Open Council

11th Meeting of City Council

Open Council

11th Meeting of City Council

August 2, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Hillier discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 15 (5.1) of the 9th 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 S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 7 (4.1) of the 11th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with Business Case #4: London Public Library Reading Garden Access from Dundas Place Flex Street, having to do with London Community Recovery Network - Recovery Funding Business Cases, by indicating that his spouse is employed by the London Public Library.

Councillor S. Turner further discloses a pecuniary interest in Items 3 and 4 of the 11th Report of the Council in Closed Session as well as the associated added Bill No.’s 333 and 334, having to do with property acquisitions at 253-255 Wellington Road and 247 Wellington Road by indicating that his home is located near to the properties.

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 6 (3.1) of the 11th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee and the related Bill No.’s 315 and 316, having to do with Municipal Accommodation Tax on Short-term Accommodations, by indicating that he has rented out his home through Airbnb in the past and may do so again in the future.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. Hamou

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

4.1    Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to personal matters about identifiable individuals, including municipal or local board employees, with respect to the Awarding of the 2022 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships. (6.1/9/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. (6.1/11/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/11/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/11/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.4/11/CSC)

4.6    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and direction to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.5/11/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 a proposed land donation and 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 (6.1/13/PEC)

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Council convenes, In Closed Session, from 4:08 PM to 4:34 PM.

Councillor M. Salih enters the meeting at 4:35 PM.

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

5.1   10th Meeting held on July 5, 2022

2022-07-05 Minutes - Complete

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the Minutes of the 10th Meeting, held on July 5, 2022, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Helmer

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

6.1    Scanlan Street Connection

  1. V. Da Silva

  2. McKenzie’s Associated Auctioneers

  3. J. Hamilton, Gerdeau London Metals Recycling

6.2    538 Southdale Road East

  1. M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning & Design

  2. L. Dann

6.3    574 Southdale Road East

1.  M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning & Design

2.  L. Dann

6.4    432 Grey Street

1.  C. and A. Cameron

6.5    1067, 1069 and 1071 Wellington Road

1.  C. O’Brien

2.  J. Zaifman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   9th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2022-07-26 CPSC Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 9th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 11 (4.3), 13 (4.5) and 15 (5.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   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 hosts a five day event.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 23, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) 1st Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 1st Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on July 7, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Designation of Community Emergency Management Coordinator (Relates to Bill No. 313)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022, to designate the Director, Emergency Management and Security Services as the Emergency Management Program Coordinator for The Corporation of the City of London, pursuant to subsection 10(1) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. (2022-P03)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Renaming of Bostwick Community Centre, YMCA, and Library

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report, dated July 26, 2022, with respect to the Renaming of the Bostwick Community Centre, YMCA and Library, BE RECEIVED. (2022-R05B)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care System Implementation (Relates to Bill No. 314)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 26, 2022, related to the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care System Implementation:

a) the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting, to be held on August 2, 2022, to:

i) approve the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Funding Agreement Template, substantially in the form as appended to the above-noted by-law;

ii) delegate the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designate, the authority to execute Funding Agreements based on the above-noted Template;

iii)    delegate the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designate, the authority to edit and amend the Attachments and add new Attachments to the Funding Agreement from time to time in accordance with Provincial Guidelines; and,

iv)    the authority of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designate, to act under the above-noted by-law, is subject to the following:

A) such actions are consistent with the requirements contained in the above-noted Funding Agreement;

B)  such actions are in accordance with all applicable legislation;

C)    such actions do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget; and,

D)    such actions do not increase in the indebtedness or liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London; and,

b) the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2022-S07)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) Single Source Award Recommendation for Housing Identification Program Expansion and Portable Housing Benefits Program (SS-2022-061)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 26, 2022, related to the Single Source Award Recommendation for Housing Identification Program Expansion and Portable Housing Benefits Program (SS-2022-061):

a) the single source procurement BE APPROVED to administer the Housing Identification Program, at the estimated cost of $800,000 (excluding HST) for the period of September 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, with the opportunity to extend for four (4) additional one (1) year terms to a maximum cost of 1,000,000, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d) and e), to St. Leonard’s Community Services.

b) a single source procurement BE APPROVED to administer Housing Allowances, at the estimated cost of $1,084,000 (excluding HST) for the period of September 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, with the opportunity to extend to four (4) additional one (1) year terms as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d) and e), to St. Leonard’s Community Services.

c) a single source procurement BE APPROVED to administer portable benefits, at the estimated cost of $720,000 (excluding HST) for the period of September 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, with the opportunity to extend to four (4) additional one (1) year terms subject to budget approval; it being noted that the program, subject to budget business case approval, will increase each year by $720,000 to a maximum yearly budget of $3,600,000 in 2027;

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

e)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a Purchase of Service Agreements with St. Leonard’s Community Services.  (2022-S11)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.7) Homeless Prevention Head Lease Pilot Program Update

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report, dated July 26, 2022, with respect to a Homeless Prevention Head Lease Pilot Program Update, BE RECEIVED. (2022-S14)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (4.1) Fireworks in the City of London

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the verbal delegations and the communications, as appended to the Agenda, from B. Amendola and D. Ronson, with respect to Fireworks in the City of London, BE RECEIVED. (2022-P09)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (4.2) D. Ronson - Signage Containing Graphic Images of Alleged Aborted Fetuses

Motion made by M. Cassidy

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to potential changes that could be made to the Sign By-law related to the prohibition of the display of graphic images in public; it being noted that the verbal delegation and communication, as appended to the Agenda, from D. Ronson, with respect to this matter, were received. (2022-P09)

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (4.4) Councillor M. van Holst - Homelessness vs. Camping and Transitional Housing

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the communications from Councillor M. van Holst and G. Turner, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, with respect to Homelessness vs Camping and Transitional Housing, BE RECEIVED. (2022-S14)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.14   (4.6) Request for Additional Funding from Vision SoHo Alliance for the Housing Development Project at the Old Victoria Hospital Lands

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 July 26, 2022, related to a Request for Additional Funding from Vision SoHo Alliance for the Housing Development Project at the Old Victoria Hospital Lands:

a) the increased conditional grant of $13,876,000 ($34,690/unit) BE APPROVED to provide up to 400 affordable housing units in the proposed development, subject to the City completing a full review of acceptable proforma financial statements, confirmation of the other sources of project financing, closing of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Vision SoHo Alliance and the City of London for the subject lands and development of suitable Contribution Agreements between the parties; it being noted that a conditional grant of $11,200,000 ($28,000/unit) was previously approved by Council;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop Contribution Agreements with Vision SoHo Alliance members to be brought forward at a future date for Council approval; and,

c) the financing for the conditional grant, set out in the Source of Financing, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE APPROVED. (2022-S11/DO2)

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (4.3) Water for Dogs at Pottersburg Dog Park

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the installation of a water supply for dogs at the Pottersburg Dog Park:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back, in advance of the 2024-2027 multi year budget process, with respect to extending water services to parks, including dog parks in the City of London; and,

b)    the communications from Councillor M. van Holst, M. and L. Cammaert, R. Haslip and T. Lynn Gray, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, as well as the verbal delegation from R. Haslip, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED. (2022-R04)

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.1.13   (4.5) Councillor M. van Holst - Neighbourhood Decision Making Business Case

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the communication, dated July 17, 2022, from Councillor M. van Holst, with respect to a Neighbourhood Decision Making Expansion Business Case, BE RECEIVED. (2022-F12)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by J. Helmer

That item 13, clause 4.5 be amended by adding the following new part b):

b)     that staff BE DIRECTED to include in the 2023 annual budget deliberations, a business case for expanding the neighbourhood decision making program, by doubling the tax levy funding.

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That clause 4.5 as amended, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Clause 4.5, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated July 17, 2022, from Councillor M. van Holst, with respect to a Neighbourhood Decision Making Expansion Business Case:

    

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

b)    that staff BE DIRECTED to include in the 2023 annual budget deliberations, a business case for expanding the neighbourhood decision making program, by doubling the tax levy funding.

8.1.15   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at July 18, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at July 18, 2022, BE RECEIVED, excluding item 1.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That Item 1 of the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at July 18, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2   11th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-07-27 SPPC Report 11

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 11th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 6 (3.1) and 7 (4.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

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

a)     Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in item 4.1 of this Report, specifically Business Case #4: London Public Library Reading Garden Access from Dundas Place Flex Street, having to do with London Community Recovery Network - Recovery Funding Business Cases, by indicating that his spouse is employed by the London Public Library;

b)      Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in item 3.1 of this Report, having to do with Municipal Accommodation Tax on Short-term Accommodations, by indicating that he has rented out his home through Airbnb in the past and may do so again in the future.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) London Community Grants Program Innovation and Capital Funding Allocations (2022)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the report dated July 27, 2022, titled “London Community Grants Program Innovation and Capital Funding Allocations (2022)”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.3) Diversion Pilot Project - Single Source Contract Award - SS-2022-210

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and concurrence of the Manager, Purchasing & Supply, that the following actions be taken with respect to the Diversion Pilot Program’s Outreach Services;

a)    the quote submitted by London Cares Homeless Response Services for the delivery of Diversion Pilot Project Outreach Services for the period of July 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022, BE ACCEPTED at a total estimated cost of $71,150 (excluding HST); it being noted that funding to be sourced from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve; 

b)    the single source contract with London Cares Homeless Response Services for the delivery of Diversion Pilot Project Outreach Services including an option to renew for four (4) additional six-month periods contingent on funding availability, BE APPROVED; it being noted that the contract award is in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 14.4 d and e;

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

d)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a Purchase of Service Agreements with each program.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.4) Reports of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 1st and 2nd Reports of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meetings held on June 9, 2022 and July 14, 2022, respectively, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.2) Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program Public Transit Stream (ICIP-PTS) - London Transit Commission Highbury Avenue Facility

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with London Transit Commission (LTC) staff to develop a joint application to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program Public Transit Stream (ICIP-PTS) for a new LTC facility on Highbury Avenue to accommodate transit service growth and the conversion of the LTC fleet to zero-emission buses; it being noted that Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated July 25, 2022 from B. Brock with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (4.2) Consideration of Appointment to the London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors (Requires 2 Members)

Motion made by J. Morgan

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

a)  the resubmitted communication dated May 30, 2022 from P. Chisholm, Chief Executive Officer, London & Middlesex Community Housing BE RECEIVED;

b)  the communication dated July 13, 2022 from A.M. Mitchell, Board of Directors, London & Middlesex Community Housing BE RECEIVED; and,

c) the following BE APPOINTED as Class l Directors to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors for the term ending December 31, 2024;

  •    Phil Squire

  •    John Corboy

Motion Passed

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated June 20, 2022 from the Argyle BIA:

a)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a business case for the 2023 budget update for a corridor street scape design to help identify opportunities that can form a basis for a CIP capital budget for the 2024-2027 MYB;

b)     the above-noted communication from the Argyle BIA board BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that this may assist in identifying those which can be prioritized for early implementation during through the CIP as infrastructure renewal projects along this corridor are completed.

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (4.3) Argyle Business Improvement Association Budget Request

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated June 20, 2022 from the Argyle BIA:

a)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a business case for the 2023 budget update for a corridor street scape design to help identify opportunities that can form a basis for a CIP capital budget for the 2024-2027 MYB;

b)     the above-noted communication from the Argyle BIA board BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that this may assist in identifying those which can be prioritized for early implementation during through the CIP as infrastructure renewal projects along this corridor are completed.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (3.1) Municipal Accommodation Tax on Short-Term Accommodations - Single Source Procurement 2022-211 (Relates to Bill No.’s 315 and 316)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to collecting Municipal Accommodation Tax on Short-term Accommodations:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 27, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on August 2, 2022, with respect to the collection of Municipal Accommodation Tax in the City of London, entitled “A By-law to Impose a Municipal Accommodation Tax”; and

b)    the approval hereby BE GIVEN to enter into a contract with the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel & Motel Association for an additional four (4) years with two one-year extensions; it being noted that this will be a single source contract as per the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, in accordance with section 14.4 (d); and

c)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 27, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on August 2, 2022 to:

i)    approve the Amending Agreement to the Municipal Accommodation Tax Collection Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association for the collection of the Municipal Accommodation Tax in the City of London; 

ii)    authorize the City Treasurer to approve any amendments to the Amending Agreement;

iii)    authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement; and,

iv)    authorize the City Treasurer to approve any future amending agreements to the agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association for the collection of the Municipal Accommodation Tax in the City of London;

it being noted that no individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2.7   (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 July 27, 2022 related to the London Community Recovery Network (LCRN) – Recovery Funding Business Cases:

a)     the LCRN Business Cases: A through F, included in the above-noted staff report, BE RECEIVED;

b)     the following funding requests BE APPROVED:

i)  Business Case #1: Green Economic Stimulus: Building Retrofits for Local Residents and Businesses;

ii)  Business Case # 2: Belong: Inclusive Arts Experiences for Children and Youth;

iii) Business Case # 3: Argyle BIA Currency Pilot Program;

iv) Business Case # 4: London Public Library Reading Garden Access from Dundas Place Flex Street; 

v) Business Case # 5: London Innovation Challenge; and,

vi) Business Case # 6: London Tech Talent Growth;

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

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

  •    Martino, Executive Director, Crouch Neighbourhood Resource Centre;

  •    Rajic, Executive Director, Glen Cairn Community Resource Centre;

  •    Yi, Executive Director, London Arts Council;

  •    Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London;

  •    Peebles, Coordinator, Programming and Outreach Services, London Public Library;

  •    Clark-Emery, Manager Neighbourhood Community Development Westminster and Youth Services, Neighbourhood Resource Association Westminster Park;

  •    Needham, Executive Director, South London Neighbourhood Resource Centre;

  •    Finn, Tourism London;

  •    Pastorius, General Manager, Old East Village Business Improvement Area; and,

  •    Chief Executive Officer, London & District Construction Association.

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve the following from clause 4.1:

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 July 27, 2022 related to the London Community Recovery Network (LCRN) – Recovery Funding Business Cases:

a)     the LCRN Business Cases: A through F, included in the above-noted staff report, BE RECEIVED;

b)     the following funding requests BE APPROVED:

i)  Business Case #1: Green Economic Stimulus: Building Retrofits for Local Residents and Businesses;

ii)  Business Case # 2: Belong: Inclusive Arts Experiences for Children and Youth;

v) Business Case # 5: London Innovation Challenge; and,

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

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

  •    Martino, Executive Director, Crouch Neighbourhood Resource Centre;

  •    Rajic, Executive Director, Glen Cairn Community Resource Centre;

  •    Yi, Executive Director, London Arts Council;

  •    Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London;

  •    Peebles, Coordinator, Programming and Outreach Services, London Public Library;

  •    Clark-Emery, Manager Neighbourhood Community Development Westminster and Youth Services, Neighbourhood Resource Association Westminster Park;

  •    Needham, Executive Director, South London Neighbourhood Resource Centre;

  •    Finn, Tourism London;

  •    Pastorius, General Manager, Old East Village Business Improvement Area; and,

  •    Chief Executive Officer, London & District Construction Association.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve part b) iii) - Business Case #3

b)     the following funding requests BE APPROVED:

iii) Business Case # 3: Argyle BIA Currency Pilot Program;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve part b) iv) - Business Case #4

b)     the following funding requests BE APPROVED:

iv) Business Case # 4: London Public Library Reading Garden Access from Dundas Place Flex Street;

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve part b) vi) - Business Case #6

b)     the following funding requests BE APPROVED:

vi) Business Case # 6: London Tech Talent Growth;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3   11th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-07-25 CSC Report 11

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 11th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding item 14 (4.3).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Strategic Advocacy Framework Annual Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Strategic Communications and Government Relations, and the concurrence of the City Manager, the Strategic Advocacy Framework Annual Update report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 2021 Investment Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2021 Investment Report, providing a summary of the performance of the City of London’s investment portfolio, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Single Source – Furniture Relocation Services and the Dismantling, Assembling and Moving of Systems Furniture

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to furniture relocation services and the dismantling, assembling and moving of systems furniture:

a)    the award of the Furniture Relocation Services & the Dismantling, Assembling & Moving of Systems Furniture contract to POI Business Interiors for one (1) year, with four (4) additional one (1) year extensions in accordance with Section 14.4 (d) and (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy BE ACCEPTED;

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

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

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Council Members’ Expense Account Policy – Update (Relates to Bill No. 321)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend By-law No. CPOL.-228-480, as amended, being “Council Members’ Expense Account” to update various provisions of the policy.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Standing Committee Meetings and Annual Meeting Calendar

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the revised annual meeting calendar for the period January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023, BE APPROVED; it being understood that adjustments to the calendar may be required from time to time in order to accommodate special/additional meetings or changes to governing legislation.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) 2nd Report of the County/City Liaison Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 2nd Report of the County/City Liaison Committee from its meeting held on June 22, 2022 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.7) Declare Surplus – City-Owned Road Allowance – Princess Street

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to a portion of City-owned property being Part 1 and Part 2, Plan 33R-21307, west of Pond Mills Road and further known as being part of Princess Street on Registered Plan 380, in the City of London, County of Middlesex (the “Subject Property”), the following actions be taken:

a)    the Subject Property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and,

b)    the Subject Property BE OFFERED for sale to the abutting property owners at fair market value, in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Terry Fox Week

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated June 15, 2022 from Terry Fox Run London, September 12-18, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Terry Fox Week.

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (4.2) Issuance of Proclamation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken:

a)  based on the application from The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada - London Ontario, October 22, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Light the Night Day for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada; and,

b)  based on the application from The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada - London Ontario, the month of September 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Blood Cancer Awareness Month Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (4.4) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Emancipation Month

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application from W.E.A.N Community Centre, the month of August 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Emancipation Month.

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (4.5) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Coaches Week

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated July 12, 2022 from Coaches Association of Ontario, September 17-25, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as National Coaches Week.

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (4.6) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - World Patient Safety Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated July 13, 2022 from Patients for Patient Safety Canada (PFPSC), September 17, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as World Patient Safety Day.

Motion Passed

8.3.14   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - 230th Anniversary: Black Loyalist Exodus: 15 Ships to Sierra Leone

At 5:41 PM, the Mayor places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 5:42 PM, the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by M. Hamou

That based on the application dated July 4, 2022 from 1792Project, the month of September 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as 230th Anniversary: Black Loyalist Exodus: 15 Ships to Sierra Leone.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.4   10th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-07-26 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 10th Report of the Civic Works Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no disclosures of pecuniary interest were received.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 1st and 2nd Reports of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st and 2nd Reports of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from its meetings held on June 15, 2022 and July 13, 2022 respectively, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the communication from W. Brock, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-T02)

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) 1st Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 29, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) RFT-2022-149 Automated Turning Movement Studies Tender Award - Irregular Result

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 26, 2022, related to the procurement of automated turning movement studies:

a) the approval hereby BE GIVEN to enter a contract for the supply of turning movement studies to Spectrum Traffic Data Inc., at the tendered price of $155,000.00, excluding HST;

it being noted that only one bid was received and is therefore an irregular result purchase as per Section 8.10 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d) the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating satisfactory prices, terms and conditions with Spectrum Traffic Data Inc. to the satisfaction of the Manager of Purchasing and Supply and the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and,

e) the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2022-T05)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) Request for Proposal RFP2022-120 Contract Award of 2022 Sewer Lining (CIPP)

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 July 26, 2022, related to RFP2022-120 - contract award of 2022 Sewer Lining (CIPP):

a) the bid submitted by Insituform Technologies Limited at its tendered price of $4,077,716.10, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED;

it being noted that the bid submitted by Insituform Technologies Limited was the only bid meeting the technical criteria and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

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

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

d) the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project; 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-E01)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.6) Consultant Contract Increase for the Mud Creek Phase 2 Detailed Design

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 July 26, 2022, related to the requested increase to the Consultant contract services for the Mud Creek Phase 2 detailed design:

a) the engineering fees for AECOM Canada Ltd. BE INCREASED to recognize the additional scope of work for the project in accordance with the estimate on file, by $145,338, excluding HST, from $600,736 to a total upset amount of $746,074, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

c) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2022-F17)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.7) Summerside Spillway Cable Concrete Repairs - Contract Amendment

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 July 26, 2022, related to the Summerside Spillway Cable Concrete Repairs contract:

a) the contact award to CH Excavating (2013) BE INCREASED to carry out the cable concrete repairs to the Summerside Spillway in accordance with the estimate, on file, by an amount of $38,012.93 from $173,425.04 to a maximum total of $211,437.97, including 20% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 20.3 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d) the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation amending the original contract; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.8) Contract Price Increase: 2021 Infrastructure Renewal

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 July 26, 2022, related to the following three projects: Wonderland Road South Watermain Installation; Wortley Road Reconstruction; and Saskatoon Street, Brydges Street and Wavell Street Active Transportation Improvement:

a) the Wonderland Road South Watermain Installation (Tender T21-40) contract value with Bre-Ex Construction Inc. BE INCREASED by $220,000.00 to a maximum total of $1,299,999.99, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b) the Wortley Road Reconstruction (Tender T21-05) contract value with Bre-Ex Construction Inc. BE INCREASED by $200,000.00 to a maximum total of $3,049,388.03, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c) the Saskatoon Street, Brydges Street and Wavell Street Active Transportation Improvement (Tender T21-89) contract value with J-AAR Excavating Ltd. BE INCREASED by $170,000.00 to a maximum total of $2,829,631.75, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

d) the financing for these projects BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

e) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these projects; and,

f) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-D02/F17)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.9) Closing Princess Street (Relates to Bill No. 322)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022, to stop up and close Princess Street. (2022-T09)

