May 3, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:01PM, with Deputy Mayor J. Morgan in the Chair; it being noted that the following were in remote attendance, Councillors M. van Holst, M. Salih, J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, M. Hamou, S. Turner, E. Peloza and S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Hillier discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 8, clause 5.4, of the 6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee having to do with the Deferred Matters List Item 2 Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual, by indicating that his family puts on a five day festival.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Council Agenda, BE APPROVED, to provide for the consideration of Item 8.1.2, clause 2.1, of the 8th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee – Truth and Reconciliation Commission Recommendations: Update on City of London Efforts, at this time.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.   Reports

8.1   8th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-04-26 SPPC Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 8th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 2(2.1) and 7(4.5).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (4.1) Appointments to the Greater London International Airport Authority Board of Directors

Motion made by S. Lehman

That Gus Kotsiomitis and Maureen O’Leary-Pickard BE RE-APPOINTED for a third and final term ending July 31, 2025, as Directors of the Greater London International Airport Authority; 

 

it being noted that the third Director position will remain vacant until further notice;  

 

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy received a communication dated March 29, 2022 from D. Bryant, Board of Directors Chair, Greater London International Airport Authority with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (4.2) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - London & Middlesex Community Housing

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2021 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the London & Middlesex Community Housing:

a)      the 2021 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the London & Middlesex Community Housing BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on June 22, 2022, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of the London & Middlesex Community Housing in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and,

b)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2021 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for the London & Middlesex Community Housing and to invite the Chair of the Board and the Executive Director of the London & Middlesex Community Housing to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 28, 2022, from P. Chisholm, CEO, London & Middlesex Community Housing, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (4.3) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - London Hydro Inc.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2021 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc.:

a)      the 2021 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc. BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on June 7, 2022, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of London Hydro Inc. in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and,

b)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2021 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for London Hydro Inc. and to invite the Chair of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer of London Hydro Inc. to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated April 1, 2022, from G. Valente, Chair, Board of Directors, London Hydro Inc., with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (4.4) Request for a Shareholders Meeting - HDC

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2021 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the Housing Development Corporation, London: 

 

a)      the 2021 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the Housing Development Corporation, London BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on June 22, 2022, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of the Housing Development Corporation, London in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and, 

 

b)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2021 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for the Housing Development Corporation, London and to invite the Chair of the Board and the Executive Director of the Housing Development Corporation, London to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration; 

 

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated April 12, 2022 from M. Espinoza, President & CEO, Housing Development Corporation, London with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (4.5) Consideration of Community Advisory Committees Appointments

Motion made by S. Lehman

a) on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the staff report dated April 26, 2022 BE RECEIVED for information, in support of citizen appointments to the London Community Advisory Committees; 

 

b) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee for the term ending on or before February 2024:

Mason Bruner-Moore*

Alejandro Garcia Castillo*

Umair Iqbal*

Natalie Judges*

Susan Mahipaul*

Alicia McGaw*

Jay Menard

Penny Moore*

Megan Papadakos*

John Peaire*

Bonnie Quesnel*

Pamela Quesnel

Deana Ruston*

Cora Waschkowski*

Katya Pereyaslavska

(*Denotes a Person with a Disability) 

 

c) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee for the term ending on or before February 2024:

Marie Blosh

Wendy Brown

Kendra Coulter

Hubert Duhamel

Alexandria Hames

Gloria Leckie

Eric Prendergast

Michelle Toplack

d) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning for the term ending on or before February 2024:

Sarah Ashman

Stephanie Bergman

Mike Bloxam

Ingrid Connidis

Gabriel de Souza Barbosa

Joshua Dent

Angus Johnson

Susan Jory

Jean Marc Metrailler

Mike Rice

Joseph Wabegijig

Mike Wallace

Kerby Waud

Margaret Whalley

Michael Wojtak

e) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee for the term ending on or before February 2024:

Sue Brooks

Kymberley-Ann Burke

Michaela Hazel Castillo

Stacey Evoy

Nadia Fahd

Niko Fragis

Prabh Singh Gill

Rupinder Kaur Gill

Brian Hill

Hetham Hani Abu Karky

Mphatso Mlotha

Lissette Ochoa

Ryan O’Hagan

Jose Pineda

Audra Stonefish

f) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee for the term ending on or before February 2024:

Peter Baker

Steve Evans

Tim Hain

Susan Hall

Berta Bella Krichker

Kiana Lee

Sandy Levin

Matheus Sanita Lima

Rob McGarry

Simone Nicole Miklosi

Katrina Moser

Suba Sivakumar

Vera Tai

g) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee for the term ending on or before February 2024:

Danita Allick

Patricia Almost

Marianne Griffith

Alexandria Hames

Carol Hunsberger

Rob McGarry

Christine Mettler

Lucas Paulger

Michael Ross

Brendon Samuels

Girish Sankar

Lily Vuong

Amanda Whittingham

Islam ElGhamrawy

Nourwanda Serour

h) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee for the term ending on or before February 2024:

Ralph Buchal

Rachel Cabunoc

James Collie

Ernest Eady

Dan Foster

Trevor Kerr

Tariq Khan

Scott Leitch

Vincent Lubrano lll

Devinder Luthra

Milad Malekzadeh

Sheryl Rooth

Antonio Santiago

John Vareka

Ashfaq (Kash) Husain

it being noted that all previous advisory committees and members’ terms are now concluded.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by M. van Holst

That clause 4.5 BE AMENDED to add the following new part i):

i)     that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to contact Patricia Almost and Girish Sankar to determine it they may be interested in applying for a position on the Ecological Community Advisory Committee.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to approve Item 7, clause 4.5, as amended, with the new part i).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2   8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-04-19 PEC Report - Approved

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 12(3.3), 13(3.4), 14(3.5) and 16(4.2).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.12   (3.3) Tow Truck / Impound Yard Zoning By-law Review (Z-9428) (Relates to Bill No. 201)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the zoning review initiated by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to all lands within the City of London, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the London Plan), to make zoning text changes to Sections 2 (Definitions), Section 28 (Restricted Service Commercial Zone), Section 40 (Light Industrial Zone), Section 41 (General Industrial Zone) and Section 42 (Heavy Industrial Zone) to address tow truck business and impounding yard land uses;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the staff presentation with respect to these matters;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    MNK Towing;

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

  •    the zoning review was initiated by the City of London to implement the London Plan Place Type Industrial policies and address zoning issues identified through the Business License review process;

  •    zoning changes were required to tow truck businesses and impound yards in specific zones which implement the policies; and,

  •    the amendments also provide for a broader range of possible locations for those uses to address on of the industries concerns.  (2022-C01A)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Item 12 (3.3) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the zoning review initiated by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to all lands within the City of London, the revised, , proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the London Plan), to make zoning text changes to Sections 2 (Definitions), Section 28 (Restricted Service Commercial Zone), Section 40 (Light Industrial Zone), Section 41 (General Industrial Zone) and Section 42 (Heavy Industrial Zone) to address tow truck business and impounding yard land uses;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee received the staff presentation with respect to these matters;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  • MNK Towing;

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

  • the zoning review was initiated by the City of London to implement the London Plan Place Type Industrial policies and address zoning issues identified through the Business License review process;

  • zoning changes were required to tow truck businesses and impound yards in specific zones which implement the policies; and,

-           the amendments also provide for a broader range of possible locations for those uses to address on of the industries concerns.  (2022-C01A)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lehman

That item 12 (3.3) as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.13   (3.4) 1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road (39T-21056) (Relates to Bill No.’s 183, 186 and 202)

At 5:15 PM, Deputy Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor A. Hopkins in the Chair.

At  5:20PM, Deputy Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, further to the direction from Municipal Council on October 5, 2021 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO a Low Density Residential and Environmental Review designation and to amend The London Plan to change the Place Type of the subject lands FROM a Green Space place type TO a Neighbourhoods Place Type and Environmental Review Place Type to be considered at a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Auburn Developments Inc., relating to the lands located at 1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO a Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation, Low Density Residential designation and Open Space designation;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to:

i)    amend The London Plan to change the Place Type of the subject lands FROM a Green Space Place Type, TO a Neighbourhoods Place Type and a Green Space Place Type; and,

ii)    amend The London Plan to change the Street Classifications of the subject lands to add Street A and Street B as a Neighbourhood Connector to Map 3 – Street Classifications;

c)    the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “C”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Open Space (h-5-h-21-OS3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 (h-h-100-h-149-h--R1-3) Zone; a Holding Residential R1/Residential R4 Special Provision (h-h-2-h-100-h-110-h-149-h--R1-3/R4-6()) Zone; a Holding Residential R1 (h-h-100-h-149- h--R1-10) Zone; a Holding Residential R1/Residential R4 Special Provision (h-h-110-h-149-h--R1-3/R4-6()) Zone; a Holding Residential R4/Residential R5/ Residential R6 Special Provision (h-h-5-h-53-h-100-h-110-h-149- h--R4-6()/R5-5()/R6-5(*)) Zone; a Holding Residential R4/ Residential R5/ Residential R6/ Residential R7/ Residential R8, Restricted Office Special Provision (h-h-5-h-53-h-100-h-110-h-149-h--R4-6()/R5-5()/R6-5()/R7-H13-D75()/R8-4-H13-D75()/RO1()/RO2()) Zone; a Holding Open Space, Residential R4/ Residential R5/ Residential R6 Special Provision (h-h-5-h-53-h-100-h-110-h-149-h-_-OS1//R4-6()/R5-5()/R6-5()) Zone; an Open Space (OS1) Zone; an Open Space (h-222-OS1) Zone; and an Open Space (h-222-OS5) Zone; 

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Auburn Developments Inc., relating to the lands located at 1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road; and,

e)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed Plan of Subdivision as submitted by Auburn Developments Inc., prepared by Stantec (Project No. 161413708), certified by Jeremy C.E. Mathews O.L.S., dated March 17, 2022, which shows a total of thirteen (13) low density residential blocks (Blocks 1-13), two (2) medium density residential blocks (Blocks 14-15), one (1) park block (Block 16), one (1) stormwater management facility/medium density residential block (Block 17), three (3) future road blocks (Blocks 18-20), four (4) road widening blocks (Blocks 21-24), three (3) road reserve blocks (Blocks 25-27), one (1) stormwater management facility/open space block (Block 28), and one (1) open space block (Block 29), serviced by five (5) new local streets, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix “D” appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications, with respect to these matters:

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    a communication dated April 13, 2022 from J. Pratt, Associate Director and Treasurer, Thames Valley District School Board;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    R. Cracknell, 1535 Sunningdale Road West;

  •    B. Denda, 2545 Hyde Park Road;

  •    L. Regnier, 1445 Sunningdale Road West;

  •    M. Moussa, 155 Thornton Avenue;

  •    A. Jomaa, 1431 Sunningdale Road West; and,

  •    A. El-Turk, no address provided;

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

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents;

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

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation, Low Density Residential designation and the Open Space designation;

  •    the proposed and recommended zoning amendments will facilitate an appropriate form of low and medium density residential development that conforms to The London Plan, and the 1989 Official Plan.

  •    the recommended Draft Plan supports a broad range of low and medium density residential development opportunities within the site including more intensive, low-rise apartments along the Sunningdale Road West and Hyde Park Road.  The Draft Plan has been designed to support these uses and to achieve a visually pleasing development that is pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and accessible to the surrounding community.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

8.2.14   (3.5) 1284 Sunningdale Road West (Z-9548) (Relates to Bill No. 203)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application of Thames Valley District School Board relating to lands located at 1284 Sunningdale Road West, the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix ‘A’) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 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 R4/R6/R7/R8 (h-h-54-h-71-h-95-h-100-R4-6(14)/R6-5/R-7-H15-D75-R-8-H15-D75) Zone TO a Holding Residential R4/R6/R7/R8, Neighbourhood Facility (h-h-54-h-71-h-95-h-100-R4-6(14)/R6-5/R-7-H15-D75-R-8-H15-D75-NF1) Zone;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated April 13, 2022, from J. Pratt, Associate Director and Treasurer, Thames Valley District School Board, with respect to these matters;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    G. Vogt, Thames Valley District School Board;

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

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

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

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

  •    the zoning will permit the development of an elementary school and day care which are considered appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area, and consistent with the planned vision of the Neighbourhoods Place Type.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.2.16   (4.2) Mayor Holder - UNESCO Designation - London is Canada’s ‘City of Music’

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to London’s UNESCO designation as Canada’s ‘City of Music’:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back, in a timely manner, on specific geographical borders for the establishment of a Core Area Entertainment District, while also defining what such a District may constitute; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on tangible actions that can be undertaken for late spring, summer, and fall months to demonstrate how music, entertainment, and culture can aid in fueling our community’s ongoing economic and social recovery; it being noted that actions may include, but should not be limited to, pursuing additional supportive investments from federal and provincial government partners.

Motion made by S. Turner

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That part b) BE AMENDED to replace the words, “for late spring, summer, and fall months” with the word, “year-round”.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That part b), as amended, BE APPROVED.

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on tangible actions that can be undertaken year-round to demonstrate how music, entertainment, and culture can aid in fueling our community’s ongoing economic and social recovery; it being noted that actions may include, but should not be limited to, pursuing additional supportive investments from federal and provincial government partners.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Motion to approve part a):

That the following actions be taken with respect to London’s UNESCO designation as Canada’s ‘City of Music’:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back, in a timely manner, on specific geographical borders for the establishment of a Core Area Entertainment District, while also defining what such a District may constitute; and,

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Clause 4.2, as amended reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to London’s UNESCO designation as Canada’s ‘City of Music’:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back, in a timely manner, on specific geographical borders for the establishment of a Core Area Entertainment District, while also defining what such a District may constitute; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on tangible actions that can be undertaken year-round to demonstrate how music, entertainment, and culture can aid in fueling our community’s ongoing economic and social recovery; it being noted that actions may include, but should not be limited to, pursuing additional supportive investments from federal and provincial government partners.

8.3   9th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

9th PEC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 9th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 7 (3.1) and 9 (3.3).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.7   (3.1) 1055 Fanshawe Park Road West (OZ-9444) (Relates to Bill No.’s 184, 187 and 205)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, notwithstanding the Civic Administration’s recommendation, the application by Quincy Developments, relating to the property located at 1055 Fanshawe Park Road West, the application BE APPROVED;

a)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend Specific Area Policy 1074_ of The London Plan to increase the maximum Gross Floor Area for medical/dental office uses to 6,342.4 square metres;

b)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to ADD a new policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” to permit a maximum medical/dental office Gross Floor Area of 6,342.4 square metres; and,

c)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan and The London Plan as amended in parts a) and b) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Office Special Provision (OF5(6)) Zone TO an Office Special Provision (OF5(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    the agent for the applicant’s presentation;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    D. Hannam, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  •    the application is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement as it promotes the efficient use of an underutilized site;

  •    the application is consistent with the Climate Emergency Action Plan in regard to developing neighbourhoods with walkable personal services including family medical needs; and,

  •    the use does not compete with the downtown.   (2022-D02)

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

8.3.9   (3.3) 64-86 St. George Street and 175-197 Ann Street (OZ-9127)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by St. George and Ann Block Limited, relating to the property located at 84-86 St. George Street and175-197 Ann Street:

a)    the application BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration in order to meet with the Applicant/Agent with an aim to address potential rail safety concerns and opportunities for traffic mitigation measures and buffering, and to allow for the Civic Administration to report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED, in the report back, to include a bonus zone that provides for the following:

  •    a minimum of thirteen (13) affordable residential rental units, including one (1) studio unit, one (1) one-bedroom unit, five (5) two-bedroom units, and six (6) three bedroom units (reflective of the unit mix proposed in the building);

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

  •    the duration of affordability shall be set at 50 years from the point of initial occupancy of all affordable units; and,

  •    alignment of the bonus to a defined municipal priority – the owner shall be required to enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement with the City;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication from A.M. Valastro, R. McDowell, S. Olivastri, L. White, J. Jacobson, D. Hallam, D. Morrice and D. Fraser;

  •    a communication dated April 11, 2022 from J. Fooks;

  •    a communication dated April 21, 2022 from L. Tinsley;

  •    a communication dated April 21, 2022 from J. Hunten;

  •    a communication dated April 21, 2022 from H. Elmslie;

  •    a communication dated April 21, 2022 from Dr. W. Kinghorn, President, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario - London Region;

  •    a communication dated April 22, 2022 from AM Valastro; and,

  •    a communication from M. Tovey;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    S. Allen, MHBC Planning;

  •    A. Soufan, York Developments;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    M. Tovey, Adjunct Assistant Professor of History, Western University;

  •    C. Gunn, 4EST Brewery;

  •    N. Kornilovsky, 695 Richmond Street;

  •    M. Rombough, 4EST Brewery; and,

  •    K. Waud, London Advisory Committee on Heritage.  (2022-D09)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That clause 3.3 BE AMENDED in part a) to replace the words, “at a future” with the words, “at the June 20, 2022”.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Turner

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That clause 3.3, part a), BE AMENDED to include the following, “and that staff work with the applicant to resolve outstanding issues regarding intensity, form and the required background studies”.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Item 9, clause 3.3, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Clause 3.3, as amended, reads as follows:

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by St. George and Ann Block Limited, relating to the property located at 84-86 St. George Street and175-197 Ann Street:

    

a)    the application BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration in order to meet with the Applicant/Agent with an aim to address potential rail safety concerns and opportunities for traffic mitigation measures and buffering, and to resolve outstanding issues regarding intensity, form and required background studies, and to allow for the Civic Administration to report back at the June 20, 2022 Planning and Environment Committee meeting; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED, in the report back, to include a bonus zone that provides for the following:

  •    a minimum of thirteen (13) affordable residential rental units, including one (1) studio unit, one (1) one-bedroom unit, five (5) two-bedroom units, and six (6) three bedroom units (reflective of the unit mix proposed in the building);

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

  •    the duration of affordability shall be set at 50 years from the point of initial occupancy of all affordable units; and,

  •    alignment of the bonus to a defined municipal priority – the owner shall be required to enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement with the City;

    

    it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

    

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication from A.M. Valastro, R. McDowell, S. Olivastri, L. White, J. Jacobson, D. Hallam, D. Morrice and D. Fraser;

  •    a communication dated April 11, 2022 from J. Fooks;

  •    a communication dated April 21, 2022 from L. Tinsley;

  •    a communication dated April 21, 2022 from J. Hunten;

  •    a communication dated April 21, 2022 from H. Elmslie;

  •    a communication dated April 21, 2022 from Dr. W. Kinghorn, President, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario - London Region;

  •    a communication dated April 22, 2022 from AM Valastro; and,

  •    a communication from M. Tovey;

    

    it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

    

  •    S. Allen, MHBC Planning;

  •    A. Soufan, York Developments;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    M. Tovey, Adjunct Assistant Professor of History, Western University;

  •    C. Gunn, 4EST Brewery;

  •    N. Kornilovsky, 695 Richmond Street;

  •    M. Rombough, 4EST Brewery; and,

  •    K. Waud, London Advisory Committee on Heritage.  (2022-D09)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 6:40 PM, and resumes at 7:05 PM.

