July 5, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:01 PM;  it being noted that the following members were in remote attendance: Councillors M. van Holst, J. Helmer, M. Hamou, P. Van Meerbergen, E. Peloza and S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Hillier discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 8 (5.1) of the 8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with the Deferred Matters List, specifically item number 1 on the list, by indicating that his family also hosts a five day event.

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in Bill No. 260, having to do with the establishment of a Child Care and Early Childhood Development Reserve Fund and the repeal of By-law No. A.-6945-139, as amended, by indicating that his wife owns and operates a day care.

2.   Recognitions

There are none.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

4.1    Confidential Information Supplied by Canada

A matter pertaining to information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality by Canada (6.1/8/CPSC)

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

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

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

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

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/10/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/10/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.4/10/CSC)

4.7    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. (6.5/10/CSC)

4.8    Litigation/Potential Litigation/Matters Before Administrative Tribunals / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation with respect to the full expropriation of property located at 73 Wharncliffe Road South, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board, namely a claim filed with the OLT-22-002478; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, in connection with the expropriation of property located at 73 Wharncliffe Road South; and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality regarding settlement negotiations and conduct of litigation in connection with the expropriation of a property located at 73 Wharncliffe Road South. (6.6/10/CSC)

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Council convenes In Closed Session, from 4:15 PM to 4:35 PM.

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

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Minutes of the 9th Meeting, held on June 14, 2022, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

6.1    84-86 St. George Street and 175-197 Ann Street (OZ-9127) - Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #13 (3.5) of the 12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

  1. J. Hunten

  2. M. Tovey

6.2    (ADDED) 689 Oxford Street West (Z-9199 & O-9206) - Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item 14 (3.6) of the 12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

1.(ADDED) D. Traher, VP Planning & Development, Westdell Development Corporation

2.(ADDED) Shadow Study - Strik Baldinelli Moniz

6.3. “RentSafeTO” Program and Complaint Process Improvements - Refer to the Community and Protective Services Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #5 (2.4) of the 8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

  1. K. M. Pagniello, Executive Director and M. Laliberte, Staff Lawyer - Neighbourhood Legal Services

  2. J. Thompson, Life Spin

  3. London ACORN

  4. (ADDED) D. Devine

6.4 Participation in Provincial Cargo E-bike Pilot - Refer to the Civic Works Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #6 (4.3) of the 9th Report of the Civic Works Committee

  1.    H. Miller

6.5  Participation in Provincial E-scooter Pilot - Refer to the Civic Works Committee Stage for Consideration with Item

#7 (4.2) of the 9th Report of the Civic Works Committee

  1.    A. Husain

  2.    (ADDED) T. Nolan

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-06-20 PEC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Items 13 (3.5) and 14 (3.6).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) ReThink Zoning Update and Discussion Papers

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the staff report dated June 20, 2022 entitled “ReThink Zoning Update and Discussion Papers”, with respect to introducing the seven discussion papers that have been prepared, providing an update on the work completed to date and the next steps in the process, BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-D14)

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West (H-9506) (Relates to Bill No. 298)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Foxhollow North Kent Developments Inc., relating to a portion of lands located at 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 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 (h-h-100-R1-3) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 (h-h-100-R1-5) and an Open Space (OS1) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone, Residential R1 (R1-5) and an Open Space (OS1) Zone to remove the h and h-100 holding provisions.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) London Plan Approval - Update on Ontario Land Tribunal Decision and Status of London Plan

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the staff report dated June 20, 2022 entitled “London Plan Approval - Update on Ontario Land Tribunal Decision and Status of London Plan” with respect to the approval of The London Plan as the Official Plan, BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-D22)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Bill 109 - More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 - Information Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the staff report dated June 20, 2022 entitled “Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, Information Report”, with respect to amendments to the Planning Act and other statutes, BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-S11)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) 6092 Pack Road - Designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, relating to the designation of the property located at 6092 Pack Road, the following actions be taken:

a)    Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix E of the staff report dated June 20, 2022; and,

b)    should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property located at 6092 Pack Road to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of the staff report dated June 20, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) Single Source Procurement - Planning Application Signs

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to Signature Graphics:

a)    Signature Graphics BE APPROVED as the single source provider of Planning Application signs and related activities for a period of one year with the option for an additional four (4), one (1) year renewals, with an estimated annual expenditure based on demand for services, of between $75,000.00 and $100,000.00 (HST excluded), in accordance with Sections 14.4 (d) and (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

c)    the approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract and service agreement for this purchase; and,

d)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract, service agreement or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.  (2022-F17)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.7) Building Division Monthly Report - April, 2022

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Building Division Monthly report for April, 2022 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-A23)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (3.1) 911 and 945 Kleinburg Drive (Formerly 660 Sunningdale Road East) (Z-9321) (Relates to Bill No. 299)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Applewood Market Place Inc., relating to portions of the lands located at 911 and 945 Kleinburg Drive (formerly 660 Sunningdale Road East), the proposed by-law appended to the Added Agenda as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 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 Business District Commercial Special Provision h, h-100, h-173, BDC2(10)H18 Zone and a Holding Residential R5/R6 Special Provision (hh-100h-173R5-6(9)/R6-5(38)/R8-4(27)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision BDC2(__)*H23 Zone, which permits a range of commercial uses on the first floor with residential uses above, to a maximum height of 23m;

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

  •    J. Jones, applicant;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with, and will serve to implement the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 which encourage infill and intensification and the provision of a range of housing types, and efficient use of existing infrastructure;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to Our Strategy, Our City and the Key Directions, as well as conforming to the policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the policies of the (1989) Official Plan, specifically Low Density Residential and Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential;

  •    the policies of the Main Street Commercial (Official Plan) and Main Street (London Plan) permit residential units on the ground floor to the rear of commercial/store fronts.  The addition of residential to the rear meets the policies of the Official Plan and the London Plan and will help support the construction of the main street as envisioned by the plan;

  •    the zoning reflects the optimum building type that would be contemplated (apartment buildings) and defines the type of dwelling units that can be located to the rear of commercial for this site; and,

  •    the conditions for removing the ((hh-100h-173) holding provisions have been met and the recommended amendment will allow the construction of commercial/residential mixed-use buildings in compliance with the Zoning By-law.  (2022-D12/D14)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (3.2) Housekeeping Amendment to Southwest Area Secondary Plan (Relates to Bill No. 282)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to housekeeping amendment to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022 to AMEND the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by DELETING references to the 1989 Official Plan and ADDING references to The London Plan;

it being noted that a comprehensive review and possible amendments to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan will be subject to a separate review and amendment;

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

  •    T. Brydges, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the landowners at 4425 Wellington Road South;

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

  •    the purpose and effect of the recommended action is to update the SWAP to reflect the transition from the 1989 Official Plan to The London Plan. The recommended action will assist in the interpretation and implementation of the SWAP in conjunction with The London Plan and to improve clarity and consistency of policies and maps in the Plan.  (2022-S11)

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (3.3) Delegated Authority (Bill 13) and Alternative Notice Measures for Minor Amendments (O-9492) (Relates to Bill No.’s 281 and 283)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to Bill 13, Supporting People and Businesses Act, 2021:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022 to AMEND the London Plan by adding new policies with respect to delegated approval authority for minor zoning by-law amendments and alternative consultation measures for minor London Plan amendments and zoning by-law amendments, and amending existing policies for consistency with the new policies; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022 to pass a new by-law “Minor Zoning By-law Amendments Delegation and Approval By-law” to authorize Council to delegate approval authority with respect to minor zoning by-law amendments;

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, LDI;

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

  •    the recommended amendments to the London Plan are consistent with the Planning Act which provides a new discretionary authority that allows municipal councils to delegate decision-making authority under Section 34 that are of a minor nature and permits alternative measures for public notice and consultation;

  •    the recommended amendments support one of Council’s goals in the 2019-2023 Strategic Plan, which improve the delivery of service through streamlined Council’s decision-making process;

  •    the recommended amendments to the London Plan establish a policy framework for delegated authority approval with respect to minor zoning by-law amendments and alternative consultation measures for minor London Plan amendments and zoning by-law amendments; and,

  •    the recommended amendments establish a new Council Policy that authorizes the new authority in accordance with The London Plan as amended pursuant to the Planning Act.  (2022-D14)

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (3.4) 991 Sunningdale Road West (Z-9472) (Relates to Bill No. 300)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Nasser and Suzan Aljarousha, relating to the property located at 991 Sunningdale Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Agricultural AG1 Zone TO a Holding Agricultural AG1 Special Provision (h-18*AG1(_)) Zone;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Farmland Place Type, Our Strategy, our Tools, and other applicable London Plan policies;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a single detached non-agricultural dwelling which is appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.15   (3.7) 599-601 Richmond Street (Z-9367) (Relates to Bill No. 302)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Westell Development Corp., relating to the property located at 599-601 Richmond Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 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 Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(1)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision Bonus (BDC(1))*B-(  )) Zone;

the Bonus Zone shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high-quality mixed-use building, with a maximum height of eight (8) storeys, 57 dwelling units and a maximum density of 519 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan and Elevations appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2022 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

  1.    Exceptional Building Design

i)    a built form located along Central Ave that establishes a built edge with primary building entrance, street-oriented units and active uses along this frontage;

ii)    treatment of the first two-storeys of the proposed building contrasts with the remainder of the building above to clearly delineate the attractive, pedestrian-oriented area within the public realm;

iii)    a contemporary flat roof, with modern cornice lines and canopies for the balconies along the north side of the building, effectively announce the top of the building and help distinguish the building along the corridor;

iv)    a variety of materials, colours and textures break up the massing of the building into smaller sections, both vertically and horizontally, to appropriately frame the street and enhance the streetscape; and

  1.    Provision of Affordable Housing

i)    a total of two, 1-bedroom residential units and two, 2-bedroom residential units will be provided for affordable housing;

ii)    rents not exceeding 85% of the Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London Census Metropolitan Area as determined by the CMHC at the time of building occupancy;

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

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

v)    these conditions to be secured through an agreement registered on title with associated compliance requirements and remedies.

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

i)    removal of the layaway to maintain the City Boulevard as a green boulevard; 

ii)    include a minimum of 0.5 to 1m setback from the Central Avenue frontage in order to avoid the requirement for encroachment agreements for building elements such as canopies, balconies, opening of doors, etc.;

A)    the main entrance setback from the property line is acknowledged; and,

B)    the commercial unit doors need to be recessed (a minimum of 0.5m or as required) to be within the property line; the canopies proposed above the commercial units shall also be within the property line or included in an encroachment agreement; and,

iii)    to ensure proper measures are in place during construction, the recommendation of Section 7 in the Heritage Impact Assessment including a temporary protection plan is recommended to be addressed through site plan approval to mitigate impacts on adjacent heritage properties;

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

  •    a communication dated June 17, 2022 from AM. Valastro; and,

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    L. Kirkness; and,

  •    AM. Valastro;

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 Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type and Key Directions;

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Near Campus Neighbourhood Policies that direct more intense development to corridors;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of affordable housing units that will help in addressing the growing need for affordable housing in London. The recommended amendment is in alignment with the Housing Stability Action Plan 2019-2024 and Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock; and, 

  •    the recommended bonus zone for the subject site will provide public benefits that include affordable housing units, barrier-free and accessible design, transit supportive development, and a quality design standard to be implemented through a subsequent site plan application.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.16   (3.8) 801 Sarnia Road (O-9475 & Z-9476) (Relates to Bill No. 303)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2425293 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 801 Sarnia Road:

a)    the proposed, attached, revised by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 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 Residential R8 Bonus (R8-4B40) Zone and Rail Transportation Zone TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (hR8-4()*B()) Zone and Open Space (OS1) Zone;

the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high-quality apartment building with a maximum height of 20 meters, and a maximum density of 124 units per hectare (100 units), which substantively implements the Site Plan, Renderings, Elevations and Views attached in Schedule “1”.  The development shall specifically incorporate the following services, facilities, and matters:

  1.    Provision of Affordable Housing

i)    a total of 4 one-bedroom residential units will be provided for affordable housing;

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

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

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

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

  1.    Design Principles

i)    a mid-rise (6 storey) built form located along the Sarnia Road that establishes a built edge with primary building entrance, street oriented residential units and active uses along these frontages;

ii)    direct walkway connections from primary building entrance and ground floor residential unit entrances to the City sidewalk along Sarnia Road;

iii)    articulated facades including recesses, projections, balconies, and terraces to provide depth and variation in the built form to enhance the pedestrian environment;

iv)    a variety of materials, textures, and articulation along building façade(s) to highlight different architectural elements and provide interest and human-scale rhythm along the street frontages;

v)    common outdoor amenity space at ground level along with the entrance to future City Pathway.

vi)    locates majority of the parking behind the building and away from the street while screening the exposed parking with a combination of landscape and masonry walls;

notwithstanding anything in the By-law to the contrary, the following regulations shall apply:

i)    Front Yard Depth to Arterial Road (minimum) - 4.0 meters (13.1 feet)

ii)   Rear Yard Setback to Open Space (minimum) 13 meters (42.6 feet)

iii)   Height (maximum) 20 meters (65.6 feet)

iv)   Parking (minimum) 1 space per unit

v)    Parking for Affordable Units (minimum) 0.33 space per unit

vi)   Density (maximum)124 units per hectare (100 dwelling units)

b)    Section 4.3 iv) - Site Specific Bonus Provisions is amended by deleting the current bonus zone (B-40) and replacing it with the new Bonus Zone outlined above in recommendation a); and,

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the change in parking is minor in nature, the existing conditions plan circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Revised Application and Notice of Public Meeting accurately reflect the existing condition of the site, and no development or site alteration is proposed;

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

  •    J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

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

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages development to occur within settlement areas and land use patterns that provide for a range of uses and opportunities that will meet the needs of current and future residents;

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

  •    the recommended amendment secures units for affordable housing through the Bonus Zone.  (2022-D09/D14)

Motion Passed

8.1.17   (5.1) 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on June 15, 2021:

a)    the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED of the following with respect to the Public Meeting and Revised Application Notice, dated June 1, 2022, from S. Wise, Senior Planner for Revised Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, related to the properties located at 84-86 St. George Street and 175-197 Ann Street:

i)    the revised application does not address the outstanding heritage concerns about the site; and,

ii)    the Community Advisory Committee on Planning continues to support the previous recommendation to designate the properties located at 84-86 St. George Street and 175-197 Ann Street as heritage resources under the Ontario Heritage Act;

b)    the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED that the London Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) received a staff report, dated June 15, 2022, with respect to the Designation of 6092 Pack Road under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and the CACP supports the staff recommendation to designate the above-noted property to be of cultural heritage value or interest; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 5.2 and 65.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.13   (3.5) 84-86 St. George Street and 175-197 Ann Street (OZ-9127) (Relates to Bill No.’s 284 and 301)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by St. George and Ann Block Limited, relating to the property located at 84-86 St. George Street and 175-197 Ann Street:

a)    the proposed, attached, by-law (Appendix A) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022 to CHANGE the Specific Area Policy in the Neighbourhoods Place Type applicable to the subject lands to permit a maximum building height of 23 storeys, and to permit a maximum overall floor area of 500 square metres for retail, service and office uses within the podium base;

b)    the proposed, revised, attached, by-law (Appendix B) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R9 (R9-3H12) Zone TO a holding Residential R10/Convenience Commercial Special Provision Bonus (hh-41h-183h-__*R10-5/CC4()*B-()) Zone;

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

  •    a communication from AM. Valastro;

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2022, from S. Rans;

  •    a communication from J. Helen, 732 Princess Avenue;

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2022, from C. Gelinas;

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2022, from L. White, 132 Central Avenue;

  •    a communication dated June 10, 2022, from S. Regier;

  •    a communication dated June 8, 2022, from T. Mitchell;

  •    a communication dated June 16, 2022, from W. Kinghorn, President, Architectural Conservancy Ontario – London Region;

  •    a communication dated June 17, 2022, from M. Tovey; and,

  •    a communication dated June 17, 2022, from A. Soufan, President, York Developments;

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

  •    A. Soufan, York Developments;

  •    E. Mitchell, 695 Richmond Street;

  •    AM. Valastro; and,

  •    M. Whalley, North Centre Road.  (2022-D04)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Item 13, clause 3.5, BE AMENDED to include the following at the end of the clause:

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

  • consistent with the Province Policy Statement promoting intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations while conserving significant heritage resources;

  • consistent with the London Plan key directions relating to building a mixed-use compact city and ensuring new development is a good fit within existing neighbourhoods;

  • consistent with staff recommended mitigation measures for the railway crash wall, hydrological considerations, and heritage, through the application of holding provisions;

it being noted that at the April 25, 2022 meeting of PEC civic administration indicated that properties at 183 Ann St. and 197 Ann St. had cultural heritage assets, but the buildings did not represent built heritage that warranted preservation of said buildings in their entirety; and,

it being further noted that Council considers the inclusion of a new brewery onsite to be consistent with the cultural heritage of the site’s heritage value as a former brewery.”

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Item 13, clause 3.5, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Item 13, clause 3.5, as amended, reads as follows:

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by St. George and Ann Block Limited, relating to the property located at 84-86 St. George Street and 175-197 Ann Street:

a)    the proposed, attached, by-law (Appendix A) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022 to CHANGE the Specific Area Policy in the Neighbourhoods Place Type applicable to the subject lands to permit a maximum building height of 23 storeys, and to permit a maximum overall floor area of 500 square metres for retail, service and office uses within the podium base;

b)    the proposed, revised, attached, by-law (Appendix B) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R9 (R9-3H12) Zone TO a holding Residential R10/Convenience Commercial Special Provision Bonus (hh-41h-183h-__*R10-5/CC4()*B-()) Zone;

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

  •    a communication from AM. Valastro;

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2022, from S. Rans;

  •    a communication from J. Helen, 732 Princess Avenue;

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2022, from C. Gelinas;

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2022, from L. White, 132 Central Avenue;

  •    a communication dated June 10, 2022, from S. Regier;

  •    a communication dated June 8, 2022, from T. Mitchell;

  •    a communication dated June 16, 2022, from W. Kinghorn, President, Architectural Conservancy Ontario – London Region;

  •    a communication dated June 17, 2022, from M. Tovey; and,

  •    a communication dated June 17, 2022, from A. Soufan, President, York Developments;

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

  •    A. Soufan, York Developments;

  •    E. Mitchell, 695 Richmond Street;

  •    AM. Valastro; and,

  •    M. Whalley, North Centre Road;

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

  •    consistent with the Province Policy Statement promoting intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations while conserving significant heritage resources;

  •    consistent with the London Plan key directions relating to building a mixed-use compact city and ensuring new development is a good fit within existing neighbourhoods;

  •    consistent with staff recommended mitigation measures for the railway crash wall, hydrological considerations, and heritage, through the application of holding provisions;

it being noted that at the April 25, 2022 meeting of PEC civic administration indicated that properties at 183 Ann St. and 197 Ann St. had cultural heritage assets, but the buildings did not represent built heritage that warranted preservation of said buildings in their entirety; and,

it being further noted that Council considers the inclusion of a new brewery onsite to be consistent with the cultural heritage of the site’s heritage value as a former brewery.

