Open Council

5th Meeting of City Council

Open Council

5th Meeting of City Council

February 14, 2023, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:04 PM;  it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in item 3, clause 4.1 b.), of the 8th Report of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with the Operating Budget Business Case P-2 b, Ontario Works and Children’s Services, specific to the Children’s Services portion, by indicating that his wife owns and operates a day care.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

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

4.1    Litigation/Potential Litigation/Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality, with respect to exotic animals. (6.1/3/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 lease of a building 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. (6.1/3/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. (6.2/3/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. (6.3/3/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. (6.4/3/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.5/3/CSC)

4.7    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, regarding the Humane Society London and Middlesex 2023 Budget Amendment grant request. (6.6/3/CSC)

4.8    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations/Litigation/Potential Litigation/Matters Before Administrative Tribunals

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations, litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality, and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, concerning the Corporation’s associations and bargaining units. (6.7/3/CSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:24 PM to 1:45 PM.

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

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Minutes of the 4th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on January 24, 2023, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Communications related to the following, BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED as noted on the Added Council Agenda:

6.1   Exotic Animal Establishments;

6.2   Whitehills Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan;

6.3   Operating Budget;

6.4   489 Upper Queen Street; and,

6.5   608 Commissioners Road West.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   3rd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2023-01-31 CWC - Report - Full

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the items 1 to 9 (2.8) of 3rd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

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

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on January 12, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Next Generation 9-1-1 Authority Service Agreement with Bell Canada (Relates to Bill No. 50)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 31, 2023, related to  the Next Generation 9-1-1 Authority Service Agreement with Bell Canada:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023 to:

i)    approve the Next Generation 9-1-1 Authority Service Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Bell Canada; and, 

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

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with part a) above. (2023-S11/P16)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Building Safer Communities Fund (BSCF) Contribution Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 51)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 14, 2023, to:

a)     approve the Building Safer Communities Fund (BSCF) Contribution Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between His Majesty the King in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and The Corporation of the City of London;

b)     delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services to execute the above-noted Agreement; and,

c)     delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or written designate to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts that are necessary in connection with the above-noted Agreement. (2023-P03)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services and the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report, dated January 31, 2023, related to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from A. McGuigan, with respect to this matter, was received. (2023-R04)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) Permanent City of London Indigenous Artwork Collection Source of Financing

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 31, 2023, related to the Permanent City of London Indigenous Artwork Collection Source of Financing:

a)    the Culture Services Division, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services BE AUTHORIZED to acquire and display a permanent City of London Indigenous Artwork Collection through the London Arts Council Purchase of Service Agreement as part of the City of London Public Art and Monument Policy and Program;

b)    the funding for the above-noted procurement 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 actions necessary to implement these recommendations. (2023-R08)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) London Fire Department Single Source Call Handling Software

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 31, 2023, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Call Handling Software:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with Solacom Technologies Inc., 80 Rue Jean-Proulx, Gatineau, Quebec, J8Z 1W1, for pricing for a single source contract for five (5) years for the provision of Next Generation 9-1-1 - compatible call handling software to the London Fire Department;

b)    the above-noted approval BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a contract with Solacom Technologies Inc. to provide Next Generation 9-1-1 -compatible call handling software to the London Fire Department;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the authorization above; and,

d)    the funding for the above-noted procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2023-A03)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.7) London Fire Department Single Source for Battery Operated Extrication Equipment - SS-2023-008

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 31, 2023, related to the London Fire Department Single Source for Battery Operated Extrication Equipment (SS-2023-008):

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with Darch Fire Inc., 9-402 Harmony Road, Ayr, Ontario, N0B 1E0, for pricing for a single source contract for two (2) years with three (3) option years for the provision of Holmatro battery operated extrication equipment to the London Fire Department;

b)    the above-noted approval BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a contract with Darch Fire Inc. to the London Fire Department;

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

d)    the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2023-V07)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (2.8) London Fire Department Single Source Stabilization Rescue Struts - SS-2023-009

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 31, 2023, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Stabilization Rescue Struts (SS-2023-009):

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with A.J. Stone Co. Ltd., 62 Bradwick Drive, Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 1K8, for pricing for a one-time, single source purchase of stabilization rescue struts for the London Fire Department;

b)    the above-noted approval BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a contract with A.J. Stone Co. Ltd. to the London Fire Department;

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

d)    the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2023-V06)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (2.9) Housing Stability Services Purchase of Service Agreement Template (Relates to Bill No. 52)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023, to:

a)    approve the Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, as the standard form of agreement with respect to the purchase of homeless prevention and housing stability services by The Corporation of the City of London; and,

b)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designate, to execute and amend Municipal Purchase of Service Agreements with Service Providers, employing the above-noted standard form Agreement that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, with no further approval required from Municipal Council. (2023-S11)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.1.11   (4.1) Exotic Animal Establishments

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 31, 2023, related to Exotic Animal Establishments:

a)    the revised attached proposed by-laws, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee for a public participation meeting; and,

b)     the requests for delegation, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE REFERRED to the above-noted public participation meeting;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee heard a verbal delegation from W. Brown, Chair, Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, with respect to this matter;

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

  •    W. Brown, Chair, Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    C. Kuijpers;

  •    F. Morrison;

  •    M. Hamers, World Animal Protection;

  •    R. Laidlaw, Zoocheck Inc.;

  •    D. Brooks, Ontario SPCA and Humane Society; and,

  •    S. Thompson. (2023-P14)

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

8.2   3rd Report of the Civic Works Committee

2023-01-31 CWC - Report

8.2.6   (2.5) Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2022-248 Rapid Transit Implementation - Wellington Street from Queens Avenue to the Thames River (South Branch) - Irregular Result

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 31, 2023, related to the award of contracts for Rapid Transit Implementation – Wellington Street from Queens Avenue to the Thames River (South Branch) project:

a)     the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc., at its tendered price of $28,540,331.45 (excluding HST), for the Rapid Transit Implementation – Wellington Street from Queens Avenue to the Thames River (South Branch) project, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 8.10 (a) and 13.2 (b); it being noted that this is an irregular result because the cost exceeds the project budget for the Downtown Loop Phase 3 project; it also being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. was the lowest of three (3) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)     AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,804,701 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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 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, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender RFT-2022-248); and,

f)     the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-T04)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.3   7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-01-23 SPPC Report 7-Complete

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED.

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   Developing the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan: Setting the Strategic Areas of Focus, Outcomes and Expected Results

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to developing the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan:

a)    the report, entitled “Developing the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan: Strategic Areas of Focus, Outcomes, and Expected Results” BE RECEIVED for information; and,

b)    the attached draft strategic areas of focus, outcomes, and expected results for the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan, excluding the Wellbeing and Safety strategic area of focus, BE CONSIDERED and BE SHARED with the community to seek feedback;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a staff presentation with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4   8th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee - Budget

2023-01-26 SPPC Report 8-BUDGET

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 8th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 3 (4.1) and 10 (4.8).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that Councillor P. Van Meerbergen disclosed a pecuniary interest in Item 4.1 b.) having to do with Business Cass P-2, Ontario Works and Children’s Services, specific to the Children’s Services portion, by indicating that his wife owns and operates her own daycare.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 2023 Annual Budget Update Presentation

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the update presentation BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

a)    Case P-8 - Transportation - Capital Project Adjustments - Capital Expenditure ($10,225,000); Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED; and,

       

b)    Case P-9 - London and Middlesex Community Housing (LMCH) - Capital Project Adjustments - Capital Expenditure $21,000,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (4.3) Review of For Consideration Property Tax Operating Budget Amendments (2023 totals rounded to the closest $1,000)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

a)   Case P-10 - Roadways - Reduction to Previously Approved “For Consideration” Business Cases for Streetlights and Winter Maintenance and Walkway Maintenance Reductions - Operating Expenditure ($196,000); Tax Levy ($196,000); Capital Expenditure ($200,000); BE APPROVED;

     i)   Case P-10a – Reduce previously approved additional investment in local improvement for streetlights – Operating Expenditure ($136,000); Tax Levy ($136,000); Capital Expenditure ($200,000);

     ii)   Case P-10b – Reduce annual walkway maintenance – Operating Expenditure ($60,000); Tax Levy ($60,000)

        

b)    Case P-11 - Parks and Horticulture - Reduction in Horticulture Aesthetics - Operating Expenditure ($200,000); Tax Levy ($200,000) BE APPROVED;

c)    Case P-14 - Revised Neighbourhood Strategic Initiatives and Funding - Humane Society of London and Middlesex Animal Campus - Operating Expenditure $3,000,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED; it being noted that his will be funded from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve;

d)    Case P-16 - Community Improvement/BIA - Funding for the Hamilton Road BIA - Operating Expenditure $100,000; Tax Levy $100,000 BE APPROVED, and that the property tax levy funding to Business Improvement Areas BE REVIEWED in conjunction with the consideration of future multi-year budget updates, and during this term of Council, in 2026;

e)    Case P-17 - Capital Financing - Reduction to Previously Approved “For Consideration” Business Case - Infrastructure Gap RF Contribution - Operating Expenditure ($475,000); Tax Levy ($475,000) BE APPROVED;

f)     that consideration of Business Case P-13 - Information Technology - Eliminate Printing of Council Agenda Materials - Operating Expenditure ($8,000); Tax Levy ($8,000) BE REFERRED to the next multi-year budget process, 2024 to 2027; and,

g)    that consideration of Budget Amendment P-15 - Neighbourhood Strategic Initiatives and Funding Increase to Neighbourhood Decision Making Program - Operating expenditure $250,000; Tax Levy $250,000, BE REFERRED to the next multi-year budget process 2024-2027.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (4.4) Review of For Consideration Property Tax Capital Budget Amendment (2023 totals rounded to the closest $1,000)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

a)     Case P-18 - Community Improvement/BIA - Streetscape Master Plan for Dundas Street - Argyle BIA - Capital Expenditure $150,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (4.5) Reserves and Reserve Funds Overview

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Reserves and Reserve Funds Overview BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted projections are subject to annual review and adjustment.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (4.6) Debt Overview

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Debt Overview BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (4.7) Reconciliation of the Draft Property Tax Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the reconciliation of the draft Property Tax Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board financial statement budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (4.9) Capital Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the capital budget (Appendix B):

a) the amended 2023 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $447,680,000; and,

b) the amended 2024 to 2029 capital forecast BE APPROVED in principle in the amount of $1,458,611,000.

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (4.10) By-laws Regarding Tax Levy, Operating and Capital Budgets (Relates to Bill No. 54)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward any necessary by-laws regarding the tax levy, the operating and capital budgets for introduction at Municipal Council.

Motion Passed

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Water Budget Update:

a)    Case W-1 - Schedule Change for Springbank #2 Water Reservoir Replacement and Expansion - Operating Expenditure $0; Operating Revenue $0; Capital Expenditure ($37,581,000) BE APPROVED; and,

        

b)    Case W-2 - Schedule Changes for Water Growth Projects - Operating Expenditure $0; Operating Revenue $0; Capital Expenditure ($8,075,000) BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.14   (4.12) Water Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Water Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview for the 2020 to 2023 Multi-Year Budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.15   (4.13) Reconciliation of the Draft Water Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the reconciliation of the draft Water Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board financial statement budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.16   (4.14) Water Services

Motion made by E. Peloza

That in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 operating budget and the 2023 capital budget and associated forecasts for Water Services:

a)    the amended 2023 operating budget for Water Services BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amount of $93,695,368 and gross revenue amount of $93,695,368;

b)    the amended2023 capital budget for Water Services BE READOPTED in the amount of $38,852,000; and,

c)    the amended2024 to 2029 capital forecast for Water Services BE APPROVED in principle in the amount of $324,163,000;

it being noted that all rates and charges related to the provision of Water Services were increased by 2.5% effective January 1, 2020 as approved by Council on November 26, 2019, increased by 2.5% effective January 1, 2021, January 1, 2022 and January 1, 2023 as approved by Council on October 27, 2020.

Motion Passed

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Wastewater and Treatment Budget Update:

a)    Case WWT-1 - Mud Creek East Branch Phase 2 Budget Increase - Operating Expenditure $0; Operating Revenue $0; Capital Expenditure $1,657,000 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.18   (4.16) Wastewater and Treatment Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Wastewater and Treatment Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview for the 2020 to 2023 Multi-Year Budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.19   (4.17) Reconciliation of the Draft Wastewater and Treatment Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the reconciliation of the draft Wastewater and Treatment Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board financial statement budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.20   (4.18) Wastewater and Treatment Services

Motion made by E. Peloza

That in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 operating budget and the 2023 capital budget and associated forecasts for Wastewater and Treatment Services:

a) the amended 2023 operating budget for Wastewater and Treatment Services BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amount of $117,543,814 and gross revenue amount of $117,543,814;

b) the amended 2023 capital budget for Wastewater and Treatment Services BE READOPTED in the amount of $92,640,000; and,

c) the amended 2024 to 2029 capital forecast for Wastewater and Treatment Services BE APPROVED in principle in the amount of $621,579,000;

it being noted that all rates and charges relating to the provision of Wastewater and Treatment Services were increased by 2.5% effective January 1, 2020; as approved by Council on November 26, 2019, increase by 2.5% effective January 1, 2021, 2.7% effective July 1, 2021, 2.5% effective January 1, 2022 and 2.5% effective January 1, 2023 as approved by Council on October 27, 2020.

Motion Passed

8.4.21   (5.1) Municipal Council resolution from its meeting held on January 24, 2023 with respect to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Added Communication from the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee Report, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

a)    Case P-1 - Various Services - Budget Right-Sizing - Operating Expenditure ($2,900,000); Tax Levy ($6,581,000); Capital Expenditure ($475,000) BE APPROVED;

b)    Case P-2 - Ontario Works and Children’s Services - Reduction in Required 2023 Investments - Operating Expenditure ($620,000); Tax Levy ($1,030,000) BE APPROVED;

       i)     Case P-2a - Reduction in Life Stabilization Investment in 2023 due to COVID-19 Impacts – Operating Expenditure ($388,000); Tax Levy ($388,000); and,

       ii)     Case P-2b - Reduction in Child Care Investment in 2023 due to Transitional Funding Availability, Case P-2c - Partial Deferral of Expansion Child Care Investment in 2023 due to COVID-19 Impacts - Operating Expenditure ($232,000); Tax Levy ($642,000)

       

c)    Case P-3 - Housing Stability Services - Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units - Portable Benefits and Staff Resources - Operating Expenditure $1,794,000; Tax Levy $1,794,000 BE APPROVED;

      

d)    Case P-4 - Community Improvement/BIA - Project Clean Slate - Operating Expenditure $200,000; Tax Levy $200,000 BE APPROVED;

        

e)    Case P-5 - Information Technology - Cybersecurity Infrastructure Expansion and Updates - Operating Expenditure $1,009,000; Tax Levy $1,009,000; Capital Expenditure $142,000 BE APPROVED;

     

f)    Case P-6 - Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression - 1001 Inventions Exhibit - Operating Expenditure $125,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED; and,

       

g)    Case P-7 - Land Ambulance - Additional Resources to Address Service Pressures - Operating Expenditure $1,759,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Motion to approve item 3, clause 4.1, excluding part b) ii) Case P-2b - Reduction in Child Care Investment.

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

a)    Case P-1 - Various Services - Budget Right-Sizing - Operating Expenditure ($2,900,000); Tax Levy ($6,581,000); Capital Expenditure ($475,000) BE APPROVED;

b)    Case P-2 - Ontario Works and Children’s Services - Reduction in Required 2023 Investments - Operating Expenditure ($620,000); Tax Levy ($1,030,000) BE APPROVED;

       i)     Case P-2a - Reduction in Life Stabilization Investment in 2023 due to COVID-19 Impacts – Operating Expenditure ($388,000); Tax Levy ($388,000); and,

       

c)    Case P-3 - Housing Stability Services - Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units - Portable Benefits and Staff Resources - Operating Expenditure $1,794,000; Tax Levy $1,794,000 BE APPROVED;

      

d)    Case P-4 - Community Improvement/BIA - Project Clean Slate - Operating Expenditure $200,000; Tax Levy $200,000 BE APPROVED;

        

e)    Case P-5 - Information Technology - Cybersecurity Infrastructure Expansion and Updates - Operating Expenditure $1,009,000; Tax Levy $1,009,000; Capital Expenditure $142,000 BE APPROVED;

     

f)    Case P-6 - Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression - 1001 Inventions Exhibit - Operating Expenditure $125,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED; and,

       

g)    Case P-7 - Land Ambulance - Additional Resources to Address Service Pressures - Operating Expenditure $1,759,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Motion to approve part b) ii) of item 3, clause 4.1.

ii)     Case P-2b - Reduction in Child Care Investment in 2023 due to Transitional Funding Availability, Case P-2c - Partial Deferral of Expansion Child Care Investment in 2023 due to COVID-19 Impacts - Operating Expenditure ($232,000); Tax Levy ($642,000)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.10   (4.8) Operating Budget

At 2:36 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 2:38 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the amended 2023 operating budget (Appendix A) BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amount of $1,117,281,244 and the tax levy amount of $736,457,801 after recognizing $12,773,658 of increased taxation from assessment growth.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That item 10, clause 4.8 BE AMENDED by adding the following:

a)    That City Staff BE DIRECTED to take the administrative actions required to maintain the washroom opening hours provided at the Dundas Place Fieldhouse and Victoria Park for the remainder of 2023 (or until further information regarding hours and use of public washroom facilities from the Housing and Homelessness Summit Strategy is received) funded by a one time draw from the Economic Development Reserve Fund of a maximum of $350,000.

b)    That City Staff BE DIRECTED to compile a report on existing public washroom facilities across the city, their hours of operation, their locations, their staffing requirements and their usage information for Q3 2023, to allow Council to determine if there is sufficient public washroom access and if the hours of operation align with community programming.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Item 10, clause 4.8, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 10, clause 4.8, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Operating budget:

a)  that in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the amended 2023 operating budget (Appendix A) BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amount of $1,117,281,244 and the tax levy amount of $736,457,801 after recognizing $12,773,658 of increased taxation from assessment growth;

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the administrative actions required to maintain the washroom opening hours provided at the Dundas Place Fieldhouse and Victoria Park for the remainder of 2023 funded by a one time draw from the Economic Development Reserve Fund of $350,000 and provide a long-term funding request through the multi-year budget process; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to compile a report on existing public washroom facilities across the city, their hours of operation, their locations, their staffing requirements and their usage usage for Q3 2023, to allow Council to determine if there is sufficient public washroom access and if the hours of operation align with community programming.