8.4   6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2022-04-20 CPSC Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 6 (5.2), 7 (5.3) and 8 (5.4).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.6   (5.2) Clause 4.2 of the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report, dated April 20, 2022, with respect to the Animal Control By-law - Reptilia, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the verbal delegations from the following individuals, with respect to this matter, were received:

  •    R. Laidlaw, Zoocheck

  •    W. Brown, Chair, Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

  •    V. Van Linden – providing the attached submission

  •    J. Van-Daele

  •    F. Morrison

  •    M. Hamer, World Animal Protection

  •    R. Murphy, Reptilia

  •    B. Child, Reptilia

  •    M. Lerner

it being further noted that the following communications, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, were received:

  •    M. Lerner

  •    J. Winston

  •    L. Corneli, McCOR Management Inc.

and it being noted that clause 4.2 of the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on March 3, 2022, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That clause 5.2 of the 6th Report of the CPSC BE AMENDED to add the following new part b):

“b)       the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the next meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, a report that would outline options for amendments to By-law PH-3 that could provide for the keeping of Class 7 animals in the City of London, under specific terms and conditions; it being noted that that such amendments could include, but not be limited to the following:

  • An accreditation and/or regulation mechanism for specific types facilities;

  • Amendments to the Class 7 animal definition to differentiate between animals born in the wild from those born in captivity, and/or exceptions in the Class;

  • Educational facilities;

  • A specific delegated authority to Civic Administration for PH-3 exceptions to prohibited animals, under certain conditions”

Motion Passed

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the proposed amendment, BE FURTHER AMENDED, to include a Public Participation Meeting, with the report back noted in the aforementioned proposed amendment.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the proposed amendment, as amended, BE APPROVED:

That clause 5.2 of the 6th Report of the CPSC BE AMENDED to add the following new part b):

b)       the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the next meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, a report that would outline options for amendments to By-law PH-3 that could provide for the keeping of Class 7 animals in the City of London, under specific terms and conditions; it being noted that that such amendments could include, but not be limited to the following:

  • An accreditation and/or regulation mechanism for specific types facilities;

  • Amendments to the Class 7 animal definition to differentiate between animals born in the wild from those born in captivity, and/or exceptions in the Class;

  • Educational facilities;

  • A specific delegated authority to Civic Administration for PH-3 exceptions to prohibited animals, under certain conditions

it being noted that there will be a Public Participation Meeting included with the above-noted report back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Passed (5 to 9)

8.4.7   (5.3) “Graphic” Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties (Relates to Bill No.’s 181 and 188)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 20, 2022, with respect to “Graphic” Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022, to regulate the delivery of graphic images in the City of London; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022, to amend By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to designate the Delivery of Graphic Images By-law.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.4.8   (5.4) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at April 11, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That Item 2 of the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at April 11, 2022, with the exception of Item 2, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.9   (5.5) 3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 7, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5   6th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-04-19 CSC Report 6

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 6th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Apraxia Awareness Day 2022

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated March 25, 2022 from Apraxia Kids, May 14, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Apraxia Awareness Day 2022.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (4.4) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Day of Action Against Anti-Asian Racism

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated March 27, 2022 from Stand With Asians Coalition, May 10, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Day of Action Against Anti-Asian Racism.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (4.5) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Southwestern Ontario Film Week

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated March 21, 2022 from Forest City Film Festival, October 16 to 23, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Southwestern Ontario Film Week.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (4.6) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Longest Day of Smiles

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated April 1, 2022 from Operation Smile Canada, June 19, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Longest Day of Smiles.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.7) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Action Anxiety Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated April 7, 2022 from Anxiety Canada, June 10, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Action Anxiety Day.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (4.1) 2021 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2021 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report:

a)    the 2021 Operating Budget Year-End Monitoring Report for the Property Tax Supported Budget, Water Budget, and Wastewater and Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information, an overview of the net corporate positions prior to the recommendations listed in the staff report dated April 19, 2022 and contribution to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve are outlined below:

i)    Property Tax Supported Budget surplus of $19.6 million;

ii)    Water Rate Supported Budget surplus of $3.7 million;

iii)    Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget surplus of $2.2 million;

b)    the contribution of year-end Property Tax Supported, Water Rate Supported and Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget surplus to the applicable Contingency Reserve up to the respective contingency target, in accordance with the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy BE RECEIVED for information:

i)    $7.0 million to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance remains under its target;

ii)   $2.4 million to the Water Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance reaches its target with this contribution;

iii)  $2.2 million to the Wastewater and Treatment Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance remains under its target;

c)    notwithstanding the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to allocate year-end Property Tax Supported Budget surplus as follows:

i)    an additional $2 million contribution to the New Affordable Housing Reserve Fund to support future affordable housing initiatives, noting a $10 million contribution was previously approved and reflected in the surplus noted in part a), bringing the total contribution to $12 million;

ii)    $5 million contribution to the Infrastructure Gap Reserve Fund to support the City’s effort to mitigate growth in the infrastructure gap; 

iii)    a one-time grant to support Covent Garden Market operations in the amount of $1.8 million due to COVID-19 financial impacts. See Appendix “C”, as appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022, for funding request letter from Covent Garden Market; 

iv)    a one-time grant to support RBC Place London operations in the amount of $0.5 million due to COVID-19 financial impacts.  See Appendix “D”, as appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022, for funding request letter from RBC Place;

it being noted that the remaining surplus, after taking into consideration the recommendations in the above-noted report, will be allocated in accordance with the Council-approved Surplus/Deficit Policy;

d)    the presentation (Appendix “E” to the staff report) providing an overview of 2021 Year-End Budget Monitoring BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the reported year-end position is subject to completion of the financial statement audit.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (4.2) 2021 Year-End Capital Budget Monitoring Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2021 Year-End Capital Budget Monitoring Report:

a)    the 2021 Year-End Capital Budget Monitoring Report BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the life-to-date capital budget represents $2.33 billion with $1.58 billion committed and $0.75 billion uncommitted; it being further noted that the City Treasurer, or designate, will undertake the housekeeping budget adjustments identified in the Report, in accordance with the Multi-Year Budget Policy adopted by amending by-law No. CPOL.-45(b)-239;

b)    the status updates of active 2018 life-to-date capital budgets (2018 and prior) having no future budget requests, appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information;

c)    the following actions be taken with respect to the completed capital projects identified in Appendix “C”, which have a total of $12.1 million of net surplus funding:

i)    the capital projects included in Appendix “C” BE CLOSED;

ii)   the following actions be taken with respect to the funding associated with the capital projects approved for closure in c) i), above:

Rate Supported;

A)    pay-as-you-go funding of $2.3 million BE TRANSFERRED to capital receipts;

B)    authorized debt financing of $1.1 million BE RELEASED resulting in a reduction of authorized, but unissued debt;

C)    uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $1.9 million BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects;

Non-Rate Supported

D)    uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $2.6 million BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects;

E)    authorized debt financing of $3.6 million BE RELEASED resulting in a reduction of authorized, but unissued debt; and

F)    other net non-rate supported funding sources of $647 thousand BE ADJUSTED in order to facilitate project closings.

Motion Passed

8.6   6th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-04-20 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 6th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (2.1) Appointment of Transportation and Mobility Big Data Provider - Irregular Result

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 April 20, 2022, related to the appointment of a transportation and mobility Big Data provider:

a)    Streetlight Data Inc. BE APPOINTED the vendor to provide Transportation and Mobility Big Data per their submitted proposal, in the total amount of $168,935.00, including contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Sections 12.2 (c) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that this is an Irregular Result due to only one submission being received to the open call for proposals;

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-T05)

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (2.2) Adelaide WWTP Climate Change Resilience Class EA - Notice of Completion

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 April 20, 2022, related to the Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plant Climate Change Resilience Class Environmental Assessment - Notice of Completion:

a)    the Notice of Completion BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,

b)    the Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plant Climate Change Resilience Class Environmental Assessment report BE PLACED on public record for a 30-day review period. (2022-E05)

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (2.3) Greenway WWTP Climate Change Resilience Class EA - Notice of Completion

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 April 20, 2022, related to the Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant Climate Change Resilience Class Environmental Assessment Notice of Completion:

a)    the Notice of Completion BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,

b)    the Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant Climate Change Resilience Class Environmental Assessment report BE PLACED on public record for a 30-day review period. (2022-E05)

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (2.4) Construction Partnership with the County of Middlesex - 2022 Road Rehabilitation Program - Gideon Drive Rehabilitation

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 April 20, 2022, related to the rehabilitation of Gideon Drive:

a)    the City’s share of a County of Middlesex tender in the amount of $393,445.50 BE APPROVED; it being noted that the funding is included in an approved City budget and the method of purchase is in accordance with Section 14.4 (g), (h) and (i) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, covering purchases with another public body;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2022-T06)

Motion Passed

8.6.6   (2.5) Unwanted Water: Addressing Overflows and Bypasses from London’s Wastewater Collection and Treatment System

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated April 20, 2022, related to the quantifying of the impacts of the City’s unwanted water issues BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-E05)

Motion Passed

8.6.7   (2.6) Contract Award: Tender RT21-121 Greenway UV Upgrade Construction - Irregular Result

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 April 20, 2022, related to the award of the construction contract for upgrades to the UV disinfection system at the Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a)    the bid submitted by Kingdom Construction Limited at its tendered price of $3,372,250.00, excluding HST, for upgrades to the UV disinfection system at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with Section 19.3 (a) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that the bid submitted by Kingdom Construction Limited was the only bid received in response to RFT21-121;

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 administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (RFT21-121); 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. (2022-E03)

Motion Passed

8.6.8   (2.7) Single Source Appointment of Services for the Dingman Creek Surface Water Monitoring Program

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 April 20, 2022, related to the appointment of Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) for the Surface Water Monitoring of the Dingman Creek Subwatershed:

a)    the UTRCA BE APPOINTED to complete the 2022 Dingman Creek Surface Monitoring Program in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $188,005.83, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 14.4 (d) and (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

e)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-E13)

Motion Passed

8.6.9   (2.8) SS-2022-106 Supply and Delivery of Traffic Paint

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 April 20, 2022, related to the supply and delivery of traffic paint:

a)    that approval hereby BE GIVEN to enter a two (2) year contract for the supply and delivery of traffic paint to Ennis Paint Canada ULC, at the quoted price of $177,092 per year; it being noted that the pricing was provided through participation in the Elgin/Middlesex/Oxford Purchasing Co-Operative (EMOP) and is therefore a single source purchase as per Section 14.4 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating satisfactory prices, terms and conditions with Ennis Paint Canada ULC to the satisfaction of the Manager of Purchasing and Supply and the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and,

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2022-T06)

Motion Passed

8.6.10   (4.1) Speed Reduction Petition - Dingman Drive

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the speed reduction petition for Dingman Drive dated March 31, 2022 and on file in the City Clerk’s Office:

a)    the petition and resident correspondence, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the matter BE REFERRED to Civic Administration for a traffic study review with a future report, related to this matter, to be presented to the Civic Works Committee. (2022-T08)

Motion Passed

8.6.11   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at April 11, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

At 8:27 PM Councillor S. Hillier leaves the meeting.

8.7   2nd Report of the Audit Committee

2022-04-13 Audit Report 2

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 2nd Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.7.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.7.2   (4.1) Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Update Dashboard

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the communication from MNP, with respect to the internal audit follow up activities update dashboard, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.3   (4.2) Draft Internal Audit Plan - Overview for Audit Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Draft Internal Audit plan:

a)     the Internal Audit Plan from MNP dated April 13, 2022, BE APPROVED; and

b)     the communication dated April 13, 2022, from MNP, with respect to the draft internal audit plan - overview for Audit Committee, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that Audit Plan will be revised to reflect timing of Q2 2023 for the Records Management & Retention audit.

Motion Passed

8.7.4   (4.3) Internal Audit Charter

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the communication from MNP, with respect to the internal audit charter, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

4.1     Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose regarding an exemption to the Animal Control By-law. (6.1/6/CPSC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The Council convenes in closed session from 4:12 PM to 4:17 PM.

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

5.1   6th Meeting Held on April 12, 2022

2022-04-12 Council Minutes - Complete

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the Minutes of the 6th Meeting held on April 12, 2022, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

6.1   G.F. Stewart, Integrity Commissioner, City of London - Report to City Council: Code of Conduct - Councillor M. van Holst - Vaccination Policy

2022-05-03 Council Code of Conduct Report - Councillor van Holst - Vaccination Policy(1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

Motion to approve parts a), b) and c)

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Report of the Integrity Commissioner entitled “Report On Investigation of Code of Conduct Complaint Concerning Councillor, Michael van Holst”, dated April 19, 2022:

a)    the above-noted report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the communication dated May 2, 2022, from Councillor M. van Holst, BE RECEIVED;

c)    the findings of the Integrity Commissioner that Councillor M. van Holst contravened sections 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 8.1 of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council as outlined in the report BE ADOPTED; and,

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

Motion to approve part d)

d)    Councillor M. van Holst BE REPRIMANDED for his contraventions of the Code of Conduct as noted in part c), above.

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

6.2   1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road (39T-21056)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

6.2     1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road (39T-21056);

6.3     64-68 St. George Street and 175-197 Ann Street;

6.4     183 Ann Street and 197 Ann Street – Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;

6.5     City of Vaughan Animal Control By-law; and,

6.6     “Graphic” Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   7th Report of Council in Closed Session

Councillor S. Lehman reports progress on the matter considered In Closed Session.

9.2   7th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-05-02 Special CSC Report 7

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 7th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

9.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

9.2.2   (4.1) 2022 Debenture Issuance Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the issuance of serial debentures for a total of $21,000,000 BE APPROVED, noting the average all-in rate is 3.563% over a 10-year term; and,

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 2, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on May 3, 2022 to authorize the borrowing upon serial debentures in the aggregate principal amount of $21,000,000 towards the cost of certain capital works of the Corporation of the City of London;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a presentation from Kevin Martin and Chris Meston (RBC), with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

At 8:30 PM, Deputy Mayor Morgan places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair.

Deputy Mayor Morgan inquires with respect to any potential changes that may be required with respect to procurement of goods and services, as this may relate to federal sanctions.  The Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports advises that the policy is well positioned to accommodate this.

At 8:32 PM, Deputy Mayor Morgan resumes the Chair.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 180 to 204, excluding Bill No.’s  183, 184, 186, 187, and 202, the Added Bill No. 206, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 180 to 204, excluding Bill No.’s  183, 184, 186, 187, and 202,  and including the revised Bill No. 201, and the Added Bill No. 206, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 180 to 204, excluding Bill No.’s  183, 184, 186, 187, and 202, and including the revised Bill No. 201, and the Added Bill No. 206, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 183, 186 and 202, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 183, 186 and 202, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (7 to 6)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 183, 186 and 202, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (7 to 6)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 184, 187 and 205, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 184, 187 and 205, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 5)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 184, 187 and 205, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (7 to 6)

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

Bill

By-law

Bill No. 180

By-law No. A.-8242-121 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 3rd day of May, 2022. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 181

By-law No. A-54-22010 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to designate the Delivery of Graphic Images By-law. (5.3/6/CPSC)

Bill No. 182

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wv)-122 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 520 Sarnia Road. (3.1b/8/PEC)

Bill No. 183

By-law No. C.P.-1284(ww)-123 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road. (3.4a/8/PEC)

Bill No. 184

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wx)-124 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 1055 Fanshawe Park Road West. (3.1b/9/PEC)

Bill No. 185

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bd)-125 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to relating to 520 Sarnia Road. (3.1a/8/PEC)

Bill No. 186

By-law No. C.P.-1512(be)-126 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road. (3.4b/8/PEC)

Bill No. 187

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bf)-127 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 1055 Fanshawe Park Road West. (3.1a/9/PEC)

Bill No. 188

By-law No. PW-14 - A by-law to regulate the delivery of graphic images in the City of London. (5.3/6/CPSC)

Bill No. 189

By-law No. S.-6175-128 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Byron Baseline Road east of Griffith Street) (Chief Surveyor – registered as ER1445921 pursuant to SPA21-050 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 190

By-law No. S.-6176-129 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish, name, and assume lands in the City of London as public highway to be known as part of Oriole Drive. (Chief Surveyor – registration of 33M-814 requires 0.3 m reserve on abutting plan RP747 for unobstructed legal access through subdivision)

Bill No. 191

By-law No. S.-6177-130 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Kilally Road west of Webster Street; and Webster Street south of Kilally Road) (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes)

Bill No. 192

By-law No. W.-5600(c)-131 - A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5600-57, as amended, entitled “A by-law to authorize the Adelaide Street Grade Separation CPR Tracks. (Project No. TS1306).” (4.5/5/CWC)

Bill No. 193

By-law No. W.-5618(d)-132 - A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5618-64, as amended, entitled “A by-law to authorize the Southdale Road Widening-Farnham Road to Pine Valley (Project No. TS1629-1)” (6.2/4/CSC)

Bill No. 194

By-law No. W.-5654(b)-133 - A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5654-291, as amended, entitled “A by-law to authorize the 2019-2023 Active Transportation Project (Project No. TS173919)” (4.2/5/CWC)

Bill No. 195

By-law No. W.-5684-134 - A by-law to authorize Project TS1336 – Intersection Southdale – Colonel Talbot (Roundabout). (2.5/5/CWC)

Bill No. 196

By-law No. Z.-1-223020 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 414 - 418 Old Wonderland Road. (2.5/8/PEC)

Bill No. 197

By-law No. Z.-1-223021 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 870 Kleinburg Drive. (2.6/8/PEC)

Bill No. 198

By-law No. Z.-1-223022 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 1395 Riverbend Road. (2.8/8/PEC)

Bill No. 199

By-law No. Z.-1-223023 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 520 Sarnia Road. (3.1c/8/PEC)

Bill No. 200

By-law No. Z.-1-223024 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 551-555 Waterloo Street. (3.2/8/PEC)

Bill No. 201

By-law No. Z.-1-223025 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to make general zoning changes related to Tow Truck and Impound Yard uses. (3.3/8/PEC)

Bill No. 202

By-law No. Z.-1-223026 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road. (3.4c/8/PEC)

Bill No. 203

By-law No. Z.-1-223027 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 1284 Sunningdale Road West. (3.5/8/PEC)

Bill No. 204

By-law No. Z.-1-223028 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 1300 Riverbend Road. (2.1/9/PEC)

Bill No. 205

By-law No. Z.-1-223029 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1055 Fanshawe Park Road West. (3.1c/9/PEC)

Bill No. 206

By-law No. D.-778-135 - A by-law to authorize the borrowing upon instalment debentures in the aggregate principal amount of $21,000,000.00 towards the cost of certain capital works of The Corporation of the City of London. (4.1/7/CSC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 8:57 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 58 minutes)

I’m going to ask you if you’re in chambers to be seated and the clerk has confirmed that we have quorum. It’s four o’clock. So I’m going to call the meeting a municipal council to order. 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 for information and upon request to make any request of any city service please contact accessibility.

You can contact accessibility at London.ca or 516-661-2489 extension 2425. Colleagues, I’m going to anticipate we’ll schedule a break for about 630. If we’re in the middle of an item, we can adjust that slightly, but it’s my intention to take a break at that time. And we’re going to start with going through the agenda as it’s been laid out.

There is an added agenda. So please refer to that one. First, disclosures of pecuniary interest. Are there any declarations of interest?

Councilor Hillier. Yes, six report of community detector services deferred matters list number two special policies and manual. My family runs a special event. Further disclosures seeing none.

I do not have any recognitions for tonight. We do not have any review of matters that were from closed session to be considered in public. At this time, I would like to ask colleagues if someone is willing to entertain a change of order motion for me. As I said at the SBPC meeting, it was my intention to bring forward the truth and reconciliation report.

One item related to the land acknowledgement forward to be dealt with at the start of municipal council, should municipal council approve that. It would be my intent to give the land acknowledgement tonight after it is approved. So I’d like to do that at the top of the agenda. So if I have a volunteer to move a change of order, Councillor Lewis is willing, Councillor Fife Miller is willing to second that.

We will get the language up on the screen. Pretty scared. We’re going to open that change of order motion for voting manually. Thank you very much closing the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero and perhaps I could call upon the to to present the report since since I’m sharing this meeting. It’s just the truth and reconciliation item that we pulled forward on the SBPC report. So if you could introduce the item and then move it. I will hand it over to you.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I’m happy to move that item and put it on the floor. Thank you.

Thank you. And through the chair, I was reading about land acknowledgments and there was a community in the midst of a where they had a land claim going on. They passed a land acknowledgement and it was, it was said that that that actually created some legal problems for them. I don’t, that’s not the case for London, but I just wanted to have staff affirm that a printed land acknowledgement won’t cause any legal complications in the future.

I’m looking forward to our staff on that. I’m looking for someone to jump in. I see Miss Livingston. I’ll start with you.

Mr. Chair, that sounds like a question that our legal staff may wish to weigh in on. I know Mr. Card has seen the acknowledgments.

Perhaps he has a comment. This has not been a concern from our perspective thus far. Mr. Card.

That acknowledgement by the municipality. Mr. Presiding Officer would not be of a legal concern. So I have reviewed the acknowledgement as the city manager indicates and I am content with it as a municipal acknowledgement.

Okay. Thank you very much. I think that’s great. I was just concerned there was no complication in the future that might be a problem with, you know, turn friends into enemies because there was a conflict.

So that’s great. Thank you. Any further discussion on this, it’s a duly moved by Councillor Cassidy, who is presenting the report, Councillor Cassidy, you can speak. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I just, you know, I know we all gathered together, not too long ago as SPPC and a lot of words were spoken on this. I just want to reiterate that this has been a long time coming, really, but a lot of work has has gone into this.

So I really do think it’s been worth the wait. I mean, you know, Morrison and Miss Elizabeth, George and tone, especially I want to single up for their work as well as our city manager, Ms. Livingston, and all of the community members, and our, and neighboring first nations who also were consulted and wait for them in many times over the years to provide their, their, their experience, their wisdom, their input on this item. I just want to talk a little bit about the purpose of a land acknowledgement and why we should nobody should be afraid of a land acknowledgement.

It’s given to show respect and reciprocity and allyship to indigenous peoples, and also to recognize that these people were on this land centuries before any of us were. And, and it is an, it’s an honor and a privilege for us to share this land. And when we talk about treaties, the London Township Treaty in particular is a treaty that was signed many, many years ago, by the crown, and by the Anishnabic people, which led to the formation of the city of London, where it stands today. So treaties are not First Nations documents treaties are not just indigenous documents treaties are, are, are all of our documents.

It’s a contract between, at that time, the people under the crown, and the people under the chiefs that signed those trees. So these are our treaties, these are our documents, these are our agreements with the people who had stewardship of the land before us. The land acknowledgement is in no way, something that anybody should fear or be worried about. It is simply acknowledging the people who had stewardship over this land long before any European settlers ever came.

Thank you. Anyone further seeing none, then we can open this report for voting. I’m going to refresh my thank you closing the vote motion carries 14 to zero at unanimous council support. I’m going to give a land acknowledgement for the city of London here.

So we acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishnabic, Haudenosaunee, Lenny paywalk, and had a one drawn. We acknowledge, we acknowledge all the treaties that are specific to this area, the two row wampum belt treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy silver covenant chain. The Beaver hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee, Nanfant Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London town sub treaty of 1796, the Huron track treaty of 1827 with the Anishnabic, and the dish with one spoon covenant wampum of the Anishnabic and Haudenosaunee. This land continues to be home to diverse indigenous peoples, First Nation, Métis, and Inuit, whom we recognize as contemporary stewards of the land and vital contributors to society.

We hold all that is in this natural world in our highest esteem and give honor to the wonderments of all things within creation. We bring our minds together as one to share good words, thoughts, feelings, and sincerely send them out to each other and to all parts of creation. We are grateful to the natural gifts of the world, and we encourage everyone to be faithful to the natural laws of creation. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewa of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Thames, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs.

This land acknowledgement is a first step towards reconciliation. It is the work of all citizens to step towards decolonization practices and bring our awareness into action. We encourage everyone to be informed about the traditional lands, treaties, history, and cultures of the indigenous peoples local to their regions. Thank you.