8.1.14   (3.6) 689 Oxford Street West (Z-9199 & O-9206)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the application by 2399731 Ontario Ltd, c/o Westdell Development Corporation BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to work with the developer to improve the proposed transition from high density towers to the existing low density abutting residential neighbourhoods with specific attention to addressing shadowing and traffic management at Wonderland and Beaverbrook;

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

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2022 from L. Bowman; and,

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    L. Kirkness, SBM Limited Planning;

  •    R. Coates, 43 Capulet Walk;

  •    B. Waddick;

  •    R. Chapin, President, Dementia Care London Inc., 35 and 41 Capulet Walk;

  •    T. Timbrell, Inverness Avenue;

  •    G. Stark, 837 Silversmith Street;

  •    AM Valastro;

  •    S. Johnstone, Silversmith Street;

  •    K. Cates, 30 Laurel Street;

  •    L. Bowman, Oakridge Glen, 43 Capulet Walk;

  •    L. Smyth, Silversmith Street;

  •    J. Cheese, 22 Laurel Street;

  •    A. Quance, 43 Capulet Walk; and,

  •    K. Slivinski, 46 Laurel Street.   (2022-D09)

Motion Failed (4 to 9)

At 5:51 PM, His Worship the Mayor places Deputy Mayor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 5:52 PM, His Worship the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2399731 Ontario Ltd. c/o Westdell Development Corporation relating to the property located at 689 Oxford Street West:

a)    the request to amend Zoning No. Z.-1 to change the existing Highway Service Commercial/Restricted Service Commercial (HS1/HS3/RSC2/RSC4) Zone to a Residential R9 Special Provision Bonus/Highway Service Commercial Special Provision/Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (R9-7*B-()/HS1()/HS3()/RSC2()/RSC4(_) Zone BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

     i)    The affordable housing contribution associated with the Bonus application is based upon a proposed combination of 1989 Official Plan and London Plan policies; however, the applicable Bonusing policy framework is the 1989 Official Plan bonusing policies.

     ii)    The requested special provisions for the Bonus Zone are proposed for individual buildings within the subject site, which does not meet the intent of London Plan and/or Zoning by-law Z.-1 regarding matters such as rear-lotting, yard definitions, and railway setback distance.

b)    the recommended by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on July 5, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The London Plan and the applicable policies of the 1989 Official Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Highway Service Commercial/Restricted Service Commercial (HS1/HS3/RSC2/RSC4) Zone, TO a holding Residential R9 Special Provision Bonus/Highway Service Commercial Special Provision/Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h-R9-7B-()/HS1()/HS3()/RSC2()/RSC4() Zone;

The Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of three apartment buildings as follows: a 17-storey building of 146 units; an 18-storey building of 160 units; and a 21-storey building of 184 units. The development is an increased density of up to 396 units per hectare (490 units total).  The development will substantively implement the Site Plan, Renderings and Elevations attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law and provides for the following facilities, services, and matters:

  1.    Provision of Affordable Housing

i)    A total of 30 affordable housing units will be provided in the development, including a total of 10 affordable housing units in each of the three buildings (Buildings “A”, “B”, and “C”).

     ii)    That the affordable unit mix (bachelor, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom), is representative of the bedroom mix of the overall building within which the affordable units are contained.

     iii)    Rents not exceeding 80% of the Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London CMA, as determined by the CMHC, at the time of building occupancy for the respective building the affordable units are located within;

     iv)    The duration of affordability set at 50 years from the point of initial occupancy of the respective building;

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

     vi)    These conditions to be secured through an agreement entered on title with associated compliance requirements and remedies.

  1.    Exceptional Design

The buildings designs shown in various illustrations contained in Schedule “1” of the amending by-law is being bonused for features which serve to support the City’s objectives of promoting a high standard of design.

  •    Enhanced building and site design features and setback podiums on Capulet Walk establishing a built street edge.

  •    Active uses potential along Capulet Walk street frontage for Building “B” and Building “C”.

  •    Architectural design features on the towers that will enhance the skyline and break up building mass.

  •    Inclusion of building step backs and varying building heights and articulated facades, including recesses, projections, and balconies, to provide depth and variation in built form and enhance pedestrian environment.

  •    Ground floor units along Capulet Walk to provide functional doors, walkways, connections to sidewalk on Capulet Walk.

  1.    Construction of underground parking under the second phase of development (Building “B” and Building “C”); and, a parking structure to function as an engineered crash wall for safety and impact mitigation associated with the adjacent rail line.

c)    it BE NOTED that the following Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

     i)    Use transparent glazing or active vision glazing on the ground floor of Building “B” and Building “C” on Capulet Walk and Oxford Street frontages to animate the street.

     ii)    Non-residential ground floor uses in Building “B” and Building “C” are to be oriented to the street and provide “front doors” to Capulet Walk.

     iii)    Incorporate an urban treatment between the built form fronting Capulet Walk and the City sidewalk.

     iv)    Recognize that the parking garage structure abutting the CN Rail property will be designed to a crash wall engineering standard, consistent with guidelines for development adjacent to rail lines and CN Rail requirements.

     v)    Noise attenuation clauses are to be addressed through future development agreements, with regards to mitigative building design standards and property adjacency (within 300m) to rail line operations.

     vi)    That revised sanitary area plan and design sheets from April 4, 2022 Servicing Memorandum are to be submitted to City Geomatics; and,

d)    no action BE TAKEN regarding the application for 1989 Official Plan Amendment for consistency with in-force London Plan policies.  It being noted that through Ontario Lands Tribunal (OLT) decision dated May 25, 2022, the final phase of city-wide London Plan policy appeals have been dispensed and therefore the 1989 Official Plan is repealed in accordance with Council decision dated June 23, 2016.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

8.2   8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2022-06-21 CPSC Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Items 6 (2.4) and 8 (5.1).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Hillier disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 5.1 of this Report, having to do with the Deferred Matters List, specifically item number 1 on the list, by indicating that his family also hosts a five day event.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Update on Implementation of the Giwetashkad Indigenous Homelessness Strategic Plan

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report, dated June 21, 2022,with respect to an update on the Giwetashkad Indigenous Homelessness Strategic Plan, BE RECEIVED. (2022-S14/S15)

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Single Source Procurement of Cultural Arts Restoration Services - SS-2022-176

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated June 21, 2022, related to a Single Source Procurement of Cultural Arts Restoration Services SS-2022-176:

a)    that a single source procurement award for specialized cultural arts restoration services BE APPROVED to Conservation of Sculptures, Monuments and Objects (CSMO) as per The Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement Policy, Section 14.4 d) and e), at a total annual estimated cost of $190,000 (including HST) for the period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2024, with the opportunity to extend for four (4) additional two (2) year terms; 

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the authorization set out in part a) above; and,

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract in relation to the subject matter of this approval. (2022-R08)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.5) Zoning By-law Patio Review

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 June 21, 2022, related to the Zoning By-law Patio Review:

a)    the above-noted report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    a public participation meeting BE HELD at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to amending the regulations contained in Section 4.18(6)-Seasonal Outdoor Patios in the Z.-1 Zoning By-law, to allow for greater operational flexibility for local businesses.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.3) Fire Master Plan Action Plan

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Fire Chief and with concurrence from the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated June 21, 2022, related to the Fire Master Plan Action Plan:

a)    the Fire Master Plan Action Plan, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE RECEIVED; 

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the necessary actions to update the existing Establishing and Regulating By-law and report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee; and, 

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with implementation of the Fire Master Plan Action Plan; it being noted that implementation will be subject to funding approval through future multi-year budget processes. (2022-P03)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (4.1) Permission to Use Gibbons Park for an Event

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the verbal delegation, from J. Scott-Pearse, with respect to a request for permission to use Gibbons Park for an event, BE RECEIVED and NO ACTION BE TAKEN.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.4) “RentSafeTO” Program and Complaint Process Improvements

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development the staff report, dated June 21, 2022, with respect to the “RentSafeTO” Program and Complaint Process Improvements, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from S. Trosow, and the verbal delegation from D. Devine, with respect to this matter, were received. (2022-C10)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That clause 2.4, BE AMENDED, by adding the following new part b):

“b) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop and bring forward a business case for a RentSafe London program for consideration during deliberations on the next multi-year budget.

it being noted that:

i) RentSafeTO employed 33 full-time staff in 2021 and covers ~3,500 rental apartment buildings that are three storeys or taller and include least 10 units;

ii) the number of building evaluations through RentSafeTO started at 3,421 in 2017 and now averages around 1,500 annually;

iii) the number of annual building audits (for buildings that score below 50% on an evaluation) started at 42 in 2017 and has now decreased to just 7 audits in 2021;

iv) the number of similar apartment buildings in London is likely in the range of 7-10% of Toronto’s total.”

Motion Failed (3 to 10)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Motion to approve clause 2.4.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

8.2.8   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at June 13, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Motion to approve item 1 of the Deferred Matters List.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Motion that the remainder of the Deferred Matters List, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.3   10th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-06-22 SPPC Report 10

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 10th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 2021 Performance Report and May 2022 Semi-Annual Progress Report

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report including the 2021 Performance Report, May 2022 Semi-Annual Progress Report as appended to the staff report dated June 22, 2022, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (3.1) Housing Development Corporation (HDC) - 2021 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Housing Development Corporation:

a)  on the recommendation of the City Manager, the Independent Auditor’s Report of KPMG LLP for the Shareholder of Housing Development Corporation, London, dated December 31, 2021, BE RECEIVED;

b)  the presentation by M. Espinoza, CEO, Housing Development Corporation BE RECEIVED;

c)  the 2021 Financial Statements BE RECEIVED; and,

d)  the 2021 Update on Strategic Area of Focus BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (3.2) London and Middlesex Community Housing Inc. (LMCH) - 2021 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions (Relates to Bill No. 280)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London & Middlesex Community Housing:

a)  on the recommendation of the City Manager, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 22, 2022 as Appendix “A” entitled “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022;

b)  the presentation by P. Chisholm, CEO, London & Middlesex Community Housing BE RECEIVED;

c)  the 2021 Annual Report BE RECEIVED; and,

d)  the 2021 Financial Statements BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (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 following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2022 related to the London Community Recovery Network (LCRN) – Recovery Funding Business Cases:

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

b) the following funding requests BE APPROVED:

i)  Business Case #1: Estimating the Size of the Gig Labour Market in London and Area;

ii)  Business Case #2: London City of Music Expo; and,

iii) Business Case #3: City of Music Conference and Events; 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.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (5.1) London: A Place to Call Home

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the presentation, and associated report, from M. Wallace and J. Zaifman, of London Development Institute and London Home Builders Association, respectively, with respect to “London: A Place to Call Home”, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review, with a request to provide a report back to the appropriate standing committee.

Motion Passed

8.4   10th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-06-20 CSC Report 10-Complete

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Recent Legislative Changes

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports that the staff report dated June 20, 2022 regarding recent legislative changes BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.3) Amendments to Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy (Relates to Bill No. 286)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2022 to amend the “Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on July 5, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.2) Special Projects and New Initiatives Reserve Fund Rationalization Report (Relates to Bill No.’s 258-276)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Special Projects and New Initiatives Reserve Fund Rationalization Report:

a)    the Special Projects and New Initiatives Reserve Fund Rationalization Report BE RECEIVED for information; noting that reserve fund targets established in accordance with the authority provided to the City Treasurer in the Council approved Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy are presented in Appendix “B” as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2022;

b)    the Special Projects and New Initiatives Reserve Funds to be maintained, listed in Appendix “B”, BE APPROVED;

c)    the Special Projects and New Initiatives Reserve Fund by-laws as appended to the staff report as revised Appendix “D”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to take all actions necessary to implement the changes outlined in the report.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Make Canada Gold

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated May 20, 2022 from Childhood Cancer Canada, September 1, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Make Canada Gold.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Srebrenica Genocide Remember Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated June 6, 2022 from Institute for Research of Genocide Canada Bosnian Canadian Islamic Centre London, July 11, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Srebrenica Genocide Remember Day.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (5.1) Restricted Acts of Council after Nomination Day and Voting Day (Relates to Bill No. 277)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services, the  proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting of July 5, 2022, to delegate certain authority, should the Municipal Council’s actions be restricted after Nomination Day or Voting Day 2022.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (5.2) Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy (Relates to Bill No. 285)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the attached revised by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022 to amend By-law No. CPOL.-18-214, as amended, being “Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy”, to update the nominating bodies for each category and increase the number of Distinguished Londoners to six (6) to be recognized annually.

Motion Passed

8.5   9th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-06-21 CWC Report 9 - Full

Motion made by: E. Peloza

Seconded by: M. van Holst

That the Council BE RECESSED at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 6:27 PM, and resumes at 6:55 PM.

At 7:03 PM, His Worship the Mayor places Deputy Mayor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 7:07 PM, His Worship the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 9th Report of the Civic Works Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 21, 2022, related to the appointment of consulting engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program:

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

i)         MTE Consultants BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design, and construction administration of Assignment A, Foster Avenue from Oxford Street to Edinburgh Street, in the total amount of $290,236.32, including contingency, excluding HST;

ii)        Spriet Associates BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design, and construction administration of Assignment B, Platts Lane from Oxford Street to Cherryhill Place, in the total amount of $415,712.00, including contingency, excluding HST;

iii)        Dillon Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design, and construction administration of Assignment C, Regent Street from Maitland Street to Colborne Street and Fraser Avenue from Regent Street to Huron Street reconstruction, in the total amount of $478,167.58, including contingency, excluding HST;

iv)        GM BluePlan Engineering Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design and detailed design of Assignment D, Leonard Street from Burdick Place to Second Street and Second Street from South of Leonard Avenue to North of Pottersburg Creek reconstruction, in the total amount of $294,074.00, including contingency, excluding HST;

v)         AECOM Canada Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design and detailed design of Assignment E, York Street from Clarence Street to Colborne Street reconstruction, in the total amount of $498,875.00, including contingency, excluding HST;

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

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

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

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-A05)

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.4) Updates: Blue Box Transition and Next Steps (Relates to Bill No. 279)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 21, 2022, related to the Blue Box transition process:

a)        the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, being “A by-law to authorize the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to respond to requests for proposals, negotiate and enter into any new service agreements or amending existing City of London service agreements with any Producer Responsibility Organization(s) registered with the Resource Productivity Recovery Authority, and/or their designate”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022;

b)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee with the outcome of negotiations and any executed contract(s) that occur with registered Producer Responsibility Organizations and/or their designate pursuant to clause a) above;

c)        the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and/or their designate BE DIRECTED to enter into discussions with the Producer Responsibility Organization responsible for London and area and/or their designate, on their potential interest in using any of the City of London’s recycling related infrastructure and assets in particular the City-owned Material Recovery Facility during the transition phase (July 1, 2023 to December 31, 2025) and post-transition phase (2026 and beyond) for operational efficiency purposes, economic opportunities, job creation opportunities, and how costs associated with existing capital and new capital investment would be paid, leased and/or shared; and,

d)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee with the next steps for City of London’s Blue Box related infrastructure and assets in particular the City-owned Material Recovery pursuant to clause c) above. (2022-E07)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.2) Participation in Canadian Home Builders’ Association Project - Towards Cost-Effective Net-Zero Energy Ready Residential Renovations (Relates to Bill No. 278)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022, to authorize and approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the Canadian Home Builders’ Association and The Corporation of the City of London and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Memorandum of Understanding. (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.3) Updates: Green Bin Program Implementation

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated June 21, 2022, related to the Green Bin Program Implementation updates BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-E07)

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.1) Participation in Provincial Cargo E-bike Pilot

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 21, 2022, related to the City of London’s potential participation in the Province of Ontario’s Cargo E-bike pilot program:

a)        the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to advise the Province of Ontario that the City of London will be participating in both the commercial and personal components of the Cargo E-bike Pilot Program;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to update relevant municipal by-laws to incorporate cargo e-bikes for personal use and to bring back the proposed by-law amendments to a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee; and,

d)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to develop a commercial use cargo e-bike pilot program, including licencing, permitting and by-law amendments and bring back a staff report related to this matter to a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee. (2022-T10)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (4.2) Participation in Provincial E-scooter Pilot

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 21, 2022, related to the City of London’s participation in the Province of Ontario’s electric kick-style e-scooter pilot:

a)        the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to advise the Province of Ontario that the City of London will be participating in the personal e-scooter portion of the Provincial pilot, subject to approval of Municipal Council, and will not be participating in the e-scooter share program; it being noted that the Provincial pilot ends December 2024;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to update relevant municipal by-laws to incorporate e-scooters for personal use and bring back a staff report of proposed by-law amendments to a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider suggestions from the communications and comments from the delegations heard by the Civic Works Committee, with respect to the Participation in Provincial E-scooter Pilot, as they prepare the appropriate by-law amendments;

d)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to monitor other municipalities involved with the Provincial e-scooter share program for the purpose of obtaining details pertinent to such plans as the Climate Emergency Action Plan, Mobility Master Plan, and The London Plan; and,

e)        the delegations heard by the Civic Works Committee and communications, with respect to the Participation in Provincial E-scooter Pilot, BE RECEIVED;

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

  • V. Lubrano III; and,

  • S. Elford. (2022-T10)

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at June 13, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6   3rd Report of the Audit Committee

2022-06-15 Audit Report 3

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 3rd Report of the Audit Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (4.1) 2021 Financial Audit

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken:

a) the 2021 Financial Report of The Corporation of the City of London BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Audit Committee received a presentation from the Director, Financial Services with respect to this matter; and,

b) the Audit Findings Report as prepared by KPMG for the year ending December 31, 2021, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Audit Committee received a presentation from KPMG with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (4.2) Presentation - Internal Audit Plan - MNP

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the presentation from MNP, with respect to the internal audit plan BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (4.3) Internal Audit Charter - MNP

Motion made by J. Morgan

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

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (4.4) Internal Audit Follow-Up Activities Dashboard as of June 6, 2022 - MNP

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication on the agenda and the revised communication on the added agenda from MNP, with respect to the internal audit follow up activities dashboard as of June 6, 2022 and June 10, 2022 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

9.1   10th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

  1.    Tourism Relief Fund – Contribution Agreement

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to the staff report, dated June 21, 2022, related to the Tourism Relief Fund – Contribution Agreement:

a)    undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the Mayor and the City Clerk to obtain the necessary authorization to execute the Contribution Agreement, as appended to the above-noted staff report, for the Tourism Relief Fund between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister responsible for Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario and The Corporation of the City of London (“Agreement”); and,

b)    delegate the necessary authority to the Civic Administration with regards to reports, documents and certificates required under the above-noted Agreement.

