finley Crescent, legally described as Block 99 in Registered Plan 33M-733. (2.3/16/PEC)

Bill No. 536

By-law No. L.S.P.-3494-381 – A by-law to designate 46 Bruce Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest. (4.2/12/PEC)

Bill No. 537

By-law No. PS-113-21077 – 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.” (2.4/14/CWC)

Bill No. 538

By-law No. S.-6146-382 – A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (White Oaks (Legendary) Phase 1, 33M-518)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

Bill No. 539

By-law No. S.-6147-383 – A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (North Longwoods Subdivision, Phase 2 – 33M-581)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

Bill No. 540

By-law No. S.-6148-384 – A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Woodhull Subdivision – 33M-682)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

Bill No. 541

By-law No. S.-6149-385 – A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Summerside Subdivision Phase 12A – Stage 2, 33M-533)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

Bill No. 542

By-law No. S.-6150-386 – A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Creek View Subdivision Phase 1, 33M-652)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

Bill No. 543

By-law No. S.-6151-387 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Buroak Drive; and as part of Twilite Boulevard)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of 33M-799 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting plans 33M-750 and 33M-752 for unobstructed legal access through subdivision)

Bill No. 544

By-law No. S.-6152-388 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Evans Boulevard) (Chief Surveyor – registration of 33M-789 requires 0.3m reserve on abutting plan 33M-756 for unobstructed legal access through subdivision)

Bill No. 545

By-law No. S.-6153-389 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Petty Road, Bateman Trail, Lemieux Walk; and Biddulph Street)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of 33M-795 requires 0.3m reserve on abutting plans 33M-542 and 33M-576 for unobstructed legal access through subdivision)

Bill No. 546

By-law No. Z.-1-212969 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove the holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 1224 Blackwell Boulevard, legally described as Block 1 Plan 33M-798. (2.2/16/PEC)

Bill No. 547

By-law No. Z.-1-212970 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 512 McCormick Boulevard (3.6/16/PEC)

Bill No. 548

(REVISED)  By-law No. Z.-1-212971 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 560 and 562 Wellington Street. (3.7b/16/PEC)

Bill No. 549

(ADDED) By-law No. A.-8186-390 – A by-law to appoint a Councillor for Ward 6 for the City of London. (4.1/16/SPPC)

Bill No. 550

(ADDED)  By-law No. A.-8187-391 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Sparkles Cleaning Services Ltd, for the acquisition of the property located at 297 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.  (6.1/18/CSC)

Bill No. 551

(ADDED)  By-law No. A.-8188-392 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Nick Vurajic, for the acquisition of the property located at 150 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. (6.2/18/CSC)

Bill No. 552

(ADDED)  By-law No. A.-8189-393 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Synergis Tooling and Machining Inc. for the purchase of industrial land located in Innovation Industrial Park, Phase I, containing an  area of 4 acres, municipally known as 2445 Innovation Drive, legally described as being Part of Block 3, Plan 33M-544, more specifically shown as Part 1, Plan 33R-19843, being all of PIN 081970291, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.3/18/CSC)

Bill No. 553

(ADDED)  By-law No. A.-8190-394 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Goldfield Ltd & Goldfield 1 Ltd, for the acquisition of the property located at 4270 Lismer Lane, in the City of London, for the Bradley Avenue Project Phase 2 and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.4/18/CSC)

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

5.1   14th Meeting held on October 26, 2021

2021-10-26 Council Minutes - Full

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Minutes of the 14th Meeting held on October 26, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by J. Morgan

That pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in the order of the Council Agenda BE APPROVED to provide for Stage 4, Council, In Closed Session, and Stage 9, Added Reports, to be considered after Stage 13, By-laws.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the following communications BE RECEIVED and BE FORWARDED as noted on the Agenda:

6.1     The City of London 2021-22 Winter Response Program for Unsheltered Individuals (SS21-40, SS21-41, SS21-42, SS21-43) - refer to Item 8 (2.5) of the 15th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

1.     S. Dietrich

2.     R. Young

6.2      Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties - refer to Item 9 (3.1) of the 15th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

1.      B. Alleyne

6.3      Blackfriars Bridge - refer to Item 14 (5.4) of the 14th Report of the Civic Works Committee

1.       T. Cleland

2.       L. McCardle

3.       T.W. Munro

4.       A. Yeung

5.       H. Payne

6.       M. Miksa

6.4     Initiation of the Mobility Master Plan Development - refer to Item 9 (4.1) of the 14th Report of the Civic Works Committee

1.       Councillor M. van Holst

6.5     560 - 562 Wellington Street (OZ-8462) - refer to Item 17 (3.7) of the 16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

1.        A. Valastro

2.       Councillor S. Lewis

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by Mayor E. Holder

That the following communications BE RECEIVED and BE FORWARDED as noted on the Agenda:

6.1     The City of London 2021-22 Winter Response Program for Unsheltered Individuals (SS21-40, SS21-41, SS21-42, SS21-43) - refer to Item 8 (2.5) of the 15th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

1.     S. Dietrich

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   15th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

11-02-2021 CPSC Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 15th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Items 8 (2.5) and 9 (3.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Facility Accessibility Design Standards

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the updated 2021 Facility Accessibility Design Standards document, as appended to the staff report dated November 2, 2021, BE ADOPTED; it being noted that the accessibility design standards apply to newly constructed and/or renovated facilities owned, leased or operated by the City of London. (2021-A22)

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Emergency Public Mass Emergency Notification System - Single Source Procurement (SS21-38)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, the following actions be taken, with respect to the staff report dated November 2, 2021, related to a single source procurement for an Emergency Public Mass Emergency Notification System:

a)     a purchase of service agreement BE AWARDED to Everbridge, Inc., as a single source procurement for a mass emergency notification system, at a cost of $77,000 (plus HST) per year for a five (5) year period, beginning December 20th, 2021 to December 19th, 2026; it being noted that this is in accordance with section 14.4 (d) and 14.4 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this matter; and,

c)     the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory terms and conditions with Everbridge, Inc., to the satisfaction of the City Manager. (2021-P03)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) 2021 Annual Emergency Management Program Update (Relates to Bill No. 521)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 2, 2021, related to the 2021 Annual Emergency Management Program Update:

a)     the revised attached proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16th, 2021 to:

i)      adopt Schedule “A”, being the City of London Emergency Response Plan, as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

ii)     repeal By-law No. A.-7657(c)-2; and,

b)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2021-P03)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) London Symphonia Stewardship of the Former Orchestra London Music Library (Relates to Bill No. 517)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated November 2, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021, to:

a)     approve the Stewardship Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between the City of London and London Symphonia, for its exclusive use and custody of the City’s Music Library, for the benefit of Londoners and the regional community; and,

b)     authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Stewardship Agreement;

it being noted that the above-noted Stewardship Agreement is expected to be substantially in the form as appended to the above-noted by-law, however any amendments to this Stewardship Agreement are to be in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor’s Office. (2021-R02)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.6) Authorization and Delegations to Advance Urgent Housing Projects (Relates to Bill No. 518)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated November 2, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on November 16, 2021, to:

a)     approve the standard form “Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI) Agreement”, as appended to the above-noted by-law, to be completed in accordance with Round 2 of the RHI program between Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and The Corporation of the City of London;

b)     delegate the duties of the City as Recipient to the Round 2 “Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI) Agreement”, related to project plans, administration, development approvals, program and project management, oversight and progress attestation requirements noted within the CMHC Agreements, to Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) as agent for the City; and,

c)    authorize and delegate the Deputy City Manager Planning and Economic Development to execute any such agreements, amendments or similar such program agreements that may be required by CMHC under Round 2 RHI or similar such CMHC capital investment funding programs and agreements that may be required to advance the City’s identified Urgent Housing with Supports projects; it being noted that these agreements are within approved budgets and do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London. (2021-S11)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.7) Back to Business By-law Extension

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, and the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the Deputy City Managers and designates BE DELEGATED authority in regulations related to business supportive actions including business application and permit processing procedures until January 15, 2023 in the following By-laws: Business Licence By-law, Streets By-law, Traffic and Parking By-law, Sign By-law, Parks and Recreation By-law, Sound By-law, Building By-law and Council Policy By-law. (2021-S08/S12)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (4.1) 9th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on October 7, 2021:

a)     the following actions be taken with respect to the recycling depots and fishing line:

i)      the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to obtain recycling receptacles for used fishing lines and hooks and install signage related to the proper disposal of these items and the proper use of the recycling receptacles; and,

ii)     a member of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee BE GRANTED delegation status at the Community and Protective Services Committee, when the above-mentioned matter goes before the Committee, to provide additional information related to the recommendation;

it being noted that the attached information, with respect to this matter, was received;

b)     the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to review the coyote signage in City park amenities, in comparison to the related signage posted in Environmentally Significant Areas, with an aim to providing consistent educational signage with respect to coyotes to the public;

it being noted that the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee would be interested in funding any changed or additional signage;

it being further noted that the attached information, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

c)     clauses 1.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.4 and 5.5, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from W. Brown, Chair, Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, was received with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at October 25, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.5) The City of London 2021-22 Winter Response Program for Unsheltered Individuals (SS21-40, SS21-41, SS21-42, SS21-43)

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 November 2, 2021, related to The City of London 2021-22 Winter Response Program for Unsheltered Individuals (SS21-40, SS21-41, SS21-42, SS21-43):

a)     the above-noted staff report BE ENDORSED;

b)     a funding increase extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreements, at a total estimated increase of $1,685,000.00 (excluding HST), for the period of December 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, to administer the City of London 2021-2022 Winter Response Program, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy, Section 20.3.a.ii, BE APPROVED to the following existing agreements:

  •    Ark Aid Street Mission; 

  •    CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services,

  •    Impact London; and,

  •    Atlohsa Family Healing Services;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the above-noted contracts; and,

d)     the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into and/or amending Purchase of Service Agreements with Agencies outlined in the above-noted staff report;

it being pointed out that the Community and Protective Services Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

a communication from J. Duckitt;

a communication from L. Kellestine;

a communication from J. Hogg; and,

a communication from R. Young;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from J. Duckitt was received with respect to this matter. (2021-S14)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Turner

That Council recessed at 5:04 PM.

Motion Passed

Council resumed at 5:13 PM.

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Item 8 (2.5) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

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 November 2, 2021, related to The City of London 2021-22 Winter Response Program for Unsheltered Individuals:

a)     the above-noted staff report BE ENDORSED;

b)     a funding increase extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreements, at a total revisedestimated increase of $1,325,000 (excluding HST), for the period of December 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, to administer the City of London 2021-2022 Winter Response Program, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy, Section 20.3.a.ii, BE APPROVED to the following existing agreements:

  • Ark Aid Street Mission;

  • Impact London; and,

  • Atlohsa Family Healing Services;

c)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the above-noted contracts, excluding the stabilization space noted in Schedule 1; and,

d)     the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into and/or amending Purchase of Service Agreements with Agencies outlined in the above-noted staff report;

it being pointed out that the Community and Protective Services Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

a communication from J. Duckitt;

a communication from L. Kellestine;

a communication from J. Hogg; and,

a communication from R. Young;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from J. Duckitt was received with respect to this matter. (2021-S14)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Item 8 (2.5), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 8(2.5), as amended, reads as follows:

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 November 2, 2021, related to The City of London 2021-22 Winter Response Program for Unsheltered Individuals:

a)     the above-noted staff report BE ENDORSED;

b)     a funding increase extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreements, at a total revisedestimated increase of $1,325,000 (excluding HST), for the period of December 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, to administer the City of London 2021-2022 Winter Response Program, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy, Section 20.3.a.ii, BE APPROVED to the following existing agreements:

  • Ark Aid Street Mission;

  • Impact London; and,

  • Atlohsa Family Healing Services;

c)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the above-noted contracts, excluding the stabilization space noted in Schedule 1; and,

d)     the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into and/or amending Purchase of Service Agreements with Agencies outlined in the above-noted staff report;

it being pointed out that the Community and Protective Services Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

a communication from J. Duckitt;

a communication from L. Kellestine;

a communication from J. Hogg; and,

a communication from R. Young;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from J. Duckitt was received with respect to this matter. (2021-S14)

8.1.9   (3.1) Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties

At 5:19 PM, Councillor M. Salih leaves the meeting.

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the draft by-law, as appended to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, with respect to Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for revisions that include enforcement measures in cases where compliance is not respected;

it being pointed out that the Community and Protective Services Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

a communication from L. O’Brien;

a communication from D. Ronson;

a communication from D. French; and,

a communication from S. Trosow;

it being noted that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions regarding this matter:

M. McCann;

A. Marchand;

D. Ronson;

S. Trosow;

A. Draghici;

R. O’Hagan;

A. Doelman;

B. Alleyne;

J. Bulsza;

C. Corrales;

D. Sweetland;

E. Arnsby;

E. Bartsch;

G. Milousis;

J. Jeffs;

J. Saunders;

K. Dean;

N. Wakim;

L. Starr;

S. Raymond Mair;

T. Ewert; and,

T. Mawlam.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Item 9 (3.1) BE AMENDED to add the following new part b):

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare an alternate draft by-law for consideration of Municipal Council, specific to the distribution of graphic flyers, that would incorporate the following measures;

i)     to specifically regulate flyers containing graphic images of dismembered human beings or aborted fetuses to residences;

ii)    to identified sources of municipal authority supporting the above-noted measure, [10(2) powers]; and,

iii)   to include provisions providing for enforcement and penalties for violations of the by-law;

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Item 9 (3.1) BE FURTHER AMENDED, to include the following:

That staff BE DIRECTED to use city channels of communication to promote the Trespass to Property Act as a means for residents to avoid the delivery of unwanted flyers from specific organizations.

Motion Failed (3 to 10)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Item 9 (3.1), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That part b) of Item 9 (3.1), as amended, BE APPROVED:

b)     that Civic Administration be directed to prepare an alternate draft bylaw for committee and council consideration specific to the distribution of graphic flyers;

i) to specifically regulate flyers containing graphic images of dismembered human beings or aborted fetuses to residences for consideration by council,

ii) to include in the by-law identified sources of municipal authority supporting this measure, [10(2) powers] and acknowledge the substantial evidence received by council from Londoners that such unsolicited Flyers cause demonstrable harm to London residents.

iii) and that the by-law include provisions providing for enforcement and penalties for violation of its terms.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

Item 9 (3.1), as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to flyer deliveries to residential properties:

a)     the draft by-law, as appended to the staff report dated September 21, 2021, with respect to Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for revisions that include enforcement measures in cases where compliance is not respected;

it being pointed out that the Community and Protective Services Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

a communication from L. O’Brien;

a communication from D. Ronson;

a communication from D. French; and,

a communication from S. Trosow;

it being noted that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions regarding this matter:

McCann;

A. Marchand;

D. Ronson;

S. Trosow;

A. Draghici;

R. O’Hagan;

A. Doelman;

B. Alleyne;

J. Bulsza;

C. Corrales;

D. Sweetland;

E. Arnsby;

E. Bartsch;

G. Milousis;

J. Jeffs;

J. Saunders;

K. Dean;

N. Wakim;

L. Starr;

S. Raymond Mair;

T. Ewert; and,

T. Mawlam; and,

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare an alternate draft by-law for consideration of Municipal Council, specific to the distribution of graphic flyers, that would incorporate the following measures;

i)     to specifically regulate flyers containing graphic images of dismembered human beings or aborted fetuses to residences;

ii)    to identified sources of municipal authority supporting the above-noted measure, [10(2) powers]; and,

iii)   to include provisions providing for enforcement and penalties for violations of the by-law;

it being noted that the Municipal Council received substantial evidence from Londoners that such unsolicited Flyers cause demonstrable harm to London residents.

8.2   18th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-11-01 CSC Report 18

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 18th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) City of London Days at the Budweiser Gardens – Showdown in the Downtown October 22, 2022

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the request to hold the Showdown in the Downtown – Knock Out Kidney Disease event on October 22, 2022, BE APPROVED as a City of London Day at the Budweiser Gardens; it being noted that five days remain for 2022, with no other requests pending.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Various By-law Amendments to Implement Organizational Structure Change (Relates to Bill No.’s 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527 and 528)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to various By-law amendments to implement organizational structure changes:

a)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7766-366, being “A by-law to approve and adopt a standard form Licence Agreement for the use of recreation spaces and assets; and to authorize the Managing Director, Parks and Recreation or the Managing Director Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services, or their written designate, to insert information and execute Licence Agreements not exceeding $10,000, for the use of recreation spaces and assets, which employ this form and to repeal By-law No A.-6690-195 and any amendments thereto” to reflect the current organizational structure”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021;

b)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “B” being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7821-84, being “A by-law to approve the Grant Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Grand Theatre; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement” to reflect the current organizational structure” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meting to be held on November 16, 2021;

c)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “C” being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7820-83, being “A by-law to approve the Purchase of Service Agreement between London Arts Council and The Corporation of the City of London; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement” to reflect the current organizational structure”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021;

d)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “D” being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7834-109, being “A by-law to approve the Purchase of Service Agreement between London Heritage Council and The Corporation of the City of London; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement” to reflect the current organizational structure”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021;

e)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “E” being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7332-16 being “A By-law to approve and adopt the standard form Grant Agreement (London Community Grants Program); and to authorize a City Representative to insert information and execute agreements which employ this form; and to authorize a City Representative to insert information and execute agreements which employ this form” to reflect the current organizational structure”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021;

f)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “F” being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6790-81, being “A By-law to approve and adopt the standard form for Purchase of Services Agreements for Community Services” to reflect the current organizational structure” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021; and,

g)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “G” being A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6690-195 being “A By-law to approve the standard form for Office/Storage Space Licence Agreements” to reflect the current organizational structure and to repeal By-law No. A.-5962-42 and By-law No. A.-5962(a)-126”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on November 16, 2021.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Pre-Authorization Tax Payment Plan By-law and Collection of Interim Property Taxes By-law (Relates to Bill No.’s 529 and 530)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to property taxation for 2022:

a)     the by-law, appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix A, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting on November 16th, 2021 to amend by-law A.-5505-497, “a by-law to authorize the implementation of a pre-authorized payment plan” by updating Schedule A of the by-law to provide for the 2022 calculations; and,

b)     the by-law, appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix B, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting on November 16, 2021, to amend By-law A-8 “a by-law to provide for the collection of property taxes” in Part 1 to provide for the calculation of the interim tax levy at a percentage of 41.20% of the previous year’s taxes.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated October 4, 2021 from Anova: A Future Without Violence, November 25, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED as International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Salvation Army Week

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated October 19, 2021 from The Governing Council of The Salvation Army, December 17, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED as Salvation Army Week.

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (4.3) Deferred Council Directions Concerning Indigenous Relations

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the City Council directions as mentioned below BE REFERRED to the Indigenous Community Liaison Advisor for a report back with respect to these matters:

December 6, 2016

“That clause 6 [concerning a land acknowledgement at meetings of City Council] BE REFERRED back for further consultation with the Indigenous Community with respect to the proposed statement.”

May 16, 2017

“That the request to invite the Munsee-Delaware Nation, the Oneida Nation of the Thames and the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation to provide their flags and have them raised in an appropriate manner at London City Hall BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration in order to allow for consultation and report back with respect to this matter.”

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (4.4) Standing and Council Meeting Procedures

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to bring forward to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee for consideration, a draft policy with respect to the participation in hybrid electronic meetings by Council Members, staff and the public.

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (4.5) Removal of a City Councillor

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the communication from J. Kogelheide regarding the removal of a City Councillor BE RECEIVED; 

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications dated October 26, 2021 from A. Harnish and M. Borthwick.

Motion Passed

8.3   14th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2021-11-02 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 14th Report of the Civic Works Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Items 9 (4.1), 10 (4.2) and 14 (5.4).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) RFP21-07 - Innovation Park Phase 5 Design and Tendering - Appointment of Consulting Engineers

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 2, 2021, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Innovation Park Phase 5 Design and Tendering project:

a)        AECOM Consulting Ltd. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers to complete the design and tender documentation preparation for Innovation Park Phase 5, in the total amount of $232,561.00, including contingency, excluding HST;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in 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 work;

d)        the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the project; 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-D21)

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Appointment of Consulting Engineer for Trunk Watermain and Pumping Station Growth Study

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 November 2, 2021, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineer for RFP 21-62 Trunk Watermain and Pumping Station Growth Study:

a)        C3 Water Inc. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers to complete the Trunk Watermain and Pumping Station Growth Study, in the total amount of $235,092.64, including contingency, excluding HST;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in 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 work;

d)         the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the project; 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-E08)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.4) Amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw (Relates to Bill No. 537)

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 November 2, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 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-T02/T08)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.5) RFP 21-38 Supply and Delivery of CNG Split and Single Stream Side Loading Waste Collection Trucks

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 2, 2021, related to RFP21-38 Supply and Delivery of CNG Side and Split Stream Side Loading Waste Collection Trucks:

a)        the submission from Vision Truck Group 1220 Franklin Blvd. Cambridge Ontario N1R 8B7 for the Supply and Delivery of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Split and Single Stream Side Loading Waste Collection Trucks BE ACCEPTED at a total purchase price of $2,305,511.00 excluding HST;

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

c)        the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval; and,

d)        the funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2021-V00)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.6) Contract Award: Request for Proposal RFP21-56 Supply and Installation of Cured-in-place-pipe Sewer Liners

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 staff report dated November 2, 2021, related to the Request for Proposal 21-56 Supply and Installation of Cured-in-place-pipe sewer liners:

a)        the bid submitted by Insituform Technologies Limited at its tendered price of $4,339,000.00, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Insituform Technologies Limited was the only bid meeting the technical criteria and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in 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 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,

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-E01)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.3) Dundas Place Temporary Traffic Diversion Monitoring and Consultation

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 November 2, 2021, related to the construction mitigation traffic diversion on Dundas Place:

a)        the monitoring and consultation findings BE RECEIVED; and,

b)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a bylaw amendment to reinstate the current temporary traffic diversion arrangement on Dundas Place in Spring 2022 as a construction mitigation;

it being noted that the communication from M. Miksa, with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-T05/T08)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.7) Meadowlily Road Area Environmental Assessment and Servicing Study

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 November 2, 2021, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineer for RFP 21-59 Meadowlily Road Area Environmental Assessment and Servicing Study:

a)        MTE Consultants Inc. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers to complete the Meadowlily Road Area Environmental Assessment and Servicing Study, in the total amount of $203,071.00, including contingency, excluding HST;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in 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 work;

d)        the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the project; 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-E20)

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at October 25, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (5.2) 9th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on October 20, 2021:

a)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Revised Notice of Planning Application dated October 8, 2021 from A. Riley, Senior Planner, related to a Zoning By-law Amendment for the property at 99 Southdale Road West:

i)          the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consider including a provision for additional pedestrian and cycling access to the development from adjacent properties such as the:

A)        the Hellenic Community Centre located at 133 Southdale Road West to connect to Singleton Avenue; and,

B)        the property located at 1065 Wharncliffe Road South to connect to Legendary Drive; and,

b)        clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.4, 3.1 to 3.4, 3.6, and 4.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (5.3) 9th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on October 26, 2021:

a)        the following actions be taken with respect to the to the presentation, dated October 26, 2021, as appended to the Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda, with respect to the Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive Intersection Municipal Class Environmental Assessment:

i)         the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Transportation Advisory Committee supports Alternative 4, Multi-Lane Roundabout, for the above-noted project;

b)        the Advisory Committee Pilots - Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) Comparison document as appended to the above-noted report, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Works Committee for review; and,

c)        clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1 to 3.4, and 5.2, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (4.1) Initiation of the Mobility Master Plan Development

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 November 2, 2021, related to the development of the Mobility Master Plan:

a)        the following Draft Vision and Guiding Principles for the development of the Mobility Master Plan as follows BE ENDORSED for consultation and feedback through a community engagement program, noting that the final Vision and Guiding Principles will be brought forward for approval after the community engagement:

Draft Vision Statement:

In 2050, Londoners of all identities, abilities and means will have viable mobility options to allow them to move throughout the city safely and efficiently.

The movement of people and goods will be environmentally sustainable, affordable, and supportive of economic growth and development.

Draft Guiding Principles:

  •    Environmentally Sustainable

  •    Equitable

  •    Financially Sustainable

  •    Healthy and Safe

  •    Integrated and Connected;

b)        the general framework for the community engagement program, as presented in the above-noted staff report, BE APPROVED; and,

c)        the general scope for the consultant assignment to assist in preparation of the Mobility Master Plan, as presented in the above-noted staff report, BE APPROVED. (2021-A22)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part a) BE AMENDED by adding the following additional Draft Guiding Principle:  “Efficiency”.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Item 9 (4.1), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Item 9 (4.1), as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 2, 2021, related to the development of the Mobility Master Plan:

a)        the following Draft Vision and Guiding Principles for the development of the Mobility Master Plan as follows BE ENDORSED for consultation and feedback through a community engagement program, noting that the final Vision and Guiding Principles will be brought forward for approval after the community engagement:

Draft Vision Statement:

In 2050, Londoners of all identities, abilities and means will have viable mobility options to allow them to move throughout the city safely and efficiently.

The movement of people and goods will be environmentally sustainable, affordable, and supportive of economic growth and development.

Draft Guiding Principles:

  •    Environmentally Sustainable

  •    Equitable

  •    Financially Sustainable

  •    Healthy and Safe

  •    Integrated and Connected

Efficiency;

b)        the general framework for the community engagement program, as presented in the above-noted staff report, BE APPROVED; and,

c)        the general scope for the consultant assignment to assist in preparation of the Mobility Master Plan, as presented in the above-noted staff report, BE APPROVED. (2021-A22)

8.3.10   (4.2) Wharncliffe Road South Improvements - 100 Stanley Street Process

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with consideration of the March 23, 2021 Council resolution, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit an application to Council to demolish the heritage designated property at 100 Stanley Street, it being noted that the application process requires further consultation with the London Advisory Committee on Heritage and a public participation meeting at the Planning and Environment Committee to consider the application. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed (9 to 4)

8.3.14   (5.4) Blackfriars Bridge

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Blackfriars Bridge:

a)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to leave Blackfriars Bridge closed to vehicles at this time and commence the review of the bridge operations as required by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks including public consultation, and report back at a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee; and,

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts necessary for the action noted in part a), above;

it being noted that the Civic Works Committee was made aware of the attached on-line petition (change.org), related to this matter.

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lewis

That consideration of the Blackfriars Bridge remaining closed to vehicles indefinitely BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee in order for the Civic Administration to complete the required usage study as required in the Provincial EA, provide the related report to council, and allow for a more fulsome public engagement with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (8 to 5)

8.4   16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-11-01 PEC Report - Full

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Council recess at this time, until 7:30 PM.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 7:08 PM and resumes at 7.32 PM, with all Members participating, except Councillors M. Salih and M. Cassidy.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Item 17 (3.7) and 20 (4.3).