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (2.10) Strategic Plan Variance Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated July 26, 2022, related to the Strategic Plan Progress Variance BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-A23)

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (2.11) Municipal Waste & Resource Materials Collection By-law Amendment (Relates to Bill No. 325)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022, to amend the Municipal Waste & Resource Collection By-law (WM-12) to remove the additional packaging requirements for curbside collection of ceramic toilets (package inside a cardboard box and sealed) and add broken and cracked toilets as a curbside non-collectible material to enhance health and safety of the sanitation operators and public. (2022-E07)

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (2.5) Appointment for Consulting Engineer and Drainage Superintendent By-Law Update Under the Drainage Act (Relates to Bill No. 312)

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 July 26, 2022, related to the appointment of consulting services and the appointment of a Drainage Superintendent pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990:

a) Spriet Associates London Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to be named as the Drainage Superintendent for the City of London to carry out the duties imposed upon Spriet Associates London Ltd. pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990 in accordance with the estimate, on file, which will be administratively awarded in accordance with Section 15.2 (c) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022, to appoint a Drainage Superintendent pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, and to repeal By-law No. A.-5339-123 entitled “A by-law to appoint a Drainage Superintendent pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990”;

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

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

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

f) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-E09)

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (4.1) Scanlan Street Connection - Councillor M. van Holst

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communications from Councillor M. van Holst, dated July 16, 2022 and July 25, 2022, respectively, related to the Scanlan Street Connection and the River and Gore Roads Intersection BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.14   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at July 18, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5   13th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-07-25 PEC Report - Complete

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 13th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 14 (3.6) and 18 (3.10);

it being noted that any and all written submissions relating to application(s) that were made to the Planner on file, the Planning and Environment Committee and to the Municipal Council, as well as oral submissions made at the public meeting held under the Planning Act have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1)1st Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st and 2nd Reports of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee:

a)  the Wetlands in London, Ontario:  Lessons Learned from 905 Sarnia Road Wetland and Recommendations for the future - Draft 2 BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for review;

b)  the revised Working Group comments relating to the property located at 307 Sunningdale Road East BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration;

c)  the Working Group comments relating to the property located at 4452 Wellington Road South BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration; and,

d)  clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 6.1 and 6.2 of the 1st Report and clauses 1.1, 3.1, 5.1 to 5.5, inclusive, of the 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning from its meeting held on July 13, 2022:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Application, dated June 15, 2022, from M. Johnson, Senior Planner, with respect to a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment, related to the property located at 1156 Dundas Street:

i)    the above-noted Notice BE RECEIVED; and,

ii)    the attached communication, from D. Devine, with respect to affordable housing matters related to new developments, BE FORWARDED to the Planning and Environment Committee for consideration with dealing with the Application; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.3 to 3.5, inclusive, 4.1, 5.1 to 5.7, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-A02)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) Heritage Alteration Permit Application - Elizabeth Street Infrastructure Renewal Project

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for the Elizabeth Street alterations, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.4) Request for Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act - 514 Pall Mall Street

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the request for designation of the property at 514 Pall Mall Street:

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 D of the associated staff report; 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 514 Pall Mall Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of the associated staff report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

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

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.5) Heritage Alteration Permit - 45 Bruce Street

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to remove the brick chimney on the heritage designated property located at 45 Bruce Street, within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (2.6) 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road (P-9488) (Relates to Bill No. 320)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Craig Linton (Norquay Developments), for lands located at 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to exempt Blocks 28 & 29, Plan 33M-657 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.   (2022-D25)

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (2.7) Building Division Monthly Report - May 2022

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (3.1) 414 and 418 Old Wonderland Road (39CD-22501)

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 Four Fourteen Inc., relating to the property located at 414 and 418 Old Wonderland Road:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium by Four Fourteen inc., relating to lands located at 414 and 418 Old Wonderland Road; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval by Four Fourteen inc., relating to lands located at 414 and 418 Old Wonderland Road;

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 proposed Vacant Land Condominium is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, which directs new development to designated growth areas and areas adjacent to existing development; and,

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including, but not limited to, Our Tools, Key Directions and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies.  (2022-D07)

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (3.2) 254 Hill Street - Demolition Request for a Heritage Listed Property

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the demolition request for the built resources on the heritage listed property located at 254 Hill Street:

a)    the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the built resources on the property;

b)    the property at 254 Hill Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources, and,

c)    the property owner BE ENCOURAGED to salvage the buff brick during demolition for potential re-use in the current development proposal on the property or heritage conservation projects elsewhere in the City;

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

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.5.11   (3.3) 432 Grey Street - Request to Remove the Fugitive Slave Chapel from a Heritage Designated Property

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking consent to remove the Fugitive Slave Chapel building from the heritage designated property located at 432 Grey Street and to relocate the building to the Fanshawe Pioneer Village, at 2609 Fanshawe Park Road East, BE APPROVED with the following term and condition:

a)    prior to the removal of the building, a Conservation Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development, articulating how the heritage attributes of the Fugitive Slave Chapel will be conserved following its removal from the property at 432 Grey Street;

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

  •    a communication dated July 18, 2022 from M. Temme, 66 Palmer Street;

  •    a communication dated July 18, 2022, from H. Bates Neary, 93 Regent Street;

  •    a communication dated July 19, 2022, from N. Steele;

  •    a communication dated July 18, 2022, from G. Hodder, Chair, Chapel Committee;

  •    a communication dated July 19, 2022, from C. and A. Cameron;

  •    a communication dated July 20, 2022, from J. Hunten, 66 Palmer Street;

  •    a communication dated July 19, 2022, from C. Cadogan, Chair, London Black History Coordinating Committee;

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2022, from M.A. Hamilton, University of Western Ontario;

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2022, from E.A. Quinn, Hartwick College;

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2022, from D. Brock, President, The London and Middlesex Historical Society;

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

  •    D. Miskelly, Executive Director, Fanshawe Pioneer Village; and,

  •    C. Cadogan, Chair, London Black History Co-ordinating Committee.   (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.5.12   (3.4) 18 Elm Street (Z-9496) (Relates to Bill No.’s 317 and 326)

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 Housing Development Corporation, London, relating to the property located at 18 Elm Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend The London Plan, the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 TO add a special policy to Map Special Policy Areas applicable the subject lands, and TO add a special policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type applicable to the subject lands; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with The London Plan, the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Facility (NF) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (R8-4()●B()) Zone; and a Open Space 1 Special Provision (OS1(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the applicant applied to amend the Official Plan, 1989; however, that Official Plan has subsequently been repealed;

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

 

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

 

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Housing Development Corporation, London and Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services;

  •    C. Connor, Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services; and,

  •    M. Marques-DiCicco, Holy Cross Parish;

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

  •    the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 through the provision of affordable housing on an infill site which makes efficient use of existing infrastructure;

  •    the proposed amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the key directions and general vision policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type; and, 

  •    the proposed amendment would conform to the requested policies of the Multi-Family – Medium Density Residential designation were the Official Plan, 1989 not repealed and the requested amendment made.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.13   (3.5) 538 Southdale Road East (Z-9480) (Relates to Bill No. 327)

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 Mansion Homes Inc. relating to the property located at 538 Southdale Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix “A-1” for 538 Southdale Road East BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 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 R3 (R3-2) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone; and,

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues for 538 Southdale Road East through the site plan review process:

i)    integrate existing, healthy, mature trees into proposed landscaped areas;

ii)    infill any gaps abutting property boundaries with trees, fencing and/or other measures to buffer new development from existing uses;

iii)    provide enhanced architectural treatment/details on the side facades to add visual interest as these facades are highly visible from the street;

iv)    provide a minimum 1.5 metre buffer between all paved areas and the property lines to allow perimeter tree plantings; and,

v)    provide a minimum 1.5 metre setback along the west property line for screening between the driveway and the private residence to the west;

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

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

  •    M. Davis, Partner, Siv-ik Planning and Design, on behalf of Mansion Homes;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the in-force Neighbourhood policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the use, intensity and form of future development anticipated along a Civic Boulevard;  

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the permitted height and density of future development; and,

  •    the recommended amendments facilitate the development of sites within the Built Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area in The London Plan with an appropriate form of infill development.    (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.5.15   (3.7) 2009 Wharncliffe Road South (OZ-9348) (Relates to Bill No.’s 319 and 329)

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 2009 Wharncliffe Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend section 1565_5 of The London Plan, the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, List of Secondary Plans - Southwest Area Secondary Plan, by ADDING a policy to section 20.5.9.4 “Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood – 2009 Wharncliffe Road South”, to permit a maximum mixed-use density of 176 units per hectare, through Bonusing;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the London Plan, The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision Bonus (R9-1()*B-()) Zone;

it being noted that the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high-quality mixed use commercial/office and residential apartment building, with a maximum height of 22.5 metres (6 storeys), 372 square metres of first floor commercial/office uses, 45 dwelling units and a maximum mixed-use density of 176 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan, Renderings, Elevations and Views, attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law and provides for the following:

  1.    Exceptional Building and Site Design

i)    a built form located along the Wharncliffe Road South that establishes a built edge with primary building entrance, street oriented residential units and active uses along those frontages;

ii)    a built form that addresses the corner orientation at the intersection with Savoy Street; 

iii)    a step-back and terracing of 2m minimum, above the 4th storey for the building along Wharncliffe Road South frontage and at the intersection providing a human-scale along the street(s);

iv)    a setback of 1-2m minimum, from the property line along Wharncliffe Road South and Savoy Street to avoid the requirement for encroachment agreements for building elements such as canopies, balconies, opening of doors, etc.;

v)    a significant setback from the property to the North to provide a transition to the existing low-rise buildings;

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

vii)    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; and,

viii)    locates majority of the parking underground, behind the building and screened away from the street;

it being noted that additional site and building design criteria, not shown on the proposed renderings, will also be addressed as part of the site plan submission: 

i)    to include active ground-floor uses such as the principal building entrance, lobbies, common amenity areas, and street oriented commercial/residential units, oriented towards the public streets with direct access to the sidewalk along Wharncliffe Road South and Savoy Street in order to activate the street edge;

ii)    for the ground floor commercial units, provide for a store-front design with primary entrances facing Wharncliffe Road South and Savoy Street. This should include a higher proportion of vision glass, signage, double doors, an increase in ground floor height, and the potential for canopies and lighting to frame the entrance include direct access from the commercial unit(s) fronting the street to the City sidewalk;

iii)    provide functional primary entrances (double doors) for the commercial units along both Wharncliffe and Savoy Street with walkways connecting the entrances to the City Sidewalk;

iv)    redesign the surface parking lot in an effort to reduce impermeable surfaces and leave space for a more functional and centrally-located common amenity area, by removing the central ‘snow storage’ area, consolidating the drive aisles and exploring opportunities for a drop-off/layby off of Savoy Street to allow more convenient access to a street-facing main entrance; and,

v)    ensure common outdoor amenity space at ground level.

  1.    Provision of Affordable Housing

i)    a total of three (3) one-bedroom units will be provided for affordable housing;

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

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; and,

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

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

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

  •    D. Hannam, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Medium Density  Residential policies within the Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood; 

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development; and,

  •    the recommended amendment secures units for affordable housing through the bonus zone.  (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.5.16   (3.8) 3510-3524 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9491) (Relates to Bill No. 330)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by 2857082 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 3510-3524 Colonel Talbot Road, the proposed attached, revised, by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with The London Plan, the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-18*R8-4(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the following urban design and site plan matters were raised during the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

i)    encourage the applicant to return to the Panel once the development is at the detailed design and site plan submission stage; 

ii)    relocate the transformer to a less prominent location away from the street frontage along Pack Road; 

iii)    ensure parking areas visible from the street are screened in order to reduce their visual impact along both streetscapes; 

iv)    provide safe and effective direct pedestrian linkages to Colonel Talbot Road and Pack Road from the building; 

v)    provide an appropriately sized and located common outdoor amenity area for the number of units proposed;

vi)    the proposal should take into consideration any existing significant mature trees on the site and along property boundaries;

vii)    ensure that the proposed building/built form is oriented to both Colonel Talbot Road and Pack Road and establishes a pedestrian-oriented built edge with street oriented units; 

viii)    ensure the building is appropriately scaled and located on the site to provide visual interest and enclose the street;  

ix)    extend the building façade along the perimeter of both Colonel Talbot Road and Pack Road to have a more efficient use of land and foster an enclosed pedestrian-oriented streetscape; 

x)    ensure that the proposed building has regard for its corner location. The massing/ articulation or other architectural features should emphasize the intersection; 

xi)    ensure development is designed in a main street format with buildings at the street edge with high proportions of vision glazing and principal entrances oriented to the street; 

xii)    locate the principal residential building entrance (lobby) at the intersection of Colonel Talbot Road and Pack Road or an alternative location close to intersection along either of the public streets. Differentiate the residential lobby entrance from the commercial unit entrances with architectural features such as canopies, signage, lighting, increase in glazing, double doors, framing, materials, etc.; 

xiii)    commercial units proposed along Colonel Talbot Road should be designed with a human-scale rhythm and include a store-front design with high proportion of vision glass, appropriately scaled signage, canopies and lighting, double doors, and an increased ground floor height;  

xiv)    ensure the top of the building is designed and distinguished through an articulated roof form, step-backs, cornices, material change and/or other architectural details and explore opportunities to screen/integrate the mechanical and elevator penthouses into an architecture of the building;  

xv)    setback for parking needs to be sufficient to allow for tree plantings; and,

xvi)    determine if left hand turns are allowed into the property from Colonel Talbot and Pack Road;

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

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    a communication from G. Dietz;

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

  •    N. Dyjach, SBM;

  •    G. Dietz, 3559 Loyalist Court; 

  •    S. Miller, 3534 Colonel Talbot Road; and,

  •    A.M. Valastro;

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;  

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, Schedule 9, North Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would permit development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood.    (2022-D08)

Motion Passed

8.5.17   (3.9) 672 Hamilton Road -Demolition Request on a Heritage Listed Property

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the demolition request for the dwelling on the heritage listed property located at 672 Hamilton Road:

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

b)    the property at 627 Hamilton Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; and

c)    the property owner BE ENCOURAGED to salvage historic materials and building elements prior to the demolition such as the carved wood details, columns between the windows, woodwork in the gable above the porch, and other decorative woodwork for potential re-use or heritage conservation projects elsewhere in the City;

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

  •    M. Marques-DiCicco, Holy Cross Parish.    (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.5.19   (3.11) 574 Southdale Road East (Z-9481) (Relates to Bill No. 331)

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 Mansion Homes Inc., relating to the property located at 574 Southdale Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix “A–2” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law Z-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-2) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone; and,

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan review process:

i)    integrate existing, healthy, mature trees into proposed landscaped areas;

ii)    infill any gaps abutting property boundaries with trees, fencing and/or other measures to buffer new development from existing uses;

iii)    provide enhanced architectural treatment/details on the side facades to add visual interest as these facades are highly visible from the street;

iv)    provide a minimum 1.5 metre buffer between all paved areas and the property lines to allow perimeter tree plantings; and,

v)    provide a minimum 1.5 metre setback along the west property line for screening between the driveway and the private residence to the west;

vi)    garbage on site be stored away from property lines, adjacent buildings and minimize odors to the greatest extent possible;

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

  •    M. Davis, Partner, Siv-ik Planning and Design, on behalf of Mansion Homes; and,

  •    G. Pepe;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the in-force Neighbourhood policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the use, intensity and form of future development anticipated along a Civic Boulevard;  

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the permitted height and density of future development; and,

  •    the recommended amendments facilitate the development of sites within the Built Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area in The London Plan with an appropriate form of infill development. (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.5.14   (3.6) Parking Standards Review (OZ-9520) (Relates to Bill No.’s 318 and 328)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Parking Standards Review:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix B, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022, to amend The London Plan, the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 to clarify that minimum parking requirements shall not apply within the Downtown, Transit Village, Rapid Transit Corridor, and Main Street Place Types; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix A, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022, TO AMEND Zoning Bylaw No. Z.-1, Section 4.19 (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended above) to remove minimum parking requirements in the Downtown Transit Village, Rapid Transit Corridor, and Main Street Place Types; reduce minimum parking requirements in other parts of the City; and modify other regulations including bicycle and accessible parking requirements;

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

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  •    A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    Resident.   (2022-D02/T02)

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.5.18   (3.10) 1067, 1069 and 1071 Wellington Road (OZ-9263 / Z-9264)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Century Centre Developments Inc., relating to the properties located at 1067-1071 Wellington Road:

a)  the application BE REFERRED back to allow the Civic Administration and the Applicant give further consideration to  the 1050 square metre floor plate condition as recommended by the applicant and to direct Municipal Housing to have a further discussion with the applicant with respect to a larger mix of unit sizes in terms of affordable units and  to further negotiate the sixty-five affordable units, specifically to increase the ratio of 2 and 3 bedroom units that would be available and to report back at a public participation meeting to be held at the August 22, 2022 Planning and Environment Committee meeting; and,

b)  pursuant to section 34 (17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  •    a revised by-law; 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:

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    S. Brand, 717 Dunelm Lane;

  •    R. McPherson, 1096 Jalna Boulevard;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    C. Pentland, Beechmount Crescent; and,

  •    D. Lazzaro.   (2022-D04)

Motion Failed (2 to 12)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Century Centre Developments Inc. relating to the property located at 1067-1071 Wellington Road:

(a) The proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on August 2, 2022 to amend The London Plan to ADD a Specific Policy in the Transit Village Place Type to permit a maximum height of 27 storeys, and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Area Policies.

(b) The proposed attached BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council on August 2, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area (ASA1/ASA3) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision Bonus (BDC( )*B-( )) Zone.

The Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate a high-quality, mixed-use development of three buildings with 5 towers as follows: a building along Wellington Road with two 27 storey towers; a building along Montgomery Road with a 10 storey tower and a 20 storey tower, a building along Bradley Avenue with a 27 storey tower; and a maximum density of 566 units per hectare (1,272 units). The development will generally implement the Site Plan attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law except where the regulation is more specific and provide for the following:

  1. High Level of Design Standards 

The building design and site plan 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 to be implemented through a development agreement: 

i)    Building Height 

Montgomery Road 

a. A building height not exceeding 10-storeys in height for Tower C (currently facing Montgomery Road and the adjacent residential zone).

 ii) Minimum Design Standards 

Podium Features 

a. Step-back along Wellington Road to enhance a pedestrian oriented street wall; 

b. use of clear glass material and clear glazing with interior spaces visible from the outdoors, with overhead projecting canopies for all entrances and lining the pedestrian-oriented street wall frontages.

 c. A significant break in the podium along Wellington Road at the 8th storey of the building between Towers A and B, to break up the long façade and promote a human scale, pedestrian oriented environment. 

Tower Features 

a. Step-back of the towers, from the podium to the greatest extent possible on all street facing facades; 

b.  use of transpent balcony barriers; 

d. Further mitigation of building mass by varying and articulating the plane of all facades. 

Rear Yard Setback

a.    Read yard setback will be at 0.75

Building Cap Features 

a. Though Site Plan Review ensure the use of building step-back at the top storey, with mechanical penthouse adequately  concealed in the building’s top storey.

 iii) Site Landscaping 

Through Site Plan Review ensure all-season landscaping and foundation planting along any large expanses of walls facing public streets, internal drive aisles, and mid-block connections.

  1. Provision of Affordable Housing 

i) affordable housing units will be provided in the development, representative of the bedroom and unit mix of the overall building comprised of

28 one-bedroom units; and

27 two-bedroom units; and

10 three-bedroom units 

ii) The affordable housing units to be proportionately distributed among the first three towers constructed and/or occupied, whichever occurs first;

iii) Rents not exceeding 80% of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) at the time of building occupancy; where AMR is defined at the one-bedroom, two-bedroom and threebedroom rate for the London CMA at the time of building occupancy;

 iv) The duration of affordability set at 35 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.

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

  •    a revised by-law; 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:

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    S. Brand, 717 Dunelm Lane;

  •    R. McPherson, 1096 Jalna Boulevard;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    C. Pentland, Beechmount Crescent; and,

  •    D. Lazzaro

it being noted that any and all written submissions relating to application(s) that were made to the Planner on file, the Planning and Environment Committee and to the Municipal Council, as well as oral submissions made at the public meeting held under the Planning Act have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations regarding these matters.   (2022-D04)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. van Holst

That the meeting recess at this time, for 15 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 7:06 PM and resumes at 7:37 PM, with all members present excluding Councillor P. Van Meerbergen.

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion of Councillors E. Peloza and S. Lewis, and the associated by-laws, related to the applications for the properties located at 1067, 1069 and 1071 Wellington Road (OZ-6263/ Z-9264), BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration in order to review and that this matter may be brought forward to the August 22, 2022 Planning and Environment Committee meeting.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   11th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Hamou

  1.    Awarding of the 2022 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken in connection with the awarding of the 2022 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships:

a)    in recognition of achieving the highest scholastic achievement in their graduating year, the following student BE AWARDED the 2022 Queen Elizabeth Scholarship, in the amount shown:

Richard Ding, London Central Secondary School (99.17% average): $2,000

b)    notwithstanding the Council Policy, which provides for Queen Elizabeth Scholarships in the amount of $2,000 each, to be granted by the City of London in each school year, for admission to any University, to the two students with the highest scholastic achievement, the following four students BE AWARDED the 2022 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships, in the amounts shown:

Paige Evoy-Smith    A.B. Lucas Secondary School    99.00% -  $2,000 

Ballerina Liang         London Central Secondary School    99.00% -  $2,000

Nicolas Seglenieks    Saunders Secondary School 99.00% -  $2,000

John Matti               Regina Mundi Catholic College  99.00% - $2,000

c)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to bring forward, to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, proposed amendments to the Queen Elizabeth Scholarship Policy that can provide for steps when the candidates for the highest scholastic achievement in a given year exceeds two, as currently provided for in the Policy.