  1.    Offer to Purchase Industrial Land – Odd Burger Corporation – Innovation Park

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City owned industrial land located in Innovation Park Phase II being composed of Part of Block 1 (subject to final survey) located in the City of London, County of Middlesex and further being part of PIN 081970320, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Odd Burger Corporation under the corporate name Globally Local Real Estate Inc. (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 5.5 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $632,500.00 BE ACCEPTED, reflecting a sale price of $115,000.00 per acre, subject to the conditions and terms set out in the Agreement.

  1.    Lease Amending and Extension Agreement – 1021 Wonderland Road South, Unit C

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director of Municipal Compliance and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the Lease Amending and Extension Agreement for the lease of commercial space located at 1021 Wonderland Road South, Unit C, the Lease Amending and Extension Agreement between the City and 13480142 Canada Inc. (the “Landlord”) attached as Appendix “A”, for lease of approximately 1,644 square feet of deemed rentable area, located at 1021 Wonderland Road South Unit C, for an extension term of Five (5) years, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lewis

  1.    Property Acquisition – 19 Raywood Avenue – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 19 Raywood Avenue, further described as Part of Lot 35, Plan 467(4th) as in Inst. No. 840594, City of London, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 08358-0101 (LT), containing an area of approximately 6,060 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Tatiana Natasha Tielemans and Alexandra Coros (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $571,500.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and,

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

  1.    Property Acquisition – North of Front Street East Side of Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at North of Front Street East Side of Wellington Road, further described as PT LT 1, PL 11(4th) As in 625863; London, S/T 756609, being all of PIN 08357-0003, containing an area of approximately 2,927.78 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Jim Pattison Enterprises Ltd (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $150,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and,

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

  1.    Property Acquisition – 1 Kennon Place – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 1 Kennon Place, further described as Lot 9, Plan 449 (4th), being all of PIN 08357-0026 (LT), containing an area of approximately 2,734.03 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Peter Alexander Taillon (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $525,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor A. Hopkins enquires with respect to the process to review the Fire Works By-law. The Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and City-wide Services provides information about the next steps for community survey, draft staff report, public feedback, and final report to Council.

Councillor M. van Holst enquires with respect to urban encampments, shelter capacity, and transitional housing.  The Director, Housing Stability Services provides information on the supports provided to address these issues in the community.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 258 to 303, inclusive and the added Bill No.’s 307 to 309, and excluding Bill No.’s 260, 284, and 301, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Second Reading of Bill No’.s 258 to 303, inclusive and the added Bill No.’s 307 to 309, and excluding Bill No.’s 260, 284, and 301, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 258 to 303, inclusive and the added Bill No.’s 307 to 309, and excluding Bill No.’s 260, 284, and 301, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Introduction and First Reading of the Bill No. 260 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Second Reading of the Bill No. 260 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Third Reading and Enactment of the Bill No. 260 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of the Bill No.’s 284 and 301 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of the Bill No.’s 284 and 301 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Third Reading and Enactment of the Bill No.’s 284 and 301 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No.’s 304 to 306, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Added Bill No.’s 304 to 306, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No.’s 304 to 306, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 310, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 310, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 310, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

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

Bill No. 258

By-law No. A.-8256-177 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 5th day of July, 2022. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 259

By-law No. A.-8257-178 - A by-law to establish the Animal Services Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-8011-185 being “A by-law to establish the Animal Welfare Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 260

By-law No. A.-8258-179 - A by-law to establish the Child Care and Early Childhood Development Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-6945-139, as amended, being “A by-law to establish the Child Care and Early Childhood Development Reserve Fund”. (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 261

By-law No. A.-8259-180 - A by-law to establish the Community Improvement Program Reserve Fund and to repeal By-law No. A.-6868-272 being “A by-law to establish the Community Improvement Program – Grant Reserve Fund” and repeal and replace By-law No. A.-6867-271 being “A by-law to establish the Community Improvement Program – Loan Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 262

By-law No. A.-8260-181 - A by-law to establish the Dearness Home Gift Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-8013-187 being “A by-law to establish the Dearness Home Gift Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 263

By-law No. A.-8261-182 - A by-law to establish the Economic Development Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-7729-217 being “A by-law to establish the Economic Development Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law A.-6514-123 being “A by-law to establish the Economic Development Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 264

By-law No. A.-8262-183 - A by-law to establish the Golf Course Reserve Fund. (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 265

By-law No. A.-8263-184 - A by-law to establish the Municipal Election Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-8014-188 being “A by-law to establish the Municipal Election Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 266

By-law No. A.-8264-185 - A by-law to establish the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-6040-646 being “A by-law to establish the New Affordable Housing Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 267

By-law No. A.-8265-186 - A by-law to establish the Cultural Prosperity Reserve Fund. (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 268

By-law No. A.-8266-187 - A by-law to establish the Horton Street Environmental Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-7199-364 being “A by-law to establish the PUC Environmental Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 269

By-law No. A.-8267-188 - A by-law to establish the Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-8018-192 being “A by-law to establish the Red Light Camera Program Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 270

By-law No. A.-8268-189 - A by-law to establish the Social Housing Reserve Fund. (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 271

By-law No. A.-8269-190 - A by-law to establish the Social Services Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-7194-350 being “A by-law to establish the Social Services Reserve Fund and to repeal the Consolidated Verification Process Reserve Fund, By-law A.-5955-26.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 272

By-law No. A.-8270-191 - A by-law to establish the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-7756-262 being “A by-law to establish the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 273

By-law No. A.-8271-192 - A by-law to establish the Sump Pump, Sewage Ejector and Storm PDC Grant Program Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-6404-273 being “A by-law to establish the Sump Pump, Sewage Ejector and Storm PDC Grant Program Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 274

By-law No. A.-8272-193 - A by-law to establish the Lead Service Extension Replacement Loan Program Reserve Fund. (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 275

By-law No. A.-8273-194 - A by-law to establish the Water Customer Assistance Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-6969-185 being “A by-law to establish the Water Customer Assistance Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 276

By-law No. A.-8274-195 - A by-law to repeal By-law No. A.-6328-88, being “A by-law to establish the Creative City Reserve Fund”; By-law No. A.-8015-189 being “A by-law to establish the Official Plan Reserve Fund”; By-law No. A.-8016-190 being “A by-law to establish the Tree Bank Reserve Fund”; and By-law No. A.-6618-67, being “A by-law to provide for the Disconnection of Sewer Cross-Connection Loan Program Reserve Fund.” (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 277

By-law No. A.-8275-196 - A by-law to authorize the delegation of authority to the City Manager for certain acts of Council after Nomination Day for the 2022 Municipal Election, should the City Clerk determine that the incoming Council will include less than three quarters of the members of the outgoing Council. (5.1/10/CSC)

Bill No. 278

By-law No. A.-8276-197 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the Canadian Home Builders’ Association and The Corporation of the City of London and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Memorandum of Understanding. (2.2/9/CWC)

Bill No. 279

By-law No. A.-8277-198 - A by-law to authorize the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure to respond to requests for proposals, negotiate and enter into any new service agreements or amending existing City of London service agreements with any Producer Responsibility Organization(s) registered with the Resource Productivity Recovery Authority, and/or their designate. (2.4a/9/CWC)

Bill No. 280

By-law No. A.-8278-199 - A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. (3.2/10/SPPC)

Bill No. 281

By-law No. A.-8279-200 - A by-law to delegate Council’s authority with respect to approvals for zoning by-law amendments that are of a minor nature under Section 39.2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13. (3.3b/12/PEC)

Bill No. 282

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bl)-201 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan. (3.2/12/PEC)

Bill No. 283

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bm)-202 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to new delegation and alternative measures for public consultation pursuant Bill 13. (3.3a/12/PEC)

Bill No. 284

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bn)-203 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 84-86 St. George and 175-197 Ann Street. (3.5a/12/PEC)

Bill No. 285

By-law No. CPOL.-18(e)-204 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-18-214, as amended, being “Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy” to update the nominating bodies for each category. (5.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 286

By-law No. CPOL.-407(b)-205 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-407-321, being “Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy” by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.3/10/CSC)

Bill No. 287

By-law No. S.-6189-206 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Windermere Road west of Corley Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SP15-009524)

Bill No. 288

By-law No. S.-6190-207 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Wellington Street, south of Bathurst Street)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to Consent B.038/17)

Bill No. 289

By-law No. S.-6191-208 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Grey Street east of Maitland Street)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to Consent B.027/21)

Bill No. 290

By-law No. S.-6192-209 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Huron Street between Waterloo and Colborne Streets)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to Consent B.034/16)

Bill No. 291

By-law No. S.-6193-210 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish, name, and assume lands in the City of London as public highway to be known as Bradley Avenue.  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to the Bradley Avenue Extension project)

Bill No. 292

By-law No. S.-6194-211 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Oxford Street East west of Industrial Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA21-067)

Bill No. 293

By-law No. S.-6195-212 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Southdale Road East, west of Montgomery Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA19-018)

Bill No. 294

By-law No. S.-6196-213 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Southport Crescent; as widening to Southport Crescent and Chelton Road; as part of Evans Boulevard; as part of Candice Road; and as part of Fairchild Road)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of 33M-818 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting plans 33M-756 and 33M-789 for unobstructed legal access through the subdivision)

Bill No. 295

By-law No. S.-6197-214 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Sunningdale Road West, west of Hyde Park Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to Consent B.048/15)

Bill No. 296

By-law No. S.-6198-215 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Wonderland Road South north of Wharncliffe Road South)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA17-101)

Bill No. 297

By-law No. S.-6199-216 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Wellington Road north of Wilkins Street; and Wilkins Street west of Wellington Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA17-006)

Bill No. 298

By-law No. Z.-1-223036 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for a portion of the lands located at 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West. (2.2/12/PEC)

Bill No. 299

By-law No. Z.-1-223037 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 660 Sunningdale Road East. (3.1/12/PEC)

Bill No. 300

By-law No. Z.-1-223038 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 991 Sunningdale Road West. (3.4/12/PEC)

Bill No. 301

By-law No. Z.-1-223039 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 84-86 St. George and 175-197 Ann Street. (3.5b/12/PEC)

Bill No. 302

By-law No. Z.-1-223040 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 599-601 Richmond Street. (3.7a/12/PEC)

Bill No. 303

By-law No. Z.-1-223041 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 801 Sarnia Road. (3.8a/12/PEC)

Bill No. 304

By-law No. A.-8280-217 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Tatiana Natasha Tielemans and Alexandra Coros, for the acquisition of the property located at 19 Raywood Avenue, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/10/CSC)

Bill No. 305

By-law No. A.-8281-218 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Jim Pattison Enterprises Ltd, for the acquisition of the property located at North of Front Street East Side of Wellington Road, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 306

By-law No. A.-8282-219 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Peter Alexander Taillon, for the acquisition of the property located at 1 Kennon Place, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.3/10/CSC)

Bill No. 307

By-law No. A.-8283-220 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Globally Local Real Estate Inc., for the sale of the City owned industrial land located in Innovation Park Phase II being composed of Part of Block 1 (subject to final survey) located in the City of London County of Middlesex and further being part of PIN 081970320, containing an area of approximately 5.5 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.4/10/CSC)

Bill No. 308

By-law No. A.-8284-221 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Lease Extension and Amending Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and 13480142 Canada Inc., for the commercial space located at 1021 Wonderland Road South, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.5/10/CSC)

Bill No. 309

By-law No. A.-8285-222 - A by-law to approve a Contribution Agreement between the Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada hereby represented by the Minister responsible for Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario and The Corporation of the City of London (“Agreement”); and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/8/CPSC)

Bill No. 310

By-law No. Z.-1-223042 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 689 Oxford Street West. (3.6b/12/PEC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 7:48 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 37 minutes)

Colleagues, can I ask you first screens on, please? (mumbles) Thanks very much. Welcome all to the 10th meeting of City Council. We would invite folks who are paying mine to check the city’s website for additional meeting detail information, meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city’s website.

The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. Colleagues, I’m going to call on Councilor Steve Hillier for the land acknowledgement, please. Thank you very much.

We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the honor topic, the Haudenosaunee, the Lenna Aiwock, and the Otterodwin peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the first indigenous people call this territory home. We acknowledge all the territories that are specific to this area. The two row wampum belt tree of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, silver covenant chain, and beaver hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nan fan treaty of 1701, the McKay Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Tech Treaty of 1827, and the Anishinaabek and the Dish with one spoon covenant wampum of the Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee.

The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewa of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation all continue to live to sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Colleagues. In a moment, as is our way, I will invite a very special guest to join us for the singing of O Canada, but if I might first, I’d like to introduce like a birdie to you.

Like is a local musician proposes lyrics and messages about mother nature and various facets of life, while viewing music through a floral lens. Emotional, sorry, emo rock. Perhaps that’s emotional, I’m not sure. Pop, punk, and indie folk are just a few of the genres that bloom through her music.

Laika has been performing in London her whole life. She has experienced in a wide range of music disciplines, including a chorister with the London Ontario-based Mobley Choir, participating as a jazz vibraphoneist, a role conservatory trained pianist, and a classical flotist. Laika has been discovered playing a variety of instruments through her music developments, and has been recognized as an emerging artist by the Canadian Musicians Cooperative. She showcases her music via live streams, available through her website, likeaburty.com.

So, L-A-I-K-A-B-E-R-D-E-Y.com. Laika will now perform the National Anthem. I would invite you all please to stand and join Laika with our National Anthem. Laika, please.

♪ Canada, our home and native land ♪ ♪ True patriot love is coming ♪ ♪ With glowing hearts we see the rest ♪ ♪ The true north strong and free ♪ ♪ From far and wide, O Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard for thee, darling ♪ Gentlemen, likeaburty. Colleagues, all the pretty disclosures of peculiar interest, please. I see none, but what I do see are several recognitions that Colleagues have asked to put forward, and I’ll start with please with Councillor Humbuk. Everyone, just to say COVID, so I’m at home today, but on June 26th, the Colorado Avalanche won the Stanley Cup, and one of our own Londoners, Nazan Caudry was part of the team.

We’re so proud of you, Naz. When you picked up that cup, you picked it up for all of us. I also wanna recognize your charity work through the Nazan Caudry Foundation, which gives back to London organizations as well. And to Sam and Sue Caudry, congratulations to both of you too.

I know the hours, days, weeks, months, and years, you’ve sacrificed to get Nazan to this point, to be very proud of your son, and it’s super hard work paid off. On just a tidbit, I have just spoken to Sue, and we’re getting ready to bring the cup to London, so stay tuned, everyone. Congrats to Nazan and his family. Big win for London, thank you.

Thank you, firstly, Councillor, we hope you’re feeling better very soon. Thank you. And secondly, Nazan is a great representative for our City of London, and you’ll make sure you tell us when he brings the cup so we can all hang around and see him. Thank you, and we’ll see him too, plus the cup, of course.

The second recognition I’ll call in Councillor Hillier, please. Thank you very much. I am very proud to make this recognition, and I’d like to recognize a local company called Color Me Incorporated with four young entrepreneurs. We’ve got Yosef, Omar, Ali, and Karim.

These are four brothers that have started a life-sized coloring business. You may have seen them in the local festivals and the local farmers markets. You can see them at the Western Farmers Market, Western Fair Farmers Market, every single weekend. They’ve given up their weekends just to promote a business that they started during COVID.

So I’m hoping all of you will come together and support these four brothers who are showing the way for young entrepreneurs everywhere. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Now I’ll call in Councillor Faith Miller, please.

Thank you, and to everyone, I was standing on Delilis Patio when I watched the Portland Trailblazers pick London’s own Shaden Sharp, seventh overall in the 2022 NBA Draft. The Sharp electrified the Forest City ahead of the draft on June 23rd, with rumors flying about how high you would go in the first round. Basketball is big here in the London area, but Shaden Sharp brings basketball to a whole new level for so many young Londoners. Sharp played his basketball with the BL Raiders and led them to an OFSA AAA title.

From there, he moved to Sunrise Christian Academy in Bellaire, Kansas, before making his way to Dream City Christian School in Glendale, Arizona to assume the leading role. In Glendale, he averaged an incredible 24.1 points per game and six rebounds. He was a first team all recruit and the circuits player of the year. He opted to go pro over playing for the University of Kentucky Wildcats.

On that eve of the NBA draft, his parents Rob Sharp, who I’ll acknowledge, belongs to Team City Hall. And his mom, Julia Bell, spoke about their son’s journey to the NBA, including some unexpected hurdles. Once being cut from Ontario’s under 15 provincial team. Rob said that he remembered walking out of the gym with Shay and him saying he couldn’t believe that he got cut.

But his father told him that with every disappointment, you always look come and come back better and stronger. So just put your head down, grind away, and use that to fuel improve yourself to be a top player. And that’s exactly what he did. He helped Canada in the silver medal in the 2019 FIBA Under 16 America’s Championship.

At six foot six, he’ll make his pro debut in the NBA Summer League, which takes place from the 7th to the 17th of July. Have we set lofty goals for him? He doesn’t think so. His goal is to go out, play basketball and win.