8.5   9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-02-07 SPPC Report 9-Complete

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 4 (4.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (3.1) Dr. Jackie Schleifer Taylor, President and CEO, London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a delegation from Dr. Jackie Schleifer Taylor, President and CEO, London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) with respect to the future of health care.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (4.1) London’s Housing Pledge: A Path to 47,000 Units by 2031

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the City of London Municipal Housing Target:

a)    the staff report BE RECEIVED for information; 

b)    a pledge to accelerate the housing supply of 47,000 units in our community by 2031 BE ADOPTED in response to the Minister of Municipal Affairs letter dated October 25, 2022;

c)    the Mayor BE DIRECTED to complete a letter in response to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, by March 1, 2023, highlighting Council’s pledge and the strategies and actions that the City will take to accelerate the supply of new housing;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a Housing Supply Action Plan working with the Housing Supply Reference Group described in Appendix ‘B’ Housing Supply and Affordability Framework; it being noted that the Housing Supply Reference Group may expand to include additional members as may be appropriate, including but not limited to a member from the not-for-profit housing sector and a member involved in housing supply/housing research; and,

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to establish an Affordable Housing Reference Group described in Appendix ‘B’ Housing Supply and Affordability Framework to support the ongoing Roadmap to 3000 Affordable Units;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal update from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute (LDI) with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (4.3) Developing Council’s 2023-2027 Strategic Plan: Community Engagement Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report with respect to the developing the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan: Community Engagement Update BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.4) Developing the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan: Tabling Draft Strategies

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report with respect to developing the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan: Tabling Draft Strategies BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (4.5) Resignation from the London Police Services Board

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London Police Services Board:

a)  the communication dated January 25, 2023 from S. Toth BE RECEIVED;

b)  the resignation of Susan Toth from the London Police Services Board BE ACCEPTED, effective January 31, 2023; and,

c)  the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to advertise in the usual manner to solicit applications for appointment to the Police Services Board, with applications to be brought forward to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration;

it being noted that the process promoting board, commission and committee applications has expanded to include circulations by People Services and the Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Unit, and will be done in alignment with the section 29 (1) of the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (4.6) Municipal Council resolution from its meeting held on January 24, 2023 with respect to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the resolution letter related to the 4th and 1st Reports of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee (ECAC):

a)   the above noted resolution letter, BE RECEIVED; and, 

b)   Dr. E. Dusenge BE APPOINTED to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee for the term ending February 2024.

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (4.7) Municipal Council resolution from its meeting held on January 24, 2023 with respect to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Municipal Council resolution from its meeting held on January 24, 2023 regarding the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC):

a)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make necessary arrangements for hybrid meeting accommodations for all community advisory committees, allowing members to attend virtually or in-person as they individually choose, no later than the end of Q2 2023; 

b)  the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to develop a “standing delegation” at standing committee meetings, for each Community Advisory Committee; and, 

c)  the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to investigate and report back to the ITCAC with respect to a Zoom license for the ITCAC sub-committee use.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (4.2) Developing the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan: Continuing to Set Key Elements of the Strategic Plan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to developing the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan:

a)    the report, entitled “Developing the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan: Continuing to Set Key Elements of the Strategic Plan” BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the following Draft Vision and Mission BE ACCEPTED for additional consultation with the public:

Vision

London is a sustainable city within a thriving region, committed to innovation and providing a safe, affordable, welcoming, and healthy future for today and for the next generation.

Mission

Our mission is to improve the quality of life and build a strong and vibrant community through bold, proactive, and accountable city services.

c)     all three Draft Value sets, attached, BE REFERRED to the Municipal Council meeting of February 14, for consideration;

d)     the attached, revised draft Strategic Areas of Focus, Outcomes and Expected Results BE SHARED with the community to continue to seek feedback;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the attached presentation from J. Rodger, Executive Director, Anova and J. Dunn, Executive Director, London Abused Women’s Centre, and a presentation from staff with respect to this matter.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That item 4, clause 4.2 BE AMENDED in part c) to read as follows:

c)  that all three Draft Value sets, BE ACCEPTED for additional consultation with the public;

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Consideration of Draft Value Sets

  1. An affordable, prosperous, inclusive and healthy city for all Londoners. Sustainable and forward thinking through positive collaborations. Open and transparent decision making in the public interest to foster trust.

  2. Inclusive and Respectful Accountability and Trust Compassion Teamwork Committed and Driven Learning

  3.  Reconciliation, Equity, and Inclusion Sustainability and Affordability Collaborative Partnerships Accountability and Trust Innovative service delivery Financial stewardship

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of Draft Value Sets

  1. An affordable, prosperous, inclusive and healthy city for all Londoners. Sustainable and forward thinking through positive collaborations. Open and transparent decision making in the public interest to foster trust.

  2. Inclusive and Respectful Accountability and Trust Compassion Teamwork Committed and Driven Learning

  3.  Reconciliation, Equity, and Inclusion Sustainability and Affordability Collaborative Partnerships Accountability and Trust Innovative service delivery Financial stewardship

Majority Winner: 2. Inclusive and Respectful Accountability and Trust Compassion Teamwork Committed and Driven Learning

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That item 4, clause 4.2 BE AMENDED in part c) to read as follows:

c)    the following Draft Value set, BE ACCEPTED for additional consultation with the public:

2.    Inclusive and Respectful

Accountability and Trust Compassion

Teamwork

Committed and Driven

Learning

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

Item 4, clause 4.2, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 4, clause 4.2, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to developing the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan:

a)    the report, entitled “Developing the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan: Continuing to Set Key Elements of the Strategic Plan” BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the following Draft Vision and Mission BE ACCEPTED for additional consultation with the public:

Vision

London is a sustainable city within a thriving region, committed to innovation and providing a safe, affordable, welcoming, and healthy future for today and for the next generation.

Mission

Our mission is to improve the quality of life and build a strong and vibrant community through bold, proactive, and accountable city services.

c)     the following Draft Value set, BE ACCEPTED for additional consultation with the public:

  1. Inclusive and Respectful

Accountability and Trust

Compassion

Teamwork

Committed and Driven

Learning;

d)     the attached, revised draft Strategic Areas of Focus, Outcomes and Expected Results BE SHARED with the community to continue to seek feedback;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the attached presentation from J. Rodger, Executive Director, Anova and J. Dunn, Executive Director, London Abused Women’s Centre, and a presentation from staff with respect to this matter.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Council recess at this time, for 20 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:05 PM and reconvenes at 3:23 PM.

8.6   3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2023-01-23 PEC Report 3

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 10 (3.4) and 11 (3.5);

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 (15 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (2.1) 3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 345 Bostwick Road - Request for Extension of Draft Plan Approval (39T-17503)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by W-3 Lambeth Farms Inc., relating to the lands located at 3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing a three (3) year extension to Draft Plan Approval for the residential plan of subdivision subject to the revised conditions contained in Appendix “A” appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023. (2023-D12)

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (2.2) 1656 Hyde Park Road - Heritage Easement Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 53)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 1656 Hyde Park Road:

a) the draft Heritage Easement Agreement appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “B” between The Corporation of the City of London and the property owner of 1656 Hyde Park Road, relating to the heritage designated property known as the “Routledge Farmhouse”, BE APPROVED substantially in the form appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 and as approved by the City Solicitor; and,

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023 to approve the Heritage Easement Agreement and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement pursuant to Section 37(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. (2023-R01)

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (2.3) 600 Sunningdale Road West - Request for Extension of Draft Plan Approval (39T-18501)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Sunningdale Golf and Country Club, relating to the property located at 600 Sunningdale Road West, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing a three (3) year extension to Draft Plan Approval for the residential plan of subdivision (39T-18501), subject to the conditions contained in Appendix “A” appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023.  (2023-D12)

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (2.4) Streamline Development Approval Fund: Streamlining Development Approvals (2022) - Final Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated January 30, 2023, entitled “Streamline Development Approval Fund: Streamlining Development Approvals (2022) - Final Report” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-F11A)

Motion Passed

8.6.6   (2.5) 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on January 11, 2023:

a) the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED of the following with respect to the Notice of Planning Application, dated December 14, 2022, from N. Pasato, Senior Planner, related to the property located at 200 Albert Street and the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for the property located at 200 Albert Street, dated August 9, 2022, from Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc.:

i) the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) has reviewed the above-noted Notice of Planning Application and Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment;

ii) the CACP supports this kind of mid-rise development in this area as it is sensitive to the heritage properties surrounding it and to the streetscape itself;

b) the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED of the following with respect to the Revised Notice of Planning Application, dated December 14, 2022, from A. Riley, Senior Planner, related to a Zoning By-law Amendment for the properties located at 300-320 King Street and the Heritage Impact Assessment for the property located at 320 King Street, dated October 6, 2022, from Zelinka Priamo Ltd.:

i) the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) has reviewed the above-noted Revised Notice of Planning Application and Heritage Impact Assessment;

ii) the CACP is generally supportive of this application but would like to see additional analysis and/or renderings as part of a heritage alteration permit application that addresses conservation of the Dundas Street view of the Armouries building which has been identified as a significant heritage attribute in the Downtown Heritage Conservation District

c)  clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.4,  3.5, 3.6, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed

8.6.7   (3.1) 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on January 19, 2023:

 

a) clause 2.1 of the 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee relating to the 2023 Budget update BE DELETED; it being noted that clause 2.1 reads as follows:

“the Municipal Council BE REQUESTED to consider a targeted consultation with all Community Advisory Committees with respect to the Strategic Plan before the Strategic Plan is adopted by the Municipal Council; it being noted that the presentation appended to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee Agenda by K. Murray, Director, Financial Planning and Business Support, with respect to the 2023 Budget update, was received”;

b) the following actions be taken with respect to the Western Road and Sarnia Road - Philip Aziz Avenue Improvements:

i)    the Working Group comments relating to the Western Road and Sarnia Road - Philip Aziz Avenue Improvements BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration; and,

ii)    subject to the results of a pending conversation with the Civic Administration about potential impacts of the Western Road and Sarnia Road - Philip Aziz Avenue improvements on species at risk, the Chair of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE GIVEN delegation status at the Civic Works Committee meeting when the Western Road and Sarnia Road - Philip Aziz Avenue Improvements are presented; and,

c)  clauses 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed

8.6.8   (3.2) 1555 Glenora Drive (Z-9543) (Relates to Bill No. 64)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Glenora Management Ltd., relating to the property located at 1555 Glenora Drive, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Office (OF3) Zone TO an Office (OF5) Zone;

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

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

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

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

  •  the recommended amendment would facilitate the continued use reuse of the existing building with a use that is appropriate for the context of the site. (2023-D14)

Motion Passed

8.6.9   (3.3) 761 Fanshawe Park Road West (Z-9554) (Relates to Bill No. 65)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 1413045 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 761 Fanshawe Park Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Convenience Commercial Special Provision (CC5(3)) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NSA3(_));

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

  • S. Allen, MHBC; 

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment provides additional uses that are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area and provides an increased opportunity to better utilize the existing building. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed

8.6.12   (3.6) 723 Lorne Avenue (39T-21504)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Habitat for Humanity – Heartland Ontario, relating to the property located at 723 Lorne Avenue:

a) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision of Habitat for Humanity – Heartland Ontario relating to a property located at 723 Lorne Avenue; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed Plan of Subdivision as submitted by Habitat for Humanity – Heartland Ontario, (File No. 39T-21504), prepared by Callon Dietz Inc. (File No. 18-22301 C, Plan No. Z-2741), certified by J. Paul Crocker O.L.S., dated April 13, 2022, which shows a total of twelve (12) single detached lots (Lots 1 to 12), one (1) road allowance block serviced by the extension of Queen’s Place, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix “A” appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023;

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

  • G. De Vlugt, General Manager, Construction, Habitat for Humanity;

  •  K. Kane, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;

  •  F. Fellice;

  •  S. Merritt; and,

  •  K. Paniccia.    (2023-D12)

Motion Passed

8.6.10   (3.4) 489 Upper Queen Street (Z-9540) (Relates to Bill No. 66)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2863382 Ontario Inc. c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc., relating to the property located at 489 Upper Queen Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

  •  a communication dated January 20, 2023, from J. and B. Wood;

  •  the Project Fact sheet;

  •  the staff presentation; and,

  •  a revised staff report;

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

  •  M. Davis, siv-ik;

  •  T. Donaldson;

  •  R. Smeets;

  •  G. Gordon;

  •  C. Aziz;

  •  H. Kelly;

  •  M. Lennox;

  •  E. Carroll;

  •  R. Bishop;

  •  J. Sleziuk;

  •  N. Hind;

  •  C. Anderson;

  •  J. Cummings;

  •  H. Kelly;

  •  C. Jones;

  •  L. Merner;

  •  Carly;

  •  T. Carroll;

  •  M.B. Bezzina;

  •  A. Marlow;

  •  A. Mochrie;

  •  M. Huk; and,

  •  K. Keating;

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

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

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

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

  •  the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant, underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of development.  (2023-D14)

it being further 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 (11 to 4)

8.6.11   (3.5) 608 Commissioners Road West (Z-9516) (Relates to Bill No. 67)

At 4:15 PM, the Mayor places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair.

At 4:18 PM, the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Zelinka Priamo on behalf of Copia Developments, relating to the property located at 608 Commissioners Road West:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (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) verify the trees along the south property line position and the relation of their trunks to the property lines shared with 659 and 615 Westmount Crescent for possible consent by the neighbouring property owner to remove boundary tree(s) or cause injury to a boundary tree(s);

ii) provide a building step back above the 5th storey along Commissioners Road West as per the drawings dated October ‎11, ‎2022;

iii) provide a building step back above the 4th storey along Westmount Crescent to provide appropriate height transition from abutting low-density residential as per the drawings dated October ‎11, ‎2022;

iv) provide detailed site plan and landscape plans to detail any proposed programming in the amenity space to demonstrate how it functions and relates to the building interface at the rear;

v) provide interior floor plans to demonstrate how the interior spaces will relate to the exterior functions; and,

vi) explore ways to re-locate or screen the garbage moloks near the main entrance,

b) pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning generally implements the site concept submitted with the application. As part of the application review process a revised site plan concept was submitted with minor revisions including a new height of 22.0 metres; however, which is still within the 6 storeys as originally proposed;

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.;

  •  J. Burrell;

  •  D. Mcleod;

  •  B. Poetschke;

  •  H. Orlowski;

  •  A. Burrell;

  •  R. Campbell;

  •  R. de Papp;

  •  P. Gallant; and,

  •  A. Barham;

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, Our City, Key Directions, City Design and City Building, Neighbourhood Place Type and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

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

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized property within the Built-Area Boundary through an appropriate form of infill development; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates a type of residential development that will help to address the growing need for affordable housing in London.  The recommended amendment is in alignment with the Housing Stability Action Plan 2019-2024 and Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock. (2023-D14)

it being further 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 made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the application for 608 Commissioners Road West (Z-9516) BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration, in order to work with the applicant and bring forward a revised proposed by-law that would reduce the proposed maximum height to four stories and a maximum density of sixty-four units.

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

“That part a) BE AMENDED by adding the following new part vii) “Provide privacy fencing or a quick growing coniferous hedge to the south and west boundaries;”

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That item 11, clause 3.5, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Item 11, clause 3.5, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Zelinka Priamo on behalf of Copia Developments, relating to the property located at 608 Commissioners Road West:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (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) verify the trees along the south property line position and the relation of their trunks to the property lines shared with 659 and 615 Westmount Crescent for possible consent by the neighbouring property owner to remove boundary tree(s) or cause injury to a boundary tree(s);

ii) provide a building step back above the 5th storey along Commissioners Road West as per the drawings dated October ‎11, ‎2022;

iii) provide a building step back above the 4th storey along Westmount Crescent to provide appropriate height transition from abutting low-density residential as per the drawings dated October ‎11, ‎2022;

iv) provide detailed site plan and landscape plans to detail any proposed programming in the amenity space to demonstrate how it functions and relates to the building interface at the rear;

v) provide interior floor plans to demonstrate how the interior spaces will relate to the exterior functions; 

vi) explore ways to re-locate or screen the garbage moloks near the main entrance; and,

vii) provide privacy fencing or a quick growing coniferous hedge to the south and west boundaries

b) pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning generally implements the site concept submitted with the application. As part of the application review process a revised site plan concept was submitted with minor revisions including a new height of 22.0 metres; however, which is still within the 6 storeys as originally proposed;

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.;

  •  J. Burrell;

  •  D. Mcleod;

  •  B. Poetschke;

  •  H. Orlowski;

  •  A. Burrell;

  •  R. Campbell;

  •  R. de Papp;

  •  P. Gallant; and,

  •  A. Barham;

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, Our City, Key Directions, City Design and City Building, Neighbourhood Place Type and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

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

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized property within the Built-Area Boundary through an appropriate form of infill development; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates a type of residential development that will help to address the growing need for affordable housing in London.  The recommended amendment is in alignment with the Housing Stability Action Plan 2019-2024 and Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock. (2023-D14)

it being further 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.

8.7   3rd Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2023-01-30 CSC Report 3

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 3rd Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 5 (2.4).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.7.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.7.2   (2.1) Amendments to Development Charge Alternative Payment Agreement Template and Development Charge Interest Rate Policy (Relates to Bill No.’s 47 and 48)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023 to amend By-law No. A.-7956-84, as amended, being “A by-law to approve and authorize a Development Charges Alternative Payment Agreement template to provide for the alternative payment of Development Charges for developments that qualify for deferred Development Charge payments made under Section 27 of the Development Charges Act, 1997 S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended; and to delegate the authority to enter into such Agreements to the City Treasurer or delegate”, to repeal and replace Schedule “1” to the by-law; and,

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023 to repeal By-law No. CPOL.-400-85 being “A by-law to adopt a new Council Policy entitled “Development Charge Interest Rate Policy” CPOL.-400-85, noting that recent legislative changes through Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, include amendments to the Development Charges Act, 1997, that provide the framework for determining the interest rate that can be applied to Development Charges.

Motion Passed

8.7.3   (2.2) Reporting of Delegated Actions, 2022 and Appointment of External Auditor (Relates to Bill No. 49)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken:

a)  on the recommendation of the City Manager, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services, the staff report regarding Reporting of Delegated Actions, 2022 BE RECEIVED for information;

b)  on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023 to:

     i)  appoint KPMG, LLP as the auditors of the municipality and its local boards for a five (5) year term in accordance with Section 296 of the Municipal Act, 2001;

     ii)  to approve an agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and KPMG LLP with respect to providing external audit services for the Corporation (“Agreement”); and,

     iii) to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Agreement; and,

c)  the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with part b) above.

Motion Passed

8.7.4   (2.3) Assessment Growth for 2023, Changes in Taxable Phase-In Values, and Shifts in Taxation as a Result of Reassessments

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report regarding Assessment Growth for 2023, Changes in Taxable Phase-in Values, and Shifts in Taxation as a Result of Reassessments BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

8.7.6   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - U.N Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated January 20, 2023 from the London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, Tuesday, March 21, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED International Day of Significance.

