June 14, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:00 PM; it being noted that the following members were in remote attendance:   Councillors M. van Holst, M. Salih, J. Helmer, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Turner, S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Deputy Mayor Morgan discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 12, clause 4.2 of the 9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with appointments to Western University Board of Directors, by indicating that Western University is his employer.

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 12, clause 4.2 of the 9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with appointments to Western University Board of Directors, by indicating that Western University is his employer.  Councillor J. Helmer further discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 15, clause 4.3 of the 7th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with Short-term Accommodation Regulation, and the associated Bill No.’s 239 and 243, by indicating that he has used Airbnb to rent out his home in the past.

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 17, clause 4.5 of the 7th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with Supporting More Licensed Childcare Spaces, by indicating that his wife owns/operates a childcare business.

Councillor M. Salih discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 3, clause 2.2 of the 7th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with Updated By-laws for London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, and the associated Bill No.’s 232 and 233, by indicating that the federal government is his employer.  Councillor M. Salih further discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 11, clause 4.1 of the 9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with Business Case #4: Talent Attraction and Labour Force Growth for Sustainable Economic Recovery, by indicating that the federal government is his employer.

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 2 of the 9th Report of the Council in Closed Session, and related Added Bill No. 257, having to do with the property located at 134 Wellington Road with respect to the Wellington Gateway Project, by indicating that he owns property within close vicinity of the subject property.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

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

4.1    Litigation / Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality. (6.1/11/PEC)

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

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

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council convenes, In Closed Session, from 4:13 PM to 4:32 PM.

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

5.1   8th Meeting held on May 24, 2022

2022-05-24 Council Minutes - Complete

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Minutes of the 8th Meeting held on May 24, 2022, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

6.1   Short-term Accommodations - Proposed Amendments

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the following communications BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED to Item 15 (4.3) of the 7th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee:

  • L. Ghattas;

  • A. Wayland;

  • C. Agate;

  • D. Blagaj;

  • J. Hunter;

  • R. Irwin;

  • D. Ulrick;

  • S. Laird;

  • J. MacDonald;

  • J. Gordon;

  • (ADDED) D. Devine; and,

  • (ADDED) T. Sumner / L. Cudmore / A. Balbantray - Land Depot Capital Inc.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   8th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-05-31 CWC Report 8

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 8th Report of the Civic Works Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Northcrest Drive Municipal Watermain Servicing Budget Increase

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 May 31, 2022, related to the Northcrest Drive municipal watermain servicing project:

a)    the budget increase of $909,645.00 to EW374322 Extension of Water Servicing BE APPROVED for the subject project;

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; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2022-F05A)

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Metamora Stormwater Outfall Replacement Contract Amendment - Addition of Metamora Bridge Repairs

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 May 31, 2022, related to the extension of the Metamora Stormwater Outfall Replacement contract to include the Metamora Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation works:

a)    the contract amount for Blue-Con Construction BE INCREASED to undertake additional works required for the Metamora Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation as part of the existing RFT21-91 contract, in accordance with the estimate on file to an upset amount of $255,000.00 including 20% contingency, excluding HST, from $1,200,386.00 to a total of $1,455,386.00, in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation amending the original 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-T04)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Closing Part of Upper Canada Crossing (Relates to Bill No. 244)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022, for the purpose of closing part of Upper Canada Crossing;

it being noted that subject to the passing and registration of the above-noted by-law in the Land Registry Office, the City will retain a municipal services easement over the road allowance and reserve Block 186, 33M-624 for a watermain and for the purposes of prohibiting the erection of any structures on the subject lands. (2022-T09)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at May 20, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2   11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-05-30 PEC Report - Final

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding items 9 (3.2), 13 (3.6) and 14 (3.7).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 58 Sunningdale Road West (39T-16503)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the request for a three (3) year extension of the draft plan of subdivision approval for the draft plan submitted by Drewlo Holdings Inc. (File No. 39T-16503), prepared by MTE and certified by P.R. Levac OLS, (File No 50861-102, dated May 18, 2022), as red-lined amended, which shows 41 single detached lots, two (2) residential part blocks, three (3) medium density blocks, one (1)  commercial block, one (1) road widening block, and four (4) 0.3m reserve blocks all served by an extension of Callingham Drive, an extension of Pelkey Road, and three (3) new local streets, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Schedule “A”.   (2022-D12)

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) 890 Upperpoint Avenue (P-9358) (Relates to Bill No. 241)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Ltd., the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to exempt Block 141, Plan 33M-754 and Block 42, Plan 33M-810 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.   (2022-D25)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) 3195 White Oak Road (H-9471) (Relates to Bill No. 252)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Econ Consultant Ltd., relating to the property located at 3195 White Oak Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 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 R1 Special Provision (h-94*R1-3(21)) Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(21)) Zone to remove the “h-94” holding provision.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West (39T-04510_5)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Foxhollow North Kent Developments Inc., for the subdivision of land over Concession 5, Part Lot 23, situated on the south side of Sunningdale Road West, between Wonderland Road North and Hyde Park Road, municipally known as 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Foxhollow North Kent Developments Inc., for the Foxhollow North Kent Subdivision, Phase 5 (39T-04510) appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b) the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “B”;

c) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “C”; and,

d) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.   (2022-D12)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) 525 Dufferin Avenue - Heritage Alteration Permit Application (HAP22-031-L)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to replace the porch railings/guard on the heritage designated property at 525 Dufferin Avenue, within the East Woodfield Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

a) all exposed wood be painted;

b) the installation of the proposed porch railings/guards be completed within twelve months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

c)  the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed.   (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) Building Division Monthly Report - March, 2022

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Building Division Monthly Report for the month of March, 2022  BE RECEIVED for information.   (2022-A23)

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (3.1) Definition of “Public Park” in Zoning By-law Z-1 - City Wide (Relates to Bill No. 253)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the City-initiated zoning by-law review, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning definition for Public Park;

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

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

  •    is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020);

  •    conforms with the policies of the London Plan, specifically in regards to the Green Space Place Type and the Parks and Recreation chapter;

  •    will enable uses and activities in city-owned parks that are consistent with the Parks and Recreation By-law (PR-2); and,

  •    represents good planning.     (2022-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (3.3) 180 Simcoe Street - Demolition Request for the Heritage Listed Property

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the property at 180 Simcoe Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources.

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (3.4) 258 Richmond Street (Z-9465) (Relates to Bill No. 255)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc., relating to the property located at 258 Richmond Street, the proposed revised by-law appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan (The London Plan, 2016) and the 1989 Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Restricted Service Commercial (RSC2/RSC3/RSC4) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-*BDC()) Zone;

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

  •    J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc.;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Urban Corridor Place Type for the SoHo Main Street Specific Segment;

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

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the reuse of the existing building and allow a broader range of uses that are appropriate for the context of the site.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (3.5) 850 Highbury Avenue North - Request for Demolition

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development with the

advice of the Heritage Planner, the demolition request for the removal of (8) non-designated built resources on the heritage designated property at 850 Highbury Avenue North, BE PERMITTED pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act subject to the following terms and conditions:

a) during demolition, construction fencing and buffering of sensitive areas be implemented per Project Site Plan appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix C;

b) during demolition, restrict construction routes to areas outside the treed allee; and,

c) pre-, during, and post-demolition, implement recommendations of the PreConstruction Analysis appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix D;

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

  •    B. McCauley, Old Oak Properties;

  •    K. Eby, GMPS, on behalf of JDA Investments Inc.; and,

  •    N. Tausky, on behalf of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario.   (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.15   (5.1) 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning from its meeting held on May 26, 2022:

a)  the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED that the London Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) received a report, dated May 26, 2022, with respect to the Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property located at 180 Simcoe Street by Richmond Corporate Centre Inc. and the CACP supports the staff recommendation and the findings of the Heritage Impact Assessment; it being noted that the CACP recommends the preservation of trees to mitigate potential impacts to adjacent cultural heritage resources;

b)  the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED that the London Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) received a report, dated May 26, 2022, with respect to the Demolition Request for Non-Designated Built Resources on the Heritage Designated Property located at 850 Highbury Avenue North - the former London Psychiatric Hospital Lands by Old Oak Properties and the CACP supports the staff recommendation;

c)   the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED that the London Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) received a report, dated May 26, 2022, with respect to a Heritage Alteration Permit Application by E. Placzek at 525 Dufferin Avenue, East Woodfield Heritage Conservation District and the CACP supports the staff recommendation; and,

d)  clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.7, inclusive, 4.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 6.1 to 6.3, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (3.2) 537 Crestwood Drive (Z-9333) (Relates to Bill No. 254)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Middlesex Vacant Land Condominium 816, relating to the property located at 537 Crestwood Drive, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone TO a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision h-(   )R6-2()) Zone;

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

i) an amendment to the registered Plan of Condominium 816 is required;

ii) warning clauses to be registered on title regarding noise and dust related to gravel pit and rehabilitation activities; and,

iii) warning clauses to be registered on title regarding possible noise impacts from the future realigned Commissioners Road East;

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the Middlesex Vacant Land Condominium 816;    

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment and requires resource extraction activities to be protected for long-term use and not hindered by incompatible development; and that resource extraction activities and sensitive residential development be appropriately separated from each other. A holding provision is recommended to ensure a new geotechnical study is required to establish the limit of development related to the slope hazard and evaluate the potential impacts of the future construction of the Commissioners Road West realignment; and to ensure a rehabilitation plan and site restoration plan have been completed for the adjacent aggregate resource extraction area;

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential designation and the Specific Area policies for Lands in the Vicinity of Byron Gravel Pits.  (2022-D07)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Item 9 (3.2) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

” That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Middlesex Vacant Land Condominium 816, relating to the property located at 537 Crestwood Drive, the proposed , revised, by-law (Appendix “B”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone TO a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision h-(   )R6-2()) Zone;

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

i) an amendment to the registered Plan of Condominium 816 is required;

ii) warning clauses to be registered on title regarding noise and dust related to gravel pit and rehabilitation activities; and,

iii)        warning clauses to be registered on title regarding possible noise impacts from the future realigned Commissioners Road East;

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

  • H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the Middlesex Vacant Land Condominium 816;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment and requires resource extraction activities to be protected for long-term use and not hindered by incompatible development; and that resource extraction activities and sensitive residential development be appropriately separated from each other. A holding provision is recommended to ensure a new geotechnical study is required to establish the limit of development related to the slope hazard and evaluate the potential impacts of the future construction of the Commissioners Road West realignment; and to ensure a rehabilitation plan and site restoration plan have been completed for the adjacent aggregate resource extraction area;

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

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low-Density Residential designation and the Specific Area policies for Lands in the Vicinity of Byron Gravel Pits. (2022-D07)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Item 9 (3.2), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.13   (3.6) 1503 Hyde Park Road (Z-9425) (Relates to Bill No. 256)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2575707 Ontario Corp. (c/o Business Network Associates), relating to the property located at 1503 Hyde Park Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 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 Business District Commercial (h-91BDC1/BDC2) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-91BDC1(_)/BDC2) Zone;

it being noted that the following Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

i) provide sufficient common outdoor amenity space based on the number of units proposed and/or provide detailed design and program solutions for the area;

ii) review alternative vehicular access arrangements as opposed to the shared vehicular access point with 1435 Hyde Park Road; and,

iii) consider additional landscaping and use of planters along this section of Hyde Park Road consistent with Urban Design’s first submission comments to ensure that planters are aligned parallel to the street with a 0.15m curb to clearly define the clearway;

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

  •     the project summary from M. Davis, Siv-ik; and,

  •     a communication dated May 26, 2022 from J. Haasen;

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

  •    M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design, on behalf of Business Network Associates; and,

  •    J. Haasen, 70 Dissing Crescent;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Main Street Commercial Corridor designation and is in keeping with the Hyde Park Community Plan and Urban Design Guidelines;

  •    the recommended amendment would permit development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant, underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of development.   (2022-D09)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Item 13 (3.6), BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2575707 Ontario Corp. (c/o Business Network Associates), relating to the property located at 1503 Hyde Park Road, the proposed, , revised by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 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 Business District Commercial (h-91BDC1/BDC2) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-91BDC1(_)/BDC2) Zone;

it being noted that the following Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

i) provide sufficient common outdoor amenity space based on the number of units proposed and/or provide detailed design and program solutions for the area;

ii) review alternative vehicular access arrangements as opposed to the shared vehicular access point with 1435 Hyde Park Road; and,

iii)        consider additional landscaping and use of planters along this section of Hyde Park Road consistent with Urban Design’s first submission comments to ensure that planters are aligned parallel to the street with a 0.15m curb to clearly define the clearway;

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

  • the project summary from M. Davis, Siv-ik; and,

  • a communication dated May 26, 2022 from J. Haasen;

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

  • M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design, on behalf of Business Network Associates; and,

  • J. Haasen, 70 Dissing Crescent;

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

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

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

-  the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Main Street Commercial Corridor designation and is in keeping with the Hyde Park Community Plan and Urban Design Guidelines;

-  the recommended amendment would permit development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

-  the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant, underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of development.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Item 13 (3.6), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.14   (3.7) 850 Highbury Avenue (OZ-9324) (Relates to Bill No. 240)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by Old Oak Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 850 Highbury Avenue North, and with respect to housekeeping amendments to the approved London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to DELETE the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan in its entirety and ADOPT the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A”, Schedule “1”;

it being noted that the specific policy changes to the existing London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan, that will result from the deletion of the existing plan and the adoption of the new revised plan, are outlined in Appendix “B” of the above noted staff report;

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 individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Old Oak Properties Inc.; and,

  •    K. Eby, GMPS representing JDA Investments Inc.;

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

  •    the proposed Secondary Plan amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 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; and,

  •    the proposed official plan amendment conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Transit Village Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies..   (2022-D09/R01)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Item 14 (3.7) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by Old Oak Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 850 Highbury Avenue North, and with respect to housekeeping amendments to the approved London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan, the proposed revised, by-law (Appendix ‘A’) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to DELETE the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan in its entirety and ADOPT the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A”, Schedule “1”;

it being noted that the specific policy changes to the existing London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan, that will result from the deletion of the existing plan and the adoption of the new revised plan, are outlined in Appendix B of the above-noted staff report;

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 individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  • C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Old Oak Properties Inc.; and,

  • K. Eby, GMPS representing JDA Investments Inc.;

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

  • the proposed Secondary Plan amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 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; and,

  • the proposed official plan amendment conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Transit Village Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies..   (2022-D09/R01)“

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Item 14 (3.7), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3   7th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2022-05-31 CPSC Report - Full

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 7th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, BE APPROVED excluding items 3 (2.2), 15 (4.3) and 16 (4.4).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that Councillor J. Helmer disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 4.3 of this Report, having to do with Short Term Accommodations - Proposed Amendments, by indicating that he has used Airbnb to rent out his home in the past.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 3rd Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 3rd Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 28, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Single Source Procurement SS 2022-166 Base Station Replacement for Emergency Communications System

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Enterprise Supports, with the concurrence of the Director of Emergency Management and Security Services, the following actions be taken, with respect to the staff report, dated May 31, 2022, related to a Single Source Procurement SS 2022-166 Base Station Replacement for Emergency Communications System:

a)      the proposal submitted by PSPC Canada Systems Incorporated (formerly L3Harris Canada) for replacement of two (2) of the City’s MASTR III base stations BE APPROVED, for the purchase price of $1,140,602.00 (HST excluded), in accordance with sections 14.4 d. and 14.4 e. of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the above-noted proposed lifecycle renewal capital works BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report; 

c)    the above-noted approval BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory terms and conditions with PSPC Canada Systems Incorporated (formerly L3Harris Canada) to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor’s Office and entering a formal contract, agreement or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of the approval set out above; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the above-noted approval. (2022-P03)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Supply of Cold Bottled Beverages - RFP 2022-041 - Award of Contract (Relates to Bill No. 234) 

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022, to:

a)    authorize and approve the Agreement, as appended to the above-noted staff report, between The Corporation of the City of London and PepsiCo Beverages Canada, to supply cold beverages at the City’s two municipal golf courses and for the vending machines at City of London Arenas, Community Centres, Dearness Home, and City Hall, substantially in the form appended to the above-noted by-law, and satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and,

b)    to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement. (2022-R05D)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Amended Agreement with London Symphonia for the Stewardship of the Former Orchestra London Music Library (Relates to Bill No. 235)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022, to:

a)    authorize and approve an amended Stewardship Agreement between the City of London and London Symphonia for its exclusive use and custody of the City’s Music Library; it being noted that the foregoing Stewardship Agreement is expected to be substantially in the form as appended to the above-noted by-law, however any amendments to this Stewardship Agreement are to be in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor’s Office; and,

b)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Stewardship Agreement upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating terms and conditions with London Symphonia to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor’s Office. (2022-D02)