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 7th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on October 21, 2021:

a)     the 2020 Community Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Working Group comments BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; and,

b)     clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.4, inclusive and 4.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) 1224 Blackwell Boulevard - Removal of Holding Provision (H-9391) (Relates to Bill No. 546)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Rembrandt Developments (Woodstock) Inc., relating to lands located at 1224 Blackwell Boulevard, legally described as Block 1 Plan 33M-798, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 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 R5/Residential R6/Residential R7/Residential R8 (h-R5-4/R6-5/R7-D75-H16/R8-4-H16) Zone TO a Residential R5/Residential R6/Residential R7/Residential R8 (R5-4/R6-5/R7-D75-H16/R8-4-H16) Zone to remove the holding (h) provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) 1820 Finley Crescent (P-9370) (Relates to Bill No. 535)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to exempt Block 99, Plan 33M-733 from the Part Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) Labatt Memorial Park - Heritage Designation Application

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application to the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada to nominate Labatt Memorial Park as a National Historic Site of Canada:

a)     the above noted initiative BE ENDORSED; and,

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit the application to the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada with respect to this matter. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.5) 64 Duchess Avenue - Heritage Alteration Permit Application

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for alterations to the doorway of the heritage designated property at 64 Duchess Avenue, located within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District BE PERMITTED as submitted with the following terms and conditions:

a)     the door and doorway be painted;

b)     the proposed alterations to the doorway be completed within six (6) months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

c)     the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.6) 1903 Avalon Street - Request for Heritage Designation

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the request for designation of the property at 1903 Avalon Street, that the following actions be taken:

a)     Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix E appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021; and,

b)     should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be receive, a by-law to designate the property at 1903 Avalon Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix E to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.7) Contract Award - ReThink Zoning Consulting Services - RFP21-57

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of consulting services relating to ReThink Zoning:

a)     Sajecki Planning Inc. BE APPOINTED project consultants to prepare the new comprehensive Zoning By-law for the City of London, in the total amount of $674,970.00, including disbursements and excluding HST;

b)     the financing for the ReThink Zoning (Phase Two) project BE APPROVED in accordance with the Source of Financing Report attached, hereto, as Appendix ‘A’;

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

d)     the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into a formal contract; and,

e)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other document, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.8) August, 2021 Building Division Monthly Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (2.9) September, 2021 Building Division Monthly Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (3.1) SoHo Community Improvement Plan - Performance Measures and Indicators (O-9328) (Relates to Bill No. 532)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to ADD an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the SoHo Community Improvement Plan (“CIP”);

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 this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment conforms with the Planning Act, as the loan and grant programs meet the requirements set out in Section 28 related to Community Improvement;

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS encourages the regeneration of settlement areas as they are critical to the long-term economic prosperity of communities and mainstreets;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including the Key Directions, Urban Regeneration, and Community Improvement sections; and,

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the SoHo Community Improvement Plan. (2021-D19)

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (3.2) Hamilton Road Community Improvement Plan - Performance Measures and Indicators of Success (O-9330) (Relates to Bill No. 533)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to ADD an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the Hamilton Road Community Improvement Plan (“CIP”);

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated October 19, 2021, from B. Baginski, with respect to this matter;

 

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter;

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms with the Planning Act, as the loan programs meet the requirements set out in Section 28 related to Community Improvement;

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS encourages the regeneration of settlement areas as critical to the long-term economic prosperity of communities and mainstreets;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including the Key Directions, Urban Regeneration, and Community Improvement sections; and,

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the Hamilton Road Area Community Improvement Plan. (2021-D19)

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (3.3) Lambeth Community Improvement Plan - Performance Measures and Indicators of Success (O-9329) (Relates to Bill No. 534)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to ADD an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the Lambeth Community Improvement Plan (“CIP”);

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 this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment conforms with the Planning Act, as the loan programs meet the requirements set out in Section 28 related to Community Improvement;

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS encourages the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas as critical to the long-term economic prosperity of communities, and, where possible, enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets;

  •    the recommended amendment complies with the in-force policies of The London Plan, including the Key Directions, Urban Regeneration, and Community Improvement;

  •    the recommended amendment complies with the policies in the Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment complies with the policies of the Lambeth Area Community Improvement Plan. (2021-D19)

Motion Passed

8.4.14   (3.4) 235 Kennington Way (39CD-21514)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 235 Kennington Way:

a)     the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to a property located at 235 Kennington Way; and,

b)     the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 235 Kennington Way;

 

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. (2021-D07/D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.15   (3.5) 704-706 Boler Road (39CD-21511)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to the property located at 704-706 Boler Road:

a)     the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no 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 704-706 Boler Road; and,

b)     the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 704-706 Boler Road;

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. (2021-D07/D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.16   (3.6) 512 McCormick Boulevard (Z-9374) (Relates to Bill No. 547)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Derek Panzer, relating to the property located at 512 McCormick Boulevard, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 1, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(_)) Zone;

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 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 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 General Industrial designation;

  •    the recommended amendment aligns with the Council-adopted Urban Agriculture Strategy;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized parcel of land that would otherwise be undevelopable.

Motion Passed

8.4.18   (4.1) 10th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 10th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on October 20, 2021:

a)     the Civic Administration and T. Jenkins and G. McDonald of AECOM BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) supports the overall design of the Victoria Bridge Replacement as it relates to the original Heritage Impact Assessment recommendations;

it being noted that the LACH suggests the following items be taken into consideration with respect to the above-noted design:

  •    the lamp pole design be sympathetic with the modern design of the bridge;

  •    the colour of the bridge be grey; and,

  •    the existing signage, noting the bridge name and original crossing dates, be included in the new design;

it being further noted that the presentation, as appended to the agenda, dated October 20, 2021, from T. Jenkins and G. McDonald, with respect to this matter, was received;

b)     on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 20, 2021, related to a request for designation of the property located at 1903 Avalon Street by S. Cox:

i)     notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix E of the above-noted staff report; and,

ii)     should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be receive, a by-law to designate the property at 1903 Avalon Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix E of the above-noted staff report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal;

c)     on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, seeking approval for alterations to the doorway of the heritage designated property located at 64 Duchess Avenue, within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District BE PERMITTED, as submitted, with the following terms and conditions:

  •    the door and doorway be painted;

  •    the proposed alterations to the doorway be completed within six (6) months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

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

it being noted that tripled arched wood doorways are important to the built heritage in London and the London Advisory Committee on Heritage is disappointed in the loss of this one;

d )    on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 20, 2021, related to the application to the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada to nominate 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 submit the application to the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada with respect to this matter;

e)     L. Maitland, Site Development Planner, BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage supports the research and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment, dated October 8, 2021, from M. Hobson, Built Heritage Consultant, as they relate to the Notice of Planning Application, dated October 6, 2021, from L. Maitland, Site Development Planner, with respect to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to the properties located at 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street; it being noted that the above-noted Notice, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

f)     clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.8, inclusive, 4.1 and 4.2, inclusive, 5.5 and 5.6, inclusive and 6.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.19   (4.2) Food Security and Home-Based Food Business

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a report that identifies recommended zoning amendments or other next steps regarding the regulations in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 for home occupations as they relate to food based businesses, taking into consideration recent Provincial changes to the Food Premises Regulation (O.Reg. 493/17) and the “Guide to Starting a Home-based Food Business”) {Ministry of Health, 2020}.

Motion Passed

8.4.17   (3.7) 560 and 562 Wellington Street (OZ-8462) (Relates to Bill No.’s 531 and 548)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, based on the application of 560 Wellington Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 560 and 562 Wellington Street:

a)     the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to amend the Official Plan (1989) to change the designation FROM a Low Density Residential designation TO a Multi-Family, High Density Residential Designation, and to ADD a Specific Area Policy in Chapter 10 – Policies for Specific Areas;

b)     the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Office (OF1) Zone, TO a holding Residential R10 Special Provision (h-5*R10-5(_)) Zone;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication from AM. Valastro, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated October 28, 2021, from S. Stapleton, Vice President, Auburn Developments;

  •    a communication dated October 28, 2021, from H. Handy, Senior Associate and K. Muir, Senior Planner, GSP Group;

  •    a communication dated October 28, 2021, from K. McKeating, President, Architectural Conservancy Ontario – London Region; and,

  •    a communication dated October 25, 2021, from G. Bruzas, CEO, THINQ Technologies Ltd.;

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. (2021-D09)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor S. Turner BE PERMITTED to speak longer than 5 minutes.

Motion Passed

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Item 17 (3.7), BE AMENDED to read as follows:

That, based on the application of 560 Wellington Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 560 and 562 Wellington Street:

a)     the proposed attached revised by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to amend the Official Plan (1989) to change the designation FROM a Low Density Residential designation TO a Multi-Family, High Density Residential Designation, and to ADD a Specific Area Policy in Chapter 10 – Policies for Specific Areas to permit an increased height of 17 storeys (61 m); an increase density of 807 units per hectare; a limited range of commercial uses in the Multi-Family, High Density Residential designation and the provision of affordable housing units implemented through a Bonus Zone;

b)     the proposed attached revised by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Office (OF1) Zone, TO a holding Residential R10 Special Provision Bonus (h-5*R10-5()*B ()*H12) Zone; it being noted that the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate a high quality development comprised of a mixed-use apartment building with a maximum height of 17 storeys (61 m), and a maximum density of 807 units per hectare, which generally implements the Site Plan and Elevations attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law and provides for affordable housing as follows:  

 

-     A total of twelve affordable residential rental units; with seven units to be provided within the development at 560 and 562 Wellington Street, and five units to be provided in existing inventory upon the completion of site plan approval; 

-     Rents not exceeding 70% 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 25 years from the point of initial occupancy of all affordable units;

it being noted that Civic Administration is encouraged to speak with Auburn Developments on the tenant selection process for the affordable units;

c)     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 the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication from AM. Valastro, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated October 28, 2021, from S. Stapleton, Vice President, Auburn Developments;

  •    a communication dated October 28, 2021, from H. Handy, Senior Associate and K. Muir, Senior Planner, GSP Group;

  •    a communication dated October 28, 2021, from K. McKeating, President, Architectural Conservancy Ontario – London Region; and,

  •    a communication dated October 25, 2021, from G. Bruzas, CEO, THINQ Technologies Ltd.;

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 this application for the following reasons:

  •    the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations, while conserving significant heritage resources;

  •    the proposed development conforms to the Official Plan (1989).

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That part a) of Item 17 (3.7) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That, based on the application of 560 Wellington Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 560 and 562 Wellington Street:

a)     the proposed attached revised by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to amend the Official Plan (1989) to change the designation FROM a Low Density Residential designation TO a Multi-Family, High Density Residential Designation, and to ADD a Specific Area Policy in Chapter 10 – Policies for Specific Areas to permit an increased height of 17 storeys (61 m); an increase density of 807 units per hectare; a limited range of commercial uses in the Multi-Family, High Density Residential designation and the provision of affordable housing units implemented through a Bonus Zone;“

Motion Passed (8 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That part b) of Item 17 (3.7) BE AMENDED by adding the following to the end of part b):

“it being noted that the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate a high quality development comprised of a mixed-use apartment building with a maximum height of 17 storeys (61 m), and a maximum density of 807 units per hectare, which generally implements the Site Plan and Elevations attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law and provides for affordable housing as follows:

  • A total of twelve affordable residential rental units; with seven units to be provided within the development at 560 and 562 Wellington Street, and five units to be provided in existing inventory upon the completion of site plan approval;

  • Rents not exceeding 70% 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 25 years from the point of initial occupancy of all affordable units;

it being noted that Civic Administration is encouraged to speak with Auburn Developments on the tenant selection process for the affordable units”

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Item 17 (3.7) BE AMENDED by adding the following new part c):

“c)     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;“

Motion Passed (9 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Item 17 (3.7) BE AMENDED by adding the following at the end of the clause:

“it being further noted that notwithstanding the advice of staff, municipal council is of the belief that this application is approved for the following reasons:

  •    the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations, while conserving significant heritage resources;“

Motion Passed (8 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Item 17 (3.7), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 4)

Item 17 (3.7), as amended, reads as follows:

That, based on the application of 560 Wellington Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 560 and 562 Wellington Street:

a)     the proposed revised by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to amend the Official Plan (1989) to change the designation FROM a Low Density Residential designation TO a Multi-Family, High Density Residential Designation, and to ADD a Specific Area Policy in Chapter 10 – Policies for Specific Areas to permit an increased height of 17 storeys (61 m); an increase density of 807 units per hectare; a limited range of commercial uses in the Multi-Family, High Density Residential designation and the provision of affordable housing units implemented through a Bonus Zone;

b)     the proposed revised by-law BE INTRODUCED at the  Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 16, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Office (OF1) Zone, TO a holding Residential R10 Special Provision Bonus (h-5*R10-5()*B ()*H12) Zone; it being noted that the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate a high quality development comprised of a mixed-use apartment building with a maximum height of 17 storeys (61 m), and a maximum density of 807 units per hectare, which generally implements the Site Plan and Elevations attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law and provides for affordable housing as follows:

  • A total of twelve affordable residential rental units; with seven units to be provided within the development at 560 and 562 Wellington Street, and five units to be provided in existing inventory upon the completion of site plan approval;

  • Rents not exceeding 70% 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 25 years from the point of initial occupancy of all affordable units; and,

c)     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 the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

  • the staff presentation;

  • a communication from AM. Valastro, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated October 28, 2021, from S. Stapleton, Vice President, Auburn Developments;

  • a communication dated October 28, 2021, from H. Handy, Senior Associate and K. Muir, Senior Planner, GSP Group;

  • a communication dated October 28, 2021, from K. McKeating, President, Architectural Conservancy Ontario – London Region; and,

  • a communication dated October 25, 2021, from G. Bruzas, CEO, THINQ Technologies Ltd.;

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

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

  • the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations, while conserving significant heritage resources.

8.4.20   (4.3) Global Bird Rescue

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to Global Bird Rescue:

a)     the request to update the Site Control By-law and Guidelines for bird-friendly building design in all new site plans BE ADDED to the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) Deferred List; and,

b)     the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to contact the London Bird Team to finalize the bird-friendly pamphlet and the bird-friendly pamphlet be added to the PEC Deferred List;

 

it being noted that B. Samuels, Coordinator, London Bird Team, was granted delegation status with respect to these matters;

it being further noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication from B. Samuels, Coordinator, London Bird Team, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Item 20 (4.3) BE AMENDED by adding the following new part c):

“c)        the finalized bird-friendly pamphlet, noted in part b), above, BE CIRCULATED to the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee for review.”

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

I

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by Mayor E. Holder

That Item 20 (4.3), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Item 20 (4.3), as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to Global Bird Rescue:

a)     the request to update the Site Control By-law and Guidelines for bird-friendly building design in all new site plans BE ADDED to the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) Deferred List;

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to contact the London Bird Team to finalize the bird-friendly pamphlet and the bird-friendly pamphlet be added to the PEC Deferred List; and,

c)     the finalized bird-friendly pamphlet, noted in part b), above, BE CIRCULATED to the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee for review;

it being noted that B. Samuels, Coordinator, London Bird Team, was granted delegation status with respect to these matters;

it being further noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication from B. Samuels, Coordinator, London Bird Team, with respect to these matters.

8.5   15th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2021-11-09 SPPC Report 15

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 15th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Meeting, BE APPROVED, excluding Item 10 (4.2).

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 8th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it be noted that the 8th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on October 21, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.3) Confirmation of Appointment to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Curtis Neville BE APPOINTED to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association for the term ending November 15, 2022; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from D. Szpakowski, General Manager/CEO with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.2) LMCH - CMHC Co-Investment - Loan Agreement (Relates to Bill No.’s 519 and 520)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the following actions be taken:

a)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 9, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED to:

i)      approve the Credit Agreement, substantially in the form attached, between the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, London and Middlesex Community Housing Inc. and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Credit Agreement”);

ii)    approve the Guarantee, substantially in the form attached to the staff report, between the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Guarantee”);

iii)    approve the Operating Agreement, substantially in the form attached to the staff report, between  the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, London and Middlesex Community Housing Inc. and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Operating Agreement”);

iv)     approve the Certificate of Officer, substantially in the form attached to the staff report, for the City of London (the “Certificate of Officer”);

v)     authorize the City Treasurer to approve any amendments to the Credit Agreement, Guarantee, Operating Agreement and Certificate of Officer prior to the execution by the Mayor and City Clerk;

vi)     authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Credit Agreement, the Guarantee, and the Operating Agreement;

vii)     authorize the City Treasurer to execute the Certificate of Officer;

viii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports to approve further agreements, documents or forms required by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation;

ix)     authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any further agreements, documents or forms required by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports;

(x)     authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports (or delegate) to execute any financial reports required under the Credit Agreement, the Guarantee, the Operating Agreement, and the Certificate; and,

xi)     authorize the Civic Administration to undertake all administrative acts required in connection with these agreements;

b)      the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 9, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED to:

i)       ratify the Resolution of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. to approve the borrowing under the Credit Agreement among London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc., the Corporation of the City of London, and Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation and the Operating Agreement among the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation, London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. and The Corporation of the City of London, and the granting of security under the Account Security Agreement between London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. and Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation; and

ii)      authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Resolution of the Shareholder.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (3.1) Tabling of the 2022 Budget Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Draft 2022-Tax-Supported Annual Update and the Draft Water and Wastewater Treatment Budgets Annual Update:

a)     the Draft Budget documents BE REFERRED to the 2020-2023 Multi-Year annual budget update process; and,

b)     the overview presentation, as appended to the added agenda, by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports with respect to the 2022 Budget Update BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (3.2) London Economic Development - Annual Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from K. Lakhotia, President and CEO, London Economic Development Corporation.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (3.3) TechAlliance - Annual Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from C. Fox, CEO, TechAlliance.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (3.4) London Small Business Centre - Annual Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from S. Pellarin, Executive Director, London Small Business Centre.

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (4.1) London Small Business Centre - Business Case Submission

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the Small Business Centre to support an application to the Local Business Accelerator Program and that a municipal contribution of $57,500 BE AUTHORIZED from the earmarked London Community Recovery Network funding, noting that Municipal Council previously authorized $10 Million to be contributed to the Economic Development Reserve Fund to support social and economic recovery measures.

Motion Passed

8.5.11   (4.3) Consideration of Appointment to the Covent Garden Market Board

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Justin Dias BE APPOINTED to the Covent Garden Market Board for the term ending November 15, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.5.12   (5.1) RBC Place London Board Appointment Recommendations for 2022

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the appointments to the RBC Place London Board of Directors:

a)      David Smith (Public Health) and Jenny Diplock (Business), Class 3, BE APPOINTED for the term ending November 15, 2023; and,

b)      Dr. C. Schlachta (Health Care), Nora Fisher (Technology), and Tony Soares (Marketing), Class 3, BE APPOINTED for the term ending November 15, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.5.13   (5.2) Committee of Adjustment - Member Vacancy

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the resignation of John Fyfe-Millar from the Committee of Adjustment BE ACCEPTED and the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to publicly advertise for a replacement appointment with applications to be considered at the next meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (4.2) Hamilton Road BIA 2022 Budget Request

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Hamilton Road BIA 2022 Budget request dated October 22, 2021:

a)      the above-noted request BE DEFERRED to the 2023 budget process; 

b)      the Hamilton Road BIA BE REQUESTED to work with Civic Administration to develop a full business case, with proposed funding source, for the 2023 budget process; and,

c)   that a one time grant of $30,000 be provided to the Hamilton Road BIA from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to establish an operating reserve.

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lehman

The motion to approve parts a) and b), is put.

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Hamilton Road BIA 2022 Budget request dated October 22, 2021:

a)      the above-noted request BE DEFERRED to the 2023 budget process; 

b)      the Hamilton Road BIA BE REQUESTED to work with Civic Administration to develop a full business case, with proposed funding source, for the 2023 budget process; and,

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by M. van Holst

The motion to approve part c) is put.

c)   that a one time grant of $30,000 be provided to the Hamilton Road BIA from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to establish an operating reserve.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

8.6   5th Report of the Audit Committee

2021-11-03 Audit Report 5

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 5th Report of the Audit Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (4.1) Internal Audit Summary Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication dated October 22, 2021, from Deloitte, with respect to the internal audit summary update, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (4.2) Internal Audit Dashboard as at October 22, 2021

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication from Deloitte, regarding the internal audit dashboard as at October 22, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (4.3) Observation Summary as at October 22, 2021

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication from Deloitte, regarding the Observation Summary as at October 22, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (4.4) SaaS Application Review

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the Internal Audit Report from Deloitte with respect to SaaS Application Review performed March 2021 to July 2021, issued October 21, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 516 to 547, excluding the revised Bill No. 531, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 516 to 547, excluding the revised Bill No. 531, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 516 to 547, excluding the revised Bill No. 531, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of the revised Bill No.’s 531 and 548, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of the revised Bill No.’s 531 and 548, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 4)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of the revised Bill No.’s 531 and 548, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 4)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

4.1    Personal Matter / Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2022 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/15/CPSC)

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. (6.1/18/CSC)

4.3    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. (6.2/18/CSC)

4.4    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. (6.3/18/CSC)

4.5    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. (6.4/18/CSC)

4.6    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations. (6.5/18/CSC)

4.7    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice which is subject to solicitor-client privilege and communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/15/SPPC)

4.8    Security of Property

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board. (6.1/5/AC)

Motion Passed

The Council convenes in closed session at 9:58 PM with all Members participating, except Councillors M. Salih and M. Cassidy.

At 10:06 PM, Councillor S. Turner leaves the meeting.

At 10:08 PM, Councillor S. Turner enters the meeting.

The Council resumes into public session at 10:16 PM, with all Members participating, except Councillors M. Salih, M. Cassidy and P. Van Meerbergen.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor Lewis enquires about the livestreaming of the Council Compensation Review Task Force meeting.  The Deputy Clerk responds that the meetings are open to the public and that members of the public can register to review the meeting in person or remotely by Zoom.  The Deputy Clerk also notes that the meetings are recorded and that a member of the public can request a copy of the recording. He also indicates that there has been no direction from Municipal Council to live stream these meetings.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That pursuant to section 18.4 of the Council Procedure By-law leave BE GIVEN for discussion and debate and the making of a substantive motion with respect to the public access to Council Compensation Review Task Force meetings.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make best efforts to ensure that there are appropriate means in place for the public to view meetings of the Council Compensation Task Force.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 10:50 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 (6 hours, 42 minutes)

colleagues will be ready in just a moment. Last colleagues, please, to turn on the screens. I want to confirm with the work that we have quorum, please. We do have quorum.

Thanks very much colleagues and to the public, welcome to the 15th meeting of city council, a virtual meeting held during the COVID-19 emergency. We would invite you to check the city’s website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city’s 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.

To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Colleagues all look for any disclosures, please, a beginner interest. I see none. We have been requested to shift one item, Colleagues, which I’ll mention after item three.

But firstly, I’ll look for any recognitions and I’ll call on Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, I rise tonight to recognize a young woman who’s a wonderful resident of ward two. Earlier this fall at Lebatt Park, Kayla McQueen watched her brother Chris celebrate when his team, the London Majors, won their first IBL title in 46 years.

But never let it be said that Kayla is not just as an accomplished athlete as her older brother. As a member of the Fanshawe Falcons women’s soccer team, Kayla McQueen has been a key member of the 2018-2019 and now 2021 Ontario College Athletics Association soccer championships for our Fanshawe Falcons. And this season, they went undefeated in the regular season before capturing the Ontario title. Kayla also captured individual honors as the 2021 Ontario College Athletics Association West Division scoring champion and Player of the Year.

She was also Ontario’s overall scoring champion with 17 goals in the regular season and was named to the 2021 Ontario All-Star team. Kayla was also fourth overall in Canada in scoring and named to the Canadian College Athletics Association’s All-Canadian team. Kayla is a star athlete and a team leader who’s had a remarkable 2021 soccer season. deserving of recognition.

And as we cannot have her in chambers today due to COVID, earlier this afternoon, we welcomed her to the mayor’s office for a special presentation from his worship, recognizing her athletic excellence. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing the McQueen family for many years and I want to take this opportunity to also extend my personal congratulations to Kayla on this remarkable season. And I also want to take the opportunity to thank her because she’s clearly a good role model, starting to share her scoring skills with her little brother, Cohen, who happens to be a member of the U18 Junior Mustangs hockey team that I’m a member of the coaching staff with. Clearly, her scoring success is rubbing off ‘cause this weekend, Cohen broke his scoring drought with his first goal of the season in helping our team win the Stony Creek Tournament of Champions.

So Kayla, thank you for your leadership on and off the field in our community. I want to wish you the best of success in your future endeavors, both as a student at Fanshawe, studying fire inspection and on the soccer pitch. I’m proud to call you and your family friends and wish all of the McQueen siblings the best of luck in their future endeavors, both on the field and on the ice and off. Thank you, Coach Lewis.

Colleagues, I’m not aware of any confidential matters to be considered in public. I will now vote at the item I referenced earlier at the start of the meeting. Councillor Sleeh is asked that if added report 9.2, the 16th report of the strategic parties and policy committee could be now heard. And if anyone has objections or concerns, then we will keep it in the order that you’ve indicated it’s been a specific request.

I’d look for a motion then to move the order to move the 16th report of the 40s and policy committee to now, prior to council on closed session. Moved by Councillor Van Mirbergen. Seconded by, thank you, Councillor Halmer. I appreciate that.

So with that, I will turn this now over to, and what we would be doing is dealing with this item and then dealing with the bylaws. Well, I’ll turn this over to the deputy mayor. I think we probably need to vote on that first. Oh, yes, pardon my bad form.

Any comments or questions? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Councillor Van Hal. Sorry, I vote yay.

Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, so I’ll present the SPPC, which includes three items.

The disclosures, the filling of the ward, six vacancy, and the submissions of support. I’m happy to move a motion to put all those items on the floor. And is there a seconder? I see Councillor Hill here.

Thank you very much, comments, questions. As the chair, I do have a comment I’d like to make, so I’d like to turn the chair over. Can’t be to the deputy mayor, perhaps I could ask. Councillor Lewis, could you take the chair, please?

Your worship, I will recognize Mayor Holder. Thanks very much, colleagues. This vote to formally fill the council vacancy ward six represents the end of a nearly unprecedented period, not only on this term of council, but any London council in recent history. We were placed in the unenviable position of having to fill two vacancies within weeks of each other, while working under an exceptionally broad framework, one that produced no shortage of options on how to proceed.

These circumstances produced debate, both around the horseshoe and in the public spectrum, that while at times, frankly, was acrimonious and divisive. I truly believe, however, that regardless of one’s position, each position was entirely legitimate, and each individual only has ever had London’s best interests in mind. So in that same spirit, trying to find that which unites, rather than divides, it is my sincere hope that we as a council can unite behind the nominee for ward six in the unanimous show of support tonight. Mayor Hamou will be an extremely effective councillor, one with a lengthy track record of public service and community involvement, and as we know, this is also an historic appointment to become the first Muslim woman to serve as a member of London City Council.

But we have an opportunity tonight by virtue of the unanimous vote to send a clear and strong signal to our incoming colleague that her appointment has our full and complete support. Equally important, we’ve had an opportunity to send an equally strong signal to all Londoners that this council embraces diversity and that we possess the capacity to come together when it truly matters. Colleagues, we’ve done this repeatedly over the years during this council term, most notably, unaffordable housing on the declaration of a climate emergency and on anti-racism measures. This council truly cares about process.

It’s what was voted on in the last meeting. And I’m looking and hoping that council will support that process, something we can do tonight under the circumstances. I believe that the nomination of Mayor Hamou for ward six councillor is of great significance. And so colleagues, I’m hoping you will join me this evening and making her appointment unanimous.

Thank you. Thank you, Your Worship. I will turn the chair back over to you noting that councillor Turner is next on the speaker’s list. I’ll turn this to councillor Turner, please.

Thank you, councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. Just with respect to the mayor’s comments, I do appreciate the intention to try and achieve unanimous vote. From the outset, I’ve been quite clear about my concerns with the process and the requirement for me that a mandate from the people is achieved in order to place a member into council.

And I’m very concerned at the process that we went through because that wasn’t sought in any circumstance, but more so that there was no debate. Last night, when the names were tabled, no one spoke. So I have challenges. I recognize that councillor Hamu will be a great addition to our table.

