June 6, 2023, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Councillor P. Van Meerbergen was in remote attendance and Councillor E. Peloza was in remote attendance after 2:27 PM

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

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 J. Pribil

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

4.1    Litigation/Potential Litigation / Matters Before Administrative Tribunals / Solicitor Client Privilege        

A matter pertaining to litigation currently before the Superior Court of Justice, Court file No. 783/19 affecting the municipality and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, in relation to the 2016 Sarnia Road Improvements from Wonderland Road North to Sleightholme Avenue, and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/9/CWC)

4.2    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation        

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to 1140 Fanshawe Road East at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/9/PEC)

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

4.4    Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations / Confidential Trade Secret or Scientific, Technical, Commercial or Financial Information Belonging to the City        

A matter pertaining to 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 or local board; a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence to the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization, and for the purpose of giving instructions to officers and employees of the City of London. (6.2/10/CSC)

4.5    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations        

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose.  (6.1/11/CSC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The Council convenes, In Closed Session at 1:19 PM and reconvenes at 1:38 PM.

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

5.1   10th Meeting held on May 16, 2023

2023-05-16 Council Minutes

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Minutes of the 10th Meeting held on May 16, 2023, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

None.

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   9th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2023-05-24 CPSC Report - 9

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 9th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 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) 5th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 5th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 4, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) London Fire Department - Establishing and Regulating By-law (Relates to Bill No.’s 165 and 169)

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 May 24, 2023, related to the London Fire Department Establishing and Regulating By-law:

a)   the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023, to:

i)  approve the continuation and regulation of the London Fire Department;

ii)  repeal By-law No. F-6, being “A by-law to continue and regulate a Fire Department”; and,

b)   the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, on the recommendation of the Fire Chief, BE DELEGATED the authority to form Automatic Aid Agreements, Mutual Aid Agreements and other Fire Protection Agreements, as necessary; it being noted that a by-law to enact the delegation will be brought forward to Municipal Council for enactment. (2023-C01)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Housing Stability for All Plan 2022 Update

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated May 24, 2023, related to the Housing Stability for All Plan 2022 Update:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit the Housing Stability for All Plan (HSAP) 2022 Update to the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as the annual update to the local homeless prevention and housing plan, in accordance with the Housing Services Act, 2011 (HSA);

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate this report to community and affected partners, agencies, and community groups including, but not limited to, Middlesex County, the London Homeless Coalition and on the City of London website; and,

c)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2023-S11)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) 2022-2023 Winter Response Program Outcome Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report, dated May 24, 2023, with respect to the 2022-2023 Winter Response Outcome Report, BE RECEIVED. (2023-S11)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) SS-2023-151 - London Fire Department Single Source Bunker Gear

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 May 24, 2023, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Purchase for Bunker Gear:

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 Innotex Inc., 275 Rue Gouin, Richmond, Quebec, J0B 2H0, for pricing for a single source contract for one (1) year with one (1) option year for the provision of bunker gear to the London Fire Department;

b)    the approval in a), above, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a contract with Innotex Inc. to provide bunker gear 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 set out in parts a) and b) above; 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-AL4)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (4.1) J. Thompson, LIFE*SPIN - Ethical AI Homelessness Tools

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication, dated May 15, 2023, from J. Thompson, Life*Spin, with respect to Ethical AI Homelessness Tools, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that the above-noted communication was received. (2023-S11)

Motion Passed

8.2   9th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2023-05-24 - CWC Report - 9

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 9th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 9 (clause 4.3).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 6th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on May 3, 2023:

a)    that the Working Group comments related to the draft goldfish brochure, as appended to the Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Dingman Creek Pumping Station Consulting Fees Value Increase

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 May 24, 2023, related to the Dingman Creek Pumping Station Consulting Fees Value Increase:

a)   the value of the engineering consulting fees for Stantec Consulting Limited BE INCREASED by $463,025.15, including contingency (excluding HST), due to increased efforts related to the project extension;

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

c)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (E03-2023)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No. 172)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 24, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023, to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”. (C01-2023)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) 2023 New Traffic and Pedestrian Signals and Pedestrian Crossovers (Relates to Bill No. 173)

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 May 24, 2023, related to the 2023 New Traffic and Pedestrian Signals and Pedestrian Crossover:

a)    the installation of the following traffic signals BE APPROVED:

i)     Bradley Avenue W at Wharncliffe Road S

ii)    Commissioners Road E at Chelton Road

iii)   Gainsborough Road at Coronation Drive (west intersection)

iv)   Gainsborough Road at Sherwood Forest Mall Driveway

v)    Hamilton Road at Clarke Road

vi)   Huron Street at Vesta Road

vii)   King Street at Ontario Street

viii)  South Street at Wellington Street

ix)   Sunningdale Road E at North Wenige Drive;

b)    the installation of the following pedestrian signals BE APPROVED:

i)     Fanshawe Park Road W at Foxwood Avenue

ii)    Hill Street at Adelaide Street N

iii)   Medway Park Road at Wonderland Road N

iv)   Morgan Avenue at Wharncliffe Road S

v)    Oxford Street W at Headley Gate

vi)   Springbank Drive at Kensal Park School (west driveway); and,

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023, to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”. (T10-2023)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) Contract Award - Tender RFT-2023-016 Dingman Drive Improvements

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 May 24, 2023, related to the Contract Award for the Dingman Drive Improvements (RFT-2023-016):

a)    the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc., at its tendered price of $9,996,424.25 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. was the lowest of six bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements;

b)    AECOM Canada Ltd., BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration and construction inspection for this project, in accordance with the estimate on file, at an upset amount of $633,819.00 (excluding HST);

c)    in accordance with the Drainage Act, the 2023 Cousins Drain Report by Spriet Associates, BE ACCEPTED as appended to the above-noted staff report;

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

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

f)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work;

g)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (RFT-2023-016); and,

h)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (T05-2023)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (4.1) Downtown Bike Locker Pilot Project Results

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 24, 2023, related to the Downtown Bike Locker Pilot Project Results:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to end the current pilot project phase and continue to offer secure bike parking services with the existing bike lockers in the three existing locations;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to move the Clarence Street lockers for reinstallation at Central Avenue and Richmond Street in early Fall;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide recommendations for bike locker rental fees in 2024 for inclusion in the Fees and Charges By-law; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include learnings from the bike locker pilot project and a financial analysis of additional secure bike parking options as part of the development of London’s Bike Parking Plan as input into the Mobility Master Plan. (T03-2023)

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (4.2) Final Connected and Automated Vehicle Plan

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 May 24, 2023, related to the Final Connected and Automated Vehicle Plan:

a)    the final Connected and Automated Vehicle Plan, as summarized in the Executive Summary appended to the above-noted staff report, BE APPROVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement the various aspects of the plan as opportunities arise. (T10-2023)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (4.3) Automated Enforcement Program Expansion Single Source 2023-142

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 May 24, 2023, related to the Automated Enforcement Program Expansion Single Source 2023-142:

a)    that Traffipax LLC, BE AWARDED the contract for the provision of red light cameras, associated equipment, maintenance, and data transfer services until the end of the contract period on April 30, 2025, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Request for Approvals executed by the City of Toronto (RFP No. Doc2184528757) on behalf of the City of London and other participating Red Light Camera municipalities in accordance with Section 14.4 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that there is an option to extend the contact at the discretion of the City of London for an additional two years (May 1, 2025 to April 30, 2027);

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

c)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the vendor for the work;

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to place the net revenue from the Red Light Camera Program in the Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund; it being noted that any revenue shortfalls will be funded from this reserve fund, if necessary; and,

f)    the information regarding the expansion of the previously approved Automated Speed Enforcement program, BE RECEIVED. (T06-2023)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Trosow

Motion to amend by adding a part g) as follows:

“g)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate and implement additional Red Light Camera locations as may be feasible.”

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Item 9, clause 4.3, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Item 9, clause 4.3, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 24, 2023, related to the Automated Enforcement Program Expansion Single Source 2023-142:

a)    that Traffipax LLC, BE AWARDED the contract for the provision of red light cameras, associated equipment, maintenance, and data transfer services until the end of the contract period on April 30, 2025, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Request for Approvals executed by the City of Toronto (RFP No. Doc2184528757) on behalf of the City of London and other participating Red Light Camera municipalities in accordance with Section 14.4 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that there is an option to extend the contact at the discretion of the City of London for an additional two years (May 1, 2025 to April 30, 2027);

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

c)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the vendor for the work;

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to place the net revenue from the Red Light Camera Program in the Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund; it being noted that any revenue shortfalls will be funded from this reserve fund, if necessary; and,

f)    the information regarding the expansion of the previously approved Automated Speed Enforcement program, BE RECEIVED.

g)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate and implement additional Red Light Camera locations as may be feasible. (T06-2023)

8.3   16th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-05-30 SPPC Report 16

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 16th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 4 (clause 4.1) and Item 9 (clause 2.4).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Update on Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (CDIS and Next Steps

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (CDIS):

a)    the report on the progress and conclusion of the Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy BE RECEIVED for information; and,

b)    the Priority Working Group Members and the Leadership Table BE THANKED for their time and effort in leading the Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.3) SS-2023-120 Single Source: Supportive Housing Model at 403 Thompson Road