  1.    Lease Agreement – (Former HDC Office) – 520 Wellington Street, Units 7-8, Centennial House – Municipal Housing Development

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Municipal Housing Development and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the Lease Agreement of commercial office space located at 520 Wellington Street, Units 7-8 (Centennial House), the new Lease Agreement (the “Lease”), attached as Appendix “A”,  between the City and Centennial House Limited (the “Landlord”), for the lease of approximately 3,000 square feet of rentable space located at 520 Wellington Street, Units 7-8, for a term of Two (2) Years and Six (6) Months, for the City’s Municipal Housing Development, at a net rent of $9.75 per square foot in year 1, $10.00 per square foot in year 2, and $10.25 per square foot in the remaining Six (6) months in year 3 with Two (2) further options to renew for Two (2) Years BE APPROVED.

  1.    Property Acquisition – Wellington Gateway Project – 253-255 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 253-255 Wellington Road, further described as Lots 32 & 33, Plan 452 (4th), being all of PIN 08364-0022 (LT), containing an area of approximately 9,213.9 square feet, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Danny Deep and Faddy Deep (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $1,145,000.00 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 – 247 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 247 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lots 29 & 30, Plan 452 (4th), in the City of London, County of Middlesex, As in Inst. No LC116932, being all of PIN 08364-0019 (LT), (the “Property”), containing an area of approximately 4,725.35 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 Miroslaw Cichewcz (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $500,000.00 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 made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to approve items 3 and 4,

  1.    Property Acquisition – Wellington Gateway Project – 253-255 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 253-255 Wellington Road, further described as Lots 32 & 33, Plan 452 (4th), being all of PIN 08364-0022 (LT), containing an area of approximately 9,213.9 square feet, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Danny Deep and Faddy Deep (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $1,145,000.00 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 – 247 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 247 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lots 29 & 30, Plan 452 (4th), in the City of London, County of Middlesex, As in Inst. No LC116932, being all of PIN 08364-0019 (LT), (the “Property”), containing an area of approximately 4,725.35 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 Miroslaw Cichewcz (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $500,000.00 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 (13 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to approve parts 1 and 2

  1.    Awarding of the 2022 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken in connection with the awarding of the 2022 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships:

a)    in recognition of achieving the highest scholastic achievement in their graduating year, the following student BE AWARDED the 2022 Queen Elizabeth Scholarship, in the amount shown:

Richard Ding, London Central Secondary School (99.17% average): $2,000

b)    notwithstanding the Council Policy, which provides for Queen Elizabeth Scholarships in the amount of $2,000 each, to be granted by the City of London in each school year, for admission to any University, to the two students with the highest scholastic achievement, the following four students BE AWARDED the 2022 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships, in the amounts shown:

Paige Evoy-Smith    A.B. Lucas Secondary School    99.00% -  $2,000 

Ballerina Liang         London Central Secondary School    99.00% -  $2,000

Nicolas Seglenieks    Saunders Secondary School 99.00% -  $2,000

John Matti               Regina Mundi Catholic College  99.00% - $2,000

c)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to bring forward, to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, proposed amendments to the Queen Elizabeth Scholarship Policy that can provide for steps when the candidates for the highest scholastic achievement in a given year exceeds two, as currently provided for in the Policy.

  1.    Lease Agreement – (Former HDC Office) – 520 Wellington Street, Units 7-8, Centennial House – Municipal Housing Development

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Municipal Housing Development and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the Lease Agreement of commercial office space located at 520 Wellington Street, Units 7-8 (Centennial House), the new Lease Agreement (the “Lease”), attached as Appendix “A”,  between the City and Centennial House Limited (the “Landlord”), for the lease of approximately 3,000 square feet of rentable space located at 520 Wellington Street, Units 7-8, for a term of Two (2) Years and Six (6) Months, for the City’s Municipal Housing Development, at a net rent of $9.75 per square foot in year 1, $10.00 per square foot in year 2, and $10.25 per square foot in the remaining Six (6) months in year 3 with Two (2) further options to renew for Two (2) Years BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 311 to 331, and exclusive of Bill No.’s 315, 316 and 318, and the added Bill No.332, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 311 to 331, and exclusive of Bill No.’s 315, 316 and 318, and the added Bill No.332, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 311 to 331, and exclusive of Bill No.’s 315, 316 and 318, and the added Bill No.332, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of the Bill No.’s 315 and 316, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of the Bill No.’s 315 and 316, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Third Reading and Enactment of the Bill No.’s 315 and 316, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Introduction and First Reading of the Bill No. 318, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Second Reading of the Bill No. 318, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Third Reading and Enactment of the Bill No. 318, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No.’s 333 and 334, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by J. Morgan

Reconsideration of the first reading vote for Bill No.’s 333 and 334.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No.’s 333 and 334, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Added Bill No.’s 333 and 334, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No.’s 333 and 334, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That reconsideration of the voting on the readings of Bill No.’s 315 and 316, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Introduction and First Reading of the Bill No.’s 315 and 316, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of the Bill No.’s 315 and 316, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of the Bill No.’s 315 and 316, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

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

Bill No. 311

By-law No. A.-8286-223 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 2nd day of August, 2022. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 312

By-law No. A.-8287-224 - A by-law to appoint a Drainage Superintendent pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, and to repeal By-law No. A.-5339-123 entitled “A by-law to appoint a Drainage Superintendent pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990”. (2.5/10/CWC)

Bill No. 313

By-law No. A.-8288-225 - A by-law to designate an Emergency Management Program Coordinator pursuant to section 10 of Ontario Regulation 380/04 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. (2.3/9/CPSC)

Bill No. 314

By-law No. A.-8289-226 - A by-law to approve a Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Funding Agreement Template and to authorize the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development or their written designate to approve and execute agreements using the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Funding Agreement Template. (2.5/9/CPSC)

Bill No. 315

By-law No. A.-8290-227 - A bylaw to impose a Municipal Accommodation Tax and to repeal By-law No. A.-7753-259, as amended, entitled, “A bylaw to impose a Municipal Accommodation Tax.” (3.1a/11/SPPC)

Bill No. 316

By-law No. A.-8291-228 - A by-law to authorize an Amending Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel & Motel Association and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Amending Agreement. (3.1c/11/SPPC)

Bill No. 317

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bo)-229 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 18 Elm Street. (3.4a/13/PEC)

Bill No. 318

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bp)-230 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Parking Standards Review. (3.6a/13/PEC)

Bill No. 319

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bq)-231 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 2009 Wharncliffe Road South (within the Southwest Area Secondary Plan). (3.7a/13/PEC)

Bill No. 320

By-law No. C.P.-1580-232 - A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road, legally described as Block 28 & 29 in Registered Plan 33M-657 (2.6/13/PEC)

Bill No. 321

By-law No. CPOL.-228(b)-233 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-228-480, as amended, being “Council Members’ Expense Account” to update various provisions of the policy. (2.4/11/CSC)

Bill No. 322

By-law No. S.-6200-234 - A by-law to stop up and close Princess Street. (2.9/10/CWC)

Bill No. 323

By-law No. S.-6201-235 - 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 Highway 402)  (Chief Surveyor – lands require dedication as a necessary precursor to transfer of said lands to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario)

Bill No. 324

By-law No. S.-6202-236 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish, and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Bostwick Road, south of Southdale Road West; and as widening to Southdale Road West, east of Bostwick Road)   (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA21-098

Bill No. 325

By-law No. WM-12-22020 - A by-law to amend the Municipal Waste & Resources Collection By-law WM-12. (2.11/10/CWC)

Bill No. 326

By-law No. Z.-1-223044 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 18 Elm Street. (3.4b/13/PEC)

Bill No. 327

By-law No. Z.-1-223045 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 538 Southdale Road East. (3.5/13/PEC)

Bill No. 328

By-law No. Z.-1-223046 - A by-law to amend The Zoning By-law Z.-1 for the City of London, 1993 relating to the Parking Standards Review Recommendation Report. (3.6b/13/PEC)

Bill No. 329

By-law No. Z.-1-223047 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 2009 Wharncliffe Road South. (3.7b/13/PEC)

Bill No. 330

By-law No. Z.-1-223048 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 3510-3524 Colonel Talbot Road. (3.8/13/PEC)

Bill No. 331

By-law No. Z.-1-223049 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 574 Southdale Road East. (3.11/13/PEC)

Bill No. 332

By-law No. A.-8292-237 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Lease Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Centennial House Limited, for the lease of office space located at 520 Wellington Street being Units 7-8, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/11/CSC)

Bill No. 333

By-law No. A.-8293-238 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Danny Deep and Faddy Deep, for the acquisition of the property located at 253-255 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. (6.3/11/CSC)

Bill No. 334

By-law No. A.-8294-239 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Miroslaw Cichewcz, for the acquisition of the property located at 247 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 (6.4/11/CSC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting be adjourned.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 8:37 PM

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 10 minutes)

[1:23] Thank you, everybody. All the work, all right, very much. Colleagues, I’d ask for screens on, please. For those with screens on, what you will see that for the first time in a long time, we’ve got the chain of office back.

[2:01] So if I don’t look very handsome, at least the chain does, and that’s a very good start. So thank our folks for that. Sincerely, appreciate it. Thank you very kindly. Colleagues, the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing advisory committees and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519. 661-249, extension 2425.

[2:37] So with that, we are going to begin with the Glen, the land acknowledgement I will call now on Councilor Feidler. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Lenny Paywok, and Adawanderum. We acknowledge all the treaties that are specific to the area. The two-row Wampum belt treaty of the Haudenosaunee, confederacy, silver covenant chain, beaver hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee, and the infant treaty of 1701, the McKeehee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, and the Huron Bracht Treaty of 1827 with the Aishinaabek and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant, Wampum of the Aishinaabek, and the Haudenosaunee.

[3:35] This land continues to be the home to diverse indigenous peoples, First Nations, Métis and Inuit, whom we recognize as contemporary stewards of the land and vital contributors to society. We hold all that is in the natural world in our highest esteem and give honor to the wonderment of all things within creation. We bring our minds together as one to share good words, thoughts, feelings, and sincerely send them out to each other and all parts of creation. We are grateful for the natural gifts in our world and encourage everyone to be faithful to the natural laws of creation.

[4:13] The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames, First Nations, Oneida Nations of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. This land acknowledgement is the first step towards reconciliation. It is the work of all citizens to step forward, decolonizing practices, and bringing our awareness into action. We encourage everyone to be informed about the traditional lands, treaties, history, and cultures of the indigenous peoples local to our region.

[4:53] Thank you very much, Councillor Fe like Miller. There are no recognitions for which I’ve been made aware, but I will ask if there are any disclosures of pecanary interest. Councillor Hilliard, please. Yeah, so on 8.1 deferred matters list number one, my family goes operations in the park. I’m sorry, and which committee? I just spoke a little quickly. I didn’t hear it all. Oh, sorry. Community Protective Services, 8.1. Thank you. And that would be the first matters list number one. Very much. Councillor Turner.

[5:25] Thank you, Your Worship. With respect to agenda item 8.2, the 11th report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. On item number seven or 4.1, the London Community Recovery Network Recovery Funding Business Cases, item D pertains to the London Public Library. My wife is an employee of the London Public Library, so I declare pecanary interest. Thank you very much. Any other declarations, colleagues? I see. Councillor Hummer, are you snuck in there? Please. Thank you.

[5:57] On the 11th report of SPVC, number six, item 3.1, the report on short term accommodations and municipal accommodation tax. I declare pecanary interest on that, as I have rented my property on Airbnb in the past, and I’m likely to do so again in the future. Thank you, so noted. I appreciate that any other declarations. Councillor Hummer, I promise never to overlook you again, ever. With that then, colleagues, I will share with you that there are no confidential matters to be considered in public.

[6:35] So we are now going to move into closed session before I look for a mover and seconder, I will call on the clerk to advise the public why we’re going into closed session. Thank you, Your Worship. The matters to be dealt with in closed session are seven matters that are outlined in the public council agenda. There is an item related to identifiable individuals in the awarding of the 2022 Queen Elizabeth scholarships. There are five matters related to the proposed or pending acquisition of land, along with solicitor of client privilege and related advice, and a matter related to labor relations and employee negotiations.

[7:08] Thank you very much, and for that, then I’ll look for a mover to go into closed session, IC, Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hummer. With that, we will call the question, and I’ll look to the clerk. Councillor van Holes, Councillor Cassidy.

[7:56] Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Attention to that, particular piece. As we, for the benefit of the public, we will be reporting out of a confidential session and then carry on with the balance of our agenda once that is complete. So with that, the live stream will be turned off and just ensuring the gallery is clear. I’ll ask for screens on, please, colleagues.

[11:14] It’s a clerk to confirm quorum. Your Worship, you do have quorum. Thank you, and now as we’ve returned to public session, we’d like to welcome the public back to our August 2nd meeting. And at this stage, I’ll look for a motion to approve the minutes for the meeting held in July 5th, 2022, is there a mover, please. I see Councillor Hayley or seconded by, Councillor Fythemiller, thank you very much. Any comments or questions? I see none.

[11:46] We will call the vote. Opposed on the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you very much. I’ll turn your attention to item six on the agenda, which relates to communications and petitions. And as colleagues, we’ll see we have several communications and petitions, and what we’re gonna be doing is ask that, as is our way, that they moved, be moved to the appropriate items in the committee reports, but I will look for is a motion to do so.

[12:32] Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Halmer, thank you very much. We will call the vote. Opposed on the vote, can carries 14 to zero. There are no motions to which notice is given, but colleagues, I’d like to apologize.

[13:12] I’ve been noting the count here, and as is our custom at the beginning of meetings, I typically advise who is not present for this particular meeting. I’ll call on the clerk just to advise Council, just to do that, is just as a matter of confirmation, and again, it is our practice. If you would, please, clerk. Councillor Van Mierberg and is not currently in attendance. Thank you very much. So with that, let’s turn to the ninth report of community and protective services.

[13:47] I’ll call on Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. From the ninth report, Councillor Van Holst has asked that we pull items 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 from the committee report. And Councillor Hillier has asked us to pull 8.1, which is the deferred matters list so that we can vote on item one separately because he has a conflict. So noted, does anyone else wish to have anything to which a vote would be required separately?

[14:29] I see none. Councillor Cassidy. So I will put the remainder of the report on the floor other than those items that were pulled. I will just note we had a few delegations during that meeting that were specific ones, especially about the fireworks by-law. And as Council knows that the areas in ongoing review and staff are committed to coming back in early 2023 with some recommendations to the Council of the day after early 2023.

[15:07] Thank you. Any other comments or questions with respect to all of the items with the exception of 4.3, 4.5 and 5.1, Councillor Turner. Thank you, Worship. Just with respect to 2.4 and 2.7. First, I just wanted to make some comments on the renaming of the Boston Community Center. I didn’t speak to this in June when it came forward, but I hope that perhaps I recognize this ends up being an opportunity to find new funds for municipal programs. But these are municipal assets that we’re putting corporate naming on.

[15:46] And I think we should have a little bit of concern and pause when those things occur. I’m trading carefully because in the title of this item, the library is wrapped up in this, but the report does talk about a very specific, separate policy associated with the library. So anyway, I wanted to raise that. And I hope as we go forward in the future, we’re not branding all municipal assets with corporate sponsors. I think it looks a little crass at times. I can recognize where we have public-private partnerships, where there’s significant investment by our private partners.

[16:24] And those might be an expectation that there’s some branding associated with that. That’s not the case here. And so anyway, I wanted to say that here. On number 2.7, just perhaps that’s for you, or your worship question on the Hasley’s program, why are we choosing to renew the pilot program and rather than move towards kind of core and sustained funding? It looks like the program’s been a success. It sounds like the intent is to try and look for more data. But if we had the opportunity and has been successful, why not just move towards making this either expanded or just permanent?

[17:07] Well, then let’s go to staff with that question. I think we’ll be looking at Mr. Dickinson, if we could, please. Thank you, your worship and through you. As the report indicates, there were some successes in the pilot as it relates to those that were able to achieve some permanent housing on their own at the conclusion of the pilot program. The reason we’re looking to identify this as a continuation of the pilot is to model what a community-led response would look like, noting that some organizations currently operate some Hadley’s programs.

[17:51] The other component of this is to identify what a true cost would be through the administration of a third party so that we can determine what ongoing permanent stable or funding would look like and understanding what the scale and scope were capable of achieving when it’s delivered through a third-party organization. Councillor. Thank you, and follow up through your worship. I appreciate the answer there. So what metrics are we looking for then that are going to indicate success, that are going to indicate that this might be a recommendation for corn stable funding through multi-year budget, and whether the municipality operates it or whether we look for third parties.

[18:36] Mr. Dickens. Thank you, your worship and through you. I appreciate that question. I’m actually joined by Mr. Cooper, who’s been able to, through his team, help scope some of that initial pilot and will be very instrumental in the scoping of the next steps of this with a community organization. Who can speak to that? Mr. Craig Cooper, if you would please. Thank you, you’re in three-year worship. I appreciate the question from the Councillor. I think a lot of what the Councillor has asked is going to be further defined in NRRP or expression of interest.

[19:09] I think we have an understanding of the successes of the Headlee’s program as administered by the city. What we want to see is what programs are currently operating in the community. We know several of them, how they manage some of the administrative burden, some of the administrative challenges, rent up, look at average supplements, look at averaging come up Londoners, what type of support needs Londoners have and how those programs are supporting them. I think a good number of outcomes will be defined from our conversations with those Headlee’s program operators currently that will inform our EOI.

[19:46] Councillor, that’s just one final question. And imagine we have some sense of what the social cost in dollars might be between someone who’s unhoused and someone who’s housed. And perhaps in terms of direct to municipal impact. It seems, just trying to recall, I don’t have the report open right now in front of me. It seemed it was around the neighborhood of about $20,000 to support through the Headlee’s program per person that ended up being housed in that year. I’m thinking that the social supports for those who are unhoused is fairly, fairly north of that.

[20:25] Are we seeing a good return from what we have in a program here and is this showing the promise that we’re reading into this report? So would we have Mr. Cooper and Mr. Dickens on that place? Mr. Cooper, you give it a go. Thank you and through your worship. I appreciate the question from the Councillor. Yeah, I think that’s part of the administrative burden we were talking about in that actual cost. It was very difficult to define that as a lot of our housing stability services team who kind of managed this program were doing it off the side of their desk.

[21:01] And so the $20,000 is definitely when we look at rental costs, there’s some damages to a unit, any rental arrears or any kind of gap that we had to have for individuals that might have moved out as well as any expenses that we call whatever it takes funds. To assist individuals to achieve housing stability. It was very difficult for us at this point to put a finger on that exact cost for the administration side, given it touched the number of my team’s areas and it was not available for the report.

[21:37] Thank you. I know Councillor Turner, you said that was your last question, do you have any other? That’s it, thank you. Through to my work. So you meant it, very good. Thank you very much, Councillor Vanholz, please. Thank you, Your Worship, so my comment about this is an encouraging one. I think it’s great that we set up a pilot, we learned some things and then we’re able to pass this off onto the community to see how well they’ll be able to perform and I think these kinds of programs will provide some learning to other municipalities as well because again, as we’re hoping to house people, we also want to deal with programs and show that there are programs that could be implemented by other communities as well, communities that might be sending their challenge individuals to London, which we see happens commonly.

[22:45] Thank you, sorry. So that’s fine, that’s my comment, thank you. Thank you, any other comments or questions, colleagues? I see none, there’s been put forward by Councillor Cassidy. So with that, we will call the question. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

[23:30] Thanks very much, back to Councillor Cassidy, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll put item 4.3 from the committee report, which is number 11 on the council agenda. It was a submission from Councillor Vanholz as well as some community members. We also heard a delegation from a member of the community and was a request to provide drinking water for dogs at the Pottersburg dog park. The committee recommendation is that civic administration be directed to report back in advance of the 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget process with respect to extending water services to parks, including dog parks in the city of London.

[24:12] So there was quite a bit of discussion at committee about this. There are five dog parks in the city altogether. This proposal from Councillor Vanholz in the community would have only added water to one of the dog parks. And Councillor Halmer made also the point about having water available for humans in the non-dog parks in the city. So that’s what led to the committee recommendation. It was your vanholz that actually pulled this item, Your Worship. And you wish to vote on this separately, Councillor Vanholz? Yes, Your Worship.

[24:46] So I got some comments and I might like to make a change in how we proceed. So my comments and they’ll mirror mostly what Councillor Cassidy has said as chair of the committee. The community was interested in water for this one dog park. And then of course we brought up, what about the other dog parks? And then we thought about water for humans as well. In those parks and then humans in the other parks as well.

[25:22] And so now what’s coming forward and instead of the water for the dog park is a report back on all these many parks we have over 500. And what I see happening, of course, is that in the end after the support, there will be a delegation where the members from Pottersburg will ask us for water from the dark park. So almost like the old song there’s a hold in the bucket. Dear lies, I see this just coming back around to the same request again.

[26:02] And what I prefer to do is, as far as to simply follow this request from the community and save staff a great deal of work. Unless counselors are really set on finding that out. But I think dealing with this as a one off is fine. And we have, I believe 1.3 million dollars in the community investment reserve fund. There is an estimated cost of about $20,000 for this. So I might say it’s a drop in the bucket, dear council, dear council.