And I look forward to her being sworn in tomorrow, but I can’t support the process or a nominee. So I will have to vote against, as I did last night. It’s not a reflection of the person. And that’s also the same with councillor Fife Miller.

Again, not a reflection of the person, but the process for me, which was an abdication of our responsibilities as a council. So I’m disappointed by that, I’m disappointed by our actions as a council. I recognize they may have seemed divisive, but the intent at all times was to make sure that there was a clear and transparent process from my position on this. So I respect what Mayor Holder is seeking to accomplish.

I think that’s probably an important thing to have achieved. If we were to get to a consensus position, I think the process probably should have led us there. And we didn’t do that. Thank you, any other comments or questions?

Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you, your worship. And I understand how important it is for us to come together as a council. I, for one, have been an advocate to try to come together.

And for me, the two elections that we have just gone through for new councillors has not had a process. And that has been a concern for me. It’s got nothing to do with regard to my colleague, to my left here or to Marianne Hamou. I just feel that we did not have a transparent process.

And for that, I will not be supporting the nomination for the word councillor. Thank you. I am actually going to ask Councillors to take the chair. I have one more final brief comment.

Thank you, your worship. I recognize Mayor Holder. colleagues, I do want to say yes, please. Go ahead, Councillor, oh, this is council.

Go ahead, Councillor Turner. You’re absolutely right. I’m sitting down as we speak. Sometimes I like to circumvent process when I forget, but this is about process.

And so, Councillor Lewis, I’m going to ask to take back the chair. Thank you, worship and anticipating Councillor Turner’s point of order. This is also council and you’ve already spoken on this matter. So I will return the chair to you.

Clearly, eloquently, but not sufficient for the purpose. Thank you, Councillor Turner and Councillor Lewis. Any other comments from colleagues? I, Councillor Halmer, thank you.

Thank you. First, I want to say to the Mayor, I appreciate what you’re trying to do tonight. And you’re putting me in a very difficult position where I have to choose between, that I stick to my principles, which is I do not think it is right or fair to make somebody an incumbent through an appointment who intends to run in the next election. This is one of the reasons I didn’t vote for Mr.

Fife Miller when he was being appointed to the World 13 vacancy. It’s the same reason why I didn’t support Maryam Hamou at committee yesterday. She’s very clearly running in 2022. She’s said as much.

She’s very forthright about that. And I don’t think it’s right. But I also think it is important that we come together, that we try to act in that way, not just tonight, but all the time. And so now you’ve by pulling it up at the agenda, giving no notice that you’re going to do that.

You’ve sprung it on us as a bit of a surprise, which in terms of a approach to getting to unity is maybe not the best idea. So I’m going to think about which of these two things, which are both important. I’d like to call the point of order on that, but I have to give it to the Chair on that count. And I’m sorry, I wouldn’t speak to this, but I think it’s appropriate, Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. With due respect to Councillor Halmer’s comments, it was Councillor Saleh who requested the change of order in tonight’s agenda, not Mayor Holder. So it’s actually inaccurate to say that this was sprung without notice by the Mayor. This request came from another member of Council.

Thank you. Go ahead, Councilor McLeish. I’ll speak to Councillor Saleh later. I’m talking about what the Mayor has done, which is to make the speech saying, “Hey, we should all vote unanimously “in favor of Councillor Hamil.” Which is not something Councillor Saleh did.

It’s something that the Mayor did, and that’s what I’m talking about. So I’m going to think about which of these things I’m going to vote for. And I wish we weren’t in this position. You’ve put us in this position.

I understand why you’re doing it. And I do think that it’s important. It’s not a comfortable place to be. And I’m going to stop talking and keep thinking about what I’m going to do.

Thank you. Any other comments? I will recognize Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship.

I don’t want to repeat things that other people have said other than I also had always objected to putting in place some of that intended to run in 2022. I didn’t feel like it was our place to do that. And I felt it gave some of an unfair advantage that wasn’t warranted. There are plenty of qualified candidates out there for both seats that had no intention of running in 2022.

Like Councillor Helmer, that’s always been my position. And I’m going to stick to that position. I also take exception to your comments, Mr. Mayor, because I think where we could have achieved unity was early, early on in the process when we sought to treat both seats the same and we sought an actual process that we could go through and follow.

The end results could very well have been the same, but we would have definitely achieved unity by agreeing as a council to a simple and transparent process. And I’m very disappointed in how this has all turned out. Thank you, other comments. I’ll recognize Councillor Van Halst.

Yes, Your Worship, you suggested that we were going to pull forward both the motions from the committee meeting and in the by-law. Is it possible that we treat the by-law with the others at the end of the meeting? And for those who wanted some time to consider, they would have a chance to speak at that time too. Okay, we are going into some unprecedented territory here, but some of tonight has been that.

Let me just confirm with the clerk about that. My suggestion had been that we deal with at the request of council member deal with 9.2 and then it would be logical then to then deal with the by-law, but I will look to the clerk for some wisdom, bear with me moment, please. Certainly within the prerogative of council to do that either fashion would suggest that a motion to change order might be prudent. Do I’m gonna make, I see Councillor Silly’s hand up.

Let me recognize him and then Councillor Van Halst has just not lost to me what you’ve asked. Councillor Silly, do you wanna weigh in? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And the statement is correct. I did that at the last minute, I’ll reach out to the clerk and advise that I was hoping for a change in order. I’m just not sure if I will be at the entirety of the meeting, I have a previous commitment that’s quite important that I have to get to. That being said, I was just hoping to deal with this.

And that’s why I asked if there is quorum and if there was no objections and that’s what you did, you really that’s a council and go and raise an objection at the time of a change of order. So that’s why I brought that forward. So apologies if colleagues feel like they didn’t have enough time to prepare. I just assume that since we debated that last night that people had that time to consume that information.

Thank you. So what do you have is Councillor Van Halst asking whether the by-law component can take its rightful place at the end. And we’ve heard Councillor Silly indicate that he may not be available. If you don’t mind Councillor Van Halst, I’m going to recognize Councillor Halmer, go ahead, please.

I seem to be the only one. Yeah, I seem to be the only one who said I’d like some more time to think about it. I’m ready to go. So let’s go.

Councillor Van Halst, did you wish to put the motion forward to move that the by-law or move the by-law back to its original place or are you going to, I’m going to ask you what you’d like to do, please. No, thank you, Your Worship. I think if Councillor Halmer satisfied, that was my goal. I understood, thank you very much.

So with that then, colleagues, any other comments from anyone we’ve not heard from as yet? Councillor Palazzo, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I had also raised great concerns throughout this process about the transparency and where were we at.

My vote last night at committee did reflect that. I did also prefer someone with previous elected experience from the voters that they hoped to represent who would not be seeking reelection, but rather a caretaker for the ward seat allowing for there to be no incumbent running into the 2022 election. I do know Maryam Hamou, personally, she is wonderful. My concerns have nothing to do with the quality of the character, their expertise they bring to the table.

It was simply about process and the decisions that we’re making and how we’re going about it. I just want that publicly on record that if I’m happy to work with whoever we’re graced with on council, it was just strictly about the process of how we got here as it has been a convoluted process as we have dealt with ward 13 and ward six very, very differently. Thank you. Thank you very much, any other comments?

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, I’ll be brief and I say this with respect to the fact that I recognize that there are differences of opinion on this and I expressed when Councillor Helmer and Councillor Cassidy brought forward a motion on a process for ward six that for me, someone seeking re-election or not was not going to be a factor. I recognize for Councillor Helmer it was.

But I’ve heard concerns about I’m not happy with the process and I just want to make one final pitch I suppose to everyone to keep in mind that we had a process and while it may not have been my preferred process or your preferred process in a particular ward, it was the process that the majority of councils supported in both cases. In fact, in ward six, Mayor Holder was defeated in a 13 to one vote on a desire that he expressed to move forward with an appointment the night that we actually voted on and accepted the process that Councillor Helmer and Councillor Cassidy brought forward. So we don’t always have to be happy with the results but to say that there wasn’t a process in my view is just not true, there was, we may not have liked it but we did vote on it and it was the process that was accepted. So I hope as we prepare to vote on that, colleagues will keep that in mind.

I certainly know that I try not to take wins and losses in votes personally and I know that that can be hard for all of us because we’re all here because we feel passionately about this community. But I hope as we reflect on this before we make this vote, we recognize that there was a process in place. We have used two different processes for two different wards with two different circumstances but nonetheless, it was all within the purview of council, within the purview of the Municipal Act and here we are tonight. So it’s a chance now to come together and move forward together which I think is something that the entire council wants to do as we move forward into some difficult decisions that lay ahead in terms of budget and our COVID recovery and other issues.

So I will leave that with you for thought and encourage everybody to just give that one moment’s consideration before they vote. Thank you, any other comments? I’ll recognize you definitely, Mayor. Yes, thank you, Your Worship.

I want to say to my colleagues, I appreciate all of your thoughts tonight and I think I said from the outset, in the absence of us having an agreed upon council defined process on how to deal with vacancies, there were probably five or six reasonable ways to approach this and I think we took a couple of them and something that colleagues that I respect in the academic world called reasonable, something other organizations have done but something also that people can be frustrated with because it wasn’t the way that they want to do it. And so I think what we have an opportunity to do after we’re outside of an appointment process is at the right time, perhaps we can engage in a discussion to set a formal process forward and hand that to the next council so that should have vacancy come in the future that they would have something before our vacancies even declared to rely on. And so perhaps that is some work where we can look forward to together, it seems like everybody agrees that that would be ideal and it would have been beneficial, irrespective of what that process is. So certainly that’s something that I would commit to working with my colleagues on and as for tonight, I wanted to thank them for sharing their opinions and I certainly respect the way anybody would like to vote tonight for the reasons that they feel they need to vote.

Thank you, any other comments? My colleagues, we’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 11 to three. Thank you, colleagues.

I need to turn your attention to by a lot of 549. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for introduction in first reading. Moved by Councillor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Fife Miller, we’ll call the question. Opposed, 11 to three.

colleagues, I’ll look for a mover and a bill 549, a mover, please. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillier, thank you. I need a discussion. I see none, we’ll call the vote.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries. Reading an enactment of bill 549, I will look for mover and a seconder, please move by. Councillor Fife Miller, seconded by Councillor Lehman, we’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries.

Thank you very much. Now, colleagues, we’re going to turn to the minutes from the meeting of October 26 and to put those on the floor, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, please move by. Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Van Mirberg and thank you, any comments or questions? I see none, we will call the question.

Opposed in the vote, motion. colleagues, we require a vote to change the order of item for the Council on closed session and the 10th Board of Council on closed session to excuse me to after stage 13 bylaws. That has been our custom of late and I will ask for a mover and a seconder, please. We’ll be Councillor Van Hose, seconded by Deputy Mayor Morgan.

Thank you very much, we’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries. Thanks very much. I call communications and petitions and I am going to be asking for one motion to move these various communications and petitions to consideration in the appropriate committee reports.

We have 6.1 is the City of London’s winter response program for unsheltered individuals. The second is flyer delivery to residential properties. The third relates to Black Friars bridge. Fourth is the initiation of the mobility master plan development and the fifth items related to 650 and 652 Wellington Street.

I’ll look for a motion to move those communications and petitions, please. Councillor Hummer, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Fyfe Miller. Oh, sorry.

I thought you were moving that, Councillor Hummer, go ahead. I’m happy to move most of them. I’d actually like to vote on 6-1-1 separately. So everything else, except 6-1-1, I’m happy to move.

Okay, all except 6-1-1 and still seconded by Councillor Fyfe Miller. Any comments or questions then with respect to all except item 6-1-1? These are communications and petitions that we’re moving over. Seeing none, we’ll call the vote.

Your worship, before I open the vote, can I please confirm that the communication that we want pulled off of this motion is from S. Detrick? I’ll come back to Councillor Hummer. I believe that’s true.

I see a nod. - Moving on. Yes, and that is true. All except the S.

Detrick communication. That is the motion that will be opened up. Councillor Layton. Councillor Layton, motion carries 14-0.

Colleagues now, we’ll look for a mover and seconder of item 6-1-1. Do we have a mover, please? Councillor van Mirberg and seconded by. I’ll second that.

Comments or questions? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Colleagues and the vote. Thanks very much, colleagues.

There are no motions to which notice has been given. That turns us now to the reports and the 15th Report of Community and Protective Services. Councillor I’m happy to put all the items on the floor, except for 3-1. Does anyone wish to have anything, any of the other items dealt with separately?

So then we have all items with the exception of 2-5 and 3-1. Any comments or discussion? Councillor Turner. Thank you, Your Worship.

Just with respect to item 2.4, or number five, stewardship of the Orchestra Alana Music Library. I’m happy to see this continue. One of the big concerns when we had an early vote back at the beginning of our last term to determine somewhat of the fate of Orchestra Alana. And one of the big concerns was what would happen to the fairly significant accrued library of music that Orchestra Alana had.

So it’s nice to see it pop up again, and that it’s in safe hands, and that it continues to be used for the purpose that it was required. So let’s continue to hear the music. Thank you, other comments or questions? On all items except 8 and 9, that’s 2.5 and 3.1.

I see none, we’ll call the vote. Close in the vote, motion carries 14. Thank you, I’ll put from committee about the winter response for this year and into next year. On the floor, we did have a very discussion about this item at committee, as I mentioned.

There was a not unanimous support for it, and this is why I pulled it. I do want to say unfortunately, since the committee made the recommendation that we obviously had to deal with the arson of the golf course buildings at River Road and city staff about how that damage affects the response and what the future is going to look like, sort of at this point in time. So we can get an update on that. The committee recommended the funding and the allocations to the organizations, I believe remains intact, but some of the location pieces are still up in the air.

Thank you, let’s ask Mr. Higgins. Thank you, and through you, your worship. I am able to provide an update.

The fire at River Road has significantly impacted our ability to provide the Indigenous led portion of this response at that location through meaningful conversations with the service provider. We have come to learn and we respect their decision that that place no longer feels safe or welcoming for them to be able to provide the Indigenous led response. As such, we have followed the lead of Atlosa and their organization in securing and seeking out in a backup or an additional space for the Indigenous led response. Those talks continued right through this afternoon and they look very promising that in the very near future, we should have a finalized agreement in place and a finalized location for the delivery of the Indigenous led response, which will be appropriate to the intentions of Atlosa.

It will also provide adequate space for a land-based response. And it will be a partnership with a community entity between Atlosa and that community organization and the city will support with the sleeping quarters and with the proposed resources that we were going to have in place at River Road. So very optimistic and while those conversations continue, we are nearing completion and finalizing of that space. Of note, however, we have recently learned as of just prior to 3 p.m.

this afternoon that we need to make a change to section B of the report as it relates to a funding agreement with CMHA Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services. Late this afternoon, we were made aware by the leadership at CMHA that they are no longer able to provide the space in their facility for a much needed mental health and addiction stabilization space and given the close proximity to December 1st when these services were set to launch, given that CMHA is essentially the sole provider of this type of expertise in the Elgin, Middlesex, Oxford and London region. We are unfortunately in a position where we need to remove one of the three problems from our plan, which was the stabilization space. We are still in a very strong position as it relates to the overnight supports.

And I’ll take this opportunity to remind council that this winter response is very different, fundamentally different in the purpose than last year’s winter response. So our use of the Fanshawe location will be for a housing first approach and that response will conclude by March 1st with the intent that all individuals in that space are supported 24/7 and we focus strictly on housing and moving people to permanent housing. The indigenous led response, as I mentioned, will be the first of our kind and that location will soon be finalized. And for those that require and wish to benefit from services in the core area, we will still have daytime drop-in space, which proved critical last year and we will also have overnight resting space in the core area as well.

So those are my updates to this report and happy to take any questions from council. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Hummer asked the question. So I’ll turn it back to Councillor Hummer for other questions or comments.

I just wanted to say obviously the arson that the golf course building is totally reprehensible and unacceptable and I wanna commend staff and at LOSA for handling an extremely difficult situation very well. I’m optimistic that we can resolve the location issue and find a place that’s gonna work very well for the winter response, but it is a lot to deal with in a very short period of time. And I think we need to recognize that really good work. I was not aware about the change with the stabilization space and that obviously is a significant impact, which I think we’re gonna have to perhaps talk more about what that means over the winter, but I think we have to go ahead with the three that we know we can go ahead with now.

And so I guess I’ll put all of them except for B on the floor and I’m not sure how we’re gonna deal with B. I certainly don’t wanna defeat it, but if it’s gonna be a referral or I guess I’d look to the clerk about how to handle part B. Thanks very much. I just spoken briefly to the clerk, Councillor, and I’m gonna ask Mr.

Dickens after we deal with all B.B. That if there are any parts of this that are either simple or you’re suggesting what we’re referring it back, maybe exactly the right one for consideration, acknowledging the timelines that we have to deal with. So what we have on the table then under 2.5, unless colleagues have any other perspectives is ACD with respect to this issue and we’ll ask staff to give us an update in a moment about B. Councillor Amara, if that works for you.

Any other comments about AC and D? I’ll recognize Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I just wanna echo what Councillor Helmer said about the River Road site.

I think it’s good news to hear that Atlosa is able to be somewhat flexible with city staff and able to move this site to hopefully another appropriate location. There were so many things going in favor of the River Road site, that particular location to have this as an indigenous led site. And I myself was looking forward to seeing this go ahead. I’m extremely disappointed, but I think it’s important for the city of London as a whole as people to get behind this initiative.

There were some people that came out and spoke from a place of fear and uncertainty specifically about the River Road site. And I wanna tell the indigenous community that Londoners are committed to reconciliation. And I think as we continue with this winter response program and working with Atlosa to deliver these services in a culturally sensitive way is just one small step that we can take along that path towards reconciliation. And I’m looking forward to seeing what good work they can do this winter.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilor Fife Miller.

Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, I just wanna say being part of this the first time and having the opportunity to go through the downtown and working with some of the merchants in the downtown, one in particular said that he reached out and engaged with 26 of his homeless contacts in the downtown and 25 of those 26 said that they are fully ready to participate in this program. And I think that speaks volumes sometimes. We hear a lot from other people on the concerns, but I think it’s great that when we actually get to talk to people on the ground and people that are affected by homelessness, they’re looking at this as an opportunity.

And I think that’s what we need to look at it as an opportunity and something to work towards. So I wanna commend staff for coming up with this plan. I think this is an excellent start for us. And I’m just very excited to see where this goes.

So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hocha. Thank you, Your Worship. And also, I’m grounded too to my colleagues for their comments.

I’m especially pleased that our staff has informed us that a community group is gonna be involved in helping us solve our move with LOSA, ‘cause I think that speaks a great deal as well. So I’m grateful for that group stepping up. I look forward to finding out where the, how that solution will manifest. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Kerner. Thanks Your Worship. I’ll support the other recommendations coming forward. I had reservations, I think as many have, in listening as the process of this moves through.

The biggest concerns for me were just in terms of how distal the Fanshawe site was from core supports. But as I’ve listened and heard more, I start to understand a bit more of what the intention is, the amount of consultation that’s occurred, the collaboration that’s required. And I think those are really key. But with all that said, I think it’s really important.

And I know staff will be really live to any of those concerns and issues. Take all steps required to make sure that those concerns are heard and addressed. And again, I’ll echo Councillor Halmer’s disgust for the events that occurred at the Arson River Road Golf Course. I was speechless.

I’m still trying to reconcile my thoughts and feelings about this. It’s a pretty massive setback. But the collaboration and coordination with Atlosa has been essential and key. I’m very happy to see this as a very much Indigenous led program and very much informed by Indigenous teachings and knowledge.

And I think that will be really key to the success and whatever form this ultimately takes. But I think it’s also really important for us as a council to echo the words that we’ll do what we need to do in order to support and make sure that those who are under house are experiencing homelessness, whether they’re whomever they are, will find support and resource and a response that’s compassionate, informed, and appropriate from the city. Thank you, Councillor Schill. Thank you, Mr.

Premier. So I just wanted to confirm with the clerk, if I’m able to just vote separately just on the Fanshawe Park location. And while I have the mic, I’ll also add my disappointment and what’s the situation that happened with the Arson. It’s not unacceptable.

And it’s something we all strongly condemn. And I’m glad that my colleagues have spoken prior to me about their disgust for it. So I guess if I could just look at the technical question and answer, that’d be great, Mr. Mayor.

Since what we have now is one location, not understanding what Bead addresses in terms of broader cost. I will look to the clerk on that about our ability to separate Fanshawe from this as I look through it and how that might be practical. I don’t see it specifically referenced in the revised report, but I will look to the clerk to see if there’s some possibility of that or would you advise the, well, I’m not gonna advise the clerk, you can advise us. Thank you, Your Worship.

As I recall, this came up at committee and the answer was no, it cannot be separated out. Okay, thank you. So we can do that. Any other comments or questions colleagues?

But we are not separating that out just to be clear. Thanks for those, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. I just want to take a moment to join with colleagues who’ve expressed already their disappointment with the arson that happened at River Road Golf Course.

I, like Councillor Cassidy, thought there was great reason to be hopeful and optimistic about what this option might provide and it has been stolen away from us and that is reprehensible and sadly, I expect that colleagues had received a number of the communications that I received as well, leading up to the discussion at committee, which not all of which were very nice, but what I am heartened by and I want to share with everyone, both watching and hearing chambers and colleagues who are joining from Zoom is, I’m heartened by the fact that since this news broke, residents in our community have been offering suggestions, they’ve been offering support, they’ve been asking how they can make donations to those who might be in need right now and that is the better face of this situation. That is the face of one nurse who recognize we have a homelessness crisis in our city and that those individuals are still human beings who deserve a compassionate approach and deserve support and an opportunity to get their feedback under them and reclaim their lives from whatever circumstances have put them on the streets. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the Londoners who have expressed their positive support for doing something here and I know that there’s a lot of different ideas on how to approach it and I know our staff and certainly the indigenous leadership at Losa are working very, very hard to get a plan together as quickly as they can and I know that we’ll all be looking forward to them bringing forward an update as soon as possible. But I did want to take the opportunity to say as much as this was a reprehensible act, Londoners have also responded with kindness and an interest in being part of the solution.

So I just want to thank them for that. Thank you, Councillor Ploja. Thank you, Your Worship. We saw some of the communications tonight and the concerns that the community raised in regards to homeless Londoners.

For the public, as Councillor Lewis alluded to it, we got a variety of emails that were not on the public agenda. Some of them, quite frankly, were disgusting and the wording in them shows how far we do have to work to address racism in the city and stigma of homeless people, people with mental health issues, addiction issues and people who are just simply down on their luck and didn’t have family there to catch them and things just didn’t line up. Grateful for staff working on this, the community conversations that we’re having and this, as staff has said, was Indigenous-led. So residents reaching out and comparing us, putting people out of sight, out of mind, like residential schools, that is not what is happening.

This was Indigenous-led, picking what they need for their people to service them the most in the care that they need in wraparound services and people need to show more kindness and compassion. So thank you to those Londoners who are stepping up, offering solutions and words of kindness and support and looking at how we really do treat others and how we got to this point, recognizing that something had to go terribly wrong in life and things not working out and coming with that kindness and compassion. And that is how we’re gonna build London and be a community. So thank you to those who are showing kindness, ‘cause some of those emails are really hard to read.

Thank you, Councillor and your other comments. Colleagues, I have no other speakers on this. So with all except B, which we’re going to ask for some clarification from staff, with regard to how we deal with the CMHA question, we will poll the question. Sorry, Councillor Hummer.

Sorry, I just wanna clarify ‘cause I saw some language about changing some of the components of the recommendation in response to what Mr. Dickens had mentioned, and it wasn’t quite as simple as just going ahead with everything except for B. So I wonder if we can just check that before we vote on the remaining parts of the clause. All right, Mr.

Mayor, it’s happy Saunders. I’m wondering if we could call upon Mr. Dickens, ‘cause there are, I believe there’s some amendments to Part B that could be undertaken to assist. As long as Part B is part of obviously impacts all, but I think that’s the direction that Councillor Hummer was going.

Mr. Dickens, can you give us some sage advice here? Thank you, and through your worship, I’ll certainly try. What we would propose in order to be able to deliver the winter response on time is that we remove reference in B to the CMHA funding agreement.

We reduce the overall funding amount from what is presented in the report down to 1.325 million. And in schedule one, we remove the reference to the stabilization space. This allows us with Council’s approval to proceed on all of those other funding agreements and to be into operationalize our winter response for the community. And it allows us to report back on the stabilization space aspect.

Should there be one? I wonder with the potential of dealing with this in its entirety with that as an amendment. Councillor Hummer, could I look to you to consider that? Because if we can deal with all of this at once with B as amended, then that may get us to where we need to be if you’re comfortable with that.

Yeah, I think those amendments make sense to me. I wanna make sure that we can proceed with the parts of the response that are ready to go and could be in place in two weeks. And I think that makes sense, those three changes. I wanna make sure the language gets circulated though to colleagues so once they can see it.

So we’ll have Mr. Dickens and the clerk work through that as well. But with the verbal there, if someone is officially comfortable as a seconder for B as amended, then we can deal with the whole issue. Did you have a question or a seconder, Councillor Faifner?

So let’s look to the wording of this and it would be, and colleagues, if you have any comments about B because we specifically excluded that from the discussion, although it’s generally part of it by virtue of the changes as Mr. Dickens has referenced. If anyone has any comments on that, I’ll treat that as a new speaker’s list to be fair. And then we’ll deal with this as amended and then you’ll see the language and then we’ll go from there.

Any comments or questions? To be fair, you may have comments for questions once you see it as amended. So let’s just, I’ll just ask you to catch your breath and we’ll take a look at this in just a few moments, please. Unless anyone has any comments, they’d like to make your intro.

colleagues, we’re just gonna ask for your indulgence. We have the clerks and Mr. Dickens working on this be as precise and as clear as can be. So again, I wonder just while that’s being done, not normally doing this, it’s 505.

Can we just take a few moments? Perhaps a five minute biobrake, it’s a little early, but let’s take five minutes if we could please. And I’ll move by council member second, by councilor Turner, hand vote. Those in favor of the break for five minutes.

Motion carries. All right, we’ll come back to you all in five minutes including the public, thank you. colleagues, I’m advised by the clerk that the amendment is in the ascribe and you should have an email on that as well. Just let us know if any difficulties reading the amendment, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, if I may, you also make a comment as we’re waiting to vote here. I just want to give my thanks to staff or the work that they’ve done. They’ve had to do a lot of turnaround here and really appreciate their professionalism and support for our homeless community, as well as the stakeholders in our community and the work that they do. I want to also recognize them and in the spirit of reconciliation, I know as a city, we will be able to go forward.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions, colleagues? Mr.

Lemon. - Through you to staff, with the setback at River Road, we are exploring other options to still be able to deliver that service. With the second setback with CMHA pulling out, we’ll staff be looking at a possible alternative for another means to provide that service. Mr.

Dickens. Thank you and through you, your worship. We appreciate the question. I think the news is still pretty raw and still pretty fresh for us.

We had really anticipated this service and this partnership being real benefit to the community, including to CMHA as part of the coast program. So our team is going to move full steam ahead with getting the winter response operationalized with council’s approval. We will do our best to look at an alternative strategy and an alternative location for the stabilization space, but at this point, I wouldn’t be able to commit to it, but we will do the best we absolutely can. And we would report back with that plan to council.

Shouldn’t we get something finalized? Councillor Lemon. - Thank you. So I’ll say this on a very disappointing time.

Homelessness has been tremendous challenge not only for London but for cities across North America. I think this is evident. How hard it is and how challenging it is, is evident by what we’re seeing tonight. Criminal lacks a thwarting democratic will of council to bring shelter to those most in need.