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to a Single Source Award Recommendation:

a)    a single source procurement in accordance with s. 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy BE APPROVED to Indwell Community Homes to deliver a Supportive Housing Model pilot project at 403 Thompson Road for a term commencing June 15, 2023, through to December 31, 2025, with the option to extend for four (4) additional one (1) year terms, at an annual operating fee of up to $1,164,000 and initial one-time onboarding expenses of up to $490,000; such onboarding expenses include the one-time capital costs of $158,918 to operationalize the building to provide for the programs, services, and delivery method associated with the proposed Supportive Housing Model;

b)    funding for the initial one-time onboarding capital costs referenced in part a), above, BE APPROVED, as outlined in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2023 as Appendix “A”;

c)    the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development BE AUTHORIZED to jointly approve and execute a Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with Indwell Community Homes and the Housing Development Corporation for the operation of 403 Thompson Road and the initial onboarding services and capital improvements required for Indwell to deliver the proposed Supportive Housing Model;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all other administrative acts necessary in connection with this purchase;

e)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with Indwell Community Homes and the Housing Development Corporation; and,

f)    the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development BE AUTHORIZED to jointly execute amendments to or amending agreements associated with the Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement authorized above;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation on the added agenda from Indwell with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (4.2) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC):

a)      the 2022 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on June 20, 2023, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and,

b)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2022 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) and to invite the President and CEO and the Board/Chair to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated May 19, 2023, from M. Feldberg, President and CEO, Housing Development Corporation, London, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (4.3) Request for Business Cases for the Multi-Year Budget

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated May 30, 2023, from Councillor S. Franke, related to business cases for consideration with the multi-year budget:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare business cases for the following :

i)  New Funding, Existing Strategies - Coves Silver Creek Restoration Project;

b)  the request for a business case for a purchasing natural heritage lands strategy (including compensation requirements for infrastructure projects) BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration in order to report back to the appropriate standing committee with additional scoping details;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated May 19, 2023 from A. Wasylko, Chair, Board of Directors and M. Miksa, Executive Director, London Cycle Link with respect to bicycle infrastructure.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (4.4) Resignation on the London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)  the communication dated May 19, 2023 from P. Chisholm BE RECEIVED;

b)  the resignation of Tammy Brooks from London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors BE ACCEPTED; and,

c)  the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to advertise in the usual manner to solicit applications for appointment for a tenant position to London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors, with applications to be brought forward to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.2) Core Area Land and Building Vacancy Reduction Strategy

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to a proposed strategy that sets out potential tools that may assist in reducing core area land and building vacancy:

a)    the staff report dated May 30, 2023, entitled Core Area Land and Building Vacancy Reduction Strategy BE RECEIVED;

b)    the City of London Core Area Land and Building Vacancy Reduction Strategy, as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED;

c)    the strategic initiatives identified in this Strategy that can be addressed through existing budgets BE IMPLEMENTED; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit business cases for strategic initiatives in the Core Area Land and Building Vacancy Reduction Strategy requiring additional investment through the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget process;

it being noted that some business cases submitted to address other Council priorities may also address, in whole or in part, strategic initiatives of the Core Area Land and Building Vacancy Reduction Strategy;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated May 28, 2023 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (4.1) 2022 Climate Emergency Action Plan Progress Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Climate Emergency Action Plan Progress Report, dated May 30, 2023:

a)  the above-noted report BE RECEIVED; and

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include the following specific actions as part of the implementation of the Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP):

i)    develop and deliver CEAP training to all current and future staff through the onboarding and continued learning processes in a manner consistent with current internal learning and development programs (e.g., Anti-Racism, Anti Oppression) to ensure that all staff members understand how to align their work to CEAP outcomes and make changes in their everyday routine work to align with targets; 

ii)    bring a CEAP update to SPPC twice a year; a comprehensive progress report in May and an update report in the fall; 

iii)    develop a Net-Zero Emission Plan for Corporate Assets to ensure Fleet & Facilities can achieve 2045 corporate targets subject to the approval of appropriate funding in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget; 

iv)    ensure that asset management projects such as retrofits, replacements, renewals, and rehabilitations of City infrastructure make significant and visible efforts to be in line with net zero emission 2045 corporate targets, consistent with CEAP Area of Focus 7, 6a and 6b, while the plan noted above is being developed subject to the approval of appropriate funding in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve Item 4, clause 4.1, part a).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve Item 4, clause 4.1, part b).

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

8.3.9   (2.4) 1st Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on May 17, 2023:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Standing Committee and Council Calendar:

i)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to draft a 2024 meeting calendar with the following parameters:

A)  week 1 - Monday - CPSC - 1 PM

                   Tuesday - CWC - 9:30 AM

                                  - Planning - 1 PM

B)  week 2 - Monday - CSC - 1 PM

                    Tuesday - SPPC - 1 PM

C)  week 3 - Tuesday - Council - 1 PM

ii)   the above-noted draft 2024 calendar BE PROVIDED to the Senior Leadership Team for their feedback; and,

iii)   the Senior Leadership Team comments BE PROVIDED to the Governance Working Group at their next meeting;

b)  the following actions be taken with respect to meetings in closed session at standing committee and Council meetings:

i)    the practice of relocating the Council/Standing Committee members and appropriate staff, during closed session parts of a meeting, BE REIMPLEMENTED; it being noted that hybrid meeting attendance in closed session will be accommodated; it being further noted that this will allow for the public to remain in the Council Chambers during the closed session; and,

ii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with respect to closed session meeting participation best practices that may be the subject of a Council Policy; it being noted that this may be incorporated in the report related to virtual meeting participation forthcoming to committee;

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Governance Working Group with respect to the following potential changes to the Council Members’ Expense Account Policy:

i)    changes to part 4.2 c) vii) related to hosting ward events that will provide additional flexibility and discretion for individual council members in terms of facility use and locations;

ii)    incorporation of permissive language with respect to opportunities for partnerships for council members related to engagement opportunities; and,

iii)    a review and recommendations related to updating existing expenditure annual limits and specific expense amounts that currently exist within the policy;

d)  the following actions be taken with respect to Appointment of Council Members to Standing Committees of Council and Various Civic Boards and Commissions Policy:

i)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on potential policy changes, specific to Standing Committee appointments, that would compel individual members to make complete submissions for appointment consideration, as well as compelling complete selections during any selection process; it being noted that the intention of any such changes would be to facilitate better distribution of work amongst all members;

ii)    additional discussion related to appointments to Civic Boards and Commissions BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the GWG; it being noted that additional information with respect to the participation requirements of these boards and commissions will be compiled; and,

iii)    consideration BE GIVEN to the provision of a summary document from individual Council members that would provide information related to time requirements and commitments of participating on a board/commission;

e)  item 3.5, Current Council Policies, BE REFERRED to the next meeting of the Governance Working Group (GWG) for consideration; it being noted that the GWG requested that related previous staff reports and any environmental scan information be provided at the same meeting;

f) item 3.6, Potential New Council Policies, BE REFERRED to the next meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration; it being noted that the Governance Working Group requested that related environmental scan information be provided at the same meeting;

g)  the matter of a ward boundary review BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group (GWG) for consideration; it being noted that the GWG requested that the most current ward and census information be provided at the next meeting of the GWG;

h)   the next meeting of the GWG BE SET for Monday, June 26, 2023 at 1:30 PM; and,

i) clauses 1.1, 1.2, 3.1 and 2.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

8.4   9th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2023-05-23 PEC Report 9 - Full

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 9th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 7 (clause 2.6), Item 10 (clause 3.1), Item 13 (clause 3.4), and Item 15 (clause 3.6).

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 (13 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on May 10, 2023, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Building Division Monthly Report - March 2023

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Building Division Monthly report for March, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.   (A23-2023)

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) Post Development Environmental Impact Study Monitoring Update

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated May 23, 2023 entitled “Post-Development Environmental Impact Study Monitoring Update” BE RECEIVED for information.  (E05-2023)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) 5-year Review - Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentive Programs - Background Analysis

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated May 23, 2023 entitled “5-Year Review - Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentive Programs Background Analysis” BE RECEIVED for information.  (D19-2023)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.5) 5-Year Review - Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Programs

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the evaluation of Community Improvement Plan and Financial Incentive Programs:

a)    the staff report dated May 23, 2023 entitled “5-Year Review - Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentive Programs”, summarizing community consultations and Civic Administration’s comprehensive review of the City’s existing Community Improvement Plans and associated Financial Incentive Programs BE RECEIVED for information; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate the draft recommendations appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” for public review until June 12, 2023.     (D19-2023)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.7) Closed School Site: Evaluation and Approach (1040 Hamilton Road, former Fairmont Public School)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the letter of interest from the Thames Valley District School Board for the surplus school site at 1040 Hamilton Road:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to express an interest in these lands for the purposes of providing the identified municipal needs of affordable housing and parkland; and,

b)    the report dated May 23, 2023 entitled “Closed School Site: Evaluation and Approach (1040 Hamilton Road, former Fairmont Public School) BE RECEIVED for information.   (D04-2023)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.8) Exemption from Part Lot Control By-law - 1005, 1021, 1051, 1065, 1213 and 1221 Meadowlark Ridge (P-9609) (Relates to Bill No. 168)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application by Rembrandt Meadowlilly Inc., to exempt the following lands from Part Lot Control:

a)    pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023, to exempt lands located at 1005, 1021, 1051, 1065, 1213 and 1221 Meadowlark Ridge, legally described as part of Blocks 1, 4 and 13 on Registered Plan 33M-603, and Parts 5, 6, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32 and 35 on Plan 33R-20017, from the Part Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act for a period not to exceed two (2) years; and,

b)    the applicant BE ADVISED that the cost of registration of the above-noted by-law is to be borne by the applicant in accordance with City policy.    (D04-2023)

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (3.2) 847-851 Wonderland Road South (Z-9597) (Relates to Bill No. 178)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the  application by 1216571 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 847-851 Wonderland Road South, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 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 Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(7)) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(_)) Zone;

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

  •    T. Brydges, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit a new use that is appropriate within the surrounding context; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would provide access to medical/dental offices in a convenient and accessible location to meet the needs of neighbourhood residents.  (D04-2023)

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (3.3) 135 Villagewalk Boulevard (SPA23-005) - Public Site Plan Meeting