[26:43] So I would like to, I hope that we can just do this thing and have it done without so much extension. And if other residents want to come forth for the other dark parks, perhaps there’ll be an opportunity to do those too. But I see us be able to accomplish something valuable here and improve the life of the individuals that have dogs there. And of course, better for a dog’s life too. And the last couple of years we’ve all lived of dog’s life. So I think these small improvements make a big difference to the community members.

[27:23] And so— 30 seconds, counselor. Thanks. And in that last 30 seconds your worship I would put on the floor looking for a seconder. My original motion that staff be directed to install a water supply for dogs in the Pottersburg Dog Park with funding supplied when the community investment reserve fund. Thank you. Thank you, do you have a seconder? Counselor, I see no seconder. I’ll now take this back to Councilor Cassidy, please. Okay, so your worship, I’ll put the original recommendation from the committee back on the floor.

[28:04] Anyone else wish to have a comment or a question? Councilor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll be brief. I appreciate the Councilor’s, Councilor Vanholst’s intent, certainly Pottersburg Dog Park is well, well used in the East End. And I think that looking into all of the dog parks and indeed to Councilor Halmer’s point, all of the human parks too, having water supply is not a bad idea at all. But I think we need to approach this in a comprehensive plan. This is something that perhaps individuals might want to submit through a neighborhood decision making as well.

[28:43] That would be the appropriate place in my mind for an individual neighborhood to come forward with a proposal like this for us to start picking and choosing from the Reserve Fund for just one park. I do have a serious concern with which is why I was not willing to second the motion. But certainly if we can bring a plan forward, I’d be supportive of seeing this kind of investment made in all of our parks, both those for dogs and for people. So with that, I see no other speakers on the list. We’ll call the question. Potters end of vote.

[29:38] Motion carries 12 to two. Councillor Kiley. Thank you, Your Worship. So item 4.4 was a bit of a two for one. There were two communications received from Councillor Van Holst. The first was with regard to temporary transitional housing units with some examples in his submissions and just on a stove of huts and mobile shelters. The second communication was about allowing camping to occur within the city for people. And I believe not just people experiencing housing or homelessness, but many people.

[30:15] And so the committee chose to receive both of those communications and that’s what’s on the council agenda tonight. Thanks very much, comments or questions. Councillor Van Holst. Thank you, Your Worship. So what we learned at the meeting was that our staff didn’t have the human resources to lead additional initiatives, but they did say they were willing to approach the community for expressions of interests. And because this is a more formal process and it opens the field to ideas other than those being demanded by just the frontline groups.

[30:53] I would like to move another motion that we follow along with the staff’s suggestion there. And the motion I wanted to put down on the floor then was staff be directed to issue a request for expressions of interest for the provision of supportive temporary and transitional shelter, transitional shelter for those experiencing homelessness. I would in my opening comments, to like to mention that there is a one group that has already putting together a plan.

[31:35] So I know of one and it’s, they already have a team to build, I guess these are somewhat modified panistoga huts and they’ve got also a team of 10 people that are skilled and willing to support the individuals there, at least one of whom would stay in a similar shelter and be there 24/7. They are also preparing a way to screen and decide which individuals would fit best in the project and are looking to partner with other partners, I should say other locations in the city where the amenities that staff had described would be necessary are located.

[32:30] So these are something different than what we would get from the discussions that staff are going out to with right now to particular frontline groups. And I think this will be quite valuable because we obviously can’t deal with this situation ourselves as a council, we need help from the community. And there may be other great ideas out there and I’m following up with what staff had suggested they would be willing and but most certainly able to do which is put out that request for expressions of interest.

[33:08] So I’d like to put that on the floor and I hope that that would receive some support from council. Thanks very much. You’re the seconder for that councilor on host. I’m looking for a seconder. I hope I would find one. - Yeah, I just asked that question and we’re fine. I’m asking that question to you a seconder. Councilor Vanholst, I do not see one. So with that, I’m gonna turn that back to councilor Cassidy, please. Thank you, Your Worship. So on the council agenda tonight is the committee recommendation to receive councilor Vanholst’s communications.

[33:44] Thanks very much. Any other discussions? I see none. We will call the question. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, Your Worship.

[34:16] The final or the next item that has been pulled is item 4.5 and it was a submission from councilor Vanholst regarding the neighborhood decision making program. Councilor Vanholst submission recommended or asked that we consider raising the annual budget from 250,000 to 1.4 million and split that money up in 14 areas coinciding with the wards as opposed to the current system where it’s five different regions in the city. The committee is also recommending that council receive councilor Vanholst’s communication.

[34:54] I do believe that councilor Vanholst may have another motion to propose. And I believe he has a seconder for this motion as well. Well, let’s ask him, councilor Vanholst, do you have something to contribute to the, that was not discussed at committee? Yes, Your Worship. And let me also first thank the committee for their receptivity, this motion now. And it was distributed to council, unfortunately, because of the holiday, it didn’t make it onto the added agenda.

[35:29] But during the discussions there seemed to be support in general for expanding the neighborhood decision making and also some indications about how much there would be an appetite for and what kind of funding source would be there. So in speaking with councilor Helmer, he said he’d be willing to seconder motion that staff be directed to include a business case that will double the tax levy funding for neighborhood decision making in the 2023 annual budget update.

[36:09] And of course, the purpose of that ad is that the incoming council will have that there at one of their early meetings to see how they’d like to move forward with that very successful program. Well, let’s see if you have a seconder, Councillor, any seconder for this and I’ll look to either Councillor Helmer or anyone else that wishes to second. Councillor Helmer, you’re seconding this. Thank you comments, questions, colleagues. I see Councillor Turner first. Councillor Helmer second, please.

[36:41] Councillor Turner, please. I’ll, if Councillor Helmer wishes to go first, he seconded the motions. I’m happy to let him proceed. No, I’m the chair. It’s good. (laughs) Go ahead, Councillor Turner. I’m up here, Worship. My only concern is kind of the opportunity cost. I think, well, a couple of things. So if it’s a divvied by ward in the way that the original motion had suggested that there’s some challenges with that as well. It depends on how it’s administered. I guess most of the devil’s in the details with it. The second was with the community grants program.

[37:19] We saw some changes to that and we had at that point that discussed that the opportunities might present themselves in the subsequent upcoming multi-year budget to augment the community grants program. And I see that as probably doing more good than the neighborhood decision-making process. I think the neighborhood decision-making program is a great program. I’m not sure if it’s, if it delivers as much punch, I guess, as the community grants program because the community grants program does a lot of work in the spaces where they’re gonna split how they can’t or doesn’t.

[37:59] Whereas the neighborhood decision-making program allows for great involvement and proposals that come from the community. And I think they’re also wonderful too. I think if both of them were to see more money then we wouldn’t be in bad shape at all. But if it ends up being at an opportunity, the cost of not seeing the community grants program funding augmented, then I might be concerned. And often what happens with these budget things that we see in business cases is kind of the first in the door ends up getting a bit more light than what might come in later.

[38:40] And that’s been my experience so far. And so that’s why I’m a little bit more hesitant to kind of fully support it. But I’m certainly happy to listen to my colleagues and see what comes forward. Well, we will see that, Councillor Hummer, please go ahead. Thank you. Happy to second this different approach from the Councillor and Hossa did indicate a community meeting that in terms of the magnitude of that increase, I think a more modest increase than what he was initially talking about initially was talking about taking it to 1.4 million a year.

[39:16] I think taking it to $500,000 a year instead of $250, is much more reasonable. I do think the program has been successful and that probably would be even more successful and slightly more money. So I’m happy to support that in terms of the magnitude. And this is not saying that it’s going to go ahead but really that we’re going to have the information we need to make a decision about whether it should go ahead perhaps it should be at the lower level somewhere between where it’s at now and 500,000 for example. The second thing I appreciate about the change is that Councillor Minnan Hossa had initially suggested changing the surplus policy and figuring out a way to finance it, which I didn’t think was a very wise idea.

[39:58] And now it’s just being proposed to come from the tax W which I think it’s going to be a permanent improvement program that’s the appropriate way to finance it. And so I like that change as well. So I think supporting a business case as long as, and this is a question I think through the mayor to staff, I know we’re kind of up against it in terms of the timing for business cases to be developed. This one I think is relatively simple. I am a little concerned that we might not have enough time so I wanted to ask through the mayor to city staff, do you have enough time to prepare a business case that can come in front of council for this budget update cycle?

[40:37] I think that’s a fair question. Let’s take that back to staff. Ms. Berbon, please go ahead. Through your worship, what I could add is that the timelines to develop business cases are due at the end of next month. So there’s only a period of a couple of weeks for Ms. Smith’s team to pull something together. I would also note that as part of the Q3 internal audit plan is that neighborhood decision making is also part of the review that will be taken place by M&P through council’s approved internal audit plan.

[41:13] So we won’t have that information available until probably the very end of the year. So that would not be able to inform a business case that Ms. Smith would put together. Council Member? Okay, that’s helpful. So I’m willing to support directing the business case. I do think everything else being equal, having the information from the internal audit would be great, but you know, that might be a process of expanding the program over time. You know, we’re not talking about taking it to 14 words, right?

[41:46] We’re leaving everything else the same, just increasing the amount of money. So what’s being proposed here? And I think that’s the first step that I’m willing to support at this point. Thank you. I have Councilor Vanholz back on deck. Thank you, Your Worship. So I hope Council will support this. Really, it’s just a business case that nothing necessarily going to go through, but I think there’s been a lot of talk about having the program expanded. My concern is that smaller neighborhoods will have an added opportunity to get a bonus for their locale.

[42:31] So I know that sometimes it’s difficult for the smaller neighborhoods to win because the boats are in the larger communities. So by adding more amounts, simply more projects will be passed. And I think these are great things. And the same comment I made about the water and the dog park, these small opportunities to make a difference are important to the residents. If we want a participatory government, this is one of the great ways that we here in London allow people to participate.

[43:11] They get something that they thought up. They get to see it in their neighborhood. And if it happens a little bit every year, there’s a little improvement. I think we feel good about our community. So I hope for your support in this one. Thank you. Thank you, Cashelous. Thank you, Your Worship. So much like the dog park water discussion we just had, I support where Councilor Van Hollis is coming from.

[43:44] I think the neighborhood decision making program is a wonderful program. I enjoy sharing information with the constituents. I enjoy seeing the community get engaged around it. There’s been some improvements made in ward two, certainly as a result, but I know there’s been improvements made around the city. That said, I’m also mindful of the fact that I community and protective services a couple of years back. We had a discussion about how to change the neighborhood decision making program. And I’m glad that it’s not in the motion tonight, but the 14 wards was brought up then.

[44:18] And I wouldn’t support it. Staff have been very clear about the additional administrative work that dividing up the city into more regions would take, taking away money from actual projects. But I’m also concerned about just arbitrarily picking a number and saying it’s just a business case. Because a business case does require staff time and energy. And our staff, as they should, get paid for that time and energy. Never when we suggest a business case is it just free that it’s just a report being written up. It’s time and energy that takes away our staff from other duties they have to perform.

[44:55] I would support change in the neighborhood decision-making program coming forward. Whether it’s the councilor Van Holst or myself or whoever might be here in the next term of council, I hope heading into the next multi-year budget cycle, they will look at the value of this program and consider increasing it. But I’m also very cognizant of what we heard from Ms. Barbone that the M&P audit won’t be there to inform a business case at this time. So I think this is premature. I support the intent, absolutely, but I won’t support putting time and energy into a business case at this time.

[45:34] I hope that whoever may be around this horseshoe next year will take the M&P information and use that to perhaps then provide some direction to civic administration. But I think this is just too soon. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, I have a couple questions for staff and then I’ll make some comments. My question is, and I’m not sure if Ms. Smith is prepared to answer this given, I’m not sure how much notice she had it was coming. But what are the types of things that the business case would consider?

[46:08] It would consider projected impacts on participation by doubling the money. I’m just wondering, is it just going to be a business case that says here’s what the doubling the program looks like or is there going to be some sort of analysis about the projected impacts that we would see from an expansion of the program in this way? Let’s ask Ms. Smith. Thank you for your worship. Thank you for the questions. So we’re currently undergoing a deep evaluation of the program. So we’re reviewing the last number of years of the program. We’re looking at it through an equity lens.

[46:45] So I have to connect with my staff to see how far along we are on the process. We’re planning to come back in early 2023 with any changes and enhancements and recommendations on the program. So that is correct. It won’t be in time to include any of that on the business case, but we do evaluate neighborhood decision-making yearly. And we do continually to enhance and improve upon the evaluation, especially looking at it through what neighborhoods are being funded, what neighborhoods aren’t receiving, winning projects and looking at it again through that fairness and equity lens.

[47:23] So we could incorporate some of the year-to-year evaluation findings into the business case, but as this our bond stated, not the auditors, any auditors recommendations on the value for money audit and not our deep evaluation that we will be using some external evaluator on this wall. Definitely. Yeah, so I’ll make some comments. So this is a tricky one for me because I absolutely support expansion of the program. I think there’s a number of ways to do that.

[47:57] And one of the ways that I wouldn’t contemplate myself is making a per ward, which is in the motion, if the motion on the screen is indeed the ones we’re passing. That’s a little tricky ‘cause I know that the system is set up very well for areas of the city. That’s where the community input groups are designed. And unless we’re doing a more robust overhaul of the program, which I’m not sure that this is going to drive, it seems like what we’re setting ourselves up for is a tweak and then pending the results of the internal audit information and perhaps new ideas that folks might bring to the next council, another tweak to the program leading into the multi-year budget.

[48:41] So I will be honest, I’m not usually very torn a council and don’t know which way I want to vote on something. I usually have a good sense through the debate and discussion, but this one is one that is very tricky for me because I do believe in expanding this program. I think it provides incredible value to the community. I’m not sure that this is exactly the way to do so. And I would much rather do so with the input of those future members of council, whoever they may be, and the MMP audit report, and as well as the work that Ms. Smith said, staff are doing analyzing it from an equity perspective.

[49:18] So I’m interested in hearing colleagues’ thoughts on this so that I can decide which way I want to vote, but right now there’s a, I see a couple of challenges with this, but that being said, I’m certainly 100% committed to expanding this program in some way. Thanks very much. Anyone we have not heard from? We have a motion that’s been moved and seconded. Councillor Hummer, you’ve already spoken. Is there some need like to add that is specific to this? Yeah, I just want to clarify something that Deputy Mayor Morgan referred to the changing the number of regions.

[49:58] And I just want to be clear, that’s not what’s being proposed in the motion that’s actually on the floor right now, just to bring the forward business case about expanding the program. No, we have suggested taking up to 500,000. So not creating more regions, just increasing the amount of money for 2020. I understood, thanks very much. So with that colleagues, no, no. It’s on the screen. Pardon me? Your worship, then what’s on the screen before us in eScribe is not what Councillor Hummer just said, hence the where my comments came from.

[50:35] That’s helpful, let’s ask Clerk. Based on the discussion, I would ask the chair just to clarify exactly the wording. There’s been a number of comments and the motion at the Councillor is correct, or sorry, the Deputy Mayor is correct. That is not my understanding of what is, should be in eScribe. So if we could get some clarity as to exactly what should be the motion on the floor. So I think we all need to refresh and so it looks like Councillor Cassidy, this is your committee, what’s your thought?

[51:13] So, okay, from my understanding of what was in the email from Councillor Vanholst as that, sorry, let me pull it up, that the staff be directed to include a business case that will double the tax levy funding for neighborhood decision making in the 2023 annual budget update. So that was the email that was received on Friday and was sent to the clerk and to myself and to the Mayor from Councillor Vanholst.

[51:48] So I believe that is the motion that should be on the floor and it’s moved by Councillor Vanholst and seconded by Councillor Helmer. I’ll just come back to the clerk and verify that that’s what you’ve just said is what is. Thank you, Your Worship. Yes, that was received, that was circulated and if that is what is intended to be on the floor, we’ll just make sure that that is correct and eScribe before the vote is called. Is there any confusion then from colleagues about the motion put forward by Councillor Vanholst seconded by Councillor Helmer?

[52:25] Any confusion at all? Just have to nod your head, I don’t need an explanation, just nod your head if you have a confusion. Councillor Hopkins, there’s confusion. There is confusion and I just wanna make sure I understand what the motion on the floor is and what I have in front of me is that we are receiving it and that the staff are directed to include 2023 annual budget deliberations, a business case for expanding the neighborhood decision making program in the amount of up to 500,000, which is different to what I heard.

[52:59] Councillor Casky, is that what you said? No. That is not what I said. That is what is in eScribe right now, but that is not the motion that has been put forward. I think colleagues, that’s where the confusion is, is that there’s a little discrepancy between, we’re close, but I think we wanna be precise on this as well. And that’s where Councillor Hopkins was going, so thank you, Councillor for that intervention. So, Mr. Mayor? Yes, as chair, what are you? Councillor Van Hose, put your hand down for a second. I see you there, just hold on a second here, please go ahead.

[53:32] The clerk has the exact wording and they should be able to just cut and paste that and put that in eScribe. Okay, just so I’m gonna hold off on all other comments and give the clerk a chance to breathe, to put that in, please, so just bear with us colleagues. Mr. Mayor, if I could ask him, is Westlake Power, just to read out for the benefit of staff, what is currently loaded in eScribe?

[54:12] I’m gonna take it back to the chair again, please. To me, your worship? Sure. Okay, I will read what the motion should be. That staff be directed to include a business case that will double the tax levy funding for neighborhood decision-making in the 2023 annual budget. Sounds very clear, but let me just circle back to Councillor Vanholst and Councillor Hummer, if that’s what you thought you were putting forward.

[54:47] Councillor Vanholst, that’s a yes or a no, please. Yes, your worship, that is the motion that I say. Councillor Hummer? The clerks and council. Councillor Hummer? Okay, so we got two yeses there and the chair, that’s not the worst. All right, so we’ll go back to the clerk, and is there any confusion now about what it is we’re voting on? No, no, Your Worship, I believe that’s loaded for any Councillors that cannot view it. Just refresh, he’s correct. And who has more fun than us? So with that, we’ll give you a moment to refresh here. You scribe, and with that, Clerk, are we ready?

[55:29] Let’s call the question. Close on the vote, motion carries, eight to six.

[56:08] Thanks very much, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. So the final item from the committee is the deferred matters list, and Councillor Hillier has a conflict on item one of the deferred matters list in the zest to pull that so we can vote separately. So is it your intention to vote just on the whole deferred matters list separately, or to take that one particular item out of the deferred matters list, Chair? What we’ve done at every committee cycle so far is pull that one item out. So I vote on item one separately, and then the rest of the deferred matters list.

[56:43] Well, if we’ve done it each other time, why don’t we do it this time then? So are we good with dealing with all, but as is typical, the item that’s pulled, we normally save that to last just for five. So all but item one, bear with me a moment. So before we move on to that, the clerk who has all wisdom has just indicated that we need to vote on the motion that was just passed as amended, and for that, I’ll need a mover and a seconder, please.

[57:21] Moved by Councillor Hamou, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. We will call the question. Present the vote.

[58:03] Motion carries 11 to three. Thanks very much, Councillor Cassidy. We’re gonna take you now back to deferred items 5.1, and I think you’re moving all but item one of the deferred matters list. Any comments or questions? None, we will call the questions. This is an all except item one due to the conflict. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

[58:45] Item one from the deferred matters list is all that’s left. With that, any comments, questions? I see none, we will call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with one more Q’s.

[59:22] That is my report, Mr. Mayor. Well, thank you very much, I appreciate it. Now colleagues, I’ll turn your attention to 8.2. 11th report of SPPC, I’ll call on the deputy mayor. Recording stopped. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. So the 11th report of SPPC, the way I think we could divide this up given the votes that occurred is we could deal with items one, two, three, four, five, eight and nine together unless someone would like one of those pulled separately.

[1:00:02] There was a conflict on six, so we’ll deal with that separately. And then seven, I think we can divide up in the same way that it was divided up at committee given there was a conflict as well as some divided votes. So with that, unless colleagues would like something pulled separately, I’d like to put one through five and eight and nine on the floor for now. Thank you, any comments or questions about those items that are under discussion now? I see none, we will call the question.

[1:01:07] Mr. Hopkins? Yes, Your Worship, I have here that the 11th report of SPPC committee be approved. I did not hear that from the chair, so I just want to clarification again. We are approving items one through five, eight and nine. That is correct and we’ll make that amendment. So it’s one through five, eight and nine. Always good to be precise. Thank you. The vote is on the table. Councillor Hill here.

[1:02:03] Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Deputy Mayor. Next up at item six, which is 3.1 from the committee report, which is the municipal accommodation tax and short-term accommodations, single-source procurement item on the floor for. Thank you very much, comments or questions? I see none, we will call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with one more cheers.

[1:03:01] Okay, so within item seven, which is 4.1, this is the London Community Recovery Network business cases. What I’d like to do is put A, which is receipt of the business cases, and then the following items from B, which are the business cases, business case one, two and five. We voted on those separately at committee. Then we also, with that, voted on all of C together, which is authorizing to execute any of the documents, direction to the city solicitor and mayor, others, and all the it being noted clauses.

[1:03:38] So basically, business cases one, two and five, and the receipt and the correspondence related to it. So, Deputy Mayor, I thought of her, you say one, two, and five were voted on separately, but they were part of the included or supported pieces. They were all voted on together at the meeting. We’re gonna vote on the other pieces separately. Does anyone wish on any of those items of A, and then B, one, two, five, or C to be dealt with under separate voting?