And then other agencies funding, not being able to come up with support at the right time. It is hard and it is complex to battle the situation of trying to provide help to those with no shelter on our streets. That being said, I know it’s the determination of this council and of staff to continue to strive to find solutions until we don’t have people living on our streets. So thank you to staff not giving up for continuing the battle to find a way.

And thank you to my colleagues for continuing to support with our actions here at council. And we’re working with staff and community members and partners as we do what we can to alleviate this unacceptable situation we’re in. Thank you to the amendment. Any other comments or questions?

I see none. So I’ll presume it’s clear. Thank you by the way to the clerks and Mr. Dickens for putting that together.

So with that, we’ll call a question. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Now as amended, the main motion is amended.

I need a mover please. Councillor Halmer, thank you, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any comments or questions about the motion is amended? I see none.

Let’s call the question. Councillor Ploza. Thank you. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. I refer to that question as well. I think that was helpful. Back to you, please.

Okay, that’s it for item 2.5. It brings us to item 3.1. I don’t remember nine on our agenda tonight, which is the flyer deliveries to residential properties. We had a long public participation meeting and quite some discussion at committee about this issue.

The committee has recommended a direction to civic administration to come back with a by-law that would include penalties of some kind in addition to the general approach that was suggested by city staff. My understanding is that Councillor Lewis has an amendment he’d like to bring forward, which would essentially have these things on a dual track. So we’d have the by-law come forward that has been recommended by committee, but we also would have another by-law that would come forward from civic administration, which would take a more specific approach rather than general approach. If that was passed, then you’d have the choice between sort of one or the other at the committee meeting and then potentially the next council meeting.

So I think that’s what he intends. I’ll leave it to him to speak to that. I’ll put the recommendation from the committee on the floor. Thank you very much and I’ll turn to Councillor Lewis, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. And thank you, Councillor Helmart for describing very succinctly exactly what the intent is here, which is to create a dual track and bring two options for us because I will support the committee recommendation. I don’t want us to defeat that, but I would like to propose an amendment. I did share some language with the clerk and I apologize to colleagues that it was not circulated in advance.

This was something that I was working on right up until 3.15 today before a previously scheduled appointment. I will read it out and I hope that the clerk has the draft language that they can circulate so that people can see it on their screens as well. The draft language is— Sure, let’s just see if the clerk has that ready to have on the screen as we consider reading along. It is being drafted.

Councillor Lewis, while we work to get the written word there, I see Councillor Van Hose, but I’m going to recognize first Councillor Lewis, go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship. All colleagues will see this in their inboxes and screen shortly, I hope. The amendment is to add a part B and the part B would read and that civic administration be directed to prepare an alternate draft by-law for committee and council consideration specific to the distribution of graphic flyers.

Part one, to specifically regulate flyers containing graphic images of dismembered human beings or aborted fetuses to residents for consideration by council, two, to include in the by-law identified sources of municipal authority supporting this measure and acknowledging the substantial evidence received by council from Londoners that such unsolicited flyers caused demonstrable harm to London residents. And part three, and that the by-law include provisions providing for enforcement and penalties for violation of its terms. And while colleagues process that, we can look to see if there’s a seconder and then I’d like to just offer a few additional comments on the thought list. Well, let’s see if we have a seconder then.

Is there a seconder? I see Councillor Halmer seconding the amendment here. Go ahead, Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Your Worship. So colleagues, we heard concerns raised even by members of council that the draft by-law that staff had brought forward for our consideration in that we have as a referral tonight targets all flyers being delivered to mailboxes. And may in fact, exclude some very legitimate material that individuals may want. Marketing flyers with small businesses start up in neighborhoods.

Notices from community groups that are being delivered to mailboxes, I know that a school in my ward delivered neighborhood decision making flyers just a couple of weeks ago. So it was expressed that the concern was the sticker approach may actually be harmful to small businesses in the community and community information getting out. There was also a lot of comment from the public about their desire specifically to address the graphic flyers issue. And the fact that in some cases, even having stickers on the mailbox was not resulting in respect with regard to the flyers that initiated this conversation being delivered.

So they were being delivered even where people had stickers asking for no junk mail or such on their mailboxes already. We also heard some delegates at the PPM express some very clear examples of by-laws and other municipalities where it has been more targeted towards graphic flyers as opposed to flyers in general. We also heard some opinions from individuals about where the powers of municipal authority extend in terms of protecting residents from demonstrable harm. And so I think this dual track would give us consideration to go either way when it comes back.

And it will give us all time to consider either option and perhaps even both. But I think it would be good to have both options on the table for us. And I think it benefits us to let staff work on these at the same time, on the same track. And then we will make our decision based on what they come back with.

And I know that colleagues will be perhaps all over the map on where they may want to go with this once we see that. But that of course is our prerogative. Or they may feel more comfortable with option A or option B. But I think having the two choices really gives us an opportunity to consider all of the concerns we heard from residents at the PPM.

And if colleagues didn’t have a chance to attend that, I really encourage you to take the time to listen to what we heard from Londoners at that PPM. Because there were some very tragic heartbreaking stories about women who’ve lost a child during a term of pregnancy and the trauma that this caused them by pulling those flyers out of their mailboxes. We heard about the impact that it had on children pulling those flyers out of mailboxes and conversations that parents were not ready to have with children who were far too young to have those conversations with. I heard at the PPM that demonstrable harm is being caused by this.

And so I hope that colleagues will at least consider letting staff pursue drafting up something in this direction as well as the original bylaw having some revisions to it considering it and then making a decision when we get both of those backside by side to compare. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll call on Councilor Van Holst.

Thank you, Worship. I also prepared a motion with respect to this. Although, so I’m happy to bring that forward after Councilor Lewis’ motion is being dealt with. I think and now just allow me to speak to Councilor Lewis’ motion.

I don’t believe I’ll support that one because I see that there’s a remedy available here. I mentioned it at the meeting which I attended. There was the possibility of using the Trust Pass to property act. And after the public participation meeting, I asked if we couldn’t request from the people sending those flyers who were there in present if they were respecting that rule at the time, there wasn’t an order to get an answer from them.

But we noticed that on the agenda or the added agenda, they actually wrote with a response and said that the CCBR follows the law. We do not have to press the Trust Pass on private property. That includes residences where we have received the legal Trust Pass notice and then of course, that notice will revoke the implied permission to approach the door under the Trust Pass Act. We comply with the law which includes Trust Pass notices.

So it seems to me that we actually have a remedy available immediately and the motion that I’ll bring forward is here and I’ve believed it was to end up on the agenda but it simply states that staff be directed to use city channels of communication to promote. I’m gonna stop you there, Councillor Van Halst, I apologize, I know you’re trying to rationalize your objection to this so that you can bring the next one forward but I’d like us to kind of deal with this specific motion that’s on the floor and then we all have an opportunity to deal with yours please. Okay, that’s absolutely fine. I think it’s, I’ve communicated my thoughts on this one well enough.

Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you, now Councillor Turner, please. I thank you Your Worship. Thanks to Councillor Lewis who speaks specifically to the amendment.

It seems like this has kind of been asked and answered. I appreciate that there’s clarity in more specific direction in the motion here. Perhaps for you to staff, my question might be, is this actionable? We’ve heard twice now that it doesn’t seem to be and so I’m concerned that we’re sending this back to staff to do something they’ve twice said isn’t quite possible.

I wonder if that’s Mr. Carter and I might respond to that. Thank you Your Worship. The direction would be to prepare a second by-law which is something that we certainly can do.

The legal advisability of either of the two by-laws that are returned could be discussed by the committee and the council. I would recommend in camera, but certainly the initial request is something that we can do. Councillor Turner. Thank you, Mr.

Carter, that’s helpful. Again, I think the direction of this is helpful. I’m still concerned that we’re outside of our realm of authority on it. I think what we’re in middle just to speak really quickly and I’ll leave everything at this, but what we’re trying to do is create a massive administrative layer in the original motion that doesn’t get anywhere close to what anybody wants to accomplish.

That was made quite clear in the PPM that there needed to be more and very specific action on this and that the breadth of what was proposed to head massive exclusion to things that we didn’t want caught in that net. I think I know everybody who wants to be seen as doing something, but we’re not really doing anything and that’s the unfortunate part. This is something that really to me doesn’t seem to live in the municipal realm. It’s very much in the provincial and federal realm and it’s a challenge.

I’ve said twice before the deliveries are abhorrent but they’re not prohibited by law and if they were, then there would be action that could be taken. So the challenge is for municipality to create a by-law that’s more prescriptive than what is mentioned in either provincial or federal statutes and there’s challenges. I know that some spoke to other circumstances and other municipalities or what the municipal act may provide for, but I’m still really kind of challenged by what we end up accomplishing at the end of the day with three kicks of the can now and going for a fourth. I think we all recognize that the desires of what we want to accomplish.

I’ll think about support for this motion because of its specificity but I’m still really challenged by the overall direction because I’m worried that we’re not going to be able to get to what we want to accomplish. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? So I recognize Councillor Hopkins please.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship for recognizing me. And I want to thank Councillor Lewis for putting some thought behind the importance of being a little bit more specific coming out of the public participation meeting. I know the committee was wrestling with this motion but I want to thank him for coming up with something that may be a challenge but I think it’s worth a try. It’s worth the consideration to do something.

And I want to make a comment about the public participation meeting and thank the public for coming out. I was there, it was very, very long but the comments were done in a respectful way and in an emotional way as well. And many thanks to the chair too for his sensitivity to allow those voices to make their comments. And for us to listen, it was very much appreciated by me.

One of the things I learned listening in was the emotional response that these graphic images of fetuses create in people, women and girls in particular. I know as a woman, I have that physical response to what I see. I know we as a council want to do everything possible that we can do to protect women and girls. And this is the conversation and the thought process that will lead us back to looking at these two motions that we can have further discussed but it is really important that we try.

And I want to thank Councillor Lewis again and for the public for coming out. It’s really important that we continue to listen to one another. And it was quite interesting when one of the presenters wanted to show an image at the public participation committee but we could not allow that. But yet we allow these images to come into people’s homes.

So I found that very quite interesting. And I am looking forward to the referral back coming back with these two opportunities to further discuss these options. So thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions on the amendment? We’ve seen no more comments or questions so we will call the amendment. Councillor Solley closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to two.

Motion to clerk and I advise that we can hear the amendment from Councillor Van Halst that he indicated he would like to put forward as it relates to this as well. Councillor Van Halst, you have the floor. Councillor Van Halst. Sorry, Your Worship.

I began speaking without my video or audio activated but I’m happy to start again. Yes, so I’d like to put another amendment on here and this is the one that I referred to earlier and it has to do with the Trust Pass to a property act. And the motion asks that staff be directed to use city channels of communication to promote the Trust Pass to property act as a means for residents to avoid delivery of unwanted fires from specific organizations and the value of moving this motion today, of course, is that the effect is immediate. Sorry, Councillor, I know you wanna speak to it but I’m just, I’m gonna hold you off for just a moment.

Do you, does the clerk have that in amendment form to the clerk for that, please? You can get that up shortly. Oh, put that into your describe. Colleagues, this is not admonishment but I would just simply say this is now, just because it’s now two amendments that are, I won’t say on the fly but I will say on the fly.

And it would be helpful in the spirit of former Councillor Esquire to say, when it’s possible and colleagues always have the right to put anything on the floor, just in the interests of all of our considerations, it does make it sometimes more challenging to consider. So bear with us while we get the clerk to get that up and then Councillor Redholz, you can speak to it. Okay, and just as a point of personal privilege, your worship, I did send this out on Sunday night to the clerks and to the chair and yourself. I’d intended it to be there for people to see.

So— So noted, thank you very much. Interworship, it is loaded in E-Scrip. Colleagues, I’ll turn your attention to E-Scrip and I’ll call on you Councillor Vanholz to speak to it. Thank you, Your Worship.

So here we are, the possibility for a very immediate action on this, the numerous advantages to the approach is that it is immediate, effective, it’s already enforced at the provincial level, it’s not subject to legal challenge, which is what we may see with one or more of the other methods. It’s targeted, it’s inexpensive, it’s non-controversial, it’s applicable to all groups and delivery agents and it encourages citizens to learn and exercise their own rights. I would recall Councillor Hopping saying, using the phrase what we allow to come into people’s homes, well, I think what we really want is for people themselves to decide what will come into their homes and they can do that by making use of the Trust Master Property Act, simply a matter of sending that notice to the group in question. We can assist with that, as I said, by making this known through city channels and then as it was said by the communication we received and is on the public agenda, that is respected.

So it seems like there’s a remedy here that has all the factors we would be looking for. So my hope is that we can support this and then some action can be taken immediately and then I guess we’ll wait for the others to come forward. Let’s see if you have a seconder for that. Is there a seconder for the amendment?

I see Councillor Layman. Other comments or questions? Thank you. Councillor Layman.

Yeah, I’ll support this until the agenda was out. I didn’t know this myself. There was this opportunity for private citizens to push back against what we, I think we’ll all agree, is not a good thing. I think it could potentially educate Londoners potential tools that they can do because as was said earlier, it’s frustrating to bring forward a buy law, appropriate buy law that will actually produce results that we would like to see.

I think when campaigns such as these go into our neighborhoods, residents can organize and use a trespass act to push back. So I think the city, you know, educating our citizens on this option would be a very helpful thing. Thank you. Other comments or questions?

Councillor Traum. Thank you. I’m not surprised to see Councillor Benholz bringing this forward. He’s expressed in previous meetings that he thinks this is the best way of responding and dealing with this problem.

I’m still not convinced that it actually is effective. And my major concern with it is that it really puts the onus on hundreds and potentially thousands of people to take individual action to tell this organization that they’re not welcome. And when the actions of the organization are widespread as they are and they are affecting so many people, I think we’re putting the onus on the wrong place. You know, it shouldn’t be on the hundreds of people who don’t want the flyers to take actions to tell the organization we don’t want them.

The organization that’s just shooting these fires and causing the harm should stop. So who’s putting their hand up saying, please send me these fires. I love them. Maybe it should be an opt in.

You know, you can’t send them unless somebody asks for them. But that’s not what Councillor Benholz is suggesting. He’s saying everybody do all this work to enforce the trespass property act which has very significant penalties or $10,000 fines for trespassing. Requires people to do all this work.

I just don’t think it’s going to actually work. So, you know, I’m not going to support the city promoting something that I don’t think is going to be effective. People can and have done this with CCBR and CCBR is still doing the things that are causing the problems. So, you know, I don’t think it’s going to work.

I think it would be a waste of resources to promote it. And so I’m not going to support at this point. If it does work, I mean, great. That would be great if it would stop.

But we haven’t seen that so far. Thank you, other comments, questions? Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. Through you to staff and my policies for my voice but citing the calls to staff. And again, my apologies for not being at this part of the committee meeting I had to leave. I did watch part of earlier part under the Trust Pass to Property Act.

And they can they go after an organization? Or do they have to know who specifically entered the property to put these flyers in the mailbox? Mr. Clerk.

Your worship, the individual who is trespassing would be the subject of any enforcement proceedings that were undertaken. So, Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you, follow up to that. So somebody that is receiving these flyers, even though they have a sticker on their mailbox and they don’t want these flyers, they would have to identify the actual person.

And if they did not do that, then it would be difficult to prosecute. Is that correct, Mr. Clerk? Your worship, one of the requirements for successful prosecution is being able to identify the person who is alleged to have committed the offense.

In the absence of identification, I mean, I’m sure that there have been attempts made to take proceedings against organizations. But again, my guess is that those organizations would not generally encourage people to go to establishments that had signs up saying, “Please don’t come here.” So, there are a number of pitfalls. These prosecutions are done by individuals. They’re not done by us or by the courts.

They’re very difficult for people not familiar with legal processes to proceed with. So, there are some difficulties. The other thing is that, of course, because people will have difficulties, they’ll be looking for advice. And we cannot provide that advice.

I mean, our lawyers are not permitted to do this because of the nature of their licenses. And also, the city can’t be giving legal advice to the public because that would be practicing law. So, there are a number of difficulties. Certainly, these things could be addressed in various ways, but there aren’t any simple answers at this moment.

Certainly, just answering the question is, yes, there would be difficulty. Councillor Cashman. Thank you, Your Worship. So, I’m not going to support this amendment either for all the reasons that Councillor Helmer gave, but also because I believe it would be completely ineffective.

Look, there’s on a national scale or provincial scales, there are anti-spam laws, anti-spam phone calls, soliciting phone call laws. You can put your name on a list and then corporations have to abide by that list. And there are repercussions for those that do not, since this is possibly under our purview, I think we should take this. And I also am grateful for Councillor Lewis’s amendment and that’s why I supported it.

But I think this amendment proposed by Councillor Van Halst will not help the public, will not shield young people from these images that their parents don’t want them to see or for past trauma reasons that certain individuals don’t want to see. I think that this amendment is a bit of a red herring and will not provide any protection to anybody. Thank you, other comments. On the amendment, we’ll call the question.

Councillor van Merebergen, thank you. Close in the vote, motion is lost, breathe to turn. Thank you, colleagues, pardon me, please. A motion as amended, I’ll look for a mover for the motion as amended.

That’s the original motion, excuse me, and the original amendment by Councillor Lewis, just to be clear. I see Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you very much. Comments or questions?

Councillor van Merebergen. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I’m wondering if now that we have this amended motion, I assume it would be in an A and a B if we could call the B separately. Are you referring to B as the amendment, Councillor Mereberg?

Correct, so correct, so B is the amendment, the original amendment. It’s now amalgamated with the original motion. Is it possible to separate those out, the vote on separately? Interesting, but the clerk says yes, we can.

Okay. So we would be dealing with, it’s unusual. However, I believe all things the clerk says. So with that, we are now back to the original motion again without the amendment and we’re voting on that.

And then B would be, again, the clerk, you’ll clarify, the B is the amendment? Yes. So it’s a bit like chewing our food twice, but we’ve done that before. So on that, on the spirit of that, we will, we will vote on the original motion, the original motion.

Close on the vote on that. The colleague part, B is the amendment that was earlier approved, but this is now part of the amended motion. We’ll call the question. I’ll just make sure that colleagues have their, their computers on mute, please.

This is B. Councillor Van Merebergen. Close in the vote, motion passes, 10. Thank you.

Councillor Hummer. Wait, that’s it for me. I think it is. And thank you very much.

4.6 o’clock, there you go. Well, that’s, here’s the good news. It’s before six o’clock. Colleagues, for the 18th report of the corporate services committee, Councillor Cassidy, I’m mindful of your voice.

Are you good to go? And I say that with, with deepest respect. Thank you. First of all, I’m good to go, it’s a short report.

And I have not heard of any request to pull anything. So I’ll put the whole report on. Does anyone wish any item dealt with separately? Just remember, Councillor Cassidy has that thrown.

So I see none comments or questions. I’ll turn it back to you, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you. Just for everyone else’s sake, thank goodness for virtual meeting.

Say I just want to comment on 4.3, which was deferred council directions, concerning indigenous relations. It seems timely. These were just a couple of items that had been left referred back to staff quite some time ago during the last term of council. And so it was a submission that I brought to the committee and it was endorsed by the committee, just that we refer those matters specifically to our indigenous community relations advisor, Ms.

Elizabeth George Antone. So looking forward to seeing progress made on those two items, one is specifically about land acknowledgments being made at council meetings. So as I said, that was endorsed by the committee and I’m really happy to see that that’s up and running again. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I’d just like to make a comment on 4.4, which is the number eight, the standing and council meeting procedures.

I want to thank the committee for supporting the direction to have staff come back with a draft policy to look at how we participate in our hybrid electronic meetings. We know they’re going to be around for a long time and really want to thank the committee for that support and how we can improve not only as a council, but as staff and as well as being accessible to the public. So thank you, committee. Thank you.

Any other comments, Councillor Turner, please. Thank you, Your Worship. And thank you to Councillor Hopkins for bringing this forward. I think it’s going to be really important for us to start to, when it’s safe to do so, which it’s starting to become so.

I think there’s measures and opportunities for us to be able to bring public participation meetings back into action and in face-to-face ones. I think the ability for us to see the public and the public to see us in the same room is an important factor in being able to, especially on planning applications or any of the by-law applications and things like that, the disconnect that exists in this format right here is pronounced. And I think we realized that as a council, we’ve talked about this before, our relationships as 15 members of council are somewhat severed as a result of us meeting on little screens and little boxes here. And I would like to see as part of this that we see what the return to in-person PPMs looks like.

And also, I think at the outset, when we had some of the guidelines for how we conduct these virtual meetings, as Councillor Hopkins identifies, the need for staff and their presentations to us to be camera on so that we can see them, they can see us, and also for us to be able to see their presentations rather than following along on a piece of paper, because that not only is that beneficial for us, but for the public to be able to see what those presentations are and the slides they’re talking about, whether that’s staff or whether it’s guests who are presenting to committees, that material needs to be presented at the same time that to everyone at the same time that it’s being presented to us. So thank you for bringing this forward. I really do look forward to us finding some resolution and finding what our new normal is with respect to our meeting opportunities in-person virtual and our engagement with the community. Thank you, other comments or questions?

Team none, we’ll call the question. Those in the vote, motion carries, 13 to zero. Councillor Cassidy. That’s my report, here we have your worship.

I hope that was reasonably painless. I have a lot of sympathy for what you’re dealing with there. Thank you very much. For the 14th report of civic work, so I’ll call on please, Councillor.

Thank you, Your Worship. It’s my pleasure to present to council tonight the 14th report of civic works committee. Item 10 being 4.2, the Warren Cliff Road, South improvements at 100 Stanley Street will be pulled as it comes to committee. It comes to council with no recommendation.

From committee, as it was a split vote. And item 14 being 5.4, the Black Friars Bridge. I’ve been asked to pull that as well, and I’m not made aware of any other things to pull. Thank you.

Does anyone wish anything else dealt with separately? I see Councillor Vanholst. Yes, Your Worship. If we could pull item 9, 4.1, the initiation of the mobility master plan development, I did submit a motion for that.

Thank you, any other items to be dealt with separately? Councillor Ploza. Thank you. I will put all items with the exception of 9, 10 and 14 on the floor, noting for committee that item 2.3 being the Dundas Place temporary traffic diversion monitoring and consultation.

Right now it sits that staff will operate Dundas place in the same manner they did this year during the operating season. And it will come back to us for a full review of activation and activities in 2022 for Council to make an informed decision on. Yeah, I believe that was the big highlight. So we’ll get into the rest as we move through them.

Thanks with the exception of 4.1, 4.2 and 5.4. Does anyone have any comments on the balance? Deputy Mayor. Yes, further to Councillor Ploza’s comments on the committee, I found the report on the Dundas Place temporary traffic diversion monitoring consultations to be very informative.

And I think the committee has chosen a good option. I know when we first debated this, the possibility of this being a long-term permanent solution was discussed and certainly the feedback and the analysis so far points to this being a very successful project. I think continuing it through future construction mitigation makes sense and I think there’s a discussion in the future about whether this is something that sticks around for the long term because it seems to be working quite well. Thank you.

On all the items with respect to this report, irrespective of the three that have been pulled, Councillor Vanholz, your hand is up. Yep, sorry, I’ll take that down your worship. Thank you, anyone else wish to comment on those items. I see none.

So with the exception of those three, we will call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. An initiation of the mobility master plan development. Staff spoke at committee, realizing what’s in our council packages for us is the draft vision and guiding principles that they’re asking us to endorse before they go out and do community engagement.

They’re asking Councillors to take the time and let them know if there’s anything in there that they would like to see or be made aware of differently. I will put this item on the floor, recognizing it was pulled by Councillor Vanholz. Councillor Vanholz, any comments? Yes, your worship and thank you.

And I had submitted a communication with the motion. And I do like the things in the plan and although we’re adding wonderful new dimensions, I believe that efficiency of our transportation system is the most common day-to-day experience of people who use it and that should be top of mind. So my motion is that it’s staff be directed to add efficiency to the list of guiding principles for the development of the mobility master plan. And do you have a seconder for that?

Councillor Lehman, comments or questions then? Councillor Turner, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship, through you, just to staff, what the impacts of this would be. How it being incorporated, is it consistent or contrary to what’s being put forward for us?

I wonder if you may share it would take then? Your worship, my pleasure. This does not create any concerns for staff, certainly efficiency of all modes as part of our considerations as we do this planning work. I would suggest it might go well, integrated, connected and efficient, but certainly would defer to the will of council in that respect.

Councillor Turner. Thank you to your both. Nice adjective. Any other comments or questions or colleagues might have?

And on the amendment, we’ll call the question. Councillor Cassidy, close in the vote. So now we will staff report as amended and I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for this, please. Councillor Redholle, seconded by Councillor Hiller.

Thank you. Comments or questions? Councillor Hopkins. Thank you again, your worship for recognizing me.

I just want to say from representing Ward 9 on the west that does not have a plan and how we are all about development, really looking forward to this mobility plan and the community engagement coming forward. So thanks to staff and we’ll see where we go. Thank you very much. Other comments?

Councillor van Mirberg. Thank you, Mayor. As I said, a committee, it’s important that we as a council and as an administration be constantly reminded that 90% of wantoners are moving around in private vehicles, automobiles, trucks, what have you to move people and goods. And so to have a thriving local economy, we have to have proper road network that can accommodate that.

And it’s particularly acute now that we are moving forward, having these discussions of climate change, et cetera. When these vehicles are rapidly becoming non-GHG or greenhouse gas emitters, so they’re not increasingly a factor in climate change, certainly not to the degree they are now. So, or some espoused that they are now. The fact of the matter is we need to keep pace for a city of over 400,000.

The biggest complaint I get day in and day out is the increasing traffic gridlock because we’re not keeping pace with an underplanned, just an underwhelming road system. And certainly when you compare our system to the cities we compete with in Southern Ontario, like Hamilton, Kitchener, Windsor, we don’t have internal freeways. We don’t have a six lane arterial, like we were supposed to have on Wonderland. And so we are artificially creating our own problem with this increased congestion day in and day out here in London.

So this mobility plan is an opportunity to address that. And yes, the other modes of transportation go hand in glove, but let’s not lose the fact that the leading transportation component is and will be for some time, the road network and private vehicles, cars and trucks, et cetera, to move people and of course goods. Thank you, I have Councillor Turner, please. No, thank you, Your Worship.

I suppose it would be no surprise that I take a bit of a divergent view from Councillor Van Merbergen, but that’s half the fun of this place. I think if we were to really split straws here, we’d recognize that 100% of the trips start with a step or a role using sidewalk networks and our active transportation prior to anybody even getting into a car. Short neighborhood trips are all facilitated by active transportation infrastructure. And that actually car transportation is a second to those that we have primary transportation which is our active transportation network.

The second is when we talk about our competition, Councillor Van Merbergen listed off three cities, Hamilton Kitchener and Windsor. I’m not too worried about Windsor, but Hamilton and Kitchener both initiated and are well underway with their rapid transit projects which we have not done too much beyond starting our core loop and have defunded about 40% of it. So when we look at our competition and our posture, transportation and mobility is key. On all fronts, we’re not going to be saved by the electric vehicle.

It’s certainly going to help. I’m not denying that, but electric vehicles versus gas vehicles are still traffic and consume a significant amount of our land and resources and hundreds of millions of dollars a year just to support the automobile. I think being able to rebalance the mode shift or mode share a little bit more is probably quite appropriate. At committee, we talked about the inverted triangle where the priority needed to be focused on the first steps which is those pedestrians and then later those really heavy modes of transportation like aircraft and cars.

So thank you. I’m looking forward to the progress as we initiate to this master plan and what it will do for moving Londoners in all modes of transportation. Thank you very much on the emotion as amended. Any other comments?