Motion Passed

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022, to approve the demolition of abandoned buildings with the municipal addresses of 150 Adelaide Street North, 9 Front Street and 20 Paddington Avenue under the Property Standards provisions of the Building Code Act; it being noted that the properties shall be cleared of all identified buildings, structures, debris and refuse and left in a graded and levelled condition in accordance with the City of London Property Standards By-law and the Ontario Building Code Act. (2022-P10D)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.8) Canada-Ontario Community Housing Initiative (COCHI) and Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative (OPHI) Approval of Ontario Transfer Payment Amending Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 237)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the attached proposed by-law, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022, to:

a)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Amending Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, and satisfactory to the City Solicitor, between Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and The Corporation of the City of London;

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

c)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or written designate, to authorize and approve such further and other documents, including an Investment Plan, and including agreements that may be required in furtherance of the above-noted Amending Agreement, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development and the City Solicitor;

it being noted that the communication, dated May 27, 2022, from K. Pagniello, M. Laliberte and T. Kiefer, Neighbourhood Legal Services, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-S11)

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (2.10) Housing Stability Services - Single Source Procurements

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated May 31, 2022, related to Housing Stability Services - Single Source Procurements:

a)    single source procurements BE APPROVED, at a total estimated cost of $2,150,000 (excluding HST), for the period of April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, with the opportunity to extend for four (4) additional one (1) year terms, to administer Housing Stability Services programs, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d) and e); to the following providers: 

  •    Unity Project for Relief of Homelessness - Hotel Response (SS-2022-157)

  •    CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services - Holly’s House (SS-2022-158)

  •    St. Leonard’s Community Services – Project Home Baseline supports (SS-2022-159)

  •    London Cares Homeless Response Services- Veteran’s Program (SS-2022-160)

  •    CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services - Housing Stability Table Program (SS-2022-161)

  •    VHA Home Healthcare - Extreme Clean/Hoarding Program (SS-2022-162)

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

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a Purchase of Service Agreements with each program. (2022-S11)

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (2.11) 2019-2022 Multi-Sector Service Accountability Agreement Dearness Home Adult Day Program and the South West Local Health Integration Network - Declaration of Compliance - April 1, 2021 - March 31, 2022

Motion made by M. Cassidy

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

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (2.6) Recreation and Sport Summer Program Updates

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report, dated May 31, 2022, with respect to Recreation and Sport Summer Program Updates, BE RECEIVED. (2022-R06)

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (2.9) Housing Stability for All Plan 2021 Update

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, and with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated May 31, 2022, related to a Housing Stability for All Plan 2021 Update: 

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit the Housing Stability for All Plan (HSAP) 2021 Update to the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as the annual update to the local homeless prevention and housing plan, in accordance with the Housing Services Act, 2011 (HSA);

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate this report to stakeholders, agencies, and community groups including, but not limited to, Middlesex County, and the London Homeless Coalition; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate this report to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to form part of the Housing Development Corporation, London’s (HDC’s) 2021 annual report to the Shareholder;

it being noted that the communication, dated May 27, 2022, from M. Laliberte and T. Kiefer, Neighbourhood Legal Services, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-S11)

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (4.1) On the Wellbeing of Waterfowl and a Proposal to Resolve the Disservice of Ducks - D. Brunt

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the communication, as appended to the agenda, from D. Brunt, with respect to the Wellbeing of Waterfowl and a Proposal to Resolve the Disservice of Ducks, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Civic Administration will contact D. Brunt with respect to this matter. (2022-D14)

Motion Passed

8.3.14   (4.2) D. Devine - Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the delegation from D. Devine, with respect to the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan, BE RECEIVED. (2022-S11)

Motion Passed

8.3.17   (4.5) Deputy Mayor J. Morgan - Pandemic-Related Outdoor Patio Rules

Motion made by M. Cassidy

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the temporary pandemic-related flexibility in business by-law regulations and report back to the appropriate standing committee on which provisions Municipal Council could consider making permanent; it being noted that the Civic Administration already has direction from Council to review zoning regulations on outdoor patio capacity and that this could be achieved by a single comprehensive report back. (2022-S08)

Motion Passed

8.3.18   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at May 10, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Updated By-laws for London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership (Relates to Bill No’s. 232 and 233)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated May 31, 2022, related to Updated By-laws for London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7948-71, entitled ‘A by-law to authorize and approve the Contribution Agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership’ to reflect the current organizational structure and transfer delegation of authority”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, being “A by-law to amend By-Law No. A.-7958-94, entitled ‘A by-law to authorize and approve the Purchase of Service Agreement with WIL Counselling and Training for Employment: London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership’ to reflect the current organizational structure and transfer delegation of authority”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022. (2022-S15)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.15   (4.3) Short-term Accommodations - Proposed Amendments (Relates to Bill No’s. 239 and 243)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 31, 2022 related to Short-term Accommodations – Licensing and Regulations:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022, to amend the Business Licensing By-law No. L.-131-16 entitled “A by-law to provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Various Businesses” to add a new Schedule, including definitions and fees, related to the Licensing of Short-term Accommodations; 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 June 14, 2022, to amend the Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS) By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to provide for an amended Penalty Schedule “A-5” for the Business Licensing By-law for the category of Short-term Accommodations;

it being noted that the communication, dated May 10, 2022, from B. and M. Hopkins, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-C01)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Item 15 (4.2) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 31, 2022 related to Short-term Accommodations – licensing and regulations:

a) the proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022, to amend the Business Licensing By-law No. L.-131-16 entitled “A by-law to provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Various Businesses” to add a new Schedule, including definitions and fees, related to the Licensing of Short-term Accommodations; and;

b) the proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022, to amend the Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS) By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to provide for an amended Penalty Schedule “A-5” for the Business Licensing By-law for the category of Short-term Accommodations;

it being noted that the communication, dated May 10, 2022, from B. and M. Hopkins, with respect to this matter, was received.”

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Cassidy

Pursuant to section 11.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, the motion moved by Councillor S. Lewis and seconded by Councillor M. Cassidy is, at the joint request of the mover and seconder and with the consent of the Council, withdrawn.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Item 15 (4.2), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.3.16   (4.4) Deputy Mayor J. Morgan - Supporting More Licensed Childcare Spaces

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a report related to options to increase the accessibility and number of licensed child care spaces as part of the implementation of the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement, to the appropriate standing committee; it being noted that increased affordability is expected to lead to increased demand for limited licensed child care spaces. (2022-S07)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4   9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-06-07 SPPC Report 9-Complete

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding items 11 (4.1) and 12 (4.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that the following pecuniary interests were disclosed:

a.    Councillor J. Morgan discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.2 of this Report, having to do with appointments to Western University Board of Directors, by indicating that Western University is his employer;

b.    Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.2 of this Report, having to do with appointments to Western University Board of Directors, by indicating that Western University is his employer; and,

c.    Councillor M. Salih discloses a pecuniary interest in Clause 4.1 of this Report, specific to Business Case #4: Talent Attraction and Labour Force Growth for Sustainable Economic Recovery, by indicating that he works for the Federal Government.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Development Charge Planning Horizon Policy Review

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, a 15-year planning horizon BE ENDORSED as part of the preparation and completion of the development charges ‘soft service’ master plans and 2025 Development Charges Background Study; it being noted that a 20-year planning horizon will be maintained for ‘hard service’ components.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Development Charge Stormwater Management Land Payment Trigger Policy Review

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the development charge stormwater management land payment trigger threshold for future stormwater management land acquisition BE DISCONTINUED effective July 31, 2022; it being noted that payment will now occur at the time of agreement execution.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) Inventory of Current Actions Addressing Core Area Land and Building Vacancy

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report dated June 7, 2022, with respect to the Inventory of Current Actions addressing Core Area Land and Building Vacancy, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.5) London Community Recovery Network – Update on Municipally Funded and Community Initiatives

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report titled London Community Recovery Network – Update on Municipally Funded and Community Initiatives for BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.6) London Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) Activity Update 2021

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the London Economic Development Corporation Activity Update 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.7) 5th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 5th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee from its meeting held on April 21, 2022 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.4) Core Area Action Plan: 2022 One-Time Program Enhancements

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken:

a)    the staff report dated June 7, 2022 entitled “Core Area Action Plan: 2022 One-Time Program Enhancements”, including its appendices, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the enhancements to the Core Area Action Plan detailed in “Appendix ‘A’ of the staff report, 2022 One-Time Program Enhancements” BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of $1,055,000.00, with the funding to be sourced from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy received a communication dated June 2, 2022 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (3.1) London Hydro Inc. - 2021 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions (Relates to Bill No. 238)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to London Hydro Inc.:

a)  the recommendation of the City Manager, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 7, 2022 as Appendix “A” entitled “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc.”  BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held June 14, 2022;

b)  the presentation by V. Sharma, CEO and G. Valente, Board Chair, London Hydro Inc., including the attached revised slide 5, BE RECEIVED;

c)  the 2021 Annual Report on Finance BE RECEIVED;

d)  the communication from London Hydro Inc. regarding the Election of Directors BE RECEIVED; and,

e)  Class l Directors, Gabe Valente and Jack Smit, whose terms are expiring, BE APPOINTED to the Board of London Hydro Inc.

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (3.2) 2023 Growth Management Implementation Strategy (GMIS) Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development regarding the implementation of the London Plan growth management policies applicable to the financing of growth-related infrastructure works, the following actions be taken:

a)    the 2023 Growth Management Implementation Strategy Update BE APPROVED as appended to the staff report dated June 7, 2022 in Appendix ‘B’; it being noted that:

i.    Stoney Creek SWM 7.1 will be rescheduled from 2023 to 2025;

ii.    Stoney Creek SWM 8 will be rescheduled from 2023 to 2025;

iii.    Stoney Creek SWM 10 will be rescheduled from 2025 to 2027;

iv.    $1.5 million of the Kilally Road project will be rescheduled from 2030 to 2023;

v.    North Lambeth SWM P2 – North will be rescheduled from 2023 to 2025;

vi.    Thornicroft Drain Improvements will be rescheduled from 2026 to 2024; and,

vii.    project design work for North Lambeth SWM P2 – North, North Lambeth SWM P2 – South and Thornicroft Drain Improvements will commence in 2023;

b)    the Capital Budget BE ADJUSTED to reflect the timing changes associated with the projects noted in clause (a) above;

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

  •    M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute (LDI)

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (5.1) Recruitment for the London and Middlesex Community Housing

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the application process BE RE-ADVERTISED to allow for additional outreach for applicants for the 2 vacant positions for the Board of Directors for the London and Middlesex Community Housing; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated May 30, 2022 from P. Chisholm, Chief Executive Officer, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (4.1) London Community Recovery Network – Recovery Funding Business Cases

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report dated June 7, 2022 with respect to the London Community Recovery Network (LCRN) – Recovery Funding Business Cases, the following actions be taken:

a) LCRN Business Cases: A through D BE RECEIVED;

b) the following funding requests BE APPROVED:

i)  Business Case #1: Propel: Moving Business Forward;

ii)  Business Case #2: Recognition of Micro-Credentials Among Employers in the London Area;

iii) Business Case #3: Centre Stage Patio Grant; and, 

iv) Business Case #4: Talent Attraction and Labour Force Growth for Sustainable Economic Recovery

c) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required by the City Solicitor, to implement the approved noted in part b) above;

it being noted that Municipal Council authorized $10 million to support social and economic recovery measures, and $3.7 million was previously approved for LCRN ideas led by the City of London and partners, leaving $6.3 million still available to be allocated;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the following communications with respect to this matter:

a communication dated May 27, 2022 from B. Mejia, Executive Director, Argyle BIA;

a communication dated May 25, 2022 from D. Szpakowski, CEO and General Manager, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association;

a communication dated May 30, 2022 from J. Pastorius, Manager, Old East Village BIA;

a communication dated June 1, 2022 from B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London.

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve clause 4.1, excluding Business Case #4:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report dated June 7, 2022 with respect to the London Community Recovery Network (LCRN) – Recovery Funding Business Cases, the following actions be taken:

a) LCRN Business Cases: A through D BE RECEIVED;

b) the following funding requests BE APPROVED:

i)  Business Case #1: Propel: Moving Business Forward;

ii)  Business Case #2: Recognition of Micro-Credentials Among Employers in the London Area;

iii) Business Case #3: Centre Stage Patio Grant; and, 

c) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required by the City Solicitor, to implement the approved noted in part b) above;

it being noted that Municipal Council authorized $10 million to support social and economic recovery measures, and $3.7 million was previously approved for LCRN ideas led by the City of London and partners, leaving $6.3 million still available to be allocated;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the following communications with respect to this matter:

a communication dated May 27, 2022 from B. Mejia, Executive Director, Argyle BIA;

a communication dated May 25, 2022 from D. Szpakowski, CEO and General Manager, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association;

a communication dated May 30, 2022 from J. Pastorius, Manager, Old East Village BIA;

a communication dated June 1, 2022 from B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve Clause 4.1 - Business Case #4:

iv) Business Case #4: Talent Attraction and Labour Force Growth for Sustainable Economic Recovery;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.12   (4.2) Consideration of Appointment to Western University Board of Governors

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following BE APPOINTED to Western University Board of Governors for the term July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2026:

Lori Higgs

Marlene McGrath

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated June 3, 2022 from R. Konrad, Chair and K. Gibbons, Vice-Chair, Board of Governors, Western University with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5   9th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-05-30 CSC Report 9

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 9th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding items 4 (2.3) and 6 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 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   (2.1) Corporate Mileage Rate Change

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the corporate mileage rate BE APPROVED at fifty-nine cents per kilometre from fifty cents per kilometre effective July 1, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) 2021 Annual Update on Budweiser Gardens

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2021 Annual Report on Budweiser Gardens as appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.4) Issuance of Technology Equipment to Council Members (Relates to Bill No. 242)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk and with the concurrence of the Director, Information Technology Services, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to amend By-law No. CPOL.-68-300 being “Issuance of Technology Equipment to Council Members”, as amended, by deleting Schedule “A” in its entirety, and replacing it with the attached new Schedule “A”.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (5.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Never Give Up Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the application for the Issuance of Proclamation “Never Give Up Day” BE RECEIVED and NO ACTION be taken.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) Standing Committee Meetings and Annual Meeting Calendar

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the annual meeting calendar for the period January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 as appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED; it being understood that adjustments to the calendar may be required from time to time in order to accommodate special/additional meetings or changes to governing legislation.

Motion made by S. Turner

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the proposed Standing Committee Meetings and Annual Meeting Calendar BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration in order to incorporate additional meetings of the Planning and Environment Committee into the proposed calendar.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.5.6   (4.1) Consideration of Appointment to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

Patricia Almost

Girsh Sankar

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   9th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 134 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lot 25, Front Concession, Geographic Township of Westminster, being Part 1, Plan 33R-6721, being all of PIN 08358-0003 (LT), containing an area of approximately 5,069 square feet, as shown on the location map as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)  the offer submitted by Goran Mamika (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $650,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as Appendix “C”; and,

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

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor S. Turner enquires with respect to the press release related to the Thames Pool, it’s closure for the season, and next steps.  The Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and City-wide Services, provides information about the next steps for repair, potential repair costs, and options for summer use at alternate facilities.

12.   Emergent Motions

12.1   Renaming of City of London Amenities - Mayor E. Holder, Deputy Mayor J. Morgan, Councillors E. Peloza and S. Lewis

2022-06-14 Council Submission - Renaming of City of London Amenities - Holder, Morgan, Peloza and Lewis

At 6:20 PM, His Worship the Mayor places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 6:52 PM, His Worship the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That pursuant to section 20.2 of the Council Procedure By-law leave be given for the introduction of a motion with respect to the removal of Trooper Mark Wilson’s name from all City of London amenities and the City’s website.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by Mayor E. Holder

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the naming of City of London amenities:

a)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to identify all instances where Trooper Mark Wilson’s name has been used on City amenities, including the park at 2070 Wallingford Avenue and the commemoration in the area of Hale and Trafalgar, and to begin removing his name in every instance; and,

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to subsequently begin the process of renaming the above-noted amenities, including consultation with residents and community members in all affected areas.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the emergent motion BE AMENDED by adding the following new part c):

“c)  the Civic Administration be DIRECTED to begin a comprehensive review to identify all instances where City streets and amenities have been named for specific individuals to determine if any of these places warrant re-naming under current policies.”