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 Uptown Commercial Centre c/o Carlos Ramirez, relating to the property located at 135 Villagewalk Boulevard:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to facilitate the construction of the commercial building; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Council has no issues with respect to the Site Plan Application, and the Council supports the Site Plan Application;

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 Site Plan, as proposed, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which directs development to designated growth areas and that development be adjacent to existing development;

  •    the proposed Site Plan generally conforms to the policies of the Shopping Area Place Type and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to the regulations of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law; and,

  •    the proposed Site Plan meets the requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law.   (D04-2023)

Motion Passed

8.4.14   (3.5) 327 Thompson Road (Z-9579) (Relates to Bill No. 180)

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 Emvy Group Inc., relating to the property located at 327 Thompson Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 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 R2 (R2-2) Zone TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(*)) Zone and a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(**)) Zone; and,

b)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law;

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

  •    N Dyjack, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant site within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development.   (D04-2023)

Motion Passed

8.4.16   (3.7) 1120-1126 Oxford Street East and 2 & 6 Clemens Street (Z-9560) (Relates to Bill No. 182)

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 2863382 Ontario Inc. c/o Royal Premier Developments, relating to the properties located at 1120-1126 Oxford Street East and 2 and 6 Clemens Street:

a)    consistent with Policy 43_1 of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, a portion of the subject lands, representing 2 and 6 Clemens Street, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Urban Corridor Place Type; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 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 R2/Office Conversion (R2-2/OC5) Zone and a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H34) Zone;

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

i)    provide adequate outdoor amenity space, either at grade or through a combination of at grade amenity space and roof top terrace(s);

ii)    differentiate the main building entrance from ground floor units;

iii)    provide a functional layby on site in accordance with the Site Plan Control By-law;

iv)    consent to remove any boundary trees is required prior to final Site Plan Approval;

v)    execution of the lane closure and the provision of a public access easement/easement agreement should be coordinated to occur prior to final Site Plan Approval; 

vi)    at the time of Site Plan Approval, the building design is to be similar to that which was considered at the time of the Zoning By-law Amendment application; and,

vii)    any future Site Plan application for the subject site BE CONSIDERED by the Urban Design Peer Review Panel;

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

  •    a project fact sheet from M. Davis, siv-ik planning / design;

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

  •    J. Smolarek, siv-ik planning / design;

  •    M. Toth;

  •    D. Van Boxmeer;

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 Urban Corridor Place Type policies;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of development that is geared towards the intent, and growth, of the Urban Corridor Place Type.    (D04-2023)

Motion Passed

8.4.17   (3.8) 129-131 Base Line Road West (Z-9578) (Relates to Bill No. 183)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2796538 Ontario Inc. c/o RPH Developments, relating to the properties located at 129-131 Base Line Road West:

a)    the revised, attached, proposed by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 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 lands FROM a Residential R9 (R9-7H32) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (hR9-7(_)*H51) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following issues for 129-131 Base Line Road West through the site plan review process:

i)    a Water Capacity Analysis shall be submitted with the first submission of site plan;

ii)    ensure a 3 metre planting area for trees between the property edge and the edge of the parking garage to provide full protection to any boundary trees and critical root zones; and,

iii)    additional landscaping and/or setbacks will be required to address the removal of the watercourse;

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

  •    a communication dated May 17, 2023 from H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

 

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.; and,

  •    C. McCullich;

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 to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the in-force policies of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, including, but not limited to the High Density Residential Overlay, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies in the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Primary Transit Area and Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of new development.   (D04-2023)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.6) Heritage Alteration Permit - 27 Bruce Street - Wortley Village-Old South Conservation District (HAP23-015-L)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the replacement of the front porch on the heritage designated property at 27 Bruce Street, within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED;

it being noted that the porch alterations do not comply with the policies and guidelines of the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District Plan.   (R01-2023)

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

At 2:24 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 2:27 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the replacement of the front porch on the heritage designated property at 27 Bruce Street, within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED;

it being noted that the porch alterations do not comply with the policies and guidelines of the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District Plan.   (R01-2023)

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

8.4.10   (3.1) 340-390 Saskatoon Street (Z-9599 / O-9600) (Relates to Bill No. 177)

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 Four99 Inc., relating to the properties located at 340-390 Saskatoon Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by AMENDING policy 1070B for Specific Policies in the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject properties FROM a Holding Residential R2/Restricted Office Special Provision (h-216R2-3/RO(6)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R2/Restricted Office Special Provision (h-216R2-3/RO(_)) Zone;

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, Neighbourhoods Place Type, and Specific Policy Areas policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would broaden the scope of permitted uses in an existing building with existing light industrial and associated office uses.  (D04-2023)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Item 10, clause 3.1, BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Four99 Inc., relating to the properties located at 340-390 Saskatoon Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by AMENDING policy 1070B for Specific Policies in the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject properties FROM a Holding Residential R2/Restricted Office Special Provision (h-216R2-3/RO(6)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R2/Restricted Office Special Provision (h-216R2-3/RO(_)) Zone;

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, Neighbourhoods Place Type, and Specific Policy Areas policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would broaden the scope of permitted uses in an existing building with existing light industrial and associated office uses.  (D04-2023)“

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Item 10, clause 3.1 as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.13   (3.4) Additional Residential Unit Amendments as a Result of More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill23) (OZ-9581) (Relates to Bill No.’s 166 and 179)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law requirements for additional residential units:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023 TO AMEND the Official Plan (the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) policies relating to additional residential units in accordance with new requirements in the Planning Act, which were changed through the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23);

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023 TO AMEND the regulations of Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 relating to additional residential units, to conform with the recommended amendments to the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the current five-bedroom limit and report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the current parking and driveway widths policies in additional residential units and report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting;

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

  •    M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

  •    S. Levin, Orchard Park/ Sherwood Forest Ratepayers Association;

  •    A. Kaplansky;

  •    J. Zaifman, CEO, London Homebuilders Association;

  •    S. Bentley, Interim President, Broughdale Community Association;

  •    C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings and Ironstone Building Company; and,

  •    J. Liu;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policy 1.4.3 that requires that the City to plan for an appropriate mix of housing types and densities and permit, where appropriate “all forms of residential intensification, including additional residential units.”;

  •    the recommended amendments will permit additional residential units in accordance with changes to the Planning Act made through the More Homes Act; and,

  •    the recommended amendments align with City initiatives to increase housing supply, including affordable housing. This includes The City of London Housing Pledge that was approved by Council in February, 2023.   (D04-2023)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Item 13, clause 3.4, BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law requirements for additional residential units:

a)    the attached, revised proposed by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023 TO AMEND the Official Plan (the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) policies relating to additional residential units in accordance with new requirements in the Planning Act, which were changed through the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23);

b)    the attached, revised proposed by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023 TO AMEND the regulations of Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 relating to additional residential units, to conform with the recommended amendments to the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the current five-bedroom limit and report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the current parking and driveway widths policies in additional residential units and report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting;

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

  •    M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

  •    S. Levin, Orchard Park/ Sherwood Forest Ratepayers Association;

  •    A. Kaplansky;

  •    J. Zaifman, CEO, London Homebuilders Association;

  •    S. Bentley, Interim President, Broughdale Community Association;

  •    C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings and Ironstone Building Company; and,

  •    J. Liu;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policy 1.4.3 that requires that the City to plan for an appropriate mix of housing types and densities and permit, where appropriate “all forms of residential intensification, including additional residential units.”;

  •    the recommended amendments will permit additional residential units in accordance with changes to the Planning Act made through the More Homes Act; and,

  •    the recommended amendments align with City initiatives to increase housing supply, including affordable housing. This includes The City of London Housing Pledge that was approved by Council in February, 2023.   (D04-2023)“

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Item 13, clause 3.4, part c), BE REFERRED to a future Planning and Environment Committee for further discussion.

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Item 13, clause 3.4, part c), BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the current five-bedroom limit, with the review to include consideration of the Residential Licensing By-law and the Business Licensing By-law as it pertains to Lodging Houses and report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting; and,“

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Item 13, clause 3.4, part c), as amended BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Item 13, clause 3.4, as amended, excluding part c), BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That Item 13, clause 3.4, as amended reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law requirements for additional residential units:

a)    the attached, revised proposed by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023 TO AMEND the Official Plan (the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) policies relating to additional residential units in accordance with new requirements in the Planning Act, which were changed through the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23);

b)    the attached, revised proposed by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023 TO AMEND the regulations of Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 relating to additional residential units, to conform with the recommended amendments to the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the current five-bedroom limit, with the review to include consideration of the Residential Licensing By-law and the Business Licensing By-law as it pertains to Lodging Houses and report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the current parking and driveway widths policies in additional residential units and report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting;

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

  •    M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

  •    S. Levin, Orchard Park/ Sherwood Forest Ratepayers Association;

  •    A. Kaplansky;

  •    J. Zaifman, CEO, London Homebuilders Association;

  •    S. Bentley, Interim President, Broughdale Community Association;

  •    C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings and Ironstone Building Company; and,

  •    J. Liu;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policy 1.4.3 that requires that the City to plan for an appropriate mix of housing types and densities and permit, where appropriate “all forms of residential intensification, including additional residential units.”;

  •    the recommended amendments will permit additional residential units in accordance with changes to the Planning Act made through the More Homes Act; and,

  •    the recommended amendments align with City initiatives to increase housing supply, including affordable housing. This includes The City of London Housing Pledge that was approved by Council in February, 2023.   (D04-2023)

8.4.15   (3.6) 644-646 Huron Street (OZ-9580) (Relates to Bill No.’s 167 and 181)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2614442 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 644-646 Huron Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Report to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of the Official Plan, BE APPROVED;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Report to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-5*R9-3(14)*H13) Zone, TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone, BE APPROVED;

c)    the Site Plan Control Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan control approval process:

i)    the recommendations of the Noise Study be implemented;

ii)    provide a centrally located and adequately sized outdoor amenity space;

iii)    a building design that differentiates the ground floor through the use of pedestrian-scaled elements such as but not limited to, canopies and lighting, alternate window sizes/placement than the floors above;

iv)    a building design that breaks up the perceived mass of the building through façade articulation (recesses and projections), appropriately scaled windows, the use of high quality materials, and appropriate roof forms and pitches;

v)    differentiate the main building entrance from ground floor units;

vi)    investigation by the applicant into whether the Reid Drain storm sewer crossing the property is still active. If active, the Site Plan Control Authority will work with the applicant to consider the possibility of the sewer being re-routed around the building, or alternatively, connected to a storm sewer on the municipal road allowance of sufficient capacity, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;

vii)    inclusion of a functional layby on site in accordance with the Site Plan Control By-law; 

viii)    consent to remove any boundary trees is required prior to final Site Plan Approval; and,

ix)    consultation with the Municipal Housing Development division for the provision of two (2) or more affordable units be undertaken as part of the Site Plan proces;

d)    the Civic Administration, including but not limited to the staff of the Municipal Housing Development team, BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to provide for affordable housing units in the above-noted proposed development;

it being noted that any such units could be a part of the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units, as well as assist with Council’s Strategic focus to increase access to a range of quality affordable house options; and,

e)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the recommended by-law;

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

  •    a communication dated May 18, 2023, from H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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.; and,

  •    Y. Lavie.”