Deputy Mayor. Yes, I won’t repeat what my colleagues before me have said, but I think this will be a very exciting project. And as I read through the report, the one question that came to mind for our staff and it reckons back to the work that we did on the Masonville master or the Masonville transit village secondary plan with existing capital projects in the queue like in this case the Richmond and Fanshawe intersection works to kind of integrate the two planning processes into one, I think was obviously a challenge with something our staff achieved. And so I will look forward to seeing how our staff take this, what is, will be a long engagement process and a very thoughtful design of a mobility master plan and integrate that with the current capital works that are on our agenda to ensure that we’re not stepping forward too far in advance of the plan, but we’re not also holding back important infrastructure projects across the city.

I think it’ll be a delicate balancing act and I’m sure there’ll be lots of engagement and counsel and choice over the years. So I think this is a very exciting opportunity for us to focus that infrastructure in a way that is very coordinated. I think the draft guiding principles are excellent and the draft vision statement is good. And we, you know, this will obviously be a lot of work over a long period of time, but it has the potential to really shape the way that people move around the city.

So I’m looking very forward to it. Thank you, Councillor Flosa. Thank you, Your Worship. Having lived in many cities small and large throughout the province, Kitchener, Waterloo, being my last stop before London, I follow their LRT system with great interest.

Definitely had a few hiccups along the way, but looking at the vision of what London could be realizing the city is growing, it’s exploding in our housing market will not be slowing for some time. And realizing it’s induced demand and we can’t build our way out of this with roadways, but it really is looking at ways to move more Londoners more efficiently. And yes, the ratio of personal vehicles is high, but that’s what we built the city for. So that’s to be expected.

And realizing that electric cars and fossil burning personal vehicles take up the same amount of space on the roadways, just ‘cause our electric doesn’t mean they’re gonna take up less space, but definitely having a lower greenhouse gas emission impact for climate change. But it takes around 60,000 kilometers based on driving how you drive. It takes about 60,000 kilometers to work off the construction GHGs that was in that. But that’s not what most Londoners wake up in the morning thinking about.

They just wonder how long is it gonna take? What routes the best? Where is the city doing construction this week? And they just wanna get to their destination.

And if we’re worried about housing and everything else as it goes in this mobility master plan, the space allotted to parking and vehicles and how it adds into us having to expand out to urban growth boundaries and the mass space those cars take and it’s the high cost of free parking and the cost of those parking spaces that is encompassed into apartment buildings that help drive up housing costs for Londoners. It is all interconnected in this mobility master plan will be integral to addressing several key aspects affecting Londoners over the next 25 years. So very support of this project and hoping council will give insight to staff behind the scenes and that the public will have huge engagement with this as it’s their city and their children’s city to inherit. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Cashier. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just wanna build off what some of my other colleagues have said.

First of all, we have to be really careful with statistics and we should recognize or at least acknowledge when we are just throwing numbers out there without any basis in reality. There are no statistics that we’ve been presented with at this council by experts that say 90% of the people in this city get around using a personal vehicle. That’s just not true. And the point of this mobility master plan is to give people transportation options.

Our city has been built in the traditional North American model of building out and building for commuting by car. And that is not an efficient and healthy way to build a city. I watched a webinar that the Globe and Mail put on last week linking how a city is designed and built through their transportation systems in particular to the health of that community. And building a city for cars is the absolute worst thing that we can do for the health of our community for the health of Londoners.

There were some statistics that were presented at that webinar and a couple of them were really alarming to me, a city built for cars like Toronto. Toronto sees a pedestrian hit by a car every 3.5 hours. And a cyclist hit by a car in Toronto every 7.5 hours. That’s the result of prioritizing personal vehicles over pedestrians and cyclists and vulnerable road users.

We’re the idea of a multimodal transportation plan to look for a variety of options. It’s not about a war on cars. It’s not about making every single person take the bus. It’s about providing options.

So as Councillor Palosa pointed out, the huge growth that is coming to London. Some of those people then can choose other options for transportation rather than coming to London and bringing more cars to fill up our roads and causing greater and greater congestion. If people have choices, many people will choose other options besides their own personal vehicle with one person in the car to drive across the city. And part of that healthy city outlook also shows that people most adversely affected by the smog and pollution of those cars on the roads are the people in the cars.

People that choose to walk, to commute or to cycle are much less affected by the smog and the pollution than those people who are sitting in their cars day after day in those traffic jams. So I’m really happy to see this kind of master plan come forward. I’m happy to see the engagement that we’re going. I’m happy to look forward to the engagement that we’re going to see from the public on this.

And I think this is a good time for London to look about different ways for people to get around the city, provide those options, get people out to the industrial lands, to the jobs, where the jobs are, and stop having the personal vehicle as the only option for people in London to get around. Thank you, Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, worship. I love my car.

And I know lots of people will need to continue driving them, especially when we have rules that say if you want to work in an office, it has to be downtown. So I think we’re going to need to look at some other options as well to fit in with this plan. And of course, I’m referring to our rules to say that the office spaces need to be downtown. If we didn’t do that, then people would be able to work in their own neighborhoods, which means that they would be able to use active transportation to get there.

Whereas I think for most people, it’s just a non-starter to get from the outskirts of the city to downtown by some other means, like walking or biking. Mind you, we do see electric bikes and electric scooters and those kinds of things as a possibility. So people can move farther, faster. But I do believe that we need to be looking at our zoning as well and where things are happening.

If everything you need is in your neighborhood, then you don’t need to be driving around as much. But there’s my comments, thank you. Thank you. I have no other speakers.

Councillor van Merberg and you have spoken to this issue. So anyone else wish to speak? Sure. Thank you.

I learned that actually Councillor van Merberg earlier when I tried twice and that didn’t work either. So any other comments? You can only hope. Yeah, there you go.

I see none, we’ll call the question, please. Councillor Hillier, closing the vote. I submitted. Thank you, closing the vote.

Motion carried 13 to zero. Item 4.2, OneCliff Road, South Improvements, 100 Stanley Street Process. This was a report back from staff asking for council’s direction to submit an application to council to demolish the heritage designated property at 100 Stanley Street. This was a split boat of three to three at committee, having not supported it at committee.

Another committee member would need to move it. Thank you. I’ll turn your attention to the item 4.2, someone prepared to move the staff recommendation. Councillor van Merberg and do you have a seconder?

Councillor Lewis, thank you very much. Comments, questions, colleagues? Councillor Palosa, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

I’ll cue this one up, recognizing we’ve certainly talked about it in length as it seems to be an underlying theme of this council of 100 Stanley Street. My concerns remain the same. I know publicly nobody wants to pay to move this house unnecessarily, but for me, it’s still the concerns of the timelines. The house should actually, had we voted and moved forward with moving it, the home would actually be moved fall 2021.

So now, in this conversation would have been done. And the staff report before you important to note is the demo timeline and the make ready to move is still the same timeline. They’ll take the same amount of time. But with this demolition request, there are several more processes we need to go through with it, which is comment from the city heritage planner latch, hosting a public participation meeting at the planning and environment committee.

And my concerns remain that if those PPMs and reports come back from other people saying they still want it moved, then what do we do and what timelines do we go at? Noted within the report are other major bridge reconstruction projects for north, south corridors within the city of London and the potential for timelines to start bumping into each other if this project gets deferred and pushed back too much as a south end city councilor with residents trying to reach downtown and the other reaches of the city. That is a major concern for me. Having heard at length from residents about how poorly the city of London does construction planning and detours, this could potentially force staff to have the same issues.

So those are the highlights of my concerns of just, even this decision tonight of still proceeding with demolition does not give certainty to timelines and construction contracts being issued, which is a major concern of looking for this project to move forward with moving Londoners around more efficiently, thank you. Thank you, other comments or questions colleagues? I see none, we’ll call the question. This is closing the vote, motion carries, nine, four.

Thank you, Your Worship. The final item I have for council this evening is item 14 being 5.4, the Blackbriars Bridge. This item did pass the committee, but was asked to be pulled by Councilor Vailar as this one was, and I am for direction and added to the committee’s agenda. The questions from the public came forward asking why staff was opening it, and it was important for the public to know that staff closed it based on the pandemic orders by the province, and inherently as it was never directed by council to close, it didn’t need council direction to reopen it as it was under the emergency mandate.

So my motion to committee was to allow the bridge to remain closed while staff did a thorough review as required by the mystery of environment. So that wording is within your package, and I’ll move that motion. Thank you, I think that works for you, you’re as chair, you’re putting the motion forward. I think that I’m gonna recognize now, Councilor Fife Miller, I think you have a referral.

Go ahead. I do Your Worship, and through you, I have a referral, and I wanna say that tonight when I speak to this, I’m not speaking of this as someone who drives across the bridge. I walk the bridge. I’m a pedestrian on there.

I’m someone who participates in active transportation on that bridge. What I want to speak to is the community engagement that took place when we did the work on the bridge back in 2014 and 2015. And back then, it was a contentious issue. There was no question.

We were very divided as a community. But at the end, we came up with the plan that you see in front of you, traffic going east, a bike lane dedicated, and a pedestrian walkway. I’ll be honest, for me, my original plan for that bridge, I would have liked to have seen traffic coming eastbound in the morning and going westbound at night. My wife didn’t like that idea, but I put it out there anyways.

But at the end, this is what we came up with with the community. But the important thing was, five years after Council was to get a report back, a report that would have metrics on the use of the bridge and how it was used. And then more community consultation to decide the future of the bridge and how it would be used. We don’t have that report.

Part of the thing I have from my notes back in 2014 and 2015, very clearly, it was stated that that report would give us traffic flow on Oxford, on Riverside, and on Blackfriars. And I think that’s important, because I live in a community that’s very torn with this on both sides. And I just heard somebody on the mobility master plan use the word engagement. And to me, the word engagement is big here.

Petition is not engagement. A petition is a one-sided opinion. If we want to get to where we want to get with this bridge, we need the metrics to understand it, and we need the community engagement to make a decision that works everyone. So I’m telling you, I’m not landing on traffic here.

I’m not landing on putting vehicular traffic on this bridge long term. But I’m also not landing on the fact that today, when we look at this, we don’t need that information to make an informed decision. We were committed to this process. And I remember opening that bridge.

I remember the day you as mayor went across that bridge for the first time. And the one thing I can say is, on that day, the committee and the community came together. This has torn it apart again. We need to fix this.

And fixing it, we can do through community engagement, but not through the process that we have here today. So I’m asking that we look for that community engagement. We look for that report and then make the best decision for the community as a whole. So as Councillor Cassidy said, we can’t keep opening and closing this.

We need a final decision. We need to close this book. But let’s close it with the right information. Thank you.

So I want to come back to you. You have a referral. And does the clerk have that for reference, please? You’ll see that colleagues in Eastcribe.

And do you and referrals take precedence? Do you have a seconder? I see Councillor Lewis seconding. Colleagues on the referral, comments, questions.

Councillor Hummer, please. Sir, I’m not quite sure perhaps the chair can explain. How is the referral in order? The timeline is the same, right?

They’re both talking about doing something until this report comes back. The study is done. One is saying, keep it closed. The other one is saying, open it up.

They’re obviously direct negatives to each other. So how would the referral be in order? I’ll turn that back to the chair for the question. Is that the chair of the committee or are you asking me, Councillor Hummer?

I’m asking you, sorry. I’m advised by the clerk that an amendment can’t have a direct negative, but that a referral takes precedence and does not have that same limitation. Councillor Hummer. Comments or questions on the referral?

Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I have a question through you to the mover of the referral.

The referral motion says, consideration of black friars remaining closed indefinitely be referred to a future meeting of civic works. So it is closed right now. Nowhere in his referral, does it say, open it up now and refer it back? I would like some clarity.

I think if he wants to refer this back, it should stay as it is. That generally what a referral does. Whatever is in place right now stays and the item is referred back in this case to civic work. So just some clarity on this referral motion.

Let’s ask, I think it’s a fair question. Why do we ask staff what the implications of the referral would be as it relates to the opening or keeping closed black friars bridge staff or are you in a position to comment on that, Ms. Sher? Thank you, Your Worship.

So the bridge was closed under the streets by-law, which allows me to have the authority to close a road or bridge for up to seven days for basically any purpose. So advanced activities, those are things. Sorry about that. Not that activity though, I don’t think good.

No, I would now run out of dog treats. I didn’t schedule not bribes for silence, I’m afraid. What it also allows staff to do is to close the bridge for construction purposes for an extended period of time or for emergency health and safety purposes for an extended period of time. So it had been closed under that authority to manage COVID distancing.

As we’re starting to see outdoor gatherings and under vaccinated kids under a certain age are able to play sports and stuff, that authority isn’t really no longer in place. So I don’t believe I could administratively keep that bridge closed. We would reopen the bridge without explicit direction from council approving it remaining closed. Councillor Cassey.

So through you, Mr. Mayor, actually I wanted to hear from the mover. Is intention to open it up during this referral period or to keep it closed while the referral takes place and the public engagement at civic works? I certainly don’t mind going back to the referral but the reason I went to staff was because they would appreciate what the implication is should be referral pass.

Go ahead. I appreciate your doing that too, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for that.

Thank you. Well, then let’s hear from Councillor Feidman. Thank you, Your Worship and through you, the intention would be to reopen the bridge, meet the commitment that was made to community, which includes the traffic studies, deliver that report as that report was meant to be delivered to council and then have community engagement through that process to come up with a final decision on the bridge. Councillor Cassey.

Thank you. So I’ll comment, I won’t support the referral. If the process had been to maintain the status quo as it is right now, then I would have supported the referral even though I don’t see it as being whole lot. I don’t see it as a whole lot different from Councillor Palazzo’s motion.

Listen, when you look on an aerial map, you see very clearly what the arterial roads are, east, west, north, south, are getting into the downtown area in no other neighborhood in the city. Do we ever encourage cut through traffic through a neighborhood? The road leading to Black Friars Bridge is an extremely narrow neighborhood road. And I get that it is convenient for people that choose that route or even people that live close to that route that they would want that route to get them into downtown throughout Old North, throughout the Masonville area on the west side of Richmond Street.

Throughout the North Ridge area on the east side of Adelaide, we see traffic calming measures. We see traffic jettouts, curb jettouts. We see speed humps. We see the lower speed limits that we’ve implemented.

All of these are tools to discourage cut through traffic. We want commuters to take the arterial roads. Number one, as the most efficient routes to get to their destinations. But also, these are the roads that are designed to have to take on those heavier loads of traffic.

These neighborhood streets are not designed or meant for commuter traffic. And it just happened to be that there was this historical bridge that has been in this neighborhood for these many years. And it became a regular route for people to use to avoid Oxford and Talbot or Oxford and Richmond or down to Riverside. Just because it’s convenient for some people to do that doesn’t mean it is the best way for us to have traffic flow throughout our city.

I think when we saw what happened through COVID and people were not commuting, we saw this explosion of people out walking, people out cycling. And they were looking for ways to do that that could accommodate the numbers of them that were out there. And Black Friars Bridge was recognized as an excellent option for people to cycle and to walk in towards the downtown area. I think if we are and we should be doing this review that we’re talking about, we should be doing this public engagement.

And of course, it affects the Black Friar community, but it also affects London as a whole. This is a historic bridge. This is something that we spent a lot of money rehabilitating for more than just carbs. And we did hear from Mr.

McCrae that even if we had refurbished this bridge, we’ve only been intentioned to use it for cyclists or pedestrians, it would have cost the city the same amount of money. So I think it’s incumbent upon us as since Councilor Fife Miller chose to quote me and my words from committee, we should not be opening and closing and opening and closing. It is closed right now. Let’s leave it the way it is.

Let’s do the studies. Let’s do the public engagement and then we’ll make an informed decision. So I encourage my colleagues not to support this referral. Thank you.

I wouldn’t have intervened if I’d realized you were just a few words away. Councilor Turner. Thanks, Your Worship. That’s a good debate.

There’s certainly a couple of perspectives on this. I’ll admit at the outset, I’d love to see it as a pedestrian bridge. I think it’s also important to have the community engagement and I’ll listen very closely to what the community engagement results of that process are to figure out what our final determination is for the bridge. We’ve heard a lot from the community.

We’ve received quite a number of emails and social medias and calls regarding what would happen with the bridge. A lot of support for maintaining pedestrian. But when we take a look at the residents in Black Forest, I’ve heard both sides. One of the arguments was to be able to support some of the commercial along Black Forest Road.

And that would make sense if there was Westbound traffic on Black Forest Bridge. We dispensed with that at the reopening because of the hazards that having Westbound traffic and potential collisions with some of the abutments and the rails as it came down an icy hill and that have to navigate that curve. So that’s why the recommendation for eastbound traffic only was made. So if the bridge restricted people from being able to get to the commercial, and it’s pedestrian versus automobile status affected that, then perhaps we could have that discussion, but that’s not even on the table right now.

So if somebody was looking to access the commercial on Black Forest, they would be coming from the exact same way as they would if they were crossing the bridge, they’d just arrive at the commercial area first. The second part is Councilor Cassidy addressed the cost. It would be the same cost whether we pedestrianized it or whether we made it open to vehicular traffic. And some other members of the community addressed, well, why would we have even done that if it was just going to be, regardless of what that price was, but the price was pretty much the same, just a little bit more actually than the Thames Valley Parkway North Branch bridges.

And those are pedestrian cycling active transportation bridges. The third, I agree with Councilor Cassidy as well, it does seem kind of silly to open it and then potentially close it again. And if we’re trying to make a decision in the process, I agree with Councilor Pelosi’s motion that let’s do the work that we needed to do to figure out what the end state of Black Forest Bridge is going to be. And this was a discussion right from the outset.

This isn’t a new discussion. This was back when we had the discussion about even repairing it, we had the discussion about what conveyance it would support. And then as we got closer to opening it, the discussion continued. And we said, well, for right now, because of the need to provide some alternate routing into the core during construction, having the capacity on the bridge will be important.

But that construction is wrapping up and so going forward, do we need that capacity anymore? Not really, it’s a neighborhood. And we don’t really have any bridges over the Thames that lead into neighborhoods anymore, except for the Kensington, necessarily the Victoria Bridge right out, but right out is a completely different order of road than Black Forest is. It’s much busier.

It is a corridor in tune itself. But if you look at any of the other bridges, they are major corridors. You look at whether that’s up at Spring Bank, whether it’s at Horncliffe, whether it’s Riverside, Oxford, all of those bridges are very much Adelaide, very much corridors. And Black Forest is the exception to that.

So I recognize there’s divergent points of view. I urge you to consider, let’s spend the time to take a look, to consult with the community, to take a look at the options available to us and approach it at the right time, once all that information is in front of us. But for right now, let’s keep it close. Thank you, I have Councillor Vanholz, please.

Thank you, worship. First, I’ll say I’ll be supporting the referral. As Councillor Turner said, there’s been communications on either side of this. In one case, I recall somebody writing saying that the bridge may be becoming kind of a nuisance party place and that regular traffic would prevent that, prevent that from happening.

The, I guess the big thing from my perspective is that we did make this decision. We came up with a plan and we’ve yet to really see it, work out and get the data. So I think that’s what Councillor Fife Miller was looking for, the data on having this function with cars. And that’s important to me.

I’m still stinging a little bit from a decision where Councillors said, well, we just don’t think your idea is gonna work. So we shouldn’t bother trying it. I think in this case, we should see and know the effect of cars on this. And then at that point, we’ll be able to make, be make a good decision.

But for the people that, in good faith went forward with refurbishment in this plan, I think that we need to see that actually happen. That has to be realized for some time. And then after that, we can decide whether or not to open or close it. So I’m in support of the referral.

And at this point, if we were just to make a decision or opening or closing in, I would again open it. And then wait for some future time when we knew for sure what would be best for that community. I’ll also point out that for some of the people traveling, especially in that community, it’s a better way to go downtown than to maybe take Oxford where they have the chance of getting stuck behind the train, which is also the worst cut through traffic that we have in the city is a train because it, by cutting through stops everybody from moving. So fortunately we’re going ahead with that Adelaide Bridge.

That solution for downtown remains. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Vanholst. I will now look to Councillor Lewis, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. So I was willing to second this and I want to share my reasons why. And I think that the word councilor has already outlined a very important part of that, which is the process that was undertaken before. This bridge is not closed because it was identified as a need in part of our active transportation network.

Permanently, it was closed because of the COVID-19 emergency. And we’ve heard from our city engineer that her power is under the emergency situations no longer justify keeping the bridge closed. It’s also clear that this bridge has, even if we reopen it to vehicular traffic one way, a dedicated bike lane and a dedicated pedestrian walkway. There are still active transportation opportunities on this bridge.

But if we keep it closed now on the basis of an ask from the community and some petitioning, and we did hear some folks who were very adamant that it needed us to be reopened now as well. But if we were to make that decision based on a petition, what we get in my opinion is really a stacking of the outcome of the study on the usage, because if we are not allowing eastbound traffic across the bridge now, then when we do a usage study, the best data we will have for vehicular usage will be many, many, many years old. It may turn out when we get the usage study completed that the ratio of active transportation users versus vehicular users means it makes a lot of sense to actually just close it to vehicles altogether. But I don’t wanna presume that based on a closure that was made only weeks before the pandemic forced its closure.

And I wanna point out that we had other closures as a result of the pandemic. And I remember very clearly the closing of a lane on Richmond for pedestrian use during the pandemic. We didn’t keep that closed. And the reason why is because it needed to revert to its prior use and a lot of new data that we had received both COVID-19 and the safety of outdoor versus indoor exposure and viral loads and all of those things meant it really wasn’t justified to keep a lane closed anymore.

And I think that this falls in that same category. This made sense when COVID-19 data was newer to us when we didn’t have as much information and when there was a real demand for outside space as people had been pent up for a while and needed to get out there and do something outside for their mental health and their physical wellbeing. But that’s not where we are today now. I heard also traffic calming mentioned.

I think it’s really important to remember that outside of school zones, traffic calming requests are initiated by the neighborhood. And if the Black Friars community actually becomes concerned about the traffic coming through to use the bridge, again, that will follow and be on the word counselor to respond to that. And what I’m hearing from him today is that he’d like the bridge at this point reopened, not barring the possibility of closing it permanently once we get the data, but reverting to where we were pre-pandemic. And I think that’s a very reasonable ask.

What I don’t wanna do is presume that we’re going to get viable data out of a study that has limited the usage already. It’s a study for the provincial EA that is supposed to look at usage. Well, how can we look at the usage fairly if we are unilaterally tonight deciding one type of user is going to be prohibited from using the bridge while that study’s undertaken? So, and I understand why there are several hundred residents who have signed a petition, keep it closed.

I too, it’s a convenient way for them to get into the core or out of the core as active transportation users. And they’d like to see it made part of that network permanently. But I think we need to have that discussion with the community. We need to listen to the people in the Blackfire’s neighborhood as well.

I have taken a look, I asked Mr. McCrae for the original EA report. 30 seconds, Councillor. It’s 500 and some pages.

And it’s very clear that there was a lot of community consultation and a lot of different opinions. And I am not comfortable deciding for them tonight that we are going to unilaterally vote to keep it closed. And that’s why I’m supporting the referral. Thank you.

I have no other speakers on the list. Yes, I do. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead, please. Thank you, I’ve been listening intently to the debate going back and forth and really appreciate all my colleagues’ comments.

And I’ll just speak to the referral back. One thing I’ve learned here tonight is that both Councillor Palazzo’s motion and the Councillor Five Miller’s referral back will probably lead us in the same direction with getting data, with having more information, that community engagement, which is really important. I think the question before us is really about, should we open it with the referral or keep it closed in the motion coming from committee. And I have been really surprised how important this conversation has been in the community.

I’ve heard it from residents in Ward nine, the importance of keeping Blackfriars bridge open as they travel the TDP. It’s almost becoming a destination. And it is important, not only less, but throughout London. And it’s something that Londoners hold dearly, this historical bridge.

And I’m not convinced that closing it is really going to, for now, get us to a better place. So I won’t be supporting the referral. I do appreciate where it’s coming from, but I think eventually we’ll both get to the same place with the community engagement and the data that’s needed to make the decision to keep it open to vehicle traffic. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Plozer. Thank you, Your Worship. I won’t be supporting the referral tonight, which was likely to be no surprise. And I will be taking my five minutes on this one or close to.

This is a conversation that started with the prior term of council. And part of the considerations they made was based on the West leg of the BRT. And this was to help alleviate traffic. As we know at this time, there is no plans currently in the books for the West leg of the BRT.

And I know we try to make compromises many times as we try to accommodate all Londoners and how they wish to use space. And road users with vehicular traffic is majority of us. Having had this closure to the pandemic, I think showed the potential and the love of this area and how users throughout the city are coming to enjoy it recently constructed in the area was a leg of the Thames Valley Parkway. And that leaves this as one of the only points that pedestrians and cyclists would come in contact with vehicles.

And with the closure from the law, the letters they sent was a lot of appreciation for now feeling safe and using this area and asking that it remains closed while the staff review takes place. From some area residents and black friars, I’ve heard concerns about cut through traffic, asking when the bridge reopens ‘cause they would like to save a few seconds getting into downtown or out of downtown of how can they start traffic calming measures to help keep their neighborhoods safe? That would be definitely a consideration as we go through this. The petition that was referenced, when it came in, recognizing we have a history of online petitions and how valid are they?

At the time when it originally came into committee, it had 90% of the signatures on it were Londoners who obviously support active transportation leaving this bridge closed. That’s when the petition had 536 signatures. Currently it’s still active and has almost 1,200 signatures, still the majority being Londoners. And I think that’s important to note that it’s balancing vulnerable road users that neighborhoods and plus those people that travel through the neighborhoods regardless of their choice of active transportation.

As Councilor Hopkins said, both opening it and closing it, gets us to the staff report back for further consideration, just looking for the bridge to stay close in the interim. So we’re not opening, closing it, opening, closing it and people know what to expect with it. So that’s where I stand tonight. I’m asking my colleagues to vote against the referral, making sure that staff will still follow the course of action and bring back the staff report reporting on the bridge.

Just we’ve heard from many people in the community through the petition, through letters to us, through public, social media, just saying what the bridge means to them that it feels safe. The town’s valley Parkway is marketed as safe for all, all ages and abilities. And once you start throwing cars into it, as people have now found it, it does make it a little bit more dangerous. So just looking at a new love of this area in neighborhood and how to brass proceed.

And yes, the staff report’s gonna tell us that. So asking that we leave it closed until that report comes back. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to comment on this item?

This is on the referral. Councillor Halmer, please go ahead. Thank you. I appreciate it.

I asked the question about whether it was an order at the beginning. I wanted to listen to people weigh in about the referral before I did so myself. I guess first I would like to know from city staff, we’re talking a lot about this report back in the study and I wonder if we could get a sense of what the timeline we think that would be. When do we think we’re gonna have the results of that?

Let’s ask me, sure. Thank you, Your Worship. So a condition of the environmental assessment was that within five years of completion, your proponent would, so the city would provide a report with additional traffic studies back to the environmental approvals branch looking at general traffic patterns and the need for the use of the bridge for vehicle traffic in the future. The bridge was officially opened in 2018.

Construction continued though in 2019, as we did work on the approach ends. So the traffic counts have not been done since reopening. So we would need to report back by 2023 under the original environmental assessment. At this point, if the bridge would remain closed, that would be a modeling exercise and public consultation, more engagement driven.

And we could likely report back prior to the start of the busier summer season on the TDP. So late spring. And if there’s a need to collect a season of traffic data on the bridge over the course of the summer, we would be coming back in the fall. Council Member.

Okay, that’s helpful. I supported the EA recommendations to have eastbound vehicular traffic on the bridge when we dealt with it back in 2016, I think it was. And that was the result of a pretty long process where we tried to figure out exactly what could be done in the bridge. And there was a lot of public feedback at the time saying it should be closed to all kinds of vehicular traffic.