[1:04:16] I see none, any discussion then on any of those items of which we were voting. Seeing none, we will call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

[1:05:30] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Item B, number three, business case, number three, which is the Argyle BIA currency pilot program. Thank you, comments or questions? Sorry, Councilor Vanholst, I was just looking away, and I thought I saw your hand go down. Was it up? I didn’t go ahead, please. Thank you, worship. And regarding this and all the others, I just wanted to point out at the committee, I thought the Councilor Cassidy made quite a brilliant suggestion that we’re looking at recovery from COVID that there’s perhaps $2.5 million or so left in the fund.

[1:06:14] And that might be a good use of that money might be to deal with some of the increased homelessness that’s been the result of COVID. So can I stop to Councilor Vanholst for this purpose? I think we haven’t gone through these case reports. I believe what Councilor Cassidy was saying that after this is done, there will be some residual monies. I think that’s something that can be considered later. I think right now, respectfully to all Council, we’re dealing with item three, which business case.

[1:06:50] So what happens to the monies after this is allocated, I think may be worthy of dialogue, but right now we’re dealing with Argyle BIA currency pilot. Yes, Your Worship, I hadn’t planned to say any more other than I wanted to acknowledge that statement. I thought that was something to consider in the future. And of course she said that that might be something for the future Council, but I believe that was worth noting and thank the Councilor and thank you Your Worship. Well, thank you Councilor Vanholst. So with that, any other comments or questions on this item? Then we’ll call the question.

[1:07:38] Councilor Turner, just to clarify, this is not the one that I have the conflict on, the little bullet points in the e-scribe, don’t. No, I think you’re fine on this one. This is the Argyle BIA currency pilot program, Councilor. Thank you, closing the vote motion carries 14 to zero. Deputy Mayor.

[1:08:12] Next, B item four, which is the business case associated with the London Public Library reading garden access from Dundas place on the floor. And because of the library issue, I think a colleague declared a conflict there. So just bringing that to your attention, any of their comments or questions? I see none will call the question. closing the vote motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse.

[1:08:55] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I believe we have B item six left, which is business case six, which is related to London tech talent growth. Comments or questions colleagues? I see none, we will call the question. Motion carries 14 to zero.

[1:09:45] That should be it for the SBPC report. Well, thanks very much. I appreciate that. Now on the 11th for the Corporate Services Committee, I’ll call it Councilor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. We had a relatively quick meeting, and we had one divided vote on the 14 items that are before you, which was item 14, 4.3, which is an application for issuance or proclamation, not being made aware of any other items. I’ll look to see if colleagues have anything else they wish to be pulled. Otherwise, I’ll put items one through 13 on the floor and deal with 14 separately.

[1:10:21] Sorry, there’s just an emergency alert that came onto the phones. Does anyone wish any other items you dealt with separately of items one through 13? Any comments or questions with respect to any of those items, colleagues? I see none. Let’s call the vote on those 13 items, please. It’s all items with colleagues just for your benefit with the exception of 4.3, the issue of the proclamation, regarding the 230th anniversary of the black lawlessness.

[1:12:00] So the first 13 items. Let’s bear with us as we prep for the vote. Please, in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, Your Worship.

[1:12:40] That just leaves item 14. I did not support this at committee, so I’ll look to the Vice Chair, Councilor Hameu if she wants to put this on the floor. Councilor Hameu. Thank you, so I will put on the number 14, 4.3 on the floor. Thank you, comments or questions, colleagues? I see Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Worship. We did have some discussion about this at committee. I will be voting against this, and I just want to make it clear that my reason for voting against this is this proclamation actually has no attachment to the city of London.

[1:13:21] It was submitted from Halifax. It is, you know, and well, it may be an important moment in Canadian history. You know, we just approved a number of other applications, each of which had direct connections to London, including Emancipation Month Proclamation, but I continue to believe that our proclamations issued by the City of London should have some connection to a person, organization, or event happening within the city, and this one does not meet that criteria for me. Thank you, other comments or questions?

[1:14:00] I’ll ask the Deputy Mayor to take the chair. Yes, I’ll go to the Mayor. So colleagues, I supported this in committee, and some of the reasons that I shared with folks before we’re certainly getting to the point where we are a fine tuning proclamation policy, and I acknowledge what Councillor Lewis has said. I think we’re getting better. I think we are trying to make it relevant, but in terms of relevance, then this was part of my argument for supporting this at the time.

[1:14:34] We put a tremendous amount of emphasis on the importance of the black community in our city, and these were loyalists who fled due to persecution at the time. I declared them myself, I am a United Empire loyalist, designation, and such. I mentioned that in committee. But if there are times when we need to go outside the box a little bit, I think, and think of things that are substance to our community and to our country, and don’t forget, we were ones who made financial contribution support problems that go back, and that was universally supported, as I recall, because of concerns that we had of some of the judgments in the government of Quebec that required us, I believe, to take a stand.

[1:15:30] And sometimes you take a stand, it isn’t always absolutely fitting within the protocol and the guidelines. I think this is one of those times. So I’d be pleased to ask colleagues to consider this. While I absolutely recognize that there are some bumps and grinds with this, only in so far as they did not seek out somewhere at the local level to support it. So thank you for that, Chair. Thank you, I’ll return the chair to the mayor.

[1:16:02] Any other comments or questions? I see Councillor Turner, go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I can recognize and appreciate the concerns that Councillor Lewis has with this. One of the things that I think we also need to take a peek at is when proclamations and requests come forward to us, is not just, does it have a direct tie to the city of London, but rather, do we have ties with other municipalities as well? And in this proclamation request, it’s seeking 230 municipalities to join in with this proclamation.

[1:16:35] So it’s not London moving on its own. It’s not a request from afar that comes to the city of London in isolation. I think it’s important that the municipalities across the country speak with a voice together. And the strength of that is augmented when each of us joins in. So this is a good opportunity for us to show that. I think it’s reasonable and I hope the rest of council supports the proposal as well. Thank you, Councillor Turner. I would encourage the consideration for another council at another time to look at the proclamation when it does come up for review.

[1:17:09] And there may well be those kinds of consideration that colleagues want to consider Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. And thank you for your comments about that committee. And today I also did support this and going further from Councillor Turner’s comments. This is also a significant event for the entire country. The fact that we did not have a local sponsor to sponsor this proclamation is something that I think we need to give a little bit of leeway this time around.

[1:17:41] Absolutely, do I believe that there are descendants of United Empire loyalists living in London at this time? I absolutely believe that there are descendants of these people living across the country. And I do agree with Councillor Turner in that show of solidarity with different communities across the country is extremely important, especially for this, especially given that it was on the same agenda as well as our request to make a proclamation for Emancipation Day.

[1:18:18] So thank you. Thank you. I see no other speakers. So with that, we will call the question. Was in the vote motion carries 12 to two. Thank you, Councillor Moo. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Anything else for you, sir? That concludes the 11th report of the Corporate Services Committee of Worship.

[1:18:54] Thank you very much, 10th report of civic works. Councillor Palosa, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I have not been given notice to pull any items from the civic works agenda. Does anyone wish any of these items voted on separately? Councillor Caster, are you handing up or did you just get a little relaxed? There you go, thank you, all right. Does anyone wish to have any of these items voted on separately? I see none, any comments or discussion? Why don’t we start with the chair?

[1:19:26] Thank you, Your Worship. All votes were unanimous at committee. The highlights were 2.5 and 2.11 as those concerned by-law changes. As per 2.8, the infrastructure renewal, Ms. Chair pointed out that we have a 10% standard built into our budgets, and typically we only actually use three to 4% and staff is monitoring inflationary costs, especially as things come with COVID. So staff is monitoring that, and that was the high level overview. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions?

[1:19:59] Councillor Vanholz, go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship, I didn’t pull it, but I wanted to make some comments about number 13 or 4.1, the Scammon Street connection. You received a number of emails or submissions for this item from the business residents nearby, this is an area that’s long in need of some life cycle renewal that was revealed here that they’ve taken to repair the roads themselves. And so that’s one concern.

[1:20:35] Another big concern is that we have an extension of Scammon Road happening now, and a fairly long extension, given the space available. However, it’s only servicing the property and some of the residents were wishing we could divert that. The direction of that road somewhat to service the others and that servicing could also work for waste, I should say stormwater.

[1:21:09] The stormwater situation is quite concerning in this area too. I’ll share with the members of council that weren’t at the meeting. In one case, we have a business that with stormwater solution or connection isn’t able to begin work on recycling materials and diverting from landfill. We have another business that’s taking on rainwater that’s from the street. So we should be able to take the stormwater from the roads to a stormwater solution, but it’s getting into their tailing ponds which would require them to spend thousands of dollars to truck rainwater for treatment, potentially to as far as Sarnia, so that’s a concern.

[1:22:05] Sorry, Councillor, you’re just breaking up in that last little moment there. Can you turn that again? It’s very important. Councillor, can I, Councillor? Councillor, stop, please. What we’re trying to do is just hear you, but it’s been breaking up for the last 30 seconds. I won’t take that. I won’t, that will be part of the time, but can you, if you need to reset, but it looks like you’re moving again and you were frozen. Do you want to go ahead, please? Yes, Your Worship, I hope you’ll be able to hear me a little better. Much better, thanks. Okay, yes, so where I was at, certainly the stormwater in another section where there’s water, rainwater from the road getting into a tailings pond, and that requires the member to spend thousands of dollars to truck this rainwater as far as Sarnia for treatment.

[1:23:01] So the situation needs to be dealt with both the road and then particularly the stormwater. So in our deliberations is determined we could come forward in the future with perhaps a change to the capital program to move this up because it’s not contemplated until 2020-2029 to look at a solution which might not manifest until 2035. And that’s, I don’t think that would be an acceptable solution for the neighbors.

[1:23:37] So we will be back again with hopefully a better idea and a way to move forward with this and perhaps a win-win proposal in terms of the road and the extension. Thank you. Any other comments or questions, colleagues? AC, none. So with that, we will call the question. Mr. Van Holls, Councillor Morgan.

[1:24:31] I’m sorry, my voting’s not coming up. So I will vote, yay. Thank you. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Your Worship. That concludes the 10th meeting of the Civic Works Committee report. Now for the Planning Environment Committee, I’ll call on Councillor Hopkins, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to put the 13th report at the Planning and Environment Committee on the floor. I will be pulling 14, which is 3.6, and 18, which is 3.10.

[1:25:05] I have not heard from anyone else, so. So shall we ask? There are any other items that Council would like to pull. Goodness said that better. I see none, so you’re putting on the floor all but 3.6 and 3.10, Councillor. Yes, I’ll put items one to 19 on the floor and Your Worship, in order to provide more clarity in terms of council decision-making and for assistance to the public, we will be incorporating some additional language to the council decisions going forward and sort of passing this information for council’s information.

[1:25:50] And so therefore, excluding items 14 and 18, 18, the clause now that we will be adding at council meetings, it being noted that any and all written submissions relating to applications that were made to the planner on file, the Planning and Environment Committee and to municipal council, as well as oral submissions made at the public meeting held under the Planning Act have been on balance taken into consideration by council as part of its deliberations regarding these matters.

[1:26:25] And these are for items one to 19 that I’m putting on the floor. Now, I’ll come back to the clerk on that. Does that require any formal approval, the direction from the chair clerk? Thank you, Your Worship. It’s a being noted clause subject to direction from council. I would say no, it does not. All right, thank you very much. Do you wish to make any comments on all but 14 or 18? Councillor Robinson. Yes, if I may, Your Worship. I learned that from Councillor Pelosi. You have to give people a chance, you see. As always, it’s a busy planning and Environment Committee meeting and there were a number of consent items and of course, 11 public participation meetings.

[1:27:08] I do want to make a note of number 15 and number 16, these two applications. The first one is 2009, Warren Cliff Road South. It is in ward nine. And I just want to bring to the council’s attention that this is sort of a mixed use four store, residential commercial. It’s that missing middle and it’s on underserved land. And it’s really something that I want to think the applicant working with staff to bring this application forward as well as number 16 too, which is three, five, two, four, Colonel Talbot Road.

[1:27:52] Again, this mixed use residential commercial under utilized land. These are really good projects, that missing middle coming forward. I do want to make note that we did make some changes to the recommendation and do want to thank the committee for supporting some of the concerns that we heard from the community in particular, the intersection of Colonel Talbot and Pat Road, how we enter and exit with these left hand turns and the challenges as so it being noted in that recommendation as it goes through the site plan and some good news story 3.3, which is the request to remove the Fugitive Slave Chapel from the property of 432 Gray Street and moving it to Fanshawe Pioneer Village and that, those are my comments.

[1:28:52] Thank you very much. I next have Councilor Van Hal’s comments on all with the exception of 14 and 18, which are 3.6 and 3.10, go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship. And thanks to the committee for a long, perhaps seven hour meeting. A lot of work was done. I wanted to bring attention to, I am in 3.4 or 12 on our agenda, the 18 Elm Street project. So here the city purchases school and we’re having the HTC build a wonderful, affordable housing complex in conjunction with our indigenous communities that we’ll be taking over that project.

[1:29:35] That’s a wonderful news story and a special thanks for number 17, the demolition request. That’s gonna provide some important parking for the corridor and especially the church that years ago sold their property to the school for a dollar. So I think that’s a fitting return or certainly a helpful one for that. So thank you for those items. Thank you, although Councilor, I’ve never heard anyone thank somebody for a seven hour meeting before, but that’s all the fun of this stuff, I suppose.

[1:30:15] Councilor, let’s go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I won’t repeat everything. Councilor Van Holst just said, I concur that 18 Elm Street is a great development there and certainly thank the Catholic Women’s League for their input and the Holy Cross congregation as well as this development has moved forward. They’ve been providing some input on this as well. So appreciate their contributions to that. I really wanted to draw attention to the request to remove the fugitive slave chapel as well, Councilor Hopkins touched on that.

[1:30:57] And I just want to say your worship that when we approved the funding through the Community Reserve Fund, you issued a challenge to get it done. And this is the next step in getting it done. So I want to recognize the work of the coordinating committee and the staff at Fanshawe Pioneer Village for moving this forward and getting it done. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions colleagues on all but those two items? Councilor Helmer. Very briefly, I wanted to thank the committee for supporting the heritage alteration permit for the Elizabeth Street project.

[1:31:30] This is one of those necessary infrastructure projects but it’s happening in the Heritage Conservation District. And what we have here is the narrowing of the street, which has proposed there were other changes and we’re gonna add a little bit more space in the Boulevard once the street is reconstructed, which I think in the long run is gonna help with a traffic calming providing a bit more green space in the urban core. And I think it’s gonna be really welcome once it’s completed. I know there’s been a lot of construction in this area last year and this year and there will be next year as well but there’s hope of in the future that it’s gonna be all over soon and we can enjoy the great space.

[1:32:10] Thank you very much. Any other comments colleagues? So with that, with the exception of items 3.6 and 3.10 which are 14 and 18 on your broad agenda, we will call the question. Was in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

[1:32:49] Councilor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to put up item 14, which is clause 3.6 to Vice Chair, Councillor Layman. I would like to just again note that it be noted that any and all written submissions relating to the application that were made to the planner on file, the Planning and Environment Committee and to the Municipal Council as well as oral submissions made at the public meeting held under the Planning Act have been on balance taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations regarding this matter.

[1:33:30] I did not support it and I will now pass it over to Councillor Layman. Councillor Layman, please. Thank you. I’ll put number 14, 3.6 parking standards review on the floor. So noted, comments or questions? Councillor Turner, go ahead, please. Thanks, Your Worship. I just wanted to explain why I voted against this committee. I think staff have done a lot of work in bringing this forward and have made good forward movement.

[1:34:06] I think it’s important that we start to recognize that parking is a really bad use of land and there are much better uses of land, whether that be housing or the green scaping night gardens, things like that, but parking is probably the worst use of land within our city. And so being able to move towards removing the minimum parking requirements in some key areas of the city and adjusting some of the minimum parking where we haven’t removed those minimum parking numbers altogether, that’s huge.

[1:34:47] And so I’m so glad to see us moving forward in that direction. Why I voted against it was I don’t think we were going far enough. And those were in a few key areas, Toronto removed a minimum parking standard city-wide with the exception of a few areas. The city of London has the opportunity to do so as well. There was some discussion in the report talking about putting parking maximums in place, but stating that the work had not yet been done to be able to determine what those maximums should be. And there was no discussion about assignment or a dedication of electrified spots for electric vehicle recharging.

[1:35:29] I think those are really key components if we’re going to be able to take a look at this. And when I asked questions at committee, it was stated that it would be part of a further review, but there was no clear timeline and no clear plan on how that would be accomplished or incorporated into the next to an expiration of this. So that’s the reason why I voted against it. But as I said, I think this is a good start, but I think it’s kind of not to the degree that we need to be doing after having declared a climate emergency.

[1:36:07] Thank you very much, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, your worship. And I sort of was hoping that we could have this deferred back, but I don’t think there was the will there at committee to have the referral back, but I do want to take this opportunity to thank staff. We’ve made some significant changes with this review. I think a lot of the changes we’re already doing. And I am really, I agree with Councillor Turner when we should be able to be more innovative when it comes to what other large municipalities are doing when it comes to their parking.

[1:36:56] I am very supportive of having different modes of transportation in our city. We are, as a city, the fastest growing city in Ontario, according to the latest census. And I think with that we should be able to be a bit more innovative. And I think we can be. And I would hope that there’ll be some opportunities with being a bit more innovative in the near future. As much as I won’t be supporting this, I just do want to encourage the continuation of how we use our parking spaces, but also when it comes to electrification and these stations that I think will start to become the future of most cities in Ontario.

[1:37:51] So with that, again, my thanks to staff or these significant changes, but really hope that we would be able to do a little bit more. Thanks very much. And the other comments for questions. Councillor Unholst. Thank you, Richard. And I have a question through you to staff. Just regarding the types of proposals that we’ll continue to get at the planning committee in each one of these that would talk about parking. Now that there’s no minimum parking, will we still find out how many parking spaces are intended in this?

[1:38:33] Or would somebody able to be able to build an apartment tower have no parking in it? And that would sneak by our oversight. Sneaking by is a pretty interesting term. Let’s see if Mr. Barrett has an opinion. Thank you, if you’re your worship. Yeah, I’m not too sure how much sneaks by. What this bylaw would in fact do, it would remove the minimum parking standards within four of the place types.

[1:39:06] So downtown Transit Village, the rapid transit corridor and the main place types. So it’s not a matter of anything sneaking through with no parking standard, there would be no parking requirement that we would have to enforce or report on. I’d like to remind the members of council that in fact, as it stands right now, there are no parking requirements for residential development in the downtown. But very often, parking is provided, but it is not provided as a result of requirement in the bylaw.

[1:39:39] So nothing would sneak through because nothing would be required. As it relates to the other parking standards, what it is that is being recommended before this evening is taking our existing standards and by and large, cutting them in half. So the standards that would be applied would be half the standards that are currently applied in the bylaw. But as I noted, none of those standards would apply within those four place types. So I want to help Mr. Councillor Unholst a little bit of what I thought I heard him say is, will the information related to parking be available even if it’s not required at planning environment committee as it has in the past, Mr. Barrett?

[1:40:22] Through your worship, we would be able, I would assume be able to report on parking that is being provided as part of the development that would come forward as information provided by the applicant. But we wouldn’t have anything to report on because we would not be requiring parking. Okay, Councillor Veenell respect you. Thank you, Your Worship. It seems like the information will be there. And though I wish I’d picked a word other than sneak, that’s the one that came to mind.

[1:40:56] The concern that was expressed at the meeting was that some development may have offer no parking. And then the burden then becomes on the surrounding streets or becomes a burden on the adjacent development. To provide that. So that was a concern that came up. I just wanted to find out if we would be somehow monitoring that as it’s going on as these developments are being made or we would find out afterwards that there was a problem, for instance, from complaints from the neighboring residential communities.

[1:41:45] So thank you. Well, I’ll support the plan as it’s been presented. Thank you. Any other comments or questions with regard to this? Councillor Fyfe Miller, please. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, when I sat in on the plan, meaning the other night, when this item came up, I think it was interesting. ‘Cause I think Councillor Turner and I, when we each read the report, looked at it and sort of were surprised from different, different ends of the spectrum.

[1:42:18] And, but at the same point in time, I think we both agree on one thing and that is that this is a positive step forward. And I think that’s really important. And I’ll agree with him. We need to continue to move these steps forward as things change and as we move forward to what will benefit the community the most. But I’m happy with this report as, you know, as someone who represents the downtown, I see that this isn’t changing the parking restrictions of the downtown.

[1:42:53] It’s changing those minimums that are needed. And so I think this is a successful step forward for this community. So thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? I see none. We will call the question. Senator vote.

[1:43:34] Motion carries 12 to two. Thank you. Councillor Lehman. Worship, I’d like to put number 18, 106-7, and 107-1, Wellington Road, there was the committee voted for a referral, it was a split vote. So I’d like to put that on the floor. Thanks very much. That has been put on the floor. Any comments or questions? Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m asking council this evening to defeat the referral.

[1:44:09] I have pre-circulated a motion to council that’s been clerked and gone through staff that I would like to have an opportunity to discuss. The main things at the Planning Environment Committee, thank you to the committee itself and staff and all those who were there as it was a marathon of a meeting. And the hour grew late, it was about 10, 30 before we even got to this item. And it was referred back to staff to try and find a way forward as the main sticking point was a few more site plan related things and the affordable housing concern. And I’ve spent time with all parties involved.