Motion Passed

8.7.7   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - World Thinking Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated January 13, 2023 from the Girl Guides of Canada, February 22, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED World Thinking Day.

Motion Passed

8.7.5   (2.4) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - Part of 641 Queens Avenue

Motion made by S. Trosow

That the matter of the declaration of the property located at Part of 641 Queens Avenue as surplus, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration in order to provide notice to agencies within the City that have not been notified about the potential disposition, with a report back to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee.

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to a portion of City-owned property municipally known as part of 641 Queens Avenue, legally described as Part Lot 9, Plan 390(3rd), in the City of London, to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited, being Part of PIN 08281-0248 and further shown on the Location Map as appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” (the “Subject Property”), the following actions be taken:

a)    the Subject Property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and,

b)    the Subject Property BE OFFERED for sale in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   4th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion that items 1, 2, 3 and 5, BE APPROVED:

  1.    Lease Extension and Amending Agreement – 251 Dundas Street, London Public Library – Rapid Transit Implementation Office

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 Lease Extension and Amending Agreement for the lease of office space at 251 Dundas Street, known as London Public Library, the Lease Extension and Amending Agreement between the City and London Public Library (the “Landlord”) attached as Appendix “A”, for the lease of approximately 7,495 square feet of Rentable Area, located at 251 Dundas Street, for an extension period of five (5) years commencing January 1, 2024 and ending on December 31, 2028 BE APPROVED.

  1.    Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Assets from London Hydro Former Substation #48 – 2125 Trafalgar Street

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Fire Chief, London Fire Department, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City purchase of assets from London Hydro, being the building located at 2125 Trafalgar Street, as shown on the aerial location map attached as Appendix “A”, for the purpose of additional storage and other future potential uses, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Assets, attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by London Hydro (the “Vendor”), to sell the building and assets to the City, for a nominal sum of $5.00, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement BE APPROVED; and

b)     the Bill of Sale, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by London Hydro (the “Vendor), in connection with the sale of the building and assets referenced in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Assets, attached as Appendix “B” BE APPROVED.

  1.    Offer to Grant an Easement and Consent to Enter Agreement – Part of 1211 Hyde Park Road

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to property owned by Motivity Land Inc., legally described as Part Lot 24, Concession 3, Part 2, Plan 33R824, Part 1, Plan 33R2488, save and except Part 1, Plan 33R18288 and Part 1, Plan 33R19669, known municipally as 1211 Hyde Park Road, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Offer to Grant an Easement and Consent to Enter Agreement between the City and Motivity London Inc. granting the City a permanent non-    exclusive access easement, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”, for the sum of $196,000.00 BE APPROVED; and,

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

  1.    Offer to Purchase Industrial Lands – Andriani S.p.A Part of Block 1, Plan 33M-592 – Innovation Park Phase ll

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Innovation Park Phase II, being composed of Part of Block 1 (subject to final survey), in the City of London, County of Middlesex, further being part of PIN 081970320, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Andriani S.p.A., under the corporate name Andriani Ltd. (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 5 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $825,000.00, reflecting a sale price of $165,000.00 per acre BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion that item 4, BE APPROVED:

  1.    Property Acquisition – 249 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 249 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lots 30 & 31, Plan 452 (4th), as in Instrument No. 658220, being all of PIN 08364-0020 (LT), containing an area of approximately 4,563.89 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 James Alexander Phin (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $445,200.00 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 (14 to 1)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 46 to 51, 53 to 61, 63, 64 and 65 and Added Bill No.’s 68 to 70 and 72, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 46 to 51, 53 to 61, 63, 64 and 65 and Added Bill No.’s 68 to 70 and 72, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 46 to 51, 53 to 61, 63, 64 and 65 and Added Bill No.’s 68 to 70 and 72, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 52, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No. 52, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 52, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 62, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of Bill No. 62, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 62, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 66, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No. 66, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 66, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 67, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Second Reading of Bill No. 67, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 67, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 71, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 71, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 71, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The Council meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 53 minutes)

[18:47] Thank you, be seated. So I’d like to call together to order the meeting of municipal council, the fifth meeting of municipal council here on Valentine’s Day, February 14th. I’m sure everybody’s very excited about that and spending their Valentine’s Day with all the great company in the room. I’d like to start off by doing a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran.

[19:20] We honor respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds, of the Haudenosaunee Nanfant Treaty of 1701, the McKay Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampo of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Pre-Indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewa of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs.

[20:12] And now I’m delighted to move to the singing of O Canada. Eleanor Gabrou, born in the forest city, hails from a family of musicians, Eleanor was recognized as the ISO Project winner in May 2022 and later released her debut single Make Sense on November 23rd, 2022. Recently, Eleanor was a feature artist in the inaugural London Music Accelerator. And if you recall colleagues, she also performed at our inauguration at RBC Place. And you can catch her performing once again at RBC Place during the City of Music Conference on March 31st.

[20:48] Please join me in welcoming Eleanor Singh O Canada at this time, and please stand. ♪ Canada, home and native land ♪ ♪ To love, any concerns come in ♪ ♪ With glowing hearts, we see the rise ♪ ♪ Our true love strung and free ♪ ♪ From far and wide, O Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard for thee ♪ ♪ To keep our land ♪ ♪ Close and free ♪ ♪ Canada, we stand on guard for thee ♪ ♪ Canada, we stand on guard for thee ♪ So I’m gonna move to the podium for a couple of recognitions today.

[23:25] First, before I start the recognitions, I just want to thank Anna, who’s in grade three from Surrey, BC, who sent me a very nice flat Stanley to do exciting things with. And so I thought I would get a picture, ‘cause what’s more exciting to do in London, Ontario, than come to a council meeting. Flat Stanley will be doing other things, of course, but on Valentine’s Day, this is the place to be. So thank you for accommodating that.

[24:00] The first recognition that I will do today is for Black History Month. This is our first council meeting of the month. And so on behalf of London City Council, I am proud to recognize officially Black History Month. We reflect on Black History here in London, dating back to the 1830s, involving a population of approximately 60 individuals, almost all of them having escaped slavery in the United States. Most lived in the vicinity of Horton and Thames Street. Within 20 years, London’s Black population had nearly tripled, and there was a church and a school for Black residents.

[24:34] We think of Londoners like Cedric Martin, the first African-American man to fight in the Civil War, who was buried in the Woodland Cemetery. We think of James F. Jenkins, a Londoner, who inspired the NAACP and founded the Canadian League of the Achievement of Colored People in 1924, while also launching the dawn of tomorrow Canada’s first Black newspaper, from his family home near Highbury and Trafalgar. We think of those who came to London in the 1960s, from Jamaica and elsewhere in the Caribbean, helping to grow our city’s Black population.

[25:07] And more recently, thousands who have come from Somalia, Sudan, and other African nations. Most of all, we think of the Black history that is being written today by more than 11,000 Black Londoners who live in our city. We have much to celebrate from our shared history, and also much to learn. I encourage all Londoners to take part in Black History Month activities and events over the next few weeks, and learn more about some of the, to learn more about some of the options on what you could do, and to do a short recognition of our proclamation, which we made earlier this month, and I have a copy of that to present.

[25:42] I’d like to invite Carl Cardigan and members of the coordinating committee up to the front to say a few words. I’m gonna present you with a copy of our proclamation. And if you could, I would love it if you could share some of the activities for everyone to hear that are coming up in the remaining two weeks of the month, which would be fantastic. So why don’t you do that first, and it’s a pleasure to see you. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. We’re excited to be here.

[26:14] This is the first time we have been at City Hall during the City Council meeting to have Black History recognized by the city. About four years ago, we wrote about a proclamation for Black History Month, and we jumped a number of hurdles to have that happen. So we are really excited that we’re here today. We have a committee of about 30 folks, volunteers. I have a couple of folks with me, Leroy and Rashid. I’ll have them say a few words about their organizations, but we are excited to present a really full program this month, Black History, London Black History Recording Committee, provides education information.

[27:07] We kind of act as a clearinghouse for events and activities. We do more than February, but I think February is where we shine. We bring a lot of activities and people together. And so this week we have a number of events. And one of the big events that’s happening on Saturday, two events happening on Saturday, is Black Business Open House. We’re doing that with the City of London.

[27:41] And two o’clock on Saturday afternoon, we are premiering our film on the Fugitive Slave Chapel that Mayor talked about, a church being built. This was built 1830s, 1840s as a place of worship, as a gathering place for the community. And it’s been moved to Gray Street, and we moved it again in November to Fanshawe Pioneer Village, where it will be its permanent home. And we will develop programs and activities around the chapel once it’s sort of restored to its sort of original glory.

[28:24] And we have our closing event, the 25th. This go to our web page, LDHCC.ca. You’ll find out all the things we’re doing. And Leroy, you want to say a few words and Rashid? I just want to say thank you so much for your support here. As part of the committee, I work in an organization called LUSO Community Services, and it’s a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic organization. We have a mission statement.

[28:57] If you don’t know where you’re going, you’re never gonna know when you get there. Our mission statement has a three-prong approach, inclusiveness, well-being, and the prosperity of the city. So my responsibility, I’m what’s called the multi-cultural outreach program coordinator. So primarily what I do is a lot of work in the school settings, and a number of different school boards on anti-racism, cross-cultural work, and also regarding black history. So it’s an honor to be a part of the committee with Carl Cadogan. We’ve been on the committee for a number of years, and we’re here as well. It’s just a wonderful opportunity to educate folks. ‘Cause education is a passport to the future. ‘Cause tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.

[29:32] And the committee is changing, so we’re changing with it. So we appreciate your support, and thank you so much for that. I will explain myself in French. (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) Thank you very much, Rashid.

[30:40] Thank you all, and again, we are from Rashid. Thank you very much, Rashid. Thank you all, and again, we are from Rashid, tell me about what’s happening at the community center. We’ve tried to make our committee bilingual, English and French over the last number of years, and we thank people like Rashid who’ve been part of it, and we thank you for inviting us. Thank you very much.

[31:16] (audience applauding) Yes, and I’ll present you with our proclamation in just one second, but please, on behalf of all of council, to the members of the committee who have done so much planning and all the volunteers, please pass along our heartfelt thanks for all of the wonderful activities that are planned this month, and of course, throughout the year. Thank you. - Thank you. I’ll do the next proclamation for my chair.

[32:10] And don’t worry, I meant recognition on proclamation. So for those who followed the news, we’ve obviously seen the very tragic events stemming from the very significant earthquake impacting Turkey and parts of Syria. We have robust communities in the city of London from both of those communities. I know that I’ve spoken to leadership in several of them, and there are many, many Londoners who have families, friends, loved ones who are impacted, who are still missing, and it is a very dire situation there.

[32:50] Looking at media reports even this morning, it’s approaching 40,000 people having lost their lives with thousands and thousands still missing. I certainly passed along both condolences and thoughts on behalf of city council, as well as our support for the fundraising activities that those communities are doing and are about to do to support activities back home in other countries for their friends, loved ones, and others. The Canadian Red Cross I know is accepting donations, and there are other avenues.

[33:23] So if Londoners are looking to assist and help in any way, there are many avenues to do so. But please join me in expressing your thoughts and support for those who are going through a very difficult time in Turkey and Syria. I will move to Councillor Palosa for the final recognition today. Thank you Your Worship. Today I honor and rise to recognize the Women’s March. It’s an annual event held on February 14th since 1992 in remembrance and honor of the lives of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls, two-spirited men and boys.

[34:00] It has been a day to grieve to remember and to highlight the traumatic and wide ranging impacts of the violence against these people, their loved ones and communities. At President Day, indigenous women just currently continue to go missing or be murdered with minimal to no action to address these tragedies or systemic nature of gender violence, poverty, racism, and colonialism. Women and girls 15 years and older of indigenous communities are 3.5 times more likely to experience violence than non-indigenous women and girls.

[34:35] Their violence is also obviously more frequent but also more severe. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has recognized this and we all must take action to help eliminate it. Today at LOSA from 11 to 3, it’s gathering to honor missing and murdered indigenous women, girls, two-spirited men and boys. We thank them for their vital role that they plan the community in helping us all to heal and move forward together. Thank you. Thank you.

[35:06] That completes the recognitions review of Confidential Matters to be considered in public. We have, oh sorry, disclosure of hearing interest from members of council, Councilor Vameer Bergen. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to declare a conflict on the strategic priorities and policy committee report dealing with the budget on item 4.1(b) having to do with business case (b)(2) specifically with children’s services.

[35:42] This children’s services portion as my wife operates her own daycare. Any other disclosures? There’s one other thing I forgot to note at the start of the meeting and that is that the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. If you need to make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension-2425. There are no other disclosures, recognitions are complete. We have no matters to be considered in public.

[36:19] That moves us to council and closed session. For those in the gallery, we do need to move into closed session after the vote. We will have the public leave the room so that we can have our closed session. I will note, given there’s a number of members of the public here, we do have committee rooms open on the second floor. If you’d like to wait there, you certainly could, rather than waiting in the hallway upstairs. I don’t anticipate we’ll take too, too long for our closed session, but we’ll be back for public session shortly after that. So I’ll look for a mover to move in closed session for the items that are listed on the agenda. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Stevenson.

[36:54] Any discussion on moving? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed and vote. Motion carries 15-0. Okay, I’ll just take us a few minutes to move into closed session format.

[37:46] Okay, we’re back in public session. So I’ll call the meeting back to order. We are on item five now, confirmation and signing of the minutes of previous meetings. I have the fourth meeting on January 24th, 2023. I look for a mover for the minutes. Councillor Van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Raman. Any discussion on the minutes? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed and vote.

[38:22] Motion carries 15-0. Next is communications and petitions section six. As you can see, there’s a large number of pieces of correspondence that have come in, both on the regular and added agendas. They all relate to items within the committee reports. So what we usually do here is have a motion to refer all of those pieces of correspondence to the relevant committee reports, which we can do all as one motion. It’s prepared in the system. Is there someone willing to move the referral of all of the correspondence to the relevant portions of the agenda?

[38:55] Councillor Van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Frank. Any discussion on that? Okay, that will open in the system for voting as well. Opposed and the vote. Motion carries 15-0. Number seven, notice which motions is given. I have no notice that motions would be coming forward under this section. So we’ll move to section eight, which is reports.

[39:30] And I will start with the Community and Protective Services Committee and Councillor Palauza to present that committee report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve been given an advance notice to pull item 10 being 2.9, the housing stability service purchase of service agreement template separate and 11 being 4.1, the exotic animal establishments. Okay, does anybody want anything else aside from 10 and 11 dealt with separately? Okay, seeing none, it looks like you can make a motion, Councillor. Thank you, I will put all the items with the exception of 10 and 11 on the floor, noting that these were all unanimous votes at committee and a lot of things just dealt with single source procurement, Parks and Rec Master Plan, and we had a wonderful discussion at committee.

[40:17] Great, are there any questions or comments for the items that are before us? Which is the committee report items one through nine. Okay, seeing none, I will open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[40:54] Councillor. Thank you, I’ll put, I am 10 being 2.9, the housing stability service purchase of service agreement template on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor for consideration. Any questions or discussion? Seeing none, then I will open that one for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[41:32] Sir. Thank you, we have one item left being 11, being 4.1, the exotic animal establishments. As I did not support this at committee, I’ll be unable to move this forward today. So someone else will have to put it on the floor. Was the vice chair okay to do? I can’t remember, no, okay. I need to remember the committee. Councillor Stevenson, you’re willing to present this item. So you’ll have to stand for presenting the item and you’ll be standing for the whole time, but you’ll be able to participate in the debate. So Councillor Stevenson will present item 4.1, which is the committee recommendations on exotic animals.

[42:08] So you’re willing to move that? I’m willing to move that motion, do you read me to read it? I don’t need you to read it, it’s in the council agenda. So to debate discussion questions on this particular item, I don’t see any. So it looks like we can vote on the item that’s before us, Councillor Van Merebergen, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor.

[42:43] Just once again, I have to reiterate, we have to look at the facts of what we’re dealing here, dealing with here. This is a recognized first class organization, the Director of Animal Welfare for this organization is a world leading authority on reptiles. Far from some of the emails that I’ve received from some of the special interests that refer to this as torture and torture chamber of this organization, nothing could be further from the truth.

[43:24] I would ask that we support this referral, and that’s what this is, a referral. And move from there, thank you. Councillor Losa, and then I can go to you. Thank you, it’s gonna be a question for you to staff. If council tonight accepts committee’s recommendation, realizing there’d be a PPM in March, is that PPM in March? Just feedback on the bylaw, like is this a done deal and implemented if we approve this tonight and the PPM is strictly for bylaw wording?

[44:07] Mr. Mathers. Worship, this is not a done deal, so it would be a public meeting, you can take them, but from the public and then make a decision on the bylaw, Councillor. Thank you, this time I’ll just make my comments that this item is not new before council, the prior council dealt with this in the 2018 council term and it’s back before us today. My concerns still remain the same boat, animal welfare, having received many emails from Londoners that they do not want council to go down this path, that this is not, they see a progressive city being, those concerns still remain for me.

[44:46] We’ve received letters from the London Humane Society raising their concerns. We’ve received a letter from Tourism London that as per tourism definitions, as the business model operates now, it does not seek it as school trips are not tourism, as children going with their grandparents when visiting isn’t the definition of tourism. At this point, I’m asking council to vote, no on this item before us tonight. If we vote no tonight, the item is a decided matter of council for the next year and there is no need for another public participation meeting.

[45:19] At committee, we did hear from the chair the London Animal Advisory Committee and many communications have been received. So for me, if we just vote no, make a decision tonight as extensive staff time has been put into preparing potential bylaws, reports asking and answering committees questions, councilors questions, that we have a great deal invested in this for a time behind the scenes and it’s not a path I’m looking at taking for moving London forward. This is not how to move London forward for me. We have bigger things to be focusing on, in my opinion, being housing, homelessness and other needed services in our community.

[45:58] Okay, I have councilor Stevenson next. Okay, yeah, ‘cause you only get to speak once so everybody just realize that at council. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I am going to be quick on this one because I don’t think Londoners want us to spend more time on fertility. I will not be supporting this amendment and I would encourage each and every one of us not to support this amendment. I can go into the many reasons and we have heard loud and clear from Londoners the reasons why this amendment should not be supported.

[46:39] The risks, the lack of enforcement capacity, promoting Susan our city, this just amendment will not just apply to reptilia. I just wanna speak from my point of view. I’ve been on council eight years. This amendment has come to us. This is the fourth time. And each time I did not support it. Nothing has changed.