I remember at PIC number one in particular, there was like almost overwhelming feedback in that direction, despite that, the recommendation from the staff because during all the elements of the environmental assessment was to allow the eastbound traffic. And one of the reasons that I supported at that time was we were going to have this construction happening in the core that was going to really impact the road network. Of course, at the time, nobody could foresee what was going to happen with the pandemic. And that has really disrupted travel patterns.

And there’s been some recovered a bit more normal, but not full. And so I said at the committee meeting, I just think it’s premature to be opening it up to vehicles right now. I think actually the pandemic has still impacted people and their daily routines and their habits and their movements around the city pretty significantly. And their urgency of having Black Forest Bridge opened one way for vehicles just isn’t there.

You can get around on Oxford Street now like you couldn’t in the past. Oxford was much busier. Riverside, which has been impacted heavily by the construction, I think probably by now. I haven’t actually been on it in the last couple of days.

It should be opening soon. So you’ve got more lanes on the way in. And the construction next summer is going to be quite different than it is right now. And so I think it’s functioned extremely well as a relief valve during the pandemic for everybody who is out and about in the ways that they probably weren’t in the past.

For people who are already engaged in active transportation, I think it’s become even a more useful link. And I just think it’s not the right time to be opening it up to vehicles. I don’t think the urgency is there. And so I hear, I was listening very carefully to what Councilor Fiff Miller was saying about meeting the commitment that was made in the EA.

I think that actually is very important. And so for me, it’s not a matter of should it be closed permanently or not right now. I do think we need to have some data and analysis to really consider that fully. The question is between now and then should it be open to vehicles or not.

And for me, I think the tipping point is when we’ve got mobility patterns that are a bit more back to normal in terms of travel on other streets. And I just don’t think we’ve reached that point yet. So I’m not going to support the referral. I will say that this idea that you can refer things and essentially accomplish the opposite of something is perhaps a weakness in our procedure by law.

I’m going to think about how we can fix that because this is exactly what it’s supposed to try and avoid is having a debate at Council about the opposite of a committee recommendation. I understand sort of the very narrow technical reading of that by-law and I think I actually agree with it, but I think it’s a weakness in the by-law. So I’m going to vote against the referral. I think Councilor Fiff Miller is approaching it in a very careful and considered way.

I think Councilor Plosa is also trying to do the same and they just have different ideas about what should be open and when. Thank you and thank you, Councilor, for acknowledging the issue around procedure. We try to be very precise. And if any colleague thinks that the interpretation we have is inappropriate or wrong, they are always welcome to challenge the chair.

But in this case here, I think our by-law procedures were clear on that, but thank you. I appreciate that. Any other comments or questions, colleagues? Councilor Ann Mirbergen, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I’ll be supporting Councilor Fiff Miller’s referral. The fact of the matter is we’re rapidly coming back to more normal traffic flows. It makes sense, a lot of sense, to have this bridge open to vehicular traffic if that’s one of the components being studied, which it is.

And so, yes, let’s have that in real time as the flows increase and they will and have a more fulsome report when it comes back. So, I will definitely be supporting this referral and thanks to Councilor Fiff Miller for bringing it forward. Thank you, other final comments or questions from anyone who has not spoken. So, colleagues on the referral, we will call the question.

Wasn’t the vote, motion carries eight. The 14th report of Civic Works Committee. Thank you, colleagues. I’d like to move to plan the environment, but we have a challenge.

And that is that it’s 706 at this point. For those who are around the horseshoe, the opportunity to have a break, although we had a very brief one earlier, did not give them an opportunity to grab a cookie or do what they feel they need to do. And I’m gonna suggest that we have a 20-minute break, which would move us to 730. And here’s the reason why we have planning environment committees still to hear from.

SPPC, the audit committee, and then closed session and then bylaws. I don’t think it’s reasonable to not have a break. So, it’s 707, I’m going to suggest we resume at 730 if I have a mover and a seconder for that. Mover by Councillor Hiller, seconder by Councillor Halmer.

Thank you very much. Let’s just show hands here. Can we get those in favor? And I’ll look to the clerk.

Motion carries. And to the public, we’ll see you back at 730. Thank you. Paulies, we’ll be back in just a few moments.

Paulies, could I ask for screens on please? We do have quorum. Thank you. And as I educate, I always will when I’ve been made aware.

Councillor Cassidy has been quite ill, is not returning to this meeting, it would seem. So, we wish her well, that’s for sure. So, colleagues, with that, we now have the Planning Environment Committee. I’d like to turn it over, please, if I could, to Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I would like to present the 16th report of the Planning and Environment Committee. I will be pulling 17 and 20. I have not heard from anyone else.

If there’s any other— Does anyone else wish any of these items to be dealt separately? Again, that’s item 17 and— And 20. And 20, thank you very much. Back to you, Councillor Hopkins.

And with that, I’ll put all the items that are left on the floor. And I just want to say that there’s a couple good news stories in the consent items, number five, 2.4, which is the Lebat Memorial Park Heritage Designation Application, which came to us to endorse and direct staff to submit the application to the National Historic Sites and Monument Board of Canada. This is a municipality, a municipal-owned land that I hope you are able to see the great reviews and letters of support. Number eight, 2.7, which is the contract award for the rethinking zoning consulting services for the London Plan, which necessitates the need for a new comprehensive zoning by-law to regulate and implement the new direction of the London Plan that came to us on consent.

Their 9 and 10 building division monthly reports for August and September of this year, a lot of great work that city staff are doing, getting these permits out as we really start to see unprecedented numbers coming forward when it comes to permits. I’d also like to bring your attention to a number of public participation meetings, as well as the presentation that we had from three CIPs, Hamilton Road, Soho and Lambeth, regarding the performance measures and indicators. As well, number 19, which is 4.2, we received a motion from Councillor Van Halst regarding the food security and home-based food business motion to have civic administration bring forward a report to align our zoning regulations with the province. So with that, colleagues, I’d like to put items.

Thank you, I wonder if anyone has any comments they wish to make on any of the items with the exception of item 3.7 and 4.3. Councillor Hummer. Just on item 16, the application of 512 McCormick Boulevard, appreciate the committee’s support for that innovative approach to growing food. I think the applicant did a good job of engaging the community, I know people had a number of concerns, but I think they’ve got a good approach to what they want to do there.

It’s quite an interesting use for property close to the train tracks. And I think if they can successfully develop that business, we could be seeing more of those popping up and let industrial areas and other places throughout the city. So somebody to keep our eye on generally, I think it’s a very positive thing for the neighborhood overall. Thank you, other comments with respect to those items that are on the floor?

Seeing none, call the question. Does someone have their mic on? Councillor Lewis. Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. And the next item is number 17, which is 3.7560 and 562 Wellington Street. There’s an application that came to us. I did not support the committee’s recommendation.

I understand there’s an amendment. So I will maybe hand over the chair to another committee member, Councillor Hillier, if you would like to take over. Sure. Councillor Hillier.

Thank you very much. Can’t see why I’m recognizing that I can’t see anybody. Then maybe I can suggest another committee member here. Yeah, I’m sorry, I can’t see anyone.

Why don’t we refer, can we refer to Councillor Lewis, your vice? Councillor Lewis. Councillor Lewis, go ahead and thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Your Worship.

I will put this one on the floor, but I want to make sure that I’m pursuing your lane order because I’m also the member who circulated the amendment. So I have an amendment that I want to put on with that. So perhaps we could look to Councillor Layman to take the chair for planning an environment committee, and then I’ll introduce my amendment. I’ve never had so many chairs in a short period of time.

Councillor Layman, please. The music stops and I’ve got the chair. So I will put the committee recommendation on the floor. Councillor Lewis, who I believe has an amendment.

Go ahead, Councillors. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, I circulated and had on the agenda a proposed amendment for your consideration. So I’d like to get that amendment on the floor now and discuss that.

And then of course, after we’ve decided on the amendment, we can proceed with bait on the main motion, I hope. But I did want to say that in discussion with— Sorry, Councillor, I’m going to cut you off only because I’d like to get a seconder on it, and then I’m going to let you speak to it, all right? Well, I think you might want to hear this procedurally, Your Worship. In consultation— I will let you know, all right, go ahead.

With the clerks today, the amendment that was circulated does need two minor alterations based on advice that I received from Mr. Schutler. All right, let’s see if the clerk has the appropriate format or the one to be corrected. Clerk, if you could give us some advice, please.

Certainly, a three-year worship, pursuant to section 11.23 of the Council Procedure By-law, proposed zoning or zoning, rezoning by-law as amended, shall not be introduced and enacted until the question of whether or not any further notice to be given has been resolved. Your standard wording that occurs typically referred to section 34-17 of the Planning Act, and that would be ready to go should Councillor Lewis choose to put that forward. Councillor Lewis. Yes, so in addition to the amendment that was on the agenda, there would be an additional section C, pursuant to section 34, bracket 17 of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice be given in respect to the proposed by-law, as the recommended zoning implements the site plan concept submitted with the application.

There would also be an it being noted, which was from discussion with Mr. Dickinson housing, that it being noted that civic administration is encouraged to speak with Auburn developments on the tenant selection process for the affordable units. So there would be those two minor alterations to the amendment that was circulated. And I’ll ask the clerk if the clerk has those.

We do have wording appropriate, loading to e-scrap, we’ll have that in a moment. You’ll add that in then, based on that, appreciating that it will be added in. Do you have a seconder for this? I see Councillor Hill here, thank you.

So colleagues, there’s a slightly amended amendment, or you can determine whether you deem that to be slightly amended, but we’ll invite questions and comments on the amendment. Councillor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. So colleagues, I even expressed at planning committee some reservation about this application, and one of my big reservations was the lack of any affordable housing provided in the application that was before us.

It was one of the items in the planning analysis, impact analysis that was identified by staff, and I believe that was clause E of the planning impact analysis that referred to the lack of affordable housing, not being consistent. And I recognize that while we may still not agree at the end of the evening on the direction of this proposal, it was a commitment that I personally made to Councillor Turner, that I’d review those planning impact analysis clauses, and this was one that I identified, which was a big concern for me. And I’ve hopefully have addressed this because the amendment proposes the addition of 12 units of affordable housing at 70% of average market rate. That would provide for seven units within the building, and five units in the applicant’s existing portfolio upon approval and then upon occupation of the building.

So that gives us the opportunity to get five affordable units fairly quickly to start meeting. And I recognize five is only a beginning, the need, but it does give us also seven units when the building is constructed. We heard a lot earlier tonight, as we were talking about the master mobility plan and about Black Fryer’s Bridge and transportation considerations, how important that alternatives are. And one of the most important things is the downtown being able to have the residential density that allows people to walk to work.

And for me, the affordable units here, and I recognize that 70% of AMR is not going to meet the needs of somebody perhaps on OW or ODSP, but what it might well meet the needs of is an individual who’s working downtown, perhaps in a retail or hospitality sector, who will be able to live in this building and walk across Victoria Park to work. And for master mobility, that’s one of the benefits that this application would propose. I know that the neighborhood still doesn’t love it, but as I look at the official plan and at the London plan, and that’s the reality of either 10 or 12 stories being acceptable here. If we start thinking about the bonusing of affordable units, the additional five stories is not inconsistent with other decisions we’ve made on other applications where affordable housing has been considered as a bonusing.

I recognize that that wasn’t the original ask in the application, but that’s why the amendment is before you so that we can consider this. I do hope, regardless of how you feel on the proposal, on the main motion on the application, that you’ll support the addition of the affordable housing, because I think that this is something we as a council need to be looking at in every planning application we are receiving, and particularly in any application where the request is to go above the recommended heights in a particular zone. I think it’s really important for us to meet the needs in the community. I think it’s really important for us to work away at the 3,000 affordable unit goal that the mayor has ambitiously set that we’ve all agreed to work towards.

So I hope that you will support this amendment and provide an opportunity for some affordable units in this development if it goes forward. And I’ll end my comments on the amendment there, and I may have some more to add on the main motion, but I just hope that folks will support the addition of affordable housing so that if we approve this application, that component will live in that main motion. Thank you. A colleague’s all turn your attention to describe where the amendment that has been slightly revised, that has been revised is there for your approval as well, if you want to reference that as well.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? I have no one on my, I do. Sometimes we just kind of find people at the very end there.

Councilor Turner, go ahead, please. Thanks, Your Worship. I might just throw you to staff. What’s the normal process for accomplishing affordable housing within buildings such as this, and how much do we normally try to accomplish as a proportion of the number of units?

I think I might turn to Mr. Cautzfuss if he might be able to help us. Through Your Worship, typically we would require units through bonusing provisions, and it’s typically about 10% of the lift that we seek. Councilor Turner.

Thank you. So for this proposal here, we’re not going through bonusing and what’s the percent of the lift? Mr. Cautzfuss.

Excuse me, I’ve got Councilor Cassidy’s cold, I think. Mr. Barrett might be able to give you the actual number for the lift, but in this case, we had to, through Councillor Lewis’s motion, it is through a bonusing provision and a bonus law that we were actually requiring the affordable housing units. Mr.

Barrett, can you help as well? Through Your Worship, this is, and I guess I want to predicate this, that it’s a little bit of a theoretical exercise on this because of where we’re starting and where we’re ending, but we’ve done some calculations and let me just sort of go through the whole exercise. At the maximum density contemplated under the low density residential, it’d be 75 units per hectare. And on this site, that would give 16 units.

Under the medium density, 100 units per hectare with a bonus would give you 21 units. Multi-family high density with the R10 zone permissions that were contemplated, which would be at 350 units per hectare, which is provided for within the downtown, would be 76 units. And as proposed here, the 176 units is about an 807 unit per hectare calculation. All that being said that the lift of between the 176 units is what’s proposed here in the 76 that you would get under a 350 unit per hectare is 100 units and the 10% lift on that would be about 10 units.

So that’s sort of the gross calculations that we’ve done on this. Councilor Chair. Okay, thanks. That’s helpful tonight.

I think the 350 units per hectare where we kick in the bonus in provisions and this applications about 800,000 units per hectare. Is a fairly significant deviation from that. Just to perhaps make it a really easy characterization is the proposal here in line above or below what we would normally seek for bonus in terms of units and affordability. Excuse me, Mr.

Bear. Again, recognizing that this is not coming forward as a staff recommendation the 10% calculation that would yield 10 units and what is being proposed in the amended resolution would be consistent with what the city would be seeking to secure through a bonus in agreement as it relates to the number. Councilor Chair. Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that. I guess since I’m speaking and we’re on the amendment, I appreciate the work that was done to find some affordable housing within this. I think it was rather egregious that the motion was passed at committee without this, essentially throwing away any bargaining position that we would have to be able to accomplish any affordable housing through bonusing. That all said, I have a lot to say about this application, which I’ll say for main comments, but I’m not a big fan of the way this was brought about.

And I find it problematic when, especially, when Councilors are negotiating out to these deals, the optics of it are really poor. But that said, it accomplishes one of the aspects that was problematic with this application. There are still a host of others. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions on the amendment? I see none. So on the amendment, we will call the question. Councillor Elmer, Councillor Elmer, are you voting?

I saw your hand go up. I’m not voting. I’m looking at what’s in front of me. And it doesn’t look like the amendment.

It looks like several clauses that are the actual recommendation. If they part about affordable housing added on to the end. So are we dealing with just the amendment? Letter that was provided Council agenda.

The amendment reads exactly as we put it into a describe with the exception of the additions indicated by Councillor Lewis. Councillor Elmer. I understand that, but the committee recommendation doesn’t have them. The amendment should be to add the parts that are missing.

And then we can vote on that. If I voted on this, I’d be passing the whole thing right now. And we haven’t even debated that. Take it back to the clerk.

So what we could do is, so what you’re suggesting is an as a be amended to read as follows, is that the suggestion? I just let me intervene here too. I clearly what the Councillor’s saying is the amended portion is the piece we would be looking to be dealing with here. And then we would add that as soon as it passes, we would add that to the main motion.

And then it becomes the complete motion with the amendment. Councillor Hummer, if I misunderstood that, I’m sure you’ll tell me. I do want to just point out, I see Ms. Westlake Powers has her hand up, but the part that’s really new, I haven’t actually compared them, but it’s and provides for affordable housing as follows.

And then there’s several bullets. And then the notation and then the part C, right? So I think that’s the part we should be voting on right now. ‘Cause that’s the amendment.

I’ll turn it over to Ms. Westlake Powers for comments. Thank you through the chair. And I do apologize for the confusion.

This was circulated to me and I failed to include the wording at the lead-in to say that it be amended to read as follows. There are a few pieces of the amendment, some of which were going to be covered in a pre-amendment sheet, but I understand that Councillor Lewis has worked with staff about some of that wording. So the differences to the motion, and I will cancel this out to correct the wording for you, but it’s the bullet points after B, including the it being noted that the civic administration is encouraged to speak with Auburn development, the part C about the section 34.17. And then there is the addition of the reasons for passing the motion or approving the application.

But I will cancel this vote and add that information at the beginning. There are a few pieces that make it a traditional amendment format a bit challenging. Thank you. So I’ll go to the clerks.

Do you just need a few moments to put the appropriate wording in for our review? Yes, please. So colleagues, we’ll reset that vote and get that appropriate wording if you just bear with us a moment. The benefit of the public, we are just reviewing the amendment as put forward.

And as we have the opportunity to review that, we’ll come up on screen and then colleagues will have the opportunity to vote on that. Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I’m just, I’m trying to present an amendment that will provide the clarity that we’re looking for here. So would it be Council’s desire to have the lead in that say that clause 3.7 be amended to read as follows.

And what I’ve done is underlined the additional information so that it’s clear, or would you like that information separate and distinct from the main motion? I think the concern clerk is that for any that would vote regarding the amendment, they do not want to be effectively voting on the motion as amended. I would think the clearest way would be to have it separated out, but I’m at the pleasure of colleagues if underlining for that purpose is sufficient. I’m not sure that it is, but I’ll look to some direction from colleagues.

It will provide the clarity, the motion as amended will still require a vote. Yes, but right now we’re not dealing on the motion as amended. - Correct. So I think if there’s sufficient clarity for all of us that we’re dealing on the amendment with those, I’ll call them tweaks.

Forgive me for the parliamentary reference, but whether that’s sufficient, I think we’d have to see that to confirm. colleagues, I’m just trying to get my e-scribe up here. What you heard the clerk say was that he was going to put forward the amendment, those areas that were impacted as a result of the amendment would be the parts that we would be dealing with. And if that is sufficient for the purpose, then we can deal with that.

Clerk, do you want to give us an update of where we are with this now? Yes, for ease of consideration, I will just be putting forward the amendments to the clause they are as follows. At an addition at the end of part B, just giving me a little bit of grief on formatting, a new part C and some additional verbiage at the end of the clause. So if you’ll just bear with me while I do the formatting, that amendment will be for you.

Thank you. If the clerk needs a few minutes, we can excuse ourselves for just a few minutes. Colleagues, I know that seems a little different, but clerk, what’s your pleasure? Well, Mr.

Mayor, E-Scry just booted me out. So I’m trying to get back in, but you may be able to see the amendments there because I did save it back into E-Scry. So fingers crossed, it’s there for you. Can you take us through it as best?

Or we’ve got, we certainly have the clerk in chambers that can walk us through this too. It’s most like power. It’s not there, unfortunately. Colleagues, there are some issues there with E-Scry.

We want to do this right, and I think it’s more important to do it right than overly quickly, so I’ll ask if we can take five potentially six minute break, I’m told. That’s what will be needed. Councillor Hilliard, seconded by Councillor Layman. Thank you very much, by show of hands, if you’re in support of just a several minute break and with apologies, but that happens.

It’s 807, let’s resume at 8.15, please, thanks. Thank you. So colleagues, E-Scry has, and for the benefit of the public, as well, E-Scry, which is our communication tool for our agenda, which would include our motions and our amendments, like, has crashed at the within our clerk’s office. So we’re trying to get that right to do that the best way, so we’ll ask you to bear with us, so we may have to do this kind of an old fashioned way, but just bear with us so we can get this done right.

So colleagues, it looks like, I think we’re there, so with that, I’m gonna ask for screens on, please, to confirm quorum. We do have quorum. I’ll go back to the clerk, Barb, Ms. Wesley Power, just to confirm where we are then, please.

Thank you. So if members have a look at their E-Scry, you should be able to see the third motion that is attached to this item. If you click current item and refresh your screen, you should see the amendment. There are three parts to the amendment.

There’s a verbiage to add at the end of part B, a new part C, and then wording that is at the end of that will be inserted to the end of the clause. As I understand it, that is all of the amendments from the committee recommendation. First, let me say thank you for that, and I’m gonna take it back to Councillor Helmer, and not to put you on the spot, but you’d appropriately brought this forward, and I wonder if there are any comments or questions with respect to the amendment, or perhaps it was Councillor Turner, and I apologize. No, it was me.

I think this is helpful, at least for myself. I have very different views on the different parts of that amendment, so I would suggest that the middle section, the part that’s about amending part B, and adding in the affordable housing piece, be dealt with separately than the rest, because I think people might have different opinions on that, at least I do. So you’re asking that B specifically be voted on separately, Councillor? Yeah, I have no problem with the affordable housing part.

All right, thank you. Any other comments on the amendment? Appreciating that when we get to the vote, we will deal with B separately. Any other comments or questions, colleagues have?

I see the, Ms. Westlake, power you have a hand up. That would be a hangover, my apologies. That might happen well later anyway, but let’s first things first.

So with that, I have no other speakers, so we will be voting on A and the amendment including A and C, but specifically, excluding B for a separate vote. I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor. I’m not sure which vote you want open at this time.

The amendment, Clerk? The full amendment. The full amendment, excluding section B, it’s been requested to be pulled to be voted on, so you have the full motion. I think Councillor Lewis is gonna try to bring some clarity to that, go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you, Your Worship. I think, and I hope I’m interpreting Councillor Halmer’s thoughts correctly. In E-Scribe right now, we have three motions listed. Motion two was the original amendment, the whole thing.

Motion three, I believe, is what Councillor Halmer is asking for us to vote on, where there is a part B and a part C separately, and that would make the motion number two that’s listed in E-Scribe as amended vote when we come back to the main motion. So I’m hoping to see Councillor Halmer’s screen on at the moment, so I’m not sure if that’s what he was indicating, but I think he wants to vote on three, which I think makes sense. Those are the two amended clauses B and C, and then we would come back to the main motion, and if B and C are both approved, then motion two in E-Scribe would be the main motion as amended. Well, that’s a dictionary plus two, Councillor Halmer.

Okay, I’m gonna try to say exactly what I mean, and maybe we’ll get to be some clarity about what I’m trying to do. I have three different opinions about the parts and part three, the third motion. The third part of that motion is saying, this conforms of the official plan. I don’t agree with that.

And so that’s very different than saying there should be affordable housing, right? That’s saying that there’s reasons to support the application. We can get to that when we talk about the application. It’s just the middle part.

The very first part is talking about how tall the building should be, how many units there should be, I don’t agree with that part either. It’s just the part in the middle about the affordable housing that I would support. And if we deal with that first, then it’s included. We deal with the rest of the things that I suspect is where people actually have some disagreement.

I’m sorry to overly complicate it, but you put up the whole motion saying, yeah, go ahead, though, everything’s approved. And I don’t think that that is helpful because we haven’t got the debate yet. So we could move on the middle part of the third motion, the total of 12 affordable residential units down to the new part C. So during notice, honestly, that’s fine.

I agree, that’s not really a very different proposal. So not giving more notice is fine. That’s just my own preferences. Like I think other people might have different preferences.

And it’s not just up to me, just for myself, I just want the part about affordable housing dealt with separately and first, rather than later. All right, to be clear, colleagues. And Councillor Halmer, as you know well, any council member can ask to have a certain section, usually it’s sectioned as A or B or C or one, two or three. The challenge, of course, is the wording of it in this third paragraph.

So I will ask the clerk if we took the section that says a total of 12 affordable residential units, which is the item three, an item three, first major bullet, ending at the tenant selection process for the affordable units. So there are three bullet points. So if I got that correct, Councillor Halmer. All right, so I would ask the clerk, if we can deal with those by themselves, please, as the first item to vote on.

Mr. Mayor, my apologies, trying to parse it out like this and not revising the whole motion. I have dropped off an additional amendment. So if you can afford me another opportunity to piece this apart with all of the amendments, I’ll put them up in pieces.

So there’s an amendment to part A and I’ll do them individually in each part. I think I have an understanding of what we’re trying to do, but it will result in several motions for us to vote on. And then let’s do it that way, Clerk, and as long as the parts that need to be separated out at the request of council members are done accordingly. And then we’ll get on with this, whatever the decision is by council members.

So we’ll take your lead. I will say as that’s being done, this has been made to be particularly complicated and needn’t have been up there. Colleagues, we will get to the right place and we will start, I think, when we’re ready to do this from the top down, but we will ensure that we’ve separated out areas that cause for the potential of the different votes. And again, just bear with us a slight bit longer.

Colleagues, you’re going to see when you’re going to E-Scribe and refresh your screen now, please. You’re going to see these pieces that will be broken down and we’d like you to start to review them right now so that we can get to the voting in just a few moments. Call on the clerk then to confirm which components we’re voting on first. Clerk, please.

Through your worship, as Ms. Westlake Power continues to work on this, part A has been broken out and you’ll see that as item three in E-Scribe. Subsequent components have been broken out so B is loaded as motion four. C will be loaded as motion five and a further amendment is loaded as motion six and that is at the end of the clause.

So with that, this has been moved and seconded. We’re on three and three basically has three A. Any other comments or questions on this? Councillor Halmer.

So three A is essentially the substance of the actual application and so on that recommendation that came from the planning committee, I don’t agree with the approval and I’m going to just talk about why very briefly, we’ve talked about this application several times started out as a 22 story tower and it came forward as she has a much smaller floor paint, a skinnier tower. I’ve said a lot of things about this particular proposal but what I want to say is not really, unfortunately it’s not really to the members of council but to the community more broadly. And that is that I’m quite certain that the development proposal is going to be approved tonight and that’s going to be one in the long string of many times our planning staff have recommended to committee that the application should be refused and then it is approved anyway. And what we’ve seen over the last year or so is a lot of decisions like that.

Where planning staff say this is not consistent with policy planning committee says it’s fine, we’re going to do it anyways. And then we’re seeing actually quite a lot of appeals to the local planning appeal tribunal as a result. And I think it’s really not a good thing that we’re seeing that it’s going to be very expensive. It’s going to lead to really inconsistent and bad planning decisions.

And one of them is right in front of us here tonight with this particular proposal. So I don’t think that this is a egregiously terrible recommendation, a 17 story tower in this location, pretty close to what I would probably support. This is a neighborhood place type in the London plan. I know that’s been appealed by the applicant but the idea in the London plan, we talked in the last debate about Black Forest Bridge, we talked about how we had to really fall through in our commitment on an EA about the bridge.

London plan involved a lot of public consultation but what we should do with our land use in the city. Thousands and thousands of people participate in the development of that plan. Even though it was approved over five years ago, some parts of it are still not in the forest in effect because applicants like Auburn have appealed them and those are still not resolved even to this day. One of the things they’re fighting about is whether this particular piece of property should be allowed to be built something much taller.

I’m not convinced that 17 stories is appropriate here. I probably could be convinced that 12 stories could work here. That even that would be much higher than what’s allowed under the neighborhood place types but I think I could get there. And we’ve got the Westwood Field Heritage Conservation District plan, which again, developed with public consultation, go into the plan, what should be in here?

What should be on the edge of this district? How should we preserve the heritage conservation district in this area? And this goes against it, right? We know if we’ve approved this building that it would be going against it.