And he’s not really worried about doing that. He’s a true leader, acknowledges as his parents, as his greatest influencers. And I loved his superpower of teleportation. We wish him all the best.

And we look forward to a visit from him here, the Larry O’Brien Championship trophy in the future. And I see no teleportation acquired for that. So we congratulate him and wish him all the best. Thank you, Councillor.

I’ll now call on Councillor Van Holst. Thank you, Your Worship. At today’s London Hydro Board meeting, we’ve got a report on the fallout of the recent storm that affected London. And I thought it was worthwhile describing how that response went.

In 10 minutes, that storm took out 35,000 homes in terms of having power. And within two hours, London Hydro had brought that down to 25,000. And five hours after the storm, there was only 15,000 homes without power. At the 12-hour mark, that number had been brought down to 1500 homes, at which point they declared an emergency so they could work over the night.

And 24 hours later, 700 homes. And two days after that was really just 200 left. And those were the ones that where the homes had been damaged and electrical work had to be done with inspections. But a tremendous job by this team, they received no help from outside because all the other communities were in a similar position.

We were able to send a cruise to Ottawa and there were a number of many crews that came to help that city. However, as time went on, they were sent home. London’s was the last crew to lead because they were considered the most skilled and knowledgeable. So I think we should be proud of our utility and the job they did in returning power to the community in such a quick and safe way.

There were no injuries to citizens or the workers as they, with all those challenges. So thank you very much for the opportunity to brag a little bit about our utility and I want to extend my thanks to the team. Well, thank you as well if I can, Council Van Holst. I think there’s a lot we can brag about today and we think of Nazem Kadri, the Mustafa boys from Color Me Inc, Shaden Sharp and the folks at London Hydro a lot to be proud of in this community.

Colleagues, I’m not aware of any confidential matters to be considered in public. And before I look for a motion to go into closed session, I’ll ask the clerk to advise the public about the items that we are considering, please. Your worship, the matters to be dealt with in closed session are eight matters that are outlined in the public council agenda. There is an item related to information supplied and confidence to the municipality by another level of government.

There are six matters related to the proposed or pending acquisition of land, along with solicitor client privileged and related advice and a matter related to labor relations and a matter related to litigation with respect to the expropriation of property located at 73 Warren Cliff Road South. Thank you. And for the benefit of the public, what I will mention is that once the confidential session is done, we will then resume in public session after that and complete the balance of our meeting. So with that, I’ll look for a motion to move into closed session.

I see Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much. We’ll call the question. And I should say for the benefit before we ask that Councillor Turner is away today and at this point, I’m not aware the Councillor Silly has joined into the meeting and as soon as we’re aware of that, we will advise you as well.

That is our common practice. Thank you. Clarice, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero.

Colleagues, I’ll just ask you to bear with us a few moments, please. And colleagues, we will be with you in just a moment, please, but we will ask for screens on. Clerk. You do have a quorum, Your Worship.

Thanks very much. So colleagues, we have the minutes of the June 14, 2022 meeting and I’d like to have a motion to put that on the floor. Please move by Councillor Van Meerberg and seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you.

Any discussion? I see none. We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to zero. Thanks very much, colleagues. We have several items under communications and petitions relating to George Street/and Street, 689 Oxford Street, rent safety O program, the provincial cargo e-bike pilot and the provincial e-scooter pilot. I will look for a motion to put those into the appropriate reports.

I see Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. So with that, we will call the question. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero.

Thank you. There are no motions which notice has been given. So with that, both reported planning environment committee, I’ll turn to Councillor Hopkins, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

I would like to put the 12th report of the planning and environment committee on the floor. I will be pulling number 13, 3.5 and number 14, 3.6. I’ve not heard from anyone else to pull any other items. So let’s ask anyone wish anyone any of these other items be dealt with separately.

Back to you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. As always, a busy committee meeting. We had a number of very important consent items that we were receiving the rethinking zoning update and discussion papers, the update on the OLT decision and status of the London Plan, the bill for Bill 109, more homes for everyone act, 2022 information report, as well as the single source procurement planning application signs.

And we received a number of our consent items on holding provisions, as well as receiving the second report from the community advisory committee on planning, and as always, the building division report. Those were the consent items, along with the number of public participation meetings that went through our scheduled items. Very full agenda too. So with that, with the exception of items 13 and 14, which is 3.5 and 3.6 that Councillor Hopkins has put that on the floor, any discussion?

I see none. So with that, we’ll call the vote. Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you.

Councillor Hopkins. Yes, number 13, I did not support the motion coming out of planning for number 13, 3.5, which is 8486 St. George Street and 175, 197 and street. I will turn to the Vice Chair, Councillor Layman to present that item.

Councillor Layman. I will put that item on the floor. Thank you, comments, questions? Councillor Lusch.

  • Thank you, Your Worship. I wanna just briefly, as I move this approval at committee, I just wanted to speak very briefly to it. And I wanna draw colleagues’ attention to the fact that there are three very important holding provisions that this approval is contingent upon. That will deal with the proper engineering of the railway crash wall, which was something that was in the staff’s mitigation measures that they provided in their report.

Should we proceed, a hydrological study, which we had a good discussion about a committee and which staff wants a chance to review because some of the water redirection may go into the municipal water management system. And so that holding provision is in there as well. And finally, there’s a holding provision on the heritage component of the building. And I think it’s important to reiterate, particularly with regard to some of the communications that we’ve received, that our staff, when this first came before planning committee, and then it was referred and returned a month later.

But when we were discussing the heritage part four designation, even at that time, our staff indicated that the preservation of the buildings in their entirety on site was not something that they were looking for in their heritage designation request, but that it would be contingent on the applicant to work with them to determine what parts of the building or components of the building’s structure needed to be preserved and incorporated into what might be on site in the future. So that holding provision is in place as well. The applicants made several iterations of this building, including dropping the site, the lower half of the site, which is on Ann Street, sorry, St. George Street, from nine stories to six stories.

I think it’s also important to note in the planning committee a report that we received from staff that as a result of the referral that came the month prior, that concerns around the traffic measures that were raised by the community were indicated by our staff to have been resolved through working with the applicant on this. So happy to move this. There will still be some work for the applicant to do before this can proceed, but with the holding provisions in place, we’ll ensure that those issues are addressed before construction begins. I finally just want to say that, while I recognize that there are still some concerns around the built form of the building, personally for me, I don’t think that a cookie cutter approach to our downtown is the best way to go.

I think that the applicant has proposed a unique building with considerable amenity spaces, rooftop swimming pool, terrace green space on the top of one of the lower portions. There’s affordable housing indicated in here as well. So the entire bonusing package that’s involved here is really something where we’ve gotten a lot of good amenity space for those who will call this particular building home in the future, and I will conclude my remarks with that. Thank you very much.

Seconder for your motion. Councilor Fife Miller, other comments or discussion? Councilor Fife Miller. Thank you Your Worship, and through you, I’m not going to speak to Councilor Lewis’ comments, but I think one of the things that I’d like to address here is some of the conversations I had the opportunity to have with the community as a whole over this building.

And I’m going to be honest, we didn’t get consensus out of this community when we met with them. There are a lot of differing opinions on what we wanted to see here from there being no change at all to the block as it’s set, we have community members who are fully in support of this. Well, we had those differing opinions. There’s one thing that I can tell you that was very, very clear from this community and very, very strong, and that was a desire to have full-time residents and neighbors in this community.

Now, when we look back at this area, this is one of the first neighborhoods that we would have had in London, but we also have to acknowledge the fact that a hundred years ago, what a neighborhood looked like back then and what a neighborhood will look like today are two different things. I grew up in Byron. And I’m going to tell you, when I go to Byron today, Byron looks a lot different than it did when I was young and I grew up there. But for this and for this type of build, we have to acknowledge that this adds community and this adds people to a neighborhood that are really desiring that community piece.

I had the opportunity to have a conversation with someone from City Match here in the city. And through that conversation, one of the things we talked about was, what is one of the pieces of the puzzle that we are missing in our downtown? And right away, I got an answer. And that is three bedroom units in apartment buildings.

This building has that. This building has one, two, and three bedroom units. This building will welcome families. And as they said, we have newcomers coming to this city whose children are sleeping on couches because they cannot get the appropriate facilities to live in.

But at the same point in time, these are people where common places for them to live in high-rise buildings in the downtown core. This is what this does. This gives them that opportunity. I think when we look at the broader piece to of how we engaged, we know through our engagement through the London Plan.

And where an upward development is something that we focused in on. And we can look at it and say, all the time, yeah, but this isn’t where we meant that to be. This is in the downtown. This is a core of our city.

This is exactly where we meant it to be. This is where we need to have it. This type of development in this area will bring diversity to this neighborhood. It’s going to get feet on the streets in this neighborhood.

It will welcome families, and it will welcome newcomers to this neighborhood, and it will create a more secure environment in the neighborhood. All of the pieces that we want, and I do think it actually addresses the thing that these neighbors want the most, and that is they want people living their 12 months out of the year, not nine months out of the year. So while I understand the challenges that some people have with this, I do think in the long term, this will be something that will be recognized, that will be good for the neighborhood as it is. So I support this.

I support what it will do for the neighborhood, and I support what it will do for the core, because I think this speaks to the direction we want to go. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions, colleagues?

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship, and I appreciate my colleagues’ comments. I did not support this Emotion at Committee, even though we did have a number of options given to us from staff to support development in this area, intensification. There are still those opportunities available to us.

I have great confidence in the developer that he’s going to do a great job in whatever type of development that is going to happen here. But that isn’t my concern and why I didn’t support it. The reason I have great concern on this motion being passed by Council is that we are not conforming to our official plan, and we are not even following our specific policies in this area, and this gives me great concern when we have gone through many, many years coming up with an official plan, public participation in that official plan. Policies should mean something, and I won’t go through all the specific policies here, such as the bonuses near campus, neighborhood, place type.

Specific policies that we are automatically making a decision. We don’t need these here in this development. We’re going to put in commercial. We’re going to take away a heritage building that there are opportunities of even moving it.

This is the second oldest brewery in Canada, and we are just almost, not even having the conversation here at Council on opportunities to preserve some heritage in this development. I do have a quick question through you, Your Worship. I heard a few comments here about this being in the downtown area, and I want to ask the question through you to staff. Is this in the downtown area a plan?

Mr. Burr, would you be handling that? Thank you, yes, Your Worship. No, this is not within the downtown area.

This is within the neighborhood’s place to have immediately adjacent to the downtown, which is just south of this area. Thank you, Coach Hawkins. Thank you for that, because I think, and I’m sure all of us have read the recommendation and the report and the significant amount that staff and the applicant have, this has gone back and forth a number of times. So when we start to automatically start changing our policies here, we should really understand what we’re changing and what we’re doing here, and where it fits in the downtown area.

I think that’s very, it’s incumbent on all of us to understand our policies as we go ahead and change them. Not supportive of that. And just to summarize it, Councillor Lewis, the mover of the motion, he did bring forward a number of important holding provisions that are attached to that. This isn’t a reason why we should support it, ‘cause of the holding provisions.

Those holding provisions are gonna have to be there, regardless of what development is gonna happen here. They’re gonna be important. That is not a reason to change our policies, just ‘cause we have holding provisions. So I’m very concerned that if we start pecking away here at our policies, I have just grave concerns that we are setting ourselves for the dismantling of all our policies, because what is gonna prevent us next time, coming in with an application, and we’re gonna go, oh, we don’t agree with these policies, we can just change them.

And I do not think that that is the right way to go forward. We should have regard, we should encourage, we need development, we’re gonna have some kind of development here that should be thoughtful development and consideration on all parts of the conversation. So I encourage you not to support the motion. There is, there’s refusal in the recommendation, and I would encourage the applicant and staff to continue with their dialogue.

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

Thank you. It’s true, the mayor, I guess I have a question for planning staff, throughout the report, there’s a number of issues that I would describe as still to be resolved, I guess my question is, do you think there is an opportunity if you had more time and more discussions with the applicant to actually resolve some of those things that are remain outstanding? I know a number of things have been addressed, but you were on a pretty short clock to get this back in front of council, and if you had more time, do you think you actually make a more progress on some of these issues that are as of yet unresolved? Thank you, Councillor Hummer, I apologize, I just had the clerk in my ear there, were you looking for a direction from staff from Mr.

Barrett on this? Yeah, please go ahead, Mr. Barrett. Thank you, through your worship.

The, really from the staff perspective, the largest remaining outstanding issue was with respect to the interface along St. George. Discussions on that were held with the applicant, as was noted by Councillor Lewis. There was a change to that interface that was brought forward and was considered at the last meeting of PEC.

While this was still not for square with where staff were, I’m not too sure that we’re gonna get any further as it relates to that issue. With respect to the other issues that were outlined in the report, again, as was noted by the Councillor, the holding provisions provide the opportunity for those discussions to be held as it moves through the development review process. Heritage alteration permit is still gonna be required. So, heritage issues will be addressed.

The holding provision as it relates to the crash wall. I think quite honestly, that will also involve discussion about the heritage structures that exist on site because they are co-terminus. They’re probably the same issue. So, through the holding provisions that have been recommended, there will be ongoing discussion, but whether or not any further discussion on sort of the one fundamental issue that was outstanding, I don’t see that that in fact would be resolved by any further discussion at the applicant.

Thank you, Councillor Helmer. Thank you. So, I’ve been thinking about this particular application pretty carefully. I know we’ve had it in front of us before.

I’m still not sure what the best way to handle it is by certainly support. And it was part of the settlement for the site’s specific policy of some kind of higher intensity building on this parcel. And I know the applicant has gone back and forth in some changes to the design to try and meet some of the needs to walk in a appropriate bonus zone. And I’m very reluctant to go against the staff recommendation, which they say saying we’re not, we haven’t met enough of these criteria to really support the bonus thing that’s being requested in terms of height and density.

So, I’m gonna listen to any other comments that people might have. I think the alternative by-law that was put in front of Council, which would have sort of locked in some of these setbacks and pieces through the zoning. You know, that is attractive to me. I could see how that would help resolve some of these issues in terms of the interface with St.

George. But I also think it would potentially result in nothing really productive happening because the applicant doesn’t seem to want to build a building within that envelope. And I could see it just going to an appeal. And unfortunately, I think that is probably where this is headed either way.

I think either the applicant is gonna appeal at this point or the community is. And I think we’ve seen a lot of applications head that way. And I think it’s partly because we’re stepping away from the very clearly outlined policies in the land plan and trying to change things site by site and building by building. And that’s frustrating both developers and the community.

So this is a tough one because a taller building here makes a lot of sense. I’m not persuaded by many of the arguments that essentially amount to we don’t want any more students around here. I don’t think those are good arguments. The students need places to live to and great buildings like this one is being proposed.

A good place for people to live with their students or other people. So those arguments are not persuasive but I think the design issues and how it’s gonna fit within the existing area. I do think that’s a concern and how to resolve that heritage conservation. I think that’s a very big bar.

I know there’s a heritage alteration permit that’ll be required but it’s not clear to me exactly how those resources are going to be conserved with the way that the proposal has been made. So I’ll listen to colleagues and not sure where I’m gonna land on this one. If there was any opportunity for some of these issues to be worked out through a future referral, I would support that and bring it up. But it sounds like for Mr.

Barrett that it’s very low likelihood of that happening. Thank you, Councilor. Other comments? Mr.

Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, I have a question as well for Mr. Barrett and it’s a question about procedure going forward.

If this is approved here at Council and assuming a big assumption that the community doesn’t appeal, as it goes through the site plan process and all the next steps ahead, if there are roadblocks because of the holding provisions, if there is a failure to get an agreement on how to resolve those holding provisions, does the applicant have an opportunity then to appeal at any stage during that process? Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Your Worship.

The applicant would maintain a right of appeal, nobody else does. Thank you, Councilor Cassidy. Okay, thank you. So I agree with a lot of what Councilor Helmer said.

When these kinds of decisions are presented to us or presented to the community as an either or, it must be this development that the applicant is proposing or nothing at all. That’s completely disingenuous and that’s not our job. Our job is not to hand something to the development community on a silver platter. It’s our job to put requirements, rules and regulations in place to ensure that the right kind of development takes place on the appropriate sites.

I agree that a quite an intense development is appropriate on this site. I am stuck as well with the number of concerns that city staff have around this particular development and around the sort of inability of the applicant to reach some kind of middle ground with city staff. I also agree with Councilor Helmer that not only, as we all know, we cannot say students can’t live here or students shouldn’t live here. That’s against all the legislation that’s out there.

And I wouldn’t want to do that anyway. So that is a non-starter for me. But I’m concerned that despite the holding provisions that staff have too many very real concerns, and I hear it, Mr. Barrett as well.

I hear that despite staff’s concerns, despite where staff would like to meet the applicant at some sort of middle ground, the applicant doesn’t seem willing to go any further than where they’ve already gone. I believe knowing the community, the Talbot area community, I do believe that there will be an appeal here. And this is where we run into a problem. And for people that have just joined, our Council might not know, when we have a very clear staff recommendation to refuse an application.

What happens when that goes to, if the community, if Council overrides that recommendation of staff, and it goes to an appeal by the community, City Hall then has to hire a third party planner, and sometimes legal representation, because city staff then become a witness for the appellate. And so City Council has to hire a third party to represent our decision to go against city staff. So it tends to be a challenging appeal situation. We have city staff to give us a educated, experienced recommendation, they are the experts on these matters.

We do have an official plan that has policies in place to, and do we change our policies on the fly? Often we do, do we override our policies? Yes, we do, and sometimes it is appropriate. But a wholesale change of policies of the official plan, I am generally not in favor of.

The other thing that I wanted to say about this particular, now I’m trying to think of what I wanted to say. So those are my concerns. And again, saying that it’s either this or nothing at all is completely not the case here. Something needs, and should be built here.

Do we need housing? Absolutely 100%. We all know that London needs more housing. And generally, so I’ll give an example of sometimes when our policies that I support, changing them, there was another York proposal a few years ago that was just outside of the primary transit.

30 seconds, Council. Certainly. And I did not support the staff recommendation to refuse that one, because it was directly adjacent to the primary transit area, and it made sense to build that building there. But in this case, with staff presenting with so many concerns, I’m not sure that I can get there.