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Item 15, clause 3.6, BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2614442 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 644-646 Huron Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Report to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of the Official Plan, BE APPROVED;

b)    the attached, revised, proposed by-law to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-5*R9-3(14)*H13) Zone, TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone, BE APPROVED;

c)    the Site Plan Control Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan control approval process:

i)    the recommendations of the Noise Study be implemented;

ii)    provide a centrally located and adequately sized outdoor amenity space;

iii)    a building design that differentiates the ground floor through the use of pedestrian-scaled elements such as but not limited to, canopies and lighting, alternate window sizes/placement than the floors above;

iv)    a building design that breaks up the perceived mass of the building through façade articulation (recesses and projections), appropriately scaled windows, the use of high quality materials, and appropriate roof forms and pitches;

v)    differentiate the main building entrance from ground floor units;

vi)    investigation by the applicant into whether the Reid Drain storm sewer crossing the property is still active. If active, the Site Plan Control Authority will work with the applicant to consider the possibility of the sewer being re-routed around the building, or alternatively, connected to a storm sewer on the municipal road allowance of sufficient capacity, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;

vii)    inclusion of a functional layby on site in accordance with the Site Plan Control By-law; 

viii)    consent to remove any boundary trees is required prior to final Site Plan Approval; and,

ix)    consultation with the Municipal Housing Development division for the provision of two (2) or more affordable units be undertaken as part of the Site Plan proces;

d)    the Civic Administration, including but not limited to the staff of the Municipal Housing Development team, BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to provide for affordable housing units in the above-noted proposed development;

it being noted that any such units could be a part of the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units, as well as assist with Council’s Strategic focus to increase access to a range of quality affordable house options; and,

e)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the recommended by-law;

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

  •    a communication dated May 18, 2023, from H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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.; and,

  •    Y. Lavie.”

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Item 15, clause 3.6, as amended BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5   10th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2023-05-23 CSC Report 10

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 10th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of Item 7 (clause 2.5), Item 8 (clause 2.6), Item 9 (clause 4.1), Item 11 (clause 4.3), Item 12 (clause 4.4).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 2022 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring:

a)    the above-noted report BE RECEIVED for information in accordance with section 43 (1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, which requires the City Treasurer to provide a financial statement relating to development charge by-laws and associated reserve funds; and,

b)    the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE DIRECTED to make the 2022 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring available to the public on the City of London website to fulfill Council’s obligation under section 43 (2.1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) 2022 Parkland Reserve Fund Annual Financial Statement and Reporting of Former Section 37 Planning Act (Bonusing) Funds

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Parkland Reserve Fund Annual Financial Statement and Reporting of Former Section 37 Planning Act (Bonusing) Funds:

a)    the above-noted report BE RECEIVED for information in accordance with section 42 (17) of the Planning Act, 1990;

b)    the 2022 reporting of former Section 37 bonusing funds held by the City of London BE RECEIVED for information; and,

c)    the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE DIRECTED to make the 2022 Parkland Reserve Fund annual financial statement and reporting of former Section 37 Planning Act (Bonusing) funds still held available to the public on the City of London website.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) 2022-2026 Multi-Year Accessibility Plan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report dated May 23, 2023, entitled 2022-2026 Multi-Year Accessibility Plan, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.4) Property Tax Assessment by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication dated March 8, 2023 from Mayor J. Morgan and the communication from P. Bethlenfalvy, Minister of Finance regarding Property Tax Assessment by the Municipality Property Assessment Corporation BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.7) Closed Meeting Complaint - Ombudsman Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated May 12, 2023 from P. Dube, Ombudsman of Ontario regarding the January 23, 2023 closed meeting complaint:

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

b)  the actions taken by the Civic Administration in response to the matter, BE ENDORSED.

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Azerbajian Democratic Republican

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated April 28, 2023 from Network of Azerbaijani Canadians, June 7, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Azerbaijan Democratic Republic.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (2.5) Expropriation of Lands - East London Link Project Phase 3 (Relates to Bill No. 170)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, approval BE GIVEN to the expropriation of land as may be required for the East London Link Project, and that the following actions be taken in connection therewith:

a)    application be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving authority, for the approval to expropriate the land required for the East London Link project;

b)    The Corporation of the City of London serve and publish notice of the above application in accordance with the terms of the Expropriations Act;

c)    The Corporation of the City of London forward to the Ontario Land Tribunal any requests for a hearing that may be received and report such to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London for its information; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Schedule “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting on June 6, 2023 to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.5.8   (2.6) Expropriation of Lands - Wellington Gateway Project Phase 3 and 4 (Relates to Bill No. 171)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, approval BE GIVEN to the expropriation of land as may be required for the Wellington Gateway Project and that the following actions be taken in connection therewith:

a)    application be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving authority, for the approval to expropriate the land required for the Wellington Gateway Project;

b)    The Corporation of the City of London serve and publish notice of the above application in accordance with the terms of the Expropriations Act;

c)    The Corporation of the City of London forward to the Ontario Land Tribunal any requests for a hearing that may be received and report such to the Council of  The Corporation of the City of London for its information; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Schedule “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting on June 6, 2023, to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.5.9   (4.1) Budweiser Gardens Expansion and Renovation Proposal

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the Budweiser Gardens Expansion Proposal BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare an amending agreement for the proposed expansion and bring forward a confirmed source of financing for Phase 1, funded through the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund; it being noted that Phase 2 will be forwarded to the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget process;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to confirm concurrence in writing, pending a future Corporate Services Committee report, for the contract extension with Ovations Food Services; and

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a review of the financial case for the proposed expansion including, but not limited to, an overview of the City of London’s return on investment (ROI) expected from the proposed phases of the expansion and a comparison with the ROI in the current agreement to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee;

it being noted that Corporate Services Committee heard a delegation from P. Luukko, Co-Chairman OVG360, B. Ohl, General Manager, Budweiser Gardens and C. Finn, Tourism London with respect to this matter; and

it being further noted that the amending agreement and source of financing will be brought forward to a future Corporate Services Committee meeting.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That the recommendation BE AMENDED by adding a new part e), as follows:

“e)  in support of our Climate Emergency Action Plan and net zero goal, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with OVG360 to bring forward existing and contemplated plans for energy efficiency retrofits to Budweiser Gardens and offer support for any applications to financial grant program for the contemplated upgrades.

it being noted that sources of grant applications for energy retrofits could include: Federal/Provincial Grants and Grants from the FCM Green Municipal Fund.”

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 3:20 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair.

At 3:25 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Item 9, clause 4.1 as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

That Item 9, clause 4.1 as amended reads as follows:

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

a)    the Budweiser Gardens Expansion Proposal BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare an amending agreement for the proposed expansion and bring forward a confirmed source of financing for Phase 1, funded through the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund; it being noted that Phase 2 will be forwarded to the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget process;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to confirm concurrence in writing, pending a future Corporate Services Committee report, for the contract extension with Ovations Food Services;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a review of the financial case for the proposed expansion including, but not limited to, an overview of the City of London’s return on investment (ROI) expected from the proposed phases of the expansion and a comparison with the ROI in the current agreement to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee; and

e)   in support of our Climate Emergency Action Plan and net zero goal, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with OVG360 to bring forward existing and contemplated plans for energy efficiency retrofits to Budweiser Gardens and offer support for any applications to financial grant program for the contemplated upgrades.

it being noted that sources of grant applications for energy retrofits could include: Federal/Provincial Grants and Grants from the FCM Green Municipal Fund.

it being further noted that Corporate Services Committee heard a delegation from P. Luukko, Co-Chairman OVG360, B. Ohl, General Manager, Budweiser Gardens and C. Finn, Tourism London with respect to this matter; and

it being further noted that the amending agreement and source of financing will be brought forward to a future Corporate Services Committee meeting.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:38 PM and reconvenes at 3:48 PM.

8.5.11   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Action Anxiety Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated April 7, 2023 from Anxiety Canada, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further information regarding the organization’s connection to London.

Motion Failed (0 to 13)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the application dated April 7, 2023 from Anxiety Canada with respect to Action Anxiety Day BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5.12   (4.4) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - World Sickle Cell Day 2023

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated May 10, 2023 from Sickle Cell Awareness Group of Ontario, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further information regarding the organization’s connection to London.