That’s why the staff lay up very clearly for these many reasons you should refuse the application. And we’re just saying go ahead and do it anyway. And I’m sure that’s what’s gonna happen tonight. And so I’m not really trying to convince anybody because I don’t think that that actually is likely to work.

What I’m saying to the community is we have to resist this kind of decision making and we have to try and stop it because we’re gonna get some really bad planning decisions. This one I think is not really in the category of really bad. I think it’s a bit taller than should be allowed. But we do need to intensify.

And yes, it’s not in the downtown, but it’s close. It’s very close to downtown. And I would support something that was intense, more intensity on this site, but not something this tall. I just think it’s too much for this neighborhood, too much for the edge of Woodfield.

And we do have to, when we pass things like the London plan and the conservation district plans, actually stick to those things. It’s not fair to people to just do things that are totally against those policies and those plans. We’ve been doing it repeatedly. And I really hope we stop eventually.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilor Van Holst. Thank you, Your Worship.

So is this having some effect on this decision? I was gonna provide some of my own comments. Like Councilor Hummer, I don’t think this is a bad decision. I actually think that as a council and myself may have made a mistake with the London plan on this particular strip.

I don’t think this should have been the neighborhood place type. And if we’re thinking about building in words and upwards, which of course we need to really think about where people want to live in a high density area. And this is one of those places right here close to park, close to downtown. This is where a lot of people would want to live.

And so I’m in favor of the height here. And I would be in favor of a taller building, but maybe that’s because of some personal history years ago. I lived on the 33rd floor of the hotel plaza too at the corner of a young and bluer in Toronto. And that was a great spot.

And my window overlooked a heritage district. It was Rosedale. And that’s a district that certainly wasn’t harmed by being close to a thriving downtown. So, and I see this as a very similar spot.

Now, I recognize that there’s the question of transition. And I think that’s a challenge that we have to face. However, obviously the transition that should take place needs to happen somewhere in the wood field around this area where we would want, where we want the high density and where people would want to move. And where we would be able to generate a great deal of tax revenues.

So the difference between the property as it is now and the property as it is opposed will bring in approximately a million dollars a year difference. So that’s a huge thing. And I don’t think that’s a factor that we’re putting in as we consider this. And then there’s another, I guess over two and a half million dollars worth of development charges.

So those things are a significant advantage to us. So I also look and we’re talking about the impacts on the wood field heritage district. It’s a big district. My question at the committee meeting was how many properties are in there and staff wrote back and told me it’s 498.

And this only affects with some shadows, a very small percentage of those. And there is adjacent to even fewer ones as other people have said. So, you know, and the other question I had is I’m looking through the planning impact analysis. You know, it’s said, well, there’s already a supply of vacant land around here.

And I asked Auburn how many of the empty parking lots they owned and the answer was none. And so we’re in this position where we’re saying, we don’t want the development to happen if somebody’s interested in building something until all the spaces where people aren’t interested in doing a development are filled. And I think that’s just gonna make it less motivating for people to actually fill things. 30 seconds constant.

Right. So I think I’ve covered quite a few of the notes that I’ve written down here. There’ll probably be some opportunity to mention anymore if there are. But so that’s my perspective on this one.

I think this is the place for development. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Dr.

Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I did not support the committee’s recommendation coming out of the planning committee meeting. And I will not be supporting this portion of the motion.

And I, you know, it’s interesting. We’ve become sort of a council that we really can’t convince anyone right here and now to change their mind. And I agree with Councillor Halmer when he says it’s not about making those, being open to being convinced that we’ve got it wrong. And I try to do that quite often.

But I think we’re not there right now with this application. And listening to everyone, I really question the fact that we sit here and we’re the experts. Somehow the recommendation coming out of staff was to refuse. Sure, we read all the reasons why this should be refused this application.

And this has been before us. This is the third time. We’ve seen a gun from 25 to 22. Now we’re down to 17 floors.

The units have changed maybe about 15 units lower than the original application. But I’ve heard loud and clear that from the community that this is highly intense for being across from Victoria Park, it is a unique situation. And that should matter. I think there’s opportunities there that the applicant and city staff should continue to have those conversations.

I’m not prepared to just completely say that our policies don’t matter. They should matter, this flexibility in our policies, for sure, that they really should matter. The London plan, four years of planning, two years, community input. And here we are, just chipping away at it.

And that does not feel right for me. I think the over-intensification of this unique site is something that we can’t just, I don’t think that I don’t want to be part of that legacy that we have just decided to do here at council, ‘cause we know where this is gonna go tonight. So I won’t be supporting this. Thank you.

Any other comments from colleagues? Councillor Turner, please. Just a clarification, ‘cause I understand this was, we were talking about the referral. And at some point we’d have some debate on the main motion, but it’s starting to sound like they’re bleeding into each other.

Often happens, Councillor Turner and my, I’ve only been in this role three years, and that does not surprise me your comment. But we are trying to keep this to the amendment, and I appreciate you clarifying that. And I will challenge colleagues to do that as best they can, thank you. Do you have any other comments you wish to make, sir?

I’ll wait ‘til we get to the main motion, then. Fair enough, thank you. Any other comments or questions? I see none, we’ll call the question on this portion of the amendment.

Close in the vote, keep walking us through, so we’re specifically clear on the section right now, if you would, Clerk. Through your worship, the next to be called is part B. That is going to be motion four. Which is the next section down, colleagues.

The mover and seconder still stand on this. I’ll look for any comments or questions. Councillor Hummer, please. Thank you.

Although I don’t agree with the overall proposal, I do think that the work that Councillor Lewis has done to try and get some affordable units, even at 70% of average market rent in the development is worthwhile and should be supported. I’m glad that he did that. It’s very tricky because when staff are not recommending something, they’re clearly refusing the application, they’re not gonna get a bonus zone in place and then refuse it. And so the normal negotiations that would happen around design and affordability, well, that’s only gonna happen when there is a staff recommendation and favor.

And so salvaging something good out of the proposal, I think is worthwhile. And I appreciate that Councillor Lewis has tried to do that. Thank you. Any other comments?

Councillor Hopkins, please. Yes, on the affordable housing fees here. And I wanna thank clerks for dividing everything out. So it is clear for us when we make our decisions here.

And I originally thought, no, I’m not gonna support this at all, but the affordable housing fees, I think is something that convinced me is important to have here. I do have some concerns about how this affordable housing conversation became a part of this application. I understand that negotiations usually happen between staff and the applicant, but I can see the work here and the opportunities, even though the affordable housing part is questionable at 70%. And I’m sure it’s better than nothing, and I will be supporting it.

Thank you, any other comments? I see none, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries. Thank you, Clerk.

Worship, the next to be called is Art C, and that relates to further notice. Thank you very much, comments, questions. I see none, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote, motion.

I’ll let the clerk take us to the next point. We did break out, sorry, three of worship, but we did break out the final portion, and that’s an end of the clause, it being further noted. I’ll at least that’s item six on the bottom of your agenda item. Comments or questions?

Councillor Turner, please. Thanks, Your Worship. Surprisingly, this is the one I have the most problem with. I’m trying to figure out how to say this is a lie without saying it’s a lie.

It’s offensive, because clearly through the staff report, they’ve said repeatedly that it does not meet these conditions. So I’m not sure who’s saying it, and in order to make these kind of statements, it’s usually the kind of statement that comes from a registered professional planner, and gets us in a lot of trouble here. The staff have clearly said that the proposed development is not consistent with the provincial policy statements, and it is not consistent with the official plan. All the way through the report, it’s woven all the way through it.

So for us to turn around and put a clause in here that says that it is, is fantasy. So I hope you’ll defeat this, because this is sliding something in that makes this look even worse than it is. Thanks very much. Other comments or questions?

And I just confirmed back. Was this, I’m not sure I saw this in the piece, coming from Councillor Lewis, in terms of the confirmation to the official plan and the PPS. So maybe I can just go back to clerks and confirm where this came from, or to staff this section. Your worship, I can speak to that on the November 9th, 2021 communication.

There is the very end of the proposed amendment, and that is where it refers to the proposed development being consistent with the provincial policy statement. That wording that you see before you was taken right out of the communication. Thank you. Other comments or questions?

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I will just add on this particular piece for Council’s consideration and perhaps through you, this needs to some further clarification from staff. This wasn’t language that I specifically asked for.

This was language that came back and working with staff in terms of both clerks and planning folks in terms of what is appropriate in terms of the language and the amendment. So I will confess that I’m a little bit at the mercy of staff here in terms of where, why this language is necessary or not, because I shared my intent with them and this was the language that came back. Well, then let’s, if that’s all right, let’s go to staff and get some clarity around this. Mr.

Cossfis, what’s your best advice? Through Your Worship, I know in the past, typically when motions are drafted for Council that they are to be consistent with provincial policy statement and the official plan. I’m not sure if that’s where this came from or not. And my apologies for that.

Mr. Barrett was away and I don’t know if he has anything to add, but I’ll defer to Mr. Barrett. Well, let’s go to Mr.

Barrett. Your thoughts on this particular portion, this item six. Through Your Worship, I apologize. I wasn’t here when these discussions were being held and I wasn’t privy or party to any of them.

So I really can’t make any comment on where this came from. I’m gonna ask, thank you for that. I’m gonna ask Clerk Saunders, just believe she’s got a comment on this. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. Whenever a planning application is being approved or denied, there is now a requirement for Council to give the reasons behind why they’re approving it or denying it. That’s required now and has been required for a few years. So you’ll notice that at the end of any of the clauses that are approving an application for a zoning by-law amendment, for example, the wording was taken generally if Council is, if an application is doing, is being approved, we would take the wording out of the information contained in the staff report.

In this case, we would take planning staff was not recommending approval. So we took the reasons and made it opposite, if that makes sense, if staff in this case said it didn’t comply and Council is approving it, then obviously Council or our assumption was Council would feel that it complied with the official plan because they were going to be approving it despite staff’s recommendations. So we’re required to put reasons in the decision as to why the decision is moving forward, whichever way it’s going. So a question if I can, and sorry, colleagues, I’m not trying to monopolize your questions, but it’s remained to this.

If this was defeated, this particular section, what’s the impact on the overall amendment, Ms. Saunders? If you, Mr. Mayor, that may be a Mr.

Card question, but if it was to be appealed to the Board, the Board would be looking for the Council’s reasons for why they made the decision they made on this application. Mr. Card, can you add to that? Your worship, I have a conflict on this particular matter.

Ms. Anderson is standing by and we’ll be able to take this question. Well, that’s fortunate. Ms.

Anderson, could you help us? Thank you, through you, Your Worship. It would form part of a ground of appeal, potentially in the appeal process and the tribunal would have to deal with it accordingly. But that, again, again, apologies, colleagues.

I’m trying to get clarity from our Council. They could appeal regardless, I presume, that’s their right, any citizen could appeal. Are you suggesting this just carries more weight if it’s one way or the other, if it is or is not there? I’m trying to sound like the clerk.

Through you, or to you, Your Worship, not necessarily to wait, it would just simply form part of the reason for the appeal and the tribunal would need to decide whether the decision itself was valid, whether it needs to go back to Council, whether it has jurisdiction, et cetera. It would form part of that discussion at the tribunal. Thank you, Councillor Turner, I apologize. Those were questions that started with your query.

So can I turn it back to you? Thanks, if it’s helpful, I understand what’s trying to be accomplished here. And I understand the responsibilities and the changes with the planning act to have some verbiage to this. I think perhaps it might be reasonable that this gets preambled with something like that, notwithstanding the advice of staff, Municipal Council is of the belief that, and then just go into the rest of that.

I see a head shaking from Councillor Lewis, Councillor Lewis to run away and then we’ll move this through. Yes, I am actually very comfortable with the language that Councillor Turner is suggesting, the notwithstanding that I think is quite appropriate for that and we can go from there. Your seconder would have to confirm, Councillor Holyday, are you good with that? And then I think what I would ask that is, we get that wording again, Councillor Turner, you seemed wise, I wonder if I could ask you, if you might just open up the notwithstanding component and just see if we can come to agreement here.

I know that sounds a little odd, but we’re trying to get to a place where we can deal with this appropriately, so. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m just sending it to Ms. Westlake Power, but the wording was that notwithstanding the advice of staff, Municipal Council is of the belief that, so in striking the further being noted, that Municipal Council approves.

Understood. So I believe that Councillor Lewis heard that and is comfortable, Councillor Hiller, is a thumbs up. All right, anything else, Councillor Turner, before I turn it over to Councillor Vanholst. No, I appreciate your indulgence.

No, I appreciate your help on that. Thank you, Councillor Vanholst, please. Thank you, Your Worship, and I’d like to appreciate Councillor Turner as well. He’s made a number of, I think, important statements about this application, not only here, but also in the previous meeting.

I guess my first, the first question, ‘cause this is of interest to me, is can staff confirm that in the, now I realize there can be conflicting things, even in a policy statement or parts of it that override another, and can we just confirm that in the provincial policy statement from 2020, that actually does promote intent of the certification and redevelopment in appropriate locations. Mr. Mayor? Yes, through Your Worship, in fact, yes, that is the provincial policy statement.

Okay, so we’re, okay. Councillor Turner. Yes, and is that statement, is that linked to while conserving significant heritage resources, is that, or is this a separate part of the, is this an added portion to that? Mr.

Mayor? I don’t have it right in front of me, but my recollection is that they’re two distinct, they’re two different parts of the PPS, two different statements within the PPS. It’s certainly my hope, Councillor Van Halst, that we’re not going to split that as well, but what, I’ll let you carry on, please. I just wanted to understand the statement better in terms of a council that’s passing this.

So I guess I’m comfortable with this, that the policy that says promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations. I think this is an appropriate location for us to be intensifying and redeveloping. So the policy statement has support for that. And I think there is the Woodfield conservation areas largely being conserved there, which is of course a significant heritage resource.

I’ll note that the Councillor Turner had talked at the meeting about trying to resolve some of these conflicts prior. And I had written staff to say, could we come up with a statement as council that said, where the Woodfield heritage plan conflicts with the London plans desire for building inward and upward. As well as the Victoria Park plan, then we could go, we would just make a statement that staff favor the London plan and the Victoria Park plan. But since that Victoria Park plan isn’t out yet, they suggested we could do this at a future meeting.

So that’s something else that I would consider to help resolve this because any other applications like this, we will run into the same thing. And I’m very much in agreement with Councillor Turner that we have, we take action to resolve that. So thank you, I think I’m satisfied with this and the wording that we’ve landed on. Thank you, any other comments?

Colleagues, we’re dealing now with item six. I see Deputy Mayor’s looks to weigh in. Yes, I’d like to ask some questions about this particular clause to our staff. So in the original application and the original staff report, the staff makes specific reference to refusing it for basically the same two reasons that are being listed here.

However, my understanding from the changes we’ve made is we’ve added a bonus zone. And if about 10 stories was allowed under the official plan and then it’s rezoned to 12 plus bonusing, does it not at that point conform with the 1989 official plan? And my second question is, given Mr. Barrett’s answer to the first one about the provincial policy statements saying that’s in there, how does it not agree with the provincial policy statement when it is intensification and redevelopment based on staff’s recommendation?

And I guess my question is, given the changes in adding a bonus zone, does that change staff’s opinion in one and two in the staff report, which was counted at these two points? I’m trying to reconcile because I agree with Councilor Turner’s concerns in this section. And I wanted to ask if those changes that have been made to the other clauses in it change the interpretation of those things for our staff. Mr.

Barrett, I think there were two questions in there, but there could have been more. I’ll let you parse that as best you can and then we’ll keep going. So your worship, none of this changes the staff opinion as it relates to the application. So I think that that’s the first point.

The point that’s being made with respect to the provincial policy statement, the deputy mayor’s is correct. This application and what Council is debating this evening does meet provincial policy statement intent with respect to encouraging intensification and redevelopment within the sound of the area boundary and opportunities for intensification where services are available. So it does meet that intent of the provincial policy statement. So how that policy is applied or how that is interpreted is based on the overall view of the application and the recommendations and the position that’s been taken on the application.

The position and the opinion that was provided to you by staff was that this application be refused for the number of reasons that were outlined. And as it relates to the negative sense of whether or not it met that provincial policy statement requirement for intensification, it was within the context of the staff report that said that the intensification of this level was inappropriate. And for that reason, it wasn’t meeting the intent. So one can read it either way.

The provincial policy statement says that intensification is appropriate. That doesn’t mean that intensification is appropriate in all places and at all levels of intensity. And I think that’s what at this point, Council is determining based on Council’s position on this application, whether or not this level of intensification is appropriate and meets the intent. Deputy Mayor, that’s helpful.

And I appreciate Mr. Barrett’s answer that provides some clarification on that one bullet point for me. Thank you, Councillor Loose. Thank you, Your Worship.

It makes it simpler for colleagues. And based on the discussion that’s been ongoing around this particular section and the fact that this language was something that was part of the staff’s development of the appropriate language, if it’s more helpful for colleagues to have the second bullet point, the proposed development conforms to the Official Plan 1989 dropped. I’m happy to remove that piece and just leave the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, which promotes intensification and redevelopment. That if we can just go with the first bullet and drop the second, I’m fine with that.

So I need to jump in here, Councillor, I’m not sure that it’s, it may be helpful, but are you suggesting that the second line, it being further noted is eliminated? Because otherwise what it says there is of the belief and what you’re indicating based on what you just heard, I think for Mr. Barrett is that the first bullet may be accurate, but the second may not. Correct, that’s the first bullet.

What I just heard from Mr. Barrett is something that’s open to Council’s interpretation here. And further to that, just for clarification, I’m still prepared to leave in Councillor Turner’s notwithstanding language, because I think that that’s still applicable here. So again, just trying to be helpful in terms of navigating this.

If we have the notwithstanding, and then the first bullet, and then we move forward on that, I’m okay with the second bullet not being there. It wasn’t something that I was insistent on, so if that makes it simpler for colleagues, if the clerk can move it that way, and if my seconder agrees, I think that might simplify things. So what the movers suggesting is that the final bullet be removed, full stop. I don’t know the position of the seconder, good with that.

Any other comments? I’ll let the clerk ensure that they’ve got that ready, and they’ll let me know accordingly. Taping skills become a very critical, important role when you’re at the clerk, I think. We’ll call the question just a moment.

And they will advise when we can refresh the computer. Bishop, it is ready to go and ascribe as motion six. Second bullet has been removed. So I’ll give you a moment to look at that colleagues, the final item.

So that should be fairly clear, because we’re just dropping the last bullet point. With that, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, motion carries. Where do we go from here, clerk?

We’ve got all the amendments, I think, done. So we’re now to the motion as amended, is that correct? That is correct. So the motion is amended only to move in a seconder?

Yes, we do. Moved by Councillor Lewis. Seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much.

Comments, questions? Councillor Turner. Thanks, Your Worship. And it’s been a long process just to get to the main motion, but to end to work is important.

If I might just to start off with, through Your Worship, but just ask a question, what are the influencing criteria that are involved in making a decision or a judgment at the Ontario lands tribunals? What do they look at to determine whether an appeal is upheld or denied? I’m not sure if that isn’t for Ms. Anderson.

Probably you, if I could, please, to respond to the question. If it’s not you, you’ll tell me. It is me, thank you, through Your Worship. And if we want to discuss this in greater detail, I would suggest doing that in camera, but just generally, legislation requires that all planning applications be consistent with the PPS and conform with enforced policies of official plans.

Councillor Turner. The answer I was looking for, thanks. So keep that in mind for a second. I’ll come back to that in a bit.

I agree with a few points that have been made as we go along here and a lot of the arguments in the community. First, there’s a housing supply shortage in London and Ontario that’s not new to anybody. And it’s something that we as a council have to address. And I recognize that my colleagues might be able to have a different opinion on this application are in step with the council’s general belief of this challenge that we have to face.

The London plan was premised on a growing inward and upward. That’s something I think most of us have agreed with as well. And it’s been cited a few times through this document and discussion. Also, we want to be able to focus our density where our infrastructure exists, along transit corridors and in the core.

What’s at debate here is where the core ends and what starts on the other side. One of the challenges with these lines that we have is that people park themselves on the other side of a line by property on speculation. Because when we move the line, then suddenly the value jumps up. People buy lots of land on the other side of the urban growth boundary, because at $20,000 a hectare, as soon as we move the line, it’s worth $75,000 or $80,000 a hectare, an acre.

That’s a huge value jump. So that’s what Auburn did here. They bought it outside, knowing full well. In fact, actually, at planning committee, I asked, when did you buy this land?

And were you aware of the zoning and heritage conservation district rules that were in place at the time? And they said they bought it the year after, the HCD was approved and they knew full well. The official plan and zoning by-law can be amended. We’ve heard this discussion a few times.

And I’ve made this argument a few times as well. They’re not set in stone. Councillor Lewis has said it’s not set in amber. Absolutely not.

But they also can’t be ignored. And the process that goes through in order to get to the zoning framework, the zoning frameworks, I think, are far more mutable than the official plan. But the official plan can be changed as well. But specific area policies that we have in place, those are pretty solid.

And to do spot changes in the official plan within it in the area of policy, that becomes a lot more problematic. I think one of the other things we need to do is we go through this as separate up the nimby arguments from the planning arguments. I recognize a lot of the neighbors are well-intentioned in their concerns about this, but some of the arguments that are raised are things that are concerned about the impacts, things where we see like shadows and traffic. Those are all very legitimate concerns and we need to consider them, but that’s not the basis for why this application gets refused.

It’s the planning arguments that are the concern. As I said earlier, I’m glad to see that work was done to incorporate affordable housing that was key. It was not involved in the beginning. That was a huge issue.

I think you may notice that I’ve supported almost all applications for intensification, notwithstanding those ones where even where the concerns have been raised by the community, and several of them have been in my ward, and I’ve been quite vocal to say, “No, this is appropriate and required.” But all of them had the support of staff and a clear alignment with the official plan, the other ones where I didn’t, there wasn’t a clear alignment. So it’s really rare. I hope everybody just takes pause for a second and recognizes how rare it is to get a staff report like this that unequivocally rejects this application. That’s a huge thing.

On the planning impact analysis, there were 14 criteria. Eight of them were categorized as not, actually nine of them were categorized as not met. The affordable housing was one of them, so now it’s eight. But that’s a score of 43%.

That’s a fail in most books. The applicant had this first application in 2015. So we’re well outside of the timeline to make a decision. So why hasn’t the applicant appealed?

Well, I’ll tell you why, because the applicant knows they’ll lose at the Ontario Landstrive Journal. I’m not too concerned with the direction of where this is going today, because it will lose at the Ontario Landstrive Journal for exactly the reasons you just heard from Ms. Anderson, because it is inconsistent. The policies are inconsistent with the Westwoodfield Heritage Conservation District, the downtown core area plan, the London plan, and the 1989 official plan.

All of those things really speak to what can and can’t be built there. And it’s explicitly stated that something like this can’t be built there. And when you look at the elements of this, it’s not just a little bit outside of what would be allowed. It’s massively, it’s all, let’s say.

30 seconds, Councilor. Okay, I’ll look for an extension if I might. This is all I’m gonna speak on it, so. I’m sorry, Councilor Van Hose, do you have a point of order?

I’m not sure. I’d like to move an extension for Councilor Turner. Do you have a seconder there? I see Councilor Hopkins.

I was actually just going to give it, but I think that’s probably the appropriate process. I appreciate that, Your Worship. Pardon me? I’m sorry, Councilor Fener, I did not hear you.

I said I appreciate that. Yeah, well, I think we now, we’ve now got to move in a second here. Now we’re going to go to a vote on this. Let’s do a show of hands.

Can we screens on? Let’s just make this a little bit easier. Those in favor of the extension, Councilor Hopkins, or pardon me, Councilor Turner, please go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship.

I’ll try not to take too much time, but as I was saying, this isn’t just a little bit outside of what’s normally allowed. It’s massively outside. It’s 10 times greater in terms of density. It’s normally allowed for 75 units per hectare.

They’re seeking 800 units per hectare, even where the max density of multi-family, high-intensity residential, 250 units per hectare, or with bonusing 300 units per hectare, we’re still at 800 units per hectare. That’s what’s being asked here. It’s twice the permitted lot coverage. There’s zero landscaped open space when 20% is required.

It’s 50% taller than what would be permitted at its max, at 12 stories. So that’s what I’m saying. I’m not worried about this actually being built because it can’t be. The Ontario Land Tribunal will…

In all my time, this is one of those ones that’s so outside. And it’s really surprising to see this kind of move forward, not withstanding what council has put in place in terms of policies in the past, but even more so that what staff has said. There’s a way to fix this. And really, it’s a question of councils and patients more than anything.

The Victoria Park area plan was meant to be a process to reconcile the Westwood Field Heritage Conservation District and our London Plan policies and our Official Plan 89 policies and our core area policies. But we shelved that and we didn’t finish the work. If we finished the Victoria Park area plan, whatever that ends up being, if we build within that, then it’s gonna be really difficult to appeal. But again, we have to do the work.

We have to do the consultation with the neighborhood and the stakeholders. And why do we need to respect our plans? Well, number one, our word is our bond. And if we go back on our word, then nobody trusts us.

Certainly, it doesn’t help anybody’s reelection. But more importantly, it creates uncertainty. And we saw this a few terms of council ago, especially in the Fontana council. What it does is it does not draw investment.

In fact, it scares it away. There were no cranes in the sky during Fontana’s term because of the uncertainty and ambiguity in terms of what rules would actually apply at any given day. And it’s not just for the neighborhood, but it’s for industry and commerce that work and operate here. They need to know that the ground is stable in order to invest here.

So I urge you to think long and hard about taking such significant deviation. I recognize what you’re trying to do. There’s a fast way to get units built and that’s to build within the plans. They could build eight stories right away as of right and put in a number of units.

But instead, they’re looking to be a little bit greedy and go a bit further. And they’ve just been waiting for a council opportunity to get through because they know if they made the appeal. And they’re not scared of making appeals. Since Councilor Helmer identified, they’ve made a lot of them and a lot of the London plan is held up mostly because a significant number of appeals, somewhere in the neighborhood of 44, I think appeals to the London plan.

So they’re prolific users of the appeal mechanism available to them, but they haven’t pulled the trigger on this one for a pretty good reason. So I urge you to really, really seriously consider your vote on this. I think there’s great opportunity for intensification within the core. But I think we need to show some good faith to the neighbors and to the planning documents that we’re supposed to be following.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilor Fife Miller. Thank you, your worship.

You know, when I came into that, I’ve been here for two weeks now. And I got Black Riders Bridge and I got this building. And in that time, I’ve had the opportunity to have a lot of conversation with a lot of individuals. But there are some things that I know after being involved in the downtown for as long as I have.

And one of the things that we take away from that is that inward and upward sounds easy. It sounded great in the London plan. But it’s hard. It’s invasive on a community, painful.

And when we look over the past few years at our inward and upward development, it’s very rarely celebrated. It’s the hardest type of development that we will ever do. When we look at our downtown core and we look at the development areas in our downtown core, one of the arguments we always come back with is we need to do it somewhere else. But I know the downtown really well.

Those somewhere else spaces are just not as plentiful as we think. And to think for a minute that they don’t or won’t impact residential or low density residential in our downtown, most do. Because our downtown is so tight. So to develop in our downtown core intently is going to be difficult on the residents who live there.

Part of that challenge has to be, do we need to do that? Councillor Turner and I agree wholeheartedly that we have a housing shortage. I sat with Councillor Palosa and Councillor Hopkins at a meeting last week. We looked at the differences in numbers from 2011 to 16 when we had 18,000 people descend on this city that between 21 and 26 they’re seeing we’re getting 51,000 people.