With that, colleagues, that brings us to council and closed session. As you may have noticed, we did not do a change of order. I can confirm that we have the technology now to deal with the in-camera session in the order as it was intended on the agenda for this meeting, especially important, given sometimes those in-camera sessions are helpful to the public dialogue and voting that we do. So, with that, I’m going to look for a mover and a seconder to move into closed session.

I see Councilor Vamereberg and seconded by Councilor Palosa. We will open that for voting. President vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

Okay, we’ll just take a minute. Colleagues, if you could just confirm that you’re present digitally, then I can have the clerk confirm quorum. Okay, we have quorum, so we will continue with the meeting. We have next confirmation and signing of the minutes of the previous meetings.

We have item 5.1, which is the sixth meeting held on April 12, 2022. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for confirmation of those minutes. Councilor Vamereberg and Councilor Hamou seconded. Any discussion or changes for the minutes?

No? We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

Next is questions slightly different than we usually do. Item 6.1, which lands in this section is a report from the integrity commissioner. It won’t get referred to another part of the agenda. It’s to be dealt with in this part of the agenda.

So, colleagues, you have the report from our integrity commissioner before you. There’s also a response from Councilor Van Holst associated with that. Given this is Council, it’s probably appropriate for colleagues to consider putting a motion on the floor for us to debate. And I know the clerks have worked up some language for different possible options, so we’ll see what you want to move and we’ll make sure that language gets up so everybody can review it.

I see Councilor Lewis with your hand up. Thank you, Acting Mayor Morgan through you. I believe the clerks have some language that’s consistent around the integrity committee, the integrity commissioner’s recommendations. So, I’d be prepared to to move receipt of the report and the recommendation as well as receipt of Councilor Van Holst’s communication.

Yes, if I could have the clerk just perhaps read that and then I can call for a seconder because I want to make sure people know what the language is that they would be seconding in and confirm that the mover is okay with it. Given it was drafted in preparation for this meeting. Go ahead. Thank you and through you, Mr.

Acting Mayor, that the following actions be taken with respect to the report of the integrity commissioner entitled report on investigation of code of conduct complaint concerning Councilor Michael Van Holst. Did April 19, 2022. A, the above noted report be received. B, the communication dated May 2, 2022 from Councilor and Van Holst be received.

C, the findings of the integrity commissioner that Councilor and Van Holst contravene sections 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 8.1 of the code of conduct for members of Council as outlined in the report. The adopted and the Councilor and Van Holst be reprimanded for his contraventions of the code of conduct as noted in part be above. Sorry, okay, moving that language. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder.

I see Councilor 5 Miller. Okay, I moved in seconder motion. So this is municipal Council. So I will start a speakers list on this.

I have Councilor Cassidy. First, and then I will continue on through others. Go ahead, Councilor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr presiding officer.

While I acknowledge what I felt at times was serious behavior from from Councilor Van Holst. And at times was worried that, as I said, in one debate at Council that our voices are amplified when we sit in these chairs figuratively and literally some of you in person tonight. The voices are amplified from that Council chamber and our voices carry a lot of weight. Having said all that the report speaks for itself.

The report lays out where the integrity commissioner has ruled that Councilor Van Holst has violated certain sections of the code of conduct. I personally would like that motion separated out so that the last part is pulled out separately. I do not believe personally that we need to give the Councilor a reprimand. I will not support reprimanding the counselor.

I believe the public nature of this action. And the report from the integrity commissioner is enough. And I won’t support piling on and going further than that. Okay, we can certainly have that part voted on separately.

No problem. Other speakers. Councilor Vermeer Bergen. Thank you.

Acting Merrick. The I have to agree with Councilor Cassidy. I think part D is overreach. I think while it’s well and good that we have these findings, it’s starting to creep into hindering what some of us may or may not believe.

And in fringe on our ability, frankly, to do our jobs properly. I do think that is part D is overreach and I too will not be supporting part D. Thank you. The speakers.

Councilor Turner. I’m just thought a little bit about what I wanted to say and haven’t really come up with anything good. So, let me see how well I do here. And the first, I’m going to mind some of this.

One, the importance of being able to to recognize where where harm might exist in positions and statements, the intent of policies that have been taken by all the levels of government, including our special purpose body, such as Middlesex Son and Health Unit, have been very clearly to protect public health, protect people’s lives, to attempt to make the best outcome possible out of something that is incredibly challenging to respond to. So the fact is that information comes in at an incredibly fast pace and has to be simulated and processed and policy has to come out of that in a very short period of time. It’s not always going to be right, but it’s it’s often very right. And the challenge that that’s in front of all of us as policymakers is to try and assimilate that information and as well make the best decisions possible.

And show support for those things, because it is really easy to undermine the public confidence in those decisions. That’s one of the reasons why the code of conduct is written as such. There are a lot of policy decisions Council has made over the years that I have not agreed with. I walk very carefully, though it’s challenging at times to, to not criticize the policies after they’ve been made but leading up to the debate I think that’s all fair game.

It’s really important for counselors to be able to to speak their minds and to be able to to oppose policies and policy directions and so this is where I find myself in a bit of a challenge, because the the ability for us to debate to share opposing opinions share share opposing viewpoints is essential to a good democracy, the ability of government to show a unified stance, especially in an emergency situation, especially in a disaster situation, so that we can garner public confidence and be able to preserve life and preserve health is also essential. So we find ourselves in this bit of a paradox. I feel like had actually had done our PhD thesis so that kind of looked at the ability of people on on advisory committees, on municipal advisory committees to share opinions in public. That might be counter to what the municipal position might be.

And people who might have been activists or advocates for certain positions prior to getting on to advisory committees mean very, very vocal in public. They’re feeling very inhibited, once they got into an advisory committee position because it would seem to undermine a public position. So the question and Councilor Van Halst raised is it’s appropriately at what point do we as individuals have to forego or personal opinions to be able to to have debate and to be members of council. And that’s tough.

I, I do believe, and in the multiple instances that the Council of Van Halst brought things forward. I think some of those cross those lines. And I think there’s a manner in which that these can be brought forward that that identifies the ability to have debate, to have dissenting opinion, and to have questions raised, which are fair enough to be had. And at some point, then that needs to be be identified as having been said and done, and the policy decision has been made and removed forward.

So throughout this over the past couple of years, the activities and actions that have been taken in are identified in the report have been harmful and, and, and having served a couple of years through the pandemic in public health. I’m no longer there now. So I get to speak to this a little bit more, have, have been harmful, especially to those who’ve been been working their butts off for the last little while here to try and save lives, I recognize them coming up on time. You’re nearing your end of time, Councilor.

So I hear the comments of my colleagues. I’m wary to, to get into a position where we issue a reprimand that inhibits debate. However, I’m worried as well that not taking action, especially in a crisis situation. Allows a big, big holes in our ability to, to garner confidence and policies.

So I, as I said, I’m of two minds here. I’m going to listen to the debate. I recognize where, where Councilor Ben Holst was coming from. But I do think that some lines were crossed.

Other speakers. If there are no other speakers, it has been requested that we deal with part D separately. So, so I just want to make sure that the mover and the second are okay with the moving parts A through C and then D separately. Yes.

Okay. All right. Then what we’ll vote on first is parts A, B and C. Those include the receiving the integrity commissioner’s report, receiving the communication from Councilor van Holst, and that the findings of the integrity commissioner and the contravening sections of the member of the code of conduct be adopted.

So in other words, we accept the findings of the report. Is everybody okay to vote on that now? Okay. We’ll open that.

Those three pieces for voting. Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 1. Okay.

And same mover and seconder for part van Holst be reprimanded for his contraventions of the code of conduct as noted in part C. Everybody ready to vote? Okay. We’ll open that for voting.

Close in the vote. Motion is lost on a tie vote, 7 to 7. Okay. That concludes that section of the agenda.

There’s no further actions given we’ve exhausted those and we had the debate. So if there’s nothing further, I’m going to move on to the next parts of the communications. That is sections 6.2 through 6.6 refer to various items in other parts of the agenda. We have a series of motions to refer those to those components of the agenda for someone who was willing to move the referral of those communications into the appropriate parts of the agenda.

Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. We’ll open that for voting. Councillor van Holst, Councillor van Holst, final call. Councillor van Holst, no response.

We’ll mark you as absent. Thank you very much. Close in the vote. 14 to 0.

Motion carries. We have no notice for which motions are given reports. The first report is the 8th report of the strategic priorities and policy committee. We have already dealt with item 2 from that report.

And I believe a council would like item 7 dealt with separately. So maybe I can ask that Councillor Layman to present the report. Thank you, chair. I’m happy to present the 8th report of the strategic priorities and policy committee.

As Deputy Mayor said, 7 is desire to be pulled. We’ve dealt with number 2. So I’d like to put 3, 4, 5, and 6 on the floor. One dealing with appointments to the London International Airport Authority board of directors and request for shareholder meetings from London.

London Middlesex Community Housing, London Hydro and HDC. Any questions or comments on those items that the Councillors put on the floor? Okay, see none. We will open those items for voting.

Those in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Thank you. I’d like to put number 7, 4.5 consideration of community advisory committees appointments on the floor.

Okay. Questions or comments on the appointments? Councillor Cassidy. Thank you.

Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to move an amendment for the 2 committees dealing with the environment. I did send a communication to Councillors to give a heads up about this. So I would go to the clerks first because I understand that the clerks have received a communication from Girish and Carr is mostly power had some interaction.

So if I could defer to her. Thank you through the chair. Yesterday afternoon, our office was contacted by the applicant who indicated a desire to also apply for an additional committee, the LCAC, and I had indicated that there wasn’t an opportunity because the deadline passed for the added agenda for council to consider that at this evening’s meeting, but that they were welcome to make a submission for a standing committee to consider at a future meeting. But there wasn’t any indication to withdraw the existing nomination.

I just wanted to clarify that. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you. So I would then, you know, slightly adjust the amendment that I sent out to council earlier today.

And it would just be to ask civic administration to reach out to Patricia almost. And to Girish and Carr to determine if they would have any interest in joining the ecological community advisory committee. Since that committee is the more technical committee, the outgoing chair of EPAC, who is also a new member of the new committee had indicated that these two individuals seem to have the expertise and experience to join the ecological advisory committee. And so I think it would be since there are still vacancies on that committee.

It would be worth reaching out and having a conversation with these individuals to see if they would like to switch over to that committee. And if they were to switch that would then allow possibly some spots to open up on the environmental stewardship and action that would be because we received many more applications than there were available spots. So that is my motion. And Councillor Van Holst had indicated to me that he would be willing to second that.

Okay, so that would be an amendment to the current recommendation to add that piece to the end of it. So moved by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Van Holst will will get some language up on the screen for colleagues and given that amendment is on the floor. I’ll look for any other further comments. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Acting Mayor, through you, I’m certainly happy to support the amendment that Councillor Cassidy has proposed. I think it would be unfair to actually ask either of the individuals to withdraw their nominations from the advisory committee. They have been recommended for until they know whether or not they’re they’re able to join the ecological advisory committee.

So certainly if they are appointed to the other committee, I hope that they would consider making space for others, but I don’t expect them to do that proactively and potentially not be on any committee in a situation where they weren’t appointed. But I certainly reviewed their resumes and the communication from Mr. Levin and I would concur that I think they’d be a really good fit on the more technical committee. So I hope that they will consider that and thanks to Councillor Cassidy for bringing this forward.

Other speakers will we just get that language up. Okay, the language is up and he’s grabbed. He’s grabbed. It’s exactly as Councillor Cassidy had indicated.

If everybody’s comfortable with that, we will proceed with the vote. So I will call the vote now. Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay, I need this now as amended.

So Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Cassidy, any discussion on the package now with the amendment? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Thank you, Mr. Presiding chair, I would like to present the eighth report of the planning and environment committee.

I am going to request that number 1213 and 14 be pulled. I’ve not heard from anyone else. Thank you, Mr. Presiding chair.

So with that, I’d like to bring forward a motion to put forward the rest of the items. It was a busy planning meeting. We received a number of reports, Bill 13 and the parking standards review information report to be circulated as well. We had a number of public participation meetings, one being the tow truck impound yard zoning bylaw.

We received delegation’s delegation request on the urban agricultural strategy 2021 annual report. And we also received a motion from the mayor’s request for regarding UNESCO’s designation as London being candidates city of music. A motion that was supported by the committee was to report back on specific geographical borders for the court area, as well as a report back on tangible actions to support music and entertainment in our city as we go through recovery. And with that, I would put forward.

Okay, colleagues, discussion on any of the items that Councillor Hopkins has put forward in the eighth report. It excludes 1213 14 and 16. Okay, so I’m going to turn my video off just to save the bandwidth. Number 15, I just wanted to thank staff for their story.

Can you just pull that one? Yep, we could pull 15. You can also, if you’re not making any changes to it, you can make your comments now. But if you are looking to do something.

Okay, yep, you know what I’m not making any changes. I just, okay, so I’ll just, I wanted to thank staff for their urban agricultural strategy. I do believe this is one of the strategies we have to target hunger and in London. I’ve worked with the London food coalition and others and we’ve been able to provide a lot of fresh food to the homeless through sanctuary London and other organizations in London.

And then I have for staff is, will there be a process to set up an inventory of city land where urban agricultural agriculture can take place and where would that be located. Okay, for the staff member who would like to respond. Thank you through the present officer. It’s very speaking.

Certainly, we will be working with various city, other city service areas to put together new inventory. Most of the inventory of city on land has already been shared with the members of the steering committee. But certainly as community members come in, we’ll be able to provide those where we do have city land. I just do want to note though that with respect to city owned land.

There are issues with the ability to offer up some of that land for urban agriculture. For example, the city has industrial land that holds within strategic reserve to provide for industrial opportunities. And those lands, some are in exist in existing and cultural operations, but others would not be and we’d want to ensure that those lands were available for future industrial uses. And within some of the parks areas we are constrained by the area within the parks if there’s active recreation that would preclude the opportunities but certainly we look forward to working with the community to identify any opportunities that might exist on city owned properties.

Excellent. Thank you so much to the chair. Thank you. Any further comments on the slate of items before us?

Okay, seeing none, we can open that for voting. As in a vote, motion carries 14 to 0. That’s our opkins. Thank you.

Mr. presiding chair, the next item is number 12, 3.3, which is the tow truck impound yard is zoning bylaw review. The reason this item is being pulled is to amend the bylaw inadvertently, it was referenced that we had attached maps and the title was amended. That’s the reason why I’m pouring out.

We did have a public participation meeting on this and it was supported by planning committee. Okay, so given its and as a councilor Hopkins put on for and is willing to move an amendment to it, I need a seconder to move an amendment. Councillor Cassidy, any discussions on that amendment? No, we’ll open the amendment for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to 0. And now I need a mover and seconder for as a matter of five biller. Councillor Layman, any discussion on the motion as amended? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to 0. Councillor Hopkins. I would like to now pass number 12 and 13 to vice chair, Councillor Layman, as I did not support these two items of planning. Councillor Layman.

Thank you. I think at that committee, we put these two items together. I’ll go to the chair to see if you prefer to go to that group because I think they are tied together or we can. I think it’s handled separately.

I think just doing them separately. Yeah, people may want to vote differently. So I’ll put number 13 3.4 on the floor moved by Councillor Layman presenting for the committee discussion. Thank you.

As I say, there is a solution to the school capacity issue that doesn’t involve accelerating this residential development on what is currently open space agricultural land. And that solution is a boring one that’s been around for a long time, which is school board should expropriate the land. We’re talking about next. We should rezone it.

The school board should expropriate it. And the school should be built on those lands. And so the school development that’s being proposed to be accelerated here, unlike many other areas of the city where people come forward with their proposals and they have to deal with comprehensive plans is really going outside of the normal process. And I think the only reason that it’s being supported is because we want to help with the school capacity issue.

Unfortunately, I think that accelerating the residential development on these lands north of Sunnydale prematurely. We’re going to compare to all the other landowners and developers who are following the normal process. It’s also going to replicate the exact problem that we have right now, which is all these residential homes that are going to be added north of Sunnydale. There’s no school block for all the kids who are going to live in those future houses.

There’s no plan to accommodate that growth because we’re talking about this one parcel and isolation from the overall lands. And so the solution to the problem we have now is expropriation at the land use issue that’s in front of us. We should refuse it as the staff had recommended in the past. And instead allowing it to be designated as future community growth, which is what the staff recommended.

I actually think that’s appropriate. You know, then after there’s been a comprehensive plan the serving thing has been worked out. We can look at the overall area, where the parks need to go, where the school blocks need to go, then the whole area could be developed at the appropriate time following the normal process. And we don’t need to accelerate the destruction of prime agricultural land and the building of residential housing without the schools and other amenities that are needed to support it.

If we want to accelerate residential development, we should accelerate it in other parts of the city surface parking lots, where we keep extending temporary use donning, instead of forcing buildings to be built by saying no you can’t use it for a service parking lot anymore. We should be accelerating West like a rapid transit, not delaying it and not planning for funding, delaying the secondary plan. There’s a 2500 unit subdivision that’s going to be built a lot of Oxford Street. How are those people going to get around.

Those are the things we need to be accelerating, not more low density development and medium density development, north of Sunnydale on un-service agricultural land that’s open space in the official plan. To turn it down. If we turn it down the school board will expropriate those lands. That’s their option.

That’s the power that they have. The reason they have this power is for this situation. So I hope you turn it down. I understand where people are coming from trying to make this work as a deal.

It’s a bad idea. And I hope we turn it down tonight. Thank you, Mr. Acting Mayor.

And through you respectfully, I couldn’t disagree with Councilor Helmer more. I think turning this down would be a bad idea. We have a freely negotiated agreement between two parties that will accelerate a development of a school block, which frankly, expropriation is not the best route to go for anyone. In fact, for the taxpayers of London, expropriation is the worst possible.

It’s the worst possible route to go because it is the way to ensure that the most public dollars at the end of the day end up in a developer’s pocket. When you go through the expropriation, you have the legal fees that you’re going to have to cover. You’re going to have to compensate the developer for the loss of the proceeds that they would see from the development of houses. The school board itself will have to pay a fair market rent on the land, which as we all know, the fair market value of land in our community and communities right across this province continues to go up.

So if we see a one or two year land expropriation process, the cost of that land to the school board is going to be considerably more than the deal that’s been agreed upon by these two parties. It is true that our staff recommended a refusal of the original proposal, which put the school block in the north parcel of land, which by the way was part of the discussion around how that would be an inappropriate space because we would have a situation where we’d have to be moving more people from the south to the north to go to school because the resident development is already in the south area. We’re talking about a net new, net new number of residential developments of 250 units. We’ve got a school right now where 22 portables are on site to house students.

And if we’re putting off the ability to move that school forward and forcing through an expropriation, not only are we talking about the expropriation process, but then the time involved to build the school as well. We’re telling 1000 families right now. Yeah, your student may spend their entire elementary school career in a portable. Now, this is not a problem of our making.

And Councillor Helmer is absolutely right about that. We agree that this is not a problem of our making. This is a problem of school board making and frankly of the provincial government. And I’m going to take a moment here to be really blunt about this.

The provincial government needs to fix the funding formula for schools so that they can be planned for and built properly to accommodate not the number of students they’re going to have on the day they open, but the number of students that they’re expected to have as they open and as a neighborhood grows, and that funding formula right now is the reason why we’re in a situation like this. So I think it’s incumbent on all of us to press our MPP’s or I guess as of tomorrow will be in a provincial election so talk to the candidates as well as whoever comes out victorious in those elections to get to work on fixing this funding formula because it is broken, but we have a freely negotiated situation between two parties right now that will help fix one problem. It’s not going to fix the broken funding formula. Absolutely not.

And yes, we should continue to increase in fill opportunities. I agree. It’d be great if we, you know, moved ahead and expedited some of those developments as well. But to throw out surface parking lots, there’s no guarantee that anybody’s going to talk about developing residential housing on a surface parking lot.

It could be commercial. It could be industrial. It could be institutional. So those two issues have to be separated.

They’re not related. What we have here is a solution to a problem that is in our community. And yes, it is not ideal, but we have a, we had an alternate staff recommendation as Councilor Hammer pointed out that said community growth so designated for future community growth. We have secondary plans all the time that are developed in existing areas.

A secondary plan can still be developed in this area. If this development is approved in terms of new pieces of land potentially being brought inside the urban growth boundary. But the urban growth boundary might not move. So there might not be any future lands to look at a secondary plan for in this area.

Right now, this is the block that is inside the urban growth boundary. It’s not sprawl. It is within the urban growth boundary. This is land that we’ve said at some point is going to be developed.

And I know the original designation for a cemetery has changed, but even staff in their alternate recommendation knowledge is going to be developed. So I can’t express strongly enough how we need to fix this problem today. And we need to move ahead with this. This isn’t some sort of nefarious backroom deal.

Everything has been public here. The parties have talked publicly about what’s happening. The school board has communicated to us. They have indicated that this will accelerate their, their ability to get a new school built.

And at the end of the day, it’s for those families and students that we need to make this decision tonight. Right on five minutes. Thank you, Councilor. I have Councilor Turner next.

Thank you, Mr. presiding officer. So my opposition to this isn’t unknown to everybody. I imagine everybody knows my position on this, but continue to speak against it.

Councilor Hellner, I articulated the points really well. And I think they’re, they’re really worth listening to. In terms of the, the expediency and the cost effectiveness, I would argue that expropriation is as fast or as slow as the route that we’re going at the public participation We had quite a few neighbors who had concerns about this development. And there is a guaranteed appeal.