[1:44:44] And I do believe we found a way forward. I’d like an opportunity to discuss that. So in order to do so, I need you to defeat the referral in order to discuss the motion I wish to bring forward. Do you have a sector for that? I see Councillor Lewis, thank you for their comment. Councillor Palosa, are we, are you good? Yeah, this is strictly to defeat the motion that’s before us. So I’ll stick to that point for clarity. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I was actually raising my hand, not to second an alternate motion, but to speak to the defeat of the referral ‘cause that takes precedence in this case.

[1:45:20] I moved the referral at committee. But I am actually going to speak in favor of defeating the referral tonight. I think there are two paths forward to this. I have spoken to Councillor Palosa several times over the weekend as she’s talked to me about this development as well. And I think that she deserves an opportunity as the word Councillor to put an alternate on the floor. And I think that it’s either gonna be that alternate or the staff recommendation. And we are either going to appeal or not. So rather than take up time with a referral and a return on August 22nd, I think it’s best that we move forward with this tonight.

[1:45:58] And in the spirit of that colleagues, clearly, and one who wishes to speak to this issue should the referral fail, then we certainly will open that up to comments in question. So with that, are there any other comments that would be useful? I see Councillor Cassey, this is on the referral. Go ahead, Councillor Cassey. Thank you, Your Worship. I have concerns about the referral. So I will be voting against the referral. My main concern is delaying an opportunity to have some affordable housing, additional affordable housing built in the city, knowing that our ability to use a bonus zone is coming to an end.

[1:46:39] So I want to see something here approved and passed. And I would like to see something get built soon here. So I won’t be voting in favor of referral. You won’t be voting. Did I hear that correctly? I’m sorry, okay, thank you very much. You won’t be voting in favor of the referral, which means you would be voting to support Councillor Palazzo’s motion. I just want to— I’m anxious to hear what Councillor Palazzo’s motion to— No, no, I’m not talking, no, I’m sorry. I’m not talking about the motion beyond defeating the referral. Yes.

[1:47:11] I’m talking about defeating the referral. I’m not supporting the referral. Thank you. - Got it. Councillor Helmer, your next. Thank you, just on the issue of the referral. We’re talking about the difference between the August 2nd and coming back to the 22nd of August, right? So I’m happy to support the referral. I got the motion that Councillor Palazzo circulated 15 minutes before the meeting started. And this is a pretty significant development just glancing at the text.

[1:47:44] There’s a couple of things in there I’m not so sure about. So it seems to me like 20 days is not actually a long time to wait to have this issue come back to Planning Committee. This is the direction that ends up happening, so be it. I know that it’s been underway for a long time, but it seems to me like a referral might make a lot of sense even though there seems to be very few people supporting it at this point for one reason or another. So I’ll vote in favor of the referral and I’ll deal with that other motion if it comes up. Thank you, on the referral, Councillor Turner. Thank you, worship.

[1:48:17] But if I might, through you to Mr. Barrett, perhaps. How does a positive recommendation come forward to Committee where the applicant doesn’t agree with it? Typically, where we see is a recommendation for refusal and then the applicant has pushed forward with something that they wish to see put in front of Council notwithstanding some lack of agreement I guess with staff. In this case, we have a recommendation for approval.

[1:48:54] And then in the meeting, we ended up getting some lack of agreement from the applicant, which I found odd. So just to perhaps a little bit of background on what occurred there. Mr. Barrett. Thank you. Through you, worship, if I understand that the Councillor’s correct question correctly, what brings a positive recommendation is a recommendation of staff and then it’s staff’s recommendation that’s in front of you.

[1:49:32] What occurred at the committee was some discussion that I believe the committee was not prepared to either approve the staff recommendation nor refuse the staff recommendation, but rather was seeking the opportunity to see an amended recommendation, an amended by-law that addressed two major elements I may, one was removal of explicit reference to floor plate size in an amended by-law.

[1:50:13] And then the second was an affordable housing provision that provided for 65 affordable housing units, but provided for a greater number of what the committee discussed as family related units, which would be two and three bedroom units. So there was no positive or negative recommendation coming out as a result of the committee’s recommendation. The committee referred the matter back to have these two matters addressed, was my understanding of the committee’s actions.

[1:50:53] Thank you, Chair. Thank you, worship. If I might clarify, typically when the committee receives their recommendation from staff, and it’s either an approval recommendation or a refusal recommendation. And I guess my understanding over the years is that an approval recommendation was one that the applicant has brought forward that staff agreed with and are recommending for approval by council. Typically a refusal recommendation is one that staff disagreed with, but the applicant wished to have forward in front of council, notwithstanding the lack of ability to come to an accord with staff.

[1:51:32] So in this circumstance, we have a recommendation for approval, which to me would indicate that the applicant at the time that this was brought forward to the council agenda was an agreement with the recommendation of staff. But then at council ended up, after the agenda had been published, or at committee received a delegation from the applicant, stating they wished a couple of clauses changed, and being presented with an alternate motion.

[1:52:06] So that all seems strange to me, I guess, in terms of process. Was the applicant on board with the initial recommendation as it was put forward to the agenda, and then subsequently changed their position? Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chair Worship. And I appreciate the clarification. The situation the council has described is generally what happens, but there have actually been a couple of instances in the recent past where the recommendation that we have brought forward to you has not been forced where with what the applicant has proposed.

[1:52:46] But we believe that the bulk of what the applicant had requested had merit and was worthy of staff’s recommendation. So that’s what we brought forward. And in this instance, as it relates to the staff recommendation for this report, that’s what we did bring forward. The applicant in all fairness had expressed concerns with respect to us including a numerical representation in the bylaws that related to floor plate size for the towers and the notion of the proportionality.

[1:53:23] However, we, as I indicated at the public meeting, staff saw a lot of merit in the application, and we’re really looking to make it work and based that number on, in fact, the floor plate of one of the towers that was in this proposal. So we felt that number and that tower that staff were satisfied met the slim tower criterion for one of a better term for what it was that we were looking for with respect to the form of this development.

[1:54:01] And we, given that that tower floor plate was within the proposal of the applicant, we thought that that would work as the committee heard when we got to the committee, the applicant disagreed with that provision and some of the other provisions as they related to design. And certainly the applicant did not agree with the staff interpretation as to the calculation of the number of units that should be considered as appropriate for the bonusing.

[1:54:39] And that’s where we diverted. But again, as I indicated at the outset, by and large, there was a lot of concurrence between the applicant’s request and what staff felt was appropriate to recommend. And that was the reason there was a positive recommendation in front of you that did not have the full concurrence of the applicant. That’s for sure. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Fair, they appreciate that. I’m gonna recommend this is a tough spot because I’m having a quick glance at what Councilor Plosas put forward as the alternative.

[1:55:17] I really don’t like that because it seems to reflect precisely what the applicant had put forward in an alternate motion. I have huge problems whenever applicants do that. It’s completely subverts a process. It’s, I find it grossly inappropriate. And we’ve seen it several times. And this Council has entertained those several times, which is why we’re starting to see it more and more and more. And it frustrates me. And perhaps I sound visibly frustrated, but I think what you heard from Mr. Barrett was that there was a fairly significant amount of work between the applicant and staff to be able to come up with something that is as described by the applicant, the transformational project.

[1:56:10] There is, this is exactly when we talk about our policies and our policies having impact, this is it. Our policies identified where our transit villages would be as places to grow and places to intensify. And that’s what’s occurring here. At the same time, the debate at that committee talked about reducing the number of affordable housing units that are predicated based on the amount of lift, the extra density that’s going to occur as a result of the height and the floor plate specifically within this development.

[1:56:59] And it seems really weird when we’re talking about trying to get as much affordable housing as possible. And then we’re going to provide relief to that requirement, to the tune of over 30 units. And that doesn’t square very well with the words that Council’s had and 30 seconds council had in terms of being able to put a lot of money into affordable housing and this moves us backwards. So I hope you’ll defeat the motion, but I also hope that you’ll defeat what I see coming as the alternate motion because the staff recommendation is the most appropriate one here.

[1:57:36] I recognize that we’re talking about the referrals, so there’ll be more opportunities to talk as well as that comes forward to. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship. And I find this a little unusual. And I’m just going to speak to the referral. I did not support it at planning. One of the reasons I didn’t support it at planning is that I found it a very unusual process that was taking place.

[1:58:14] At committee, when we have a recommendation coming from staff, supporting an application, we heard from the public their concerns about the intensification. Thank the Councillor for the work that she’s done with the community here. But the referral coming out of committee was something that I found very unusual that we would just be supporting the applicants’ changes on the committee floor. And given the two concerns, one being the affordable housing part of it and the applicant was proposing 65 units, the recommendation was 93.

[1:59:03] Most recommendations, when it comes to affordable housing, we do the 10% lift that comes up with the 93 units to get the bonus thing, but the other part, and Mr. Barrett, thank you very much for your expertise on this. And it is a little confusing when we talk about the floor plate. But from what I understand, what was also important with the recommendation that staff supported was the appropriate form for this slender tower.

[1:59:41] So those two things were not supported at all in the referral going back. And I want to just also mention that I have not seen the motion being locked out of my emails. And I just want to make, just speak to the referral, but I think it’s really important that we understand staff’s recommendations and the reasons behind why this recommendation has come to us.

[2:00:14] So I won’t be supporting the referral, but I look forward to hearing the next step along this decision. Thank you. Thank you, any other comments? I’m gonna ask the clerk because we’ve talked around all of this to make sure that we’re precisely clear on the motion, what we do be voting on. Clerk, if you would, please. Thank you, Rosha. If I could ask Ms. Wesley Power to do the reading for me, scrapping. The chair.

[2:00:50] Yes. The question from committee reads the columns. The following actions be taken with respect to the application by Century Center Development, relating to property located at 1057, 1071 Wellington Road. Part eight, the application be referred back to allow the civic administration and the applicant to give further consideration to the 1050 square meter floor plate condition as recommended by the applicant and to direct municipal housing to have a further discussion with the applicant with respect to the larger mix of unit sizes in terms of affordable units and to further negotiate the 65 affordable units specifically to increase the ratio of two and three bedroom units that would be available and to report back to a public participation meeting to be held at the August 27th in 2022 planning and environment committee meeting.

[2:01:55] And part B is pursuant to section 34 sub 17 of the planning act, no further notice be given. In addition to that, there’s reference to the matter that it matters and submissions that were received by the committee. Thank you very much. Any other final comments or questions? I see none. We will call the question. Closing the vote, motion fails two to 12.

[2:02:51] Thank you. So where do we go from here folks? I see Councilor Close all recognizing. Your worship, I’d like to put on the floor, the motion that was pre-circulated to Council in regards to this item. And I believe a seconder and Councilor Lewis. Councilor Lewis, I’d like to hear that verbally please. That is a yes to your worship very much. So with that, we will look for comments and questions. Councilor Plaza, why don’t we let you start? Thank you, I’ll ask the clerks to put the motion on the floor realizing Councilor Hopkins that she couldn’t have access to it.

[2:03:29] It is a longer motion for Council that was circulated in advance. You got the exact copy that I sent to the clerks for all items were indicated in red that were changing for we had full transparency. This is the first time this application has become before Council itself as they’ve had community consultations behind the scenes which I was involved in with the work as the word Councilor and with the developer to take into those considerations and working with staff.

[2:04:04] So yes, you are going to see similarities between my thoughts and the developers as I took into consideration what some of the community concerns were. And I do believe that as appropriate as the work we do as word Councilors. I’d like to thank City staff, HDC staff and the developers for their time and sites and work on this file. We’re united in finding a way to bring more housing and more affordable housing options to all Londoners. We have worked through some site plans concerns that were contained within the bylaws concerning glass on lower floors and balconies as we’ve also received other committee reports becoming a bird friendly city.

[2:04:47] Resident concerns regarding garbage pickup and some other accessibility concerns have already been addressed prior to this coming to committee encouraging including the buildings along Montgomery to have 10 stories instead of the original towers that were set to be there as this was a direct resident concern asking for more distancing from the buildings onto community neighborhoods that are mainly adjacent to it are one like two story homes. The floor plate size reduction would have an impact on the three bedroom units.

[2:05:22] We know three bedroom units can help would reduce the probability of rentals but they are essential in these neighborhoods. The neighborhood that this building is slated for is a complete neighborhood. There’s splash pads, the gel in the library, community parks and White Oaks Park and a park across the street for green space. And ideally this would be a place that families and multi-generational families can move into. This is on the bus rapid transit corridor and is the South Transit Village and this type of build as you’ve heard from staff fits within those plans of what we envision and what the London plan envisions for this area.

[2:06:07] As for the affordable housing concern the concerns seem to come up at planning environment committee of if we’re following the 1989 plan or the London plan. If it was the developers, the London plan sets out 36 units, staff requests from 93. At committee we heard about 65 units and working with the developer and staff, we’ve come back with a proposal for 21 bedroom units, 27, two bedroom units and 10, three bedroom units.

[2:06:45] In total this actually equates to 112 bedrooms whereas if these were mainly singles we would be sitting at the 93. So we are above 93 spaces for people to sleep recognizing though it’s 112 bedrooms with this mix across the board. These are affordable units at 80% of average market rent and this is going to be for 35 years so that is a change that we’ve come to as an increase of what the proposal originally was from the developers.

[2:07:20] The HGTC have confirmed that there is a need for rural housing units and that this location factors align with the housing needs and priorities defined in the housing stability plan for all. And speaking with the CEO Ms Espinoza, she has confirmed that the three bedroom units, the two’s and one’s are all needed as a mixture. Now we’ll go to waste though we did recognize at committee councilor Turner had mentioned that there is a high demand for the one bedroom units and I just want to confirm that the three bedrooms that we’re getting being as they’re 10 of them that they are needed and will be well used.

[2:07:54] So I’m asking for your support of this motion. That city council support it as we know that creating more affordable housing is essential and this also conforms with the London plan of accommodating 45% of future residential growth in the built area boundary. And this is on the BRT quarter and transit village place type. I recognize that my residents don’t want this building immediately in their neighborhood and believe it should go south to the 401 but that is not the place type of what this application is. And that’s why I support a large development in this area. Thank you.

[2:08:27] Thank you, I’ve come to sleep. Hi, Mr. Chair and through you, I just wanted to just note that my previous vote should have been, no, not yes. So I just wanted to apologize for that. So I won’t ask for reconsideration, but just want that noted, that’s all. I’m sure you are. Are you looking for formal consideration of a change of your vote, Councillor? No, it’s all good. I just wanted that noted, that’s all. All right, thank you very much noted. Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

[2:09:00] And I’m pleased to second Councillor Ploza’s motion and have the opportunity to speak to it. And I think Councillor Turner actually asked a really good question. Why are staff bringing forward a recommendation for approval on something the builder themselves is not willing to bring forward to build? And I think we have to ask that question. You know, we also saw in our submissions, a letter from the London Home Builders Association and Mr. Safeman about the fact that we really come down to two differences here.

[2:09:37] One is a divergence in regard to urban design and the other is in regard to the number of affordable housing units. Both of which were things that I referenced in the original referral. But I don’t think it’s just a surprise to anyone when the developer says we’re not gonna go ahead, we’re gonna appeal if you put forward the staff recommendation that we would want to refer. Now we’re gonna discuss an alternative to that. But when we come down to these two issues, you know, it’s not very long ago.

[2:10:13] In fact, it was earlier this summer that the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a decision on a tower we did approve that had fewer affordable units in it. And they in fact found they upheld the decision that we made. Now we seem to be going the other way here. So in that medallion property in the old East Village area, the OLT upheld our choice of affordable units. And in that situation, those affordable units were based on density under the London plan.

[2:10:49] Now we see a guideline here. And it’s a guideline in the 1989 official policy. And Mr. Zafeman referenced it in his communication, 19.44. The facility services or matters that would be provided in consideration of a heightened density bonus should be reasonable in terms of their cost benefit implications for both the city and the developer and must result in a benefit to the general public. And I think that that cost benefit implication is really important there. Because our planners and the Planning Act and ourselves when we’re making our considerations on whether to approve something or not, we’re not really looking at the economics.

[2:11:29] But the developer is. The person who’s gonna build the building has to look at the economics. And when they say that they are going to peel a staff recommendation if we approve it because it doesn’t work for them economically, there’s a reason that they’re doing that. When we talk about all of the differences back and forth in this application, you know, slim tower. And, you know, I respect where Mr. Barrett’s comments come from but a slim tower is a matter of an urban design interpretation.

[2:12:05] There’s not a specific floor plate number in the London plan that defines something as a slender tower. It’s an interpretation. It’s contextual to the neighborhood. And we’ve heard through Councilor Palosa, the comments about in this particular neighborhood, those three bedroom units are going to get filled up quickly. But if we shorten that tower floor plate by 20 feet, which is what the staff recommendation would have done, that the developer will balance losing that space by reducing some three bedroom units to two.

[2:12:39] And so we’ll have fewer family units. So what we’ve seen since this was at committee was that there is a willingness to extend the affordability, the number of years for a longer period of time to 35 years. There’s also a commitment in there, which was missing before that advances all of these units in the first three towers. So we get them all earlier in the development than we would have otherwise. And we get more family units. So to me, in the cost benefit analysis and the implications of that, that is a fair trade-off to vary slightly from urban guideline on design.

[2:13:18] And again, it’s a guideline, it’s an interpretation. There’s a lot in the London plan that is very contextual. It is not a hard, fast number, but it is an interpretation of what fits in the neighborhood. And I know three bedroom apartments fit in the White Oaks neighborhood where Councilor Palosa is representing and has worked on this development. 30 seconds, Councilor. Thank you, Your Worship. So I do encourage Councilors to support this tonight. I think it’s very clear. And it was referenced again in the Home Builders letter.

[2:13:52] It’s been referenced by the applicant as well. It’s otherwise we’re going to an appeal process. And looking at potentially years of delay before shovels get in the ground desperately needed affordable housing. And I will take those 65 units today with more family units. And for a longer period of time than the developer was originally prepared to offer. Because I think that the community benefit is there. Thank you, Councilor Turner, please. Thanks Your Worship. First, I think there’s some significant corrections to what Councilor Lewis just said there that need to be said.

[2:14:25] First, the medallion application appeal was because an agency believed that we should be placing more affordable housing, which is true, but it has no bearing on whether the staff and the recommendations were appropriate. They were in line with their planning documents. Perhaps I might actually, Mr. Barrett gave a very good explanation of how the calculation was arrived at. And maybe through Your Worship, perhaps if Mr. Barrett could repeat what he said at planning committee, because I think it’s really important for all of Council to hear as we start to talk about that calculation.

[2:15:06] Perhaps a nice tight explanation would be useful. Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please. Thank You, Your Worship. I will attempt to be tight. First off, though, I do want to take this opportunity to just also correct a statement that was made. In fact, the old T’s decision on medallion, in fact, in paragraph 67, which is the first citation that the member makes as it relates to bonus owning, even headed as bonus owning section 19.4.4. And the tribunal found that bonus owning policies of the city’s new official plan, the London plan, are not enforced.

[2:15:46] As such, the policies that are applied to all section 37 bylaws in the city of London are the policies from the 1989 official plan, and then it brackets the 89 plan. So in fact, the tribunal did not turn their minds to the London plan policies. There was no interpretation of London plan policies for the calculation of the bonuses. And also, I would also like to correct that, in fact, the calculation that was done for the medallion application was 10% of the lift. As it relates to the calculation that was done here, the calculation is based on the density that’s permitted and the area of the development.

[2:16:27] In this instance, the density that would be applied under 19.4.4 from the 1989 official plan and policies of the official plan would be 150 units per hectare. The 1989 official plan, unlike the London plan, actually specified densities for three years of the downtown. It identified a maximum density of 350 units per hectare in the downtown, 250 units per hectare in central London, which was an area described as Oxford Street to Adelaide Street and the two rivers of the boundaries.

[2:17:00] And then 150 units per hectare for all the remaining areas. The 150 units per hectare multiplied by the lottery of this development would yield and I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me. I apologize. In the neighbourhood of 300 units, over 300 units, what is being recommended in this and what was being recommended in this application was a number, over 1,200 units closer to 1,300 units and the difference between that base of the 300 and I believe 43 units and the 1,292 was a number over 900 units and 10% of that number resulted in the 93 units.

[2:17:46] So that’s how the calculation was done and that was the basis of the staff recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Sherner. Thank you, that’s very helpful. A second thing that needs to be corrected is the duration of affordability in the staff recommended by law. It was 50 years and what’s being put forward now is 35 years, that’s a fairly significant change from what was originally recommended for approval by staff. So we’ve seen almost 30 units less and 15 years less of affordability.

[2:18:20] That’s a huge change, folks. We are clear in our policies, they are permissive to this. It is based on a calculation based on the lift. This is a massive development. Of course, the developer is going to ask for more because they make more money. That’s what they do, it’s appropriate for them to do. It’s not appropriate for us to grant it. We put these policies in place because we want to make some headway, especially on housing affordability and affordable housing specifically.

[2:18:55] This is 30 fewer people or households that will be placed in affordable housing as a result. The question of expediency, the threat of an appeal, as you heard Mr. Barrett, our position was upheld on the medallion application because we applied the policies that were in place. Our position is quite strong going into appeal, if that’s what they wish to do. My guess is that they don’t go into appeal because of how much is on the line.

[2:19:28] If they were to appeal and have this postpone for one year, two years, the size of this development would cost them far more than what 30 affordable housing units would cost them. I said this at committee, but we are awful negotiators. And part of the reason is we have to do that in public, sitting at this council table and everybody gets to see our position and everybody gets to see our hands, but you are not good at it. And I really am concerned about this alternate motion because we’re just taking the words of the developer and putting it in front of council and saying, let’s prove that, not the way to go.