51,000 people and they’re telling us that number may be low. And with that we have no housing inventory right now. And let’s be honest, this building isn’t going to fix that problem. This building isn’t going to touch that problem because again, Councillor Turner and I agree wholeheartedly on one thing.

It doesn’t matter what the decision is tonight. This will get appealed. There’s no doubt about that. But the question becomes this.

With the people descending on our city we have two options. Option one, we chose to continue to build on the periphery of our city. That doesn’t speak to our climate crisis. It doesn’t speak to people having the ability to live, work and play in our downtown core.

It doesn’t speak to the revitalization of our downtown core. What do we need to have? Councillor Hillier made a very good point. So many of our buildings are coming under appeal.

But let’s be honest, even buildings that are approved by staff, approved by council coming under appeal. Why? Because it’s here. It’s in our downtown core.

When I look at the fabric of the communities in the downtown, when you walk through areas like Woodfield, let’s be honest. Picton. Picton has a 17 story tower. But that tower has become part of the fabric of this community.

This is not the perfect location. But I go back time and time again. There is no perfect location in our downtown. 30 seconds, Councillor.

Because we have no perfect location, we need to look at these individually on their merit and decide is this good for our city? I think it is. Thank you. Any other comments?

We have motion on the floor. I see no other speakers. As a matter of view, Councillor Van Halst, you snuck in. Thank you.

I did sneak in. Although I expected some other speakers as well. So thank you. I’ll be supporting this gratitude to Councillor Lewis for providing affordable housing in the mix.

That’s gonna be a great thing. I’ll note too that part of what makes housing affordable is the demand and the supply. And we need to keep creating a supply of housing. Even if someone can’t afford an apartment here, the fact that another person moves into this one opens up another space.

And so when we build something that opens up through a domino effect, affordable places in other locations of the city. So every one of these initiatives does make a difference. I think it’s unfortunate that it will be appealed. I do wanna ask staff about the Woodfield district.

Now, when we discussed this at the committee meeting, we talked about what could be changed in the Woodfield district. And they said, well, that can’t really be changed. It has to be appealed and then recreated. I think that would be a challenge.

And maybe not a direction that the residents would want to go in either. And so what’s happening here is that we’re using the London plan and its direction to create housing intensification in certain places. That’s the justification for this. But let me just ask if I can through you to our staff, if the Woodfield district had been repealed, how much of a change would that have, would or could that have changed significantly the recommendation from staff?

So if we… Okay, I think your question is hypothetical and quite frankly, I’m not sure whether we direct that to Ms. Anderson, Mr. Barrett, please help me out there, staff.

Through you, worship. Maybe I’ll take a cut at the Woodfield plans, the Heritage Conservation District plan. It’s adopted under a completely different set of a different act. It has different reasons for being.

It’s a plan that deals with an identified heritage conservation district and sets forth the policies that would govern that district from a heritage perspective. So if it wasn’t there, then it would be one last document that you would have to refer to when you’re making a decision as it relates to applications within the area that are now subject to those policies. Cast around host. Okay, thank you.

Well, I appreciate that there’s one last document, but my question really was how impactful was that one document on this decision? Mr. Barrett? The, it had an impact in that it was a document that provides direction with respect to how development and redevelopment within the area should be considered in order to ensure that the heritage character of the area is conserved.

So it was relevant and is part of, and was part of the staff analysis. Cast around host. I’m sorry, I was really looking for an answer like without that there would have been a thumbs up here because it seems like many of the issues that in conflict are in conflict with that document. Would you say that was the biggest concern in terms of the planning impact analysis?

Mr. Barrett? Short answer, no. The planning impact analysis as I think has been pointed out by a number of the speakers this evening identified a number of reasons why staff are known of the opinion that this was appropriate.

The heritage considerations was just one of those considerations. It was not the deciding factor. Okay, thank you. Councilor Van Holst?

All right, well, thank you that that provides me a little more clarity and so I’m pleased. And I’ll wonder to see what happens with this application if it in fact does go forward. Thank you, any other comments, questions? I’ll ask the clerk to put this on the table and we will vote.

Those in the vote, motion carries eight to four. Thank you very much. Yes, there is. This is the bird friendly delegation that we received.

I am the one that did pull it. I have a few comments and hopefully a friendly amendment. So if I can speak from the chair, if you would. Absolutely.

And I’ll give Councillor Layman a bit of a rest there. So first of all, I want to thank the committee for receiving the Mr. Samuel’s delegation. He was before us for the third time regarding the changes to the bylaws and guidelines for the bird friendly building design and as well as the pamphlet and the committee did support a, as you can see, to add it to the Planning and Environment Committee deferral list.

I would like to add a C clause. Mr. Samuels and I spoke after and he wanted the pamphlet to go forward to EPAC and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee forward you. EPAC, this is where the pamphlet started.

I don’t see it being a problem. So with your indulgence, Councillor, I’d just like to put forward an amendment by adding the following new part C, which is to the fact that the finalised bird friendly pamphlet noted in part B about B circulated to the environmental and ecological planning advisory committee and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee for review. I’m going to put that forward. I’m hoping someone will give me a second, but it was suggested this would be the best process to move it forward.

I’ll just ask Councillor if we’ve got, if that’s been forwarded to the clerk for consideration, you’ll see that new scribe colleagues. Councillor Hopkins is looking for a second here. I see Councillor Lewis, comments, questions. I didn’t want to cut you off.

Councillor, if you had more to add to that, but it’s just the process that we need to undertake here. And I just want to thank the committee for recognizing Mr. Samuels. And I’d just like to add as well at the London Brewing Company tomorrow from five to seven, they will be unveiling a bird beer in the city too.

So the London third team will be there as well. Thank you, just as we vote. I’d just like to mention there will be an event at Museum London at that same time frame if they have a few extras they would like to bring over. Any other comments or questions for Councillor Hopkins?

I see none. Let’s call the question. Motion is closed or 12 to zero. Thank you very much, Councillor Hopkins.

And that is my report. Thank you very much, and that’s right. Councillor Hopkins, you get to stand one more time because the amendment passed, but the motion is amended. We’ll look for a mover.

Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. Looks like you had a lot of support on this. Any other comments or questions? Excuse me, colleagues, with the motion as amended.

I see none, let’s call the question. Now, Councillor Hopkins, thank you very much. And Councillor Lehman for standing so long as well and being acting in the position. Colleagues, for the 15th report of the strategic priorities and policy committee, I’ll call on Deputy Mayor Morgan to present the report in this.

Thank you, Your Worship. The 15th report of SVC has 13 items on it. I’ve been asked to deal with item 10, which is 4.2 in the committee report. The Hamilton Road BIA budget request separately.

I don’t mind putting everything else on the floor unless colleagues would like something dealt with separately. Thank you, do colleagues wish any other item dealt with separately? Deputy Mayor. And one through nine and 11 through 13.

I’ll move those. Comments or questions? One on the speaking list. Therefore, we will call the vote.

Those in the vote, motion carries 12. Do you, Deputy Mayor? There you go, I was just waiting for a microphone there. So the Hamilton Road BIA item at 4.2 has three pieces to it.

A part A, a part B and a part C. It seemed to be there’s one colleague voted against, think all of it and a number of colleagues have voted against C. So it might be advantageous for me to put just parts A and B, which is deferring it to the 2023 budget request, our budget process and that the BIAB requested to work with civic administration to develop a full business case with proposed funding source for that 2023 budget request. I’ll put just A and B on those two items and then I’ll deal with the one time grant separately.

I’ve been told that when we pull an item and deal with it separately requires a seconder. So with that, do you have a seconder? Councillor Lehman, thank you very much. We’re discussing A and B comments, questions.

I see no questions. We will call the question. Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Hill here, Mayor Holder, closing the vote, motion carries 10 to 2. C is a one time grant of $30,000 to be provided to the Hamilton Road BIA from the Community Investment Reserve fund to establish an operating reserve.

I’ll put that on the floor. And are you moving at Deputy Mayor? Do you have a seconder? Councillor Vanholst, comments, questions?

Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, Mayor Worship. So we did discuss this at length at the committee and I want to thank all the Councillors who did supply their support for this. I think it’s an important thing.

I won’t go into it in detail, though I could try and say many wonderful things about the Hamilton Road area and its BIAA. Thank you very much, any other comments or questions? Seeing none, we will call the question. Deputy Mayor?

So that concludes the 15th report of SPPC. I’ll move on to the fifth report of audit committee. There are five items on that report willing to move them all together. Does anyone wish any of these items dealt with separately?

Deputy Mayor, comments or questions, colleagues? Call the question. closing the vote, motion carries 12 to 0. colleagues, there are no deferred matters, nor inquiries of which I’ve been made aware nor emergent motions.

So we have a number of bylaws and I’ll just clarify with the clerk that these will be the bylaws that we will be dealing with now and then go into closed session, then I’ll work from there. I just want to confirm with the clerk. What we’ll be coming up are bills number 516 through 548 inclusive, including our VISE bills 531 and 548. Thanks very much.

So what I will do, unless anyone wants these dealt with separately, I’m going to look for a mover and seconder for introduction and first reading of bills 516 through 548 inclusive mover. Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. Your worship, sorry.

No, that’s not a second. Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, sorry, bill 548 is, I just want confirmation that it’s, I didn’t support that. The Wellington, is that the amendment or?

Let’s go to the clerk to clarify bill 548 and also 531, I think that would be appropriate, clerk. Worship 548 has to do is, you know, 3.7 on the 16th back report. And I’m sorry, I missed the other bylaw or bill number that you’re referring to. I’m referencing 531 since we’re there.

Worship 531 also deals with 3.7 of the 16th back report. So if that’s the case, Councillor Hopkins, you’d like those dealt with separately? Yes, please. All right, thank you.

Anyone wish to have any of the other items dealt with separately? We will be excluding in the first bylaw review, 535, 16 through 548 exclusive of the two Wellington Street bylaws. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins for that. 531 and 548.

So with that, I’m going to readdress the question as it relates to 516 through 548, excluding 531, 548. I’ll look for a mover and second for introduction of first reading of those bills. Moved by Councillor Helmer, thank you, seconded by Councillor van Mirbergen. Let’s call the vote.

I miss was like power, just reading the wording and it includes 531 or rather excludes 531, but not 548. Just want to confirm it’s 516 to 547, including revised bill 531, that’s all correct. That’s correct. So 531 and 548, the revised bills will be called separately.

Right, thank you. So it’s as discussed, colleagues, if there’s any questions about that, shouldn’t be, but if there are. Thank you and closing the votes. Motion carries 12 to zero.

Thank you, colleagues. Now I’ll be looking for a mover and seconder for second reading of bills 516 through 547, exclusive of 531. So I’m just not referencing 548 till the second. I’ve got a mover and Councillor, 5th Miller, seconder and Councillor Hopkins, any discussion?

We’ll call the question. Wasn’t in the vote. Motion carries 12. It’s for bills 516 through 547, exclusive of bill 531 for third reading enactment.

Of those bills, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Lehman. Let’s call the question. Wasn’t in the vote.

Motion carries 12 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Now we’re going to deal with the two bills associated with Wellington Street, bills 531 and 548. For first reading of those two bills, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Lehman.

Thank you. I’ll call the question. Wasn’t in the vote. Motion is carried 8 to 4.

For second reading of bills 531 and 548, do I have a mover? Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hill here. Any discussion? You see now we’ll call the question.

Wasn’t in the vote. Motion carries 8 to 4. Thank you, and now colleagues, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, third reading enactment of bills 531 and 548, do I have a mover? Councillor Pfeiffer, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

We’ll call the question. Wasn’t in the vote. Motion carries 8 to 4. Thank you very much for the benefit of the public now.

We are going, council is going to move into closed session to deal with several items. In a moment, I’ll ask the clerk just to advise the public what those items are and what we’ll be dealing with. And I’m going to start by looking for a mover and a seconder going to closed session, moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lehman. We’ll call the vote.

Can we do a hand vote on this clerk? Those in favor, but show of hands, screens on, please. Carries. I don’t think they like hand votes, but the clerk’s been pretty patient tonight.

With me, I’d like to ask the clerk just to advise the public what the items are that we will be considering in closed session, please. You worship the matters to be dealt with in closed session or eight matters that are outlined on the public council agenda. They include a personal matter regarding an identifiable individual with respect to the 2022 mayor’s New Year’s honors list. Several matters related to land acquisition, a matter related to labor relations and employee negotiations, a matter regarding solicitor client privilege and a matter related to the security of the property of the municipality.

Thanks very much. I should advise the public that when we have completed our closed session, we will move back into public. We will deal with that with those items from closed session, complete the bylaws and conclude the meeting. So with that, I’ll just ask the patients of colleagues for just a few moments as we move into closed session.

All right, colleagues, I’d like to ask for screens on, please. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And thank you for all of the contributions today.

We have several items to report it out in public and I will call on Councilor Hopkins, please. The 15th report of the council in closed session, your council in closed session reports, one, property acquisition, 297 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway Project, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services on the advice of the director of realty services with respect to the property located at 297 Wellington Road, further described as part of lock 206, plan 498, fourth, except easterly, two feet being all a pin, all eight, three, six, three, dash 0037 LT, containing an area of approximately 4,962 square feet, as shown on the location map 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 Sparkles Cleaning Services limited the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 642,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as appendix C and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A. Two, property acquisition, 150 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 150 Wellington Road, further described as part lot 25, concession broken front, geographic township of West Minister as in instrument number 919914, city of London, county of Middlesex being all of PIN08358-0010LT, containing an area of approximately 9,375 square feet, as shown on the location map 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 Nick Virzhaft, the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $476,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions, as set out in agreement as appendix C and B, the financing for the acquisition be approved, as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A. Number three, offer to purchase industrial land, synergists tooling and managed and machinery ink, innovation industrial park phase one. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director realty services with respect to industrial land located in innovation industrial park phase one, containing an area of four acres and municipally known as two, four, four, five innovation drive, legally described as being part of block three, plan three, three, M dash five, four, four, more specifically shown as part one, plan 33 R dash one, nine, eight, four, three, being all of pen, oh eight, one, nine, seven, oh two, nine, one in the city of London, county of Middlesex, as I outlined in the sketch here to as appendix C, the following actions be taken.

A, the agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement, appendix B, submitted by the corporation, of the city of London, the purchaser, to purchase four acres of the subject property from synergists tooling and machinery ink for the sum of 252,000 be accepted, subject to terms and conditions set out in the agreement and B, the financing of the acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A. Number four, the parcel property acquisition, 400 or 4,270, Lizmere Lane, Bradley Avenue extension, project phase two, Horncliffe Road South to Chelner Boulevard. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports with the concurrence of the director, transportation and mobility, on the advice of the director, realty services with respect to the property located at 4270, Lizmere Lane, further described as, firstly, card of law 33, concession two, Westminster, designated as part nine and 10, plan 33R-2081, being part of Penn’s 08209-2872LT, and 08209-2388, secondly, part of block one, plan 33M, dash 786, designated as part 11 and 12, plan 33R-2081, being part of Penn 08209-2861 containing an area of approximately 0.41 acres, as shown on the location map as of the appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Bradley Avenue project phase two, the following actions be taken. A, the offer submitted by Goldfield limited and Goldfield one limited defender to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $172,000, B accepted, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement appendix C, B, the city agreeing to paying a further sum of 40,000 for a grant of temporary easement and consent to enter agreement with the option to renew this agreement for a further 12-month term for an additional sum of $40,000, wherein additional compensation and additional terms have been agreed to between the parties being the related transaction, and C, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report.

Here too, as appendix A, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins has put that on the floor, do we have a seconder? I see Councillor Layman, thank you very much.

Comments or questions? Yes, Councillor Turner. Just to declare a conflict of interest on 150 Wellington Road, it’s our own property within the radius, value uplift radius of the rapid transit corridor. Thank you very much then, why don’t we separate that for the purpose of this motion?

And we’ll deal with all of those issues brought forward by Councillor Hopkins from closed session. We accept 150 Wellington, and if there are no other comments or questions on all the 150 Wellington, we will call the question. Councillor Palose, Councillor Van Nierbergen, I’m sorry, Van Merrigan’s left, closing the vote, motion carries, 11-0. And the final item that we dealt with in confidential session dealing with 150 Wellington, we will, that’s been moved and seconded, we will call the question acknowledging that there is a conflict just declared by Councillor Turner.

Close in the vote, motion is carried, 10-0 with one recuse. Thank you, and in that same spirit as we deal with the bylaws, we will segregate bylaw 551 dealing with 150 Wellington Road and deal with that separately. But for this purpose, we will deal with bills 550, 552, and 559 excluding bill 551 again, 150 Wellington. So with that, I’ll look for a mover and seconder of 550, 552, and 553.

Do I have a mover, Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. We’ll call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries, 11-0. I’ll look for mover and seconder for second reading.

Close 550, 552, and 553. Do I have a mover? Do I have a mover? Do I have a mover?

Any discussion? Then let’s call the question. Councillor Van Holst, close in the vote. Motion carries, 11-0.

And colleagues, finally, I’ll look for mover and seconder for 30 reading in an act when it bills 550, 552, and 553 move by. Councillor Fife Miller, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Thank you very much. We’ll call the vote.

Close in the vote, motion carries, 11-0. The final bylaw of colleagues deals with 150 Wellington, and I will look for a mover and seconder for introduction and first reading. The mover, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman. Call the question.

Close in the vote, motion carries, 10-0 with one recuse. Colleagues, I’ll look for mover and seconder for second reading of bill 551, moved by Councillor Fife Miller, seconded by Councillor Layman. Thank you very much. Any discussion?

I see none, we will call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries, 10-0 with one recuse. And finally, I’ll look for mover and seconder, third reading in an act when they’ve added bill, or pardon me, of bill 551, do I move or please, Councillor Palosa. Seconded by Councillor Vanholst, we’ll call the vote.

In the vote, motion carries, 10-0 with one recuse. Colleagues, I’m sorry, the meeting did not go much longer ‘cause I would have liked to have understood how the process goes from an approval to have meet past 11 o’clock. And just so that there’s always that potential of that to happen, apparently, Councillor Lewis has an inquiry. Thank you, Your Worship.

Yes, we don’t often have deferred matters or inquiries, but I do have one quick inquiry through you to our staff. And it was raised last week with the inaugural meeting of the Council Compensation Task Force that it was not live streamed and that the public could not participate and whether or not that would be something that could be corrected in the future. So through you to, I assume our clerks staff, our arrangements being made for the public to have access to recorded video or live stream of that meeting as the next sessions are scheduled. Let’s ask the clerk, perhaps Ms.

Saunders, I’m not sure. Worship, I believe she’s still on the call. We’re just trying to get ahold of her now. Worship, I understand she’s having some difficulty, some technical difficulty with her audio right now.

I can attempt to answer Councillor Lewis’s question through your worship. Good. I understand that the room was open during that meeting. The question of whether it’s a live streamed or not, not all meetings are live streamed as Council knows.

Should there be a willing will to do that, certainly Council could direct that we initiate live streaming of that of that particular meeting. Thank you, Councillor Anne Holst. Mayor, pardon me, Councillor Lewis. I know I was sitting in the first seat, but I have a little more hair than Councillor Van Holst with all in good jazz council.

You have a question now. I do, just so in follow up to the clerk’s response there, are these meetings all being held by Zoom or are they in person, is a Zoom stream possible to allow the public to participate? We’ll go back to the clerk. Through your worship, if I participate, do you mean simply observe?

I’m getting a nod. The technology to stream, there’s multiple options to do that. Obviously, YouTube and eScribe requires usage of council chambers. We could certainly investigate the option for alternate means of streaming, but we would have to discuss that with our friends in IT.

And in relation to that, should there be some solution, we’d be happy to bring that back. Councillor? So thank you for that response. I think just for the sake of transparency, so the public is aware of the discussions that are happening by this task force.

It would be my preference that we direct our staff to look for a way to make the meeting accessible to the public through some form of video access. I don’t wanna prescribe what that could be because I know that they will have to work with IT on that, but I’d like to offer that direction if there’s support for that. I’m gonna go to the clerk before we, excuse me, before we look for a seconder for that. Go ahead, clerk, please.

And through your worship, I should clarify that the meeting itself was not fully virtual. There were four members of the committee present in person along with the city clerk, and there was one participating, I understand virtually. I’ll go back to the Councillor. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I know that we currently, I mean, our public gallery is closed here. I know we’ve had people able to participate in person through a mini room. We still have COVID protocols in place, so I’m not sure if people can pre-register to sit and observe the meeting in person somehow. And as I said, I don’t wanna prescribe, overprescribe how this should be done.

I would just like to offer direction to our staff that accommodations be made to allow the public to observe the meetings of the Council Compensation Task Force. I wonder if the word best efforts might be somewhere in your motion, Councillor Lewis, because to the extent of that, knowing the technical challenges that can be involved in this. So with that, I appreciate that what we’re looking for, what you’ve suggested, excuse me, is best efforts to accommodate the public as it relates to these proceedings. I’ll ask if you have a seconder.

Councillor Hopkins, I see your seconder. Comments or questions colleagues on this? I see none, so with that, I will give, actually I’ll go a little, this is a little unusual, but I will give the clerk an opportunity to provide any insight before we take the vote if that would be helpful. And then we will take the vote.

Mr. Worship, the wording is just being drafted now. We would ask the Council take a look at the wording just to make sure that it captured the spirit of what’s being asked. I would also just like to to indicate that the room was open, there was seating available with all COVID protocols in place.

So does that mean, and I’m asking this now on behalf of Councillor Lewis, does that mean the motion that he’s put forward or to promote it more clearly? I think he would, pardon me, I apologize colleagues. I think we would, I think it seemed that the public was not able to participate, that it was a closed meeting. So that’s why I’m wondering, Councillor Lewis, can I throw it back to you?

And then we’ll wrap this up in a moment. I think that the concern is arising from the fact that members of the public and at least one constituent in my ward expressed that they were not aware of certainly of the option that they could register to attend in person. But my other concern is that I recognize that there are still individuals for whom the COVID situation makes attending in person an uncomfortable option for them and that they would prefer to be able to participate or sorry, I should say observe in some remote manner. And I do recognize the technical challenges and I know that not all our committee rooms and are equipped technically to do that.

So hence the request for a best effort to accommodate observing that. Yeah, if I can turn colleagues’ attentions to E-Scribe and see the motion that’s been put forward, press your screen and go to the current item. It does not say best efforts, but it’s I think it’s a little clearer than that Councillor Lewis, but take a look and I’ll ask you and your seconder, Councillor Hopkins, if you’re satisfied with that or if that needs to be slightly revised. Councillor Hopkins, I see a good and a good.

So with that, any other comments or questions from colleagues? Deputy Mayor. Yeah, just I’ll rise on a point of order. I have no problem with what Councillor Lewis is trying to do, but my understanding is that because it’s on our intention to have inquiries lead to a bunch of motions that there’s one step in the process before we can have the motion that’s to ask for leave under the by-law to enter into a motion out of an inquiry.

So I think we should do that step first. We should. I think what confused it was that we did deal with inquiries earlier in the agenda today, but I’ll look for a motion to for leave. Do we have one Councillor Lewis seconded by?

Councillor Hopkins, thank you, comments, questions. Let the clerk set that up. Thank you for the process comment, Deputy Mayor. We’ve had great deputy mayors that are very good on process.

I will tell you that here. And I’ll let the clerk be ready and then we’ll vote. I’m advised he scribe is resting. So just bear with us a moment.

We’ll make it to 11 o’clock yet, I promise. Just kidding on that. Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Palazzo, Councillor Helmer closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to zero.

I will go back to Councillor Lewis’ motion seconded by Councillor Hopkins. And that’s in your e-scribe that civic administration be directed to make best efforts to ensure that there are appropriate means in place for the public to view meetings of the council compensation task force. Any other comments? Councillor Helmer, please.

It seems like this problem applies to the advisory committees and meetings like the governance task force meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s a bit more widespread than just the council compensation task force meetings. A lot of these meetings are set up in the same rooms or they’re just virtual meetings. And since we’re talking about it, I imagine there’s probably a desire to be able to see those things as there was in the past.

So I just asked the clerks, I guess, if it also applies to say the governance task force, we were just talking about expense policy and things like that. Very similar kinds of topics, just in a different form. I’ll refer that to the clerks, but I think the councilor, I think the motion is specific to the compensation task force. It’s not to say it could not be considered beyond that, but let’s get to the clerk and then we’ll refer it to then I’ll call on Councillor Hopkins.

Sure, Your Worship, the public do have access to links, Zoom links for advisory committee meetings. So the majority of advisory committee members currently, well, they’re all participating virtually. And any member of the public can request to view that. We also supply audio after the meeting upon request.

So individuals can review any advisory committee should they wish. Councillor Hammer, I’ll come back to you because you brought that forward. Yeah, just in the governance task force. The governance working group is not currently streamed.

It’s in committee room five, I recall. The last meeting was in committee room five. Councillor Hammer, no, I’ve got an order here, folks. So be patient, Councillor Hammer, anything you want to add to that for the moment?

No, I think I’ll bring it up at a committee meeting. Thank you very much. I’m going to now recognize Councillor Hopkins. I was just going to suggest that we add the governance task force to this direction.

If not, I’m okay with bringing it up at a committee meeting but since we are speaking about being able to allow the public to view without and giving notice as well. I think it’s something that we should look at. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship.

At our last governance task force meeting, we did have guests tuned into the live stream. So I’m not sure if the clerk knew that but one from the Urban League, one from LDI. I don’t know if there were others who were live on the stream while we held the meeting. And my understanding was that as those requests come in, the clerks were sharing the Zoom link.

I don’t know if that’s ideal for everybody but I did want to let people know that we have had guests tune in live to that meeting and I consider it open and anybody can access it. The process is run through the clerks though on how that works. So are there possibilities for improvements to that for sure? But I just wanted to provide that context for colleagues that that has occurred and does occur.

So I’m wondering based on what I’ve heard colleagues if not standing in the comments of Councillor Lewis initially and I think it’s with good intention. Whether or not some of these items as it relates to any of our committees may well be dealt with that at a future committee meeting but the balance I wonder since it seems like it’s being done whether it’s more of a function of being communicated. Councillor Lewis, you move this motion so I’ll let you provide some common sense to it at the end. Thank you, Your Worship.

I think this compensation task force being newly formed and having its first meeting and I know that there were media stories about it and some constituent emails. And so that’s why I wanted to make sure it was accessible. I do know that we have previously provided direction for the governance working group meetings to be available through YouTube after the fact. And I do know I can confirm that we’ve had Zoom link shared for people who wanted to observe those meetings as well.

I think that given the lateness of the hour, if we could deal with the compensation task force tonight, I know at the next SPPC there will be governance working group reports and I think there’s an opportunity to address that at that time. Colleagues E-Scribe has the motion associated with the council compensation task force, moved and seconded, are there any other comments? Then I’ll turn your attention to the screen as we vote. Close on the vote, motion carries 11 to zero.

Thank you very much colleagues before we adjourn. I know it’s been a late night and we won’t get to 11 but I do want to say to Ms. Livingston, you know I was trying to pay close attention to staff acknowledgments tonight and there were no less than 17 times that I heard thanks to staff for a variety of efforts, words like determination, not giving up, supporting those less able focus on homelessness and some of the issues and challenges that have happened over this last short while that staff have had to deal with so please accept our appreciation from council to all staff for the work that you’ve done since we’ve last met but it’s an ongoing process and we’re very grateful. With that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn.

I see Councillor Fyfe Miller, I see seconded by Councillor Lewis. Let’s get on the screens here one last time please. All those in favor by a show of hands? No motion carries.

Colleagues, thank you all very much. Have a nice night.