Pursuant to section 11.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, the motion moved by Councillor M. Cassidy and seconded by Councillor A. Hopkins is, at the joint request of the mover and seconder and with the consent of the Council, withdrawn.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 231 to 256, excluding Bill No.’s 232, 233, 239 and 243, and including the revised Bill No.’s 240, 254 and 256, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Bill No’.s 231 to 256, excluding Bill No.’s 232, 233, 239 and 243, and including the revised Bill No.’s 240, 254 and 256, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 231 to 256, excluding Bill No.’s 232, 233, 239 and 243, and including the revised Bill No.’s 240, 254 and 256, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Introduction and First Reading of the Bill No.’s 232 and 233, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of the Bill No.’s 232 and 233, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of the Bill No.’s 232 and 233, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Introduction and First Reading of the revised Bill No.’s 239 and 243, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Second Reading of the revised Bill No.’s 239 and 243, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Third Reading and Enactment of the revised Bill No.’s 239 and 243, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 257, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 257, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 257, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

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

Bill No. 231

By-law No. A.-8249-156 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 14th day of June, 2022. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 232

By-law No. A.-7948(a)-157 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7948-71, being “A by-law to authorize and approve the Contribution Agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership” to reflect the current organizational structure and transfer delegation of authority. (2.2a/7/CPSC)

Bill No. 233

By-law No. A.-7958(a)-158 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7958-94, being “A by-law to authorize and approve the Purchase of Service Agreement with WIL Counselling and Training for Employment: London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership” to reflect the current organizational structure and transfer delegation of authority (2.2b/7/CPSC)

Bill No. 234

By-law No. A.-8250-159 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and PepsiCo Beverages Canada to supply cold beverages at the City’s two municipal golf courses and for the vending machines at City of London Arenas, Community Centres, Dearness Home, and City Hall, substantially in the form attached and satisfactory to the City Solicitor and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2.4/7/CPSC)

Bill No. 235

By-law No. A.-8251-160 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Stewardship Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and London Symphonia for its exclusive use and custody of the City’s Music Library; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Stewardship Agreement (2.5/7/CPSC)

Bill No. 236

By-law No. A.-8252-161 - A by-law to approve demolition of abandoned building with municipal address of 150 Adelaide Street North; 9 Front Street; and 20 Paddington Avenue under the Property Standards provisions of the Building Code Act. (2.7/7/CPSC)

Bill No. 237

By-law No. A.-8253-162 - A by-law to approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Amending Agreement for the Canada-Ontario Community Housing Initiative (CHOCI) and the Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative (OPHI) with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2.8/7/CPSC)

Bill No. 238

By-law No. A.-8254-163 - A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc. (3.1/9/SPPC)

Bill No. 239

By-law No. A-54-22011 - 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 provide for an amended Penalty Schedule “A-5” for the Business Licensing By-law for the category of Short-term Accommodations (4.3b/7/CPSC)

Bill No. 240

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bk)-164 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to The London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan. (3.7/11/PEC)

Bill No. 241

By-law No. C.P.-1579-165 - A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 890 Upperpoint Avenue, legally described as Block 141 in Registered Plan 33M-754 and Block 42 in Registered Plan 33M-810. (2.2/11/PEC)

Bill No. 242

By-law No. CPOL.-68(b)-166 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-68-300 being “Issuance of Technology Equipment to Council Members” to delete Schedule “A” and replace it with a new Schedule “A”. (2.4/9/CSC)

Bill No. 243

By-law No. L.-131(f)-167 - A by-law to amend By-law No. L.-131-16, as amended, entitled “A by-law to provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Various Businesses”. (4.3a/7/CPSC)

Bill No. 244

By-law No. S.-6183-168 - A by-law to stop up and close the east stub of Upper Canada Crossing north of Raleigh Boulevard. (2.3/8/CWC)

Bill No. 245

By-law No. S.-6184-169 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Colonel Talbot Road north and south of Highway 402)  (Chief Surveyor – City-owned lands that require dedication at the present time as a precursor to a transfer of said lands to the Ministry of Ontario)

Bill No. 246

By-law No. S.-6185-170 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Queens Avenue west of Adelaide Street North)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes on Queens Ave that require dedication at the present time)

Bill No. 247

By-law No. S.-6186-171 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Richmond Street south of Kent Street)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes registered as ER1240143 pursuant at B.052/18 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 248

By-law No. S.-6187-172 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Commissioners Road West, west of Halls Mill Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to SPA17-024)

Bill No. 249

By-law No. S.-6188-173 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Highbury Avenue North, north of Wilton Avenue)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPC18-081)

Bill No. 250

By-law No. W.-5686-174 - A by-law to authorize the Colonel Talbot Road 2 Lane Upgrade (Project TS1329)  (2.7/7/CWC)

Bill No. 251

By-law No. W.-5687 -175 - A by-law to authorize the SWM Facility – London Psychiatric Hospital (LPH) (Project ESSWM-LPH)  (2.7/7/CWC)

Bill No. 252

By-law No. Z.-1-223031 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 3195 White Oak Road. (2.3/11/PEC)

Bill No. 253

By-law No. Z.-1-223032 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to change a definition which would apply City-wide. (3.1/11/PEC)

Bill No. 254

By-law No. Z.-1-223033 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 537 Crestwood Drive. (3.2/11/PEC)

Bill No. 255

By-law No. Z.-1-223034 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 258 Richmond Street. (3.4/11/PEC)

Bill No. 256

By-law No. Z.-1-223035 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1503 Hyde Park Road. (3.6/11/PEC)

Bill No. 257

By-law No. A.-8255-176 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Goran Mamika, for the acquisition of the property located at 134 Wellington Road, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/9/CSC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Turner

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 7:06 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 (2 hours, 57 minutes)

Thank you. May I ask colleagues to go on screen, please? Those who are not present in council. I’ll ask the clerk to confirm quorum.

You do have quorum, Yourisha. And are we aware of any council colleagues who aren’t in attendance right now, Judge Clerk? Councilor Van Holst is not in the meeting currently. Is most like power, are you aware of any regrets?

All right, thank you very much. And thank you and good afternoon colleagues and we’d like to welcome the public as well. I’ll say that the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-66-124-89 extension to leaving the province too.

I think if there’s someone with their microphone on, they might think of another option, please. Extension 2425. So colleagues, with that, I’ll look for any disclosures of community interest. Deputy Mayor.

Yes, on item 4.2 of the SPPC report, which is I think item 12 in council’s agenda, it relates to appointments to Western University’s board of governors and Western University is my employer. So I’ll declare an interest on that. So no to thank very much any of their declarations. That’s for Ann Merberg.

Thank you Mayor, I’d like to declare a conflict on 4.4 of the seventh report of the community and protective services committee, which deals with increased childcare spaces as my wife operates her own daycare. Thank you, so noted. Any other declarations? Councillor Hummer.

Thank you on the same item that Deputy Mayor Morgan declared on item number 12 on the report from SPPC on the same issue. Western is also my employer and so to declare a pecuniary interest on that. And then on the report on short-term accommodation, I’d declare a pecuniary interest on that as I have rented my home on Airbnb in the past and I expect I would do so again in the future. Thank you, so noted.

Any other declarations? I see no more. Thank you very much. Therefore now I will call on Councillor Hopkins to offer the land acknowledgement, please.

We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, the Haudenosaunee, the Lopnegg, and the Adawandran peoples. We honor and respect the history, language, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. 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 Nan Phan Treaty of 1701, the Mackie Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huront Track Treaty of 1827, and the Anishinaabe and the dish with one spoon, covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabe and the Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewa’s of the Thames, First Nations, Oneida Nations of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs.

Thank you very much, colleagues. We now have resumed not just tradition, but another important component of these meetings, which is our national anthem. Tonight, our national anthem will be performed by a very talented London artist, Catherine Fisher, who combines melody and grace in her music. Catherine’s recent extended play Wildflower Heart shows her audiences all the feelings by leading them to the brightest parts of their hearts, from the Via Rail Artist on board, to the Winnipeg Folk Festival, London Majors Games pre-game performances, and much more across our country.

She has performed at over 200 shows since 2018. Please join me in welcoming Catherine Fisher, who will join us as we sing the national anthem. Catherine, if you would come forward, please. The good news about Catherine joining us shortly is you won’t have to hear me do the national anthem, so I’m sure she’s coming in very shortly.

Please jump, please help me welcome Catherine Fisher. Please come forward, and colleagues, please stand. Gotta lower it a little bit. ♪ Head down ♪ ♪ Through hatred ♪ ♪ Love is coming ♪ ♪ With glory, we see the rise ♪ ♪ True, strong, and free ♪ ♪ Love and water ♪ ♪ We stand on guard ♪ ♪ For the stand ♪ Good to stay by for a moment.

We have a certificate to share with you to acknowledge your time with us today. So with that, let me come around as we present that to you. We normally have the picture taken by city halls, but it’s not bad. - Very well.

(indistinct chatter) And it is so important in so many ways, colleagues that we honor and acknowledge our local talent, and Catherine is another great example of that. I’d now like to call on Councillor Palosa for recognition, please, Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Your Worship. It’s a pleasure to rise today to recognize Mr.

Lloyd Grove. Lloyd is a resident in London, who’s 85 years old, so he met the criteria, and he’s been acknowledged and recognized as the senior of the year for 2022 from the provincial government. He is the only senior this year to receive that acknowledgement for Lloyd has donated blood for 66 years, and today had made his 1,400th and 10th donation. He’s donated whole blood, platements, and mainly blood plasma.

As someone who’s had a loved one’s life saved by a plasma donation, on behalf of Council and all Londoners, I’d like to thank Lloyd on today, World Blood Donor Day, for his accomplishment in saving so many lives and having such a huge impact in our community. Thank you. Madeline, Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

Continuing on the trend of London talent that we’re recognizing tonight. On May 29th, in an overtime game, and then on June 1st, in a one-point final, the London Lightning became five-time champions of the National Basketball League of Canada. And I want to extend my congratulations to owner Vito Frisia, the coaching staff, and the very, very talented players who call Budweiser Gardens home, and who do our city so proud on the court. Now, I am the first one to admit that I am not nearly as knowledgeable about basketball as I might be about, say, hockey or baseball, but I know a dynasty when I see one, and five national championships is a record that the London Lightning players and their families should be extremely proud of, and I know Londoners are extremely proud of, too.

And I want to also just thank the Lightning and Mr. Frisia because they’re not just representing our city on the court, but they are such wonderful ambassadors of their sport in the community, visiting with students at our elementary schools, and I will share on a personal note, thanks to a neighborhood decision-making grant from the city and an extra generous donation from Mr. Frisia, students at Princess Anne French Immersion School have a new basketball court in their school yard on which they can play. So not only are they showing us their fantastic skills on the court today, but they are fostering the skills of the players of the future who may one day wear that Lightning jersey.

So congratulations to all the members of the London Lightning family on their championship. Thank you. I’m not aware of any other recognitions. So with that, I will say that we have no confidential matters that are be discussed in public, and now it is my intention to move into closed session.

In a moment, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, but for the benefit of the public, and I’ll ask the clerk in a moment to advise why we are going into closed session, but I will say that we will be there for the time it takes, then we will resume into public session and be pleased to carry on with the bounce of our agenda. So before I look for a mover and seconder clerk perhaps, you can just share with the public, our rationale for going into closed session, please. Your worship, the matters to be dealt with in closed session are two matters that are outlined on the public council agenda. First item relates to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicit or client privilege.

The second item relates to the proposed depending acquisition of land and communications necessary for that purpose along with solicit or client privilege to advise and instructions to be applied to any negotiations. Thank you very much. So with that look for a mover to go into closed session, moved by Councilor Hillier, seconded by Councilor Van Merberg and we will call the question. Councilor Van Holst, Councilor Van Holst, second call.

We will mark you as. Have a good day. Thank you. I heard yay, closing the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. We certainly heard something. There was an echo there, Councilor Van Holst. I’ll leave that to you to see if you can deal with that feedback that you’re in.

So with that colleagues, we’ll just ask you to bear with us for a moment as we work towards moving into closed session and getting the appropriate people in for the first item. Thank you. Can I ask greens on please, colleagues? Thank you.

Thank you very much. For the benefit of the public as we’ve now returned, this is slightly, is going back to the old way. And the old way means that we will not be reporting out of closed session immediately. That will come in its regular programming.

So what we will now do is we will now go to the minutes and I’ll look for someone to move the minutes from the meeting held on May 24th, 2022. I see Councilor Van Holst, seconded by Councilor Van Mirberg in any discussion. Turn your attention to the screen as we vote then. Councilor Alma, my vote motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you colleagues. I’ll turn your attention out at six communications and petitions in which there is one item under said area. We have a number of questions, amendments, communications that have come to a committee. And I would ask that all of these be referred to the appropriate caps committee stage for consideration with item 15, 4.3.

So with that, I will look for a mover and a seconder, please. Will by Councilor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Hamou, comments, questions? Let’s call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero with one more to use. Thank you colleagues. There are no motions to which notice has been given to our reports and I’m going to start with the eighth report of civic works. I’ll call on Councilor Ploza, please.

Thank you Your Worship. It’s a pleasure to put forward the eighth report of the Civic Works Committee. I have not been given notice to pull anything separately in advance, noting that there was no conflicts declared at committee and everything was unanimous vote. So then the question becomes, does anyone wish to have any item dealt with separately?

I see an uncounselor, please. Thank you, I’ll put items one through five on the floor, noting that item 2.1 for NetNorthcrest Drive is a budget increase, this will allow homes already there if they choose so to have water servicing as they are within the urban growth boundary. 2.2 was a contract amendment when staff got out, they realized that there were some other repairs that needed to be done in the same area for pedestrian walkways, so it’s efficiencies within the tender that the city will get to realize while work’s being done and closing part of the upper care at a crossing as it’s not needed. Thank you, any comments or questions with respect to the Civic Works Committee reports?

Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I made sure to put my hand up really high. I appreciate it.

So you wouldn’t miss it. I just wanna comment on 2.1, that is in ward five and it’s one of the areas that was annexed by the city in the ’90s, and as part of the annexation, that there are other areas in Byron area as well, properties that had been on well, water, and on septic systems were left that way, and that was part of the agreement in bringing these lands into the city. We did make a budget, we did make a budget addition in our last multi-year budget to look after these orphaned areas when the opportunity arises, and this is a small area in London where the opportunity has arisen to bring them into the water system so that they no longer have to use their wells for drinking water and all of that, but they will, the ones that are on septic, will stay on septic for a while until another opportunity arises. So I just wanna say thank you to staff for making this happen.

People have been asking about this since I was elected in 2014, and I really didn’t hope that anything, even a small area, would see progress like this so soon. So I’m really pleased, I know the people in the area are pleased and will be pleased going forward. So I know Scott Mayders in particular did a lot of work to make this happen. I wanna thank him through you, your worship, and the whole team there in the engineering services division, thanks.

Thank you very much, any other comments with respect to any aspects of the Civic Works Committee. I see none, maybe call the question in that chair, as we do, deem the question called, turn your attention to the screen, please. Close in the vote motion, carries 15 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Close in.

Thank you, that concisely covers the eighth report. Very kindly. Now the 11th Report of Planning Environment Committee, I’ll call on Councillor Hopkins, please. Yes, thank you, your worship.

I’d like to present the eighth report of, oh sorry, the 11th report of the Planning Environment Committee. I have heard from no one to have anything pulled. So let’s ask that question. Does anyone wish to have an item dealt with separately and dependently for vote purposes?

Mr. Hopkins, I don’t see anyone, so I’ll turn it back to you, please. Thank you, your worship. And as always, Planning and Environment Committee is always a busy committee.

We did receive good news in an announcement about the London Plan being in full force and effect. It is now the one and only official plan of the City of London. We had a number of consent items. Of course, seven public participation meetings always busy.

There was a request for an amendment for 3.5 regarding the demolition of 850 Highbury Avenue that was not supported. The amendment was to allow for some photography to be done before the two buildings would come down. The request came from the public at the public participation meeting. We also received the latch report.