I will wait to hear if other people have things to say, and listen to what they have to say on this particular application. Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you, any other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Morgan.

Yes, thank you, Your Worship. I wanted to make a few comments given. I know some of our colleagues are weighing their decision on this one. And I think that that’s likely appropriate.

This is not an easy decision to make. Obviously, all of us have supported the intensification of the city at a time when housing is needed and intensification is needed in the areas where it can be sustained by city services. It’s a cost-effective way for the city to grow. And every once in a while, we have this decision before us where we have to do so despite the letter of our policies.

And there is only one group in this corporation who can look at the bigger circumstances and make an exception to the policy. And that is us. Our staff are always going to present us with information related to the policies. And it comes before us and Mr.

Barrett has always been clear, you get to make the decision. And in this case, staff outlined a number of ways that we could deal with their concerns through the introduction of a series of holding provisions. And I believe, if I heard them correctly, one of the only remaining significant disagreements with the developers, the interface along St. George.

And so for me, if we’re talking about a little bit more height along St. George to or to not have this development where it is very needed, I know it is not technically part of our downtown, but I think we all know that intensity there makes a lot of sense and there are tons of businesses and services that will benefit from that intensity. And it is a place where we can grow the city cost effectively. So I think this is something that I can support.

As Councillor Caster mentioned, we do make decisions every once in a while to solve problems irrespective of the exact specific policy that we may be looking at. I always bring up the surplus policy. We solve a lot of problems by taking the surplus and setting it aside in different ways before it goes through the surplus policy. And it’s appropriate for us to do so.

That is part of our job. And I think Mr. Barrett and his team have done a good job of presenting us with options on how we could move forward on this one. And I know Councillor Lewis in the motion that was proposed to Planning Committee seized pretty much all of those options and incorporated it into the proposal.

I supported the designation for heritage on this site and I think that’s appropriate. Within that designation, it outlines the components of the building that are deemed to be of heritage value. And the holding provision and the heritage alteration permit will ensure that those are respected in the right way through a process of dialogue and discussion to ensure that it’s properly incorporated into this development or other options that could be considered through that process. So I think there are certainly a large number of challenges that the developer still has to move forward or tackle before this development can proceed.

But I’m comfortable moving this way because I do support the intensity of that development. I will also say from time to time when we do go against our staff, you are right. Our staff can be used as witnesses against the corporation. But we don’t always have to hire outside help to defend our position as a council.

In this case, I’m very sure that the applicant is going to defend any sort of appeal at the tribunal vigorously. And in these cases, it is not necessary for us to go out and hire outside applicants or outside help when the applicant is going to bring the full force of their outside help to defend a development that they would like to see move forward. And so there are certainly circumstances where that is true. In this case, I’m not too concerned about that.

And I do think that through the dialogue of the holding provisions in our staff, our position is defensible in this. Of course, that’s up the Ontario Land Tribunal, not us. And I’m comfortable with the decision before us today and I’ll be supporting it. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions, colleagues? Councillor Unhost. Thank you, Your Worship. And perhaps first question through you, I’d be charged out.

I would have brewery have been put in the neighborhood place type instead of the downtown. Seems like maybe that’s so, I’m just wondering why that decision was made if there’s a recollection. I’m not sure Mr. Barrett’s that old, but Mr.

Barrett, can you help us? Thank you, Your Worship. And no, I really don’t have an answer for that. The brewery dates back to the 1800s.

I knew you weren’t that old, but Councillor Unhost, go ahead. First question is about putting in one place type or another, it seems like more of an industrial building might have been more of a downtown neighborhood, but we can see it’s very close. On terms of there is concern certainly about the heritage conservation. And we see that conservation for the brewery is going to take place by incorporating it into the building in some ways.

We build the brewery in the new building, but there’s been the home and quite a beautiful home on the corner and I’m wondering through reading to staff, what kinds of preservation are possible with that? I know at one point, I think I heard the applicant say they would be able to move on to move buildings. I don’t know where we are with this particular one, but maybe staff could tell us what’s possible and that might delay some concerns. Mr.

Barrett, can you help us out? Through Your Worship, the holding provision would require through the future work a heritage alteration permit. That heritage alteration permit would be the document and the vehicle for identifying what in fact is being proposed to address the heritage matter. So I don’t know that I can provide any comment on what is or isn’t going to be done because that work has not yet been done, has not yet been submitted.

So no heritage alteration permit applications have been made. So we don’t have any information to review that I could provide you with any answer on those types of questions. Thank you, Councillor Unhost. Thank you, thank you very much.

I appreciate that. And I think that’s it from me. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Any other comments from colleagues or back over to Councillor Lehman, please. Thank you to worship on advice of clerk. There’s a housekeeping function that needs to be done by the mover. So I will go to Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Councillor Lehman. And through you, your worship. Yes, the clerk did advise that this wasn’t captured in the committee report, but it’s that item 13B amended to include the following at the end of the clause that being noted that this is approved, noting that the development is, and then there are three bullet points consistent with the provincial policy statement promoting intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations while conserving significant heritage resources consistent with the line plan key direction relating to a building of mixed use compact city and ensuring new development is a good fit and consistent with the staff recommended mitigation measures for the railway crash while hydrological considerations and heritage through the application of holding provisions. And is your secretary prepared to support that?

He is, Councillor Five Miller is. I’ll call these. I don’t think we need to go through a whole round again of the amendment based on what was discussed very thoughtfully in the first round. But are there any new comments?

And I certainly will allow them by virtue of the amendment that’s been put forward if there are any new comments that would be helpful to the discussion. I see none, so we have an amendment on the floor that’s been duly moved and seconded. I’ll call the question. Councillor Vanholst.

Albert Gay, sorry the choice didn’t come up for me. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to two. Thank you, so that’s the end of that item.

So I will turn it back to. No, we have to actually vote on this as amended. So I’ll put that motion as amended to the floor. Thank you very much.

You’re moving then? Yes. Do you have a seconder? That’s for those, thank you very much.

Colleagues, I know this has been discussed, so with that we will call the question. Councillor Fai, Miller, thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to two. Thank you very much.

Yes, the next item is number 14, 3.689 Oxford Street West. I did not support the referral back to staff on this one and I will turn to Vice Chair Councillor Layman to present the report. Councillor Layman, you’re back on tap. Thank you.

Colleagues, this is an issue of a pretty big development of 490 units, three towers, 17, 18, and 21 stories on just west of Oxford and Wonderland capital claim. The purpose of my referral is- Sir, I’m gonna let you put it on the floor and then if you wish to talk to it, you can. I’m not gonna let you do it twice. So what I’m gonna ask you to do is put it on the floor and then if you wish to talk to it, you’re welcome to do that.

If you have a seconder. I will put this on the floor. Thank you, do you have a seconder for this? Councillor Hiller, thank you very much.

Councillor Layman, please. Thank you. I just wanted to give my colleagues some reasoning behind my referral. I wanna touch a bit on the London Plan aspect that I feel is not being given due course.

I wanna talk about the shadowing, significant shadowing, especially on a vulnerable community and the impact on traffic, 490 units, will definitely affect already intense area. In the London Plan, the transit village policies direct that building heights will step down from the core of the transit village to adjacent neighborhood areas. This area is right on the edge, the far western edge of the defined transit village area. My opinion does not step down to the single family residences immediately to the west, nor to the one story residences immediately to the north.

And I know it’s in the last issue we had. There was provided a step down to six stories, adjacent to four story townhounds. Here we have a step down of 17 and 18 stories. In my opinion, I don’t believe that is following the transit village policies.

Regarding shadowing, mainly to the north of this development is a terrific facility called Highview. Highview provides living support for seniors suffering with dementia and Alzheimer’s. We heard an emotional heartfelt representation at committee by Mr. Chapin who runs the Highview Residences.

In that delegation, he explained the importance of sunlight to those seniors suffering with dementia and Alzheimer’s. There are a queue to where they’re at in their day. The shadowing of this development in the wintertime is mostly all day, not leaving the property until around four in the afternoon. In the afternoons of winter, that’s pretty much the day.

Folks there, this is their universe. They do not travel south. In fact, they don’t leave the premises. This is their life here.

I think we have to consider very carefully the impact on these folks that will be brought by this development. Finally, I wanna talk about traffic. We talked about the widening of Wonderland Road and the severe challenges that we have in that area of the city. Beaver Brook and Wonderland is severely congested.

There’s Farm Boy off of Beaver Brook that people have trouble getting out of that plaza or getting into. There’s Costco around the corner. And also adding to that, there’s traffic coming from these side of Wonderland along Beaver Brook by those skipping the corner of Wonderland and Oxford. This is resulting in an untenable, in my view, a situation and I hear about constantly and I witnessed firsthand of gridlock and frustration.

And when this was discussed back at the widening of Wonderland, the concerns were raised then. We’ve seen nothing, unfortunately, come across our paths from the Cindy Engineer and Director of Transportation addressing this. We’re going to look at adding 490 units that have two access points to Oxford and Wonderland. This is one through Beaver Brook and Wonderland.

So I think in light of these two serious concerns shadowing and transportation, my referral was this. It was to go back to the developer to see what it would take to look at impacts of shadowing. I understand there’s 30 affordable units here. I get it and I understand that housing is dear as is affordability.

However, how quick are we to rush to solving that problem at the expense of others? This is not a case of a four story going to a six story, the impact in the neighborhood. This is a case of 50 folks, seniors, in the later stages of their life, in a property that this is what they have. 30 seconds, council.

I think we need to consider very carefully before approving this project of the impact. So my referral is this. Go back, see if we mitigate to a second extent and what it would cost in terms of affordable housing units and also get here from City Engineer and Transportation and what they plan for Beaver Brook and Wonderland in accommodating the extra traffic in an already congested area. Thank you, Worship.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? I’ll recognize Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Worship.

I wanted to rise and speak to this because that committee I supported the referral. However, tonight, after we’ve had two weeks now, we’ve seen additional communications come in from the developer and the community, but I am not gonna support the referral tonight, having had an opportunity to review the situation. And I took a look at the shadow studies in particular. And I’m always reminded of a phrase Councillor Cassidy used about a development in her ward.

She said it’s the marshmallow effect. When you push a building down, it tends to widen out and she’s correct and having talked to the developer as well, I know that if they were to reduce the height, it would be coming at the expense of thickening the building or losing all of the affordable units or a combination thereof. And if I look at what’s allowed under the zoning without any bonusing, they could still go 15 stories. So I looked at the shadowing of a 15 story versus an 18 story and versus a 21 story.

And what it would actually do is leave those buildings in shadow longer because the wider shadow, it’s not gonna shorten them enough that there’s not a shadow. But what it is gonna do is widen the shadow. So instead of having a shadow that’s crossing the path of the property through the course of the hours of the day, we’re gonna have a shadow that’s there for an extended period of time. A shorter, thicker building is actually going to keep these residents in shadow longer.

And I do recognize that in the winter shadow study, we’ve got quite a bit of shadow until the noon hour. But I’m also mindful of the fact that very few of us have a whole lot of sunlight in the winter hours. And the fact that it’s also not a time when too many of us are outdoors in enjoying a stroll in the sunshine, either. The weather’s often not as conducive to that as it is in the summer.

And when we look at the summer hours and the summer shadow study, there’s not an issue there. And when we look at the equinox studies, again, the issue is pretty minimal. So while I understand the community’s concerns, I think that sending this back is actually gonna create a worse shadow situation. I’m also cognizant of the fact that our ability to use the Bonusing Tool is coming to an end.

And I did, I asked the developer, how long would it take for you to come back? Well, it’s not going to be next cycle. The answer I got was probably three to four months. Well, Bonusing will be gone in three to four months.

And then we will have 15 stories with no affordable units as the best possible case and doing nothing to alleviate the shadow studies. There are the shadow concerns. This is an area that’s designated for high intensity development and I also understand the traffic concerns. In fact, I agree with Councillor Layman that with not going ahead with widening Wonderland Road, we have to take a look at some of these intersection bottlenecks and certainly Wonderland and Beaver Brook.

I live on the east end of the city and I know darn well to avoid that intersection if I possibly can because it’s not a convenient one to get through. The traffic from the farm boy and the Costco and everything else, it does make for some intense traffic there. But I think about the addition of roughly 500 units and I look at the traffic volumes. Wonderland’s right now at 49,500 vehicle trips per day.

So if we add 1,000 for the sort of traffic volume of two trips a day by each unit, we’re only talking about 51,000 versus 49,500. I know that that 1,000 sounds like a lot, but in terms of with 50,000 already there, it’s actually not going to move the needle very much. And at Beaver Brook, where the traffic volume is 14,500 a day, we’ve got 15,000 to 15,500 if we think that every resident in those buildings is going to make two trips a day on that road. So again, when you look at the overall volume, the addition of these units isn’t really going to move the needle and how congested it is.

There is a problem there. I hope that certainly, and I know that our staff listened to the comments we make and I hope that addressing the bottleneck of that intersection is something that they can take a look at sooner than later. But when I look at the community objections and when I look at the purpose of the referral, I don’t see the referral getting us anywhere. In fact, I see the referral getting us in a worse situation whenever in 30 seconds, so I’m not, I appreciate the Councilor Lehman representing his constituents, but I think that this is consistent with our plan.

And if the referral does not move forward, I’m prepared to support the original staff recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, you worship. I did not support this at committee.

I think Councillor Lewis has spoken quite well to a number of reasons why I did not support it at committee. And I’m not exactly sure what we’re asking in this referral of civic administration to do, to look at shadowing and to look at traffic. To take advantage of the affordable housing, 30 units throughout the three buildings, we would need this back next month, ‘cause we know a bonus thing for affordable housing is going to be gone in September. So this puts a lot of pressure on getting this application back.

And how are we going to look at the shadowing? The shadowing, if you read in the report, most of the shadowing happens in this area to the north in December. And we know there’s not much sun in December. We know it’s not a growing season.

I hear the concerns from the community about the shadowing, but if we go down to 15, 16 that is allowed, it’s a transit area, there’s still going to be shadowing there. And like Councillor Lewis said, a little bit wider and probably a little bit longer. So I’m really glad he spoke to those points. And I’m not sure that within a month we’re going to get the traffic and the shadowing dealt with.

I do respect Councillor Layman’s concern for his community when it comes to the traffic. I have a number of development applications out west, word nine. Number one issue is always traffic. We have challenges how we move around as we do these infills, but we need to deal, provide the housing, but also we need to deal with opportunities on how we move around the city.

In creating further opportunities, I hope the mobility plan, there will be a wide conversation throughout London on better ways to move around. But in this area in particular, I know transportation traffic are here, listening to Council. And I would hope that there would be communication with the word Councillor to sort of work together on what’s the best way to mitigate the traffic in this area given the policies that allow for this kind of intensification. So I would hope those conversations would continue.

I would encourage the Council of every application that comes forward for affordable housing and the need for homes in our city to be developed, we cannot keep on referring these applications back to deal with traffic. This is a zoning amendment change here. And the problems are real when it comes to traffic. And we’ll have to as a whole city deal with how we move around.

So I would encourage my colleagues not to support the referral back as I don’t think all we’re doing is just extending the many years that this application has been going through the process. And if anything, this is another revised amendment to the notice that was sent out to the community. So I would encourage you not to support the referral and support the recommendation from staff. Thank you very much.

Any other comments from colleagues? Recognize Councillor Unholst. Thank you, Your Worship. And I appreciate the communications that our residents have sent in.

The shattering has been talked about and just reiterate a little bit that as I look through it, there’s never shadow impacts on the neighbors to the north after four p.m. during the year. There’s only shadow impacts at noon in December when the nursing homes gardens are inactive. And there are no shadow impacts during the summer when gardening is most likely to take place even at nine a.m.

So in talking to the developers, I see that they’ve adjusted the heights of the various buildings so that that would be the case. And you can see in the little shadow studies that the shadow stop is kind of at the edge of the parking lot and the gardens are open up. So I very much appreciate that. In terms of the traffic and timing, I do want to ask through you to our staff about the timing of these three buildings.

I understand that it’s just one that’s intended to be built now, is that right? And then the other buildings, although we’re getting this plan, it’s really for the future. And not a matter of the present since there are buildings there right now with tenants who have leases. So this can still give us an idea of when the various buildings might be erected.

So Mr. Barrett, one, two, three buildings timing, can you help us please? Thank you, Chair Worship, the council is correct. The initial application was just for the single building.

It was actually a staff that asked for the entire site to be considered so that we could see how the entire site could be developed comprehensively. I can’t speak to the timing of the second and third units. It’s my understanding that the first unit would come on stream in the near term, following the approval of this application with respect to the second and third towers. I don’t have any knowledge as to the timing.

Councillor Van Halst. Okay, thank you. So it does seem that the three towers are a bit of a straw man argument in that that wasn’t really what was intended immediately. So I would say that the traffic impacts for this first building aren’t going to be, which is the shortest, as I understand.

So those impacts won’t be as great as we’re predicting in the near term. And the other question I wanted to ask maybe to our transportation staff if they’re here is what’s possible in terms of improving the traffic because this was intended to be a transit village, there was intended intensity increases planned. And so what’s possible in this area? A little bit general, but go ahead, Ms.

Sure, if you can, please. Thank you, Your Worship. The intent is to study the need for transportation improvements for all modes in this area and throughout the city using the mobility master plan. Once that work is done, that would inform what goes into new development charges projects.

And that would help us design and decide what needs to be done. I will warn that this area has some very, very tight right of ways, property lines are very close to the back of sidewalk development is right up to property line in some cases. So we will have some fairly serious constrictions related to our ability to make major improvements, but we are committed to doing network through the mobility master plan. We are talking approximately 17 vehicles in the PM peak heading northbound that would access either Beaver Brook or Sarnia slash Hyde Park based on this development.

And we are confident that that can be accommodated. Councillor. Thank you very much. I think that’s very reassuring answer.

And I didn’t mind understanding that the two other buildings are future intent. And it’s one of the great businesses that are located there will remain for some time. And I’m willing to support the application as opposed to the firm. So thank you.

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

Just speaking to the recommendation from Planning Committee, I’m going to vote against it. I hear where Councillor Layman is coming from, hoping that we can get a bit better outcome in terms of the shadowing and the transition from the proposal that the applicant has made and some future design that might be a study better. On the one hand, I’m open to that path. But on the other, this development is well aligned with the policies and the one in plan.