Like, I don’t even think there’s any question about it. As soon as something goes to LPAT or the Ontario lands tribunal, we’re, we’re talking about a year at least minimum, and willing the dice, because there are some legitimate questions about policy and policy breaches here. And maybe it gets upheld at the OLT, quite possibly not, in which case we’re right back to square one. And if we, if the school did the thing that they’re supposed to do in the first place, which is figure out what their, how their their lands needs are They have land needs that they aren’t able to accommodate through other means, expropriation is their tool.

And then that will take some time as well, but I, I don’t think anywhere close to as much in both circumstances involves lawyers, involves time involves money. Exropriation is done at fair market value. So we have, we have rules. I recognize that the parties are trying to do something to, to, to do good.

There’s a problem. And let’s try and fix the immediate problem. But without playing the board out without recognizing what the impacts are from bending the rules in one circumstance rules are meant to safeguard us from corruption and perception of corruption, not to say that that’s what’s happening here. But it certainly makes it far more obfuscated and difficult for us to, to have those discussions.

It helps us to ensure that the flame field is level for all the players and counselor helmer articulated that well as well. It allows us to make sure that all those who are investing in our market have confidence in our market that the rules set that exists will continue to exist, or if they’re going to change that there’s a really clear and transparent and public process to it. There’s four of these tonight, which is alarming. And we’ve had a number of them already, where we’ve been in the same kind of circumstance where we say, the rules don’t really make sense here, because there’s a pressing public need.

There’s always some sort of pretext that leads to us deviating or moving from our rules. Oh, we need a school. Yeah, we need a school. But as counselor helmer said, you’re going to need another one pretty quickly because now you’re putting more houses in place.

We need more housing. Well, we’ve had five years of record building permits issued in London, significant amounts of growth and significant amounts of construction activity, the factors in housing and the housing crisis in the province and in the country are not ones that are dependent on the way our municipality acts. Those forces are far greater than what we address here with 200 net 250 houses being built in the new development. So yeah, we’re trying to solve a small problem right here with the number of students in a school and create a whole bunch of more problems that that just domino from there.

I think the work was done in good faith. I think the impact is substantial. And it seems like such a micro thing but on the policy side of things. It really is is very concerning.

So I’ll speak a few more times tonight about the path that we’re going down. And I will speak quite adamantly that we don’t continue to do that. I really hope my colleagues recognize the impact that such a decision would make. And the last thing I’ll say is not once we’ve received letters, but not once has anyone from the school board came and talked to us and explained why they cannot use the tools available to them.

Why we have to solve their problem for them, not once. And that should be concerning to all of us. So I hope my colleagues will join me in voting against the proposal here. Thank you, Councilor, other speakers, put myself Oh, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Poseidon chair and I didn’t support this accounts at committee. I haven’t supported it as we’ve gone through this process. I did support originally the direction that we started to look at a school.

I do regret that because for me, I think we’ve more or less set ourselves up to be here today. And I don’t think this is going to fix the problem today. A number of colleagues have already made their comments and reasons why I’m not going to reiterate the same things. I just want to speak from a ward that I represent and I have great empathy and understanding for the Council of the Ward who is trying to fix the problem.

And I appreciate that. I have challenges as well for schools in Ward 9 and the need for housing is apparent and concern for all of us. But the infrastructure for our schools is constantly lagging behind. This is not going to fix the problem.

In fact, I have grave concerns that we are not being transparent, not understanding our policies, not allowing our policies to look at them. Because what is going to stop any Councillor now to say, well, we did it up in the north, now we can do it somewhere else. This sets a dangerous precedent for me as a Councillor Award that’s all about development. I won’t be supporting this tonight.

I’d encourage my colleagues to really understand that it’s not fixing the problem. We really have to understand that by supporting this recommendation. I just want to bring to your attention that this neighbourhood now is going to just stand along. It’s just going to exist up there without having the due diligence that we normally take when it comes to looking at our neighbourhoods and how they work.

How we build in and up, how we provide services to these neighbourhoods. It’s not a fix, and I would encourage you not to support it. Thanks, Councilor other speakers, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. So I’m glad so far we haven’t heard anyone say that that staff are recommending this because I did hear that a bit in the planning committee meeting and that caused me alarm. When I read through the report and I’m going to quote a number of areas in the report from the planning committee from staff. So recently the lands were reviewed through the London plan process, which determined that the lands were not required for development purposes and the green space place type was the appropriate designation.

At another point, it says city staff identified through the this process, the internal proposal review that the development of these lands would be premature pending the completion of a comprehensive secondary plan and associated official plan amendment. That would include the subject lands and those to the north and the east. A secondary plan and OPA may have additional implications on the timing of the provision of servicing and the location of the urban growth boundary. And the letter was issued to the applicant outlining a number of concerns.

Again, staff’s review and comments of the submitted internal proposal review were consistent with those issued in 2018 and identified the need for a comprehensive review of the area prior to any submission of a plan of subdivision. Staff provided a report in 2021 recommending refusal. And if you look at the motion that was narrowly passed in February by council, let us to this proposal or this report that came to planning this cycle. The direction given to civic administration was that staff work with the applicant to facilitate the necessary zoning bylaw amendments and that notwithstanding the recommendation of the director of development services with respect to this application staff be directed to bring a proposed bylaw to amend the official plan.

None of this is staff’s recommendation. It would never have been staff’s recommendation. The seven six vote that happened at council pulled staff. What to do notwithstanding staff’s professional recommendation to city council and the planning committee.

The reason that this area is in the urban growth boundary right now is because it was appealed. It was appealed by a landowner who wanted to expand a cemetery, and it had to be within the urban growth boundary to build a cemetery there was never the appeal was never intended for development, and the land use planning tribunal did not consider the appeal as land for housing development. It is currently being used as agricultural land. We talk about all the time the hypotheticals of removing open space land that zone agricultural, but maybe not being used as agricultural and we’re not supposed to do that under the provincial policy statement.

This is actually land that is being used as agricultural land, and we will be taking it offline. We need a school. Yes, in the area. We don’t need this housing, this additional housing in this area.

This time, staff have determined that there is adequate land within the city of London that’s already available to for housing development. And by the time this school is built, both the existing school that’s over capacity and the new school will be over capacity. The time this school is built, both schools will be over capacity, and yet we will be adding more residential development in the area, only exacerbating the existing problem. This was negotiated between a school board, not elected trustees, but hired individuals, the bureaucracy of the Thames Valley district school board and a developer.

Why, you know, I know Council Turner has said this in the past. Why are we involved in these negotiations between the director of education of the school board and a private developer. This never even went to the trustees for a vote. This is not an elected body that sort of kind of being pushed off to the side during a very important matter.

The time for the expropriation should have been in 2019 hindsight’s 2020. This is not my job to tell another elected body what to do, just as it is not the role of a director of education to tell this elected body what to do. This is not going to solve the problem. This is going to create a host of other problems, and it is vastly unfair as Councilor Homer pointed out to other landowners outside the urban growth boundary, who are playing by the rules.

Thank you, Councilor. I think I’m going to turn the chair over to Councilor Hopkins, and I put myself on the speakers list next. Seeing Mayor Morgan on. Okay, thank you colleagues.

I wanted to address just a couple of things here. And despite the fact that I forgot the time, the last two timers, I am timing myself. So I’ll stick to the five minutes. Listen, there’s a few things that have been said tonight, but I want to go back to the original staff recommendation of refusal and something that Councilor Homer said, staff’s recommendation was to refuse that the proposal from the developer.

There was a number of challenges with it. There was going to be a school potentially a community facility on the northwest side of the road. There was no plan for servicing. And of course, as we know, there was a desire to do a comprehensive plan with the other lands that are outside the urban growth boundary with it at the same time.

Staff did recommend, though, at the time that despite, despite the refusal of the application, they did believe that the lands should come in into the community growth designation, which means staff agree they will not be a cemetery forever. They will not be open space forever. They will not be farmland forever, but they would come into the community growth designation and start the process to identify this as a growth area. So the intent here was that it would be developed at some point.

The school board and the developer are trying to solve a problem, and we’re stuck in the middle. And I got to tell you, the fact that you don’t think this is transparent, I got to tell you, like, every time I’ve spoken about this is at this meeting and every time we’ve talked about it. And certainly, if you don’t think that we’re having a good debate and a difference of opinion on this one, I don’t know where you think the lack of transparency is because this is certainly debated. It’s certainly a variety of opinions.

And I think that there are very valid opinions on this on all sides of this issue. I think, as has been described, we are stuck in the middle of a challenging situation up in my ward. And there are a number of people trying to trying to alleviate that and solve a problem. This idea that this is coming back to the debate, this notwithstanding staff’s original recommendation, there was there was a series of questions that Mr.

Barrett was asked during that debate. And I believe it was Councillor Turner who said, okay, you have a concern about servicing, but there’s a direction there to have the developer do that. You’re concerned about this other piece that there’s the London Plan provisions, there’s the environmental review. What’s left that’s notwithstanding?

And Mr. Barrett basically fell down or went back to the piece on that we would prefer to do to plan this area comprehensively, but that the motion actually addressed a number of the concerns that staff had. The proposal before us now is not the same proposal that staff rejected. It’s different.

There’s no community facility on the north side. There is a plan for servicing that has been vetted by our staff. There is a functional plan and staff were not told to say it agrees with the provincial policy statements. They were not told to say it conforms with the enforced policy of the London Plan.

They were not told to say that it conforms with the enforced policies of the 1989 Plan. Yes, they were asked to bring a by-law forward, but their professional standards and their due diligence means that when they assess that application and they say it conforms in a report, that is their opinion. Yes, they had a preference not to do it this way, that they would prefer to plan comprehensively, but that doesn’t mean that they haven’t assessed this with their professional credentials in the way that they should. No one got around these procedures.

It was always intended that our staff would assess the application fairly. The idea that the school capacity issue is not going to be solved. Yeah, it’s not going to be solved. Councillor Lewis quite rightly said, even if we didn’t develop this, even if we built the school today, it’s probably still going to have challenges in the near future.

That’s because the school board and the province don’t fund and build schools to the proper sizes for the communities that they grow in. We can certainly help with that challenge by getting another school bill quicker. 250 net new units does put additional pressure on, but the solution to that is getting the province to build schools of the proper size and the right number in the areas working closely with municipality with those growth projections so that we can ensure that this is not an ongoing problem, but it’s going to be until that challenge is fixed. So I go back to as well.

I have parents and kids that I also represent in this community. I appreciate that there are those looking for a solution to that challenge, and I appreciate that two parties have come together to try to find a solution that is before us. This is not my ideal situation. This is not, you know, my preferred outcome, but it’s the one that we have a decision on.

And it’s the one that I’m going to support at this time. So that that’s my time. It’s up and I’ll turn. I’ll sit down now.

Thanks. Thank you. And I have no other speakers. I will return the chair back to you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And so I want to say and thank my colleagues. I think the things and the objections that Councilor and Turner and Kathy brought up are all I agree with those as as objections. They bring some very important points forward. However, we’ve got some challenges now.

And I wanted to ask a couple of questions. One, how long does the through you to staff, how long will a constant comprehensive plan take. Thank you for the presiding officer. If the counselor speaking to the comprehensive review process.

That process will be undertaking where we’ve started now, and we will be going through that through the remainder of this year, hopefully bringing something back to council. Second quarter of next year. Okay. And just to confirm that’s that’s for that whole area out there and how it would potentially fit with this property of the urban growth boundary was expanded to other sections.

Right. Mr. Barrett. Thank you for the presiding officer.

No, no, I was speaking to the comprehensive review. If you’re speaking to a secondary planning process. The secondary planning process would be undertaken after the comprehensive review. If that review has determined that additional lands are required to support urban development over the next prescribed time period.

And then secondly, if these lands are then identified as those lands that or lands adjacent to these would be identified as lands to be included within that boundary expansion so the timing on a secondary plan is very much contingent on whether or not any additional lands would be added to this area for consideration. And that would be determined through the comprehensive review process. Okay, thank you. Now, I wanted to ask about the, the net new 250 homes.

Can somebody tell me what percentage of a school, those might fill up. And let me start with that question. Mr Barrett, I’m not sure if you can take a swing at that one or not. The presiding officer know I wouldn’t be able to determine what how that would translate to a school demand.

Okay. So, thank you. I’ll just comment that we’re saying that once the school is built, it will be a capacity. It seems that if it’s not built, then, then will be much less mind you.

So that new, the new proposed subdivision is going to fill up part of a school. My next question. And I wanted to ask this because Councilor Homer brought up the idea and I thought it was a really smart one was about having a school block in this, in this new property and is there, is there a way for that to be included in, in the plan or added added to this process or where would that, where would that be added. So the idea of having a school block in this, in this new green space.

Thank you for the presenting officer. The issue of a school located in this, in this particular parcel was in fact, one of the things that most raised the concern of staff. Because placing a significant community facility on these lands without understanding the context of the possibility of future growth and what that growth might look like in lands adjacent to these was what we were concerned about. So, in fact, moving a school block into these lands, which at this point are, as has been noted standalone within the urban growth boundary would be something that, that would be of a concern to staff and was a concern in the, in the previous consideration of this matter.

Thank you. So, of course, one of my concerns is, is housing. I see here’s a, here’s an opportunity for more housing to be built. I know that to their Ukrainian refugees coming to London, hoping to find a place to live.

You know, also that I had some friends recently that we’re renting a home and tried to find one in London and couldn’t and had to move outside the city. So I do see that we need to create housing here faster. That may mean that we need to plan faster. And so, I am, I would be both interested to see how the expropriation process went with the school.

That was the recommendation of how this should be done. But I’m also interested to see how fast we could get a block of property that is within the is within the urban growth boundary on on track to put homes together. So that’s, I guess there’s my dilemma. And having, having recognized those, the lack of housing issues, maybe I’ve got a minute or two left.

Actually, you’re, you’re pretty close to your time counselor if you could wrap up. Okay. No, I guess my last question then would be if, if there’s plenty of room for housing in the city of images, ask staff to, to tell us where that is and, and how quickly that’s coming online. Mr Barrett.

Thank you for the presiding officer. The city is now doing its GMIS update. I, I fear that I might get the numbers a little wrong. However, in the preliminary review that’s been undertaken now with respect to the remaining capacity within the city.

The city has sufficient capacity for low, medium and high to meet the near and midterm needs of the city and development. I don’t have the actual number of years but there’s sufficient land supply. And that’s going to be existing within the within the municipal boundaries for the, the near to midterm. Okay, thank you.

And if I had time for one last question. Mr chair, it would be that this is on a major street. Often we put some high density along those. And I was asked if that was contemplated or are appropriate in this area.

So, through the presiding officer, the application that’s before you this evening includes a mix of housing types, the intensities are consistent with the intensities that are contemplated within the London plan. And it does provide for the opportunity through the proposed zoning for, I believe it’s low, low to mid rise. So, we’re going to build development as well as mixed forms of cluster and townhouse development. And counselor that exhaust your time.

So, I’m going to check if there’s other speakers, other speakers on this. Okay, see none. This is moved by Councilor Layman who’s presenting will open this for voting. And the vote motion carries eight to six.

Thank you, chair. I will put 14 on the floor. Comments on 14. Councilor Helmer, although I don’t think this is an ideal spot for a school.

I’ve been thinking about it since the planning committee meeting. And in particular, because I think an appeal of the decision we just made is pretty likely. And I’m willing to support the reasoning for this particular property, so that it can be used for school to make it easier for the school board to expropriate it in the future when I think that will be necessary. I think people are going to realize it’s going to take too long and they’re going to start the other process and parallel.

I think given the shortage of school sites and the availability of land are really dealing with least preferred options in terms of what land is zoned for schools. And although this is sort of on the northern edge of an area that’s got a lot of people in it and the idea of everyone having to walk up to the northern boundary is not ideal. I do think it’s a good enough place for a school given all the constraints that are going on here so I’m going to support the rezoning for the school park block in particular, even though I didn’t support the previous decision. The speakers, seeing none, then we can open this for voting.

Those in the vote motion carries 12 to 2, the last thing on your report is a mayor of Boulder, UNESCO designation, Leningas, a city of music, you’re okay to present that one right. Yes, I’m happy to present it. It was supported. Planning to move forward with a motion to have staff report back on the geographical borders for a court area entertainment district, as well as a report back on tangible actions to support the music industry as we go through the recovery speakers.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So I’m thrilled that we’re going to be doing what we can to advance London as a city of music. So I’m, I’m happy to support be a in terms of establishing an entertainment district. To me, I’m concerned it’s a little top down and a little exclusionary.

There’s some great things that happen out with music here in the east end, but once again, we’re kind of left out. And I’m not sure that going that route would be better than having the city grow in its entirety as a as a city of music. So my question through you to our staff is what particular opportunities are available. By creating this district that that wouldn’t otherwise be available to us.

The presiding officer, I think that that one might be coming back to me. Some of the opportunities are opportunities that have already been brought forward. Previous reports this matter, for example, there were amendments to the city’s noise bylaws related to the period and the sound levels that may be permitted within certain areas. So some of the actions of Council pandemic related but also related to this matter are matters around patios and patio permissions.

So those are the kinds of things that could be brought forward to support further support the music city designation. All right, well, well, thank you. So ask, are those not already in place with the with the downtown area, the presiding officer. Yes, some of those changes have already been made.

My understanding of this is to look at that but also to look at what more specifically what we are doing as it relates to programming and supporting this within that identified core area. Thank you. So, in terms of programming, I think I prefer that that take place all over the city and that that other areas be allowed to do that. I’m very involved and I think that will make things certainly more walkable city of every neighborhood is able to access some programming that that enhances the entertainment and establishments in their area.

So, I think I’ll vote against a if we could separate those, Mr. Chair, but if Council is interested in having a district like this, I’m fine with it. But I’m also interested in, in having all areas of the city grow. Okay, thanks, Councilor.

Yes, we can divide the two, of course, other speakers, Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Acting Mayor and through you colleagues, I’m, first of all, as a ward Councilor, I’m typically 100% on board with Councilor Van Holst comment about growing the, the whole of the city and sharing around. I’ve often been critical of investments in downtown that are denied to other areas of the city. However, I think the entertainment district designation is actually where the downtown really does need to be highlighted.

And I put my tourism London board hat on just a little bit, and I know that from a tourism perspective, when you’re bringing people into London, when you’re bringing them into a big concert at Budweiser Gardens, or you’re bringing them in because of the Tim Hortons Briar, or you’re bringing them in because of the Junos. We want that activity concentrated in the downtown. We want that activity concentrated around where our hotels and the majority, obviously there are a great eatery districts across the city, but the majority of our restaurant opportunities and the majority of our unique shopping and retail opportunities are located. We’ve all got, you know, big box opportunities in our, in our areas.

I think that’s fair to say about most of the words. But the niche retailers, the family owned restaurants, the venues that are associated around big entertainment draws for tourism are in the downtown core. I also think about how much time and energy we spend as a council talking about the downtown and talking about the need for residential infill, which is really important feed on the street to support those businesses feed on the street that improves community safety. We’ve talked during COVID about the fact that, you know, a lot of office space is sitting empty right now, and it may continue to sit empty for a long time.

Some of it may never feel backup, it may need to be repurposed for other uses. The downtown is not going to be the downtown of the 60s or the 70s where you’re coming down for, you know, the, the Simpsons or the Eaton shopping experience all day. We need another reason for people to come downtown. Having people live downtown is great, and that’s really key to the downtown’s revitalization, but so is giving residents in other areas of the city and visitors to our city a reason to be in the downtown.

And an entertainment district is, I think, the future of how a lot of modern downtowns in London and in other municipalities across this country, across North America in Europe as well. That’s where the future of the downtown is as a vibrant entertainment area. So I’m going to fully support this. I will say that I hear where Councilor Van Hoss is coming from.

I think we all have some unique locations in our wards where music and entertainment happens as well, but I don’t think this does anything to take away from them. So I’ll be supporting this and I encourage colleagues to do so as well. Other speakers, Councilor Lehman. Thank you.

I think the downtown core is foremost on all of our minds. We have a unique opportunity, I believe right now. We’ve seen a lot of residential development happening downtown, which is very exciting. We also have the UNESCO designation to become the city of music.

So this is an opportunity for us to proactively make use of the facilities that we’ve already invested in. We’ve made significant investment in Dundas Street, Flex Street in the surrounding areas. This is the opportunity to provide direction of where the city can go in there in our downtown. We’ve seen this successfully done in so many other communities and reviving their downtown and providing a space for entertainment to drive big changes.

In downtowns across North America, we have that opportunity now to capitalize on the residential development and this recent UNESCO designation. I was at the chambers event last week at the Grand Theatre, and I can tell you the arts community is so excited about this designation. We have momentum now that we can capitalize on. So the Councilor asked staff, what do the envision of changes that aren’t currently there?

Well, part of this motion is defining what such a district may constitute. So it gets us thinking in the right way along a defined guideline to make this happen. I don’t think it will be exclusionary to music, entertainment, other parts of the city. But what it will do is provide a concentrated area, which is key for marketing any tourism initiative.

You have to have a concentration area, like a Broadway down New York City or other areas of music in other cities. This is our opportunity to make London the city of music as defined now and enhance the terrific entertainment venues we have now. Leverage that to move in an exciting direction to take London into the future. So I hope, I hope my colleagues will support this.

Also Turner, apologies, just trying to get all my screens working here in the mayor’s letter. Number two, yes, staff be directed to report back on tangible actions to be taken for late spring summer and fall months to demonstrate our music. Anyway, my concern with this is with respect to the fact that if we’re looking for a music district and this seems to preclude the idea that music can be performed indoors. And that music is kind of be your round thing.

It was just trying to pull as you called on me to pull up what the, what the committee motion was, but I was wondering if you might be able to, to look for some comment on that either from. Can’t look to the mayor for, for comments, but, but otherwise, having a clerk look up the, the committee motion for you, Councilor. I don’t know if you want to continue with your comments. Well, that’s going or whether you need to pause until you get that answer to continue your comments.