And with that, that is my report. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions with respect to the items on the agenda? I see Councillor Cassidy, please.

Thank you. Just in response to Councillor Hopkins’ report, your worship, I want to say thank you to staff in the planning divisions, legal staff, and Councillors who saw the London Plan through to its final, through the final steps. And now it’s in full force and effect. It’s a ground-breaking plan.

And people forget about that because so much time has passed since it was accepted and endorsed by Council and endorsed by the Ministry at the provincial level. It, if people have never looked at an official plan for a city, I think they should look at the London Plan and they should look at the 1989 official plan, even just briefly, to see the difference. The London Plan is something that anybody can look at and understand and know what it means. And it seeks to build the city of London in a way that works for all the residents.

I think there was an amazing feat of public engagement that took place in the years that led up to the creation of the London Plan. I want to call out a former city planner, John Fleming, and his team, many of them still with the city of London, many who have moved on to other cities and other places. It was an amazing thing that they did. I’m very proud of it and I know that they are as well.

Thank you. Thank you. Before we entertain more comments, I think we’ve got three items on plan environment that are going to be dealt with by virtue of amendment as well. I wonder, Councillor Cassidy, or pardon me, Hopkins, if you just want to comment on that, please.

Yes, Your Worship, my apologies for missing the amendments. We do have three amendments, clause 3.2, which is 537. Cresswood Drive and clause 3.6 for 1503. Hyde Park Road and clause 3.7 for 850 Highbury Avenue.

They all are technical amendments to be made and those are the three amendments. Thanks very much. So we will be dealing with those separately. So colleagues with your indulgence on the table really is one through 15 with the exception of item 9, 13 and 14, I believe that’s correct.

So we’re talking about 3.2, 3.6, 3.7, which we will consider amendments. And as those are dealt with and supported as amended, if that’s the will of council. So with that, any other questions with regard to those items there? With the exception of 3, 2, 6 and 7.

So with those items excluding those three, we will call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. And now I’ll turn your attention to item 3.2, councilor.

I’m not sure what the process here is here. Do I read them all the amendments out or if someone can give me some direction? Well, let’s just ask the clerk. Through you, your worship, there was a pre-amendment circulated, perhaps a general overview of the item and the by-law that’s associated with it.

I believe the first item is related to 520 Sarnia Road, Crosswood Avenue issue. And this is clause 3.2537 Crosswood Drive. Thank you. This was a supported committee and I will ask if anyone has any questions with respect to 3.2.

This is on the amendment. You can always go to your screens to clarify the amendment and the item that we’re dealing with right this moment. This will be moved by Councillor Hopkins. Is there a seconder for this amendment?

I see, Councillor, Chief Miller on the amendment. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Now I will direct your attention to 3.2 now as amended. Councillor Hopkins, you prepared to move that forward.

Yes, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Comments or questions, colleagues? Let’s call the question.

Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Second item, colleagues, is item 3.6. Where an amendment is, I wonder if I can take a liberty chair to ask the clerk just to make reference to this amendment as well. This is 1503 Hyde Park Road.

That’s correct. And we’re doing a technical amendment on this. The rationale is to adjust the reference. It’s really the bracket that we’re adjusting, and section 25.3 was referenced and was replaced with section 25.4.

Thank you, and do you have a seconder? This Councillor Fai-Fmiller, thank you. Any comments or questions on the amendment? Public question.

Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. And back to you on this item as amended. Councillor Hopkins. When it’s 3.7, which is 8.3?

Yeah, before we get there, before we get there, we’ll just finish off 3.6 as amended, if we could. If that has your support to be put on. My apologies. Oh, we’re all good.

Seconded by Councillor Lehman. Thank you, comments, questions. Councillor Moore, Deputy Mayor? Yes, on the amended motion.

This is a development in my ward. I didn’t attend the planning committee, but I did want to just add a few words of support for this development. It’s a eight story, 130 residential unit development with about 800 square meters of retail and commercial space on the ground. As Councillor Caste noted and Councillor Hopkins about the London plan, this is one of the few areas in the city that has a main street designation.

And so a development like this is an important addition to what is keeping with the new character and development of the Hyde Park, a Gainesboro area, which we’ve seen a number of new residential developments and are on the verge of creating a very walkable and interactive community village-like feel as we add a number of people into this area. This is certainly a development that does have a lot of intensity in the area. And I want to commend the applicants’ consultants who did a lot of work, multiple developer-driven community meetings with the community, which is why you see just a few comments from the public record. A lot of that back and forth happened and was engaged with in the community.

So thank you to our staff. Thank you to the developers’ consultants for helping make a smooth process. And I’m certainly supportive of this development in the Hyde Park area. Thank you.

Any other comments, questions? Clerk, I see no more. Why don’t we call the vote? Wasn’t the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

Last amendment is for clause 3.7, which is 850 Highbury Avenue. I wonder if I can just go to the clerk for the rationale behind the amendment. Clerk, do you want to go ahead? Through you, Your Worship.

The by-law title on the first statement were updated to reference the amendment to the official plan. In quote, purpose of this amendment, quote, the words to amend were replaced with to delete and replace. And in part D, the amendment. First line was amended to read, quote, “The official plan of the city of London 2016 “is hereby amended as follows,” end quote.

Thank you. You’ll move that, Councillor Hopkins. Do you have a seconder? I see Councillor Van Mirberg.

And thank you, comments, questions. On the amendment, let’s call the question. Sir, Councillor Hilliard, I see you with that thoughtful thinker pose, and I’m sometimes wondering if you’re putting your hand up to ask a question or you’re looking wise. I think you are actually.

The vote motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Hopkins. My thanks to the amendments, and that is my report. We have to amend it, of course.

So you’re putting forward the motion as amended. Councillor Hopkins, do you have a seconder for that? I see Councillor Hilliard, thank you very much. And with that, any comments or questions?

Call the vote. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Hopkins.

I apologize for being ahead of myself. My thanks to the clerk for his assistance with the amendments, and that is my report. Thank you. It’s why we have such wise clerks.

I tend to notice, thank you very kindly as well. Chair, I’d now like to call on Councillor Cassidy for the seventh report of the Community Protective Services Committee. Thank you, Your Worship. I put the entire report on the floor, except for 4.3, which is number 15 on the council agenda.

We have a conflict on that one, and I am not aware of any other items to be pulled. Just saying when Councillor Van Merberg, and you’d like to have something else dealt with separately, that’d be- As a mayor, I declared a conflict on 4.4. Got it, yes. At the beginning of the meeting, I just want to make sure it’s pulled separately.

It will be, thank you. Any other where a vote is required separately, or wish to have the item dealt with separately? Mr. Chair, just one second, I’m just reviewing.

Go ahead, Councillor Sully. Anyone else while that’s being perused? Councillor Helmer? Make sure the short-term accommodations as well.

Yes, that’s all, that’s been pulled. Thank you at the direction of the chair. Councillor Sully. Yeah, I just wanted to ask the clerk, the last committee meeting report, we were discussing that one item that I declare a peculiar interest.

I think it was the immigration partnership. Item 2.2, I believe that’s the one I declared on. So I think that one, I’m gonna have to separate. This is one and it’s the next local immigration partnership.

I believe that was the one I had declared on. So noted, thank you very much. That’s item 2.2, or broader item 3 on the seventh report. Any other items, colleagues?

So with the exception of those three items, you’ll put those on the floor, Councillor Cassidy. Yes, your worship. And my apologies to Councillor Van Mereberg and I forgot that. All right, and any other comments or questions?

This is an all with the exception of 2.2, 434, 4. Councillor Turner. Really quickly on 2.5, the amendment agreement with the London Symphonia for the stewardship of the poor markets for London Music Library. I’m happy to see that moving forward.

I think we’ve spoken about this a little bit before, but when the orchestra London dissolved, the stewardship of this library was a very important aspect to the members of orchestra London to make sure that it was retained in the hands so that any successor organization would be able to have this library, which has been accumulated over years and is actually rather difficult and costly to be able to approve over time. So happy to see this move forward and glad to see that it’s on the agenda. Thank you very much. Any other comments, colleagues?

Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I just wanted to comment on the housing stability plan, which is number, can’t remember, there it is. Number 2.9 from the committee agenda and number 12 on the council agenda.

If I certainly invite members of the public who are interested in our housing crisis in London and the homelessness prevention plans that are in place, I invite them to look at this report. It shows the progress that staff have made so far. The strategic priorities are especially important to look at that being under housing affordability and range and under homelessness prevention, the retention and the supports and service coordination in the city for housing and homelessness prevention. If you look on number 174 from the committee agenda and seeing the number of projects, the affordable housing development projects that have been completed and that are in progress right now, we’re making some really good progress in the city.

There is so much more to do. And I just wanted to highlight this plan and again, say thank you to city staff for all the good work that they do, as well as the community organizations that work with our city staff in this area. Thank you, other comments or questions? So Councillor Slee, we’re just trying to clarify which of the specific issues relating to bylaws that may impact your declaration of pecanary interest.

Yeah, so I was just planning to go ahead. Emigration partnership is employed by the federal government for the Canadian Board of Service agency and deals with immigration, does that help? Well, let’s see how much wisdom the clerk can take from your comments. Three-year worship to the Councillor, there are two bills, bill 232 and bill 233.

The first relates to contribution agreement with their Majesty the Queen and right of Canada is represented by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership and bill 233 deals with a bylaw to authorize and approve the purchase of service agreement with WIL counseling and training for employment. London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership is the pecanary interest related to one or both. Thoughts, comments, Councillor Slee?

Yeah, I’ll go with both just that caution. I think yeah, for the same reason noted previous. Thank you. So colleagues, we’re dealing with all the items here with the exception of two, two, four, three, four, four.

Are we good with that clerk? All right, so with that, I did not see any other comments or questions. It’s a bigger room, there’s more people, it makes me work more. So with all of that, let’s call the vote.

Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll put item three, which is 2.2 from the committee agenda on the floor.

And that is the updated bylaws for the limblet. I’m not aware that there were any other comments or questions that was the conflict committee, should anyone wish to make any comments? I see none, we’ll call the question. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one reduced.

Councillor Cassidy. Worship, I’ll put item 15, which is 4.3 from the committee report, the short-term accommodations proposed amendments. And there is an amendment to that proposed bylaw as well. And the amendment makes the enactment, enactment date of the bylaw October 1st, 2022.

Thank you, and are you moving that amendment, Councillor Cassidy? Yes. And is there a seconder for that? I see Councillor Palosa, thank you, comments, questions on the amendment.

That’s for those. Thank you, Your Worship. And just through you on the amendment, my concern on an October 1st coming into force date is just around potential problems that arise in the fall around homecoming and the unfortunately the FOCO event that we have happening in our community and how this could potentially lead to that. I’m not sure what the date Western has of homecoming this year, but I’m concerned that we might be allowing for bookings over that period that could lead to further concerns from residents.

So I’m wondering if we could get some response from our staff or others on when the homecoming is going to fall and how this could affect that. Well, I believe it’s in the third week of September, but Mr. May this will give us, I think, a little bit more wisdom and clarity to them. Your Worship, we would agree that the ideal timing would be September 1st for this to come forward.

However, we will need more time to set up the municipal accommodation tax collection process, so that’s why we’ve recommended the October 1st date. That’s for those. Thank you, Your Worship. And I appreciate the staff need time to get pieces of this in place.

And quite honestly, I was open to supporting a later coming into force date than perhaps you signing the bylaws in your office tomorrow morning, recognizing that hosts may have bookings throughout the summer, that they should have a chance to honor, absolutely. I also recognize that the municipal accommodation tax is not a quick process to put in place. But I will say that I am uncomfortable with October 1st because we have seen in years past issues of rising from homecoming. And some of these are at long-term rentals as well.

The problem is not exclusive to short-term rentals. Commodations, I want to be really clear about that. But I think we just opened the door to more potential issues with that. So respectfully, I would like to move an amendment to the amendment that says September 1st.

Is there, I know we keep saying firsts and I’m mindful of weekends. So if there’s any specificity, which is those words I’ve learned today, you might consider that. Actually, I think that that’s very good advice, Your Worship. And I’ll take that.

Perhaps we could put the coming into forestate on the Tuesday following the Labor Day long weekend without having my calendar open in front of me. But I think that that gets us through the summer long weekends where bookings may already be booked, but also takes into consideration homecoming. So I’m not sure if we’re treating that as a friendly amendment. I’ll look to the mover of the original motion to get a sense of her perspective.

If not, we’ll look for a seconder to that at your pleasure chair. So since there wasn’t, I don’t think a second, yet for October 1st, I’m happy to let Councillor Lewis move his amendment and I’m happy to second his amendment as well. So noted. Go ahead.

What is your point of order? I had seconded the motion. Thank you, and I don’t agree that it’s friendly. All right, so with that, we have a motion on the floor and amendment that was moved and seconded.

And to be amended by Councillor Lewis, seconded by the mover of the original amendment if you’re following so far. And so with that, I will look to the clerk, but I think we would vote on the less friendly amendment that moves it to September the Tuesdays. That’s September the 4th, you’ve got to help me Councillor Lewis. I believe that’s now that I’ve had a chance to actually open the calendar at September the 6th.

6th, we are making this work. Thank you very much. So that is on the floor. Any discussion about the September 6th timeline as put forward by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cassidy.

Councillor Turner, go ahead. Thanks, Your Worship. I think if we’re going to be taking a measure like this, then we need to be able to provide as much of a runway as possible. I’m not sharing Councillor Lewis’s concerns that this will lead over into that season.

But in addition to that, I think the intent is to try and be able to put things in place that help to address some of the negative and unwanted behaviors associated with the short-term accommodations. Councillor Lewis is correct. This isn’t limited to short-term accommodations. It’s an issue that occurs in the city in accommodations of whatever type, old, short-term, long-term.

And we need to be able to address those things. I don’t think this by-law is going to be a silver bullet that addresses hope for a call or anything else. So I think we need to be cognizant of the impacts that we have on hundreds of small business owners in the city and we should be able to give as much of a runway as possible. Thanks very much.

Any other comments or questions with respect to the state and timeframe? I’ll recognize the deputy mayor. Yes, so I tend to concur with Councillor Turner as well. I heard from our staff that they would be unable to meet an earlier deadline.

So I’d like to go back to our staff to ask, adding the municipal accommodation tax is obviously a key portion of the work being done. And can they meet an earlier timeframe of September 6th or do they need that extra few weeks into October to do so? Let’s get wisdom from staff on that. Ms.

Barboon, I see you’re there. Might you wish to respond? Yes, thank you, through your worship. So to be able to implement the municipal accommodation task, there has to be an updated by-law and a collection mechanism.

So in order to do the by-law, we have to have a public participation meeting to be able to proceed with that next step. There is not sufficient time with the September 1st implementation to do a public participation meeting and to be able to get the mechanisms in place subsequent to that meeting. So if you were to support the September 1st date, there will be no municipal accommodation tax that would be able to be implemented for that date. And you would then have to separate the processes and then the MAT collection would have to come separate to the register and in the licensing as it is being implemented.

So there are ramifications to doing that. And I just wanna be clear that council understands the separation of those two. It does create a bit of a problem. Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, so I will support the amendment to the amendment, but I’ll support the original amendment. Geek is both our staff time, as well as some runway for those who have bookings a little further into September. And certainly, I think we can do this right once or we can divide it up. And I’d prefer just doing it all at once.

Thank you. And I appreciate that Deputy Mayor, before I recognize Councillor Cassidy, the obvious question to Councillor to Ms. Barbone, though, is that October one weekend that’s been suggested in the amendment, is that sufficient time as well? That’s the obvious question that I think the Deputy Mayor would have asked.

I thank you through your worship. So it is tight, but we are prepared to be able to proceed. And we’ve been preparing and working with legal to get the municipal accommodation tax bylaw ready to go. So I believe we can have it implemented in place for October, but certainly no earlier than that.

Thanks very much. Then I’ll recognize Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I wanted to second the amendment to the amendment.

So we could hear from staff and discuss this possibility of doing it earlier, having heard from Ms. Barbone. I would like to withdraw my second on that amendment to the amendment. So noted, is there a second on Councillor Lewis’s recommendation of September one, or as we call it, to dream the impossible dream?

Councillor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m just going to very quickly say that, well, I think that an extra meeting could be added to the schedule at the call of the chair to deal with the public participation meeting. I do appreciate the staff’s indication of a tight timeline.