This is a transit village where outside of the downtown, this is where we want the tallest, most intense buildings to be located. And I’m happy to support greater intensity in this particular area of the city. And this is exactly what we’re trying to do in terms of inward and upward, not just in downtown, but along the rapid transit corridors. I will say two things, which I think need to be said.

One is it was a mistake to delay the secondary plan for the transit village. If we had proceeded with that instead of delaying it, we may have resolved the transition issue and maybe slightly lower heights in certain parts of the transit village would have already been surfaced as an idea and potentially be in place. And so I regret that we delayed that secondary plan. That’s the value of the secondary plan, is especially dealing with things like transitions from existing neighborhoods to new developments, how within the overall transit village, things might be slightly different from the west side than it might be on the east side and so on.

And I do regret that we delayed that. Second, the solution for mobility has been in front of us many times as a council over many years. And it’s only getting more expensive the longer we take to do it. And that is to widen Oxford Street between Werncliffe and Wonderland to add two dedicated bus lanes and build the west leg of rapid transit.

It would terminate right near this development at this west transit village. And there’s other mobility challenges certainly in terms of most north-south traffic and certain intersections, but we cannot add hundreds and hundreds in some cases, more than thousands of units to this area if we’re not going to significantly increase the carrying capacity of the transportation network. And we’ve asked staff to look at it many times and come back to us and the key come back with the same solution, which is wide Oxford Street, add dedicated bus lanes. So I think the sooner we get on with that particular idea, the sooner these kind of developments will work very well because it’s not just this one, it’s also the subdivision to the north of Oxford Street on the eastern side towards Broadfoot, the mall, which is across the intersection in the southeast corner is redeveloping as we see it before our eyes, lots and lots of residential being added in this area, which is already quite intense and trans supportive.

So the solution is looking at us right in the face. And I hope that we revisit that soon and get on with it because as I say, it was a $35 million widening and I’m sure it’s much more than that now and it will just become more and more the longer we delay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions colleagues?

So this is on the referral. I will call the question. Sir Van Nierberg, closing the vote. The motion fails four to nine.

Thank you. I’ll look to see if anyone that is prepared to move the staff recommendation for a seconder, please. I see Councillor Lewis. Any comments or questions that have not been covered as extensively as they seem to have been on the amendment?

Open that up. I see none. Briefly, go ahead, Councillor Hoffman. But only up to five minutes.

I will be brief because I was going to say, I hope I have five minutes to speak on the recommendation but I will encourage committee to support. This has been an application that’s been in the wrong in the making. I appreciate the concerns from the ward, Councillor. When it comes to traffic, we do need other ways of moving around out in the West End.

It is becoming such a challenge. We do not have very many opportunities and I’m hoping you can support the 16, 17, 21 story apartment building along with the 30 affordable housing units. I really think that’s really important and has allowed this area to sort of intensify. This is where we can put intensification and encourage my colleagues to support it.

Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. And I didn’t speak to the referral because people spoke very well and I didn’t need to but I will say that a lot of what Councillor Lewis said when he spoke early on are things that I would say directly to the community and I’ve had these kinds of developments in my ward. It’s interesting that Councillor Helmer brings up the secondary plan, secondary plan around the Masonville Mall area.

A large tower was passed by this council just north of the Masonville Mall and it is within the transit village place type. It would have been part of the secondary plan. 15 stories were approved there. Eight would have been allowed with the secondary plan.

That is the value and the beauty of a secondary plan because it recognizes the heights that are allowed in the transit village place type but it forces that transition to happen so that the lower heights are there amongst the lower density residential that surrounds the transit village place type. I would encourage then probably in the next term of council, whoever sits on this council to make haste with that secondary plan because there will be more of these kinds of applications coming forward. And I agree with Councillor Lewis. I’m not sure if I’m the one that said mushroom effect.

Sounds pretty clever but so thank you for giving me credit but this is a spot where higher intensity is allowed and so what developers want to do is if they lose height, they want to maintain the same number of units or close to the same number of units so they squish the building out, they expand it in order to make that same profit margin that they’re looking for. So and I do agree that generally the lower buildings tend to be more intrusive on the neighboring properties and I also am looking forward to the mobility master plan. This is a road Oxford Street, similar to Fanshawe Park Road in my ward along with Richmond and Adelaide and Highbury. These are higher order roads and they are already designed to take the greatest amount of traffic.

So adding some a couple of hundred, few hundred units is not gonna make a huge difference on how that road is already functioning. The fact that the road is functioning poorly right now speaks to the need to improve our overall mobility and hopefully that will be through the mobility master plan. We absolutely have to improve the transit system and that means rapid transit on this corridor, absolutely 100%. We do know that there are serious infrastructure challenges under the road that need to be upgraded and updated and that would be part of a rapid transit system.

All of that work would happen at the same time and it would give people options for moving around so it’s not just about adding thousands of more cars on the road. It’s not as to the people that came out and spoke against this application because they have relatives in Highview. That was also a concern in the Masonville area with the tri-car development and I was very happy to see tri-car move the buildings around on their site to limit the shadowing that was going to take place on Richmond Woods which is another long-term care home that was affected by one of these kinds of developments. That was very good on the part of tri-car in trying to work with the community.

I also see the shadow studies here and there are some shadowing. There is some shadowing that will take place but I also do think that it is less intrusive because they are point towers and not those big squishy buildings and also the times of day in the months of the year where the shadowing will take place. I don’t, I believe it is the best possible scenario and if we were forcing the applicant to do something different, I do believe that it would be worse. So those are my comments.

Why I did not support the referral and is why I will support the staff recommendation. Thank you, any other comments? Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

I won’t repeat what my colleagues have said. I do want to touch on the affordable. I was in component though. I want to commend both our staff and the developer for being able to find a way to negotiate 30 units in this particular development.

It is certainly beyond, I think, what is expected is certainly in the London plan and I know that the original proposal had 20. I spoke to the applicant on this. I know that the provision includes 30 and I know that the applicant is very supportive of doing those 30 fully. So I think we have to every once in a while give credit where credit is due, especially given the roadmap to 3000 and our ability to build as much affordable housing as we possibly can.

So these affordable units 30 in this building is certainly going to help towards that total. So I wanted to both commend our staff and the applicant for finding a way to get upwards of 30 units in this particular development. Thank you, any other comments? I’ll ask the Deputy Mayor to just take the chair for a second.

Sure, I have the mayor. Brief question for Mr. Barrett, Mr. Barrett.

We’ve had a lot of talk about the 30 units. Is that in one building or is that in the accumulation of all three buildings total, please? Thank you. The total number of units is going to be 10 in each of the units.

So we’ll spread amongst the units. Okay, because there was talk in the impression given, I think that the 30 would be in building one. That’s extremely clear. That’s my question.

Back to you, Chair. I’ll hand the chair back to the mayor. I have no one else on the speakers list. This is okay, Councillor Vanholz, please.

You snuck in. Thank you, Worship. Just bouncing off your good question. The 10, 10 and 10, I think at some point the developer had requested that the units be proportional to the size of the particular buildings.

Is that still a possibility? Is there been an agreement for the 10, 10 and 10? I swear. To your Worship, the provision in the special or the bonus zone requires that the mix of the bachelor one bedroom and two units be representative of the unit mix in each of the buildings.

So each building would provide for the 10 affordable units and the mix of those units would be reflective of the unit mix within those buildings. Thank you. Anything else, Councillor Vanholz? Okay, well, that’s helpful.

And just the final comment, the Worship that it’s housing. One is the desperate needs of housing. Certainly the industry need affordable housing because we’ve got some challenges that are showing up on the streets. So I’m pleased we’re able to move forward with at the very least the first building.

And we can find some more places for people to make. Thank you. Thank you. I have no one else on the speaker’s list, but maybe I do, do not.

So with that, this is on the staff recommendation. I will call the question. Was in the vote, motion carries 11 to two. Thank you very much, Councillor Hopkins.

And that is my report. Thank you very kindly. Appreciate the Board of the Community Protective Services Committee. I mean, I call on Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’m going to pull item six, which is 2.4 from the committee report and item eight, which is 5.1, the deferred matters list. And that is all I know about. I don’t know if anybody else would like to pull anything.

Well, let’s ask the question. Does anyone wish to have anything else voted on separately? I see none. So with the exception of 2.4 and 5.1, back to you, Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you. So it was a lovely meeting as always. And one of the highlights was the update on the implementation of the Indigenous homelessness strategic plan and staff put together a lovely report on that very informative. And we do know that Indigenous community members are overrepresented in our homelessness statistics and things like that.

So this is culturally safe delivery of services to our Indigenous community members. And with that, I’ll put the entire report on the floor, except for six and eight. So noted, thank you very much. Comments or questions on all of those two items?

I see none with that. We will call the question. Councillor Vanholst, those in the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero.

Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Your worship was also 2.4 from the committee report. The Rent Safe TO program report from staff. And I believe that Councillor Helmer has a motion.

The committee voted to receive that report. And I believe Councillor Helmer has a motion that he would like to put on the floor. Is that the case, Councillor? There you are.

Thank you, Mayor Holder. Yes, it is. And colleagues who are at the committee meeting were a call that I had suggested and moved to motion at the time that failed on the tie vote to direct civic administration to develop a business case for consideration, future council in the next multi-year budget about implementing a Rent Safe London program. So I actually have a slightly revised language, which I’ve sent to the clerk a little bit different than the motion we voted on.

A committee still directing civic administration to develop and bring forward a business case for Rent Safe London programs for consideration in the progressions on the next multi-year budget, but it has in it being noted clause that has a number of points in it, which I think are important to include in the motion. So I’ll look maybe to see if there’s a seconder for that and then I’ll speak to the motion directly. Is there a seconder for that? I see Councillor Cassidy, go ahead, Councillor.

Okay, so I think that the Rent Safe Toronto program, which I wanna be clear about what it is and what it’s not, this is a program where you have every three years an evaluation of rental buildings. These are essentially large rental buildings, at least three stories in height, at least 10 units. In Toronto, there’s about 3500 of those buildings to put it in the London context. Probably we’re talking about, you know, one-tenth or less of that.

So maybe 300 buildings, something like that. A precise number, I don’t really have a handy. But that’s give you an order of magnitude. In Toronto, they run this program where you have an evaluation every three years.

And if you score very badly, you know, if the building scores below 50% on the evaluation, then there’s also an audit. And so in the first year in that program, 3,400 buildings were evaluated, something like 40 were audited. These days on a rolling basis around 1,200 or 1,500 buildings are evaluated in a given year, can the number of audits is down to seven. So most of the buildings are scoring pretty well because people are improving the condition of the buildings that they’re renting out to tenants.

And I think this approach of evaluating every few years, scoring the buildings and then auditing the ones where you’re finding significant problems, making sure that those things are remedied is the right kind of proactive approach for London. By asking for a business case, which is what I’m suggesting here in this motion for future consideration, I think it gives us time ‘cause we’ve heard from some members of the landlord and tenant task force, for example, that they’d like to weigh in on this idea and talk about it. And having a business case come forward to the next multi-year budget, it gives plenty of time for that to happen. This is not saying we’re gonna go ahead with the program.

This is saying we’d like to see a business case prepared for consideration in Toronto, which again, they’re dealing with about 10 times as many buildings as we are, let’s just say as an order of magnitude. They do that entire program with 33 full-time staff. So I believe that we could implement a similar program in London quite a bit less, you know, quite a bit less in terms of staff. I’m sure they have some economies of scale, which we might not be able to achieve with a smaller number of buildings.

But, you know, if we have 300 or so buildings, what are we talking about? You’re evaluating a hundred a year. That really isn’t a huge undertaking to be evaluating those buildings. So I think we should at least take this step, which is let’s develop a business case.

Let’s take a look at it and be thoughtful about it. In the time in between, we can have the landlord and tenant task force talk about it, which I think they would even without any direction from us, how they could have some discussion about it. And then the future council, you know, if they see the costs, you know, they’re put forward by staff about how much it would be to implement a program like this. They see what the expected outcomes would be.

If they decide to go ahead, great. If they decide to not go ahead with it because they don’t think it’s going to do some money, you know, that’s their responsibility. So hopefully there’s support for at least developing the business case. I think it’s a very promising idea.

You know, this rent safe Toronto program is really the only one of its kind. And in Canada, I think it’s quite effective. You can see in the numbers that they seem to be getting pretty good results in a lot of contacts from the many, many people who live in this kind of rental housing in Toronto. In London, we have at least, you know, 37,000 dwelling units in this kind of housing.

It’s a lot, it’s a lot of people in a small number of buildings really, right? Because most of them are so significantly large, you know, 100 units or 150 units, 200 units. Many of the buildings are great and they’re going to score well when the evaluation happens every three years. But in evaluation, every three years is really not a lot to ask.

And I think a proactive approach is what is needed to help improve the conditions in rental housing. And I really hope that colleagues will support taking a look at least at the business case. Thank you, other comments or questions. I’ll recognize Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you Your Worship. And the reason that I supported Councillor Halmer’s motion at committee and I’m supporting this tonight is because we’re 18 months away from the next four year budget. I know there were some comments made at committee like about the proactive, improved or increased property standards and by-law enforcement that staff were recommending take place immediately. And so, and some comments were, well, let’s let those things play out first to see if they work, to see if they have an effect.

So we have 18 months for those things to play out before the next council looks at the next four year budget. So this gives staff a lot of time to consider the kind of business case that they would put together and it gives the future council a lot of time to consider if that really is the direction they want to go. Once this council turns over, it all bets are off and the new council sets the direction. But this is our way of pointing the new council in a particular direction and hopefully have them go down that route.

But at the end of the day, it’s up to the next council whether this goes forward. I’ve been in a few buildings. We licensed rentals for four units or less. Those are the kind of rental buildings that require a rental license.

Anything more than that doesn’t require that. So when I went on a police ride along a few years ago, I went in some of these buildings that are not licensed. I know that there are very good landlords out there and I certainly am not in favor of making a punitive regime where everyone is tarred with the same brush. However, the kinds of inspections that I know that the rent safe Toronto program does or the evaluations is looking at the quality of the outside of the building, what’s going on in the outside of the building and looking at the common areas.

So it’s not a big endeavor or an intrusive endeavor. It’s just only when there are problems observed in those quick kind of inspections when the need for an audit is identified. So, and again, there would be this process in place going forward 18 months from now where staff would present the next council with a business case laying out the costs of the program and also identify sources of revenue, whether it’s through fines or penalties to landlords that are not providing safe and quality housing for Londoners. So there are possible revenue streams and all of that would go into the business case so that the next council has a full appreciation of the cost of the program.

I’m supportive, as I said, of going in this direction and I really hope that this council will support this as well. Thank you, I have next councilor and host. Thank you, Richard. I don’t believe that I’ll support to the motion.

I think we have and staff described a better plan that’s more made in London. I see that a lot of this seems to be wasted energy. There’s a term in an engineering called entropy and it describes how much of a systems energy isn’t available for useful work. And I look at the system that councilor Helmer described.

So we’ve got 30 people evaluating 1200 buildings to find seven that need to be audited. Well, once that happens, there’s none of that money, none of that work, none of those wages went to actually repairing those buildings. What I would prefer is a system where people call us and say my building has a problem. And in the case of Toronto there, there might be seven complaints for buildings and they might rather have 30 tradesmen who could just go out and fix them.

And I think that is a situation where you would see all of the systems energy is available for useful work. And this is what we need. And I think we’ve made some changes already. And we’ve seen some good results because of that.

Now our by-law staff is able to deal with things that weren’t usually in our purview and use the administrative monetary penalties to make sure that things like above infestations and other means are dealt with. And I believe that’s the direction we want to go rather than just building more bureaucracy. Let’s make sure that when there’s a complaint and there’s a problem, we have a way for it to be fixed. And the funds that are available and the funds that are needed go to that useful work.

So I see this as mostly an administrative we’re creating a bigger government and not really getting a lot out of it. The best part of course in that trauma system is that buildings get fixed when they need to be here. I see them just checking buildings unnecessarily. It reminds me of the system we had in the province where after your car was sold, you had to go and get the exhaust checked every couple of years and you maybe had a foreign car where the, it’s very unlikely that there was ever problem.

And for most cars, even the domestic, very, very few problems. And the problems that were available, the police could see them because somebody would be driving along with a smoke coming out of their tailpipe. And so what I’m hoping is that residents in living in London will let us know when their buildings are getting to a point where they need to be addressed. And then we have a system that will address that directly.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I wanna start by saying, first of all, I recognize and I think that all of council recognizes we have some housing challenges in London. We have some challenges around affordability.

We have some challenges around property standards and upkeep. And that includes, by the way, colleagues. And I say this as a member of that board, that includes the upkeep at our London Middlesex community housing buildings, where we have to do a better job. And that work is happening.

I know at London community housing, staff are really trying to make those improvements as quickly and as efficiently as they can. And in the private sector, I recognize that some of that work needs to happen too. To Councillor Cassidy’s comment earlier, I think it’s very important that we aren’t painting everyone with the same brush. We have some excellent property management and landlords in the city.

The majority of them, and we’ve heard from our staff that most of the property standards complaints actually come from the converted dwellings. These are supposed to already be covered by our residential rental unit licensing inspections. We know that during COVID, inspections of those weren’t happening. There was a voluntary compliance checklist.

We know that those inspections are starting to happen again. And hopefully that will capture some of these as well. But I’m not interested in spending staff’s time preparing a business case on this, on something that I don’t think is actually going to solve the problem. And I want to key in on a couple of things.

The staff reports suggested that 37 by-law and an equivalent number of fire services would be required. And Councillor Helmer pointed out a committee correctly so that that was based on an annual inspection. And what Brent Safe Toronto does is a three-year rolling inspection. However, even if we cut that number in a third, we’re talking about 12 more by-law, 12 more fire.

And that’s without an estimate on how many administrative staff we would need to actually oversee the bureaucratic process in terms of making sure that the licensing is all kept up to date, that the follow-up is happening in those sorts of things. And some of the problems that, and I appreciate the advocates and I know we’ve heard from Ms. Devine on a couple of occasions who’s come to present to committee, so of some others. And that includes folks at Lifespin and at neighborhood legal services and other organizations.