[47:12] Londoners have not given, I’ve heard from really maybe one person that we need to do this other than the reptilia delegation. Londoners do not want to use in their city. It is going backwards. I’m not going to support this. Nothing has changed since last April other than the accreditation from Cesar, which was removed. I understand reptilia’s applying for another accreditation. But nothing has changed.

[47:49] Londoners do not want zoos in this city. And I would encourage you not to continue the conversation, have this go back to committee, have the public, what are we asking of the public? Are we gonna be listening to the public at committee? I don’t think so. I think we should now make a decision here at council. Thank you. Council approval. Thank you, Chair. I would just like to say a few things and maybe explain why I’ve been behind this and supportive of it.

[48:26] In terms of the due diligence, I did speak to the people in bond, to both the councilor as well as the staff. And in the last 20 years, they had a really great experience with it. No issues whatsoever. And they say it’s win, win, win, win, win for the city, win for the people and win for the organization. I do think, and exactly in the words, it has never poised a single instance of threat to the community or had an animal escape. I did talk to Jim Fassett, who is the CEO of CASA as well.

[49:00] And it was a lengthy conversation. And when we talked to our legal department, we actually would have our restrictions would be at a higher level than the ones in bond. So we actually, our community would be even more protected. I just wanna bring a couple of other things. Currently, we are in terms of the bigger picture. It’s a potential of a London becoming a destination city. And we all travel throughout the world. If you look at certain areas, it always starts with one, two, and they are added on for destinations.

[49:36] We collect from the hotel municipal tax over half a million, sorry, over $3 million a year. From them, we do have an issue coming up with one hotel that’s attached to the RBC center, and they are looking at the conversion. If this conversion happens, it’s gonna limit us with the conventions in our city, and the subsidy potentially will be even higher than before. And I’ll get to you one, I’m gonna add it to the last experience, kind of more personal one. And that’s gonna potentially make you think, kind of potentially more why I’m supporting it.

[50:11] Couple of weeks ago, and it wasn’t the first time I saw the last time. Around midnight, I’m running around downtown with hot soup and hot tea for the people to actually survive, to survive. And we have actually, in a few minutes, we are gonna be talking about public restrooms, downtown London, that we can even keep up open seven to 11, like in summer. We are cutting it down, now there’s another proposal, eight to eight. My point is, are we going backwards? I do agree, I think we are. But on the other hand, I’m looking at it from a different perspective. And yes, reptila is gonna open either way.

[50:46] So again, they will have the reptiles there. So we are talking about specific reptiles that we can limit and make its stricter than in a city of Van. It’s been working there very well. Everyone is happy with it, they are very grateful. And I really, when I say in terms of the backwards, yeah, I’m sorry, it’s not, I love animals, I will always care for them, but I’ll tell you right now, when it comes to the, I do see a potential for helping human lives. We are losing people by the river and on the streets. I’m not gonna say on a daily basis regularly.

[51:20] I’ll tell you right now, I’ve never received email, maybe once a week, maybe once every two weeks, when it comes to the human lives. For the reptiles, we receive so many. I do see it as an opportunity. I really honestly do. It’s not that I don’t care about the reptiles. I just think in a bigger picture, we do have an opportunity to become a destination. And guess what? Start earning the money, what I heard five minutes ago, to help, visit the homeless, et cetera, et cetera. If you look at the provincial and financial, sorry, provincial and federal, and especially the provincial money, visit the new bill, we are gonna be more in charge of our destiny more than ever before.

[52:01] We have to start looking after ourselves after our own growth. And I did think this was a good opportunity for us to grow and make money for the things that we need to make money for. Yes, in this perspective, I see it as a human life, potentially over a reptile life. I will always choose the human life. And I do see an opportunity here. And again, I’m building it. It’s not that we are setting up precedence that we are gonna be the first one in Ontario. We have a proven plan, 25 years plus at one, and everyone so far tells you when, when, when.

[52:36] And I would like to locate this way. Please consider all aspects of it. And thank you. Other speakers, I know Councillor Stephen, so you probably wanna speak last. That’s why you were pulling back. So other speakers, Councillor Trostoff, go ahead. Mayor, thank you very much. In an earlier meeting, you invited me to do some of my own research on this. And I did that, and I did a lot of research. And I’m not going to tell you if I can report it in five minutes.

[53:13] And I’m gonna try to keep my comments very brief. But I just want you to know, we need to say no to this tonight. This is going on too long. We have other things that we need to be doing. And should this persist? Should this linger? There’s a lot more that can be said in terms of why this is a really bad idea. But I really think we have to move on to other things. The CAHPS committee has had a couple of opportunities to put forward a reasonable amendment. I don’t think they’ve done that. And I think the due diligence has not been done. Now, one comment I need to make for sure is we’re being told that there’s never been a problem with the vorner, with the facilities.

[53:57] And there were inspections. There were inspection complaints from pause. And there were a lot of problems. And I can’t, I don’t have time to read all of these. That records could not be found. There were cobwebs. The exhibits were not clear. There was not adequate water put out. The water was green. Snakes were retaining their shed. Again, dried vegetation. The puff powder had a very flat body, less energetic. Lights out, not in real working water.

[54:34] Don’t let anybody tell you that this has just been a spa, that this has just been an easy go, and there haven’t been problems. There have been a lot of problems. They did not get, they did not get their accreditation revoked because it’s a great facility. And I really think at this point, we’re being told a lot of things that are just not true. Like there have not been problems. That’s false, it’s just false. We’re being told this is going to have a great impact in terms of tourism. Well, we have this letter from tourism London, excuse me.

[55:11] Well, we have this letter from tourism London in our packet. They’ve never contacted us. There’s been no analysis. People are talking about how this is going to have a great impact on London as the destination city. There’s no evidence for that. And had they gone to tourism London and got a positive report, that would be a different thing. But let’s not invoke the benefits of tourism if they haven’t even this discussion formally with tourism London.

[55:53] I’ve got a lot more to say in terms of what was in the Toronto report, in terms of the very serious effects that this is going to have on service delivery, on the ambulance, and the hospitals, should there be a problem. And the answer to that has to be more thoughtful than we don’t think this has ever happened. Because there are protocols in place. Treating somebody for inventing is going to be very expensive and it’s going to take qualified personnel. I do not have confidence that this operator is able to do that.

[56:29] So I think I’m just going to, I think I’m going to cut my comments short and not even take my whole five minutes. Because I’ve got a massive data here. None of it points to anything reasonable that can come from this project. So we’ve spent enough time on it by voting no on the committee report tonight. I believe we will put a stop to this and I’ll be voting no and I want to urge everyone on this council vote no. Thank you very much.

[57:03] Other speakers, go to you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I heard Councillor Hopkins ask what has changed and I would say just look at round at the faces around this horseshoe. And will we actually listen if there’s a public meeting? That’s a very good question. Those opposed mentioned human safety, animal welfare, disease transmission and the proliferation of zoos.

[57:43] Vaughn has had reptilia there 26 years and experienced none of those concerns, including the proliferation of zoos. In fact, we received glowing written letters of recommendation stating many of the benefits reptilia has brought to their communities. A quick Google search lets you know that many exotic reptiles are currently for sale in London, Ontario right now. Let alone what can be purchased online. These fears of all of these things are unfounded and there’s a word for that.

[58:18] I hope we’re not making business decisions based on those. None of reptilia’s reptiles are from the wild and 80% are rescued. What do you suggest we do with these unwanted reptiles? We have a struggling mall and commercial tenants that want and need this new tenant. We have teachers that want a new field trip to offer and children who could use the exciting adventure. We have families and seniors who want and need affordable outings, many who can no longer travel even to Toronto. How do we as a city help the businesses and families who are truly struggling right now?

[58:55] For zero cost, we can give them the chance that reptilia brings people into our town and into the mall, that they might buy a meal nearby or stay overnight and go to another of our amazing attractions. We can offer families affordable outings, a new day camp and a new field trip for their class. These are simple things that could make a difference in the lives of some of our residents. Who are we to say no to them? I’ve heard the deputy mayor said that he does not want us backfilling the province on matters of human welfare like homelessness.

[59:29] Are we really gonna do that for animal welfare? Are we gonna backfill the province in terms of animal rights? That’s a pretty, that’s not a stance I wish to take. And if we are gonna take on animals, human safety regarding animal matters to this degree, are we willing to take the same level of scrutiny to our dog parks, to our pet stores and to pet ownership? I have heard councilor Trisseau and others advocate vociferously for getting public input. I trust that that stance won’t waver here and we will allow a public meeting.

[1:00:09] That point of personal privilege, councilor. Sure, go ahead, you have to stand, I’ll hear it. I always stand for council, please stand. I always will stand for a meaningful public input. I am not gonna ask the same people to come back and say the same thing again to the same people. I cannot imagine that we’re going to get more people coming out. If we need to do another PPM, that’s fine. But let’s be reasonable about this. We’ve heard the arguments.

[1:00:41] Councilor, you’ve made your point on personal privilege about correcting your view on public participation. I’m gonna have the matter dealt with as a point of personal privilege, so. With that, I don’t have other speakers, so I’m going to open the vote for, I’m gonna open the vote, and just a reminder, this is the committee’s recommendation, so you’re voting on what the committee moved, which is a referral to a public meeting and all the requests for delegations also be referred to that particular public meeting.

[1:01:17] So that’s what’s before us, that’s what’s on the floor, and that’s what we’ll vote on, and I’ll open the voting. Closing the vote, the motion fails, six to nine. Okay, Councilor Closa, can you leave the vote?

[1:01:52] Sorry, I think Councilor Troso was asking a question about the vote. Yeah, it’s, you can’t put it back up, but you can find the vote in your system, and certainly share that as you see fit. It’s hard to put back up after it’s— That’s okay, so just for the public who has gathered the motion failed, which means it’s not progressing to a public participation meeting in March. And that item concludes the report for the Community Institute Services Committee, thank you. Okay, the next report is the third report of the Civic Works Committee, I’ll go to Councilor Raman.

[1:02:34] Thank you and through you. I’m looking to put first the Civic Works Committee met for their meeting just recently, and on January 31st, sorry, wasn’t that recent, and I’m looking to put forward items for Council today from that report. I have not heard from anyone that’s looking to pull any item at this point. Councilor Vameer, we’re gonna— Thank you, if we could call 2.5 from the report separately, please vote separately.

[1:03:16] Anybody else want anything dealt with separately from this? If you have just a question about an item, you’re not looking to change it, you can ask the question when it’s on the floor. So I’ll go back to you, Councilor DeKrafte, motion one request for something pulled. Thank you, so I will look to put items, all items except for item six on the floor. Okay, so that’s on the floor. Questions, comments, discussion on this?

[1:03:53] Seeing none, then we’ll open all of those items for voting. So there’s Louis Hopkins for error, closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:04:48] Thank you, and I’ll look to put item number six on the floor. Okay, item six is on the floor. Any sort of questions, comments? This is the rapid transit implementation for Wellington Street from Queens Ave to the Thames River, South Branch. Sorry, my apologies for interrupting. Any questions on this? We’ll open that for voting. All those in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[1:05:33] Chair and that is all the items that we’re in, so it works. Thank you. The next item, item 8.3 is the seventh report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting. I’m gonna have Deputy Mayor Lewis present this. This essentially has two items on our pecuniary interest and components of the setting of the strategic plan related to our process along. I believe this is the section that we refer to component to Council on. So I’ll let you navigate us through that, Deputy Mayor. And just so you know, we have preloaded some of those options that we voted on in committee in the system.

[1:06:12] And so we are able to utilize that same process here, but I will let you present the report first. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, I will— It’s not actually what the clerk got me ahead of myself. It’s the ninth one that we have to do that on. So this is the one where we’re just putting the information out, it’s a much easier report. Actually, I was gonna say, I think that we actually need to deal with that later. That this first one is really a four information report. This will be the shortest of the three SPPC reports that we’re gonna deal with today, because Councilor Closell will be up next with the eight report in the budget, but I will put all of the seventh report on the floor.

[1:06:55] Any questions on the seventh report of SPPC? We’ll open that report for approval. Close on the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. That’s the entirety of the seventh report from the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

[1:07:33] Yes, and I’ll come back to my earlier comments later when we get to the ninth report. But first, we have the eighth report of SPPC, which is our budget. And so I will turn it over to Councilor Closell, our budget chair to present all of the items in the budget. I believe there’s at least one pecuniary interest in this section, but I’ll leave it to you to lead Councilor Closell. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, it’s a pleasure at this one time in January we sat here all day. And it’s gonna be much quicker tonight as we’ve already done the work.

[1:08:05] I do need to pull item P2 as there was a conflict that was voted on separately as Councilor Van Merberg and abstained at the budget meeting, and we’ll need to do so again tonight. I’m gonna note that we’ve done the collective work. That was our budget day when we did the full day of deliberations and come to these numbers. And anyone who wanted their vote recognized, that’s in the report we’ll be receiving tonight of those breakdowns of the votes that had split votes on them. So that’s already noted. So hoping we don’t need to pull too much of anything else apart tonight as our votes where we varied are already noted within the report.

[1:08:45] So I will put everything on the floor unless someone else besides Councilor Van Merberg and we’re like something pulled separate. Yeah, so as Councilor said, I know that there were divided votes at committee. Those are all in the report. Certainly if you want to pull it all apart again, we could and vote on them all separately. But as the Councilor mentioned, this represents the collective work of committee and the budget as a whole. She’s put the whole thing on the floor with the exception of Councilor Van Merberg and conflict. Does anybody want anything in the budget dealt with separately beyond what Councilor Ploza has pulled out? Councilor Frank, go ahead.

[1:09:30] I’d like to pull item 10 as it deals with the amendment that Councilor Ferre and I are making about the bathrooms downtown. So we have the conflict plus item 10, which is the entire operating budget separate. Councilor Knowser, can I ask a question before we proceed?

[1:10:14] Is there a budget impact to the change you’re going to make that would require us to change all of the budget numbers? If there’s not, we can proceed one way. If there is, we might need to make that decision first and then proceed with the other votes. I’d like to defer that question to staff if possible. I know we don’t know, we see the letter, but maybe you could perhaps explain. What I’m looking to do is not pass all of the numbers in the budget, go back and change the operating budget and then have to go back and change all the numbers we just passed.

[1:10:47] So I’ll go to the deputy city manager. Thank you through the chair. So because the intent of the motion is to use the one time temporary funding source, we would recommend a draw from the reserve fund and as such, it will not impact the budget approval today and would be done outside of the budget process. Okay, so that means we can consider this without a budget impact, which means we can proceed in the order that I intend to proceed, which is what Councillor Ploesa suggest. Did Councillor Pribble?

[1:11:20] To the chair to the staff, in terms of the reserves, this initiatives was charged to the LCRN in the past. Would it make sense that there’s money still in LCRN to use it for that to finance it through LCRN? Councillor, I’m gonna stop you right there. We don’t actually have that item on the floor. I was just looking for a clarification so I could proceed with the budget votes. When that item comes on the floor, that would be a great part of the debate to ask those sorts of questions. So I’ll let you know when that point comes. I’m gonna go back to Councillor Ploesa’s motion. I’m just gonna have the clerk just let me know exactly the order we’re gonna proceed here.

[1:12:06] We’re gonna do everything except three and 10, then everything on three except two B, which is the Councillor’s conflict, and then that part, and then we can go to 10 when Councillor Frank will want to speak. So right now what we’ll have on the floor, Councillor is everything except three and 10. Okay, any discussion on that? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Van Merebergen, closing the vote.

[1:13:16] Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Ploesa. Thank you, I put item three on the floor. Everything except Councillor Van Merebergen’s conflict. Everything in item three except for the conflict that Councillor Van Merebergen claimed, any discussion on that? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:14:23] Councillor. Thank you, I will put item three, the portion that has Councillor Van Merebergen’s conflict on the floor. Any discussion on that? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse.

[1:15:03] Thank you, I will put item 10 being 4.8th operating budget on the floor, recognizing Councillor Frank and Councillor Ferra, Heaven, Amendment. Councillor Frank. Thank you, and has Councillor Ferra and I have been working on a budget amendment specifically about keeping the downtown bathroom locations open for the eight to eight hours as opposed to 12 to five. And so we circulated draft amendment to Councillors and it was included in your package. We have recently done a couple edits as we had some feedback from various Councillors and from staff, and I have circulated those edits to the clerks and I was hoping they could maybe pull it up, but I don’t know if that’s possible at this time, just for full review with the spirit of the amendment stays the same.

[1:15:52] Sure, and it sounds like Councillor Ferra is willing to second, so we’ll have the move and seconder motion put up so people can see. And then because the public can’t see it, once it’s up, I’d like you to read it out as it is on the screen. So colleagues, click the current item or refresh the screens.

[1:16:57] You should be able to see the amendment now. I’ll go to Councillor Frank just to read it out, just to make sure the public can hear the language as well. Thank you. So the amendment is as followed that city staff be directed to take the administrative actions required to maintain the wash from opening hours provided at the Dundas Place Field House and Victoria Park for the remainder of 2023, or until further information regarding hours in use of public wash and facilities from the housing and homelessness summit strategy is received, funded by one time drawdown from the economic development reserve fund to a maximum of 350,000 and portion B that city staff be directed to compile a report on existing public wash and facilities across the city.

[1:17:39] Their hours of operation, their locations, their staffing requirements and their usage rates for Q3 2023 to allow council to determine if there’s sufficient public wash and access and if the hours of operation align with community programming. That’s moved and seconded discussion. Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I will share that while I was not in support of what was originally circulated, I am in support of this. And I want to thank both Councillor Frank and Councillor Ferrera for being willing to engage in some dialogue with me in terms of getting this to a place where I could support it.

[1:18:17] I think this is something where we absolutely need some more information before we start making decisions. And that’s why I’m really supportive of the section B where we’re going to get a report back. We do, I think, have to take into consideration our staffing capacities, the cost of this, as well as the fact that in this particular case, we’re talking about two washroom facilities in the downtown core. But as we’ve been discussing the strategic plan, there’s been a lot of discussion about equity, accessibility across the city for various things.

[1:18:51] That’s got to include a discussion around public washrooms. I know Councillor McAllister and I share Kiwanis Park, which is a long stretch of great green space in the east end that does have some washroom facilities in it. Those aren’t always available to families even during times where there’s community programming like softball or tea ball going on. And instead, we’ve had porta potties put by the ball diamonds. I’m not sure that that’s necessarily the most effective use of our resources in terms of providing washroom facilities to folks. But I also have heard, and I want to take this opportunity through you, Chair, to ask our staff, just in general terms, because I know we can’t get into specifics of individual situations.