Motion Failed (2 to 11)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the application dated May 10, 2023 from Sickle Cell Awareness Group of Ontario with respect to World Sickle Cell Day 2023 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.6   11th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2023-05-30 CSC Report 11

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 11th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   9th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by D. Ferreira

  1.    Lease Agreement – Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Fanshawe Golf Course

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Service, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the Lease Agreement for the lease of Ground Space at the Fanshawe Golf Course, the Lease Agreement between the City and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (the “Landlord”) attached as Appendix “A”, for the lease of the Fanshawe Golf Course lands, for a term of 10 years, at an annual rent of $40,500.00 prior to taxes payable, which is comprised of Part 1, Reference Plan 33R-14008, containing an area of approximately 7.07 acres (2.86 hectares) is attached as Appendix “B”, and Part 4, Reference Plan 33R-14008, containing an area of approximately 65.98 acres (26.70 hectares) BE APPROVED; it being noted that the rent payable is retroactive to June 1, 2022.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enquiries with respect to the Bell Fibre Internet installation project and restoration of boulevards.  Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure provides information to the Council with respect to the matter.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 164 to Bill No. 183, including revised Bill No.’s 166, 177, 181 and Added Bill No. 184, BE APPROVED, excluding Bill No.’s 170 and 171.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 164 to Bill No. 183, including revised Bill No.’s 166, 177, 181 and Added Bill No. 184, BE APPROVED, excluding Bill No.’s 170 and 171.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 164 to Bill No. 183, including revised Bill No.’s 166, 177, 181 and Added Bill No. 184, BE APPROVED, excluding Bill No.’s 170 and 171.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 170 and 171 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 170 and 171 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 170 and 171 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:09 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, 3 minutes)

Please be seated. Colleagues, I’d like to call to order the 11th meeting of municipal council on June 6th, 2023. I’ll start by reading a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran.

We honor and 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, the Haudenosaunee Nanfand Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabek, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabek and the Haudenosaunee. Pre-Indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, no Nida 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.

I also want to mention that the city of London is committed to making every effort to providing alternate formats, communications supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this council meeting, you can contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. And with that, I’m delighted to move to the singing of the National Anthem. From June 10th until 18th, London celebrates Four City Music Week.

This next performer will be a part of the city-wide celebrations in Canada’s UNESCO City of Music. London, Ontario singer-songwriter Bella Rosa grew up in a home filled with music. Her musical style transitioned from pop to rock before she arrived at Alt Pop, a genre that feels like a safe place for her. I can now write how I feel.

Alt can be anything. It doesn’t have to be either happy or sad, she says. She admires artists like Billy English, Madison Beer, and Maggie Lindemann and is influenced by artists like Nella Nelson. She’s gonna correct me on this.

Nessa Barrett and the band Evanescence. With over 300,000 streams on Spotify and more than 160,000 listeners in 152 countries, Bella is an award-winning artist making London proud. Please join me in welcoming Bella Rosa at this time. (singing in foreign language) Next, I’ll move to disclosures of pecuniary interest.

I’ll look to any colleagues who have disclosures to make for tonight’s meeting. Seeing none, we’ll move to recognitions, and I’m gonna start with Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, although our city-wide London Pride Festival does not take place until July, activities and events are taking place this month as Canada officially recognizes Pride month in June, and I rise to recognize that today.

I wanna take this opportunity to recognize that I personally can be here in this chamber today as a duly elected official, because of the work of so many others who came before me, who stood strong in the face of discrimination and oppression, and who stood to say enough was enough, and demanded that 2S LGBTQ+ people be treated equally. I wanna specifically highlight the 2S part without acronym because Indigenous cultures long recognized two spirited people in their cultures as equals, and it was only the arrival of the Europeans that criminalized homosexuality on Turtle Island, another example of the lessons we can learn from our Indigenous peoples, and after centuries of persecution, in 1969 then Justice Minister, an eventually Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau decriminalized same sex activity with Bill C-150, and utter his famous words, “There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” However, decriminalization was only a step in the fight for acceptance and equality, and we have our own history of discrimination and oppression of the LGBTQ2S+ community, right here in London, of course, with former Mayor Diane Haskett and members of council in 1995 refusing to proclaim Pride Week, or former police chief Julian Fantino’s Gay Witch Hunt. Believe it or not, while counselors like Gina Barber and Cheryl Miller or MPs like Irene Matheson have been participating in Pride festivities for many years, it was not until the 2011 Pride that then Mayor Joe Fontana and police chief Brad Duncan first participated in a Pride parade in this community. That’s barely a decade ago before we had a mayor and a police chief participate in Pride.

And it was only in 2018 that the previous council, two previous councils ago, apologized for that 1995 discrimination, thanks in part to support from former counselor, Jesse Helmer and current mayor, and then ward seven counselor, Josh Morgan. I thank you for that, Your Worship. But as far as we’ve come, make no mistake, discrimination and outright threats to the 2SLGBTQ+ community continue to this day. We saw acts of harassment at Wortley Pride last summer.

And as recently as today, threats have been made of a repeat attempt to disrupt the event this weekend. And of course, we’ve seen the outright targeting of the 2SLGBTQ+ community by the council in Norwich, which bowed to bullies and banned Pride flags from municipal property leading to the resignation of counselor Alicia Stubbs in protest. I want to close by thanking all of you, the members of this council, the members of our senior leadership team, the amazing staff of our Prism group here at City Hall, who’ve shown yourself to be allies of and members of a strong 2SLGBTQ+ community in London today. And I want to thank all of those Londoners who’ve reached out and expressed their support to me personally, as I’ve spoken out against the renewed attacks on our community.

So finally, I’m going to borrow a slogan that dates back, at least as far as I could find to the Stonewall rights in the USA, perhaps farther. But to all the bullies out there, who apparently are so insecure in their own sexual identity that they want to intimidate and silence us, we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it. Well said, Deputy Mayor. I’m going to move to the podium for two recognitions that I will make.

Colleagues, today, March marks June 6th. This is the two-year commemoration of the terrorist attack that claimed four lives on Hyde Park Road and three generations of the Absal family, our London family. On this day, we honor the memory of Talit, Salman, Medea, Yumna. We also remind ourselves of the responsibility each of us have to young Faz, the lone survivor of the attack.

We owe it to him and all Londoners to combat Islamophobia, not only on this day, but each and every day. Renting the spread of hatred is a daily exercise, one that involves the full commitment of individuals, communities, and governments. There’s a vigil tonight at Hyde Park and South carriage road. I look forward to joining Londoners of all ages, faiths, and backgrounds who will be in attendance.

And I want to just remark on an experience that I had as we moved through the initiatives that marked the commemoration. One of the many things I participated of was of significance to me was at the Mack Hyde Park location where there was a circle. We have Councillor Ramen and Councillor Lehman were there as well. We’re members of the community shared thoughts, memories, stories about the Londoners that we lost.

And I’ll say that was a very powerful moment for me. It reminded me not only of the impact, the tremendous impact that those Londoners had on our community, their friends, their neighbors, their families. It also made me think about the lost contributions that they could have made. Should this attack have not had happened.

But I do know that each and every one of those Londoners we lost continue to have a positive impact on our community. As you hear the stories of their accomplishments, the way that they approached life in this community, each and every one of them are inspiring in their own individual ways. And I know through those dialogues that I had with their friends and their family members, I learned much more about each of them and learned what I could be inspired by those four brave souls that we lost two years ago. So at this time, I’d like all of us to just rise and join me in a moment of silence to honor our London family and the four lives that we lost that day.

Thank you. To see many of you at the vigil tonight. My psychic recognition is today is not just a day that we remember here in London, but a day that the world remembers ‘cause today marks the 79th anniversary of the Allied Forces Invasion of Normandy, which we call D-Day. Nearly 150,000 Allied troops landed or parachuted into the invasion area on D-Day, including 14,000 Canadians at Juneau Beach.

The Royal Canadian Navy contributed 110 ships and 10,000 sailors. The Royal Canadian Air Force contributed 15 fighter and fighter bomber squadrons to the assault. Our own Holy Roller tank, which now rests in Victoria Park, also landed on Juneau Beach that day. Total Allied casualties on D-Day reached more than 10,000, including 1,074 Canadians of whom 359 were killed.

By the end of the battle of Normandy, the Allies had suffered 209,000 casualties, including more than 18,700 Canadians, and over 5,000 Canadian soldiers died. I know colleagues have heard me say this before, but I will say it again today. We stand here in council chambers and there’s a mace in the ceremonies, and we have our debates and we get to come in here and express the wills and views of our constituents. I think each and every one of us needs to remember when we enter these chambers, the sacrifices and the lives that we’re lost to ensure that democracy, freedom in this country exists in the way it does today.

And that privilege that we’re able to exercise has come at great and tremendous cost through history. And each and every day, I want us to take moments as we enter these chambers and we cast our votes and we have our debates to think about those who made this chamber possible in our city and in cities across Canada and cities across the free world. There are those who continue to struggle with democracy around the world today, and that democracy is more often under threat than it is flourishing. And I know Canada has a strong ally in the world to free and democratic countries, engages where it can in these efforts.

But there are soldiers who are Canadian soldiers today who are on the front lines of those fights who support and train, provide equipment to others. And so although we have the great privilege of being here safe, secure and free in this chamber, there are others who are desperately fighting for those privileges around the world, and they do so with support of Canada. And in some case, some Londoners as well. So in recognition of all those who are lost, including those who made this chamber possible and include those who were from London, who fought in the Battle of Normandy and D-Day, I wanted to ask everybody to rise again for one last moment of silence today for those who we can remember, less we forget.

Thank you. And thank you again to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. I’ll just check to make sure there’s no other recognitions. I don’t think anybody flagged anything for me.

Seeing none, a review of confidential matters to be considered in public, we have none. Council in closed session, we have five items on the regular agenda. There is no added agenda for items for council in closed session. I would look for a mover and a seconder to move into closed session.