I respect the passion and the advocacy that they do. But quite frankly, things like the problems with the backlog at the landlord tenant board tribunal is not something that council can fix. It is an Ontario government responsibility. The advocacy needs to happen with our MPPs.

We just had a provincial election where 43% of people eligible voted. If an improvement needs to be made on the advocacy for landlord tenant disputes, it’s at the provincial level. And that’s where the energy should be focused. City Council cannot fix provincial problems that has to be done by the province.

And I feel like what we’re doing with trying to look at a rent-safe teal model is trying to fix a provincial problem with city dollars. And we know that property taxes are not a fair way to tax people the way that income and consumer taxes are. The revenue streams of the province and the city are very different. And I think that it’s important we understand the impact of these kinds of things.

Because every time we raise property taxes to backfill something the province isn’t doing. We’re making it that much harder for somebody who’s barely making it by right now to make their ends meet too. And potentially increasing the challenges that they may face in terms of housing in the immediate future. I think there’s some good interim steps that staff have suggested.

I like the idea of a single email phone number portal where people can make their complaints. I don’t think it is actually a great thing when property standards complaints about a rental unit go into the general enforcement at London.ca by-law along with complaints about parking and dogs barking and tall grass and that sort of thing. 30 seconds. They need to be prioritized on their own.

So I like the recommendation that staff has put forward in terms of those steps. And finally, I’ll say I actually question some of the data about the costs coming out of Toronto. Because quite frankly, the last I read in the news about the Toronto City Council’s budget is that they had approved one that was almost two thirds of a billion dollars in the red that they were counting on the province to bail out. So I need something that’s fiscally responsible for London in addressing the problem.

And I need us to focus on the London issue, not the provincial issue with the landlord or tenant board. Thank you, Councilor Plosian. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll not repeat what’s already been said, but glad that the report contained as Councilor Lewis said, better communication with the public of how to connect and get services done, realizing I already work with staff to send out for property standards issues.

For me, and we’re 12 residents, wayward shopping carts scattered around different unit dwellings, the city’s already implemented a fine. Now as they collect them to help clean up property standards, certainly anything that would be a health concern, the health unit is available out in health residents with information for that in their services. At this time, I’m not interested in a business case coming forward for this. My only question to staff, if it was no one, was just on page 72, it was saying, you know, it was an annual fee of 1124 for residential unit, but then when it came, your time was that every three years are more frequently saved for the $1,900 for an administrative fee for the audit and the audit inspection fee of like 115 per hour.

Do we know on average, how long it takes to do an inspection of a building, recognizing some buildings, thousands of units and other months just have hundreds? Let’s see if Mr. Catola can help us. Yes, through your worship, our expectation of staff is to undertake eight building inspections per day.

Of course, that is an average. Some inspections may take up to half a day or longer. Some inspections are shorter, depending on the complexity of the situation at hand. And just a follow-up for you.

Go ahead. How many officers would that take if we’re doing eight per day that to two people on site for? Through your worship, normally just one. Okay, that’s all my questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Palosa. I have Councilor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you.

Your worship and really interested in comments coming from my colleagues here. Two things I agree with. We should be fiscally responsible. And secondly, we should do whatever it can, if possible, to protect tenants.

I agree, to some extent it’s probably a provincial matter, but somehow the provincial government can be more protective around the landlord as opposed to the tenant. This is an opportunity where we can look at the improving the quality of tenants in our city. Why not look at a business case? We’re not approving to go forward with this program.

I think I wanna compliment the two Councillors for bringing this forward. I know it was, it did not, wasn’t supported a committee, I’m sure, I’m still not exactly sure why it wasn’t supported other than in the report we were receiving this information. The conclusion from staff was that they recognized themselves that the process needs to improve. They’ve made a suggestion.

It’s not a recommendation that this is what they’re going to do unless I got that wrong. I didn’t have time to look at the video, so I’m not sure what that went. But here tonight we are looking at supporting the direction to move forward with the business plan to come forward in the next multi-year budget. I have not heard anything here tonight why we would not do so, so I am supported.

Any other comments or questions, colleagues? So I will ask the clerk then to just remind us of the motion that’s on the floor. Thank you, worship. The motion that’s on the floor is in a motion to amend.

At clause 2.4 be amended by adding the following new part B, civic administration be directed to develop and bring forward a business case for a rent safe London program for consideration during deliberations on the next multi-year budget. We noted that first rent safe TO employed 33 full-time staff in 2021 and recovers 3,500 rental apartment buildings that are three stories are taller and include at least 10 units. Second, the number of building evaluations through rent safe TO started 3,421 in 2017 and now our outages around 1,500 annually. Third, the number of annual building audits for buildings that score below 50% on an evaluation started at 42 in 2017 and has now decreased to just seven audits in 2021.

And finally, the number of similar apartment buildings in London is likely in the range of 7 to 10% of Toronto’s total. Thank you. So this is on the amendment that’s been moved and seconded, we will call the question. Opposed in the vote.

Motion fails three to 10. So colleagues, original staff recommendations that I’ll look for someone to move that. I think it’s already on the floor. Is it not your worship?

I’m sorry, Chair. I think I already put that on the floor before the amendment. Is it, does it stay on the floor? It’s on the floor.

Well, then I’ll get off the floor. So that we have a duly moved motion. And with that, we will call the question. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 10 to three. Councillor Cassey. Thank you, your worship. So item which is the deferred matters list and what we did at committee is we voted on item one from the deferred matters list separately because one of our colleagues has a conflict.

Thank you very much. So you’re putting item one first? Yes. Thank you very much.

Item one is on the agenda. Any comments or questions about that? Let’s call the question. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries, vote to zero with one. Through the Chair, Councillor Killier, I do not recall hearing a declaration. I’ll need your audio, please, Councillor. Yes, sorry.

I had a conflict on number one ‘cause my family does put on events. Sorry, I didn’t catch that, but I thank you for catching it. Thank you very much. Back to Councillor Cassidy then.

So I will put the remainder of the deferred matters list on the floor. Comments or questions? I see none. We’ll call the question.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries, 13 to zero. Thank you very much, Councillor Cassidy. Well, thank you very much.

I’m advised that notwithstanding the timeframe that the deputy mayor is able to help us work through the 10th report of SBPC. Over to you, please. Yes, Your Worship, I think hopefully we’ve worked through this before our break. I looked at the 10th report of the SBPC voting record.

It looks like everybody was in favor or unanimous on everything. So unless there’s any objections, I’ll put the whole 10th report of SBPC on the floor. Well, let’s ask the question. Does anyone wish to vote on any of these items separately?

I see none. Over to you, Deputy Mayor. Put the motion on the floor. Any comments or questions?

I see none. We will call the question. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries, 13 to zero.

Deputy Mayor, you’re good. That’s it for me. Well, with this, I’m gonna take a little chance here. We have the 10th report of corporate services.

Councillor Lewis, can you be as equally effective? Well, you worship, I’m not sure if I can be quite as fast as the Deputy Mayor, but I will try. I have not been made aware of any items that individuals would like pulled from the 10th report of the Corporate Services Committee. There are some applications for proclamation issuances.

We did have discussions about a couple of those and they were approved unanimously, as was everything else on the committee report. So hopefully we can go ahead with putting all of those on the floor at the same time. Well, let’s ask if anyone wants to deal with anything separately, Councillor Venhost? No, I should comment on 2.3 and then as to members of council proof of COVID-19 vaccination policy.

Now, do you wish to make comments or do you wish to have it pulled for a separate vote? No, you worship, I would just make some comments. All right, does anyone wish to have, thank you. We’ll come back to you then.

Does anyone wish to have anything dealt with separately purposes of voting? I’ll turn it back over to you, Councillor Lewis, please. Well, then without you worship, I will put the entire 10th report of the Corporate Services Committee on the floor. Thank you, comments or questions, Councillor Venhost?

Thank you, worship. So this item 2.3, I realized what’s being done is we’re readjusting the policy once again to match that of staff. And in this case, we’re removing requirement for testing with exemptions. So I do appreciate that.

I think it’s a step forward. However, the vaccination policies and cells, I have some ideological challenges with and I was gonna express another one of those before voting. And I note that although the vaccines can’t necessarily guarantee health, that the vaccine mandates you guarantee massive revenues for the drug companies because we’re essentially not in just this policy, but in general, creating a monopoly on one type of treatment, which is a vaccine. And I don’t know that that’s necessarily beneficial.

It’s always good to see some competition, some other ideas coming up. And without some kind of regulator, like we usually have in these instances, it’s very easy for us to pay much more than we could for the same outcomes. And I’m concerned that in the future, we may see more of these and see public opinion manipulated, if I will, to encourage them simply because there is that great profitability from those entities. However, today, this is a step forward for me because we don’t have a monopoly on testing now, we’re not forcing that to happen.

So people are welcome to test as they feel is necessary and feel comfortable with. So I’ll support. I support the change along with everything else in the 10th report of the appropriate services committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor, any other comments from colleagues? I see none. We’ll call the question. Presenter vote, motion carries, 13 to zero.

Councillor Lewis. The corporate services committee, your worship. Thank you very much, colleagues. We have a few items and perhaps for the benefit of the public, I’ll just mention that we have the ninth report of civic works coming up.

We have the audit committee. We have the external report of council and closed session. It looks like we have a couple of inquiries. Therefore, I’m going to recommend that we take a 20 minute break.

It now being 627. With your blessing, we’ll come back no later than 10 to seven sharp. That’ll give us a chance to have a bio break and for those in need of a bite. So with that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn and for the benefit of the public, roughly 20 minutes from now.

Is there a motion? I see, Councillor Ploughs, a Councillor Venhols. Thank you very much. Show hands as time screens on those in favor.

That motion to recess carries. Thanks very much, just that was the motion. We will not terminate the meeting. We’ll see you back in 20.

Can I get screens on, please, colleagues? Your worship, you do have a quorum. Thanks very much, colleagues. We’ll welcome the public back and I’m going to turn all of our attention, all of our attention to the ninth report of civic works and calling.

Councillor Palosa, please. Your worship, it’s a pleasure to present the ninth report of the Civic Works Committee. All those for unanimous and I have no request to pull anything separate. Let’s see if anybody would like to do that.

Anything that people would like to vote on separately? Chair, I don’t see any. So does that mean you’ll put it on the floor and it will open up for questions? Yeah, I’m going to put everything on the floor, recognizing we also had four delegations join us that presented in regards to the e-scooter pilot.

We had the Provincial Cargo Bike e-pilot. When it goes to 2026 for the scooters that pilot project goes to December 2024. We’ve decided based on staff recommendation that it will not be commercial, personal cargo bikes or e-pilots. Only for the scooters, that’s my comments.

Thank you very much, comments, questions. Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I just want to make a quick comment on 2.3, the green beam program implementation update.

Just want to thank staff for having this come forward. It’s taken quite a long time, but I want to thank the work that’s gone into this and looking forward to the implementation in another year’s time, but we’re almost there and my thanks to staff. They also have a comment on the 2.4, which is the update for the blue box transition and next steps. Again, my thanks to staff.

I know there’s a lot of work that’s gone into this and as we support the recommendation going forward to have discussions with producer responsibility happening in our city. I think it’s really a positive move and really pleased to see that London will transition in the first group of municipalities starting July the 1st. I wonder if I can ask you, Your Worship to staff, if there’s anything that is stopping us from getting there to the implementation, which I expect is a year from now, but I would like to get staff’s comments to see if. Well, let’s ask that and share, can you help us?

Thank you Your Worship. We are certainly seeing some eagerness to continue with negotiations related to the blue box transition. Hence, they’re actually the request for the delegation to enter into some of those negotiations because they are moving quite quickly, in fact, too quickly for council cycles. So taking our leave from council and where we want to go with this program, we’re expecting that these deadlines, subject to any changes from the province, are going to be met.

Yeah, sure. Yeah, really good news that we’re moving forward quickly. I think it’s really important that we acknowledge the changes in the blue box transition that’s going to be taken place. Eventually, this is going to be a huge tax saving to Londoners as we transition and get into a new way of reducing our waste through the blue box program.

And my thanks again to staff and a lot of work’s gone into it. Thank you. Thank you. I have next, Councillor Van Holst.

Thank you, Worship. Yes, and regarding the blue box, I do want to mention too that it’s not only a way for municipal needs to save money, but our hopes is that this is a way to motivate producers to simply produce less waste and package things differently by putting responsibility for their cost of getting rid of that waste on themselves. So that motivation we hope will create some exciting new differences that we can all be happy about. I did want to ask a staff, a question regarding the e-bike pilot and my question is, is there enough internal deliveries between the city’s various locations that we could have one of these ourselves to try out?

Sir, was that the question, Councillor? I just want to be clear. That was the question. I might have had the wrong chance.

I might have should have said R instead of just is, but what I’d like to know is, have we considered one of these e-bikes to both items and internal mail, et cetera, between the city’s own locations? So I’d never make fun of a Councillor’s question, but I’m not, at first I thought the question was, will every Councillor get an e-scooter? I’m not sure that was the question. I think it was more directed staff-wise.

Ms. Sherkin, help us, please. Thank you, Your Worship. We have had some interest from various departments within the city who may wish to look at the e-cargo bike to support their operations.

So we’ll be having those discussions subject to the outcome of council tonight. We have already added e-bikes, just regular ones to patrol for a bylaw on the core and found them very effective. So we’re very interested subject to whatever approvals we have to operate as a commercial entity ourselves to explore that opportunity to support city services as well. Councillor Fennelst.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the answer. And I guess my last point, Mr. Mayor, is about the e-scooters and I think some public education is gonna be required here.

And I really hope that what we encourage people to do is be courteous drivers. I think if we, our aspirations were to be courteous, then we would see many of the complaints and certain concerns mitigated. So that would be one of my hopes, but we’ll see how these things come, thank you. Thank you, any other comments or questions, colleagues?

I’ll ask the Deputy Mayor to take the chair. Thank you, I have the mayor. Thanks very much. I’d like to direct a question, if I could, to miss share with respect to the provincial e-scooter pilot that has been recommended be received.

I was absent for the vote, so I’m trying to understand something. And obviously, e-scooters are permissible by law, but I’m just trying to understand two parts of this, please. The rationale for deferring the program and any implications that make sure that you might imagine as a result of delay. And if I could ask that through the Deputy Mayor, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Right now, e-scooters are actually not permitted in cities unless you choose to opt into either the e-scooter share pilot project or the personal e-scooter pilot project or both. So we have a product that is sold legally, but not actually regulated properly in the city of London.

We are recommending we proceed with opting into the personal e-scooter pilot project, which would mean they’re owned by individuals. And we’re recommending not being part of the provincial scooter share commercial pilot project. The rationale for this is sort of many fold. One of the common issues we hear about these e-scooters is that they are often left all over the place, particularly on sidewalks, which is an obstruction for accessibility reasons.

Generally, those that feedback has come from cities that are operating a share program. There are improvements in technology happening every day to help sort of corral where those end up when people’s rentals are done, but that work still needs to proceed, I think, to a bit higher standard than what we’ve seen so far. We’re not likely to learn much from in London around operating a commercial e-scooter share here that we cannot learn from our peer municipalities. That concern does not exist to the same level for a personal e-scooter pilot because that is people’s personal device.

They likely will take it in with them or lock it up because otherwise they risk it being stolen from wherever they leave it, whether that’s a sidewalk or somewhere else. The other piece for the pilot project to get into the commercial piece is that there’s a fairly significant amount of investment in staff time that would be required. So we’re eager to see what comes out of the ultimate discussions from the other cities in Ontario and around North America that are working on pilots like this, and to be part of the legislation that’s going to be framed ultimately by the provincial government. So the door is not closed forever to the idea of some sort of commercial e-scooter share in the future.

At this time, we just don’t think that the benefits are there for London to run a pilot specific to that in London. There are potential implications and we will be reporting back on our bike share program. I believe next cycle or the cycle after that, only because some of the bidders who might be interested in a bike share program may potentially be interested in both the bike and scooter share. As I said, the door is open in the future to have that discussion with council or the community, but we’re recommending that we don’t run a specific pilot in London right now.

Mayor, thanks very much. So I understand the rationale of going ahead with a personal e-scooter program, and what I’m hearing from the deputy city manager is issues around safety, issues around these vehicles, for lack of a better word, being laying around. Were there any considerations that one of the rules we might be able to put around a program like this is that it have those locking stations or places where they would have to end up so that there would be no, so that we wouldn’t have the scattered look. I can’t imagine it being left on the grass at Victoria Park and one of our mowers that does the grass runs it over, that would, I think, be bad.

At the same time, so would it be on a sidewalk and someone tripping over it by whatever rationale, but were the docking stations ever considered? And I’ll ask that through you, Chair. Go ahead. Through you, Mr.

Deputy Mayor, we have looked at a number of the technologies that are available there. We haven’t gotten to the point of evaluating each them in detail. That would be the intent of a pilot project, generally. Most of the scooters shares don’t use a physical docking station like a bike rack.

They tend to use a geo-fenced area where the scooters are parked, which means that you’re retroactively dealing with things that are not returned necessarily. So somebody may still have that charged out on their personal account, but in the meantime, when it’s between, it’s a destination B between A and C, it may be parked somewhere that it’s not supposed to be while they patronize a business or otherwise. So where we have generally seen those concerns, the cities that have seen those concerns, they are using some sort of geo-planning to manage where they get stopped in part. The concerns do still persist.

We are seeing some really neat technological innovations that would assist with that. So as I said, the doors open in the future, I think between technology evolving and the work that’s being done in other cities, we can have those learnings without the upfront investment and expense here in terms of staffing. Thanks, Chair. And I’ll turn the chair back to the mayor.

Any other comments or questions, colleagues? I see none. I’ll turn this back to Councilor Plaza. You’ll put this on the floor, I presume, or it is on the floor?

Yes. All right, then we’ll call the question. In the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Councilor Plaza?

Any of the Civic Works Committee. Thank you very much and I’ll call on the deputy mayor to present the third report of the audit committee, please. Thank you, I’m happy to present the third report of the audit committee. It included our 2021 financial audit, very good cleaning audit.

So the committee heard and asked lots of questions on that. We also received some updates based on our feedback to the internal audit plan as well as the audit charter and received our first dashboard report from our new internal auditors, MNP. So happy to put the whole thing on the floor and answer any questions colleagues might have. Well, let’s see if there are any questions that we have for the deputy mayor.