[1:19:36] But as we’re operating right now, are there some staffing labor concerns around the safety of our employees in these locations? Someone to let me know who we could go to for that? Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, just to clarify, the two specific locations that were highlighted for the 300,000 is the Victoria Park and for the Dundas place space. So in both those locations, we, of course, we’re always concerned about our staff and be able to make sure that they feel safe and protected in the workspace.

[1:20:14] In these two locations, we do have security personnel that are also there to aid them. So that is actually part of the cost that you’re seeing today. Thank you, appreciate that. So again, I can see why there’s a desire to have some, what I’m gonna call a stock gap measure to keep these facilities available for a longer period of time this year. But I do think also we have to give ourselves time to absorb some of the information that’s coming back from the Housing and Homelessness Summit. That by the way, I’m gonna take this opportunity to offer a short bit of praise to our city manager, Lynn Livingston.

[1:20:51] I’ve heard nothing but incredible comments about your amazing leadership on through that summit from those who participated. So thank you for all the work that you and other members of staff have put into this already. As we start talking about starting up low barrier, community hub spaces for those who are living rough and living in homeless situations, it’s not just about the washrooms, it may be about providing showers, laundry facilities, those kind of things, but as those hubs are identified and brought into operation, it may change the need for public washroom access, both on Dundas Place and Victoria Park, but consideration of other spaces around our city as well.

[1:21:30] So like I said, I’m very supportive of this where we are now, I was not very supportive of getting a multi-year budget ask in place when we were only gonna talk about two locations and not knowing how the Housing and Homelessness Summit results were going to play out. But what I have here in front of me now, thanks to the Councilors for their engagement on this is something I can support and I hope colleagues will as well. Other speakers to this, Councilor Ferra, go ahead. And thank you and through you.

[1:22:04] I’ll keep it short, I do like to thank the Deputy Mayor, thank you for supporting this. It was our intention to gain as much support in the writing of what we’re trying to push here just so we can get everybody on board because it is something that the city needs. Just a matter of, you know, it’s, keep it really simple to reduce it down. You know, we have an increasing population, we have a lot of people struggling out on the street, we also have our, the general population at large, just walking around that would require these facilities and it just, it does hit a lot of the demographics we have just using the space here in the downtown area.

[1:22:38] So we figured that reducing the hours just doesn’t make sense. So that’s why we did bring the support. So we are looking for everybody’s support to hopefully pass this because these hours, just to maintain them the way they are is needed. So that’s why we were really engaging with the city treasure and the Deputy Mayor just to see if we could make it written in a way that everybody could support. So I do thank you that for that Deputy Mayor and to staff for helping us out on this. And I do hope that we can get support from the rest of council to pass this through. Thank you. Councilor Pribble.

[1:23:12] Mr. Chair, to the staff, just to reiterate what they were saying and I’m regularly in touch with the staff on Dundas Street and they actually feel things are getting better safer and they feel really good, less and less incidents. In terms of, again, I don’t wanna speak of all the residents and businesses downtown, but many actually felt that the summer seven to 11 was much better because it elevates the pressure from both residents and the businesses because in the evening, our homeless population tends to go even more to the businesses because they don’t have any other chance.

[1:23:46] So guess what? They either go to the businesses or they do it outside and then businesses have to clean it up. So actually, I’m grateful for eight to eight, but certainly seven to 11 would be preferred. I do understand that downtown is not the only place in London that’s dealing with this issue, but I’m glad that this has been altered as well. But on the other hand, I was hoping that we would consider potentially even more until the results of the summit are announced or the strategic plan is put in place. Thank you.

[1:24:23] I have my neck and myself next on the speakers list. I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll assume the chair and you are next on the speakers list. Yes, so I want to express my support for the general motion. I do have one suggestion for the movers. In the staff directed report, I think that there’s a number of reasonable and easily measured items contained in that report, but with the specific reference to usage rates when you’re referring to across the city, I know that we don’t have staff monitoring washrooms in neighborhood parks across the city, and nor do I think that that would be a great use of our resource.

[1:25:03] So perhaps if we could put usage information, it might involve surveying or contacting community organizations or other sports organizations that use the fields that could give us some insight into the usage, but not usage rates. I think that that would move us away from having to have a staff member in each and every park across the city, because the way it’s read right now, it would be very difficult to capture that information that there’s someone on site actually capturing it. So that would be my suggestion, otherwise very supportive of the direction that you’re going here, and I’d love to vote for it with that small change.

[1:25:37] Thank you, Worship. I saw Councillor Frank giving a nod and a smile to that, so I’m gonna check with the mover and seconder to see if they’re amenable to changing usage rates, to usage information, and I’m seeing thumbs up from both mover and the seconder, so we’ll just ask the clerk to make that small language amendment, and I will turn the chair back to you, Your Worship. Okay, so that adjustment will be made in the language given the mover and seconder are good with that. Councillor Hopkins, I believe is next. Thank you.

[1:26:09] You got it right, thanks. Thanks to your Worship, and really supportive of this. Thank you to the two Councillors, bringing this forward. I’m glad the change to the report coming back to us is slightly amended here, because I know most of the washrooms out in my area do not have staff or really not even knowing what the times are, and just following up on Councillor Preble’s comments around the time will the report coming back? Would there be an opportunity at looking at the hours?

[1:26:42] I know we’re looking at eight to eight here in the downtown area, but it was interested to hear about the seven to 11, and about the time our washrooms are open. And does that also include porta pots? I know porta pots have brought into some of our parks as well. Just right now is not the conversation I understand, but with the report coming back, I wonder if these areas will also be looked at. Thank you.

[1:27:15] Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. Our read of the direction to staff is that we would report back on all hours of operation of all available public washrooms that would include those that we do not operate directly, like public libraries is our understanding. So a fairly significant and robust enterprise wide piece of work that’s being requested here, but that is our understanding that it would include hours of operation of all those places. And yes, during the pandemic, we did put temporary washrooms in place if we have those, we’ll include them in the report back.

[1:27:51] Thank you, other speakers who haven’t spoken. Julie moved and seconded, you have it. It’s got the language is updated with that small change that I suggested and I appreciate the mover and seconder accepting. So we will open this for voting then. Was in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:28:36] Council will be as amended for this piece. Okay, moving that motion item as amended. And because it’s as amended, I need to seconder. So Councilor Cuddy seconds, is there any discussion on the motion as amended? So this is the operating budget now with this small change in it all of 10 as amended. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:29:41] Councilor. Thank you. And I just want to thank the public, staff and colleagues for the 2023 budget process and for your help throughout it and the public conversations. And it’s been a pleasure to be your chair for it. I look forward to the multi-year budget so far. That comes next and that concludes the A3 report for this strategic priorities and policy committee report. Yes, colleagues. And before we move to the next report, let me just say I asked at the start of the term for you to support Councilor Ploza as the budget chair, which unanimously did.

[1:30:17] I want to thank Councilor Ploza on behalf of all of Council for navigating us through this final piece of the last multi-year budget. And of course you’ll have lots of work to do, leading us through the next multi-year budget. But we appreciate all of the information, that you’ve given us, all of the work that you’ve done with us individually to either prepare or discuss amendments, all of the work that you’ve done with staff in ensuring that Councillors who wanted to make changes or had questions about the budget, we’re able to access that and find the right people, particularly with the number of new Councillors going through this for the first time.

[1:30:51] So I would ask Council to join me in saying a heartfelt thank you to Councilor Ploza. And of course, all of the city staff who do all of the work on the budget process, it’s quite the endeavor to do. I’ve done it a number of times in the past. And so thank you, Budget Chair Ploza, and thank you to our city staff for helping us with that budget. Thank you very much. The good news is there’s lots of meeting left. So we’ll move on to the next item, which is the ninth report of the strategic priorities and policy committee.

[1:31:28] This is the one that I got a little ahead of myself on. There’s a number of items contained in this report. I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present. Thank you, Your Worship, and I guarantee this one is not going to get applause at the end. So I’m going to put the ninth report of the strategic priorities and policy committee on the floor with the exception of, I believe, it’s only item four, 4.2, but I’m going to look to the clerk to make sure that I’ve captured. And that is the piece with the draft values statements where we referred all three to Council without a decision from committee.

[1:32:04] So seeing the clerk nod that that’s correct, I’m going to put the remainder of the report on the floor. This was a very, very busy strategic priorities and policy committee meeting. I’ll just remind colleagues we had the London Health Sciences Center delegation joining us. We had the housing pledge for 47,000 units that we had to deal with. We had the motion around restarting hybrid versions of our community advisory committees. Among other things, we had a resignation from the police board.

[1:32:35] We had an appointment to the ecological community advisory committee dealing to deal with. So we covered quite a lot. We did get some things really fine-tuned a bit on our strategic plan. We did define our mission statement and our vision statement, but we did not complete our value statement. So we’re going to have to go into that next, but I’ll put the remainder of the report on the floor now. Thank you. So that’s everything except the component that the deputy mayor mentioned is on the floor. I have Councillor van Mirberg and with a question or comment. Yes, I’d like to comment on 4.1, which is number three in the agenda.

[1:33:17] Can I do that now? Yes, now, okay. I think it’s important, very important. This has to do with our housing pledge. And I’m supportive of the 47,000 target, and it is a target and a goal given to us by the provincial government. But that being said, we have to be very mindful that the provincial government’s own policy on this clearly states that it has to be the right type of housing in the right place.

[1:33:52] And even our London plan is quite clear on a number of occasions that we must be respectful of existing neighborhoods and the type of housing and intensification that goes next to those neighborhoods and affects those neighborhoods. So, place in the provincial government policy statement itself and in our London plan, it’s very clear that we must be very careful on how we affect existing neighborhoods and being respectful of those neighborhoods.

[1:34:31] Thank you. Other comments on the range of items that are before us today? Councillor Trozal, go ahead. Yes, just briefly, I just wanna reiterate to everybody that this is not the final vote, won anything. There is still a long way to go in this process. The public is gonna have the opportunity to weigh in in a number of ways, and this is a snapshot of where we are to date. So, there is nothing that’s been determined. So, I just think it’s important, I just wanted to say that ‘cause I would not be voting for this at this point, but I am very, very pleased with the progress that this council has made sitting in committee.

[1:35:13] Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments on a number of items before us? No, okay, so the deputy mayor has moved those items. I’m gonna open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Deputy Mayor. Your worship, so I’m gonna put item four.

[1:35:46] This is 4.2 from the committee agenda, developing the 2023 to 2027 strategic plan, continuing to set key elements of the strategic plan. And this is specifically with regard to section, sorry, I just wanna make sure I’m reading the right section. This is regarding the values statement. So, that in subsection C of the E-Scribe discusses all three draft sets being referred to municipal council meeting of February 2014 for consideration.

[1:36:20] Colleagues, this is the three lists of value statements where we had our preferential balloting system used. The third and second place finishers were separated by one vote, the votes moved around during the second round of voting, but we also had two councilors who were unable to participate in that. So rather than go with that single vote, we are here today with all three options before us.

[1:36:54] Well, obviously I’m in council’s hands. My suggestion might be that we revisit all three options now with the members of council present in a preferential ranking system and see where we end up. Of course, if colleagues have had an opportunity to wordsmith and come up with some genius fourth alternative that they wanna put on the floor, now would be the time to do that as well. But if we don’t have anything in that vein that I would suggest that we return to our voting system. Okay, so there’s an approach to this and I wanna be cautious because council members get to only speak once at council.

[1:37:41] So maybe I just wanna get colleagues sense on the way that you’d like to proceed as perhaps the deputy mayor has suggested. So this won’t count as you’re speaking. I’m not gonna go around, but our councilor’s generally okay with doing it as we’ve referred to ourselves, the three options I will allow for another option to be added. We’ll have to type that into the system. So we’ll need a few moments. Go through that preferential ranking again and again, produce a result that would go out for a public dialogue, but that can be revisited at the end of the process, like everything else in the strategic plan.

[1:38:18] So is there general, everybody generally okay with that? No, councilor Trossa, let me know your suggestion then. Yes, since this is not going to be final in any event and since the public is still gonna have the chance to weigh on on this, I see nothing to be gained by us trying to approve this right now. It’s a little piece of the overall report and I think it’s fine for what’s there to go out for public comment. Furthermore, I don’t think we should be wasting, I don’t think we should be spending time at this council meeting doing committee work on wordsmithing what’s there.

[1:38:58] And that’s where this is gonna go. I would just send this on and we’ll get some more public feedback and we’ll have the opportunity to revisit this. We do not need to be finalizing this now or semi-finalizing it now. Okay, give me a second. I’m gonna go ahead, Deputy Marin. Then I’m gonna, I was just gonna suggest what councilor Trossa seems to be suggesting would actually be a referral back to a future SPPC. So let me make a suggestion that I think achieves the same thing.

[1:39:55] Given the motion is actually sending out things to the public for a continued dialogue, a motion that you can make councilor is send all three out for dialogue, which is essentially gonna come back to us and is a referral back to the next SPPC when we’re gonna receive that. And if that passes, that’s how C would be amended to deal with all of them still continuing to be out in the public for dialogue. If it fails, I would entertain an alternate motion to perhaps make a decision on that. So I think that’s really aligns with the way the motion’s currently constructed rather than just a referral because every vision and mission that we’ve already constituted is going out for public consultation.

[1:40:34] And so the values could too, even though we don’t have it narrowed down yet, which is essentially leaving them out there. So councilor, if that’s the motion you’d like to make, that would be an amendment to part C that would essentially be send all three out for public consultation in addition to the mission and vision that is already going there. Well, I’m gonna let you move that and then I’ll look for a seconder of that, councilor Hopkins. Okay, so that is moved and seconded.

[1:41:09] Do colleagues, well, I’ll look for any discussion or debate on this? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. On the amendment only, I in principle agree with the councilor that committee work should be done at committee, not at council. And we’ve obviously gone through a lot today because work was done at committee. However, we referred this to ourselves with no decision after quite a bit of discussion at committee. I am not comfortable sending all three back out. I’ve had a public engagement session already on the strategic plan.

[1:41:44] And I’ll tell you what I was hearing from residents. And by the way, I will thank Ms. Sharer and Ms. Smith for attending on the weekend at East Lyons as well as Ms. Wilcox and Mr. Steinberg. It was great to have them there and answering constituent questions and thoughts. But what people were focused on were the outcomes and the strategies. They were interested in how we were going to get things moving on the issues that mattered to them. And having those outcomes on housing and homelessness and some strategies for those, that was capturing people’s interest.

[1:42:20] The transportation, we added paratransit into the strategic plan as an expected outcome. There was discussion about that on the weekend. People were paying attention to the strategies. There was very little interest honestly in the vision mission values piece. Most residents are interested in the nuts and bolts of how we’re going to get there. And I don’t want to discount the value of the vision mission values piece. But I think for most people, they’re comfortable with what council decides from what I’ve heard from my residents.

[1:42:57] And the more that we put out for ongoing discussion, the more the muddy, the more the waters are muddied in terms of where we’re going to get feedback. I’d really like to continue to focus on the outcomes and strategies with constituents. So I hope that rather than sending this back, we can make a decision today, send out a draft set of values to our residents and then collect their feedback on that. Although I think if councilor’s experiences are like mine, you’ll have a lot of people interested in the nuts and bolts rather than the big picture framework. Other speakers to this?

[1:43:31] Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and at committee, we referred this to council hoping that we’d have everyone present. We have that exactly tonight. We are doing it okay for time and it’s not that our hasn’t grown later into the dinner hour yet. So I’m ready to proceed and make a decision on this when you get public feedback on something specific. Any other speakers to the amendment? Okay, so if you vote for the amendment, we’ll have an amended motion that will essentially put all three back out for public discussion.

[1:44:05] If that is defeated, we’re gonna go through a process of narrowing it down and selecting one that we can put out. And the process we’ll use will be non-binding. The motion will make after the process will be a binding motion of council, not as a final decision, but as the item that goes out. So on the amendment, which is on sending all three out as part of the public consultation again, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion fails five to 10.

[1:44:56] Okay, so we will go through a process of replicating the voting that we did at committee. That is what was referred to us. We have all members of council present. And so for those who recall, you will see all three of the statements up there. You’ll be able to pick one. If one gets majority of council, I would entertain a motion that someone would wanna make to put that out for the public consultation as the item. If it doesn’t receive a majority as the system projects, then we would drop the last one off and we would vote between the remaining two as we did at committee.

[1:45:36] Does everybody understand that piece? So if you click current item for colleagues who are looking for what they are, you should be able to see them listed as items one, two, and three in their full written out way. When we go to the voting, as you know, the system can’t really put giant sentences within. So you only see the first few parts.

[1:46:11] So I wanna give everybody a moment to read them in the order they are there, one, two, and three. So you can decide how you’d like to support those. When we open them, you’ll see the first, I think, seven or eight words of each. So I’ll just give a moment so people can make sure that they’re good with what they’re putting forward. Okay, hopefully everybody’s had a chance.

[1:46:46] If anybody needs more time now is the time to flag it for me. There’s, I just got one request for more time. We’re just gonna give it a moment. Before I get any questions, we can’t have the periods and the last one to separate them.

[1:47:25] There are bullets, I’m sure you can tell where they’re separated. So don’t worry about that. The formatting will be different. I think everybody’s good now. So we’ll open that for our decision-making process, which again is non-binding, but will allow us to see the preferences of council. Closing the vote, there was no majority and a runoff will be conducted for one and two.

[1:49:12] Votes were five for number one, seven for number two, three for number three. So items one and two will be revoted and they’ll be the only options that you have. So everybody ready to proceed? We’ll open that for voting then. Councilor Vanna, closing the vote.

[1:50:41] The successful item is two. And that was 10 to five on that one. So I’d look to see if there’s a motion to now amend the staff report, which was referred this to council to put item two out for public consultation. Someone willing to move that. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Stevenson. Any discussion on making that amendment? No, okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, the motion carries 14 to one.

[1:51:59] So now I’ll put the main motion as amended on the floor. I’ll need a seconder because it’s as amended. Councilor Plosa, any discussion on the as amended motion? We’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:52:51] And that Your Worship concludes the ninth report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. Okay, it’s been three hours and five minutes. I’m gonna ask colleagues if they’d like to take a 15 minute recess given there’s a few planning items that we’re likely going to debate and discuss. So I’ll look for a motion for 15 minute recess moved by. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Ferreira. We’ll do this by hand. All those in favor of a 15 minute recess. No motion carries. Okay, we’ll see you back at 320. Thank you colleagues, you can be seated.

[2:11:11] Okay, thank you for taking that short break. I know I realize everybody think in the room correct to me that it wasn’t three hours, it was only two hours. And I felt like three hours with you guys though. We were on the planning committee agenda. So item 8.6, the third report of planning and environment committee, I will turn it over to Councillor Layman to present that report. Thank you Mayor. I’m pleased to put the third report of the planning and environment committee on the floor. I will pull number 10, which is 49 Upper Clean Street.