I see Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Sir Pribble, any discussion? Okay, that’ll open for voting in the system. And they are for the reasons that are listed on the public agenda. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

Okay, we’ll just be a few minutes as we transition to closed session. For those in the gallery, you’ll have to leave while we do the closed session. It shouldn’t take us too long. And then the doors will be back open.

We’ll really resume public session for the public events of the meeting. Okay, we’re back in public session. Colleagues, thank you for that. I’m gonna move to item five, which is confirmation and signing of the minutes of the previous meetings.

We have the 10th meeting held on May 16th. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder of the Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Any comments or changes to the minutes? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, for the first time in a while, we have no communications or petitions. We don’t have any motions for which notice is given. So we’re on to committee reports and we’ll start with 8.1, which is the ninth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee.

I’ll go to Chair Palosa to present that report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It’s a pleasure to put the entirety of the ninth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee on the floor.

All the votes were unanimous and I have no notice to pull anything separate. Okay, I’ll just check to make sure no one wants to have anything dealt with separately. Chair’s willing to put the whole thing. It looks like the chair’s good to move the motion.

Thank you. So all items are moved and on the floor. Highlights include item, the London Fire Department, establishing and regulating the bylaws, just a routine update from bylaws from a review from 2006. The outcome of our winter response program report was given and the London Fire Department single source purchase for bunker gear, the city found an opportunity to do joint purchasing, which is lovely and wonderful, saving thousands and thousands of dollars per item and with new opportunities to be part of this canoe partnership going forward, hopefully realizing more savings coming back.

So thank you to staff for the work on that. All right, any other comments from colleagues on the items, the whole committee reports on the floor? Okay, I don’t see any. So it’s moved by the chair.

We’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, Councilor. Can I conclude as a report?

Perfect, thank you. Item 8.2 is the ninth report of the Civic Works Committee. I’ll turn it over to Chair Raman to present the report. Thank you and through you.

I’d like to put forward the ninth meeting of the Civic Works Committee. The report is in front of you. The committee met on May 24th. We had really great discussion about the downtown bike walker pilot project and new traffic and pedestrian signals and pedestrian crossover.

I’m looking to put items one through eight on the floor and we’ll be pulling item number nine. So the chair’s willing to move a motion for items one through eight with someone like something else from that one through eight section dealt with separately. Councilor McAllister. Would like item five, pulled?

So that— - So that— Sorry, I did that. Item five? Do you tell me the title or no? No, sorry, they’re mine.

Yes, so the only thing being pulled so far is the automated enforcement program expansion single source. Everything else is in the motion. So, okay, everybody looks good with that. So there are any comments or questions about the items that the chair has put on the floor, which is items one through eight on the council agenda.

Chair, I don’t know if you have any further comments or if we can— Okay, we’ll proceed with the vote then. I’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero.

Thank you and I’ll turn it over to Vice Chair McAllister to put item nine on. Okay, Vice Chair McAllister. Yeah, thank you. And I would like to put item nine on the floor.

Okay, so the Vice Chair will put item nine, which is 4.3 from the committee’s report, automated enforcement of automated enforcement program expansion of single source on the floor. I’ve Councillor Raman on the speaker’s list. Common. Thank you and through you.

I’d like to amend item nine and include the clause that was contained in the report clause G that civic administration be directed to investigate and implement additional red light camera locations. Excuse me, as may be feasible. I’ll allow, I think— Excuse me, one second. And we’ll make sure, just need to get a tiny bit of procedural advice and then I’ll look for a seconder.

Okay, so the vote was lost on a tie committee, which means there was no recommendation from the committee on that. So there’s nothing to defeat. So the addition of this is an amendment. I’m going to take as a legitimate addition and I’ll look for a seconder for that amendment.

Councillor Trost, I was willing to second. We’re gonna get that up on the screen, so colleagues can see it. And I’ll open debate on this. I remember we’re at council, so you have to speak once, so you should time wisely.

I will go to the councilor who moved it to provide the rationale for the moving. Thank you and through you. So we had some discussion at committee about this and as you’ll see, it was a two-two vote. And what we heard from staff was that there was opportunity to look at additional locations for investigation and implementation.

What we also heard quite clearly is that we do see value in this program, that there is value to those that are driving in their vehicles and the types of injuries and the types of accidents that occur when we have red light cameras. We see a reduction, which I think is really important. And then we also see that halo effect that it also encourages better driving behaviors outside of where that red light camera is as well. So knowing that we’re seeing value, knowing that we have a program that is, my opinion, fiscally, a responsible program as well.

I do see opportunity with the staff providing their guidance as to where these can be implemented. And so that’s why I deem this worthy to put forward. Okay, I’ll look for a speaker’s list for debate. Councilor Frank, go ahead.

Thank you, yes, I’ll be supporting this as well. I had a friend recently almost get hit, well, she did get hit, her bicycle got hit by somebody’s being read at Wellington and York recently. And I think that not only is this good from a financial perspective, but from a safety perspective, trying to ensure that people who are walking or biking are able to do it safely at some of these major intersections. And I hear constantly time and time again that people are running reds because they’re getting frustrated.

And I think there’s a very large human cost that we run the risk at if we don’t move forward with trying to prevent these. And I think this is one of many components that we do. But I think that this one is also one that is fiscally responsible. So I will be supporting this as well, not only because it makes sense, but it also could potentially save people’s lives.

Other speakers, oh, Councilor Hopkins, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. And I’ll probably repeat some of the comments that my colleagues have already made, but I will be supporting this, I recall. A number of years ago, when we introduced the red light cameras to these 10 intersections, it was quite a debate.

And we can see that there’s a lot of value that we’ve received by implementing it. I really like the word the halo effect as we create a safer city to move around. So definitely supporting this moving forward. Go ahead, Councilor Lehman.

Thank you. I’ll echo what I’ve heard so far. Just from, again, from a police board perspective, we know that resources that the police have to address traffic situations have been severely limited. And I think we hear about it all the time in our wards.

We hear about excessive speeding, noise and running lights. Would I prefer probably to have eyes on view to issue traffic tickets, as opposed to an indiscriminate camera, probably, but the reality is, we have to provide safety on our streets. And given the constraints that financial constraints to the police services, I think this is a prudent way to go. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll be brief. I would actually say, unlike Councillor Lehman, I’d rather have more red light cameras. They can catch everybody who’s running a red light, while an officer can only catch one person at a time.

So I think this is a very good investment. Very happy to support it. I only wish we could ramp up the automated speed enforcement just as quick, but I know there are logistic challenges to that, but I am very supportive of this. I think I’ve been very, very clear.

It’s not that hard to follow the rules of the road. The light is red, you stop, you don’t want a ticket, you follow the rules of the road and red means stop. So let’s get these in and let’s get them up and running as quick as we can. Councillor Troso.

Thank you very much. I moved this amendment at the committee because I wanted to give the staff the opportunity to expand the program as far as they feasibly could. There was really no opposition to this program. It was very well received.

It was very well received by a forward and nothing vote of the committee. And what we’re actually debating right now is not the implementation of the program, which is in the main body of the motion, but the additional language to authorize our staff to direct our staff, to ask our staff to see if we can push this a little further. So I think this makes a lot of sense, and it’ll save a trip back to the committee, and hopefully we’ll get some good news from our staff that there’s room for a little bit more, and I’m hoping our staff can maybe add some context to this, ‘cause it sounds as if we’re debating the merits of the red light program and we’re not. Go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship, and we appreciate the time between committee and council to review our numbers. Staff had proposed expanding the program by an additional 10 cameras. We’re confident that we can expand it by about 20 within the context of the resource limitations for processing the courts’ appeals, those sorts of issues that underlie the program itself. So, we are confident we can put in 20 new cameras, and we look forward to moving that forward.

Should that be the choice of council check? Okay, any other speakers? Okay, so this is the amendment, which you can see before you on the screen, that’s the civic administration be directed to investigate and implement additional red light camera locations as they may be feasible. You’ve heard some, I see, I see you, Councillor Vameer Bergen, you’ve heard some information from our staff, as well as what that means in context, and I’ll go to the next speaker, which is Councillor Vameer Bergen.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. The, I just wanted to confirm, we’re now looking with the expansion of 20 intersections under this program. And I wanted to ask staff, at what point will there be diminishing returns, because we’re using intersections that maybe don’t really have a problem or an issue, and do we run the risk of having to fund it out of our own budgets? Because correct me, if I’m wrong, the program is basically self-sustaining, but at what point does that balance tip, because we do have diminishing returns?

So I’d like to ask staff, is that a risk we run if we go more than 20, because that was the number that staff had originally recommended. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. Certainly this program is meant to be self-sustaining, and any revenues in excess of the program are directed to road safety.

There is a risk absolutely at some point in the future, and a perfect and a hopefully ideal world that we get to, that we aren’t generating revenue because the behavior has stopped. Right now, we do believe there are enough intersections in the city where this technology can be helpful from a safety perspective, that we do not believe that there’s any risk in terms of long-term financial commitments to program, cannot fund. That is also one of the reasons we’re cautious about massive ramp-ups in that program, to add a permanent staff, those sorts of things, if those revenues don’t materialize in the future, then we would not have a source of financing. At this time, with what’s being recommended here, we’re confident it can continue to self-fund over the reasonable tradition of people who’d be involved in supporting it.

Okay, any other speakers? Sorry, Councilor Vamere, we’re gonna do you have a follow up on that? Yeah, so we’ll stop and form us if they, when they do their investigation to go above the 20, if they feel that it is sustainable and worthwhile to go those few extra intersections, we will have a report back on that. Perhaps if staff could comment on what the Councilor’s suggesting and how they interpret the as maybe feasible portion of the motion, ‘cause I think this seems to be what the Councilor’s referring to.