However, so I will withdraw the amendment. However, you know, I want to send the message very loud and clear that we recognize the fake homecoming continues to be a problem. And we will have to take necessary steps on enforcement in terms of any locations where problems arise. And that will include short-term accommodation rentals.

And so I hope that hosts are well aware of the fact that there are extra resources every year that go into by law enforcement. And whether this by law is in place or not at that time, those will need to be respected. Thank you very much, sir. We are now with a withdrawn amendment to the amendment dealing with the amendment.

So that has been put forward by Councillor Cassidy, appropriately seconded by Councillor Palosa. Councillor Cassidy, then Councillor Vanholst, if you’ve got anything you wish to add to this that would be helpful. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Councillor Vanholst, in light of this, anything else?

Thank you, Your Worship. So my question through you, your staff, is about the concerns that might happen during that time of homecoming. I’d like to know if we have worked with Airbnb that short-term accommodation provider to deal with some of these problems. So we work directly with them ‘cause I know that they have some processes in place to deal with parties rather quickly.

And I wanted to know if we’ve interacted with them about that and come up with ways to improve that process or see what we can do about it to help. So the question I believe was, what interactions have we had with the Airbnb community and/or leadership as it relates to this particular issue? And I’ll, if I can, look to Mr. Mathers for some thoughts, please.

Through you, Your Worship. The enforcement of these types of nuisance and noise complaints is for the most part done by the London Police Service, but also by, depending on the time of the week by city staff. For the most part, we’re just responding to a neighbor’s complaint to be able to address one of these issues. And we’re not interacting directly with Airbnb because we may not, we wouldn’t even know whether it’s an Airbnb until we get to the site and the people would tell us that.

So it is difficult on a nightly basis to be able to engage Airbnb. But if that’s something that we learned in the future, then we can educate our bylaw officers to let them know that that may be an avenue to be able to correct situation. But it’s really hard on a day-to-day basis when you’re addressing these concerns in the field to be able to identify it as an Airbnb and contact the Airbnb directly. Thank you, customer Van Holst.

Well, thank you, Your Worship. It seems to me that we might be able to resolve the issue with that contact with Airbnb. And although it might be difficult, certainly what we’re doing now is quite difficult in enacting this new legislation. And though we’re not on the main motion yet, I would say that I’m unlikely voting against it.

I think that there’s some great opportunities for London to have short-term rentals. I think there’s a number of drawbacks to going forward in this way. And there’s a number of things that we haven’t done at our alternatives to communicate for those specifically. So those will be my comments for now.

Thank you. I’ll go against this amendment. Thank you, and customer Van Holst, we’ve got what you said, but there’s just a little, I think feedback a little buzz back in terms of the volume or the clarity of the tone. So perhaps we’ll be able to deal with that in some fashion as we go forward in this meeting.

Any other comments with respect to the amendment put forward and appropriately seconded? I see none. So with that, we will call the question on the amendment. Close and the vote.

Motion carries 13 to one with one recuse. And I think, Councillor Cassidy, we’re just going to a package here with the motion as amended, I’ll turn it back to you, please. Yes, your worship, I’ll put the motion as amended on the floor. Do you have a secondary?

I see Councillor Fai from the floor. Thank you. Comments or questions? I see none.

We will call the question. Very sneaky, sir. I think so. Thanks, I was so excited about this.

And I really hope that my colleagues will really consider them. First, we need to ask ourselves what we’re trying to address with this by-law. Is it housing or is it nuisance tenants? And in the beginning of all of this, it was about nuisance tenants, areas about the parties, about having no accountability framework.

It was about consumer protection and neighborhood protection too. And that seems to have fallen off. And now there’s a discussion about housing and a way that we can return units to the market for long-term accommodations. We have needs on pretty much all fronts.

We have needs on the short-term side. We have needs on the medium-term, the long-term. We have needs for purchase housing, rental housing. Where our big needs are, it’s affordable housing.

And this doesn’t address that. Council often really wants to look like it’s doing something on difficult issues. And we’ve encountered this a number of times through the past few years. And we should be taking action on difficult issues, but we shouldn’t be looking for the quick fix.

We need to be understanding that some of these issues are a little more complex than just a quick stroke of the pen. And if we’re doing this, anything otherwise, then thoughtful consideration is just optics. In the SPPC report, last week when we had a discussion, we got to look at the housing projections and the housing needs for London. For the past roughly decade, we’ve underperformed in terms of more the industry, in terms of what the projections were versus what was built.

We had the ability to accommodate that. But the building permits of being sought didn’t meet what our projections were that we had when we did our development charge studies. And they’re just minorly starting to pass what the projection was for this year. And we’re not quite sure what it’s going to look like for the next couple of years.

So there’s been a lot of talk about a housing crisis. And that may be true, but we don’t know. We haven’t quantified it. We’re just hearing about it.

We hear a lot of talk about it. And so it’s really incumbent on us to have a good grasp of what that is before we take some pretty drastic actions to address it. We do know and we have quantified the needs for affordable housing. Housing in general is a different story.

And so what’s being proposed here is in essence of basically a backdoor expropriation by other means to try and increase the number of units available on the market for longer term housing. And we’re not compensating for them for it. We’re just telling them that they can’t do it anymore. I’m going to take it back to the Uber debate from last term.

I was against Uber. And the only reason I was against Uber was because they had come to us and asked us to take a look at our bylaws. Because our bylaws didn’t allow them to operate. They said, can you take a look at your bylaws and try to update them so that we can operate here?

And so we said, sure, we’ll take a look at the bylaws and see if that might be something we can do. It’s still subject to debate. But before we could even start down that path, Uber started operating illegally. And nonetheless, Council went forward recognizing that they’re small business operators and codified it to make it legal.

So we created a class of vehicles for hire that allowed for ride sharing, like Uber and Lyft and others when there wasn’t one before. And we turned a class of illegal operators into legal operators. What we’re doing now is we’re going to take a class of legal operators and turn them into illegal operators. And that’s should be concerning to us.

Because as we’ve heard from staff, there are hundreds. And that basically these are all small business operators with hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment that we’re going to take and make them not able to do what they were legally able to do prior to this. So we need to take a look at how we really want to tackle this problem. I think absolutely we need to take measures to protect neighborhoods, to protect tenants, to protect owners or properties, to make sure that we can have impact on nuisance within the community, especially at times like a property times, whether it’s full core or otherwise.

And we can do that with a bylaws. I think a bylaws the appropriate way of doing that. And we can do that through registering and licensing the short-term accommodations. But that also does, is it allows us to make sure that the accommodations for the renters are safe, that they’re fire safe, that they’re habitable, that people aren’t getting taken advantage of.

30 seconds. If I might just ask for an extension, not too long. Good. Thank you.

So we need to be able to take measures to protect consumers and protect to our residents. But I don’t think that this measure going so far is to make a class of legal operators illegal. Is the right way of doing that. And we can do this through a couple of options.

We can take a look and say, let’s grandfather the ones that are currently operating if our concern is about the housing market. And then take a look at those non-owner occupied and say, OK, going forward, no new ones can be. And we can await for better information on the housing situation in the housing units. By doing this, we have a one-time infusion.

Potentially, we don’t know what the operators are going to do with those residences that they own, whether they’re going to return you into long-term accommodations if they sell them off, or if they sell them to property speculators, someplace else where they can get some more cash. They’re going to lose a lot of money when we do this. Thousands of dollars minimum, just from lost bookings, from the time it takes to convert real TPs, all of those things. And the other thing we need to consider is that we might be kind of shooting ourselves in the foot, because this is a lot of MAT revenues that we’d before going.

We have a potential here. I think the operators have recognized that it’s reasonable to be regulated, that it’s reasonable to pay municipal accommodation taxes. It’s reasonable to have some sort of safeguards on this industry. And that’s our role as government.

But to use this by-law as a tool to try and infuse more housing into the city, I think that’s probably not a really good plan, and I really strongly advise against it. So I hope my colleagues will defeat the motion. I was supportive of the amendment, because I saw that as a minor reasonable step in what I would consider a very unreasonable by-law. Thanks very much.

I’ll call on Councillor Homue, please. I have a few comments about this as well, just speaking about the amendment. Sorry, I stand. I’m always forgetting the rules.

I’m sorry. I’m not really a scoff-law. But so we are looking for family-sized units. These are things that are in the research.

I just wanted to go back to a point that my esteemed colleague, Councillor Turner, said that we don’t have a housing crisis in London, or that we don’t have the numbers in the reports. But we do, in fact, have those. We have many economists that have pointed to these numbers. We’ve got CMHC, we’ve got L-Star.

So if you look at their statistics and you see that there is a housing crisis in London, I don’t know if, I can’t even believe I’m arguing this. Councillor Moo, I’m going to stop. I didn’t hear Councillor Turner say that. So before I hear an objection raised, I’m just going to qualify that just a little bit if I can.

I didn’t hear him say that we did not have a crisis or a concern, but I’ll let you please carry on. Councillor Turner, can you go back and say what it is? Because I want to make sure that I address the point correctly. Your worship, you’re with your indulgence.

I don’t want to engage in cross debate. And nor do I. So I really think that I’m going to say thank you, Councillor Turner, but again, from what I heard, Councillor Moo, this was, that wasn’t the direction that I heard Councillor Turner going. So with that, but I allow your comments to stand.

I think I will be helpful, please, go ahead. Thank you. And that we do, that, you know, looking at the forecast, I think that was more of what you were saying, but we do have a housing crisis. We do have people that are looking for cheaper rentals.

And if you look at some of the numbers, there were 600, I believe short-term rentals of which 440 we will have access to. That’s 440 families that we could possibly house in London. And so that covers off the point of why we’re doing this for housing. Now, if we’re talking about nuisance laws, that’s something completely different, of course, but it also works with this, in that, you know, even in my own neighborhood, while in my own neighborhood, we’ve had severe nuisance issues with Airbnb rentals.

And a lot of times I got calls from the neighbors since I’ve been a Councillor, I’ve had calls about this very issue from my neighbors. Talking about homecoming, talking about how you have students from Queens, from U of T, from Metropolitan University in Toronto, from all of the different universities, come down specifically for our HOCO, FOCO, whatever you wanna call it, fake homecoming. And they use those Airbnb rentals in order to invite more people, and it creates more chaos. So for me, I am fully in support of sanctioning and bringing this law forward as soon as possible.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m going to really encourage colleagues to support this.

And Councillor Turner is absolutely correct when he says this began, actually in the previous term of council, with concerns about nuisance parties arising. But what’s come to light through the last four and a half, five years since staff has first started monitoring the situation, is that this is actually a multi-layered issue. And there is a component here, which impacts housing. And while we may need, Councillor Turner highlighted, we particularly need affordable housing in the city.

And I don’t disagree with him there, we do particularly need that. However, we need housing at all price points across the city. And the inventory numbers are available through the London Home Builders, through All-Star, through others, where you can see that it is actually very difficult to find a house in any price point right now in the city. Now that market may be changing as economic factors change, but right now that is the situation.

Where I’m going to share a different interpretation is that we are somehow taking something that is legal and making it illegal. We are not. We are actually exercising our appropriate authority as council to regulate and license a business operation. And when we have long-term rentals, a rental unit license is required.

Safety inspections are required. The owner of that long-term rental has to pay a fee every year to keep that rental unit in good stead. When a hotel operator comes forward to start business in this city, they have to have proper zoning, business licenses, and all of those other things in place as well. The Airbnb hosts who are hosting or short-term accommodation hosts, ‘cause it’s not just Airbnb.

So I want to be clear about that. But the short-term accommodation hosts who have purchased a property specifically to use as a short-term rental haven’t done anything wrong in the fact that they’ve taken advantage of an opportunity in a regulatory void. They’ve been able to do it because there have been no rules. What we are recommending here today is that rules get put in place.

And I think it’s important to go back to the root of short-term accommodation rentals. It was supposed to be part of the sharing economy. It wasn’t supposed to become a corporate profit-making mechanism operating hotels under the guise of short-term rental accommodations in neighborhoods, in homes that used to be occupied by families. So we do have something that has evolved from a way for a homeowner to perhaps supplement their income a little bit when they are not at home, or if they’ve got a room in their home that they could rent out for weekend guests to make a little bit of extra income.

But it’s gone beyond that, it’s not about renting out space in your home while you’re away anymore. It’s become buying up houses, taking them off the market for renters or buyers who may want to call London home and turning them into short-term accommodation. And that is part of the problem. That is one more layer.

And it is absolutely within our jurisdiction as a council to have regulations around the business licensing to restrict where these can go. ‘Cause again, these are commercial operations. They don’t belong in neighborhoods, they don’t have zoning for that. So I’m really encouraging people to support this.

I realize that not all owners will be pleased with this. And many of the hosts run excellent operations. Unfortunately, some do not. But the fact of the matter is what we have is an operation that is functioning as a hotel, not paying the municipal accommodation tax, not zoned to be a hotel operation.

And again, these owners have done this to take an opportunity that was available. But the void of regulation is no longer going to exist. Regulations are coming into place. A quite significant runway is being given to give them time to wrap up the bookings they have to decide what they want to do with those properties.

Maybe they wish to sell them. Maybe they wish to go into the long-term rental business. They can make that choice. I disagree that this is going to somehow cost them thousands and thousands of dollars.

People who have purchased homes are going to make, if they decide to get out and sell those homes, are going to make a tidy profit. If they are going to rent them out long-term, they will still have long-term rental income. 30 seconds, Councillor. So I’m going to encourage colleagues to support this.

This has been a long time coming. It has been many, many, many years. There’s been significant consultation back and forth with the industry, with the operators, as well as with people in the neighborhoods where these places are located. And the time is now to move forward and put regulations in place.

Thank you. I’ll call on Councillor Van Halston and Councillor Hopkins. Go ahead, Councillor Van Halston. I’m going to see the amount of leave.

Councillor, we’re struggling to get the audio from your report. Throwing out the baby with the bath water seems to me what is happening here or could be happening. So these short-term accommodations are a valuable service. And it’s a service demand and it’s a service that one needs and there’s many reasons for the owners of these have written in and said, and we have letters in our agenda that describe why people from outside London make use of these.

I make use of these when I travel. And so it’s an important thing. And we’re going to be stepping back in London if we remove this possibility. Now, I do want to talk about the housing question because it’s, I don’t believe that someone’s purchase say a beat up house, which does happen, and then invest a bunch of money into it and then provide it as affordable housing so that that investment is never recovered.

And I know individuals who do this, if they couldn’t possibly fix up the property unless they had this extra income. And some people can only fix up the houses from time to time. They rented out for a little while, get some money, work on that and work on the house. So there’s something valuable happening here.

There’s an urban regeneration that happens because of these short-term rentals that we’re not, that we’re not discussing. So like Councillor Turner, I don’t think it’s, we’re actually solving directly the problem that we want to solve. And nor do I see this as solving the housing challenges as well. So it would be much, much better for us to allow these long-term accommodations as homes in this city and simply move ahead with say the municipal accommodation tag if we needed to or the licensing of these.

But I think that we’re, as it was said, shooting ourselves in the foot. Tourism is gonna be harmed. The kind of economy that we’re trying to build is gonna be harmed when we’re trying to attract people to stay here for a short term, not just weekends, but amounts under a month. It’s gonna be a problem.

And I think for those renters that are breaking even their own rules for Airbnb, if that’s happening, they’ll find other ways to make the same amount of money. So what we really need to do is focus on the nuisance says and get the data because we don’t have that. And it’s unfair to tell people that we’re gonna take away in some cases your livelihood based on data that we don’t really have or solutions that we haven’t produced. So I see that we might be able to move forward with something like this, but I would like to try a bunch of other things first.

So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Roberts. Yeah, thank you. Your worship and I would like to encourage my colleagues to support the bylaw and glad to see the amendment of October 1st remaining.

I think we do have to allow staff some time to get the accommodation tax in place. I want first of all start off with thanking staff. I know when we approached them about three years ago to look into this, it was really important at that time that we looked at the quality of our neighborhood. We know that housing has changed in the past three years.

We talked about affordable housing and how this can help when it comes to the rental housing market. I understand and completely agree with Councillor Turner, this is not going to be a quick fix at all, but we have to address the housing in our city and also the quality of our neighborhoods. And this bylaw is addressing both of these. I want to thank staff for the amount of work that they have put into this to get us to this point.