[2:11:46] I’ve had no other requests for any other item to be pulled. Councillor Van Mabry ever again. Number 11, if that could be pulled separately as well. Thank you. Anyone else? Right now we have 10 and 11 dealt with separately. I’ll go back to you Councillor to make a motion. So before I put those items on the floor, I will read this.

[2:12:24] It being noted that any and all written submissions relating to applications that were made to the planner and file the planning and environment committee and to the municipal council as well as oral submissions made at public meeting held under the planning act have been on balance taken into consideration by council as part of its deliberations regarding these matters. So I will put all items except for number 10 and number 11 on the floor. Okay, so items one through nine and 12 are on the floor. Any discussion or questions, comments on those?

[2:13:05] Seeing none, we’ll open those items for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Layman. Thank you. As I did not support number 10, I will look to the vice chair back to put that item on the floor.

[2:13:44] Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I will put the committee recommendation on the floor. It being noted that any and all written submissions related to the application 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. Okay, so that item and the committee recommendation is on the floor. I will look for discussion. Councillor Palosa.

[2:14:18] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As this one falls within word 12, I just want to highlight a few things. This was a split vote at committee three to two in favor. This is an infill project in word 12 on Upper Queen Street by Commissioners Road. It’s for us what’s currently zoned as a single family home now having 10 town homes on it. If it was 11 town homes, it would go through site plan as the province has now removed that. There is no site plan for it. Residents still have outstanding questions of where the waste is going to be taken care of on site or at the curb as it’s curb facing.

[2:14:58] It could be potentially blocking the sidewalk. This is a collector’s street through our neighborhood used by cyclists and pedestrians alike as there is a bus route and cycle lanes. There’s concerns still with some visitor parking or deliveries recognizing that there’s no side street parking in the area as there is no side streets. And there is no parking out front as you’d be parking in a cycling lane. So a reminder to people, please don’t stop or park in those. Residents do you want the info? It’s a blank, empty lot in the neighborhood which doesn’t help for connectivity or the look of the neighborhood.

[2:15:38] I reached out to the planners today and they still can’t comment on what building materials they’re gonna be using. If it’s final siding versus brick, just realizing it is an upscale neighborhood with brick homes with a lot of unique architecture and they have concerns about the home not fitting or the town homes not fitting in with the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood, making sure it places in with that. They do recognize as residents that it is underutilized parcel of land and they do want regeneration in this area. They do support mix of housing types within their neighborhood but they’re concerned that it does not align aesthetically with the neighborhood, being the London plan that ensuring new development are a good fit within existing neighborhoods.

[2:16:27] That the frontage of the property doesn’t align to the south end. The home as you can see on page 261 is actually in the backyard of the front row of town homes. Residents are also reporting that some of them are getting unsolicited offers from realtors who would want to buy more properties in the neighborhood and flip them over based on council’s consideration of this. A home just sold up the street from this and there’s also a vacant lot just kitty corridor to it. As this is the first development of its type that’s come before council, residents are even more concerned that this really is setting the new standard of what residents can expect in established neighborhoods that they believe it’s as do I, that it’s over intensification for a single lot.

[2:17:12] And if the homes start being bought up in these neighborhoods and then seeking demolition or demolition by neglect to start flipping over neighborhoods, that’s really the big concern that it’s gonna start changing the character of these neighborhoods. So I’m asking you to vote no on this and I would put an alternate motion forward at that time to ask staff to come back and work with the developers for something of less intensification. Realize me don’t have those site plan controls anymore. Residents really are concerned about the tone that we’re setting, realizing there is a housing crisis in 47 of the homes we’re trying to build, but if neighborhoods start being demolished in established neighborhoods as they’re concerned as mine.

[2:17:52] Thank you. Thank you, I have Councilor Lehman next. Thank you, Chair. I did not support this at planning. As Councilor Palosa said, there are a number of concerns here and let’s start with Bill 23 removing site plan approval for development’s 10 units or less where this falls on there. So there’s no approval process for the look and feel of the building, there’s no approval process for how garbage snow removal will happen or landscaping, but besides that there are other concerns.

[2:18:44] This property will be a paved surface parking lot and this has no affordable housing aspect to it. I think it goes to what Councilor Van Mirberg and said earlier. The London plan does call for infill and high density. However, there is the other side to that and there is that recognition of the need to maintain the characteristics of a neighborhood and of a street and I fundamentally believe that this project does not maintain that of this street.

[2:19:30] Will it affect our goal of achieving 47,000 homes? If this is not approved today and it comes back and reapplied with five homes, no. There’s no affordable housing aspect to it either as I mentioned earlier and I read as well that this is somehow precedent setting that if this was sent back to the developer was not approved today, that somehow there goes all our plans for infill and for high density.

[2:20:11] I couldn’t disagree with more with that. Every project in my five years on council when there is development, there is a heated debate with the public and with councilors on that particular development and the London plan is put this in our labs. It is a judgment call and what is the characteristic of a neighborhood and how does the development affect that? For better or for worse, that’s what we’re charged with. So we’ve had to make decisions in the past on applicability, I guess, if that’s a word of developments.

[2:20:51] So what do we do? Well, we listen to staff ‘cause staff examined it thoroughly and 98% of the time, we agree with that. But there’s a reason we have a council. If we just went ahead with every staff recommendation, what are we here for? We’re here to add sober second thought and debate on certain issues and I think this is one of them. So for the reasons that I said, I will not support this particular development and I encourage my fellow colleagues to the same.

[2:21:33] Deputy Mayor Lewis, thank you, Your Worship. So I voted for this at committee and I’m rising to speak and encourage colleagues to absolutely support this today. First of all, our goal of 47,000 homes is not about 47,000 units of affordable housing. It’s about housing across all point price points because housing is a continuum. People do need to be able to have starter homes that was our often town homes when they move into a new home for the first time.

[2:22:11] They need to be able to move through that continuum. I’m gonna respectfully disagree with the word counselor and I don’t do that very often, but I’ll tell you that the tone and the content of the emails I received was not that the neighborhood supports mixed housing options in their neighborhood. It was actually very, very clear. We want single family homes only. When we had our public participation meeting, we had a gentleman stand up in the gallery and say this would be a great spot for two or $3 million homes. And I said this at committee and I’m gonna say it again, we don’t need more million dollar homes.

[2:22:47] We need more homes period and we need more affordable homes in particular. But as we hear about this being too intense, let’s take for just a moment the consideration that we would allow this to be severed into three single family homes. Well, under right of permission now, there is allowed three units, one accessory dwelling, that could be a secondary dwelling unit, and you could also have another dwelling in the main building. So even if we subdivided into three single family homes, you are still talking about a potential of nine units on this property as a right of permission.

[2:23:23] And this application is for 10 town homes. I had a resident challenge me that if this was happening in your neighborhood, you would absolutely vote no. And my response was no, I would absolutely vote yes because my neighborhood already has this. I can walk less than 500 meters from my front door and have three story walkups in my neighborhood. And if I walk a little bit farther at the end of my street, I don’t have 10 town homes. I actually have 200, I have three complexes of town homes. And those residents are just as valuable and just as welcome in my community as the people living in single family homes.

[2:23:59] So I absolutely dismiss that this is too intense for this lot. As a right of permission, we could have nine units there. The original application had 11 units and it was reduced down at our staff’s request to accommodate pedestrian access way. And I support that active transportation piece, but that’s the trade off that we make when we’re fitting that in, that we’ve now given up the site plan approval process, which if it was one unit larger, we would have. But that is, as was pointed out, provincial legislation. We don’t control that nor do our staff.

[2:24:36] So we have to work within the parameters that we have given to us by the province as well through the Planning Act and its associated acts. I also think it’s really important to touch on the character of the neighborhood. Two-story townhouses, two stories. We’re not talking about a six-story apartment building, staring down into people’s backyards. You go through a residential town, a residential development, a subdivision in a lot of communities, and you have a mix of ranch and two-story dwellings already. And that’s certainly not creating an issue in those communities.

[2:25:11] So to say that two stories is out of character, I respectfully can’t support that thesis. We also heard a lot about transportation issues. Councilor Palosa mentioned the bike lanes and the pedestrian access. Mitch’s park is about 700 meters away from this site. There’s a good community green space that I hope people will walk and cycle to. But this neighborhood collector level street, and I believe, and staff can correct me if I’m wrong through your worship, but I believe this is designated as a primary collector.

[2:25:45] And it currently, traffic volumes are over 12,500 on average every day. So when I hear that this is going to be traffic chaos, because 10 townhouses are going to be built there, again, it’s just not supported by math. It’s not supported by fax. Even if we accept 2.5 trips per day from each townhome, we’re only talking about 25 additional vehicle trips on a road that’s already hosting 12,500 a day. That’s not changing the road capacity.

[2:26:18] It’s not even going to change the classification. It’s not going to bomb 30 seconds. So for all of those reasons, I really encourage colleagues to support this. This is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. It is not violating the London plan, and it is going to create some housing that’s still probably going to cost half a million dollars to get into a townhome. But it is an option for people who are looking for that place to start, and it’s a great neighborhood to do it. So I hope when it is approved, that residents will welcome folks into this neighborhood. Councillor Hopkins.

[2:26:54] Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I, too, supported this at planning. I did hear from the word Councillor that there could be a possibility of a referral. I know we’re speaking to the motion right now. And I would like to, through you go to staff on the timelines that we have here for not only appealing, but if we at council do not make a decision, can the applicant appeal this, or what are the timelines that we have right now?

[2:27:31] Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins, we need your mic. Thank you, through you, Mr. Worship. In terms of the timeline, the bill 109 timelines that is not affected, it’s not a new application, so that those would not be implicated. There is a chance of appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, but that’s with any application beyond the decision point. OK, I just wanted to make sure that because this is probably one of the first of many to come.

[2:28:05] This is not going to be the first 10-unit application that’s going to come to planning to make a decision that will not go through the site plan process. And so we have a bit of time here. I am, again, going to be supporting the application. And I know we’ve heard from the community their concerns, but this is what I understand with this application. The applicant came in three-story, two and a half, and now we’re down to two, which is a two-story single home, even, and I know the community wants single homes.

[2:28:47] That’s what we’re hearing. The reality is we’re not going to get single homes here. So where can we go with this? It’s with this application, we’re locking everything in. We’re locking the height. We’re locking in the density, which is about 36 units per hectare. What is allowed on the site is 60 units per hectare. We’re locking it in at 36, so the applicant will not be able to intensify, go up with the height. It’s an underutilized lot.

[2:29:24] You know how many applications we have come forward, and we’ll continue to come forward when we have lots that do not have a number of trees. It’s underutilized. There’s not going to be too much being removed from this property. I really do think this council should— I want to encourage you definitely to support the recommendation. And if you are not, please remind yourselves, there are going to be some more coming forward.

[2:29:58] So if you are going to say no to this, how are we going— are you going to continue to say no with the many applications that are going to be coming forward, then I’m aware of. So I just want us to be really cautious and understand really the intensity and the height. We’re locking everything out in right now. And I would really encourage you, as difficult as this may be, that the community is going to be experiencing. This, to me, is medium.

[2:30:32] It’s gentle, intensification. Thank you. Other speakers? Councillor Troso. Through the chair question for Steph, this, to me, is exactly the kind of project where site plan review would be useful. I know that it’s no longer required. Are there elements of a site plan that are not cut off by the legislation, which your office can try to address?

[2:31:13] And I’m talking about things that are very specifically within unquestionable municipal jurisdiction, like the streets and safety. It just seems as if the provincial government is doing so much damage to our internal ability. And I just want to make sure there isn’t some little piece of this we can save. Because I think some good site plan questions have been raised. Mr. Maynard? Through your worship, there are limited things that we can do to be able to support.

[2:31:49] Firstly, we reach out to the folks that are actually undertaking this review. Our expectation is that they’re having people with appropriate expertise, professional engineers, that are looking at many aspects of the plans, be able to ensure that they’re not causing problems. We can provide them with the best and appropriate information from the city side, similar to what we do as part of a site plan, and also any kind of interaction with the right of way. So if they do need to have access to the right of way, that’s something that we do have an ability to be able to provide some feedback on and monitor. However, we are very much limited by these new changes to what we can look at.

[2:32:28] So we will do what’s appropriate, but we really do have a lot of reliance on the applicant and their ability to ensure that they’re doing what’s in the public interest. Councillor, go ahead. To what extent is going to a different department now? To what extent does the traffic engineer retain authority to say this is just not a safe way to be coming in and out of this property? Go ahead.

[2:33:03] Your worship all time to answer that, because I don’t believe Bill 23 specifies anything related to transportation. We have the authority to manage intersections as they connect with our roads, to ensure that they are safely designed, that they’re set off far enough away from the most adjacent intersection, those sorts of issues. On a project that’s generally not subject to site plan under 10 units, there would not be traffic concerns. It would be of significance to our department. Councillor, other speakers on this? Councillor ramen.

[2:33:41] Thank you and through you. I’m just wondering if you could speak to the parking that was included in this particular plan. I’m noting that this is above the given parking standards. Just wondering if you can comment. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. Yes, the minimum parking standards are achieved through this site development. They are actually above the doubling. One parking space in the garage and one space within their unit count. There are four visitor parking spaces as well.

[2:34:17] Go ahead. Thank you. And the concerns about that being excess at all? Through you, your worship, excess is something that these are people that are wanting to live in these homes. A lot of people have two cars in a family. And this is that model that, in this case, the developer is choosing to go for. But from a city perspective, they’re meeting the minimum standards of the parking, onsite parking standards.

[2:34:56] Good. Other speakers. So what’s before us is the recommendation coming from committee, which is moved. We’ve had the debate, and I’m going to open that recommendation from committee for voting. Close in the vote.

[2:35:54] Motion carries 11 to 4. Deputy Mayor, I assume you go back to the chair. I will hand the chair back to Councillor Lehman. Councillor Lehman, back to you. Thank you. And I will put number 11. I’ll have to read this again, so bear with me. It being noted that any and all written submissions relating to applications that were made to the Planner and File, the Planning and Environment Committee, and to the Municipal Council, as well as oral submissions made at the public.

[2:36:28] Howland and the Planning Act have been unbalanced, taken into consideration by Council, as part of its deliberations regarding these matters. So I will put that on the floor. OK. The chair has put the community recommendation on the floor. I’ll look for discussions or comments. Councillor Vamea Bergen. Thank you, Mayor. It was kind enough to give each of you basically a photograph with how this proposal will look in this neighborhood.

[2:37:09] I would submit this is suitable for framing on what not to do when we talk about infill and increasing densities and so forth. As I stated earlier, and what Councillor Lehman also restated, it’s very clear in the London Plan that we have to respect the abutting neighborhoods, the adjoining neighborhoods. The Provincial Policy Statement makes it very clear, as well, the right type of housing in the right area.

[2:37:46] And we must show respect to the existing neighborhoods and sensitivity. Now, this is the exact opposite of respect to an existing neighborhood. There’s 95 units. We’re not talking about 10 townhouses. 95 units on one acre of land. This acre, as you can see from what I handed out, currently has 125 trees. Only four will remain after this project possibly gets a go ahead or if it does.

[2:38:20] But you can clearly see here how it just does not fit. It’s in violation of the London Plan and it’s in violation of the Provincial Policy Statement. Clearly, I think simply logic and common sense dictates that this is the wrong building in the wrong spot. It’s too much. We hear words like gentle intensification. This is the opposite. I would submit this is extreme intensification, given what’s there at the moment and what has been there for decades.

[2:38:56] As you can see in the photograph, commissioners is just a small two-lane road, which joins West Mount Crescent, which is also a very small local street. And there it sits. This wall is blocked. It’s wrong. It’s simply wrong. And that, as Councillor Layman pointed out, our job as a council is to look at these things as second silver thought and say to ourselves, no, this can’t go. This one is a non-starter. The neighborhood circulated a petition, which 120, 122 residents signed.

[2:39:36] When I went through there during the election, not one person supports this. And yet here it is. We’re just simply trying to ride roughshod if this goes ahead on the sensibilities of this neighborhood. So what I would propose is a referral, I would like to move a referral, back to planning staff to work with the applicant on lower densities and lower height and bring it back if the applicant so chooses.

[2:40:14] But that would be my referral. Now, some will say, oh, well, it already was referred. Well, yes, that’s true. It went back to look primarily at transportation issues, an entrance, why isn’t the entrance going off commissioners versus Westmount Crescent? No, this referral is to deal with the very substance of the problem. And that is it’s too big, too much in the wrong spot. Again, against the provincial policy statement against the London plan. And so I would ask for your support for this referral.

[2:40:49] And I believe I have a seconder, but let us— Councilor— Let us tell if I just have a couple of sacks. Well, let me pause and get your referral on the floor. And then you can speak to the referral. I’ve stopped your time while I do that. So, is there a seconder for the referral? Councilor Caddie, you’re willing to second? Okay, I see Councilor Hillier as well. So we’ll take Councilor Caddie. So your referral of this matter is on the floor. So you can continue speaking out and get your time going. So I thank the seconder for putting this on the floor.

[2:41:25] I think this is just a sensible, common sense approach to how to deal with this. It could be a very good building, but it’s not in the right spot. It’s not the right type of housing in the right location. So again, violation of the provincial policy statement and a violation of the London plan. I would ask that you would support this referral, support the neighborhood. I should also add that this particular neighborhood already has three very recent intensification projects, right— in fact, one of them is right across the street with 20 townhomes.

[2:42:04] So these haven’t had really any pushback. They’ve been accepted by this community, these three other infill projects. But this one’s beyond the pale. It’s over the top. And I would ask for your basic common sense vote on referring this back to come up with something better and more suitable. Okay, Councilor, we have wording on the referral. I just want to ensure that the mover and the seconder, it aligns with what you said, that the application for 608 Commissioners Road West and then the planning file number, if you referred back to civic administration in order to work with the applicant to bring forward a revised proposed by-law that would reduce the proposed density.

[2:42:47] By-hand. Okay, we’ll add to height. Councilor Carter, you seconded it, are you okay with the height and density? Yes, thank you. Okay, we’ll get that worded the way you like. As soon as it’s updated, you can refresh your screens, make sure you’re okay with it. So now we’re on the referral. So we’ll have debate on the referral that has been put on the floor. I have Councilor Hopkins first. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I appreciate the word counselor’s efforts to refer this back.

[2:43:18] It’s already been referred back for access. We had that come back to us and this is where we are today. I’m only going to speak on the referral and I want to make sure we are not misinformed here as a committee and I’d like to go through you to staff, to our staff, are we violating the London plan and the provincial policy statement with this application? Go ahead. Thank you, Through Your Worship, in the staff recommendation and it’s our opinion that it’s in conformity with the London plan and consistent with the provincial policy statement.