Thank you, Your Worship, and that’s an important part of this motion. So a number in the range of 20, we have not investigated all of those locations, we believe that’s where we have capacity. We’re fairly sure we have enough intersections that would meet reasonable criteria, which is great preventative technology. If we review and the number is 16 or 18, then that would be the number we would recommend implementing and we are happy to provide an information report back to Council once those decisions are ready for consideration.

Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you, Councilor. Any other speakers on this? Okay, so the amendment is moved and seconded.

This is just on the amendment, I’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, so now I need a mover for nine, maybe I don’t know, Chair, if you’re willing to do it now, as amended, I need a seconder for the as amended motion as well. Seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

So this is now the committee’s original recommendation plus the amended motion, which is now part of it, moved and seconded. Any discussion on that? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

I think that concludes, right? Perfect, thank you to the Chair and Vice Chair and for tag teaming, Matt. Next report is 8.3, the 16th report of SPPC. I chaired that, but I’m chairing this meeting, so I’ll have Deputy Mayor Lewis present that report.

Thank you, Your Worship. I have not been made aware of anything in the 16th report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee that colleagues wish to have pulled to be dealt with individually. So I’m prepared to put the whole report on the floor unless there’s something colleagues wanted to vote on separately. So this is the 16th report, item 8.3.

The Chair’s willing to put all items one through nine on the floor. Would anybody like anything there dealt with separately? Councillor Vameer Bergen. Yes, I’d like 2.4.

So the governance working group report, yep. Yeah, that could be called separately. And I just wanted to confirm that the report that we had on the climate change report from staff, we can vote on A and B separately. Yes, we can divide up the motion as you can see it in the committee report.

So that sounds to me like you’d like four, which is 4.1, the Climate Emergency Action Plan progress report voted on separately as well. Correct, and it’s just A and B that you want separate. Yeah, if I can get A and B separate, just like we did at committee. Okay, so that means Chair, it sounds like you can make a motion for one, two, three, five, six, seven and eight unless anybody else is looking for something separate, okay.

Yeah, so I will move the entire report exclusive of four and nine on the council agenda, which are 4.1 and 2.4 on the committee agenda. Okay, so the chairs move to everything except the Climate Emergency Action Plan progress report and the first report of the governance working group, those will be dealt with separately. Any discussion on all of those items or any of those items? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that motion for voting.

closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. And you worship, I’ll put item 4A on the floor now and then we’ll deal with item 4B separately. Okay, so colleagues are clear, the A part is to receive the report. So what the chair is putting on the floor is to receive the staff report.

So everybody knows further voting. So that’s moved by the chair, any discussion on receiving the report? Okay, I don’t see any. So we’ll open that for voting momentarily.

This is just 4A to receive the report. Councillor Hill here, thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. And I will now put clause B on the floor.

Okay, we’re gonna get that up on the screen so people can see clause B has four parts to it. So that’ll be moved by the chair. Well, that’s getting up on the screen. I’ll look for any speakers too.

Okay, so that’s up on the screen. So we’ll open clause 4B in all of its parts for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to two. Thank you, worship.

I’m now gonna put item nine. This is the 2.4 from the committee agenda. This is the first report of the governance working group. I do want to just note very quickly that we did make a small change at committee with regard to the proposed calendar, which would see the Planning and Environment Committee move to Tuesdays at 1 p.m.

in week one and that in week two, the Corporate Services Committee would move to Monday at 1 p.m. So it was switching the two spots for those committee items in the calendar and the logic of that being it allows a little more time for communications on planning applications to come in and increases the opportunity to add additional planning committee meetings as need. Yeah, and I’ll just note based on that change, it’s to bring a draft calendar forward under those parameters. It’s not to approve the calendar yet.

Yes, all the other clauses remain the same, including the senior leadership comments to be provided back to the next governance working group before the governance working group brings forward a final recommendation through SPPC and then eventually to council on next year’s calendar. Okay, any questions or comments on the governance working group report, which is what’s on the floor now? Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you.

Your worship and I wanna thank the working group. It was a long day and lots of work was to be had there. I do want to, I made a point of it at SPPC and I think I’ll bring it forward here at council that the draft calendar that is going back to staff is a draft to look at daytime meetings. I’m okay with supporting it in draft form, but I still want to make it known that I am not fully convinced that we should go to full time meetings, especially when it comes to public participation meetings and having opportunities for the community to participate in the evening.

So welcoming the draft coming back to us and looking forward to having a further conversation at the working group. Thank you. Okay, any other speakers? Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open this for voting.

This is on the governance working group report. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to one. And that concludes the 16th report of the Street Chief’s Priorities and Policy Committee. Great, thank you.

Item 8.4 is the ninth report of the planning and environment committee. I’ll turn it over to Chair layman and just note that I believe there’s an amendment sheet for a few items in your report as well. Thank you. Before I put any items on the floor, I’m going to just read it being noted that any and all has 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 meeting, held under the planning act have been on balance, taken into consideration by council as part of its deliberations regarding these matters.

As the mayor said, I will pull 10, 13 and 15 because there are some housekeeping amendments and you have the amendment sheet in front of you as well. I will have requested that item 7, 2.6 be pulled. I have had no other requests for any other items. Okay, so the chair wants to move a motion with for everything on the committee with the exception of seven, which is a heritage alteration permit at 27 Bruce and then three items which are related to technical amendments and just cleanups of the language, which is 10, 13 and 15.

So would anybody like anything else dealt with separately? Go ahead, Chair. You can grab that. I will put all items on the floor, excluding 7, 10, 13 and 15.

So those items are on the floor. Councillor Hopkins, are you looking to comment or no? Comment? Okay, go ahead.

You can comment now on those items. Yes, I’d like to make a comment on number 16, which is the PPM for Oxford Street East and Clement Street. I am supportive of the recommendation going forward and I know it’s an info. And even though I have concerns, but it is an appropriate development for intensification, it’s right on the rapid transit corridor and it’s an underutilized site.

So I’m okay with that. I do have concerns going forward. And one of the concerns I have is really, as we are about to do, is to approve the zoning application. That really ends the public conversation.

And when we see these intensifications coming into neighborhoods, they do change the neighborhoods and the community does have concerns and there’s no really opportunity for them to inquire. So I would like to, through your worship as staff, if there are or can be further opportunities or what is the process moving forward for the public to understand and to sort of be aware of the application as it goes through the site plan process. Through you, Mr. Chair.

In terms of the public process, as you mentioned, the public process is closed. However, when the site plan application does come in, there’s opportunities for the public to reach out to staff to understand the process, to understand what the site matters are, boundary trees in this case for this one particular site. And those remediation measures that staff can undertake as part of the site plan control by-law. But having said that there’s no input in terms of matters for consideration for the site plan approval authority, but it is a conversation to understand that process, as you mentioned.

Yeah, I just wanna think through your worship to staff for that information, I know and understand, and I think it’s important that the public understands that there is no input, but understanding the process, still being able to inquire how, where the application is, is available to them, and it can be done by reaching out to staff. I would like to make sure, if anyone’s listening to these intensifications that will change our neighborhoods, it is important that public participation is being taken away as it goes through a site plan process, but there are opportunities if the community is still wanting to know a bit about the process going forward that they can still inquire. So thank you. Councillor McAllister.

Thank you, and this is in regards to number eight, the closed school site and evaluation approach of 1040 Hamilton Road, the former Fairmont Public School. And I wanna thank Mayor Lewis and Councillor Frank for supporting the motion to investigate the possibility of purchasing the land. I just wanna express my ward’s desire to see this site utilized. There is a great deal of interest, obviously in affordable housing, and I was also pleased to see that included, and I would encourage as this comes back to us, that we look at it, and I hope that we do purchase it and are able to build some affordable housing as there’s a great need in the city, not only in my ward, but the whole city in general.

So thank you. Any other speakers for the items that are before us? Okay, if not, the chair’s put together a motion with a number of items, so we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

Thank you, I’d like to put number seven, which is 2.6 Heritage Alteration Permit, regarding 27 Burs Street on the floor. Yeah, I guess on the floor now. Okay, that’s on the floor. Councillor Lewis, or Deputy Mayor Lewis, sorry.

Thank you, Your Worship. So I originally supported this at committee, and then I’ve had the opportunity to give it some more thought, and I actually tuned in originally to listen to Councillor Frank’s podcast on the Craig Needle Show, but then I listened to the next episode, and that featured Robin Schwartz, who went to school here in London at Western at the University of Western, but who now is in the Regional Municipality of Kitchener Waterloo, and who sits on the Heritage Advisory Committee there. And her studies actually make her very qualified to sit on that committee. And I listened to her talk about how the discussion was framed around what is really a heritage, and what is quite honestly nimbyism presenting itself as heritage protection.

And I listened with great interest as this woman expressed from her own professional training and background, and her own experience on a heritage advisory committee, how restricting people from making improvements to their home by overly prescribing materials that they can use is really actually detrimental to preserving legitimate heritage. It is expensive, it often doesn’t last as long because the materials are of a quality that can’t survive the elements as long. And when we’re talking about these things, and in this particular application, it’s a wooden porch. It’s a porch that was in absolute disrepair.

And the complaint and the reason for denial of the heritage alteration permit is not because the porch was replaced by something that looks radically different than what was there. No, the reason for refusal is because it’s vinyl and not wood. And I think about this, as we tell property owners, we want them to preserve heritage and preserve the heritage conservation districts. And in this case, let’s be clear, this property’s not a part four designated property.

Its designation comes from being part of a heritage conservation district, not as part of an individual attribution to this building, but only as a result of being part of a conservation district. So I started thinking about the burden we’re placing on homeowners, the cost. And also, when we think about some of these other alteration permits that we’ve seen come forward, what we’re doing in terms of, we just had a vote pulled on climate change. Well, when we’re telling homeowners, they have to use materials of a previous century to repair their home in the name of heritage, rather than let them pursue more energy efficient, upgrades to their home, and particularly where they’re not changing the appearance of the property.