[2:20:07] Staff spend a lot of time working with the applicant to try and make sure that something came forward here, that was reasonable. This is a great development, let’s do it, but let’s do it as it’s proposed within the bylaws and proposal of staff. We also talked a little bit earlier about parking. If this is a transit corridor, this is a major transit village. This is one of the places where we could go further. If you really wanted to change something, let’s take a look at the policies that were just approved on parking minimums and let’s remove the parking minimums here.

[2:20:46] Give them more space to develop based on that or remove some of the costs associated with this development. That would be the place to take a peek if we wanted to provide a relief to the applicant because we just did that as a matter of policy, not 30 minutes ago. But I urge you to reject this. Let’s come back forward with what the staff recommendation was. It’s prudent, it’s reasonable. What’s in front of us now is basically just to just cowtow into the developers. Thank you, any other comments or questions?

[2:21:25] Councillor Halmer, go ahead. Thank you. Unfortunately, we’ve had many instances now where staff have a very clear recommendation and it seems like council is going to ignore that advice. The reason I say it seems like is because we’re not really having a wide ranging discussion where I think people are trying to convince each other. I think people have a sense going to this meeting of what was gonna happen with this motion.

[2:22:00] The motion was circulated literally five minutes before the meeting started. I thought there was a very reasonable suggestion that there’d be a referral to provide a little bit more time for everybody to talk about some of these key issues, the design of the towers, the number of affordable units, the duration of the affordability period, which we’ve done many times in the past. And instead of taking some time to very clearly see what this bylaw would look like, what the recommendation might be if there’s some kind of a compromise that can be found.

[2:22:34] We’ve just got the alternative, which is essentially what the developers would prefer. And I think that’s a really bad way of separate from the merits of this particular issue, a bad way of making the decisions. What we’re doing is really disempowering planning staff where the experts when it comes to planning issues, we’re changing the level at which the developers are trying to negotiate the elements of bonusing instead of being with the staff who can apply these things very fairly. And repeatedly over time, we’re taking it up to the love of council, which is just leads to inconsistent decision-making in some cases, bad decision-making.

[2:23:15] And as we have seen repeatedly, unfortunately, many of these issues where there’s been a clear recommendation for refusal or some kind of divergence between staff and the council decision, lots of appeals. We’ve had several official plan amendments. We’ve approved them and they’re under appeal now because they’re not consistent with their own policies. And if we keep making decisions this way, that’s going to keep happening. I don’t know if this one’s going to get appealed, maybe not, but I just want to emphasize that this is not a good way of making the decisions.

[2:23:48] And the actual specifics of the application, I think this is a tremendous opportunity for a great infill and having some large towers here with tons of residential is awesome. Whether it’s 65 units or 93 units, I think having some affordability, some new units built is really important. And I actually hear where the developers are coming from in terms of calculating the lift. I read the letter from Drulo. I think it’s very reasonable position to take. And I think that that could have been worked out in a referral.

[2:24:24] Unfortunately, because we haven’t had that, I’m left to try and make a decision on this motion that’s in front of me from Councillor Palosa and Councillor Lewis. And I will point out that although Councillor Palosa has said that it would be 35 years, the actual language in the document that was circulated by email says 30 years. And so this is just an example of the kind of inconsistency and confusion that can come up if we’re going to make decisions this way. I don’t want to harp on it, but it’s like, that’s a big difference, 35 and 30. I’m taking Councillor Palosa at her words and she’s the one introducing the motion that it’s 35, right?

[2:25:02] But I haven’t seen the bylaws, their bylaws, left to look, get those circulated. There’s not such a rush that we have to do it this way. I’m going to vote no against the bylaws. Even though I probably, if it had been referred, could have come around to support some kind of compromise on this issue, especially around the affordability and how they get provided. Probably not on the duration. And I want to echo what Councillor Turner said, cutting the duration period from 50 to 35 is this significant difference.

[2:25:36] And I really wish we were doing this in a more consistent way, where we were listening to the advice from our staff about these planning issues and following it. No, I’m not coming up with our own compromises, either at the Planning Committee or here at Council. I’m very short on all this. It’s not going to speed things up. I know that’s what people have said. They want things to go faster. I’ll tell you, it hasn’t so far and it’s not going to.

[2:26:12] Thank you, Councillor Cressy. Thank you, Your Worship. And I voted no on the original referral motion and the irony for me here with this motion with the incredible detail in this motion and the incredible changes that are proposed compared to what the staff recommendation was, is that this motion, this should have been referred to staff. I agree with Councillor Turner.

[2:26:45] I agree with Councillor Helmer. There is much too much here. I have a question through you, Mr. Mayor, to Mr. Barrett. What is the date that the London Plan would be due to be reviewed? Because normally, and I believe it’s written in the Planning Act as well, that there is a regular review of an official plan. I believe it’s that five years. And even though we went through a long appeal process with the London Plan, it’s been over five years since it was originally approved by Council and by the Ministry.

[2:27:21] So through you to Mr. Barrett, when is the review of the London Plan due to take place? Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Chair Worship. Comprehensive review, the Plan Act changed and it actually said it’s 10 years after a new OP in five years, every five years thereafter. Either way, 10 years from 2016 is 2026. However, as we’ve reported out to Committee and Council, previously, we’re already gearing ourselves up for a comprehensive review now. The first step in that is going forward through the exercise that we are doing now.

[2:27:58] And we’ve reported out on already as it relates to the update of the population employment and household projection. That work will then lead to a land needs analysis that leads to the whole discussion on whether or not additional lands would be required to meet our 20 year planning horizon. And all that is within the purview of a comprehensive review. That’s a long-winded way of saying we’re actually in that process and we’ll be working through that through 2023-2024. To be fair, we would never reference any of your comments as long-winded. So, Mr. Barrett, so back to you, Councillor Cassidy, please.

[2:28:33] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So when I read this at the start of this discussion, that was what jumped out at me first is part A, looking at making a significant policy change to the London Plan on the floor of Council when this should be done through a review process. So I won’t support doing something like that. I came into this meeting not willing to hear about making compromises on what the staff recommendation was, what the proponents wanted. But one thing I didn’t want to compromise much if anything on was the number of affordable units.

[2:29:10] And it’s fine to say that there’s this many bedrooms and all of that. We do know in the city of London, the greatest population that is suffering from housing inequity and from housing availability are single persons. So we can say all the things we want to say about one, two, and three bedroom units. It is singles that need housing at the greatest level. So I wasn’t looking to compromise on the number of units. So, Mr. Mayor, I’m gonna propose something that’s going to exacerbate, exacerbate some people, but based on how comprehensive this proposal is from the Councillor, I’m going to make a motion to refer this motion back to city staff for review and to work with the applicant and to bring it back to the next planning committee with their recommendations on this proposal.

[2:30:08] Do you have a second for that Councillor Cassidy? Is there one? I don’t know. I don’t know either, let’s check. I am not seeing a seconder Councillor Cassidy. So, Mr. Mayor, I hope that if you could please pull A specifically because I hope people will absolutely vote against part A and I plan on voting against this entire motion. So noted, thank you very much. Any other comments or questions with regard to this?

[2:30:45] Councillor, oh, I’m sorry, Councillor Hopkins, you were on the list, I apologize, go ahead. Thank you, your worship and thank you to my colleagues for their comments. You know, it’s unfortunate that we are here now negotiating on behalf of the applicant. It, to me, is, it’s unsettling that we are doing that. We are not being transparent when it comes to making decisions for what’s best for the community. I appreciate the motion and the work the Councillor has done going into this, but I just received it.

[2:31:29] And I am just not willing to just blindly go yes to this motion. And I would think, and I would encourage my colleagues, if you are going to support this, give us reasons why you’re doing that. Because it is unsettling to think that decisions have already been made about this motion before even Council started before I, as a Councillor, even received the motion. I’ve got lots of current concerns here. I think the biggest one is that, you know, we rely on staff and their professional expertise.

[2:32:14] We rely on our policies. We’re not really giving reasons why we’re not going to support that at all. We’re just going to come up with our own ideas on behalf of the applicant. And I think it just is not being very transparent. I would really like to have, you know, this is a great recommendation, a great development. And I think we’ll see more of these, you know, transit villages, but we’re not being very open when it comes to what we’re going to do this over here.

[2:33:02] And then next application, we’re going to do something different, we’re not being true to our policies. And I’m glad to hear we’re going to be going through a comprehensive review on the London plan. And I would really encourage my colleagues, if they don’t like the plan, then change that through the comprehensive review, not do it like this. It’s not being transparent. I just feel very uncomfortable, even standing here, speaking to this motion, which a lot of work went into it.

[2:33:45] We’d like to know a little bit more of what staff think about it, but I can’t support it at this moment, thank you. And thank you, any other comments or questions? Councillor Slee, your hand is up. I don’t know if that’s, what’s that expression when it just was from before, something like that? It is no longer there, you have no hands, all right. Thank you. Any other comments or questions colleagues? Councillor Fythner, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship.

[2:34:18] And through you, first, with this application, I think there’s been a lot of work done on this. I think a lot of this work started before I was here. I think one of the challenges that I have with this, first off, and maybe this is where some of the confusion I had coming out was, I didn’t understand how we got a staff recommendation that was something that the applicant wasn’t interested in in the first place. So I wasn’t sure how that came through.

[2:34:57] I think we got a little bit of an explanation on that, but for me, I look back from the time I was here, and a few weeks ago, we passed a development at the corner of Wonderland and Oxford, and that was a development with no transit corridor going to it right now. This is a development on a transit corridor. And I think one of the things that I’ve heard all of my colleagues speak about is the benefits of this development in that area.

[2:35:31] The Ward Councillor speaks to the benefits. And to me, the Ward Councillor speaking to the benefits holds a lot. Recognize that we saw from some of the neighbors that the neighbors are not happy, but I’ll be honest, I’ve been to a lot of the planning meetings since I came here. I can tell you I’ve yet to see neighbors who are excited about infill development next to their homes. So I understand this is impactful.

[2:36:06] I get that. The question is, even though it’s impactful, is it the right thing to do? We have a transit corridor that’s being developed to go out Wellington Road to this form of development. When I looked at the information that came out of planning, what I saw was a lot of issues around design, a lot of issues where we couldn’t just seem to get that together. But the actual development itself, we seem to agree on. So I look at this, and I look at this as an opportunity for us to get housing now.

[2:36:48] And badly needed housing right now. I look for this to get us affordable housing. But I also think one of the things that’s really important is when we look at these one bedroom units and where they sit in this city, these units will be affordable to people who are just starting out too, who have the opportunity to move in for families who are maybe just starting. So I think these are really important pieces as we move forward. And so for me, my big reason for supporting this is because the word counselor supports this, because the word counselor is saying this is important for her community.

[2:37:28] So thank you. Thank you, any other comments or questions? I have Deputy Mayor Morgan, go ahead. Yes, this is more of a question, your worship. So I’m very interested in the proposal before us. In part of the clauses, it refers to a draft by-law. Frankly, I’d like to read the draft by-law before voting on it. And I wonder since we’re past the dinner break time, whether that could be circulated. So I could have a look at it and then be happy to vote after that.

[2:38:01] But I would like to see the actual by-law that we’d be voting on. I appreciate the context that’s been given on the motion. But I think it’s important to read the by-law as well. Well, I make your pleasure colleagues. It was my intention when we dealt with this issue to ask for a 15-minute biobrake. I think that that’s never a bad thing. And if someone needs to regenerate themselves a little bit, that would be fine. I’ve never pushed a meeting off in between a vote, but that’s kind of exciting. So I don’t mind considering that, if that’s the will of council to do that, to just, could we pause for this very moment, take 15 minutes?

[2:38:42] It is 705 and I really mean 15 minutes colleagues and we would return at 720 and resume this. So I need a motion for that clerk. I do, would anyone be kind of okay with that? I see Councillor Herr saying yes. Councillor Van Holst is saying yes. Can we do a show of hands if you like the item? What’s your question, Councillor Palazzin? Sorry, Your Worship. Just a question through you to the clerk of how long would they need to circulate it and then us read it? I don’t know, but I’m taking a 15 minute break in resuming, so I leave that for the pleasure of anyone else.

[2:39:18] So with the answers, people will have it then. So can we do a show of hands? Councillor Van Holst, there are a clerk, do you have an issue? Clerk doesn’t have an issue, so I’m all good. So cameras, Councillor Layman, are you just voting or you just wanna? Those in favor, raise your hand. Motion carries. See you at 721, thank you. Colleagues, just in the interest of knowing that the amendment has just come through for your consideration, we are going to delays a few more minutes, we will resume at 730, not 721.

[3:05:36] For those on the Zoom call, we’re just gonna be a few more minutes. Colleagues, thank you for your indulgence.

[3:10:53] I was a little naive by suggesting a 15 minute break when it was clear that Councillor Layman wanted a 30 minute break, so I just respected his wishes, which I found out telepathically was the way we should do this. So thanks for all of your patience for this. Colleagues, I’d like to call on Councillor Morgan, if I, Deputy Mayor Morgan, if I could please, you were just starting your commentary. Yes, I had asked a question if I could see the by-law because it was attached to the motion, I appreciate Colleagues giving me the time to look at that. Now that I’ve had a chance to look at both the message from our clerk and then they added a second one with the development of the maps, it seems to me that I certainly think that if we’re going to move forward with a proposal such as this, we need to make sure that it is all done, correct.

[3:11:44] It is better to do it right than to do it fast. I know Councillor Cassidy made a motion to refer, that did not have a seconder, so we didn’t vote on that, but I would now like to having reviewed the draft by-law. I would like to make a motion to refer this motion as it’s been put on the floor as well as the by-law that is drafted and attached to it back to staff for their review and presentation to the next PEC meeting, essentially what Councillor Cassidy was suggesting. I would have seconded it had I read the by-law, but it wasn’t on the list yet and I wanted to make sure that it’s right.

[3:12:21] I just really want to make sure if we’re going to consider this that the by-law aligns with the intent of the motion properly and there’s a chance to discuss that. So I’d be happy to put that referral motion. And is there a seconder? I see Councillor Palosa seconding this. All right, so colleagues, we can go through the whole speaker’s list again, which we are able to do. I would hope that if anyone has any comments and I would never want to sway inputs, this is on the referral of Councillor Palosa’s motion. So with that, if people would like to speak, but if you sense your piece that made sense before, our memories are very good, notes are very good.

[3:13:07] So if there’s something new to add, that’s great. So let’s start a quick speakers list and Councillor Cassidy, I see your hand up. Thank you, Your Worship. And I apologize my dog’s barking in the background. So I’ll ask quickly, well, if this is referred back to staff, will this be the limit of staff’s review and work? Or I’m looking through you to Councillor Morgan or to Deputy Mayor Morgan. If there may be things in this Councillor recommendation that doesn’t jive with what staff would given their, using their expertise as planning professionals, they may not agree with some of the things in here.

[3:13:56] Will they be limited if this is what we refer back to staff through you to the Deputy Mayor? I will allow the Deputy Mayor to answer that, but I would be surprised we’re not exactly as you’ve indicated Councillor Cassidy, but go ahead Deputy Mayor. I would be surprised if it wasn’t as indicated. However, that’s more of a question for our staff. I certainly wasn’t intending to limit any sort of innovation in the motion with more time, but I refer back to ensure that, you know, all of the, certainly the alignment of the bylaw with the motion is important, but I’m not adverse to any sort of other changes.

[3:14:32] Should that be, should that occur? And it’s given it’s going back to planning committee for a discussion, of course, they would have another go at it as well. So I presuppose what would happen there either. Anything else, Councillor Cassidy? And just would Mr. Barrett care to, to comment on a referral of this? Give any brief additional comments, Mr. Barrett. Through your worship, what staff would do is they would provide based on council’s direction a technical review to ensure that the bylaw and the motion were in accord and we’re bringing that forward.

[3:15:05] You’ve got staff’s recommendation already. That’s not what’s in front of us. What we will be doing is providing you the professional advice to ensure that the bylaw matches the motion and the intent of the motion. Thank you. Councillor Cassidy, is that it’s your question? It doesn’t. It gives me concern. So I’m not sure where I’m going to vote on this. I’m going to listen to my colleagues. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. Councillor Turner, if you would, please. Thank you, Your Worship. But really quickly, if I might to the mover, the change in affordable housing 93 units at 50 years was about to the equivalent of 4650 housing unit years.

[3:15:40] The change that’s been proposed here is 65 units for 35 years. So that’s a 2275 housing unit years. It’s about a 50% reduction. So that’s fairly marketed. Is that the intent of the motion? I just want to make sure that it’s recognized and that that impact is known to all council. I think that’s two points. I think the second point you’ve certainly elucidated. I’ll let the Deputy Mayor respond to the first. So as for the intent of the motion, I didn’t write the motion.

[3:16:12] I made a motion for a referral. So that’s more of a question for the mover of the original drafted motion. I can’t remember the second question, but maybe that covers it. The reference was to the were council members aware of the impact of 35 versus 50 years if I can paraphrase that slightly, Councillor Turner. Yeah, and your Worship, that was for Councillor Closer. Councillor Closer. Thank you, Worship. Yes, that seemed to be one of the impasses that the developers had come at with staff in the original PEC meeting and had asked for council’s direction on the way forward.

[3:16:53] They had added in a higher mix of higher bedrooms and extended their 30 to the 50. They originally won 30 years, they moved it to 35 and there was an outstanding question. I’m not sure if Mr. Barrett has an answer to this one. Of in mid-2021 planning applications went from 30 years for affordable housing to 50. And it was still unanswered of if that was actually a policy or just how did that change come about as no answer was ever given.

[3:17:24] So I’m not sure that one’s of help too of how do we got from 50 to 30. Councillor Turner, anything further? Oh, thank you. That’s helpful. It’s just the way it’s framed. It seems like a one-third reduction in the normal number of units, but it’s actually over 50%. The calculation on the years of affordability is based on the lift. So they calculate the value of the lift and then determine the number of units and the length of time. So there’s actually a dollar figure that’s associated with that and calculating the lift.

[3:18:00] Thank you. Any other comments on the referral? Councillor Ploughs, and now it’s your turn. If you go ahead, please. Thank you for your worship. I realized and haven’t listened to colleagues tonight that I’ve been living this application for a couple years and working with the community, staff, and the developer and that this was the first time it came before PEC. Just this is the work I’ve been doing behind the scenes and my concern is about getting it right and it hurts the law support from colleagues that they’re excited for this transit project, recognizing it as a transformative project and it’s the first of its kind in absolute decades to be built in South London.

[3:18:46] So I’m fine with the referral back to staff for transparency that staff can comment and if you wanna hear it direct from them that the change is in it around all season plantings and transparency of glass and other features were still what was discussed behind the scenes. Absolutely no problem with that for transparency and making sure that hopefully there’ll be a higher level of council support as this is one of the first project to come through in regards to the South leg of the BRT.

[3:19:19] So that’s why I was happy to second Deputy Mayor Morgan’s motion was just that conversation wanted to happen in full and everyone had the opportunity to ask questions of staff. Thanks very much, Councillor Lehman. Thank you. I think where we do agree on is the importance of this development. This is the first one that Councillor Palosa has said. Of this size along this important rapid transit or approved route, I think to see the success of that transit route, we need this type of development.

[3:20:07] And I believe once this development happens, it will encourage other developments to come along. It’s always the first one to break through to lead to further development. Once that happens, I think this transit route will be successful and serve as intended. The challenge here is that we’re up against a timeframe, like affordable housing will not be, that option will not, we’ll not have through provincial decree come September.

[3:20:42] Yes, we’re a developer and ourselves as a city are apart on the actual number of units. There is mitigation, mitigating factors with the number of actual rooms because there are more three bedroom units being proposed here than we’ve seen in the past. Why I refer to it is we face a danger here of a couple things, one is an appeal, which will delay or worse a massive rejig by the developer on the type of development he wants to build here, which would move away from, I think, what we would all like to see here.

[3:21:27] I wasn’t willing to risk that for that gap that we had in affordable units. So I supported that planning, a recommendation to refer back to see if we get both parties a little closer and maybe even meet somewhere to get this done. I didn’t see that there was much support for referral earlier in the evening. I hear what Councillors are saying about process. I understand it.

[3:22:02] I don’t like getting involved in negotiations in public. This is a special circumstance. We want to see this thing built, but we want to see it built with a maximum number of affordable units for sure. There’s no question. I think what Deputy Mayor Morgan has proposed in referring this back to staff is we’ll serve two purposes. One is to make sure we have the exact wording and it will give us all pause to think about this ‘cause we’ll get it at the next planning committee and get it in before, get that council meeting and before any changes that are made to affordable housing.

[3:22:45] So I will support this referral and I really hope we can find a way to get this project going. Thank you. Anyone else wish to have a final word on this? Would appear Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I’m not gonna be supporting the referral. I think it’s quite obvious that we need to refer this back so staff can really do the work that we’re telling them to do. And eventually this will come back to planning committee.

[3:23:25] And eventually we are going to be looking at staff’s recommendation or what we’re telling staff to do. And I am supportive of the staff’s recommendation. To me it just boils down to the affordable housing portion of it and the units that are available. It’s that simple, we’re getting less and by quite a bit. And I’m just really thinking of the next parts of this coming to us and we’re gonna be faced again at planning, faced again looking and having this discussion that we’ve had here at council.