Number of public participation meetings have gone on through the past number of years. We’ve all been engaged with different comments, pro or for or against. And it’s been an important debate to have in our city. I’m really glad that we’ve had that and we’ve taken the time to get to where we are now.

I know we’ve got a bit more work still to do, obviously the education part is going to be a key to having some success here with this bylaw. But I think the other part of it is going to be about encouraging the public to comply. And it’s going to take time. I think we can do it as a city.

We can come together and address the many concerns that we have. This is just a tiny part of addressing the concerns when it comes to housing in our city. But more important, it does address the quality of our neighborhoods as well. So hoping that my colleagues can support this.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you, Your Worship. I agree with Councillor Turner that how this began. And this did begin in the last term of council as really exploring the issue of short-term accommodations, how widespread they were in London when we first looked at it. I think in 2017, they weren’t that widespread.

And the direction we gave to staff was to keep monitoring this situation. And that’s what staff have done. I don’t think that this has been a quick fix. I think we have been looking at this for a very long time.

I think staff have been looking at this for a very long time. And I, for one, my viewpoint has evolved from looking at the potential problems that short-term accommodations cause in neighborhoods. I have won in my ward. That has been brought to my attention for many years now.

But it has morphed. And city staff have evolved in how they’re looking at it. And the housing issue and the lack of affordable housing in the city of London, the fact that over 600 of these short-term accommodations, many of the 600, used to be long-term rentals and have been taken off the market. So we know that they have had a direct effect on the availability of long-term rentals in the city of London.

And city staff at the meeting did a very good job of addressing how this is an issue in London and how it is an issue across the country. There are other cities that have enacted a similar by-law. I believe the city of Toronto is one, but I will defer to staff just to confirm that Toronto is one that has made owner occupation a part of their by-law. The issue of housing at all price points, at all levels of affordability across the city, is a significant issue.

We address it in many, many ways through inclusionary zoning at some point in the future, hopefully soon, through bonusing, which unfortunately we’re going to be losing soon. But we keep saying we have to use every tool available to us. And this is one of the tools that’s available to us. I don’t come to this decision lightly.

I’m not happy that people will be losing some investment on this. I’m not happy to cause this pain for some people. But we’ve done this, as another Councillor said, we enact legislation all the time that has an effect on people. At one point, we made it mandatory that pet shops, et cetera, places selling domestic animals, companion animals, can only use rescue animals.

I’m sure we affected people’s profits at that point. There have been changes at the public health level where industries like nail salons that didn’t used to be regulated, all of a sudden are regulated, and those that don’t meet the requirements of those regulations, some have closed down. It happens. It’s not pleasant, and I don’t relish doing it.

But I also know that we do have a housing crisis in London. City staff were excellent in responding to the questions from committee. We heard from Mr. Dickens.

We heard from Mr. Catolic. We heard from Mr. Mathers.

And it was a cross-divisional approach to this, and the collaboration that went into creating this by-law was apparent. And I agree with Councillor Hopkins, your worship, I want to say thank you to staff as well. I just wanna check with staff and confirm that I’m correct, that Toronto has this in their by-law as well, or maybe just a quick comment from staff on how they see how our housing situation and the short-term rental market, how it’s affected the situation in London. Let’s ask Mr.

Mathers. Through you, worship. As far as the other municipalities that have similar policies, we have a list of at least 12. Toronto being the largest, several other GTA municipalities and other Southwestern municipalities, including Windsor and Saria.

We have heard from our Director of Municipal Housing that he feels that this will have a positive impact on affordability, maybe not at the lowest levels of forwardability, but would provide a benefit to many of the Londoners looking for housing. So that is the recommendation that we brought forward to you. So any other questions, I’d be happy to answer. Councillor, Councillor.

Those are my comments, thank you, your worship. Thank you, I have no other speakers on the list. This is, we are now voting on the amended, the motion as amended. And so with that, I will ask the clerk to pull that up on the screen for voting.

Sir, hello. Present the vote. Motion carries. Ball to two with one recuse.

Councillor, I believe you have one more item to deal with. I do your worship because sitting is the new smoking. I stand and I put item 16, which is 4.4 on the floor. Thanks very much.

This is the issue dealing with more licensed childcare spaces. We appreciate you standing. Comments or questions with respect to this item? One colleague had declared a kinder interest.

I see a question, Deputy Mayor, go ahead. Not a question to comment. First, I don’t sit on the committee, but I wanna thank the committee for supporting, moving this forward to council. I hope my council colleagues supported together with Councillor Ploza and Councillor Hamou.

The three of us are interested in seeing what role the city can do to help facilitate more licensed childcare spaces. Our main concern is one of an equity issue. Those who have licensed childcare spaces at this point are unlikely to give them up. And we know as the cost comes down through the early years agreement with the federal and provincial governments and the move to $10 a daycare over a series of years, there will be more and more learners who will be able to afford childcare and perhaps even enter back into the workforce.

Given those who have childcare are unlikely to give them up as the cost goes down, the only way that we can provide opportunities for those who can now afford it is to help try to facilitate the creation of new spaces. What role does the municipal government play in that? We don’t know yet, but the direction to our staff is to see where we could be of some assistance in helping to convert unlicensed childcare spaces into licensed ones, which is the quickest possible way to create new license spaces and provide more opportunities for those Londoners who want to take advantage of the lowering costs of childcare in our community. I don’t know if my colleagues would have anything to add who wrote the letter with me, but I hope Council supports this move tonight.

Thank you, you’re quite correct. It was a comment, not a question. Any other comments I see Councilor Plosa wanting to contribute, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

And having signed onto this letter as it is a paramount issue in one of several paramount issues in the city. As we talk about our childcare and who takes care of your children through the day or the evening when you need care, this is also a key component to our COVID recovery. As we emerge from the pandemic, we know that women have been disproportionately affected and marginalized during this. So this is an opportunity to get more women back into the workplace as well, recognizing families will have opportunities for licensed care, but first you would need to find a space and perhaps those who are already occupying space will just expand the availability that they’re taking up in those spaces because they’ll have more income to pay for more of the time that they would want.

So this is gonna be a key component for us and thank you to my colleagues and committee for hearing us and colleagues today of looking at how the city can help facilitate the rollout information and making sure that those Londoners recognize we have a low employment rate of 4.8 and employers are desperate across all sectors to get people back to work. This is one more tool in the toolbox that we can do with a low economic impact from the city and the tax base, but really mobilizing community to help each other and accomplish great things to each other. Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments, colleagues?

I see none. We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse.

That is my report, I believe. Quite extensive and thorough as always, thank you. Colleagues, I’ll now turn your attention to the ninth report of SPPC. I’ll call on the deputy mayor, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. The way I’m gonna handle the 19th report of SPPC is I’m going to do everything except for the matter that I had a conflict with at which one I’ll turn it over to Councillor Ploza to chair. The rest of the meeting, I do realize that there was also a conflict declared in the meeting by Councillor Saleh on number, business case number four within the LCRN components. So it’s my intention to deal with the LCRN components separately as well.

So I’m happy to move everything except number 11 and number 12, which is the London Community Recovery Network as well as the Appointments to Western University’s Board of Governors, unless colleagues would like something else pulled separately. Well then let’s ask that question. Does anyone wish any other item dealt separately? I see none, back to you, Deputy Mayor.

Then I’ll move the full committee report with the exceptions of items 11 and 12. So noted comments or questions on all items with the exception of 4.1 and 4.2. I see none. We’ll call the vote.

Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Deputy Mayor. Yes, and the conflict was related to item 4.8 section four which was business case number four. So what I would like to do, if there’s no objections from colleagues, is put everything except that on the floor for consideration so that we can deal with that one separately.

So to be clear, you’re talking about 4.1 items, A, B, one, B, two, B, three. I believe that gets the story you need to be. Yes, and I’m happy to move the other items contained within that section two. There’s some directions to the mayor and others.

It’s just, I’d like to just like to deal with business case four separately. Fair enough. Any comments or questions with respect to all items except 4.1, B, four? ‘Cause there was a C in there.

I’m sorry, someone had their hand raised? I did not see that then. So Clerk, I’ll ask you with the exception of business case four to call the vote, please. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Deputy Mayor. Yes, and the final item is business case four which is talent, attraction, and labor force growth for a sustainable economic recovery. I’m happy to put that on the floor for consideration. Comments or questions colleagues?

Talked about this at some link that SPPC. I see none, we’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse, and if I don’t recall hearing a declaration of funerary interest. So noted, but I think by virtue of the vote that was put in place, I think you’ll note that that was picked up by the Deputy Mayor unless you have any other clarity around that, Deputy Mayor.

No, I think what the clerk is saying is although it was in the report, there wasn’t a verbal confirmation of the conflict at the start of the meeting. So the clerk was probably looking for that to occur from Councillor Sillie. Certainly knew what the clerk was saying. Thank you, back to you, please.

Clerk, are you looking for a ruling on that? Listen, any of our colleagues are able to vote as they choose in these, and if they vote to abstain, that is their privilege as well. So clerk, do you have anything you wish to add to that? Yes, your worship, there is a requirement on the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and just seeking clarification.

So we’ll ask the individual who voted to abstain, who did not indicate at the start of the meeting that they had the conflict to so note the perception of conflict, please. So you’re referring to me, right, Councillor Sillie? That would be you, Councillor Sillie, absolutely, sir. Okay, cool, it might have been another guy.

No, you’re up. So for 4.1, it was similar to the earlier refusal, which is related to the employed federal government, CBSA. If I recall correctly, the 4.1 had to do with immigration and immigration partnerships and stuff like that as well, with 4.1, if I’m not mistaken. So that’s why I recused from that, for the recovery, the community network, with the talent attraction.

There was migration, but there was also immigration noted in that business case if I’m not mistaken. So I’ll ask the clerk to get us to where we need to be. Yes, Your Worship, thank you. Thank you very much, and we appreciate the point, and thank you, Clerk, for making sure that you keep the mayor quite focused on such things.

Thank you. And speaking of interest, I have an interest on the remaining items, so I’ll have someone else present. That Councillor Palazzo was willing to do so. Yes, someone in mind, Deputy Mayor.

Councillor Palazzo, please go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. It’s a pleasure to wrap up the night through board the Strategic Planning and Priorities Committee with the tabling of item 12 being 4.2, the consideration of appointments to the Western University Board of Governors. This would appoint Lori Higgs and Marlene McGrath to the board, recognizing Deputy Mayor Morgan and Councillor Hummer both declared conflicts on this one prior.

We don’t mind Councillor if I just double check with the clerk to make sure that you have those two. Are you good with those two declarations, Clerk, please? Your Worship, yes, but no comment, really. I didn’t think there’d be additional comment, but I really appreciate where you’ve taken this to this point.

Councillor Palazzo, are we good? Any other comments or questions with respect to 4.2 or two of our colleagues have declared an interest? I see none, let’s call that vote. Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with two recues.

So I’ll come back now to the Deputy Mayor to the report, sir. No, that concludes the report. Thank you very much, I’ll now turn your attention if I could, please, to the ninth report of the Corporate Services Committee, Councillor Lewis. Would you take us through it?

Thank you, Your Worship. I’m prepared to put the entire report on the floor, although I’m not sure if colleagues wish anything cold. I haven’t been given prior notice, but we’ll look around and see if there are any. So we’ll check that.

Does anyone wish to have any items within Corporate Services dealt with separately? Councillor Hopkins. Yes, I guess I should pull number 6, 4.1, which is the consideration of appointment to the ECAC. I just have a few questions there.

Absolutely, thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. If with your indulgence, then I’ll put the other items all on the floor, so that, oh, sorry, Councillor Turner has his hand up now. Councillor Turner, why don’t you go ahead.

Thanks, I just have a question about 2.3 or four, it’s 10 committee meetings and annual meeting calendar. A question or do you wish to have them voted on separately? Your plan to tell me the answer, it will be a factor vote, so I’d like it pulled, so I can do that separately. So that’s items 2.3 and just 2.3, just clarify, please.

Councillor Turner, look into you, which one? Yeah, just number 4 or 2.3. All right, so noted, thank you very much. Anything else, colleagues?

So we’re dealing with the, with all items with the exception of 2.3 and 4.1, back over to you, Councillor Lusci, put those on the floor. Then I’m prepared to put items 1 through 3, 5 and 7 on the floor. These are generally some quick housekeeping items that we were dealing with at corporate services, including the corporate mileage rate for our employees. I will note to Councillors that a Councillor compensation for that would be reviewed separately.

And the discussion at committee staff indicated that that would be looked at for the beginning of the next term of council. And the other item that I would just draw folks attention to is 2.2, the 2021 annual update on Budweiser Gardens. I think despite the difficult year they had, it is a good news story in that originally projecting to be $400,000 in the red. There was actually a small profit and some funds returned to the city as a result.

Thank you, any other comments on, on all of those items as cited by Councillor Lewis, any other comments or questions from the floor? Well, Councillor, I see no more. So with that, shall we call the question? Clerk, if you would, please.

Do we ask for little patience, colleagues? All things in the fullness of time. Mr. Halmer?

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Lewis. Put item four on the floor now.

This is the standing committee meetings and annual meeting calendar update for next year. I actually had a question for staff on this as well, but I believe Councillor Turner and I may have the same question, so I think if we can look to him, he asked for this to be pulled. Well, if he’d like to, let’s just see. Any comments or questions?

Good, Councillor Turner. Thank you, Your Worship. This was respect to this item. I didn’t have a chance to take a look at the tape, but I know in the committee report that basically what was recommended is what was passed.

There’s a caveat in there that says it being understood that adjustments to the calendar may be required from time to time in order to accommodate special additional meetings or changes to governing legislation. We received a correspondence from Mr. Wallace of the Wanna Development Institute to express some concerns about the market reduction in frequency of planning and environment committee meetings. And that’s one of the main functions of Council is to be able to help move those applications forward and through their processing.

Consolidating those meetings leads to fairly lengthy lengthy meetings as we’ve bound in previous times. So I was wondering if what nature of discussion that we had with respect to Mr. Wallace’s correspondence and what resolutions were available. Thank you, shall we ask to clerk?

Thank you and through your Your Worship to the Councillor. We did consider a number of factors in coming to this, this calendar for your consideration. One of the things to recall is that in 2020 Council meetings were over two weeks, we moved to a three week Council meeting cycle from 2021 onwards. So any additional planning and environment committee meetings, those reports would be going to the same council meeting where we, if we were to add them.

So what that leaves is a length of meetings. We actually looked at the average and median times. They have stayed relatively consistent over the past couple of years. And one thing to note is that I understand there may be some changes coming in regards to delegation and authority related to alternative public consultation and with respect to minor zoning amendments.

And that’s pursuant to bill 13 that has yet to come forward. I don’t know if Mr. Mathers can add any detail on that, but we did discuss that with Mr. Mathers about the PEC meetings for the proposed calendar.

So let’s see, Mr. Mathers, can you add something to that, please? Through your Your Worship, all that I really had to add was from a practical standpoint, what we look for as staff is do we have that planning committee as close as possible to the actual council date? So it gives us the most amount of time to be able to prepare the work we need to do to get those reports moving forward.

So when I went through the calendar, it looked like we were pretty much bang on the week before council or at least the week before strategic priorities, which is the closest that planning ever gets to council. So that’ll give us the maximum amount of time to be able to reach those deadlines. As far as the length of meetings, as mentioned by councilor Turner, that it could result in longer meetings, but as staff, we do feel we’ll be able to meet timelines. It just may result in some longer meetings at some point.

That’s your turn. I think, well, I don’t like to do this, but I’d refer it back for perhaps I’ll move to refer it back, otherwise I’d vote to defeat it. I have still a lot of concerns about that PEC meetings when they go long, sometimes council meetings can go long, but PEC meetings are a different animal in terms of how long they can be. And I really worry about how effective they would be.

We do have on occasion two committee reports from the same committee going forward to a council meeting. So that’s not an anomaly. So I have reservations about this. I don’t know what others do too.

I guess I would look for a seconder for a referral back for consideration of additional PEC meetings. Well, let’s see if you have a seconder for that. I see Councillor Hopkins seconding that. Sorry if I might just also note that, I mean, the inverse can be true.

A meeting can be canceled. It’s harder to call a new meeting. Okay, Councillor Hopkins still seconds it. And by the way, for the record, I want you to know, I think council meetings move quite quickly, actually, and sometimes not.

Comments or questions on the amendment. I see Councillor Hopkins, go ahead, please. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I’m happy to second this referral back.