No, I just pulled it up now and I’m taking a look at it and it says exactly as the, as the mayor wrote in his letter. I think that kind of misses an opportunity. And if we’re going to talk about a music district, we’re not talking exclusively about our performance of music, we’re about, about all the venues on a music call, but gardens. The only in all of the, any of the numerous sites that the centennial hall and grand theater.

These are all places from us can be performed. And on indoor basis, and year round. So, if the question is whether it seems to be pointing towards the idea of, hey, let’s create a district where it can make a lot of noise outside in the spring, summer and fall. And that seems to be a little different from the idea of, let’s truly do what’s necessary to create a music city and a music district.

So I’m concerned about what’s put forward here. I would, I would amend the proposal amendment that actions be taking year round, rather than the late spring or some fall. And how we can really do that. Otherwise, we’re just looking for an exemption to noise by law.

I don’t think that’s the appropriate way of making this motion. Yes, Councilor, and maybe I can provide some context that I had had a discussion with the mayor about this. I believe he worded it that way because he was anxious to do something soon. And so it says late spring, as in this late spring, summer and fall, because he was anticipating we want to take advantage of the designation in this calendar year.

I didn’t think that he was thinking it would preclude year round. But I think the amendment would probably, you know, you could certainly make the amendment and I think that would fit. I just wanted to give you some context because I had that discussion with him at one point. Thank you, Mr.

Poseidon officer. I appreciate that. Sorry to cut out there my apologies. Yeah, it doesn’t read that.

I think we should be really clear about what we’re looking to accomplish. Councilor, you broke up, but I think I got, we should be clear. I agree with that. And if you’d like to make that amendment, of course, that that would be in order to make an amendment to to the park B.

And thank you, Mr. presenting officer. I’d like to make that amendment basically turning it into year round. Is there a seconder for that?

Councilor Feitmiller. Okay. I think everybody understands that the, what the amendment is is for, but we can have discussion on that. There’s a duly moved and seconded amendment to move it to be specific that we would report back and tangible actions that can be undertaken year round that language will come up in a minute.

But I’ll look for speakers on this. Councilor Hamou, you have your hand up. Sorry, I move has taken her hand down. Sorry, I didn’t unmute.

Okay. Go ahead. I’m just, I’ve got the camera off for bandwidth. So the first place I go to when I go to a city where I look is the entertainment district when I want to be a tourist or when I want to go to a city.

And this place I look for is the entertainment district because I’m looking for hotels in an area where I don’t have to take my car where I can walk where I’m in walking distance. And hopefully the entertainment district will have enough stuff for us to do for the next two to three days so I think it’s a really good idea to be to put all of these things together. And it’s not just for outdoor use. It’s also for indoor use.

There’s going to be opera houses concerts theaters. And the reason you want the sound by law to be lifted up in those places is because people are going to be out at those like really whenever the theater gets out it’s going to be very late whenever the opera gets out it’s very late so people will go for copies at night and whatnot and I just think it’s great. My daughter we’re actually in Casablanca. And there are people everywhere here and what she said to me was, you know, I wish London had a little bit of this life, you know, where we could we can really partake in some of the entertainment.

And so, you know, I do think we need to kind of step up the game in downtown and I think this is the opportunity to do so if we put everything together in an entertainment district, make the hotels there make, make all of our, you know, do all of our theater things there. Our concerts and whatnot, even sports games, whatever. I’m just to ensure that, you know, it’s in one place. People don’t have to look around the entire city for it.

We bring people in. The other, the other reason why I think it’s good to have a district like this is because people do still want to have quiet areas around their house. They don’t want entertainment around their houses, especially in the suburbs. So I think it’s a good idea to keep it in the core area.

Thank you. Okay. Councilor Turner, if you, I don’t know if you’re in an e-scribe, but there’s actually, I do know you are because you voted. The amendment is up.

So we’ll just make sure that you can check the wording and you’re okay with it. And then I can continue on with the debate. Are there discussion on the amendment? No, it’s moved by Councilor Turner, seconded by Councilor Feitmiller.

We will open that for voting just on the amendment. The vote motion carries 14 to 0. So B has been amended. And what I would like to do now, given colleagues want to separate this is I’m going to need to move on a seconder for B as amended, and we’ll just keep the debate tight to B for now.

And we’ll, we’ll deal with A afterwards, since we’re already on to adjusting B. So a move on a seconder for B as amended. Councilor Lewis, Councilor Feitmiller, any further discussion on B? Okay, we’ll open B as amended for voting.

Yeah, I’m having trouble for the voting coming up here, although, yeah. Thank you. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

We’re back to A and I see, Councilor Hopkins, you’re still moving A, I presume. I am. Okay. And I see Councilor Saleh, who has his hand up.

I’ll go to you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have just a technical question for staff.

Mr. Chair, you might remember in some of the other counselors from the previous term. Myself and Councilor Helmer, we moved the motion that was very similar to this, not to have a history lesson or anything like that. Happened to support and vote for it, but I remember there’s a lot of consultation, a lot of work, a lot of resources put into that.

Is this really redundant of what we’re doing? Or am I just missing something? I didn’t have an opportunity to pay attention to the planning meeting on the specific item. So maybe you guys can shed some light for me to kind of just let me know what was the difference or what is this hoping to achieve different than what myself and Councilor Helmer brought up in the past.

I wasn’t going to comment, but I just figured maybe save staff the time. I’m not sure. Yes, so I’ll go to staff. I recall your, the motion that if you made, I’m not sure everybody else here would, you could outline it a little bit if you want, but if staff calls what it was, they could talk about how this might integrate with that previous motion.

But maybe for the benefit of our colleagues here, you could just give a couple sentences to outline what it was that you and Councilor Helmer brought forward last term. Yeah, so I guess literally main Council member of our motion to have entertainment district city of London, and they consulted with tourism for people in the community, consultations, those people gave their feedback. There’s some resistance, there are some pros cons, yada, yada, yada. Here we are.

Let’s see what staff has to say, Mr Chair. I’ll go to staff, Mr. Barrett. Thank you, through you, Mr.

President officer. I believe it was actually 2015 and it was a music entertainment culture district report that was brought forward. The council is correct, and the previous council adopted that. And that in fact, and that’s what I was referring to was that report that brought forward and directed some of the changes that are in place now as it relates to the noise by law, and some of the patio exemptions that were then further amended through the pandemic.

What as staff what we see this is actually building on that with the designation of the music and entertainment district. We take the first part as essentially a confirmation and refining of that district and then the second part which you have already voted on, which is more explicit description of those actions that could be undertaken to support the music and entertainment designation in the city city of music designation. So just building upon the previous report that was done. The council is correct.

There was the definition of a music and entertainment district and that will be a good basis for us as the confirmation, which I believe is what the clause A speaks to. Yeah, yeah, that’s cool. That was helpful. I guess kind of just affirmation, I guess, sounds good, but happy to support the motion.

Thank you. Any further comments on part A, Councilor Feitmiller. Thank you, Chair. And through you, just a couple comments to add.

First, I want to thank Councilor Turner for the change to include. We have a lot of great venues in the downtown that are indoor venues and and Councilor Turner mentioned a lot of them. I’d also throw, for instance, some of the churches that we have in the downtown as ideal locations that we can that we can utilize one comment. And when I look at A and I see part of this process being how we integrate a music district in with a growing residential body in the downtown.

And I think Councilor Hymou made a valid point when she said, you know, one of the reasons that she goes to an entertainment district is because they don’t want it in their residential communities. But we have to remember that the downtown is becoming a very defined residential community. We have housing in and around the downtown. So part of that process has to be how do we engage and how do we wrap those two together so that they become the package that we want it to be.

And I think we can do that. I think we have logical areas in our downtown where this will work really well. But I do think it constantly means that we have to work with the community that’s there to ensure that everyone sees that benefit. We know what we’re going to get out of this.

The city knows what they’re going to get out of this. So let’s make sure when we do this, we bring everybody along in that path so that at the end, this becomes the successful piece that we want it to be. Thank you. Any other speakers on a seeing none, we can open that for voting, the vote motion carries 14 to 0.

That is the eighth report. Great news. Don’t go anywhere because we can now do the ninth report planning committee and I’ll turn it back to you. Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. President Chair. I’m happy to present the ninth report of the planning and environment committee. I have had been asked to pull number seven and have not received any other requests.

I believe Councillor Van Holst asked for, I believe, nine and 11, if I’m correct, people too. Oh, just nine. Okay. So nine as well then.

Okay. So that’s seven and nine. And with that, we’re with the rest of the items. Okay.

Any comments or discussion on everything except seven or nine in this report. If I may, Mr. President Chair, just to give a summary of the meeting that we had. Again, busy planning meeting.

We had a number of consent items 2.2, which is the audit accountability fund intake. Continuous improvement of development approval, site plan, resubmission process review 2.3, the single source procurement of consultant update to the site plan control by law manual. And number 2.4, which was the streamlined development approval fund, continuous improvement of development approval, single source contract award. Mr.

President Chair, I bring those items. And underline them because I think they’re good news stories as it relates to improving our processes and our applications. I want to also thank staff for all their work that not only bringing forward applications, but also continuing the updates and improving our planning process. We received the 2021 annual report on building permits, and there were a number of requests to remove heritage listed property as well as supporting the designation of 183 and street and 197 and street.

And with that, I’ll put all items other than the ones that we’ve pulled on the floor. Okay, Councilor. Thank you. I just wanted to ask about the annual report on the building permit fees, which is included in this consent motion and my question through the chair to staff.

It’s very clear from the amount of revenue that’s being deferred from 2021 into 2022 that the building area has been extremely busy. We see this in multiple reports that are coming to Council. My question is about the capacity of the building division to handle the work that you’re handling right now. I know that you’ve made a number of changes to increase sort of capacity within the department, but we’re just having record year after record year and really significant growth in terms of residential housing construction.

And I wanted to check in to see how it’s going and what if any changes, you have planned in terms of the capacity in that area, given the tremendous demand and the, you know, you’re starting the year with half the money that you recognize as revenue last year. But it’s, it’s a really rapid increase. So I want to ask for that. Mr.

Mathers, the presiding officer. I’ll be very open and honest with you that it’s been very challenging. So it’s been firstly difficult to find qualified staff and we’ve been working very closely with other people services and trying to recruit new staff to be able to take on some of this work. We have a number of retirements that are happening as well.

So what we’re always asking for is patients whenever we can get it from our applicants, but we are working very hard and authorizing over time and additional work for staff. So we do have a plan moving forward. And that even includes working with Fanshawe College and making recommendations to them as far as what we would need to see for qualifications for staff and students moving forward. It is a very challenging time.

And we’re going to continue to work hard to be able to provide that housing for homeowners. I just see that Mr. Kuros also has his hand up. Oh, sorry, Mr.

Kuros. Thank you, Mr. Acting Mayor and further to what Mr Mathers indicated. I just wanted to note that recruiting qualified building officials is a challenge amongst a lot of municipalities.

It’s not just our municipality. We have made changes. We are actively working as Mr. Mathers said with Fanshawe College, but also as recently as yesterday, we are also connecting with the Thames Valley District School Board.

And we will also be connecting with the Catholic School Board to see if we can reach out to students at the high school level in terms of showcasing what a building official does. And, and having students considered as a career because I think right now that showcasing peace hasn’t been emphasized enough. And, and yes, we do have staffing challenges. If you look at our website, you will see constantly positions advertised.

We do have vacancies that we still need to fill. Thank you. Council just want to make one comment. I really appreciate the tremendous work that everyone in this division does on a daily basis.

And I know we’re very focused on the issue of housing and how can we speed up development. And I think we have to recognize as a municipality that, you know, everything goes through city, and all these proposals, all these developments that are being proposed. They all have to be inspected. And this is a real significant constraint on how fast things can go.

And it’s not as though the building division is not working as fast as they can and doing the absolute best with the resources they have. But it’s not just the supply of land use permissions or the supply of approved subdivisions that is the issue. The issue is also the supply of qualified people who are able to do this work. And we really need people in the community who are interested in this kind of work to get involved start the process of qualifying to be able to do it, because we’re going to need a lot more people, a lot of young people who are not in this field now.

We need to get involved now. It can be a super rewarding career. And I hope that people hear that message from Mr for Corros, not just tonight but ongoing that this is a great, a great area to work in. We really need you.

There’s no way we’re going to be able to build 1.5 million homes in the province of Ontario and meet the housing affordability task force targets without significantly expanding the supply of people who work in this area, not just in London, but in the city of Ontario, and I think it’s a real challenge for us. I wanted to ask about it because it’s a real concern of mine. I think I’ll talk offline with Mr Corros and Mr May, there’s about what, if anything, we might need to do at the council level to make sure we’re doing everything we possibly can to meet that particular challenge and bring it to committee. Okay.

Thank you. Councilor Turner. Thanks. I just wanted to point out a few things that we discussed at the planning committee.

With respect to the sole source awards or prospects here. We discussed those staff were able to give some answers as to why we would do this, especially in circumstances where they may, there may be other contractors that may be able to do the work. Often in sole source, we would look for where somebody has a unique special attribute that other contractors wouldn’t be able to do so in some of these circumstances. Some have already been seized with work that has been done before, and this is a continuation of that another circumstances it’s the need to be able to work really quickly and capitalize on some opportunities from funding that are available to us now.

So, I have concerns every time I see a sole source, I want to make sure that that we’re applying the provisions appropriately. Some more detail was given to us in the planning committee that was helpful. The second was with the, the annual report on building permit fees. In this circumstance, we saw a draw on building permit stabilization reserve fund, you might recall earlier in the term, we approved an increase in the balance that would be the objective of the team to to accomplish in that reserve fund.

So when we see successive years of draws off of that, it goes the opposite direction of being able to get to 100% of permits. And so, so it’s something we should continue to watch. I know that the staff are really keeping an eye on it as well. I think the policy to increase the proportional balance in that reserve was appropriate, but I hope that we’ll continue to watch that to make sure that we’re going in the right direction rather than continue to draw down on reserve balance.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments. Okay, we have everything on the floor except seven and nine, and we’ll open that for voting. Sir Helmer was in the vote motion carries 14 to zero.

And I would the next step item is number seven 1055 Fanshawe Park Road West, which was an amendment to increase those floor area for medical and dental. I did not support the motion that came from the planning committee. So I will pass it to the vice chair. Absolutely.

Thank you. And I’ll put that on the floor. Okay. Comments questions on number seven, Councilor Turner.

We really brief on this. This is another one of those circumstances where we have a policy and we’re going in a different direction. The applicant had come forward to us previously and asked for an exemption to the the paid parking restrictions. So, on this lot.

We made a policy that had stated that that medical dental buildings like this, and wouldn’t be allowed to tab gated and controlled parking because the impacts it has collateral early on the neighborhoods. And people trying to avoid parking costs. So that that came out of, of an issue that was encountered in my ward. Some time prior to my terms on council.

The, the applicant had come forward to us a few years ago, and said that their business model didn’t work unless they had paid parking. And now they’re looking for an exemption to our office space policies which are meant to try and consolidate the office within the core, and asking for more square footage than would be allowed normally under these policies. Some discussion and debate that happened in committee was talking about trying to place office medical dental in places where people live. Yeah, that makes sense except the thing about medical dental is it’s these aren’t necessarily clients of where the clients aren’t necessarily residents within the neighborhood they’re traveling there and they’re moving by car.

And in this case they might try to avoid the parking in that lot because there’s already gated parking. The part in consideration is that we also need to have services in the core so during the debate it was raised well, it makes sense that we would have office buildings, but not that the medical dental provisions within the commercial policies. Really apply because this is a different category of commercial, then, then say a law office. So it makes fine sense for somebody to go to a law office downtown but they can’t go to one out in the suburbs, which they can.

The reverse is true here. Sure, we can have medical dental out in the suburbs but it’s we’re not going to try and consolidate or or at least a portion of some medical dental in the core as well. I think that’s important in our policies because when we take a look at what’s happened in the core over the past couple years, we’ve seen a fairly significant attrition of businesses as a result of COVID. The boards boarded up buildings downtown, the coordinates are help, and these policies are things that help the core, help to wherever we have those opportunities to prevent those businesses from moving out and help encourage businesses to move in.

If we don’t adhere to these policies, then it really weakens our position on that front. And one of the things that I think we should put our minds to, and I’ve mentioned it before, in Calgary when they do kind of the oil bubble burst a little bit. There was a fair exodus of corporate offices from their core, and the amount of movement out of their core, and it ups really dropping the amount of revenues in the commercial class by quite a bit. And that required them to shift their ratios to put the burden on residential, and we might be facing the same thing.

And so we want to move really cautiously. Is this, we heard from staff that this probably wasn’t so much a hill to die on, but it’s certainly one of those things I think we want to consider. And so I really recommend that Councilman cautiously on this. I’m not supportive of the recommendation.

I think they can build within the limit. If that’s what they wish to do. And, and I’d really encourage them to do so. Thank you.

I have Councillor Lewis next. Thank you, Acting Mayor, and through you colleagues, I really encourage you to support this. You know, I want to, and I don’t say this to try and engage and cross debate with Councillor Turner, but typically when somebody visits a law office, they might visit once perhaps every five years, 10 years. I mean, there may be people with more need to get to a law office than that, but the average resident in London isn’t going to a lawyer terribly often.

However, if you’re going to your family doctor, your kid might be sick, you might be going for that. Then the next month, maybe you’re like me, your knee starts to bother you a little bit. You go get that checked out. There’s all kinds of reasons that people go to their medical services and often much more regularly than they’re going to go and see a lawyer.

In fact, I know I need to go see a lawyer soon. I need to update my will and I will come down to a downtown law office to do that. But when I go to my family doctor, I’m going to one in my neighborhood. We heard from the ward Councillor that there has been no issue with complaints about street parking and people avoiding the parking fees.

But more importantly, we’re talking about building on a surface parking lot. Earlier, we heard what a great idea would be if things were built on surface parking lots. They’re actually reducing their overall parking lot space by four at the end of the day. This is a good thing.

This is the kind of thing we want to do. And the other thing that we have to think about when we think about our office space and staff said, you know, the policy, the broad policy in the London plan doesn’t discriminate between types of office space. And yet we know that office spaces are different, right? Somebody who’s working in perhaps a banking tower downtown, like TD, only is going to need a small cubicle space that they’re working in for the day and then they go home.

A doctor, a doctor’s office is going to need two, three, perhaps four patient staging rooms where individual patients are sitting waiting for their turn to see the doctor. So they’re taking up a lot more square footage for one doctor to be servicing patients. Then you’re talking about somebody in financial institutions or law professions or things like that in their law office, where they’re typically working in a much smaller overall square footage footprint. So we did hear staff say that, you know, while there’s some zoning that looks at the different office uses.

It’s not actually reflected in the broad London plan. We heard our staff and I don’t want to put words in Mr Barrett’s mouth, but, and he can certainly correct me if I’m wrong, but he said something to the effect of this is not a significant rewrite of the London plan or an undermining of the London plan, something to that effect. It’s fairly minor in terms of the overall square footage that we’re adding out in a neighborhood where people can choose to walk to their family doctor or bite to their family doctor if that’s an option for them. Yes, some people are still going to drive, but imagine if we said we can’t put any big medical offices out in the suburbs.

Everybody’s got to come downtown. I don’t think that that’s the sort of thing that we want to encourage either. Particularly when we’ve got a climate emergency action plan where we want to discourage vehicle trips. So we want to put it in the neighborhood, even a shorter vehicle trip is better than a longer kilometer vehicle trip in terms of that footprint.

So I think this is a really, really sensible option. It’s not a significant variation from our policies. And Councilor Turner, and again, I don’t want to through you chair put words in his mouth, but he said, maybe this shows that it’s time to review our policies and I would concur with that. I think the policy does need to be reviewed.

I think it needs to be much more clear about what kind of office space we’re trying to focus in the downtown. But right now we’ve got a decision to make today on one individual application and this one makes a lot of sense. So I hope colleagues will support it. Mayor Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding chair and thank you. Councilor Lewis for your comments too. I didn’t support the motion at planning and environment committee, but I am supportive of staff’s refusal for the extra request.

And I’m not going to put words in Mr Barrett’s mouth either. If it’s a significant rewrite or not. I think we read in the recommendation that it exceeds the London plan. It’s not consistent with the PBS doesn’t comply with key directions.

To me, this is ad hoc planning. I agree, Councillor Lewis with Councillor Lewis. If we need to look and review our policies, we should do that. But I would request that if we do that.

We have to remember that is a long process. And we have to be consistent when we vote here at Council, because we have from time to time had applications come forward where we didn’t support the increase in commercial spaces. So I’m just trying to understand where we go as a council sometimes when we make decisions. I know I’m not the expert.

I rely on staff and their recommendations at planning. And we did have that debate because there’s the other side that could say, well, it can, it is consistent with the PBS. I rely on staff’s recommendations when I’m at planning to understand and support our policies. And I have concerns that we start to jump around and make these decisions that aren’t consistent.

I would like to just remind Council that when this came to us a number of years ago, there was already an increase. We’ve already allowed for the medical and dental growth floor area to exceed. We have policies that support our downtown to have that 5000 square feet. That’s where it should be.

If we want to review all our policies, then fine. Let’s do that. But let’s not do this ad hoc planning, because it really concerns me. What direction that we were going with our policies.

So I’m not supporting it. I encourage my colleagues not to support the motion, but to support the recommendation that came to us a planning from staff. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor.

Are there other speakers to this? Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Close in the vote. Motion carries nine to five.