[3:24:10] So I won’t be referring or supporting the referral back because inevitably I will be supporting the staff recommendation. So thank you. So noted. Any other final comments? Boy from just having really tight, everyone has a thought again. Councillor Lewis, then Councillor van Hose, please. Go ahead. (clears throat) Thank you, Your Worship. I would prefer to make a decision tonight, but I do hear the importance of making sure that the by-law and the intent of the motion line up.

[3:24:51] I will therefore support the referral for that purpose. I think what we’ve heard is there is an impasse. Staff brought forward a recommendation that the applicant had no interest in. The applicant has brought forward an alternative that members council have no interest in, and the planning staff won’t support. Somewhere along the way, we’re going to have to make a decision on this, and we’re gonna have to make it soon. Councillor Hopkins said we’re getting less not more in terms of affordable units.

[3:25:26] There’s nothing at all preventing the developer from pulling this application completely and resubmitting sometime next year a smaller development with no affordable units that fits under the density of the London plan. So I think that that’s something we have to consider too. The end result of this potentially could be zero units. So that’s a consideration as Councillors that we have to weigh in the balance of our thought process. I hope that that’s not the case, but it could be. So I hope that when this comes back on August 22nd to PEC, staff will provide us a technical overview of whether the motion lines up with the by-law and we’ll make a decision as to whether we’re going forward or not.

[3:26:14] I have changed twice tonight from having moved to referral at planning to not supporting my own referral tonight to now being willing to support a referral again. But I feel like we’re going in circles and spinning our wheels here. And I don’t feel like anybody is convincing anyone on either side. But at the end of the day, what I know and what we’ve heard from Mr. Barrett repeatedly over the course of this planning committee’s term is that the decision ultimately lies with us.

[3:26:48] Staff provide their recommendation and we support it or we amend it or we refuse it. But the decision ultimately, we’re the only body, as Councillor Morgan, Deputy Mayor Morgan has put it before, we’re the only individuals in the corporation that have the authority to vary from policy. And I am willing to vary from policy to get results in terms of getting some affordable housing and some housing inventory in general. Some purpose-built residential units, not just the affordable units, but all of the units in this development desperately needed inventory in this city.

[3:27:23] So I will support the time for the by-law and the motion to be reviewed by the clerks and city staff and planning staff and have that come back to us. But it’s frustrating that here we are once again without meaning any insult to anybody but kicking the can down the road a few more weeks. That under Robert’s rules does not consider a denigration. Kicking the can is okay. Councillor Vanholz, please.

[3:27:58] Thank you, Your Worship. My comments about this, I’m okay with supporting the referral. I considered seconding Councillor Cassidy’s motion but was surprised that the other people who had spoken against what was on the floor didn’t do so. So I waited to hear it further. My initial thought is that the 1,200 and 72 units is far more important than the extra 28 affordable housing units or the extra about 10 bedrooms that were attempting to go negotiate for.

[3:28:45] I would also say that in the grand scheme of things affordable housing as it exists as a 20% discount on the average unit in London may not be as big a factor for securing homes for everyone as we may think. But I was at the meeting and I sat through the long meeting to hear the comments of the Councillors and the public.

[3:29:22] And in this case, the two issues that seem to be on the table at the meeting where the floor plate size and we can see how the configurations might have been compromised if we were holding too closely to that amount which might have been arbitrary. And the other was the mix of the bedrooms and I see that the developers had been quite willing to offer something different.

[3:29:57] And I see this is often the case is that our developers are trying to please in terms of what the city is looking for or what the residents are looking for and searching to find the best compromise in terms of being able to build something affordably for them as well. So I see those changes. I would be okay with these things. And so having a go back just so that we can make sure that all the teas are crossed and the eyes are dotted in terms of the by-law is fine for me.

[3:30:42] Thank you. So I’ll be looking forward to see what happens at the next meeting. But I do hope that we will be able to go forward with what’s a pretty aspirational development. And based on the plan that we had for transit corridors, thank you. Thank you, Pastor Hillier. Thank you. And what I appreciate is the fact that we’re trying to increase our stock of affordable units through all this.

[3:31:17] And I have quite a few points here and I was gonna make them tonight. But I think I’m gonna wait ‘cause I’m on planning and I have a feeling this will be referred. And I’m looking forward to the discussion there. Thank you. So noted, thank you very much to anyone who hasn’t spoken yet. Would like to have an extra word since we’re doing that tonight. With that, this is on the referral clerk. You’re still with us, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote.

[3:32:11] Motion carries 12 to two. I’m gonna turn your, oh, I’m gonna go back now to Councillor Hopkins, anything else? This was planning environment. That is my report. Okay, thanks very much. I know that feels painful from time to time. Colleagues, we now have the added reports and for the 11th report of council closed session reporting out, let me call on Councillor Hopkins, please.

[3:32:52] The 11th report of the council in closed session, your council in closed session reports. One, awarding of the 2022 Queen Elizabeth scholarships that on the recommendation of the city clerk, the following actions be taken in connection with the awarding of the 2022 Queen Elizabeth scholarships. A, in recognition of achieving the highest scholastic achievement in their graduating year, the following student be awarded the 2022 Queen Elizabeth scholarships in the amount shown. Richard Ding, London’s central secondary school, 99.17% average, 2000 B.

[3:33:35] Not with standing council policy one three, which provides for Queen Elizabeth scholarships in the amount of 2000 each to be granted by the city of London in each school year for admission to any university to the two students with the highest scholastic achievement, the following four students be awarded the 2022 Queen Elizabeth scholarships in the amount shown. Paige Evoy Smith, A.B. Lucas, secondary school, 99% average, 2000. Bellarina Ling, London’s central secondary school, 99%, 2000.

[3:34:16] Nicholas Seglentex, Saunders, secondary school, 99%, 2000, and John Matty, Regina Mundy, Catholic college, 99%, 2000. C, the city clerk be directed to bring forward to a future meeting of the community and protective services committee proposed amendments to the Queen Elizabeth scholarship policy that can provide for steps when the candidates for the highest scholastic achievement in a given year exceeds two as currently provided for in the policy.

[3:34:53] Two, lease agreement, former HDC office, 520, Wellington Street Unit seven, eight, Centennial House, Municipal Housing Development, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the Director of Municipal Housing Development and on the advice of the Director of Realty Services with respect to the lease agreement of commercial office space, located at 520 Wellington Street Unit seven, eight, Centennial House, the new lease agreement, the lease, as appendix A between the city and Centennial House limited the landlord for the lease of approximately 3000 square feet of rental space located at 520 Wellington Street Unit seven, eight, for a term of two years and six months for the city’s municipal housing development.

[3:35:48] At an at rent of $9.75 per square foot in year one, $10 per square foot in year two and 1025 per square foot in the remaining six months in year three with two further options to renew the two years be approved three. Property acquisition, Wellington Gateway Project, 253-255 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway Project, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of finance supports with the concurrence of the Director of Construction and Infrastructure Services on the advice of the Director of Realty Services with respect to the property located at 253-255 Wellington Road.

[3:36:36] Further described as Lot’s 32 and 33 Plan 452, 4th, being all of PIN08364-0022LT containing an area of approximately 9,213.9 square feet for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken. A, the office submitted by Danny Deet and Fatty Deet, the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 145B accepted, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as Appendix C and B, the financing of this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here too as Appendix A.

[3:37:35] Number four, property acquisition 247 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway Project, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the Director of Construction and Infrastructure Services on the advice of the Director of Realty Services with respect to the property located at 247 Wellington Road. Further described as part of Lot’s 29 and 30, Plan 4524th in the city of London, County of Middlesex as in instrument number LC-116932 being all of PIN08364-0019LT, the property containing an area of approximately 4,725.35 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, the offer submitted by Miro Slovs suggests the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 500,000 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement Appendix C and B, the financing of this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here too as Appendix A.

[3:39:04] And that is my report. Well, thanks very much, Councillor. I do have a seconder as you’ve put that on the floor. I do have a seconder, Councillor Hummoo, thank you very much. Any comments or discussions on the well-spoken words of Councillor Hopkins? I see none. So with that, Clerk, can we just, oh, we do have Councillor Turner, go ahead, please. Sorry, Your Worship, I’d just like to clear your interest with respect to the property acquisitions in Wellington as I own property within a thousand meters of those sites. Yes, and we’ll be mindful of that with bylaws as well.

[3:39:39] So, you know, when we get to there, but Clerk, a question for you respecting the conflicts associated with Councillor Turner’s comments, do we need to vote on these separately so that he can have his abstention on those? All right, he can indicate his recusal or abstention on— I’m sorry, you’ll have to speak a little louder. I mean, he can indicate his vote. So he can indicate the abstention or recusal. Well, if we do it separately, yes. That’s, I guess, what I’m asking. Yes, correct.

[3:40:11] In the pieces that Councillor Hopkins has presented. That’s correct, yes. All right, so how shall we separate those out, please? So that we just need to have one separation so that we can ensure that Councillor Turner’s conflict is acknowledged. Very well, the matter three relates to Wellington Gateway Project 253 to 255 Wellington Road. Well, let’s deal with that one first, if we can. Wellington, the Wellington Gateway. That’s been moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Humber.

[3:40:44] This is your conflict as indicated, Councillor Turner. So if I can ask the clerk to set that up accordingly, we’ll vote on that first, please. All right, that should be coming up. Momma Terrell. Wellington Road Gateway Component College.

[3:41:46] Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse. Can you speak for you, Councillor Hopkins, you’re comfortable with moving the balance of your report and Councillor Humber is seconding it as well? Councillor Humber, seconding the balance of that report. Thank you very much. Any discussion on that? This is on the balance of the 11th report of Council on closed session with that. Then let’s call the question, please. Councillor Cassidy, Councillor Palosa, Councillor Hopkins.

[3:43:16] I vote yes, it’s, my vote is not coming up, my apologies. Thank you, Councillor. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, for, you know, the 11th report of Council. I know it’s a fairly sought after item, and I was glad to ask you to proceed accordingly. Thank you. Colleagues, I have no deferred matters, no, no inquiries, no emergent, emotions, or emotions of which, of which I’ve been made aware.

[3:43:52] So with that, we are going to take us through the bylaws, and I need to ask, I’m going to be separating out edit bills 333 and 334, because that deals with the Wellington Gateway, and I’m respecting Councillor Turner’s potential conflict. And Councillor Helmer, can I ask you on bylaws 315 and 16, which relate to short term, we’ll pull those separately too. I presume that’s what you’d want, thank you. Does anyone need to have or wish to have by virtue of conflict any of these bills dealt with separately?

[3:44:34] Councillor Turner, we got you back, what’s up? I get 318 bold as well, please. And 318 is for the benefit of all? It is, the bylaw to amend the official plan for the related to parking standards review. Parking standards bylaw. And Councillor Hopkins, please. I was gonna ask 318 to people. Well, then you’ve seconded it, so noted, thank you very much. Any other colleagues? If not, here’s what we’re going to do then. I’ll be looking for a mover and seconder for introduction and first reading of bills 311 through 331, excluding 315, 316, and 318.

[3:45:16] I’ll be adding bill 332, which by the way, for the benefit of everyone is the lease agreement between the city of London’s Centennial House, just so you know, and that will be excluding the two gateway components. So with that, I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor Lehman, is there a seconder? Like Councillor Fyfnerler, let’s vote on that, please. Councillor Cathery.

[3:46:09] Mr. Mayor, I’m having troubles. Can you just, so I tried to pull up the vote to see what I’m voting on, and I’m having problems with e-scribe, it just flashes and then goes away. So what can we do to help? Can you please clarify what we’re voting on right now? Yes, thank you, just so you know, we have pulled the bill 318 relating to parking. We have pulled 315 and 16 relating to short-term accommodations, and we have pulled the two bills relating to the Wellington Gateway.

[3:46:47] We’ll call those separately, and I will advise Council accordingly. So now, this is first introduction, first reading of the bills that I’ve mentioned. Is that helpful? All bills except for 15, 16, 18, and the Wellington Gateway. Perfect. Okay, so yes, I vote yes. Thank you very much. Was in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. And now colleagues, second reading for bill 311, excuse me, through 331, excluding 315, 360, 318, and we will add bill 332 to that as well.

[3:47:28] For that, I’ll look for a mover, please. Councilor Hilliard, seconded by, Councilor Hamou, any discussion? Councilor Hopkins, or Cassidy, I’m sorry, you have a question. I wanted to make a comment, but you went to Councilor Hopkins first, I thought. No, I made that up, you’re on first. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanna say, for bill 314, which is the Canada-wide Early Learning and Funding Agreement, how pleased I am that this bylaw is being passed, that we are going ahead with this agreement and that the provincial government did sign on to the National Daycare Strategy.

[3:48:13] So I’m pleased and looking forward to all the good things that will come from this, and hopefully we’ll be able to keep up and get the spots open that we need to get open. Well, the nice thing is since you’ve announced it during the bylaws component, I’m sure other people said nice things at the committee reference level. So thank you for that, any other discussion? Then let’s call the vote. Was in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

[3:48:51] Thank you, and finally, for third reading an act, when it bills 311 through 331, exclusive of bills 315, 316, and 318. And we will be including bill 332. For that, I’ll look for a mover, please. Moved by Councillor Halmer, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Thank you. Let’s vote on that. The vote motion carries 14 to zero.

[3:49:26] Thank you all. I’m not gonna turn your attention to the bylaws nations. And we’re talking about bylaws 315 and 316. And what I’ll be looking for is a mover and seconder and introduction to first reading of those bills. Can I have a mover? Councillor Hoppen, seconded by Councillor Hill here. Thank you very much. Let’s vote on that, shall we? Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with two recues.

[3:50:10] And now I’ll look for mover and seconder, second reading for bills 315 and 16. Councillor Lehman, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Lewis, thank you. Any discussion? On second reading, we’ll call the vote. Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with two recues.

[3:50:59] Thank you, and now for third reading an act when it bills 315 and 316. I’ll look for a mover and seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Fyfe Miller. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, I’ll, yes, my e-scribe is being crazy again. Thanks very much. In the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with two recues.

[3:51:43] Sets of items to deal with. The next piece related to parking standards is bill 318. I’m gonna be looking for mover and seconder for introduction for a stream. Please move by. Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Ploza. Thank you very much. I’ll call the vote. Mr. Mayor, Councillor Cassidy votes yes. Councillor Halmer.

[3:52:40] I see Councillor Hill here. You have a question, Councillor Hill here. Just letting technical staff know I have three voting windows open on my screen right now that won’t close. So I’m going to refresh. You’ve got more voting power than I do, Councillor. Councillor Halmer. I have voted, I will try and vote again. This is not to be registered.

[3:53:13] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Halmer. It’s not registering. If you want to indicate verbally, we can enter that. This is bill 318. Practice. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to two.

[3:53:46] So, colleague of bill 318. I’m gonna require a mover and a seconder, please. Move by. Councillor Hamou, seconded by Councillor Halmer. Thank you very much. Any discussion? I see none. Let’s call the vote. Councillor Vanholst.

[3:54:40] Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 12 to two. And finally, colleagues for third reading an act made of bill 318. I will, for mover, please, move by. Councillor Hill, you’re seconded by. Look at people on the screen now, yes. Councillor Cassidy, thank you very much. Let’s call the vote, please. Opposed in the vote.

[3:55:24] Motion carries 12 to two. A set of bylaws relate to the Wellington Gateway that are, and that includes bills 33 and 333, 334. So for those two bills, introduction of first reading, I’ll require a mover and a seconder. Please move by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. Thank you very much. Let’s vote on that. Opposed in the vote.

[3:56:13] Motion carries. Thanks very much now for second reading of bills 33, and 334. Can I please have a mover and mover seconder by Councillor Layman? Thank you very much. Any discussion? Clerk, you have discussion? Your worship, just to be clear, this is the Wellington Road. That last vote was a Wellington Road manner. The last one is, yes.

[3:56:44] Was there a challenge with the vote? It was. Pulled that specifically because of potential for conflict. Sorry, your worship, but I wasn’t sure. I thought that going by the numbers here, my apologies. I thought that was, that last vote was for the Airbnb. It was not, you know, we’re passed that by a couple. So if you like, you can, by discussion on this, you can claim me as you have in the past, your challenge, I think that would work, but I’ll go to seek the clerk’s advice, because we do not want to put anybody into harm’s way, Clerk.

[3:57:27] Your worship, it’s only one vote. I would recommend a reconsideration, redo that single vote. I see Councillor Cassidy’s hand is up. So we’ll need a motion for reconsideration, Councillor Hopp, and seconded by Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thanks very much, it will require two thirds, but you have my support, those in favor. We will actually go on the screen, sorry. Sorry, everybody.

[3:58:10] Oh, yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, so noted. Little patients, colleagues, we’re getting there.

[3:58:55] Councillor Lewis, Councillor Helmer, Councillor Cassidy, Councillor Hopkins, and your worship. It hasn’t come up yet on the screen, I can’t speak for colleagues. I’m in favor of reconsideration. As am I, thank you. Councillor Lewis also votes, yay. Councillor Hopkins votes, yay. Thank you, and Councillor Turner, it’s not required to recuse on a vote for reconsideration. Just crossing my T’s, thanks.

[3:59:33] Thank you, votes closed, carries 13 to zero with one recuse. All right, so colleagues, I’ll be moving in second or introduction of first reading of Bill’s 333 and 334 for the benefit of all, that’s the Wellington Gateway. So with that, I’ve got Councillor Turner and Councillor Hopkins, thank you very much. Let’s call the vote. No, I said, I don’t know.

[4:00:17] Councillor Fyffman-Laur and Councillor Hopkins, if that’s not what I said, I’m getting as curious as some of the votes that I have taken tonight. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse.

[4:01:00] Thanks very much. And I’ll be moving in second or other than Councillor Turner for the second reading of Bill’s 333 and 334. Councillor Cassidy, Councillor Hill here, thank you very much. Any discussion? I see none. We’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse.

[4:01:39] And finally, for third reading and enactment of Bill’s 333 and 334, I’ll be moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hamou, we’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse.

[4:02:26] Thank you all. You’ve all shown tremendous patience tonight. And I’d like to say thank you. So colleagues, it looks like we do have a re, we may have to have a reconsideration again.

[4:03:02] Councillor Turner, I’m not picking on you, but it looks like on 315 and 16, you recused and you had not declared a conflict. Those were the short-term accommodation bills. That’s according to the clerk who knows everything. Pardon me? That it might be easier for me to declare the conflict. It might be or we can vote for reconsideration. I think that’s what the advice the clerk’s giving us here. So colleagues, we’d be looking for a motion of reconsideration of those two bills associated with short-term accommodation where Councillor Helmer has declared the conflict.

[4:03:43] So do I have motion, Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Hillier? Let’s vote on that, please. And then we’re gonna take us through the three readings of this. Councillor Cassidy, those yes. For Chairman and logged out. So he also votes yes while he logs back in. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. All right, thanks very much. So colleagues, I’m now gonna turn your attention back to the two bills for which reconsideration has been given those 315 and 16 relative to short-term accommodations.

[4:04:26] I’ll look for a move in a seconder, please. Councillor Ploza, seconded by Councillor Hamou. Thank you very much. I’ll call the vote. Councillor Cassidy, those yes. Thank you. I’ll need your microphone, please.

[4:05:15] What was your question? Councillor Ploza. Sorry, Your Worship. I thought it was counted seconded by Councillor Hamou, not Councillor Fife Miller. This motion. I’m starting all over again with you. There’s a motion on the floor. I believe the seconder was Councillor Hamou, not Councillor Fife Miller, as it states. If technicalities is technical. Are you talking about the original motion on this? The by-law that’s on the floor before us on the screen says Councillor Fife Miller, through you to the clerk, is that the proper seconder? Is it actually supposed to be Councillor Hamou, if it matters?

[4:05:48] It is Councillor Hamou. And that will be correct. Thank you. For seconders, which is why we always want to properly acknowledge them, I think you see. Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse. Thanks very much. Colleagues for Bill’s 315 and 6, 316.

[4:06:23] Relating to short term accommodations for second reading of this bill, look for a mover and a second. Councillor Hopkins, sure we’ll get that absolutely correct on the screen. Any discussion that we’ll call? Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse.

[4:07:09] And finally, colleagues for third reading an act when it bills 315 and 316. And a seconder, please move by Councillor Layman. Seconded by Councillor Lewis. We’ll call the vote. Thank you, close in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse.

[4:08:10] Colleagues, this has been a very long night. And again, you’ve been very tolerant. I appreciate that very much. In a direction, I felt like the gang couldn’t shoot straight, but I think we got to the right place. So thank you all for your indulgence in time. I also get a chance to say thank you to staff. You know, what a week it’s been this past week. And I say that because of the committee meetings, including Committee of the Whole and all the things that you’ve done. And I say thank you for that. To staff, sincerely appreciate it.

[4:08:44] You know, we always say this in our Committee of the Whole and our SBBC and our Council meetings. But you know, it’s thoughtfully appreciated the work that you do. I’d like to pay particular tribute to Deputy City Manager Kevin Dickens and his team. You’ve been dealing with a lot of significant issues this past week today. All issues around our most vulnerable from mental health issues, addictions, housing, all the things that matter in this community, amongst so many others.

[4:09:18] So we thank you and please extend that appreciation to your teams as well, all of you. So thank you for that. When you see Ms. Smith ask her about the polar bear, let’s keep that going. We want to, we own a polar bear, but I can’t say any more than that. She’ll have to tell you. And with that, I’m going to look for a motion to adjourn. See Councilor Fife Miller, seconded by IC Councilor Hopkins. Now, can we do this by show of hands, Clerk? He says it’s okay.

[4:09:51] So screen’s on and since it’s okay, those who want to adjourn. And that motion carries. Thanks very much. We will see you as we see you.