I think anyone sitting on planning knows how long and intense these meetings can be. And I think having added meetings on the agenda can always be removed. We did that this month, in fact, and we’re still able to follow up with the commitments that are required by us. So I’m happy to support it and referring it back.

Thank you. Now, I’m going to actually, if it’s appropriate, I’m going to ask Councillor Lewis, if you would, in comments, because at one stage, you are coming in, you’ve indicated you’ve got something to say, perhaps you don’t. That might be odd, but I’m going to refer back and ask if you have any comments or questions that would be related to the amendment. Thank you, Your Worship.

No, Councillor Turner was asking actually the same question that I had wanted to ask. I had asked the clerk offline and had gotten those details back, but I will take the opportunity to speak to the referral in that I do think that it’s easier to cancel meetings than add additional ones. I’m also mindful, particularly of the fact that next year’s calendar will represent a meeting schedule for a new council. And while some of us may be back, some may not.

And I think for those who are considering what those committees, especially new councillors, considering what committees they may wish to put their name forward for, I do think it’s easier to cancel than to add. So I actually can support the referral here. And I will say I agree with Councillor Hopkins as well. When planning meetings go long, they seem to go very long and they can be very difficult to get through even a few applications in a timely manner.

If there’s a large amount of public participation and we don’t want to discourage that, we frequently see our scheduled items occurring long past their scheduled time. And that discussion is good, but it may benefit us to have a few more meetings on the calendar. So noted comments or any other comments on the referral back, Councillor Palazzo, please. Thank you, Worship.

I’ll certainly report support the referral back. My main concern realizing is probably not by coincidence. I haven’t served on the green paper agendas. The meetings are long.

And I do enjoy the committees I do and have served on and rotated through. And as Councillor Hopkins said earlier tonight, when she delivered her report, that they received seven different groups of people for public participation meetings. And we know that to pay on the issue, as Councillor Lewis said, a lot of people who come out for it, they get their five minutes. And it’s a barrier to participation if they don’t know how long it’s going to be.

And it’s like, do you have three hours to sit in chambers or on hold? And that’s where my main concerns lie. So maybe it’s more frequent, shorter meetings. Committee would know that going in.

And the public would be perhaps better served, knowing that our timelines are a little bit tighter to serve them. Any other comments on the referral back? I see no one else on my list with that. We will call the question.

The clerk is seeking some clarity and come back to Councillor Turner, if I can. And that is clarity around number of meetings or just referring it back to refer it back. Was there some point of reference you wanted to add to this Councillor Turner? And we’ll see if we can, your secretary will agree with that and then determine that we go appropriately from there.

And frankly, invite any other discussion if that’s worthy. Councillor Turner, any help with that? Your worship, the intent is to consider any additional meeting dates for the Flanagan Environment Committee that they might be able to identify. I’m not in a position to identify a number or a frequency or anything like that.

I think staff are best suited to do that, but in light of the concerns that we discussed, coming back with a calendar that has more planning and environment committee meetings than it’s currently on the calendar. I don’t see that that changes the seconder’s reference point, is that you enough clarity, clerk? Nodding is hit comfortably, yes. So with that, I just see no other speakers, shall we call the vote clerk?

I’ll mark Councillor Cassidy as absent. Was in the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Thank you, Councillor Loz. Thank you, Your Worship.

That brings us to item six, the consideration of appointment to the ecological community and advisory committee. This was asked to be pulled. I know Councillor Hopkins indicated she had some questions on that, just before I look to you to seek those questions out. I will just share with colleagues that we did have a bit of debate around this.

There were previously two applicants to the Environmental Community Advisory Committee that were recommended by the chair of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee to apply their skills there. This is the former EPAC. It is a very technically oriented committee, and there was an encouragement for them to apply there. They did so in the process, a third applicant also applied, but there were only two vacancies on the 15 committee, 15 member committee makeup.

So there was a vote and two members of the three who applied were selected. Thank you, you’ll see if Councillor Hopkins is anything you should wish us to add to that. Yes, Your Worship. And thank you to the chair for that clarification.

I didn’t have an opportunity to look at the tape and wasn’t sure what the debate was and what it looked like. They got to get used to these new advisory names to the ECAC. They are looking at getting two more members so they were accepted is what I understand. So now moving forward, they have a full compliment at advisory group and can move forward.

I just wanted that clarification. I wasn’t sure exactly if it was supported. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. I see that Councillor Lewis is nodding his head, but since that does not record well, I wonder if you could go verbal on this.

Yes, Your Worship, happy to verbally confirm that the appointment of these two members would fill out the 15 member recommended size of the advisory committee according to the advice that we got from the deputy clerk, Ms. Westlake Power at the meeting. Thank you very much, Councillor Hopkins, anything else from you? No, I appreciate the information.

Thank you and for the work that the committee did it. Thank you, any other comments or questions on item 4.1? Sir, Councillor Turner, I saw a hand up. Was that a hand up or was that not a hand up?

Okay, but Councillor Lewis has a hand up. You’d be pleased to know, go ahead, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I just want to add one more point of clarification for colleagues and it was information provided to us by the deputy clerk at the committee meeting, which is that the advisory committee, in terms of reference that we have now, do allow for the 15 voting member group to also bring in additional members to work on working group actions as they are needed.

So certainly the third individual, the committee may reach out to them and invite them to be part of a working group and give them an opportunity to start to engage with that committee should a future vacancy arise. So noted, thanks very much. I have no other speakers on the list. So with that, we’ll call the question.

This is now an item 4.1. Councillor Homer, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Lewis, that concludes the services committee.

Thank you very much, appreciate that. Now colleagues for the benefit of the public, we have our ninth Board of Council enclosed session. We have a couple of items to report out of the public. Very pleased to call on Councillor Lehman, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll report out the ninth report of the Council enclosed session. The one item, the property acquisition at 134 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway Project, that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Finance supports with the concurrence of the Director Construction and Infrastructure Services on the advice of the Director of Realty Services with respect to the property located at 134 Wellington Road, further described as part of lot 25 front concession, geographic township of Westminster being part one, plan 33R-6721, being all of pin 088358-0003LT, containing an area of approximately 5,069 square feet, as shown on the location map as Appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project. The following reactions be taken.

A, the offer submitted by Gorin Mamika, the vendor, to sell the project or the subject property of the city for the sum of 650,000, the accepted subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement as Appendix C. And B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here too as Appendix A, thank you. Thank you. You’re putting it on the floor.

Do you have a seconder though? I see Councillor Turner, are you seconding? You are not seconding. I see Councillor Faiff Miller seconding and any comments or questions?

Let’s now go to you, Councillor Turner. I’ll recuse the say on the property within the land value of the radius of the property. Now I’m sure the clerk caught that at the very beginning but why don’t we just like double check so that when you recuse yourself it’ll all work well. Your worship is on the record and I do have it.

Perfect. I think you’re clear to recuse. Any other comments or questions, colleagues? I see none.

So with that, Councillor Lehman, if it’s good by you, we’ll call the question. Thank you. Call the question. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to one with one recuse. Colleagues, we have no deferred matters but we do also turner for the inquiry, please. Thank you, worship. This morning through press release, the city identified that a couple of the aquatic facilities, the outdoor aquatic facilities in the city would not be available for use this summer.

I was wondering specifically with respect to the Thames Park pool, if staff might be able to provide a bit more of an explanation of the situation and possible courses of action to help mitigate the impacts on the neighborhood. Well, let’s let’s ask Ms. Smith. I see she’s up there.

Could you please give us some insights? Thank you and through your worship. This was a very difficult situation to share. However, due to the severe structural issues and in the interest of public safely, we’ve had to close Thames pool this season.

We engage in external aquatic consultant to review the shape of the facility last Wednesday and they will actually be returning next week to conduct a thorough X-ray at the pool floor to determine the extent of the damage and to look at where exactly the break in piping has occurred. We’ll also share the blueprints of the pool so that they can provide a high level cost in recommendations for repair. We’ll update council at the time of what those recommendations for repair are and how much potentially that will cost. So we know the community is very disappointed in this news and Thames pool is extremely popular, not just for families and individuals in the neighborhood, but also for it’s a destination for the whole city.

So we will be providing free swim passes to families and individuals that live near Thames pool so that they can access other outdoor pools across our city. In addition, our staff have increased aquatic programming across all of our outdoor pools to accommodate all the customers who have already signed up for aquatic programs this summer at Thames pool. And if they don’t choose to go to an alternative location, we will also offer a refund. And I understand just recently that the Aquatic Club has moved their major event this summer to our indoor Canada Games Aquatic Center and that our swim team practices will now occur at our new East Lions pool and they will also be accommodated at the Aquatic Center too.

Thank you. And thank you. Any follow up to that councilor Turner? No, thank you, Ms.

Smith. Through your worship, it’s helpful. And I’m sure there’ll be a lot of questions from the community in the days to come. But I wanted to provide an opportunity for an explanation.

And I know this is disappointing news to all. And especially me, I live close by and I know my neighborhood shares the disappointment as well. But I know that staff are working hard to resolve the situation as best they can. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you, Ms. Smith as well. No other inquiries.

There is one emergent motion and I will turn this now over to the Deputy Mayor, please. Yes, I’m happy to chair this section of the meeting given I believe Mayor Holder would like to speak first to the letter that was provided and it potentially introduced the motion. Thanks, Deputy Mayor and colleagues. You were called fairly recently.

A letter was co-signed, authored by myself, co-signed by Councillor Palosa, Deputy Mayor Morgan, and Councillor Lewis could well have been signed by so many of you who indicated an interest to support. Colleagues, as our letter states were requesting your support to remove Trooper Mark Wilson’s name from all city of London amenities, including a park in Northwest London and a street in the area of Hale and Trafalgar and to remove all related references from the city’s website. Last week it was revealed he pleaded guilty in 2004 to assaulting a woman at a basic event. And as we all know, this Council made a commitment to creating a safe environment for women and girls which made the city of London, the first in all of Canada to make this a strategic priority.

I firmly believe that words matter. They matter how less, however, when they are not reinforced by action. It is why colleagues, your support for this motion is critical. I will say to the survivor, we applaud your bravery in coming forward and for providing other survivors with hope and inspiration.

It is my hope our Council’s action on this night. We’ll afford you some measure of peace and assist in some small way with healing. You’ve done the right thing. We honor your courage and assistance and also your years of service to our country.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, so I’m just gonna go to the clerk to see if I didn’t bring my copy of the procedure bylaw with me, does leave required when an emergent motion is presented or not? Through his worship, yes, under section 20.2, introduction requires a two-thirds vote. Leave is required.

Okay, I’ll look for a motion for leave to allow the mayor to introduce his motion. Move by Councillor Palosa, leave seconded by Councillor Lewis. We will open that for voting. Present the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Your worship, you have a leave to enter. Thank you, I’ve made the comments that I’ve made and you’ll see the motion that is in front of you consistent with the comments that I’ve made and I will put that motion forward for Councillor’s consideration. And I believe I have a seconder there. Okay, I see Councillor Palosa.

Seconding, I will start a speaker’s list on the moved and seconded motion. I have Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer, Presiding Chair.

This is a tough one for me and I wanna share very honestly with people. Carolyn Carolyn Wilson are people I consider to be friends. They’re members of the same Legion I’m at. We’ve sat and had beers together.

They’re, I’ve promoted some of the charitable work that they’ve done in the past for a number of good causes in this community. And on Friday morning, I sat and chatted with Carolyn in the yard at their home. I’ve chatted with Carolyn and their son Sean. This has not been an easy week for them.

Just as the last number of years has not been easy for the victim annually when she has shared through her telling her story that these things have caused a trigger for her. And we have to weigh the victim’s impact on this too. And that does not diminish, should not diminish in our minds or in our hearts. The fact that Mark Wilson did give his life and in the line of service for our country.

And that is a noble sacrifice that he’s made, that his family has lived with since his passing. But it doesn’t absolve the fact that there was an earlier situation where he did wrong and pled guilty and that’s a matter of record. So this is a struggle. And not only did I sit with the Wilson’s and talk with them about this beforehand, I also took the opportunity on the weekend to go and knock on the doors of the homes of the people who live on what right now is Trooper Wilson Place.

And there was a mixed but respectful discussion. There are a couple of residents on the street who were very strongly in favor of changing the name right away. There were others who were less so. But what everybody genuinely found consensus on is that as we move forward through this process, they want to be involved and they want to continue to have the site honor Canadian veterans in some way, shape or form.

And I will share with colleagues on the part B of this motion that I’ve already reached out to our city manager and to Mr. Mathers, whose team will be leading this. And I’ll continue to work with them to make sure that the residents are involved. They’re going to need to have address changes made.

They’re going to need to be compensated for that. They need to have a voice in what their street is going to be called moving forward. But I’m supporting this because I think we also have to recognize not just our commitment to a safe city for women and girls, but the mayor referenced this. The victim in this case also signed up to put on a uniform and serve our country.

And we have to honor that she did that as well. So this is not a decision that I think any of us takes any sort of pleasure in. This is not a gotcha moment. This is not a, this is a moment where we are balancing a very emotional question.

And we do know that a family has lost a son, but that does not change the reality that there is a woman who is still feeling pain and experiencing what I might describe as post-traumatic stress of a sort every time that she reads a story or sees this come up in the news. And so I think it’s in the best interest of all involved for the victim, for the Wilson’s, for the folks who call the current trooper was in place home, that we move forward on this, that we do so respectfully, but that we also do so with reasonable speed and relatively quickly, because one thing that I’ve heard from, from both the Wilson family and from residents on the street is they don’t want this to be a long drag-out process. They’d like us to make a decision and move forward with whatever that decision is going to be. And for me, I’m going to be supporting this motion tonight because I respect their wishes on that.

I don’t think that we should be leaving the street, the residents there waiting for an unknown length of time. While there continues to be a public debate around this, I don’t think we need to have a public debate. Trooper Wilson gave some honorable service to the country, but he also did something that was wrong. And we have to balance both of those things out.

So I just want to share that this has been an emotional week, having these conversations with individuals. And I hope as we move forward, we do so respectfully. Thank you, right, on five minutes. And given my microphone doesn’t interrupt others, I’ll have to use the hand signals, or so thank you for those comments.

I’ll look for other speakers. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer, recognizing that this council made a commitment at the beginning of our term in 2018 to help create a safe London for women and girls, I’m sure none of us ever thought we’d come to this juncture in decision-making.

But in 2018, we committed to making creating a safe London for women and girls to be at the heart of all our municipal decision-making, planning, policies, and most importantly, our practices. We were proud of this historical commitment we made. We’ve had community conversations about it. We discussed the expected result to decrease male violence against women and girls who are subject to abuse through all aspects of their lives, including workplace harassment.

At this point, it is an inconvenience for some to rename their addresses. And absolutely, it was not that long ago they had do this change in the first place. I appreciate that, and I appreciate their openness for conversation as we move forward in this. A couple of years ago, we began the process of the city’s street renaming policies of our streets and facility assets, realizing this policy, too, with several decades out of print, and at that time, all we considered while naming things was the municipal addressing advisory group of our two words, too similar, that we’ve been for use first responders.

As that policy will come back before this council, this summer for public consultation, with an implementation, with the next term of council that will take our seats and guide the city. I believe it is time that this is not just a one-off, that we are doing an important conversation within our community in a timely fashion as called upon. So I ask for your support today of the decisions of one and two that are before us, and I thank you for standing with victims who have come forward, who have already lived in darkness who feel silenced, and having these uncomfortable conversations, but ones that are paramount to our community to show that we are taking this seriously, making safe places and taking leadership. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Other speakers, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

I’m going to preemptively ask for an extension because I might go up to a minute over, and I believe Councillor Hopkins will move that extension for me. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Ploza, a one-for-a-one-minute extension, giving Councillor Cassidy six minutes. I’ll just do this by hand. All those in favor, the clerk will answer.

Motion to rise. Thank you, thank you. So once again, we have a case before us that’s come up unexpectedly as a result of a media story. The proper process would be for us to refer this to committee.

Our Council Procedure By-law defines an emergent motion as one that without, if it’s not directed through the appropriate standing committee, could result in irreparable harm or loss to the corporation. I don’t think this is an emergent matter, but I do think that this could result in irreparable harm to other parties, including the survivor and the Wilson family. The matter concerns two people who have sacrificed greatly in service to our country and in that service, one soldier lost their life and the other suffered grievous harm. As a country, we ask so much of our soldiers.