Thank you. I would like to now put number nine on the floor, which was a referral back for 3.3 64 86 St. George Street and 175 and 197 and street on the floor. Thank you, Mr Chair.

And my question through you to staff was regarding the, the crash wall and whether or not that was something that that is generally done in us as a site plan. So it seems like we want to do that for. In the zoning portion of it, but I was unclear about that. So I could get an answer from staff.

I can start with Mr. Barrett. Thank you for the presiding officer. The issue of the cross wall.

The reason why it was recommended that it actually be considered as part of the zoning is because how that matters addressed could have implications on both the design. The setbacks and the, and the heritage features, all of which were items that were significant issues in the, that staff had identified in the report. So for that reason, it couldn’t be something that had to, that could be set off to the site plan process. It’s something that we would need to consider as part of the actual zoning because it would have an impact on all of those matters.

And, again, with respect, that’s my, those are my questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

I have Councillor Lewis next. Thank you. Acting Mayor Morgan and colleagues. I do want to propose actually a slight amendment and I put this referral on the floor at planning committee.

But I would like to, and I’ll look for a seconder on this, because I’m not, I think I have one, but we’ll see who puts their hand up. In part a, where it talks to report back to a future planning and environment committee meeting. I’d like to actually amend that to report back at the June 20 planning and environment committee meeting. And I can advise colleagues that I have spoken both to our staff with Mr.

Barrett and to the applicant in regard to that timeline and both are amenable to seeing that timeline in the referral back. If I can get a seconder first, I might share a little more information on that once I have a seconder. I see Councillor Palosa willing to second that change. So that will be an amendment.

It’s a movement seconded amendment to add that timeframe to the referral back. So let’s keep the discussion tied to the amendment. I have Councillor Turner. Oh, sorry.

I’ll let, sorry, the council move the amendment now that he has a seconder. Talk about the amendment first. Thank you, Acting Mayor and colleagues through the chair on this referral and the amendment itself. I want to point out that at the planning committee meeting, I actually voted against on item 11, which was a heritage designation.

I didn’t ask for that to be pulled tonight. Because this referral is here and because I’ve had a chance to review comments from our staff, review the designation process, have some more discussion around the concerns I had around the designation. Those have been resolved for me. And I think that the heritage designation moving forward at this point is appropriate.

So I didn’t ask for it to be pulled because I want both our staff and the applicant to in reasonable time turn around and come back to us with a revised plan. It’s not a direction to approve the form or anything else. And because as we just heard from Mr. Barrett with Councillor Van Holst question, the crash wall feature may change some of the design features and layout on the site.

The heritage considerations may change some of the design features on the site. So I think by giving the both parties, our staff will have to review the work, but the applicant sort of a deadline to come back to us with a revised plan so that we can deal with this in a timely manner. And I think that that’s going to pass the point where the applicant could appeal this for a non decision. The fact that they’re willing to do this and come back quickly I think is something that folks will hopefully support.

And then we will see what comes back and judge that on its merits when it comes before committee. Thank you. Now I can go to council turn. Thanks, Mr.

starting officer. I appreciate the amendment that’s being proposed by Councilor Lewis. I actually had an amendment that I was going to put forward. And that might actually impair the ability to be able to bring that forward.

In that period of time. I would also say the, to the last comment there about the fact that the, the applicant has the ability to appeal for lack of decision and the applicant hasn’t, and most likely because there are significant deficiencies in the application that would likely not to grant the approval from from the Ontario lands tribunal so it’s still very much in our, in our court to, to be working with the applicant to try and find some resolution. At the appropriate time, my, my amendment, and I, I always speak to it because it kind of may interfere with the council Lewis’s proposed amendment is that my amendment was that staff work with the applicant to resolve some of the other outstanding issues regarding intensity form and required background studies. And on slide six of the staff presentation, they detail a fairly significant host of, of concerns that they have.

And I think it’s incumbent on us to make sure that, that some of those issues are resolved prior to being moving forward and having a file come forward to us on that date. So, Councilor, would you like to ask a question about whether that scope of that amendment impacts their, their timeframe is that I know you’re injecting now about the amendment you’re not making it but I understand why it’s germane to the, to attaching the date to it so. I mean, I think it may be fair to ask staff if that, that might frustrate the ability to return in that period of time. I think the scope of the referral that Councilor Lewis made back at the committee, I was fairly narrow, and could be accomplished within that timeframe.

I think it might be a little more difficult with some of these other issues to be addressed as well. If Mr. Barrett had a comment on that or not. Thank you, the presiding officer.

It’s difficult to answer that. If I understand what the counselor is suggesting it would be to provide some additional framing with respect to the issues or confirmation of the issues that the council would like to see before this application came back before pack. But hypothetically, that could perhaps actually ensure that we meet this timeline because it would be clear to the applicant. Those matters that were of a concern to Council, and that they would essentially have the same marching orders as your staff with respect to those items that had to come forward with some resolution in order for the future consideration.

That’s one way could be looked at it could perhaps make it a little bit difficult to meet this timeline. Because in, I would suggest with the increased specificity, it might lead us to spend a lot of time on those matters and not consider the other matters have also been set for. So I really can’t answer how that would work out. It could work out, like I said, quite positively because it sends a very clear message is the matters that Council deems to be important.

But having said that it could add to the timeline, because Council has said these issues are important we need to have a bit more time to work on it. I could advise that a bonus is a request for bonus and is underlying this application so even without specifying the date we would have to be back before you in July in order to ensure that we get a Council decision prior to the ability of Council to enter into bonus agreements. So we have a short timeline, regardless, in order to get this back to you. The specific timeline is suggested by the ward counselor, he did consult with us and I did advise him that we could certainly work within that.

But I also advise him that there was that larger time constraint that we were all working under anyway and we would have to be back to you before, before the middle to end of July in order to ensure there was a Council decision. So either way, we will be back to you quickly. Whether or not, whether it’s the June date or no later than July. Mr.

Turner, good. Yeah, that was helpful. Thank you. Okay.

On the amendment, any further comments, questions, then we’ll vote on the amendment. Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay. Now back to the main motion as amended, because it’s as amended.

Now, I just want to check with Councilor Hopkins. Are you willing to move it still? Yes, I need a seconder because it’s an amended motion. Okay, debate, Councilor.

Okay. Well, you guys, Councilor Lewis, to a council closes, sorry. Now debate on the motion as amended. Councilor Turner.

Thank you, Mr. presiding officer. So when we had the debate, I appreciated the opportunity that Councilors put forward to have this referred back to staff to address a couple of these key issues. I mean, staff in their, their recommendation for refusal.

We’re fairly numerous in the points and of concern with the, with the, the inconsistency with with policy and their official plan. And the, the rail conflict was a pretty significant one because there’s a life safety aspect that that comes into effect with that has mentioned addressing that rail conflict also impacts form and block coverage. So perhaps that starts to address some of these other concerns the heritage question. We’ll talk.

In fact, actually, I don’t think we will we we separated that and we didn’t separate that out. But the designation discussion was helpful because I think what the applicant came forward with. I had a lot of reasonable recommendations for recognition of the heritage features on that site. So what’s left, though, is a question of built form.

It says that built form does not provide a significant setback along George Street and does not retain the low rise residential character long and street or George Street. I think there’s probably room for middle ground on this, but there are explicit policies that explicit like it’s not even just a general policy very explicit policy about how, how any building on this site would to reflect and interact with with Georgia and St. George man. So I think there needs to be some recognition of that.

This isn’t the question about whether something gets developed here or not. This is part of the high density, high density residential overlay. And so it’s clear that there will be high density here. It’s just a question of trying to meet that.

So that consistency, intensity over intensification of the site was reduced front exterior and rear yard setbacks of zero meters. Like, that’s, that’s quite a departure from from what’s permitted on the site. So it’s a safe, open space of zero percent, and an increased lot coverage of 97% reading from staff report here, providing no release for building setbacks, setbacks or opportunities for buffering. So these are things that can be addressed.

And I think the opportunity and the referral to have these things addressed is really important. So I would like to make the referral to include on on a that staff also work with the applicant to resolve. Outstanding issues regarding intensity form and the required background studies. And that was the other thing that I didn’t mention is that groundwater requires a hydrological study, hydrogiological study for the impacts and that’s mentioned in staff report as well.

Those are important things before we green light development. And, and usually part of a complete application if we don’t have those in hand. It’s, it’s really premature for us to say, yeah, I go for it. So I think with those things in hand, we, we get ourselves to a much better position to move forward with the permitting and approving the application as it comes.

Okay, so you’re moving an amendment to add that into. I think the courts can find the appropriate spot, but I think you said it into part a. Okay, we’ve, they’ve got some language. Do you want to read out the language then so I can ask for a seconder.

I just want to make sure people know exactly what it says. So the premise was, was like power who can confirm that it’s an easy scribe and read that out. Thank you through the chair, the amendment or the, excuse me, the proposed amendment reads as follows that clause 3.3 part a be amended to include the following quote, and that staff work with the applicant to resolve outstanding issues regarding intensity form and the required background studies. Okay, good with that language, Councilor Turner.

Okay, I’ll look for a seconder now then. Councilor Hopkins. Okay, amendment moved and seconded. I will start a speakers list on this particular amendment.

Any speakers. Councilor Lewis. Thank you acting mayor and through you. I just am hoping that you’ll allow me to to ask through you Councilor Turner just for clarification in the language where it says, and that staff work with the applicant to resolve.

I believe his intent is, is that the aim is to resolve, knowing that there may still be some, some things in the application that will come back that staff may say is a reason for refusal and the applicant doesn’t want to necessarily address. So we may not resolve them, but the aim is to resolve them. And I just want to make sure we’re to get a little clarification on the intent. I’ll allow the question through to Councilor Turner for clarification on his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Poseidon officer and thank you to the Council for his question. I would agree that’s fairly reasonable. I, I would expect that there’s some discussion.

I would expect that there’s some movement. And I would expect that Council at the end of the day has the opportunity to review and decide whether that movement has been sufficient. Okay, any other questions on the amendment. Okay, we’ll open the amendment for voting.

Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay. So now that we’ve amended again, I need a new as amended. Mover and seconder, I’ll have Councilor five Miller and Councilor Lewis willing to move and second the as amended, newly as amended amendment, main motion now.

Okay, so everybody knows what’s on the main motion. Are there speakers to this as amended now twice motion. Right. Okay, we’ll open it for voting then.

And the vote motion carries 14 to 0 minutes past where I intended to have Council take a break. So I think if we could do everything done in your report. That is my report. Thanks.

Sorry, I just got excited about a break. So if I’ll look for a mover and a second around taking a 25 minute recess. Okay, 25 minutes. 25 after seven, we’ll be back moved by Councilor Lewis seconded by Councilor Hopkins.

I want to do by hand so we don’t waste the time. All those by all those in favor. Thank you. Okay, let’s do a quorum check.

We’re good for quorum. So we are now on to 8.4, which is the sixth report of community and protective services committee. I’m going to turn it over to Councilor Cassidy to present the report. I’m going to have a little bit of trouble with my buttons there.

So I will put the report on the floor. I’ve been asked to pull items six, which is 5.2 from the committee report. Seven, which is 5.3. So all items one to nine, except for six and seven.

Yes, and I believe Councilor Hillier wanted to declare an interest on the deferred matters list a component within that. So if we could do eight separate to. Thank you for reminding me. So are there any other items to be dealt with separately colleagues?

Yeah, I’ll turn it back over to you, Councilor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. presenting officer. I just did want to point out item.

Three, which is 2.2 from the committee report, and it is the winter response program. We got an update from Mr Dickens on that as with last year, there was a great deal of success in providing supports. And, and, and also getting individuals into transitional and permanent housing from the winter response program, particularly at the Fanshawe Park location. There were a number of very positive interactions with individuals that resided at that, at that location and many of them were grateful to be that location at Fanshawe Park road golf course.

And then for the, the location that was behind the Fanshawe Park would hospital that was run by at Losa. There were a number of opportunities that with woman on site. There are opportunities for some very specific cultural culturally sensitive events and things that took place for a large TV had been erected at that site. And there were a number of supports and, and culturally sensitive supports that were provided to individuals at that site so overall, overall, it was a very positive outcome.

Another thing that was brought up to the committee was that somewhat unexpectedly, I think the provincial government did provide a fifth round of the SSRS funding for the city of London. We were quite grateful staff were grateful to receive that funding from the provincial government to allow some continued supports in the face of ongoing pandemic issues and COVID-19 issues so this SSRS funding was quite welcome. And with that, I will leave it up to the council. Okay, any other comments on the items before us, Councillor Lewis.

Just really briefly through you acting mayor. I want to echo and amplify Councillor Cassidy’s comments on the winter response program, having visited and had an opportunity to talk to people who were staying at the Fanshawe golf course location. And I know that the experiences they shared with me made an incredible impact, not only for their lives but hearing that and being able to reflect on that as I read through the report and the success stories that came out of that effort really has impacted me and made me realize the phenomenal job our staff was done and why I’m just so grateful and glad the council saw fit to support this I know there were questions about it at first. There were criticisms level from people in the public around council.

There were members who had questions about the advisability of that location. And yet, in the end, our staff had a really good plan which turned out to have a really tremendously positive impact on people experiencing homelessness and the results speak for themselves in terms of the number of people who were made housing ready who had income taxes filed who who returned to work who returned to education because they were able to be supported in an environment like that so to Mr Dickens and Mr Cooper and and Ms. Kramer’s and all the staff that were involved in that. A really heartfelt thank you for the positive impact that they’ve made in our community.

Any other speakers seeing none then we can vote on that group of items that Councillor Cassidy has moved closing the vote motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you Mr presiding officer. The next item is the clause 4.2 of the second report of the animal welfare advisory committee committee voted to receive that report. Councillor van Mereberg and I do believe has requested amendment which was emailed to City Council at about four something this afternoon if people have not had a chance to to see that amendment.

The clerk actually emailed it to your counselor so I’ll put that on the floor. The recommendation as I said was to receive. Okay, so the recommendation to receive is on the floor. I’ll look for speakers on this.

Councillor van Mereberg and thank you acting mayor. I’ve together a motion to form a part B. Is it best to have the clerk read it or does it matter. The part B so it’ll start with that clause 5.2 of the sixth report of the caps be amended to add the following new part B, which is the civic administration be directed to bring forward to the next meeting of the strategic priorities and policies.

The strategic priorities and policy committee, a report that would outline options for amendments to by law pH dash three. That could provide for the keeping of class seven animals in the city of London under specific terms and conditions. It being noted that such amendments could include, but not be limited to the following an accreditation and or regulation mechanism for specific types of facilities amendments to the class seven animal definition. To differentiate between animals born in the wild from those born in captivity and or exceptions in the class educational facilities, a specific delegated authority to civic administration for pH dash three exceptions to prohibited animals under certain conditions.

So, essentially, this is basically to provide a mechanism in the animal control by law to do you mind if I look for a seconder. Oh, sorry. Yes, I can. I believe counselor will be seconding.

Councilor. Yes. Okay, you have a seconder so you can continue with your comments. Thank you.

So essentially, these were asking staff for a report to come back as to how and what the possibilities might be to provide a mechanism in the animal control by law to accommodate worthwhile. Ventures that come into London seeking to utilize the exhibition as well as education involving animals and specifically the class seven, which for lack of a better term may be classified as exotic animals. Now, for example, we look at the reptilia, who has been operating for 27 years in Vaughn, and they’ve been doing it with building up a wonderful reputation, their first class. On numerous awards, they have veterinarians that are on staff.

They work very tightly very well with the various school boards in the area. We only have to look at that experience that they’ve generated over 27 years to see that this is a worthwhile upstanding treating animals with dignity and respect and giving them proper homes. None of them are from the wild. Many of them are animals which are rescue animals, animals which have been abandoned by private owners, private home owners who keep them in their homes and turn them loose.

So they provide a real service on a number of fronts. As mentioned, the educational aspect. They’re very strong in that. And not to mention the draw that it pertains the draw that it generates.

And as we’ve seen in Vaughn, people from all over come to this type of facility. And the same can be true for London. And so again, what we’re looking for here is a way, a mechanism that allows for these class seven animals to be cared for properly and to help benefit the community at large. And as I mentioned at the committee, what would we do if Ripley’s, and I’m sure many of us have been there or heard of it, the Ripley’s Aquarium next to the CN Tower.

What would we do if a Ripley said to London? We want to come to London, but we can’t accommodate them because we don’t have a mechanism in our animal control by law to facilitate that. So this is something that needs to be done so that we have a working way to accommodate opportunity and bonafide opportunity when it comes to London and for Londoners. So I would ask for your, for your support on this.

I really do believe that we can demonstrate by taking this step, getting the ideas back from staff. The city of Vaughn has done this with their animal control by law, and a copy of which at least the extract is part of our agenda today. And so there are different ways this can be approached, but I think it should be approached. We want to show that good ideas can come to London and they don’t simply die.

We can actually embrace them and work with them and bring them to fruition to the benefit of all. So I’d ask for your support on this, and thank you. Okay, there is an amendment on the floor. I’ll look for speakers.

Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Acting Mayor, and through you, I think I need to ask my colleague from word 10. If he would perhaps consider an addition to you or friendly amendment to his motion that would include a public participation component to this and I’ll look to the clerk and I know that the chair is consulting with the clerk now to see what the process would be on this but the reason I rise and raise this is because, you know, we’re looking for a referral back to staff to then come forward with some potential bylaw changes that we could select from. I’m not going to pre determine whether or not I might support those.

I, you know, but what I don’t want to do is make these changes without hearing from Londoners. And that’s a really important piece of this to me because this debate right now really is around one particular applicant. And one application is coming forward. We’ve heard from some delegations that came to community and protective services, but there is a little bit of a difference between people asking for delegation status to speak to an agenda item and actually putting out a public participation meeting.

I think it’s really important that Londoners have a chance to weigh in on this. I’ve heard from a few constituents people on both sides of the issue. I’m not decided myself as to whether or not this even needs to have any changes to accommodate this or future applications, but I don’t want to make that decision without hearing from the public. Councilor, I know you asked for the possibility of a friendly amendment.

A council that’s not possible. There can be an amendment to the amendment, which is in order, although I will say the person who moved the amendment can’t make that amendment so someone else would have to. Thank you for that clarification, acting mayor. I would like to make an amendment to the amendment then that would incorporate a clause requiring a public participation meeting be held.

Okay, and I see Councillor Layman willing to second that. So now we’re on an amendment to the amendment. So the duly moved amendment has been amended to include a public participation meeting upon the report back with the options. I think the clerks will put together that language, but we’ll keep the debate tight to the amendment to the amendment, which is on whether or not you believe a PPM should be included in this amendment.

So who would like to speak on the PPM part of the amendment now. I don’t see any, then we can vote on adding PPM to this amendment. Okay, so open that for voting. Mr Chair, I don’t quite have that, that ready yet.

Okay, sorry, I was just a little too too fast. We’ll give it a second and get that word wording up for you. Councillor Turner would like to debate it so the time has been valuable so go ahead and Councilor Turner. Well, I’m just looking to help fill time if I might.

I would think that any changes to a bylaw would require a public participation meeting is that not incumbent in the review of a bylaw. I think it would be really difficult for us to do unilaterally. My understanding of how we affect bylaws is, is that not correct. That’ll have to go to our staff for the answer.

And so I’ll go to the clerk. Through Mr acting mayor, it’s not always required. However, in this circumstance, it would be recommended under the public notice policy. As you point out, bylaw of this nature may require it.

Yeah, thank you. That’s helpful. I appreciate the, the motion from Councillor Lewis. I think if there’s any debate about this, then it absolutely needs to go to the public.

I think Council has visited this a number of times and arrived to the bylaw that exists currently for for good and fair reasons. So I think it’s important. But I think that to the bylaws, it stands as pretty solid and has evolved to the point that it is any. Councillor van Holst, I’ll go to you.

This is on Councillor Lewis’s amendment to add a PPM. Yes, thank you. I’m supportive of this too. I think that the, as we saw our advisory committee was able to come forth with some very valid concerns about how our existing bylaw would fit in with this application.

I’m sure the public may be able to bring some valuable into it into some of the, some of the exceptions that we’ll be looking for here. So we’ll be sure to get to get something that’s amenable to the public. So thank you all support. The clerk has some additional information given that we’re now adding a public participation meeting that may that is helpful for Council, given the direction of where this was intended to go.

I’ll let the clerk explain. Thank you, Mr. Acting Mayor, as I understand it, this was to go to SPPC to accommodate a quick turnaround. As you’re no doubt aware that the mandate of community and protective services encompasses animal services.

And for a PPM, the next caps will be on May 31st. I don’t know if Mr. Catolic wanted to add anything to that or not do they through the chair. Sorry, my, my cameras doesn’t want to turn on.

No, we don’t have anything to add. We’re going to handle this is we’re going to vote on adding the public participation meeting, which they will then return us to the regular amendment and should Council decide that SPPC is no longer the appropriate committee. We’ll deal with that through an amendment after this amendment is dealt with. Okay, so further comments on the amendment is it is now up and in the scribe thing none, we will open Councilor Lewis’s amendment for voting for options.

Do you close on the vote motion carries 12 to 2. Okay, we’re back to the main amendment, which now has a public participation clause attached to it. We’ve received the clerk’s advice about the committee, although I would require a member of Council to change that Councilor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr presiding officer.

I’ll speak to the current amendment that’s on the floor. Question first to staff, knowing that currently we don’t have municipal law enforcement officers that are trained to enforce the kind of bylaw that the counselor is recommending or hoping for. I’m wondering if staff can comment on the ability of anybody, whether it’s municipal law enforcement officer or a vet or whoever to determine where a creature was bred and or born. Can they tell by looking at a lizard.