[2:43:57] Councilor Hopkins. And with that, I’ll not be supporting the referral. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. Through you, I too will not be supporting the referral. I did support the referral back earlier in an earlier iteration at committee to look at the access point. I thought that was a legitimate question that the neighborhood had and we’ve looked at it and we were advised that that’s not feasible from a traffic perspective and transportation perspective. I do want to ask through you particularly because this referral speaks specifically to the height. The density piece is in there but I want to specifically address the height and through you to our staff.

[2:44:36] A long commissioner’s road, which is an arterial road, is six stories not already permitted under the London plan given the place type. Go ahead. Through you, Your Worship, yes, that’s correct. And it’s within keeping and it is a higher order street called the Civic Boulevard but it’s an arterial road classification. Go ahead, thank you. I know we’ve got a number of different names. We applied a road classification. So I was hoping the arterial would capture that. So colleagues, I really want to emphasize six stories is already allowed and we’ve got height in the referral.

[2:45:18] I’m not supporting the referral. I think we’ve had lots of discussion on this. I know, I understand that the neighborhood doesn’t like it but on arterial road is exactly the place where we should be looking for the height and density as we build not just the end but up. And so I’m prepared to vote no to the referral and move back to the committee recommendation. I have Councillor Trove sound next. Very similar to the question that I raised on the last item. Is there something specific and not in compliance with the London plan?

[2:45:57] But is there something very, very specific that would benefit from further discussion if there is a referral back? Go ahead. Through you, Your Worship, there would just be another conversation with the applicant but then the day, unless there’s clear language from the direction from council to actually explicitly identify a height, the recommendation would likely be the same recommendation from staff. Other speakers?

[2:46:37] Okay, so you have a motion to refer, Councillor? Oh, if it’s about the wording, the motion, sure. Yes, go ahead. So I think what I’ve heard is it would be preferable to have some type of a number on what the height would be. Could I ask staff if that be helpful, if we have direction as to what the maximum height would be? Councillor, the staff are probably not going to suggest anything different than what’s in the London plan given that’s the city’s official plan.

[2:47:13] So I think if you’re thinking of a number, it would be incumbent upon you or council to decide. I would get the number, I’m just wondering if that would be helpful if there is a number. I think what, I will let staff answer that question. Mr. Mathers, we need your microphone, Councillor. Oh, sorry. Through your worship in any situation where council may have a differing thoughts than staff, it’s always extremely useful to have some specific direction. So if it’s a height or something specific that you’re looking for, that will help us to be able to bring something back and work with the applicant.

[2:47:51] So anything that’s specific, it would be helpful. Councillor? Well, then I would insert no higher than four stories and no more than 64 units ‘cause that would be the formula they’re using now with the six stories. Keep me one second. So I’m gonna allow that if the seconder’s okay with that, but I am gonna caution colleagues that the reason why I’ll allow it be ‘cause the mover and seconder could essentially withdraw the motion and put a new referral on that says this, but I would suggest if you’re going to bring some specifics, I prefer not to, particularly a council, make a motion, reword the motion, reword the motion and reword the motion.

[2:49:02] So I’m gonna allow this because there is a way that you, a path that you could actually do this, and I understand that it’s trying to find a compromise. As long as the seconder’s okay with that specific language, if not, you have to decide whether or not you’re withdrawing your second. With all due respect, I think I’ll withdraw my second for that. I’m not comfortable with the reword at the moment, but I think the councilor has a seconder with another councilor.

[2:49:40] Councilor Hillier, I believe this is going to second. Yeah, so— I’m going to withdraw. The seconder’s not comfortable with the changes you’re making, Councilor. So if you want to add that specifics, I’m gonna have to ask you if you’ve got a seconder for that. Councilor Hillier is willing to take over the seconder. So we’ll put that specific language in. I need to know if there’s any other speakers to the amendment. I don’t wanna have you wrap up. No, I think that’s not a thing.

[2:50:12] We do allow, under the procedure by-law, responding to specific things that were raised in the debate, but there is no general wrap-up allowed in council once you put the motion on the floor. If you’re responding to something specific raised in the debate, that’s allowed. It’s called a reply. Yeah, I just wanted to verify that. Putting in the specifics is helpful for staff. Yes, I think Mr. Mather said that, but I’ll have to confirm that you could use your microphone. Through your worship, it is helpful when there’s a deferring opinion between council and staff’s recommendation. Okay, so a referral moved and seconded.

[2:50:48] If you refresh it, it now has very specific language on maximum height of support stories and a maximum density of 64 units. It’s moved and seconded. We’ve had the debate. I’m gonna open this for voting. This is on the referral. Closing the vote, the motion is lost, five to 10.

[2:51:29] Okay, back to the main motion, which is moved by the chair. Any further debate on the main motion? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, your worship. And I know we’ve heard loud and clear from the community, the challenges with this application, but I also understand that there’s numerous applications happening in the community. And I understand their concerns. And one of the things I guess I’m going to, hopefully council will see this as a friendly amendment.

[2:52:08] Given the challenges with the trees in the area that are coming down, we’ve heard, I think it’s around 125. We’re taking down 118. We already approved a further application, just west of this at the last council. The loss of canopy, the changes that the community will experience I think are real. And I would like to suggest just a friendly amendment to be added by adding the following new Part V11, providing privacy fencing, or a quick-growing coniferous hedge to the south and west boundaries.

[2:52:52] This, and I guess I, before I proceed, I should ask for a seconder. Yes, so there won’t be a friendly amendment. It will be an amendment to this. So I would look for a seconder on that. Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second that. Okay, so now we’re speaking on Councillor Hopkins’ amendment. So I’ll let you proceed. And then I’ll start the speakers list on the amendment. Yeah, and just before I proceed, I would like to go through you to staff to get staff’s comments. And this particularly relates to the self-western boundaries on the property with the number of residential backyards that will be abutting this application.

[2:53:39] There’s gonna be a great loss of trees. And obviously there’s gonna be further conversations around the border trees that may have to come down, but there’s a lot of trees coming down there. And I do think from a privacy and buffering point that an ability to have fencing or some kind of hedging there that stays green all year round may help that privacy. So just would like to hear from staff. Go ahead. So thank you through your worship.

[2:54:15] Yes, it is pretty tight along that south edge that you’re speaking of and privacy fencing and some fast-growing vegetation. It’d be pretty much a hedgerow. That would be the outcome in terms of the landscape treatment along that boundary. Thank you for that. And with that, I did support this at planning. It has affordable units that gives it the density. I do like the tiering of the building. It’s going from six to five. And then on the West Mount Crescent side, going down to four, there is parking there, but there is going to be little space for opportunities to enhance major landscaping.

[2:55:02] So anything that we can do to add to the privacy of the neighborhood. And I am sympathetic to the challenges that the neighborhood is gonna experience, that we do need these infill projects. And again, this is medium density that is coming forward, so I am supportive. Thank you. Oh, I guess I’ll wait. Sure, thanks. So your amendments on the floor, I have seconded and the language is up. If you just want to make sure that that aligns with how you wanted it worded.

[2:55:37] Deputy Mayor Lewis, I had you on the main speakers list. Do you want, is this now an amendment speaker? You’ll wait for the main, okay. Any speakers on the amendment then? Okay, the amendment is worded that part A be amended by adding the following new part VII, provide privacy fencing or quick growing, configure his hedge on to the south and west boundaries. So that’s the amendment. Okay, I see no further discussion, so let’s vote on the amendment.

[2:56:20] The vote motion carries 15 to zero. So I now need a mover for the main motion as amended. Councillor Layman, you were presenting the committee report. Still willing to move it. Okay, Councillor Hopkins is willing to second it. So the as amended motion is now on the floor. Deputy Mayor Lewis, you’re next on the main speakers list. Thank you, Your Worship, I’ll be brief. I’m mainly rising because I clicked the votes button too quickly on the previous referral. I’m not gonna make colleagues go through the process of a reconsideration, it was still defeated.

[2:56:53] So my wrong vote can just stay in the record, but I am gonna correct that by voting in favor of this application as we have on the floor now. I supported it at a committee and I will support it again today. It’s okay, thank you for that clarification and for not making us go through the process of reconsideration. I have no other speakers on the main speakers except for Councillor Frank. Go ahead. Thank you, yes. And I just wanted to speak ‘cause I did support this at committee and I’ll be supporting it here as well. And I want to tell maybe a little bit longer of a story, but I saved all my comments for my one time.

[2:57:31] So I want to share a bit about why I’m kind of making some of these decisions about infil more generally. I grew up in Georgetown, which if you guys aren’t familiar with it, it’s a smaller GTA town towards Toronto, about 42,000 people. And I moved to London in 2009 to come to university and every time I’d go back and visit my parents, it seemed like a concession line of farmland would be gobbled up for new subdivisions. And every time I went to go visit, it took longer to get there because they lived in the middle of the town. There’s more traffic, there are more cars. And every time I came back to London, I started to notice the same thing was happening here.

[2:58:05] Even though I didn’t grow up in London, I started to notice that because I’ve been here for a while and I started to see, again, more and more subdivisions crawling towards the 401 and the edges of the city, it took me longer and longer and longer to get back to my home. So I’m finding with these infil discussions that we’ve been having, we really want to focus on changing how we are growing because we only have as much as it seems like in Canada, we have infinite land to develop, we do not. In London and surrounding area, we are surrounded by farmland. And in Canada, in South Western Ontario, some of the prime agricultural land is in our area, in our neighborhood.

[2:58:41] And I do find it to be quite worrisome how much farmland we are consuming for housing. So in general, these infil applications that are coming in understand that there are people that are opposing them. And I commend them for getting involved in the civic engagement. A lot of their comments are informing changes that staff are making and we have seen reductions as well as changes in parking and locations for driveways. So their input is being heard and it is being reflected on and is being incorporated into these developments. The issue with urban sprawl and gobbling up farmland is that no one lives there except for, you know, maybe a couple houses within a concession line.

[2:59:20] So we don’t hear the same kind of pushback that comes to council. So for those reasons, I’m supportive of this project as well as the one that was passed earlier. Because I do want to live in a city that is building inwards and upwards. And I do want to make sure that we are reducing our missions and building infil uses existing services. It’s cheaper to service. It’s better on our tax bill. It’s not going to hit our operating budget as much as having to build new sewers and new roads and new libraries at the edges of the city. So that all being said, like I mentioned earlier, I truly appreciate the engagement of citizens.

[2:59:55] I am sorry that they do not feel heard ‘cause we got quite a few emails on both these reports. I do think that the work that we’ve done through the campaigning, and at least the work in my ward, I knocked on over 14,000 doors. And I heard that and clear that people want more housing options and I do think that that is, those are some of the voices that I’m listening to and making this decision. So I do appreciate both of the ward councilors’ discussions with their constituents and appreciate the work that they’re doing, but I will be supporting this and just want to share that. Thank you, Councillor Frank, Councillor Pribble.

[3:00:32] So to chair to the staff, my question to the staff is in terms of the future and kind of the strategic thinking. Within one kilometer, I really honest to right now about five projects right now that we are going to be, we have approved or we are going to be approving. I’ll be looking really kind of in terms of the land use, in terms of where the developers are building because there’s a good fair chance that we will need wider roads. Hopefully we are going to start bringing the hydro or not us together with hydro underground sidewalks. And are we really keeping in this mind?

[3:01:04] Because once we approve it, it’s much more difficult to come go back to the developers. This is the time to negotiate with them, right? And are we keeping this mind? Are we taking these steps? As I said, this is really a crucial part of one kilometer with five projects, maybe six. Thank you, Mr. Mathers. Your worship and we’ll lean on other folks if they do want to add in because this really is something that impacts various areas of the city. So in a previous report, we on your agenda is what we talked about our housing supply plan and some very substantial pieces of that that allow for the growth to occur.

[3:01:44] One is that having that infrastructure. That’s really key, whether it’s in intensification or in new areas outside of the intensification areas. We need to make sure that we have that appropriate level of existing infrastructure and also new infrastructure. So we have a couple of ways we do that. One is through our development charges process. And if Annalise has anything to add on that, she can add to it as well. So that allows us to know that we have a plan for how we’re going to provide for the new residents for the city. There are some new constraints that might be on that coming from the potential changes, but we’re here to be able to try to work through that.

[3:02:21] And as well, we have our existing city and allowing for ensuring that when we do our upgrades to any of our infrastructure, and that will be Kelly’s area, of course, that we’re looking at trying to make sure that we can provide people with appropriate servicing as well if we’re renewing it at that time. So a number of different issues that align with this. One thing that as well as is also the shared approach is our growth management and implementation strategy that will allow us to know that in the short term that we’re growing appropriately. And you’ll be able to see that coming forward in the coming months.

[3:02:54] Councilor, you’re good? Thank you. Thank you. I have myself on the speakers of the next, so maybe I can turn the chair over to Councilor Palosa. Thank you, recognizing the mayor. Thank you, colleagues for the debate. I didn’t really weigh in on the previous one, but I’ll make some comments that probably apply to both on this. I wanna thank colleagues for the debate, and particularly those who are raising and sharing the concerns of the communities that are impacted by what will be ongoing, very difficult decisions for us and the community to have.

[3:03:32] As was heard on this particular one, this does align with the official plan and the direction that we’re going. And that official plan was developed before we even had the housing pressures that we see in our city. We will continue to face challenges like this. In some neighborhoods, it may be the first of many, and I know that means that the first project may stand out. If you look at the London plan, it contemplates a significant change along many corridors of the city. And there’s gonna be a first project, and then there’s gonna be a second project, and there’s gonna be a third project, and the city’s gonna transform.

[3:04:07] Even the downtown of the city, once upon a time, didn’t have high density residential towers many, many years ago. Cities transform over time, and those transformations happen because of pressures and housing needs and population coming forward. And as Councilor Frank mentioned, we have several ways that we can grow as a city. One of the ways that we’ve committed to in both our official plan, as well as moving towards in our plan to try to meet the commitments to the province, is through intensification. And that will be an increasingly important part of us being able to meet the housing for the people who are going to come and want to live in our city.

[3:04:44] And for the people here, who are already struggling with affordability because we simply don’t have enough housing options on the market. So I think these will be the first of many discussions we’ll have as a Council. I think what I do appreciate is that although we had differences of opinions today, we shared those respectfully and thoughtfully with great points, and we’re going to come to some decisions. But I will certainly be supporting these sorts of developments when they come forward. It aligns with the vision that I’ve shared with the city through the campaign. It aligns with the direction that the province is going.

[3:05:17] It aligns with the fact that our city is a desirable place for people to come right now as one of the fastest growing cities in the province and the country. And to do that and to continue to make this an affordable city that others will have the opportunity to enjoy a place to live, whether that’s purpose-built rental housing or some of the opportunities for ownership. We’re going to have to continue to have these discussions and I anticipate Mr. Mathers and his team are going to be very busy in answering lots of questions like they did today at Council. And so certainly I also thank them for all of their work. And of course, all of the dialogue that happens between board Councillors and developers and staff and developers to try to find proposals that when they come with a staff recommendation have had some extensive dialogue already built into it to try to find that reasonable path forward that Council can accept.

[3:06:01] And Councillor Layman in a previous discussion is absolutely right. Council does have the final say and final authority. And I’m sure 97.8% of the time we’re going to agree with staff. And the other time is why we have a Council to bring some thoughtful other direction that maybe is based on some other concerns rather than just the planning criteria. So I want to just thank colleagues for the discussion today. I will be supporting the motion and I think we’ll be doing this time and again. But thank you for a respectful thoughtful, the respectful and thoughtful points that you brought forward. Thank you.

[3:06:34] I return chair for you with seeing no for their hands at this moment. Any other speakers? Councillor Van Mierbergen on the amended motion. Yes, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I just have to state one more time. It’s all about type of housing and location. Not too far down the street from where I live. Five large towers are going up with 1,300 units. The community had virtually no pushback on that because it was the right housing in the right area.

[3:07:17] I’m not that far down from this particular corner, maybe about a kilometer or so. But this is 95 units. And in contrast to 1,300, it’s not a lot. But for this one little corner with its 125 trees in all single family homes with no high rises, no commercial, this is wrong. It’s too much. You can have intensification, significant intensification without going overboard.

[3:07:50] This is overboard. I would just simply ask you to vote this down. Any other speakers on the as amended motion? It looks like we’ve concluded the debate. I’m gonna open this for voting. Opposed in the vote.

[3:09:06] Motion carries 12 to three. Councillor Layman. Thank you. It was the third report of the planning environment committee. Okay, item 8.7, the third report of the corporate services committee at Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship. We have a relatively short committee. I’m going to put all items on the floor, except for item five on the council agenda. That’s 2.4 of the declaration of surplus of city owned property at 641 Queens Ave.

[3:09:39] I did not support that at committee. The vice chair will need to put that on the floor today. And I will speak to it at that time. But I’m prepared to put all the rest of the committee report on the floor. Okay, so that’s everything except item five, which is the surplus land component. Any questions or comments on that part of the committee agenda? Okay, so we’ll open that selection of votes for approval. Opposed in the vote.

[3:10:50] Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, Councillor Trocelle, I’ll ask you if vice chair, you can rise and put item five on the floor. Yes, thank you. I would like to put item five on the floor. Okay, item five, is there any discussion or questions? Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, worship. So now that we’ve got this on the floor, I did not support this I committee. This is a referral back to staff to circulate additional notice on declaring a piece of city land surplus.

[3:11:28] When our staff bring forward a recommendation to declare a land surplus, it’s not without a considerable amount of work that’s gone into things behind the scenes in the first place. At committee, we did hear from, and I think through you chair, for the sake of all those involved in making this decision this afternoon, perhaps we could ask Mr. Dickens if he can outline some of the concerns that we have had around staff having to work in and around this piece of land that’s been declared surplus.

[3:12:00] I think that may be helpful for committee to hear. Mr. Dickens. Thank you and through you, your worship. Some of the concerns that have been brought forward with this parcel of land have originated through our calls for the coordinated and formed response team to respond to individuals that are sleeping rough in this area with the tree cover that’s in that space and with some of the sight line difficulties, it has been a challenge to not only access the space in a safe way, but also unsure about what you encounter when you’re in there.

[3:12:38] So the space is not typically utilized for anything beyond issues that we’re responding to on a complaint basis. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. So I thought it was really important for folks to hear that this is a site where some safety considerations are being raised, even though we are not using the land for anything. And this actually is somebody’s backyard behind a fence. And it’s also a very small parcel of property, by the way, if folks have read the report.

[3:13:16] This is not a whole lot of square footage. You’re not building a building there to start offering services. And so I get really concerned when we’re going to circulate it back out to agencies beyond the required distribution that would have gone out in advance of this to the immediate property owners. What we work very closely with a number of agencies in the city on their needs through Mr. Dickens department and certainly a number of those have been involved in the housing and homelessness summit too.