We ask them to leave their families behind and go to foreign lands to kill other human beings. We ask them to put themselves in harm’s way to witness horrific and awful things and to watch their comrades die and what do we offer in return? Plack for those who perish and the brush off for survivors who have been failed by the leadership of the organization in which they served as a society, we have failed them. Family has lost a son and a brother, husband and a father.

In exchange for this loss, a name on a plaque seems like woefully inadequate compensation. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson lost their son.

They just wanted him to come home. Mark’s children didn’t ask for a war hero. They don’t love him because they don’t love him because there’s a street and a park named for him. They loved their dad ‘cause he was their dad.

What about the other soldier in the story? This soldier, she also risked her life for us. She enlisted knowing those risks, but like so many women who’ve served in our military, I’m sure she didn’t foresee the unique dangers she faced from within. As a result, she lost a piece of herself and her family lost the woman they once knew.

She’s come forward despite the pitfalls faced by every woman, every woman brave enough to tell her truth. This woman is a warrior and my heart goes out to her. When we’ve been wronged, hearing the words, I’m sorry, and seeing genuine remorse can sometimes go a long way in helping us to find healing. Right here and now we stand on stolen land, all of us.

We are in the process of seeking forgiveness from and reconciliation with the people whose lands, languages, and cultures were stolen. Throughout the country, there is an active movement to review the place names associated with those who in our history committed grievous wrongs. All parents should know the importance of teaching our children to say sorry and to ask for forgiveness. From the moment they could talk, I taught my children to say sorry.

I know Mrs. Wilson would have encouraged her son to apologize and to try to make amends and would this have helped? I don’t know and none of us will ever know. Death has robbed everyone in this story.

Parents, siblings, a spouse, children, and this soldier, this survivor will never know if forgiveness would have been sought or granted. Most tragically of all, we don’t know if apologies, remorse, and amends would have helped her to find healing. In naming places after notable individuals, we cannot possibly know what will eventually surface from each one’s past. We have to stop dealing with these situations in this manner.

In placing people on high pedestals, we put expectations on them that nobody can live up to. We are all flawed and imperfect. Tonight, I can tell you that I’m not interested in only dealing with one name and one set of places. I don’t want to continue to see every imperfect person held up first scrutiny one at a time over the years.

It’s time for a comprehensive review and I would like to make an amendment to the emergent motion. I would like to add a part C that staff be directed to begin a comprehensive review to identify all instances where city streets and amenities have been named for specific individuals to determine if any of these places warrant renaming under current policies. Make no mistake, there are no winners here. There’s nothing but tragedy, sorrow, and grief.

For what it’s worth, I just want to say to everyone involved in this tragic situation, how incredibly sorry I am. So I offer that amendment and I think I have a seconder. Thank you. So yes, moved to add that part C and I saw Councillor Close seconded it.

I was looking at Councillor Close and I looked over. Councillor Hopkins seconded it. So we’ll move to debate on the amendment to the original motion and I’ll look for speakers on the amendment. Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Close.

Point of information is that wording being added or sent to us for we could review it to have a proper debate on it. Yes, that’s a very good point. If the clerk could make sure that that amendment is up and available in e-scribes so people can see it, I won’t close the debate until everybody’s had a chance to read it, but I will go to Councillor Hopkins who wanted to speak to it. Yes, thank you.

And I’m just looking up at the screen and I see it as see that civic administration be directed to begin a comprehensive review to identify all instances where city streets and amenities have been named for specific individuals to determine if any of these places weren’t renaming under current policies. I thought I’d just read it out just so the public is aware of it as well. I am seconding this. I, before I go on, I just wanna thank Councillor Cassidy for her statement that she just made.

To me, I know it wasn’t very easy for you to do that, but I so much appreciated the thoughtfulness and that the conversation doesn’t stop here as we deal with Trooper Wilson. I think the conversation has to continue because by doing these changes, we are creating more harm than good. And I do think and believe that we need to not only have a comprehensive review, but to really have a better understanding of what our processes, our policies and our practices are because I do think this is gonna, we do it this way, coming through as an emergent motion to Council to deal with it. We see the harm that is going on in the community to the parties involved.

And I do think we can do a better job at that. So I’m very happy to second the amendment. Thank you. And for those colleagues using East Graduate should be available there too.

For those colleagues in the room, it’s also up on the screen. I have Councillor Lewis and then Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Chair.

I’m not sure where I’m going to be on the amendment. And I’ll be honest, I haven’t had time to think about this component of it. I agree with Councillor Cassidy that we don’t wanna continue to do these as one-offs. But as Councillor Palosa referenced in her remarks, we’ve already directed staff to look at our street naming policy.

And with all due respect to Councillor Cassidy’s intent on this, I’m not sure that the part C has the same qualifiers as an emergent motion that A and B do. There is a clear instance of individuals that are identified in suffering harm from the pieces that are identified in part A and B. And while I don’t dispute that there may be other concerns around harm being caused by other names, I think that this would be something that I would be more comfortable supporting if it came through the Standing Committee and was included as part of the street naming review that is already underway that Councillor Palosa has brought forward a motion for prior. So I’m gonna listen to the debate on this a little bit.

I’m struggling to support this part C tonight as part of the emergent motion, but I wanna express to Councillor Cassidy and to Councillor Hopkins who seconded it that I don’t for a moment dispute where you want to go with this. I understand where you wanna go. I just think that this piece isn’t something that necessarily qualifies under the emergent motion piece, but I am going to listen to the debate on this. And I’ll keep an open mind on where this will take us.

But right now I would say I would be more comfortable supporting a motion like this if it came through committee than as attaching it to this emergent motion. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

I would raise a concern in a point that part C before us is asking for a review under our current policies. Our current policies are 20 years at a date. I believe the intention would be to come forward under the emerging policies that we brought forward with the summer for consultation. So just to point a clarity on that.

My second point would be when this issue came forward, certainly when we entered this street naming policy conversation, we had over the last couple of years and it came through committee and council several times. And it was with a diversity inclusion equity type lens that when this motion before us tonight and the concern came forward and the media raised it. Thank you to the media for being a voice and bringing things to our attention that had not been done prior. That I did have an immediate phone call with the city’s manager recognizing when we had those early conversations for street renaming, it was never considered of what would we do and how we vet people coming in in the case before us, even if it was a police check that we make people do.

This was a matter for the military and not in our public courts and it would not have been known. So certainly one idea that might come forward in part of this process would be, maybe we just stop naming stuff after people period, but just through you, Mr. Presoning Officer to the city manager, that at the time when I had my conversations with Ms. Livingston, she did give the advice that when the street naming policy will come back that they will be using a gender lens on that as well of what would be considerations for us to do.

So I believe this work might already be underway and directed already as staff was taking a very broad approach, realizing this policy is decade to date and it would be comprehensive coming back. So just one clarity from Ms. Livingston if this motion might already be and captured in work that they’re working on. Go to Ms.

Livingston. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, our intention in undertaking the direction that Council has already provided to us in terms of reviewing the policy, consulting with the community and bringing forward recommendations is to take a very broad approach.

This is not just about only a few equity-deserving groups. It is about everyone and there is significant intersectionality that will need to be addressed. So our anti-racism, anti-oppression team are deeply engaged in advising on this work as we work to bring it forward both through the consultation in the coming weeks and bringing recommendations early next year. Councillor Pelosi, you still have time.

Thank you, I hope that that might be of use for that conversation I had with Ms. Livingston already in the conversation as before us this evening. Next I have Mayor Holder and then Councillor Layman. By the tenor of the discussion that we’ve had tonight, we all know how challenging and difficult this tragedy is and it is an extremely sad, sad situation.

I had the most thoughtful discussion with Carolyn Wilson on Friday to advise her of our intention. I don’t want to lose focus on what we’re trying to accomplish with regard to this emerging motion and because of that, I feel less comfortable supporting the amendment, see. And not because it’s a bad amendment, but I think it’s important that Council focus on the issues of this very moment and not at a motion that frankly talks about current policies when that would be the basis on which we would determine if any places weren’t renaming. When in fact, part of the challenge is may well be those current policies themselves.

So I think there’s a challenge with that. We’ve heard the City Manager talk about the comprehensive review that’s in place now. And as that comes back to Council, I think we do have an opportunity colleagues to review that amended tweak it, make sure it’s material to our current circumstance. This is so broad motion as well intended as I know it truly is.

I know the mover is so well intended on this, but there’s sometimes time and place. And what I’m concerned about is this is today not the time nor the place. I would ask let us deal with the issue that was in front of us as a result of the original emergent motion unamended. Deal with that.

Let staff do what they need to do to bring back something to us that we can consider. I think we’ve had good council from our City Manager with regard to this. And we stay, and I think it’s more important always to do this right than to do it quick. And so it’s my hope colleagues that we can stay, I’d like to suggest with the deepest of respect that we don’t support C and that we move on with A and B as has been put in front of you.

Thank you, Chair. Councillor Caster, you go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President, Officer.

Thank you for allowing me this indulgence clarity. Current policies do prohibit convicted people, people convicted of a crime from having a street named after them. That’s where I was going with this. Having said that and having heard from my colleagues and knowing that if this is defeated, it will be a sighted matter.

I will withdraw this amendment and I intend to bring it to a community and protective services committee, which I believe is the correct committee. Thank you, Councillor Cassy. So the amendment is being withdrawn by the mover. Okay, the seconder concurs.

I can go back to the main motion, which has two parts. I had people add their names for the amendment. I’m unsure if you want to speak on the main motion. So I’ll just check with Councillor Lehman here.

Would you like to speak on the main? No, okay. So I’ll look for speakers on the main motion. So the main motion moved by Councillor Mayere Holder, seconded by Councillor Palosa has two parts.

You can see that in E-Scribe. It’s also the exact wording that is included in your agenda. There are no more speakers, so I’ll open this for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

With that, that matter is over and I’ll return the chair to the mayor. Thanks very much, Deputy Mayor. This takes us now to bylaws. And we’re going to do this in a few sections with your indulgence.

We’re gonna deal with the main body, colleagues of the bylaws. Then we are going to move to two bylaw items that relate to the conflict as declared by Councillor Silly. And then we are going to deal with two bylaws as it relates to short-term rentals. And then we’re going to have an added bill 257, which deals with an item from closed session with regard to Wellington Street Road.

You’ll correct me, thank you. So with that colleagues, forgive me as I kind of work through the numbers and the machinations and the clerk is there to ensure that I get this totally correct. But let’s give this a go. I’m gonna look for a mover and second for the introduction and first reading of bills two, 31 through 256, where we will exclude bills 232, 233, 239, 243.

But we will include revised bills 240, 254, 256, which were the Planning Environment Committee, bylaws. And am I in a position to add bill 257? Is that all right, clerk? Or do I need to do that separately?

Just say I can. I think he would. So forgive me. We will not, out of respect to Councillor van Mirbord, and we will not do it separately.

So with that, I’ll look for a mover, please. I’ve got Councillor Hameu, seconded by Councillor Fife. Miller, we’ll call the vote. And if there’s any question about what we’re voting on, I can read it back to you again.

Councillor van Mirbord. Thank you, Mayor. No, I just wanted to confirm that 257 will be called separately. It will be absolutely.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Hummer. Yeah, I just wanna make sure 239 does not include it. Yes, 239 and 243, that’s the short term rentals will be dealt with separately, Councillor Hummer, thank you.

So again, I’m gonna say to colleagues what we are excluding are the short term rentals, 239/243. We are excluding Councillor Saleh’s conflict, conflicts on Bill 232 and Bill 33. We are excluding Bill 257, which deals with the Wellington Gateway. Any other comments or questions?

I think we got that right. So have we voted on this yet, Clerk? Why don’t we then, perfect. Councillor Soleil?

Sorry, I was just confirming that the one bylaw related immigration was not included. That’s correct, Councillor. Great, thank you. I’ll vote manually, yay, that’s a slow thing is out.

She flows in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Colleagues, I’m gonna look for a mover and secretary 231 through 256, and I will be excluding items 239 and 243. I will be excluding 232 and 233. I will add revised bills 240, 254 and 256, and for fun, I will exclude Bill 257.

Go ahead and mover for that. It’s the same what we just went through a moment ago. Councillor Layman, seconder by, Councillor Hopkins, thank you. Do we have any comments or questions on those items?

I see none, Clerk will call the question. What’s in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, and finally, Colleagues, I’ll be third reading and enactment of bills 231 through 256. I’ll be excluding bills 232, 233, 239 and 243.

I will add revised bills 240, 254 and 256, which are the PEC revisions, and I will exclude Bill 257, and I have a mover, please. Councillor van Berbergh and seconder by Councillor Hummueh. We’ll call the vote. Was in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Thanks, Colleagues. Now I’ll be third for the introduction and first reading, of bills 232 and 233, specifically those of the bills where Councillor Silly declared a conflict. I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor Palose, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller.

We’ll call the vote. This is the one Councillor Silly, you get to abstain. Sorry, if this is the one related to me, it’s not letting me abstain for my refusal. To the clerk for that.

We can, I think, take a verbal. Yes, we can. That has been done, Your Worship. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse.

Thanks for my seconder, second reading, of bills 232 and 233 removed by Councillor Homer, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Palose, thank you. Any comments or discussion? You see none, we’ll call the vote.

I’ll abstain again, it’s not letting me vote. I think I’m gonna have to close and reopen. Thank you. Yeah, don’t quite do that yet.

We’ve got one more, we don’t wanna lose you. As in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. So colleagues for third, 232 and 233, I’ll look for a mover and seconder, please move by. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, thank you very much.

We’ll call the vote. Councillor Silly abstaining. Glad you hung in with us on that. Thank you, Councillor Silly.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. All right, colleagues, now we’re going to deal with 9 and 243. Those are the short-term rental bylaws. So for introduction and first reading of those two bills, I look for a mover and a seconder, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Humber, we’ll call the question.

Councillor Silly? Yeah. Thank you. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to two with one recuse.

Again, we’re doing bills, this is second reading of bills 239, 243, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. Any comments, any discussion? Councillor Turner.

I’ll give it one more try. The 400 units that may enter back into the housing market, account for 0.16% of housing units within the city of London. It’s one time. And the chill that we might be sending towards investors of any kind and small business operators within our cities is going to be rather profound.

So I’d urge you to consider not supporting this motion. I normally get during the debate, but get another chance here. Thank you very much. Any other comments?

I see none. We will call the question. In the vote, motion carries 12 to two with one recuse. Colleagues for third reading and enactment of bills 239, 243.

I’ll require a mover and a seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. We’ll call the question. Councillor Sully.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one with one recuse. Let’s go to 257. This bill 257, Councillor Van Berberg, and this is the item dealt dealing with the Wellington Gateway item out of closed session.

With this, I’ll look for a mover and seconder for introduction for street unit bill 257. Councillor Lue is seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. Let’s call the vote.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one with one recuse. For second reading of bill 257, I will require a mover, please. Moved by Councillor Halmer, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you very much. Any discussion? I see none. We’ll call the question.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one with one recuse. Colleagues, finally, for third reading 57, I will look for a mover and a seconder, moved by Councillor Lehman. Seconded by a Councillor Amu.

We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one with one recuse. Thanks very much, colleagues.

In ‘07, and by some accounts, that’s not the latest, but it’s also a long night. And I appreciate all of you doing this. Like to say, thank you as well. I’m Ms.

Limston to staff. You know, it’s interesting. We do these meetings. I think we have seven or eight of these, seven or eight council meetings left to the end of the term.

And I truly sincerely appreciate everyone’s resolve and getting us through the business of the city as we’ve done this. And it’s been great. This is, I consider this council of the 18. You, the work that you do, as well as I consider the work done by our administration, the absolute best.

You heard comments already tonight about the teamwork, the support we get from staff in so many areas. And we deal with tough issues. And we deal with a number of issues that are so substantial and impactful on people’s lives. And we take that role very seriously.

So Ms. Limston to all of our staff. So we can always say, great job to our senior leadership team. And, you know, we really truly sincerely mean it.

But, you know, it’s the people also behind the senior leadership team that do that work as well. From our front desks to our people behind every scene and behind every room and behind every vehicle that truly makes things matter. And we’re grateful to all of them. So with that colleagues and I look for a motion to adjourn just ‘cause I’d like to.

Councillor Van Reibergen, seconded by Councillor Turner, let’s do a show of hands if you’re keen. All those in favor? My motion carries. Thanks all.

We’ll see you soon.