I must admit, this is one of my favorite committees, but it doesn’t always get the most questions, but having said that with that, we will call the question. In the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Same for the report. I just want to end by thanking our staff for all the work they do in preparation of the audit.

I think we pass it very quickly here, but it’s obviously an incredible amount of work working with our auditors to make that happen. So thank you to Ms. Barmon and her entire team for that. Ditto, thank you very much, deputy mayor.

Now for the 10th report of council and closed session. I’d like to call on councilor Fife Miller, please. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, your council and closed session reports number one, tourism relief fund contribution agreement on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports. The city administration be directed to take the following actions with respect to the staff report dated June 21st, 2022, related to the tourism relief fund contribution agreement.

A, undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the mayor and the city clerk to obtain the necessary authorization to execute the contribution agreement as appended to the above noted staff report for the tourism relief fund, queen or majesty, the queen in right of Canada is represented by the minister responsible for federal economic development agency for Southern Ontario and the corporation of the city of London agreement and be delegate the necessary authority to the civic administration with regards to the reports, documents and certificates required under the above noted agreement. Two, property acquisition 19 Raywood Avenue, the Wellington Gateway project. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports with the concurrence of the director construction and infrastructure services fund the advice of the director realty services with respect to the property located at 19 Raywood Avenue. Further described as part of lot 35 plan 467.

Fourth as in instrument number 840594, city of London, county of Middlesex, being all of pin 088358, dash 0101LT containing an area of approximately 6,060 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 Tatiana Tasha Teomans and Alexander Corros, the vendor, to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $571,500 be accepted. Subject to the terms and conditions is set out in the agreement as appendix C and B, the financing acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A. Three, Wellington or sorry, three property acquisition, north of front street east side of Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway project.

That on the recommendation of the city manager finance support with the concurrence of the director construction and infrastructure services and on the advice of the director realty services with respect to the property located at north of front street east side of Wellington Road, further described as PTLT1, PL11 fourth as in 625863, London ST 756, 609, being all a pin 08357-0003 containing an area of approximately 2727.78 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 Jim Pattison enterprises limited the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $150,000 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions is set out in the agreement as appendix C and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A. Four, property acquisition. One Kenyan placed Wellington Gateway project.

That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director construction and infrastructure services on the advice of the director realty services with respect to the property located one Kenyan place further described as a lot nine, plan 449 fourth, being all a pin 08357-0026 LT containing an area of approximately 2734.03 square feet as shown on the location map as appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway project that the following actions be taken. A, the offer submitted by Peter Alexander Talion the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $525,000 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions is set out in the agreement as appendix C and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A. Five, the offer to purchase industrial land odd burger corporation innovation park. That on the recommendation of the city deputy city manager finance support and on the advice of the director realty services with respect to the city owned industrial land located in innovation park phase two, being composed of part of block one subject to final survey located in the city of London county of Middlesex and further being part of pin 08197-0320 as outlined on the sketch here to attached as appendix A in the agreement of purchase and sale as appendix B submitted by odd burger corporation under the corporate name globally local real estate ink the purchaser to purchase 5.5 acres on the subject property from the city at a purchase price of $632,500 be accepted reflecting a sale price of $115,000 per acre subject to the conditions and terms set out in the agreement.

Six, lease amending and extension agreement for 1021 Wonderland Road South Unit C. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director of municipal compliance and on the advice of the director realty services with respect to the lease amending and extension agreement for the lease of commercial space located at 1021 Wonderland Road South Unit C the lease amending and extension agreement between the city and 13480142 candidate ink, the landlord as appendix A for the lease of approximately 1644 square feet for deemed rentable area located at 1021 Wonderland Road South Unit C for an extension term of five years be approved. Thank you, counselor. So I know you would be prepared to move that but I am looking to split this up slightly.

There were six components to this and with your indulgence, counselor five Miller, I will ask if you’d be prepared to initially move 0.1 the tourism relief fund contribution agreement. The second component, which is the offer to purchase industrial land at innovation park related to the odd burger corporation and the lease amending and extension agreement of 1021 Wonderland Road South Unit C and we are looking to do that to separate it from the three Wellington gateway projects. And if you’re comfortable with that, we’ll move those three items. I will move those.

Thank you as their seconder for those. Councillor Vennenberg and thank you very much. Any comments, questions? That’s on these three items.

We will call the question. Those in the vote motion carries 13 to zero. And if I can, again, through you, Councillor Fyfe, Miller, the second, third, and fourth of the council closed session relating to the Wellington gateway project. If you’re comfortable with moving that?

I will move those. Is there a seconder? Councillor Lewis, thank you. Any comments?

Call the question. Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Thank you, Councillor Fyfe, Miller. Now as to deferred matters of which there are none but I’m aware that we may have two inquiries and I will look to Councillor Hopkins, please.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I know at our last council meeting there was an inquiry regarding what dates fireworks should happen in our city. And my inquiry today, given that we’ve already had the event on the weekend, there’s a lot of conversation in the community around our next steps going forward with our firework by-law. So I think I’d like to take this opportunity to, through you up into our staff, what is our process to review the firework by-law?

Well, let’s miss Smith that. Thank you and through the worship. The big administration is currently undertaking a review of our current fireworks by-law. So this includes community engagement over the summer and a municipal scan to understand what other cities are doing.

We will be bringing forward a revised by-law to council early in 2023. And this will also include at this time a public participation meeting on the proposed by-law. So currently residents can visit getinvolvedlondon.ca to provide their input on fireworks. And we’re about to launch our full communications plan that will support community engagement over the summer.

This includes social media posts and various print and digital assets. In addition, there will be information and opportunities for residents to provide their input available at our local facilities, at libraries, and at a number of community and neighborhood events throughout the summer. So we will continue to post this information and keep the getinvolvedlondon.ca site available with new information as it arises throughout the summer. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Thank you very kindly, Councillor Hopkins. Ms.

Smith, I understand Councillor Van Holst, you may have a question and a query as well. And yes, thank you, Your Worship. So Councillors have been receiving many communications about people concerned for the homeless and rights to be sold because we’re seeing more of that. And so I thought that a couple of clarifying questions might be helpful.

So I would like to ask through you two staff. First, a couple of questions regarding encampments. So the first one is, when do we allow encampments, say along the river? And what kind of support do we provide for the people in them?

Mr. Cooper. Thank you and good evening and through you, Your Worship. I appreciate the question from the Councillor.

I can let the Councillor know that we did, we have seen an increase in encampments as a result of COVID, but we do not have a policy on allowing or we do not allow encampments in city parks. We do have a zero tolerance process for 14 of our parks, whereby we will work with care and compassion to engage those individuals in services, refer them and direct them to appropriate shelter options and emergency shelter options as well as work with them to connect with our coordinated access system, ensure their paper readiness and try to support whatever supports in the moment we need. When we do come across an encampment, I can let the council know that our first point of contact is obviously with our outreach teams to ensure that there is that initial care and compassion approach to see if we can’t have somebody connect to services and move away from encampment in an area. Our next item would be then to send our by-law teams to the space to again, work with the individuals to try to have them engage with our system to attend resources that might be available to them.

And in certain instances, that will result in a notice to vacate the space so that our roads, crews or parks crews could go in to clean up the encampment after the fact. Councilor Zegate, we will need to get to. Thank you. I may have some follow-ups to add your worship now.

If you can collectivize them for the purpose of this, I just ask to the extent that you’re able, as you did in your last question, if you can collectivize them, put them together to allow staff to respond, please. Sure. So of course, just the clarification, the encampments are allowed in parks, is that different from along the river? And I would say that probably my next question has already been answered.

But I would also like to know about our capacity for having people and directing them towards shelters. How are we in terms of capacity there? Are we able to provide crash beds to those people and if not, what can be done to increase our capacity? Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through your worship. Any individual who’s in camping and camping in a floodplain area, that is one of the no go zones for our response. And so individuals will be asked to move immediately when found to be in where their health and safety or others health and safety is at risk.

So individuals who are in camping along the rivering system where we’re made aware of them through our service London portal and I guess complaint process, we will then send our outreach team out to those locations to work through the process that I had indicated earlier. As for the capacity question, our shelters do operate at 99% capacity most evenings. There is from time to time some variants we do have movement within our system where it’s not the same individuals every time. As noted, we do have over 300 shelter beds currently in our system as well as a number of resting space beds.

We don’t operate anything called crash beds any further just for point of clarification. We do refer them to them as resting spaces. They’re low area spaces that individuals can access for five minutes or can access for a full evening or overnight to get rest. We are seeing as mentioned these spaces are operating basically at capacity.

My team and I are constantly working with our shelter partners and providers in our community for different options for individuals who are experiencing homelessness. I will note that our shelter system of 300 beds is only a fraction of what the need is in our community. With our by name list, we know that there’s about 1,900 people currently experiencing homeless in London and a third of those are acts and not even a third of those are accessing shelters. We know the rest are hidden homeless.

So couch surfing, getting by and maybe a vehicle or temporarily supporting themselves in different locations. So we know that the work we’re doing with our shelter transformation and our community agencies is helping. We’ve had some really great conversations. We’ve established some consistent policies within our community to address some of our belongings issues, our restrictions policies.

And we’re working through some others that we should see some significant responses in our community. I will also add that we are working with our shelter providers for extreme weather responses as well. We recognize that COVID has taken a very significant impact or had a very significant impact on the staff and our shelters in general. Everybody’s burned out as we see in many social service sectors.

And so we are cognizant of the need in our community, but also reliant in understanding of the system that we have in our community and the agencies operating those systems. We want to ensure we don’t overburden those systems with continued responses, continue pilot projects, and that we’re able to do a good job for the services that did you offer. How sorry, are we good? Perhaps just one more question.

We noticed this weekend arcade mission is experimenting with some mobile transitional housing, including London’s first Conestoga Hut and some emergency shelters built by Andy Spreep is London, and you may have alluded to it, are we in a position to pilot this kind of transitional housing? Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through you, Mr.

Mayor, I know this conversation, this item has come up a number of times in community, as well as on committee and council floor in the past. And our team is working at capacity at this point. We would not suggest we have additional capacity today for another pilot project, but it is something that I’d recommend the council maybe bring back to the CAHPS committee for further discussion. We’re always willing to partner with community agencies in the right situation.

We have spoken with our gate and we know they are kind of operating their pilot currently and continue to have great conversations with them around future and providing supports for community individuals experiencing homelessness. Thank you both, I appreciate that. Colleagues, there are no emotions for which I have been made aware. And we’re going to deal with the bylaws in three sets.

The first set will be bills 258 through 303 and 307 through 309. So most of those are the bylaws that were passed tonight. And 307 through 309 are three of the six items associated are bylaws associated with confidential session. Separate from that will be bills 304 through 306 which deal with the Wellington gateway.

And the final is bill 310 to deal with 689 Oxford Street. So with all of that, Councilor Van Mirbergen. Yes, thank you, Mayor. If I could also ask for bill number 260 to be pulled, I do have a conflict on this as it deals with childcare and my wife operates her own childcare operation.

That’s fine, thank you. Just making a note, colleagues. So we do this right. All right, so that’ll be four different sets of those Councilor Hopkins.

Thanks for recognizing me. I’d like bill number 284 and 301 as it relates to St. George and St. Anne.

Okay, I’m actually going to have the clerk keep track of this because I’m not as clever as him and we want to make sure that we get all of these done right. So clerk, I’ll actually ask you to make the list as anyone wants to have a panapoly of votes dealt with separately, which we certainly respect and understand. Anything else to be dealt with separately, colleagues? Maybe that should have been actually the first question I asked.

That would have made more sense, I think. So clerk. Thank you, Your Worship. As I understand it, the first batch will be 258 to 303, excluding 260, 284 and 301, but including added bills 307 to 309.

Second set will be 304 to 306. Let’s do that separately, shall we? Well, just because I think we all get it, we’re going to have four separate votes, I think at least. So again, 258 to 303 exclusive of bill 260 is one part of that.

And are we excluding anything else from those bylaws for this purpose, clerk? 284 and 301. So from that’s 260, 284 and 301 will be excluded. Thank you, so 260 deals with the direct conflict of interest, 284, 301, I believe deal with and in St.

George streets, is that correct? Any questions about what we’re voting on right now, which bylaws? So I’ll be looking for a mover and seconder for introduction and first readings of bills 258 through 303 exclusive of bills 260, 284 and 301. And added bills 307 to 309, do I have a mover?

Councillor van Merebergen, seconded by Councillor Homue, we’ll call the question. And clerk, you’ll tell me if I did that wrong. The answer is no, you didn’t, Mr. Mayor.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 13 to zero. So colleagues, now I’ll be looking for moving of bills 258 through 303 exclusive of bills 260, 284 and 301. And we will include added bills 307 through 309, is there a mover there, please? Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller, thank you, any comments or discussion?

We’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 13 to zero. And now third reading enactment of bills 258 through 303, exclusive of bill 260, 284, 301, but adding bills 307 through 309, I’ll look for a mover, please, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lehman, thank you, we will call the question. And the vote, motion carries, 13 to zero.

Thank you, colleagues. Now we’re going to deal with the bill that Councillor Van Mirberg and asked to be pulled due to the conflict. So with that, I’ll look for a mover and seconder for introduction to first reading bill 260, Councillor McMillan, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. We’ll call the question.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 12 to zero with one recuse. And now for secondary, bill 260, I’ll look for, please, moved by Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Thank you. Any discussion?

We’ll call the question. Vote, motion carries, 12 to zero with one recuse. Thank you. Now for third reading, I will look for a mover, please.

Councillor Palazzo, seconded by Councillor Hamou. Thank you. We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 12 to zero with one recuse.

And now colleagues, we will deal with bills 280 for those of the two bills associated with Anne Street in St. George. So with that, I will look for a mover and seconder for introduction of first reading of those two bills. Councillor Palazzo, seconded by Councillor Hilliard.

Thank you. We’ll call the vote. It is not on my screen, but I will vote yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 10 to three.

Thank you. Now colleagues, three, zero, one. I will look for a mover and seconder, second reading, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Lehman. Any discussion?

Councillor Luell, Cassidy, excuse me, please. Thank you, Your Worship, I just wanted to explain my vote because I did vote no, even though I voted for the rezoning at the decision stage of council tonight, and I just wanted to explain why I’ve changed my vote. I saw an impasse where staff had reached with the developer and the applicant, and I felt that there was a certain futility in sending it back again if people had dug their heels in. And I thought that after I had time to reflect during the dinner break, that that seemed rather a cynical way to vote for me, and that’s not the way I usually vote.

I have too much respect for staff and for the official plan of the city of London, and staff very rarely recommend refusal projects to us, very, very rarely. They do everything in their power to make these projects happen because they know that they’re important for the city of London. So I do respect staff when they recommend refusal of a project, and again, there were too many obstacles in the path for staff to recommend that city council approve it. And I think when a developer is faced with a decision that we made where all of those obstacles and the recommendation for refusal, they have no impetus to compromise because it’s gonna pass.

So why should they compromise? So I’m going to, as I said, change my vote to a no on this one, and I have too much respect for the staff report that came forward to proceed with a yes vote on that. So thank you for letting me speak. Thank you, any other comments?

We see none. We will call the question. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries the 10 to three.

And now finally, colleagues for third reading an act of Bill’s 284 and a seconder, please. By Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Palosa. We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 10 to three. Thank you very much. And colleagues, through all this, we have two more sets of voting. One deals with the Wellington Gateway, which is the next item.

And for that, I’ll look for a mover and seconder for the indirection first reading of Bill’s 304 through 306. Moved by Councillor Homos, seconded by Councillor Hillyer, we’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 12 to one.

Thanks very much. And now for second reading, added Bill’s 304 to 306. I’ll look for a mover and seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Fyff Miller, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you. Any discussion? We’ll call the vote. Councillor Lewis, if you could announce verbally.

Certainly, it’s sorry the system has indicated it’s submitted, but I vote yay. Thank you. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 12 to one.

And finally for third reading, added Bill’s 304 through 306. I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor Palose, seconded by Councillor Hillyer. Thank you.

We’ll call the vote. Worship, I’m still having problems with playing E-Scribe. So I will vote verbally yay. Thank you.

Councillor, hello. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

So I’ll vote yay. Thank you. It carries 12 to one. Thank you, colleagues.

The final bill of the 99 Oxford Street West. This is by-law 310. And with that, I’ll look for a mover and seconder for introduction in first reading. Moved by Councillor Flight Miller, seconded by Councillor Palose.

We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 11 to two. Thank you.

And colleagues for second reading 10. I will look for a mover and a seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Palose. Thank you very much.

Any discussion? We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 11 to two.

Thank you. And finally, colleagues for 310. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Hilliard, seconded by Councillor Flight Miller.

That will call the question. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 11 to two. I think that is all the by-law time, sir.

We didn’t have any more just to keep it all going. But thank you all for your work through today. I think that was important to the work that we did accomplish. Colleagues, I get a chance on behalf of all of us to acknowledge our staff.

I think of what’s happened literally in the last couple of weeks. The work that’s been associated with Canada Day at Harris Park, downtown, and all the various events throughout the city and the requirements to make it that all work. National Indigenous Day that not so long always held in the South. And of course, then the Indigenous March up to Victoria Park.

And the support again that staff provided for that. Also, you heard acknowledged earlier tonight the audit efforts and the great work of the team. The LCRN efforts and what went on through all that. And our festival efforts.

We are not festival city, but we are the city of festivals, which is another name for us. And I think that makes it interesting. But it doesn’t happen without great support from staff. And of course, all the by-law enforcement issues that happens.

Ms. Livingston, as you can tell, and as you know better than any of us, I think, the amount of work that goes into making all the things that we all do work. We’d like to offer sincere thanks to staff. And I’d like to offer my sincere gratitude to our colleagues around this table and the clerk and all those who made today possible.

And our silent heroes are our tech folks who we never say thank you to officially. So officially we’re gonna say it to you. And if you play your cards right, Councillor Lehman, I’ll give you a coffee later. But folks with that and deepest thanks, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn.

I see Councillor Hopkins, I see second of bite. Councillor Hamou, let’s do a big show of hands, those in favor. And that motion carries. Thanks very much, meeting adjourned.