[3:13:51] The moment that we start second guessing our realty services staff on whether or not we’re using the land, I get concerned. Because I get concerned that we are basically moving towards directing staff to find a specific use or a specific buyer for it. And without a partner having come forward already to express interest in this, while I recognize that the response may still come back that we still declare at surplus, I really just think that we are, quite frankly, at this point, micromanaging our property, our realty services staff.

[3:14:33] And I also get concerned when we start talking about the fact that this is municipal land that’s being used as encampments and if we want to refer this back, we are, I think, starting to move down a fairly slippery slope in terms of whether or not we’re designating areas where we’re recommending this behavior is allowed outside of the areas where we already are working through our coordinated and informed response and our by-law enforcement and community partners, London Cares and others to respond when these concerns arise.

[3:15:08] When we hear that we can’t send staff safely in to respond to complaints, that to me is a big red flag. So I hope that we can actually defeat the committee recommendation and if that’s the case, then I am going to put the original staff recommendation on the floor to declare this surplus. Councilor Ferrer. And thank you, through you. I originally supported this motion and the understanding was from what I saw it is, we would be reaching out to community organizations, not necessarily to build because it is, I think, about 1,300 square feet, something very small, but just for some type of community works or projects, you know, I know, I think it was all these villages did have the Tree Nurse Revere originally.

[3:15:54] So that’s what was my intent when we wanted to reach out to organizations just to see if there’s any type of use that they would like for that. On top of that, it was my idea or it was my intention that if no organization did reach out for proper use, I did wanna have some type of first writer refusal for the property owner who’s backyard does back onto that ‘cause I do feel that they should have, if no one steps up saying that they have any use any of the organizations that they would have the first right to actually extend their backyard.

[3:16:27] So that’s why I was supporting the motion originally and I still do support it now just because I would like to see not necessarily to build, but if there’s any type of community work or project that can be done from the organizations on that land, that was the intent from my support. So thanks. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I appreciate and support the comments of the deputy mayor on this. This piece of property does fall within Ward 4. The people that I’ve spoken to in that area agree with the concerns and with the city’s recommendations.

[3:16:59] I will be voting no for this and support the staff recommendation. Any other speakers? Councilor Troso? Yeah, I wasn’t sure ‘cause I thought, anyway, I put this forward at the committee as an amendment. It passed the committee three to two. My intention is not to second-guess the staff. It’s not to second-guess realty services. It’s merely and only to broaden the group of people who get notice for these things. Right now it does not go to certain stakeholders that may or may not have an issue here.

[3:17:42] This is merely and only an attempt to sort of do a little bit more outreach in terms of these types of determinations. So this is merely and only an attempt to give a few more nonprofits that may or may not be interested the opportunity to respond to these generally. Now, at the committee, I took care to ask the staff whether this would create any burden.

[3:18:15] They said no, I took care to ask the staff whether the delay in letting this go through another sequence of committee would cause any prejudice. They said no. So in all fairness, I think that this is being made into a much bigger issue than it really is and we in all likelihood will end up with the same disposition, but I just wanna make sure that there are other entities in the community who are not on the designated list of who gets the initial report to have the opportunity to just look at it.

[3:18:58] And it’s not just with respect to homeless services. There may be situations in the future where it would be nice to see if some of our food growing groups would have notice of some of these requests. In all likelihood, it might not be a good lot for building or for growing food. But what’s the harm in just sending out a few more notices to let these groups know about it? That is all this motion is about. And if you’re in favor of increased outreach to the community, I ask you to please vote in favor of this motion.

[3:19:40] Thank you. Okay, I don’t have any other speakers. Oh, I have some now. Councilor Frank, go ahead. Thank you. Mine is more of a question ‘cause I’ve never dealt with surplus lands. I’m not really sure the process of it, but just trying to understand, if it was declared surplus and then we could sell it, would the community not be able at that point to decide if they want to buy it? I guess, is that a question? Yes, and we can get an answer for that question. So go ahead. Thank you through your worship. So generally, when we have a land that is city-owned, that is surplus, there’s a council policy that we follow.

[3:20:16] We do an internal liaison to see if there is any need in the city of London proper to ensure that before we declared surplus, that we’ve identified that any city-related activities would be taken first. Typically, and Mr. Warner can expand upon this, the policy where we have adjacent parcels of land, we would typically go to them first, in this case, particularly because it is literally in the backyards of some homes, that is likely the most likely purchaser who would be interested in that land, because it’s so small, it would be very not viable to do anything else.

[3:20:51] So typically, we’re looking to see if there is a city-owned interest, and if we need that land, then we would not declare it surplus, or not put forward that recommendation, so that we can make sure that the intent is to ensure that city services are aware if that land is vacant, that it can be utilized to deliver our programs. Otherwise, we would be looking to declare it surplus, and then we would go out to the market to dispose of that land. Councilor, go ahead. Thank you, that’s very helpful. And then I’m assuming that the parking lot of Jason is a municipal parking lot to the space?

[3:21:27] Yes, so I guess I’m just curious as to if or when we do an evaluation of parking lots, and I guess my further curiosity is that kind of intersection and space, to me, looks prime for infill residential development, and losing that space where it could be an opportunity to maybe add some residential units, or something to do with that. I guess I’m just wondering if, I’m like, where about losing it if at one point in 10 or 20 years we wanna develop that area into residential space. So I guess at this point, what I’m wondering is, if we decide to declare it surplus, do we have to sell it, or do we need to declare it surplus and hold on to it for a little bit while staff decide, like if we could use the space around it more effectively?

[3:22:12] Go ahead. Thank you, through your worship. So if the land is declared surplus, then we would go to follow the policy and go to dispose of that. If Council wanted to retain that land, it remains in the city of London and is non-productive space that could otherwise have achieved a cost recovery and/or mitigate the costs of trying to take care of that land in the city’s name. Thank you. Other speakers?

[3:22:48] Okay, so what we have is the committee’s recommendation, which was, I believe, the referral back. So that’s what we’ll be voting on, so I’ll open that for voting. Councilor McAllister, closing the vote.

[3:23:41] Motion fails, six to nine. Okay, so the committee’s recommendation failed. Deputy Mayor Lewis, I think I said yet an alternate motion. Yeah, I’m gonna put the original staff recommendation to declare the land surplus on the floor from the committee report. Seconded by Councillor Stevenson, okay. The original staff recommendation that went to committee to declare the land surplus is now on the floor. I need to debate our discussion on this. Councillor Chaucer. So my question for staff is, if I can’t move a simple amendment past this council to just show some nonprofits in the area, the simple courtesy of getting the advance notice, do I need to come back and try to amend the entire process for surplus land?

[3:24:30] ‘Cause it didn’t seem to me as if asking a few more notices to go out with such a big ask. So do I need to take some further action on this? So that’s a process question on the general policy, I guess, but there’s nothing else that you can, like the matter before us is the matter before us. I can have staff answer what committee you would go to to have such a discussion on the policy on surplus land and I’ll have the deputy city manager answer that. Thank you through the chair.

[3:25:02] The policy that governs is the disposition of surplus land. So that is a council approved policy that we follow. If there were amendments to be made to that, it would go through the corporate services committee. So the matter generally as a policy issue could be raised to corporate services committee? Yes, and again, I didn’t think we needed to change the policy to make this very minor, minor change, but apparently we did. So I will be bringing a review of this policy before corporate services in the future. Okay, so we have the staff recommendation to declare surplus on the floor and any other speakers.

[3:25:40] Seeing Councillor Ferrera, go ahead. And thank you through you. I just have a quick question. So I have read the motion on the floor and I just wanted to confirm, I think I did speak to this at committee and I did kind of get an answer. And I was told that we don’t necessarily say this out, right? But we are going to consider if we go this route that the property owner that’s abutting that property, the backyard, we’re going to be reaching out to that property owner first to give them the first rate of refusal on the land.

[3:26:12] I just wanted to confirm that. Go ahead. Oh, Mr. Warner’s online and I can’t see him. So I’ll go to Mr. Warner. Thank you. Your worship with respect to this particular instance, there are actually three abutting property owners. So typically we would do an invitation tender or an open tender and have all three property owners compete for the acquisition of the property. Councillor Ferrera.

[3:26:44] And thank you. Just, I don’t have the map in front of me, but from what I remember, I remember that there’s, yeah, there’s properties in line off of Queen Street. And then the one that I was talking about would be the property that it directly links, not the ones on either side, but the one that if you were to have like, it would look like a complete parcel of land. That would be the one that I was actually asking to, just because I feel like, you know, if you were to have the other two abutting properties, you would have this, you would have a backyard that kind of wraps around the one property.

[3:27:17] But I guess if that’s through, yeah, sorry, I just want to look at it. Yeah, so that is what I’m saying. So 651 is really what I was referring to because I do see that that seems like it would be a complete parcel of land right to the back. But so from what I’m hearing, you are going to be speaking to the all three properties around that. So I was more focused on the 651 because I did feel like that would be the most appropriate. Yeah, so I think Mr. Warner answered the question on the approach that is taken in this matter.

[3:27:52] So I’ll take that as a comment unless you have got a more specific question. No, thank you, that can be a comment, thanks. Thank you. I don’t have any other speakers on the, what is the original staff recommendation that went to committee? So seeing no one putting up their hand, we’re going to open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to 2.

[3:28:34] And that completes the third report of the corporate services committee. Okay, that brings us to added reports. We have the fourth report of council and closed session, which is always an exciting report. And the volunteer today is Councillor ramen to read out our closed session report. Thank you and through you. And I was fallen told. Okay, your council and closed session report, item one, lease extension and amending agreement 251 Dundas Street, London Public Library, Rapid Transit Implementation Office, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports with the concurrence of the director construction and infrastructure services on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the lease extension and amendment agreement for the lease of office space at 251 Dundas Street known as London Public Library, the lease extension and amendment agreement between the city and the public library, for the lease of approximately 7,495 square feet of rentable area located at 251 Dundas Street for an extension period of five years, commencing January 1st, 2024, and ending on December 31st, 2028 be approved.

[3:29:41] Item two, agreement of purchase and sale of assets from London hydro former substation, number 4822125 Trafalgar Street, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports with the concurrence of the fire chief, London Fire Department on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the city purchase assets from London hydro being the building locating at 2125 Trafalgar Street, as shown on the area location map for the purpose of additional storage and other future potential uses, the following action be taken. A, the agreement of the purchase and sale of assets, submitted by London hydro, the vendor to sell the building and assets to the city for a nominal fee of $5 subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement be approved and be the sale, the bill of sale, submitted by London hydro, the vendor, in connection with the sale of the building and assets referenced in the agreement of purchase and sale of assets be approved.

[3:30:33] Item three, offer to grant Miesman and consent to enter agreement part of 1211 Hyde Park Road, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports with the concurrence of the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to property owned by Motivity Land Inc. Legally described as part lot 24, concession three, part two, plan 33, R8 to four, part one, plan 33, R2, four, eight, eight, save and accept part one, plan 33, R18, 288, and plan part one, plan 33, R19, 669, known municipally as 1211 Hyde Park Road, the following actions be taken, the offer to grant an easement and consent to enter agreement between the city and Motivity Land and Inc, granting the city a permanent non-exclusive access easement subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement for the sum of $196,000 be approved and be the financing of this easement acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report.

[3:31:40] Property acquisition 249 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 Director Realty Services with respect to the property located at 249 Wellington Road, further described as parts of lot 30 and 31, plan 452/4, as in the instrument number 658220, being all of pin 08364-0020LT, containing an area of approximately 4,563.89 square feet, as shown on the location map for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken.

[3:32:28] A, the offer submitted by James Alexander Pin, the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 445,200 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement, and B, the financing of this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report. Item five, offer to purchase industrial lands. Andrew Driani, S.P.A. part of block one plan, 33M592, innovation park phase two, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports on the advice of the Director Realty Services with respect to the city owned industrial land located in innovation park phase two, being composed a part of block one, subject to final survey in the city of London, County Middlesex, further being part of pin 0819, 70320, as outlined on the sketch, the agreement of purchase and sale submitted by Andrew Driani, S.P., S.P.A., under the corporate name Andrew Driani Limited, the purchaser to purchase five acres on the subject property from the city at a purchase price of $825,000 reflecting a sale price of $165,000 per acre be accepted, subject to the conditions in terms of set up in the agreement.

[3:33:49] Thank you, Councillor. So if we could have a motion for all of the items, except for item four, which related to the Wellington Gateway, which I believe a council member wants to deal with separately, is there any other items colleagues would like dealt with separately, Councillor Hopkins, no? Okay, all right, so seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Okay, so this is everything that came at a close session with the exception of the Wellington Gateway. Any discussion? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

[3:34:25] Everything except with the Wellington Gateway piece. Yeah. Opposed on the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Mr. Raman. Thank you, I’ll move to put item four. This is the item related to the Wellington Gateway, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

[3:34:58] Okay, any discussion on this? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Hopkins.

[3:35:53] Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Thank you. We have no deferred matters, any inquiries? Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just through you to Councillor Layman, we had a dearness committee home of management meeting. I’ve been elected chair of the next year, ending the term in this November. Councillor Layman wasn’t with us, so we volunteered them. So just a verbal acceptance of being my vice chair, just the clerk could hear you for the minutes for dearness.

[3:36:32] I would be pleased to accept the position of vice chair in my absence. Thank you and let that be noted to any other colleagues when in absence. We might think you’re the perfect person for the job as Councillor Layman is, so thank you. I’m not even gonna talk about the procedure by-law on that one, any other inquiries that are actually inquiries? Okay, I don’t have any emergent motions, we’re on to by-laws. I know the by-law on the Wellington Gateway, a colleague will want to dealt with separately.

[3:37:09] Are there other by-laws that colleagues would like to dealt with separately? Councillor Stevenson, if you’re not sure which one it is, just tell me the item and we can tell it’s 52 you’d like to dealt with separately. Councillor Van Merebergen. Thank you, Mayor.

[3:37:43] We could call bill 62, 66, and 67 separately, please. Anyone else? It’ll just take us a moment, but it looks like we can deal with, yeah, we’ll deal with bills 46 to 51, not 52, then 53 to 61, not 62, 63, 64, 65, added bills 68, 69, 70, and 72.

[3:38:35] So that would account for all of the things that everybody wanted. Is there a mover for that? Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman. Yeah, it’ll take a moment to get that ready. Okay, so the motion moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman for first reading of bills, 46 through 51, 53 through 61, 63, 64, 65, and added bills 68 to 70, and 72 be approved.

[3:40:57] That’s moved in second, that’s first reading, no debates, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in a vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Moved in a seconder for second reading. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor van Mirberg, and same set of bills, this is second reading, is there any debate? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in a vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[3:41:48] Third reading of this set of bills, I look for a mover, Councillor Ferrer, seconder, Councillor Frank. There’s no debate on third reading, so we will open third reading for voting. Opposed in a vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, the next bill that we’ll do first reading of is bill 52, which is the by-law related to municipal purchase of service agreement for housing stability services.

[3:42:26] I’ll need a mover and a seconder for that by-law. Councillor ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. There’s no debate on first reading, so we’ll have that open for voting in just a moment. Okay, that’s open now, first reading.

[3:43:21] Opposed in a vote, motion carries 14 to one. Second reading of bill 52, I look for mover and a seconder, moved by Councillor Close and seconded by Councillor Ferrer. There is debate on second reading, I need a debate on bill 52. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Second vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[3:43:56] Third reading, bill 52, mover, you know, mover. Councillor Preble, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. There’s no debate on this, so we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in a vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[3:44:36] Next is bill 62, which is a by-law to authorize the East London Link construction for the Rapid Transit Project. Mover and a seconder. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. No debate on first reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in a vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[3:45:19] Mover and a seconder for second reading of bill 62. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Palosa. I need debate on second reading. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 14 to one. Third and final reading of bill 62, moved by Councillor Ferrer, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

[3:45:58] There is no debate on this reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Bill 66, which is a by-law to amend. By-law number Z one to rezone an area of land located at 49 Upper Queen Street.

[3:46:33] Mover for that, Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. There’s no debate on first reading, so we’ll open that for voting momentarily. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Second reading of the same bill. I look for a mover and a seconder, moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Ferrer.

[3:47:08] There is discussion on this, any debate? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Third and final reading of bill 66, moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. There’s no debate on third reading, so we’ll open this for voting.

[3:47:56] Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Okay, bill 67, which is a by-law to amend the Z one, by-law to rezone an area of land located at 608 Commissioners Road West. I will look for a mover and a seconder for this bill, moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. There’s no debate on first reading, so we’ll open that for voting as soon as it’s ready. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[3:48:41] Second reading of bill 67. I need a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank. There is debate on this, any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, third and final reading of bill 67, moved by Councillor Ferrer, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[3:49:24] There is no discussion on this, so we’ll open third reading for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, first reading of the additional bill 71, which is the bill that came out of her in camera session related to the Wellington Gateway. I’ll look for a mover for that. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

[3:49:59] There is no discussion on first reading, so we’ll open bill 71 for first reading voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Second reading of bill 71, mover. Councillor ramen, seconder. Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis. There’s debate on this, any discussion on bill 71? Seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[3:50:49] Third and final reading of bill 71, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, moved by. Councillor Ferrer, seconded by Councillor Layman. There’s no debate on third reading, so we’ll open third reading for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[3:51:26] Okay, that’s it for bylaws. Before we adjourn, it is Valentine’s Day, and I wanna let colleagues know that during the meeting, I received a giant envelope filled with Valentine’s Day cards from London’s Ukrainian community, including a number of newcomers to our city for municipal council. Many written from people in our city for the first time, some including children, so maybe to get you in the Valentine’s Day spirit, I will read just a couple of them before we conclude the meeting, because they are to all of us, and I will make the cards available in my office for anybody who would like to see them, and we can send the envelope upstairs.

[3:52:05] Dear City of London, thank you for your generosity and kindness to new coming Ukrainians in our community. This one, I like Canada because I don’t live under the threat of death. Why I love London? I love London because I can go ice skating, and Canada supports the Ukraine. Thank you to London, Ontario, for the chance to study and to gain knowledge, the chance to work here, and for your support for our Ukrainian community. Thank you, London, for supporting the Ukraine.

[3:52:38] I am grateful to this city for the opportunity to study. Thank you for the place of residence, and I thank you for the clean air. And then this one, Love is. Wherever you are together, London, thank you for the opportunity to live a peaceful life. So I will share these with all of you, but I thought that was a nice way to end the meeting, and with that, I would look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. All those in favor of adjournment? Motion carries.

[3:53:09] Thank you. We are adjourned. Happy Valentine’s Day.