If it was born in captivity, or if it was born in the wilds and captured and put into a zoo for mothers through the deputy mayor. From what I understand that that that’s not possible. Usually this is based on the provenance of the actual animal with any kind of background information you would have on them. So if it was something, some kind of records that were maintained from when they were originally picked up.

You’re looking for in these types of cases. But from my understand, just by looking at an animal would be difficult to to identify whether they were from the wild or where they were from captivity. Thank you. Mr sliding officer.

Thank you to Mr. Mathers through you. So I will not support this. This came to committee.

We did go in camera at one point to get some advice I think on this matter. When we came back in public, there was no appetite from anyone on committee, at least nobody on committee put a motion forward to make any exemption to the bylaw. So my assumption as chair was that committee was satisfied with the bylaw as it exists. There’s, there’s been a long gradual evolution in the city of London towards more humane practices towards animals, going from our catch, spay, neuter and release programs for stray and feral cats, who in the past would have been euthanized.

A no kill policy for animals in shelter like cats and dogs. And also this bylaw itself, there have been little zoos in London in the past that caused some concerns for Londoners and Londoners spoke. This is going back many, many years, certainly before my time on council. I spoke in a pretty united voice that they wanted to see a humane practices towards animals in London, and be to not allow these kinds of holding and capturing and displaying animals for entertainment.

And I think we would be taking a very large step backwards. If we were to allow for exemptions in our bylaw the bylaw that was created as counselor Turner said, with a great amount of public input, and a great amount of public concern for the welfare of animals within the limits of the city of London. I’m not interested in going backwards. I don’t think that this is the huge tourist draw that some people have said it would be.

I don’t think that the cons out outweigh those pros even if that is a pro, the cons do not outweigh the pros in this in this situation. I urge this council, not to take us backwards. We’ve been progressing in little steps, every, every few years on council, including in our last term of council when we made changes to the bylaw to no longer allow the sale of purpose bread puppies and kittens within the city of London within the city of London at pet shops and such, you can only buy rescued animals. So we continue to make progress in this area of animal welfare, and was being proposed proposed tonight in this amendment is a huge step backward please I urge council do not support this amendment.

Thank you. Other speakers. Councilor Homer. I’m not going to support the proposed amendment for two reasons.

One is, I don’t think there’s a need to allow the keeping of these animals we’re talking about in the city of London beyond what’s already allowed in the bylaw, which is quite restricted. Just to be really clear, the animals we’re talking about are bears, wolves, coyotes, crocodiles, alligators, bobcats, links, mountain lions, cougars, tigers, lions, monkeys, foxes, skunks, kangaroos, eagles, hawks, elephants, weasels raccoons, venomous lizards, venomous snakes, venomous spiders, a whole bunch of birds that are already outlawed by the Megatory Birds Convention Act, and a bunch of animals who are already prohibited by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. We don’t need to allow the keeping of those animals on a broader scale in the city of London. I think it’s a bad idea so I don’t think we should have a participation meeting.

A second reason for not supporting it is the way that it is being introduced. It’s very clear at the Community Practice Services Committee meeting that this one particular business wants an exemption from the rules as they are now for everybody, so that they can do what they want. And, although I guess I can understand why the Council represents that area wants to change the rules to allow this proponent to do something, I think it’s a really inappropriate way of doing it. There’s opportunity at the Committee to bring this up we’ve been talking about this issue for a while.

I mean I guess, you know, certainly allowed to bring it up at the Council meeting but I think it’s a really unwise way of going about making a potential change like this. I think the support of the idea of a public participation meeting is certainly if we’re going to look at making a change to this bylaw, we would have to have a public participation meeting here from a wide range of people on the issue. But I think it’s really providing no notice to people about what’s happening on something that a lot of people care pretty deeply about, and have a lot of concerns about so I think it’s really making it harder to change something, even if you did think change was needed. Okay, so I’m not going to support it for some standard reason which is, there’s no need to allow broader keeping of those kinds of animals specifically in the city of London.

And second for the procedural reason of like I just, you know, sending a test PVC and trying to do it in a rush to help out this one business that wants to operate in this way, when the rules don’t allow right now. Yeah either. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Presiding Chair and I won’t be supporting this. Definitely not. I have a great concern on the process that we’re taking right now. I’ve just read the email.

And now we’re looking at a report back to change our bylaws. And yes, it is required. We have a public participation meeting but somehow we’re giving this assumption that we’re doing something. Out of the normal making, including the public when the public has to be included when we change our bylaws to allow for zoos such as reptilia in our city.

We’re going against what previous councils have supported changes that would be made. And I am really, really concerned us as a council do not understand, or maybe we do understand where this can go. And I am not at all going to be supportive of allowing exotic animals that our bylaws do not support. So we’re setting up the question to make an exception exemption to our bylaws by supporting this.

And I am absolutely not going to be anywhere near in favor of doing anything just does not make sense. Secondly, we’re a council, we do know, we’re, we’re, we’re doing again planning on that’s not planning on the fly. We’re again changing our policies here at council, not going through the committee press process and yes, it’s going to go back to as BBC. And we’ll just make it all work.

There’s absolutely no way I will be supporting this. I appreciate the counselor’s concern for trying to get business into West Mount Mall. I understand all this, but when we compare a company like reptilia to replays to me, I just can’t make any sense of what we’re doing here, and will not in any way support the conversation of opening up our policies to allow zoos in our city. Councilor, there we go.

I’m going to support having reptilia in London. I was under the impression when I was first spoken to by an animal group that these animals were were taken out of their habitat, and then brought Julie to to this part of the world. Now that I know that these are all rescues, I have a difference opinion. These are rescues that are found by people that just let them go.

And you can see that right on the reptilia website. We’ve made exceptions in the past for rescue animals in fact, not that long ago, we were, we had made exceptions about cat rescues and how many cats can be in a house. There’s a new thing that behooves council to understand that these are rescues. And yes, they’re going to be used to educate people, people, people can come see them.

There are going to be vets on site. It’s not like we’re letting these animals loose in a room with no veterinarians. I would assume that the veterinarian would know, would we know how to treat these animals so based on the fact that there are vets and that these are rescues. Okay, with, with this coming to London.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr chair. So, I’m happy to support this amendment, especially now since we’ll have a public participation meeting.

The citizens, I guess years ago decided on a certain direction things may have changed now. And maybe we need more of these kinds of things in a city, you know, especially for, for those who are not allowed to travel. They, they would want to see more options like this. I posted a tour, a video tour of the reptilia on my Facebook page and, and just said, what do you think about this coming to London.

And every response I got was positive. People thought it was a great idea. And I think there’s certainly ways and staff will present them for us to be able to look after this or deal with it. In terms of enforcement, we can simply ask that they, they follow certain codes or give us that, give us their own manual on how they have successfully dealt with the animals in other places, and then have them commit to following that with the kind of inspections that go on from, from third parties as well.

So I think we can find ways to satisfy ourselves that everything is, is going well without without necessarily having staff on hand that have experience with with all these, all these types of rescue animals. So this seems like a good way forward. And when we, when we get to the public participation meeting, we’ll get the comments of the, the writers in sub London, as well as as some of the ideas, but it does seem to have been a success in other areas. And I really like the educational component here.

And I would say people, people gain an appreciation for animals by, by seeing them. And in some cases, I guess they people are able to interact I think that’s pretty, pretty minor. And I recall being a sting race city and, in the, in the Caribbean, and being there where, where these, you know, where these creatures are interacting quite comfortably with humans and it was kind of inspiring so being close to them. And seeing them in their, well, pretend habitat is, I think is valuable for many people.

And certainly it places all of these animals at the top of the food chain, which, which is, which is fine. And certainly out in the wilds is a great place for animals, but this is certainly a way to preserve them and, you know, preserve, preserve diversity of species as well. So those are my comments all supported as is and we’ll wait to see what happens when the suggestions return. Councilor Lewis next, thank you acting mayor.

First of all, I want to say to colleagues, thank you for supporting the public participation piece, because as we heard from the clerk, it would be recommended, not necessarily required and it depends on the scope of the changes to a bylaws to whether or not it becomes minor or major is my understanding of the difference as to whether it’s required or or simply an option that can be recommended or not. I think the public absolutely to counselor’s helmets point, if we’re going to entertain anything the public would have to be included. Now, I’m going to say right out of the gate when reptilia first came to us over a year ago now I think when this issue was before us I didn’t support the request for an exemption that. We heard a different response from staff that a provincial license was in place and that meant we weren’t going to have a say and then we heard back again that in fact the provincial license doesn’t cover part of what they want to do.

So we do have to have a say and then our animal control bylaw comes into effect. Personally, I’m not a particularly big fan of Zeus. I think that there’s a moral ethical question in there, but I’m not being asked to decide on whether or not we’re going to license reptilia tonight. If this was a request for an exemption flat out from the word counselor for one particular business I would say no, but I think we have to step back for a minute and ask ourselves what is actually before us and I had some conversations today in fact with a member of the animal welfare advisory which is not before us as a request for an exception, what is before us as a request to have staff come back with some options that we could consider and reject or approve depending on what they are.

I will tell you right now the fourth bullet point the specific delegated authority. I’m not necessarily comfortable with I think these questions need to perhaps come before elected officials but that’s in the proposal that’s before us something to consider but not something that is necessarily going to come back from staff. And I understand I have I understand because we’ve we heard it earlier in this term when another member of council sat in the ward six seat about last minute motions coming before council and how it is better to have these in advance and I continue to think that it’s it is better to have them in advance. But when a counselor is not on a committee to move a motion themselves to a committee recommendation their recourse is to bring something to council.

So I think we have to set aside the issue and the actual practice, you know we heard earlier tonight. And we heard it at planning and environment committee around the office space use that maybe our policy in the London plan around office space needs to be reviewed. There’s nothing that prohibits any of us from having any of our policies reviewed at any time. That’s what the counselors asking for tonight I think I’m willing to support is ask for review.

I may not support any or I may support parts of none of or everything that comes back but I don’t know what staff are going to bring back. I know that having looked at what we’ve got right now. I’m pretty comfortable with where our animal control bylaw is. And I think it did get there.

And other counselors have mentioned that it’s evolved over many years. And it has included some input. But I also heard that you know views change and individuals in the city change over the years to and that has to be considered. None of our policies are ever carved in stone.

And it is our job to occasionally ask for a specific policy to be reviewed. I’m making no commitment to support any changes to the animal control bylaw by letting this go back to staff and have them bring back some options for us. I’m not, however, thrilled that it’s being seen as a rush to SPPC rather than through the normal process at community and protective services. I don’t think that this needed to be referred to SPPC.

It could have gone to community and protective services. But that’s the motion before us. And I do understand as our meeting schedule start to dry out over the summer that people want to get an issue dealt with. If the clerks have indicated that it can go to SPPC, I’m not going to second guess the clerks on their knowledge of process and procedure around that.

So I will support getting more information, getting options. But I want to be clear, I’m not committing to adopting any of them. And I think that where we are right now is not an unreasonable place to be. But I’m going to approach with an open mind, whatever options come forward and see where that may take us with the input of Londoners.

I have Councilor Turner next. Thanks, Mr. Poseidon officer. So, as I’ve made a lot of hay about when we don’t follow process, I also likewise have to respect and complement when counselors do so I think this is appropriate in terms of process.

I think that we have a bylaw that that doesn’t allow for, for the activities that are being sought by a specific applicant. And so the counselor is trying to help shepherd that application process through on that note. However, I think it’s, I don’t agree with the, the amendments being sought. I think the, the bylaws as they stand right now are sound.

Thank you to a counselor Ben Mirberg and for for bringing it forward and what I think is the appropriate way. So, with all of that, I, I encourage my colleagues not to support this. I am thankful to counselor Lewis for bringing the amendment to if it does pass that it will require a public participation meeting I think something of this nature requires that discussion. I think for all the reasons that Councilor Hellmer identified.

This is problematic. And so I’d encourage you not to support to the requested amendment or referral to staff at this time. Thank you, Mr chair. And I served on caps from this issue originally came through this committee and we heard animal welfare advisor committee.

And all their concerns they had in regards to reptilia when the committee and Council decided not to permit it of how you market animals make them more attractive help compound the problem with people that I’m wanting them. And then when the new lacklusterness them, whereas off they surrender them, then they end up in reptilia’s breeding programs. And then it just helps to perpetuate the problem will make you sure that they have a collection that’s ongoing and, you know, inadvertently, publicly funded because people surrender the animals that they then got, I’m not supportive of this. I wasn’t supportive of the public participation meeting as we went through this already prior when it was a decided matter of Council.

We still have those same concerns, since it originally came forward. We’ve received correspondence from former employees of reptilia outside of town raising concerns about animal treatments, finances, those, I, you know, I read those correspondence I am concerned about it. I received correspondence from other residents not wanting this business in London. I certainly appreciate the accounts are looking for economic opportunities.

Look into tourism opportunities. For me, this is why I’m not interested in when you go to many places. A brief moment, gazing in that cage is just part of your day, your own and experience, but for that creature living in that enclosed space, that is their entire life, their entire existence is sit there if you don’t base upon for five seconds, and you move on, very limited educational opportunities in those situations. So for me, I’m a no on this.

I’ll continue to be always accepting feedback, but I’m, I’m not, I’m not interested in investing staff time looking at this and how to, to create new bylaws and new new things coming forward for this. So just for me, I have changed. I’ve not wavered in my opinion of this application in this business. And I remain committed to that.

Thank you. Okay, other speakers. Okay, seeing none. What we have before us is an amended amendment to the report at CPSC.

So if everybody’s ready, I can open this for voting. Oh, sorry, SPPC. It goes to SPPC still. Okay.

All right. Okay. We’ll open that for voting closing the vote. The motion is lost five to nine.

So that puts us back to the unamended clause and concert Cassidy will move the committee recommendation, which was to receive the report. Since that’s the regular one, I don’t need a seconder, any discussion on the regular report for people who have not spoken yet on the regular. Okay, we’ll open that for voting then closing the vote motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, Mr presiding officer.

I will put item seven, which is 5.3 the graphic flyer deliveries item on the floor. And it was counselor Hillier that asked me to pull that one. Thank you very much. Well, here we are.

It’s been a little bit now. When I started writing this. This was what couple weeks ago I wrote the original motion. I was reflecting all the conversations with my colleagues, my constituents.

And I’m going to call him out right now, Mr Barry card, her back and forth. It helped an awful lot. I appreciate this. And I appreciate his team for supporting the final result that’s in front of us tonight.

For me, the issue has always come down to how do we protect the children of London from seeing things that can traumatize them. But we also have to protect people’s rights and freedoms expression. And I appreciate our freedoms. Trust me, I do.

But we have limits on those freedoms to protect others. You know, you know what to visually expect because we have rules in place to govern those public spaces. And one of the reasons for this is that those are those people are sorry tech those that are young. And the images are put in front of them with a consent.

It’s a good thing we have rules protect them when they’re in these public spaces. Well, I felt then, and I feel now that my neighbors front step in mind is not a place that you can put anything you want. Others may disagree. I’m looking with many parents and I’m sure my colleagues have as well about the traumas and left behind in all this.

If you had left hateful imagery or pornography on someone’s front step for someone to see, you would get charged, but you would also traumatize a child. Now, no amount of fine is going to undo the trauma and the scarring caused by this. It upsets me you have no idea. Now I’m looking at the end result in this and I want to end up with no more traumatized children.

Well, I’ve had conversations with many of you. Well, not many of you few of you, and I had conversation with Councilman Beerberg and well I was developing this, and he liked the direction we were going, and we chatted about the wrapping, and we chatted about. Sorry, he suggested a warning on it for graphic content and I agreed it would be effective. We didn’t stop to we start and realize, okay, how do we get everyone’s rights respected and I mean everyone’s rights.

So that the children will not be traumatizing in well here we are, it’s the last meeting, and I’m hoping all my colleagues will approve of this as we take one big step to help protecting one’s children. Thank you. Okay, Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you, Mr.

presiding officer. I’ll jump in here now and give some comments, but I do, I do know that Councillor van Holst had also asked me to pull this, but I just wanted to say that at committee, whenever this item has come forth I’ve, I read a trigger warning. Anybody tuning in that this subject matter may create feelings of discomfort and maybe triggering to some individual so it’s important to practice self care when engaging with this material. So I just wanted to put that out there and I apologize that I didn’t do that right off the bat, but I appreciate Councillor Hillier’s work on this.

I do think that this achieves an appropriate balance. I think freedom of expression is preserved in this matter. It is requiring a little bit of an extra step, but I think that that is appropriate, because there are people. I certainly when my children were younger would not have wanted them collecting the mail and seeing something like this, and abortion as a as a Catholic parent, whose children went through the Catholic school system abortion is something that is discussed.

Pretty freely, and, and the debate around whether a book or write to life or a freedom to choose is the appropriate thing for society that is freely discussed in Catholic schools, but it is discussed at an age appropriate level, and certainly not to primary grade or even intermediate grade students, and never with graphic pictures, never as a Catholic parent that has never happened and as someone who went through the Catholic school system herself, that never happened so I think this achieves an appropriate balance. And I applaud staff for arriving where they did and Councillor Hillier again for the work that he did so thank you Mr presiding officer. Thank you. I have Councilor van holst next on the list and then Councilor Turner you’ll be after.

Thank you very much. And Mr chair my, my concern is, of course, that this will be challenged and fail. And one of the reasons it may be a little too broad when we talk about constitutional matters. It’s important to make sure there’s the minimum of impact.

And I would say with, with the bylaw that we have it now. This would prevent say an ultrasound clinic from showing the typical pictures of from an expected mother that that families will put on on the fridge as as an indicator that, you know, a new member of the family is coming. So it’s, it may prevent by saying just feed us a number of things that that aren’t these particular graphic images. So it, it, it may be better for us to be more specific.

There’s been a member of the community that requested that we insert the term non viable in there. And that would reduce the impact on this because other other organizations that want to give the pro life message would be welcome to do so because they don’t use the same methodology. I would, you know, I say here we’ve got really two worldviews and counselor Cassidy brought that up. And ironically both hoping to prevent harm.

So we do need to respect those, those two things and those rights but I’m not sure what to do here other than perhaps put, put that out as amendment that the term. The term non viable be put in front of the word fetus, as a means of narrowing narrowing the scope. I still believe it would be challenged. I don’t know that we need to go this route because it’s being done are being brought forward at a provincial level which is maybe more appropriate so the government overreach.

That might be, we might be accused of, if we, if we, if we lose that, that, that will be a setback for the people that are concerned about this. And, and there’s also the, the, the mean, the free speech issue and free expression so I’ll put that motion on the floor that non viable fetus replaced the term fetus. And then look to see if there’s a seconder, and then we can move forward. Okay, that would be an amendment counselor and I’ll look for a seconder for that amendment counselor turn I know your hands up but I, I’m not sure if it’s for this trying to second or not.

No, I’m still in the queue. Thanks. Okay. I don’t see a seconder counselor.

I’m sorry about that but there’s no there’s no seconder for that amendment. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to bring that forward because it was recommended by a community member so.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I’ll go to Councilor Turner now.

Thank you, Mr. presiding officer. So, again, I’ll, I’ll make the usual preface to my comments that those distributing these flyers will find no friend in me at all. Let me be clear, absolutely crystal clear about that.

My, my concerns over the numerous occasions that we’ve had this debate is that that we clearly did not have the ability to limit expression. The courts have been rather clear on that this has been tested every time this comes forward becomes a fundraising opportunity for these people to find another place and distribute more flyers over and over and over again. And last week’s been no exception, because we’ve all received countless emails from across the country, asking us not to proceed down this road. And what that means is that they are leveraging their nation wide network to use this as a tool and a platform to gain more money to go to more towns to cause more harm, and that concerns me a lot.

So all the previous iterations that have come forward to this Council I’ve not been supportive of. I think this one’s a little different, and I’ve had a chance to take a peek. This, this doesn’t limit expression. It provides that same opportunity.

It inhibits the ability to, to create harm. It doesn’t necessarily stop it, but it certainly puts a bit of a barrier in place. I have some issues with the wording, and I can, as Councilor van Holst identified, I think this can quite likely be challenged. But I think this one’s worth challenging.

I think we, we do have, we should have some agency and being able to, to say how things are distributed within the community. So other thing of really important note, and I would be far more supportive of this if this was the action and direction that the Council or just to decide to take the town of Mirabelle Quebec recently, like just in the past couple weeks, had a ruling of theirs a bylaw upheld by a court, which made the delivery of flyers a requirement for an opt-in, so whatever the flyers were, and that would allow for, for people to just say, no, I don’t want any flyers at all. And it was challenged by an advertising company because this was the way they distributed flyers for leaflets, kind of the Sunday flyers for shopping and coupons and stuff. But the court ruled that it was a reasonable limit on expression, and the town had done it for environmental reasons, primarily significant amounts of plastic and paper waste that are associated with those flyers.

And so this, that such a bylaw, if we were to take that tack would meet a whole bunch of our objectives, not only this one tonight, but a lot of our environmental and climate change objectives too. So, that would be my preference, but I can appreciate the attempts and the work to try and find something that can get support. This one does have my support, and I’m intrigued to see where this goes. I’ll be watching closely to see how the appeal pathway goes.

I still think by doing this, we give one more kick at the can to that agency to fundraise off of us. And that, that saddens me. Thank you for your time. Councillor Hopkins.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Presenting Chair. And I want to just start off to thank the committee. I think it does strike a balance where we’ve come to.

It’s been a long time coming. And I want to thank staff and the community. I think it’s been an important conversation to have in our city. With these graphic flyers, not an easy decision.

It’s been divisive. But for me, it’s always been never been an abortion issue. It’s never really been about freedom of expression. It’s always been about the concerns that we hear from the community that these graphic flyers cause harm.

And how can we protect the greater community, not just children, but Londoners from these images. And it strikes a balance. It’s going to be interesting to follow this through. I think it’ll probably be challenges, but there is that balance.

And I think we have demonstrated as a city that we do try to deal with the issues that these graphic flyers cause and how can we sort of strike that balance. So the committee has done a great job, thanks to Councillor Hillier and Councillor Ben Nirberg and for all their efforts in bringing this motion forward. And happy to support it. Thank you.

Any further speakers, that’s our hammer. A lot of the points that have made I just wanted to emphasize that for me, the regulation is only necessary to mitigate the harms from the images that were being distributed in the past. And if they weren’t being distributed, we wouldn’t have to intervene in this way to mitigate the harms and try to reduce those harms. It really has nothing to do with the content of the message, you know, the pro life message is not the problem.

The problem is the graphic nature of the images. I think we’re dealing with it in an appropriate way to try and by putting in the wrapper and warning, create a bit of distance between the people who are receiving these fires if they continue to be distributed and give them some time and space to avoid looking at them if they don’t want to. And, you know, it’s the unwanted nature of the communication in combination with the graphic imagery that is causing harm. And I think we’ve tried to deal with the actual problem, which is not as unfortunately the pro life groups would like us to think, you know, they try us controlling their message and interfering with their freedom of speech and it’s not that at all.

There’s lots of pro life messages that don’t cause these kind of harms, and people are still free as they were before to share those views with people. And it’s not about that. It’s about the harmful nature of the images and the fact that many, many people who are receiving them do not want them. They do not want them.

And what they want to do is just throw it in the recycling bag. And I think this is a good way of handling it. I hope that it stops the harms, you know, it’s not perfect. And I think we have to be aware that, you know, it may not be enough.

And if it’s not enough, we may have to revisit this issue in the future. I hope not, because I certainly share a counselor’s concern, you know, and we’ve talked with this issue at different points along the way. And there are reasons that these organizations engage in this kind of tactic is because they want to generate media attention. They want to generate responses from elected officials who are trying to prevent the harm.

And they want to fundraise off of those things. And, you know, that’s a very difficult situation to be in because you don’t want to make things worse while you’re trying to make things better. And so we’ve, we’ve done a pretty good job. I appreciate.

Councilor Hillier, coming forward with the suggestion back at our last meeting. You know, this is very similar to what had been introduced at the provincial level by a number of local MPPs here in London, the viewer discretion legislation coalition pushing that stuff forward at the provincial level. Hopefully it works. And we finally put an end to this problem.

Thank you. I’m Mr. presiding officer. Yeah, I just wanted to go back to the, to the point, which is this is all about our communities.

And, and the fact that every majority of my community came out against these flyers. And I have to listen to my community, my board, my constituents. And the fact that we’re getting letters from all over Canada from people. I didn’t, I didn’t get one letter from within my constituency going against this going, that’s right, going.

I’m just wanting to have these pro life flyers in the community, not one. So, with all this fundraising they’re doing, they’re just going to, it’s just going to get them further behind because I think municipalities are catching on. And they’re going to start banning these things all over. So, hopefully we can make an example, we can be an example to other municipalities and how to do something like this, and the other municipalities kept on.

And we can forget about these flyers from now on. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lewis.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. This has been a long road. And I know that Councilor Hopkins and Councilor Palosa have been on it with me for a couple of years now.

And of course, other colleagues have come along the way. I’m very happy to support it tonight too. And Councilor Helmer really put it well. What we are doing is providing a layer of protection.

We’re providing a shield from these images to people who might be taking them out of the mailbox who are not meant to see them. We, and that could be anybody. Councilor Hill, your referenced children in particular. And that’s often a duty in a household that is assigned to children to get the mail out of the mailbox.

But it could be anyone. And we heard when we were much earlier in this process, victim impact statements, I’m going to call them from people from adults from people who had suffered miscarriages from people who had an abortion for people who had problems conceiving how triggering these pieces of material in their mailbox could be for them. We are providing a layer of protection and it may not be perfect. But I actually reject the notion from people who have been writing to us from all across the country.

And I’ll say to the organization that’s been behind trying to get these emails flooding our inbox. An email from BC or Quebec or the United States carries zero weight with me. In fact, to be honest, it goes right in my deleted emails folder. I was sent here to represent the interests of Londoners.

And that’s what I’m doing and trying to support with a layer of protection this proposal tonight. So I want to thank all of the staff and all of the Councilors who have been involved. And it’s been quite a few of us in the various iterations of this that have come forward. I think this strikes a good balance.

The material can still be delivered, but it’s going to have to be in an envelope that provides a layer of protection. I don’t think that’s inhibiting anybody’s freedom of expression. I think it’s protecting homeowners rights to feel safe in their own personal environment. So I’ll support this.

And thanks to everybody who has gotten us to this point. I hope tonight’s our final decision point. I’m sure there may be some challenges, but I think we’ve done everybody involved has done a good job of getting us here. Okay.

That exhausts my speaker’s list. So we will open this for voting. Thank you. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to 1. Mr. Cassidy. Thank you.

Mr. Number eight on the floor. And that’s the deferred matters list. We had a conflict of interest on that one.

Any discussion on the deferred matters list. No, okay, seeing none will open that for voting. Councilor Hillier, you’re muted. Sorry.

I needed a 5.4 number to the special policy manual. Take a note. Thank you. I think the Council wants to vote on that items separately and then vote on the rest of the deferred matters.

Sure. Yeah, we can do that. So let’s deal with the matter that the counselor has a conflict on first and then everything else afterward. I will put that.

That’s the special events permit. I’ll put that on the floor. So the special events permit part of the deferred matters list is on the floor moved by Councilor Cassidy. Any discussion?

Okay, we’ll vote on that. Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 0 with 1 in which use. Council Cassidy of the deferred matters list on the floor.

Any discussion? Seeing none will open that for voting. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

That’s a Cassidy acting your worship. Perfect. You picked a good night to be at home. You would have been standing a while.

I think we’ll turn it over to Councillor Lewis for the sixth report of corporate services committee. Thank you. You’re acting worship. I will put the entire committee report on the floor.

I’ve not been made made aware of any items to be pulled. We have a number of applications for proclamation that the committee unanimously supported and then two reports on the year and operating monitoring report and the year and capital budget monitoring report. Okay, would anybody like any of those dealt with separately? Back to you, Councillor Lewis, then we can put the entire report on the floor.

Any discussion or comments on the entire report? Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

Next, we have the sixth report committee. I’ll turn it over to Councillor Plaza. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have not been given this notice of pulling anything separate from the consent. Anybody want anything dealt with separately? Seeing none, any comments from the chair, then? Yes, everything was a unanimous decision of Mitty.

The ability is being finished up. A few contract awards were before us just because they were joint ones with other neighboring municipalities to have cost savings real with the city of London. And under items for direction, there was a speed reduction petition for Digman Drive and for members of the public that petition was being received and sent to staff for consideration with the report coming back to Civic Works. I would put all those items on the floor.

All those comments. Yes, I did have some comments and it was on item number six, the unwanted water dressing overflows and bypasses from London’s wastewater collection and treatment system. Interesting. I appreciate staff’s answer at the committee and also some follow up questions.

Say, we’re very concerned about bypasses. But, of course, it’s to prevent those is going to be lots of work in the in the future and it could be a very, very expensive. And to complete that project over many, many, many years. So, I just wanted to maybe a lay some concerns a little bit.

There used to be a statement in the water treatment and I guess other other treatment realms that the solution to pollution was dilution. And we don’t believe that anymore. We think that that everything should be treated. However, it, it still has has a mitigating effect.

And we found out that the, the sewage, when it’s mixed with all the inflow. And if it were to become an overflow, it would be diluted one to one to five times less than it was. But then I asked about what about the river, where, where it ends up. And the rivers are so the rivers so high in these situations that it’s a dilution of thousands of times, and possibly tens of thousands.

So there, there should be a little less concern about that we can, we can move forward. And we’re doing many things to prevent these, but with, I think, move forward a little less panicked about it, because there is, there, there is that dilution factor. It’s, you know, it’s almost like having a toilet tank that’s 5000 times the size it is now. And then when you flush, there’s, there’s lots, lots of water.

So, so the impact of, of any impurities and the kinds of things that would cause algeal growth and for E. coli is becomes very small compared to that. So that is one other factor of protection that that is happening during those events. And I thought it was worth mentioning.

Thank you. Okay, any further comments on the slate of items before us seeing none will open that for voting. Turn them off. Thank you.

Those on the vote motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you. That concludes the six report of the city works committee. Thank you.

The next is the second report of the audit committee. I shared that so I’ll ask counselor, Homer, if he can present the audit committee report. I’m happy to present the report from the committee colleagues will see that there’s a report about the internal audit follow up activities as well as the draft internal audit plan which the committee spent some time discussing with the new internal auditors we approved the draft internal audit plan. And I think I’ll put them all on the floor at the same time since I haven’t heard anything needed to be pulled separately.

There’s also the internal audit charter or everyone’s information, including the package. Okay, if no one would like that dealt with separately. I’ll see if there’s any questions or comments on the audit report. Seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting.

Councillor Hillier, Councillor Van Nairberg and Councillor Hillier. We will mark Councillor Hillier as absent, closing the vote motion carries 13 to zero. Yes, my apologies, Councillor saying he was going to leave the meeting after the CPSC report. Okay, that concludes the audit report.

Thank you, Councillor, Homer. On to added reports. I will ask Councillor Layman if he can report on the seventh report of council and closed session. I will report out that progress is made on the issue for going into a closed session.

Yes, we have another added report, which is the added CSC related to a debenture issuance. I will turn it over to Councillor Lewis to present the added CSC report. Thank you, Acting Mayor Morgan. I will put the seventh report of the Corporate Services Committee on the floor.

This was from our meeting yesterday. It’s just a one item agenda, which is the 2022 debenture issuance update from our staff. I believe Ms. Barbone is here if colleagues have any questions, but there’s only one item.

So you can’t pull an item more while other than the pecuniary interest. So we’ll be putting the whole thing on the floor. Okay, the whole thing is on the floor. Any questions or discussion on the added CSC report.

Councillor, thank you. This is the first report in a few years where we’re seeing rates going the other way that the benefit of having rates for our debentures being quite low for several years in a row and I wanted to point out that the gradual but significant reduction in net debt for the city, especially the debt that’s associated with the general municipal rates over time has put us in a really good position. Now that rates are starting to rise. And I think sometimes it can go unnoticed and uncredited, usually tipping our Morgan would be the one pointing this out.

It ends up saving us a lot of money once we get into the increasing rates environment and we’re not benefiting from the really, really low rates we’ve had. And that’s not really the responsibility or the full credit of any one individual, but many councils and many groups of staff working in towards the same goal of being very fiscally disciplined, especially when it comes to the issuance of debt, we just dealt with a report about a surplus and what to do with it and having circles policy that make sure that we’re keeping the debt under control as we’re working through all these big projects, it allows us the flexibility to deal with things like, oh, the Adelaide underpass is more expensive and all of a sudden we’re going to borrow some money unexpectedly and we do save money in the long run with that approach. And I wanted to just spend a little bit of time today commenting on it, even though this report obviously we’re seeing a rate is over 3% all in. I like the days when it was 1.8, better.

Any further comments or questions. Okay, seeing none, then we will open this for voting. Those in the vote motion carries 13 to 0. Okay, we have no deferred matters.

We’re on to inquiries and I actually hand the chair over to Councillor Layman. Thank you. And I will go to the deputy mayor. Thank you.

My inquiry is for our deputy city manager. A number of municipalities have had to make changes to their procurement bylaws and or forms or procedures in order to ensure that they are clearly communicating that they will comply with any sanctions that the government of Canada puts on other recommendations or individuals. And so I wanted to inquire to ask if if we perceive any changes necessary to either our procurement policies or forms or documents that would that we would need to do to ensure that we are in compliance. Or do you perceive any changes that municipal council may need to make.

Thank you through the chair. This is something absolutely that was on our radar. I can confirm that our existing procurement of goods and services policy does allow and support civic administration to enforce and comply with the federal sanctions. And the policy also does support all of the necessary changes that we do need to make to create a little bit more additional communication so that people that are bidding are very, very clear as to their obligation to comply with the federal sanctions.

So we will be looking to do a little bit more information on the city’s website and also add some more verbiage into our city’s bid documents but all of that is able. We can proceed administratively because the policy does support that. Is there a follow up. No, that answers my question.

Thank you. I’ll turn the chair back to deputy mayor. Thank you. Are there any other inquiries seeing none.

Are there any emergent motions. There are none. Then we are on to bylaws, which we need to read for a first second and third time. Councilor Palmer people 183 1986 and 202 separately.

Those are related to the Sunday down road, rezoning and official front changes. Yes, we will certainly do that. Any, anything else that colleagues would like dealt with. Councilor Hopkins.

Yeah, I’m not sure what number, but it would be the one relating to 1055. Park Road West, the 9th report. I want to say 184. Yeah, it looks like 184.

Just give us a second to make sure there’s no other one. Maybe 187. Okay, so that would be 184 and 187 also dealt with separate and 205 would be included in that as well. Councilor Cassidy.

Thank you. I just want to make sure one is when 186 was also mentioned because I just didn’t hear it. I heard a bunch of numbers. I didn’t hear that.

Correct. We’re going to deal with 186 separately to that was part of the three that Councilor Palmer requested. Okay, if there’s no others, then what we will deal with is everything between 180 and 205. And just give me a second, including the revised bill 201 and the added bill 206 from the CSC meeting with the exception of 183 184 186 187 202 and 205.

I have a mover for that. Councilor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councilor Cassidy, we will vote on first reading of those bills. As soon as we pull it up, it’ll just take a second. Mr Chair, just confirming the vote come up on the screen.

Not yet. They’re just because we pulled a bunch of things out of it. They’re just drafting up the language to align with the way that we’ve asked to have it voted on. So it’s, it’s coming shortly.

For clarity, this group of bills includes revised 201 in the block from 180 to 204. Those in vote, motion carries 13 to 0. Mover and seconder for second reading. I see Councillor by Councillor Palosa.

Any discussion at second reading on any of these bills? No, seeing none, then we’ll open this for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to 0. And a mover and a seconder for third reading.

I have Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Layman made a third reading, so we’ll open this for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to 0. Okay. Next, I’ll look for the following block of bills 183 186 and 202 all related to 15 21, Sunningdale Road West and 26 31 Hyde Park Road.

I need a mover and a seconder for that block. Councillor 5 Miller, seconded by Councillor Lewis, will open that for voting. Councillor Van Neiburgen, closing the vote. Motion carries 8 to 5.

Okay. And mover and a seconder for second reading of that particular statement, seconded by Councillor Lewis, discussion at second reading. Councillor Helmer. I’m going to give it one more shot to try and convince a particular Councillor Van Holst.

This is not the right thing to do earlier in the meeting. Councillor and Holst asked you how many units do we have? I actually emailed that to him just the GMIS numbers from last spring, which is obviously a bit different than what things would be like now. But the numbers from that report are 50,000 units, various stages of approval and various kinds of subdivisions and site plans as of January 1 2021.

We used that as a lowball estimate, and we were building 5,000 units a year, which is much, much more than we’re building right now in the city of London, without we 10 years of residential supply. And that does not include any redevelopment of parcels that already have buildings on them, like the one we just talked about for York’s 22 story tower downtown. That’s not counted in those greenfield vacant land unit. I think Councillor Van Holst, and many colleagues can see that if we keep doing what we have been doing, which is adding low density residential in the northwest corner of the city, very rapidly without the school capacity to support it, we’re going to be perpetuating the same problem we have right now.

And what we need to do is actually have the breaks on the residential in this area, accelerate the school. And the only way we can find out if that’s going to happen is if we say no to the reasoning of this land that’s currently farmland, leave it as farmland for a while, and the school board expropriates the land, the need for the school. I’m going to try and just try one more time. That is a solution that will work.

It will keep the farmland intact for a bit longer, it will allow the school to proceed as quickly as it can through the expropriation process. And then we can have a discussion about when those lands could be developed as residential, say six, seven, eight years from now, when they might be needed to meet the demand in the city and not earlier than necessary, which is what I think is happening now. So that’s convincing, but I never let it be said I didn’t go to second try also have Council Cassidy on second reading. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. I will also point out that just as you. Mayor and Deputy Mayor and counselor for Ward seven represent that particular area and so are looking out for the best interests of your constituents. There’s also a school board trustee that represents that area.

And in my communications with that school board trustee, I have been told that a few months ago, Thames Valley District School Board voted in public to move forward with expropriation of land in the area to build a school. So what we’ve been saying all along should have happened, why hasn’t it happened, it has happened. So they’re doing their job they’re doing their part in trying to get a school in the area for their constituents and city Council shouldn’t be involved in that in that way. So I will continue to not support this.

Thank you very much. And I appreciate the my colleagues. My, my concern was the speed at which housing is being provided. I see there’s opportunities in other places.

I also see that we’ve got a developer interested in building something. Maybe I can ask a few questions to to our staff to how long would it take for us to see houses in this area. Or one, and then my, my, my second question is, what happens to the development if we turn this down today. So where what would be the next, the next opportunity for for them to come forward with an application.

There’s three the presiding officer, so a couple questions there. One was related to what’s the timing if to actually proceed for housing be constructed so likely that would take between one in one year and one and a half years to get through the process. So that’s likely the timing on that piece. As far as the next, the next question.

I understand what you’re asking is that if we were looking at the comprehensive review process that we had discussed, which will at least take till the end of next year. So that would probably push out construction within that particular parcel out to two or three years from now. If that, if council decides to even bring that parcel in as part of the comprehensive review. So I hope that helps with your questions.

Okay, thank you. And just, just to confirm. Again, if I may, Mr. Chair with Councilor Cassidy, you’re saying that the school board has already approved a, a expropriation of a property in the parcel where the, the negotiation is, is being made and for this one.

I don’t want to get into too much cross debate, but it’s a question of clarification for a point that Councilor Cassidy made so if Councilor Cassidy is willing to answer it, I’ll go to her. Thank you. I can tell you that the school board trustee told me that there was a motion in a public board meeting that staff begin the process of exploring an expropriation. And this took place a few months ago.

I don’t have the exact date. The wording is a few months ago. Okay. And that’s for, and that’s in this, in this area.

We have approval to build in this area. Okay. Well, thank you. So that seems to solve a number of problems.

In that case, I may, I may, may change my vote. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have to address two points here.

First, I’m going to respond to a question from Councilor Van Holst earlier in the evening when he asked about how school boards calculate, because I’ve also had a conversation with a trustee. The concern that, you know, these 250 units are going to result in a lot of new students in the area. And so we’re not, we’re not addressing the problem at all. Well, according to the school board trustee, I spoke to the calculation rate they use is 0.25.

So that’s one quarter of a student per household unit. So if we have 250 units, you do the math, divide that in four. That’s the number of new students you’re talking about for a public school. Now, I have to rise because in that discussion with the same school board trustee and in the communication from the school board representative on the public record, not here say respectfully, but on the public record was that this would, this would expedite their process for a new school.

So I believe Councilor Cassidy brought that point forward in genuine good intent, no doubt about it, but I had a similar discussion with another school board trustee who indicated that no work has begun on expropriation. So I don’t want to get into a back and forth over. He said she said, what we have is written communication on the agenda from school board staff that say this will help them expedite the process of getting a new school built in Northwest. Yes, the Ministry of Education has said preliminary funding would be approved for a new school in that area.

That doesn’t mean they have approval to build on any parcel of land. So let’s not confuse those two issues, because they are not the same thing. Having a ministry directive to say, yes, fine land and will provide you funding to build a new school is not saying the same thing as we have a plot of land we can start building on. I don’t know whether or not the trustees had emotion, and I don’t know, and I’m not going to presume to speak for school board staff as to whether or not they’ve started work on it.

But we can’t start to make decisions based on those conversations. I have to base a decision based on the written submission from the school board that was on the agenda, not a conversation with a trustee that I had, or that Councilor Cassidy had. So I would encourage colleagues to take the same logical approach there. You have to go with what we’ve heard, not with what the intention might be from a trustee or multiple trustees, or the board.

We have to go with what we have on the record. Thank you. Councilor Van Walsch, I know your hands up, but you’ve already spoken to this matter and we’re at Council. So, okay.

I just left that up. Okay, no problem. Any further speakers in second reading? Okay, then I’ll vote.

I’ll open the second reading vote. Close in the vote. Motion carries seven to six. Okay, I need to move on to second or move by Councilor Lewis, seconded by Councilor 5 Miller.

I’ll open the third reading vote. Close in the vote. Motion carries seven to six. The next set of bills will be Bill 184 187 and 205, all related to 1055 Fanshawe Park Road West.

I look for a mover and seconder for that block of bills. Councilor 5 Miller, Councilor Layman will open first reading for voting. Councilor Halmer, closing the vote. Motion carries eight to five.

I’ll need to move on to seconder for second reading. Councilor Lewis, seconded by Councilor 5 Miller. Any discussion at second reading? We’ll open second reading for voting.

Councilor Layman, closing the vote. Motion carries eight to five. Third reading moved by Councilor 5 Miller, seconded by Councilor Hamoo. I will open third reading for voting.

Close in the vote. Motion carries seven to six. Okay, colleagues, that brings us to the end of the bylaws and accepted adjournment. Let me just say thank you for your time tonight.

I know it was a bit of a longer meeting, but appreciate all of the debate and thoughtful dialogue. I look for someone to move a motion to adjourned. Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Lewis. We’ll do this as a hand vote.

All those in favor of adjournment tonight. Okay, we are adjourned. Thanks, everyone.