And I took the opportunity to drive by this property after listening to the podcast. Colleagues know I’ve had some problems with a knee lately. I was over to see my massage therapist who’s in Mortley Village. So I had the opportunity, in fact, on Brew Street.

So I had the opportunity to see this property by walking past it, not even by driving past it. I know Councillor Frank will appreciate I was walking in her ward and not contributing to GHGs with more driving around. But as I looked at this, I thought this is to me, and I don’t mean any disrespect when I say this, but this is just not reasonable to say that now they’ve got to tear out this vinyl porch that they’ve put in that looks perfectly in line with every other home on the street and replace it with a wooden one. A wooden one that they’ll probably have to replace again in 15 or 20 years because wood deteriorates much, much faster than vinyl.

So I’m not gonna support the committee recommendation on this. I’m gonna vote against it, and if it fails, then I’ll put forward an alternate motion to approve the heritage alteration permit. So thank you for listening. I encourage colleagues to take an opportunity to listen to that podcast, if not on this issue, for consideration in the future issues, because it was really enlightening to me.

Okay, so you’re speaking against the motion on the floor. I will note that if colleagues agree with that direction, you do have to defeat the committee’s recommendation to put an alternate on the floor. So there’s no amendments here. It’s just, you’d have to proceed with defeating the committee’s recommendation if you wanna do something different.

So I’ll continue with any speakers on this matter. I hope the chair, go ahead. Thank you. And this is one of those items.

It was on the consent item, and we had a pretty heavy agenda. So I saw it, I noticed it, and it did trouble me, so I kind of looked at committee to see other comments or if anyone wanted to pull it. They didn’t, but I think we’ve all had those instances where something’s niggling at you, right? It wasn’t, there’s something wrong with this.

So I did think about it and kind of wavering what I should act on or not, and then actually, Deputy Mayor Lewis spoke to me about it. We had a discussion, and I think he had upon all the reasons. You know, it’s, replace it with wood, it’s gonna rot again, then you replace it with vinyl. It’s not a heritage, it does name building, it’s in a district.

You know, it’s, I think we have to be cautious here. We’re going into times of infill and repurposing buildings. We can’t let heritage get in the way without, I understand the value of heritage, and I appreciate that and I support that. However, you know, in this particular case, for again, the reasons that the Deputy Mayor pointed out, I’m inclined to, inclined to agree with them.

So I will not be supporting it either. Other speakers? Councillor Frank. Thank you.

Yes, this one’s interesting, ‘cause I actually don’t necessarily disagree with my previous two colleagues, because when you look at the image, the before and after, it still looks like quite a quaint heritage house. I will remind colleagues that if it is in a heritage conservation district, it does get heritage status, it doesn’t have the different numbers, but it’s still protected under the same legislation, even though it independently as an independent house didn’t go through the whole process, the whole area is protected, and we’ve had this discussion a couple of times. And the person did replace the front porch with both pressure treated wood, so the base was replaced, and then also the spindles and the railings and that kind of stuff was replaced with plastic, which plastic isn’t necessarily the best for the environment either. We are trying to reduce our use of plastic, so it’s not necessarily the best.

I do hear, though, the thing that, I guess bothers me about sometimes, is that this person did go through the cost expense to replace it, and I do worry, I don’t know if then these plastic spindles will be sent to a house, maybe in Ward 2 or Ward 7 or Ward 8, and I’m not really sure if they’ll be repurposed, so it would be wasteful to throw them out, and that does kind of bother me. At the same time, that all being said, I also don’t want this to be a precedent that anyone can go ahead, replace a porch, use the wrong materials, use plastic, and if it kind of looks like what it’s supposed to look like, we’re okay with it. I just don’t like the message that sends to the community, especially many of us have heritage conservation districts, and I think, again, then this would apply. You’re not supposed to use plastic, that’s in our policy, that is why staff are recommending their fusal because they’re following policy that we’ve made.

So I see both sides of the coin, and I found this one difficult as well. I just don’t personally want to start a precedent that replacing one without getting a permit, and then two, replacing something with plastic is gonna be allowed, and I do worry a bit about that, so I don’t know if there’s a way to ask staff if we were to approve this if that’s a precedent that would allow other people to come forward replacing wood materials with plastic, which goes against our policy. Go ahead. So your worship, it could set a precedent, and the issue with this one in particular is they made the construction without going through the proper process, making that application for the heritage alteration permit, and then seeking approval after the fact.

I will also mention that it’s not replacing the full porch with their, through this recommendation, it’s certain elements of wrapping the posts, as we’ve talked about, not really placing the deck and certain aspects of that. So it is like that compromise solution that staff are recommending, if they were to proceed this way, but the refusal is because it’s not consistent with the heritage conservation district. Thank you, yes. So again, that’s kind of more of my worry as a precedent setting part of it, not necessarily like this specific one.

If I, you know, I can, it looks nice, it looks heritagey, I’m not a heritage expert, so I don’t really know exactly what that is, but heritagey to me. Especially when you compare with some of the other houses that maybe have done some replacements in the area that were before we had the conservation district, you can see they’ve made an effort, and I applaud them for it and appreciate it, but it’s more of the precedent setting thing that worries me, and if almost, if anything, I wish there is a way that like, they could perhaps pay a fine or replace the spindles, because I actually, again, thinks that there should be penalties if people go forward without getting the proper permits and without following our process, but I do think it’s wasteful to throw a bunch of things into the garbage, so I’ll just say, I will be supporting staff in this recommendation because of my worry of the precedent setting, but I completely understand and can relate to the previous two speakers and their concerns about making this, you know, kind of bad for the homeowner. It’s a tough time, and I do appreciate that the person has already made an investment, so. Okay, thank you.

I have myself next on this speaker’s listening, Councillor Hopkins, so I’ll turn the chair to Deputy Mayor Lewis. And this is the part where I get to sit at council, ‘cause I’m chairing, but I will now recognize the mayor. Yes, and I get to stand, everybody’s a winner. I wanna ask a question, because here’s my dilemma here.

As I heard an answer from staff and said, it may set a precedent, and I hear councilors now making a decision based on that, that it could or will set a precedent, so let me ask this a different way, because I think being very clear on this is probably important. If we were to allow this today, are we obligated to allow similar items in the future? I know people can see us make a decision to bring more things forward, but legally would we be bound under some sort of appeal, or mechanism, to have to make the same decision, or would someone have the right if we weren’t consistent to go in and challenge us in some sort of judicial process that we would be vulnerable on? In other words, I actually want a more definitive answer on, does this set a precedent from a decision-making process or not?

Through your worship, just to be very clear, if this same instance happened in the future, and we have the same planning framework that’s in place right now, we would come back with the same opinion to you. It’s not going to change from a precedent perspective how we view these moving forward, so council can make these specialized decisions in certain situations, so it will not actually change how we would process a application in the future. So from that perspective, it’s not creating a precedent. And my follow-up to that is, I understand staff won’t change the way they bring things forward, that we could make a decision one way or the other.

Is there an appeal mechanism to municipal councils decision on this that someone could take to a different level, or are we the final arbiter on this particular matter? Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, I would defer to legal on that question.

Well, let’s see if we have, oh, Mr. Card is with us on Zoom, Mr. Card. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. What I would say is that the decision constitutes a precedent in fact, but not a binding precedent and law. So going back to the mayor’s earlier question, would this be binding on a council in the future if the matter were to come forward in the same way? The answer is no, you can always distinguish that situation.

And I’ve heard a number of comments from various members of the council this afternoon that recognize certain attributes or merits of allowing the existing material to remain. You could distinguish that from some future situation that you found to be different. So it wouldn’t be binding on you if the matter were to come forward with respect to another property in the future. Mayor Morgan, thank you.

That ends my comments. I just wanted to be clear on that ‘cause I wasn’t sure. I see though, Chair, that there’s one more flagging from staff on this. Okay, Ms.

McNeely. Thank you, Your Worship. I just wanted to mention that it is appealable by the property owner to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Thank you for that.

Okay, I appreciate that. And Mayor Morgan, I will return the chair to you. Okay, I have Councillor Hopkins next. Yes, thank you, Your Worship.

And thank you to my colleagues for this conversation. I think it’s an important one. I just wanna follow up with the last comment. This is appealable.

So getting back to my colleagues suggesting that we go against the committee recommendation. I will not be supporting it. And one of the things I understand it’s not binding with future recommendations or applications coming forward. But my big concern here is that the process was not followed in this situation.

And since the process was not followed, that is my biggest concern because I do not want to support residents or anyone not following our processes. We have our bylaws for reasons. They should matter. And we as a council, if we’re not going to support our processes, then I think it’s really important that we change our policies.

And maybe that’s the better way to go. But these one-offs, I think to create a challenge. And the precedent setting is one thing, but a supporting applicants that do not follow the process is a concern for me. So I will be supporting the committee’s recommendation.

That’s a true sound. I’m less concerned to the chair. I’m less concerned about the precedent because yes, the facts can always be argued. Perhaps in the next case, there’ll be more of a visual problem than we have here.

And I do appreciate what Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis and others is saying, but I’m going to support the staff recommendation. And it’s not ‘cause I want to be too rigid. And I understand that we have to give people some latitude, but you have to follow process. And I think it would be one thing if the applicant came in and asked before they did it.

And we just can’t keep having that because I see the cumulative effect around the city of property owners just sort of picking and choosing which bylaws they decide they’re going to follow. If we want to change the heritage bylaw, and maybe we should, we should do it. But for at least for now, I want to support the staff report ‘cause I think property owners should be complying with what the requirements in this special legislation is. Thank you.

Any other speakers? Councillor Cudi, go ahead. Thank you and to you, your worship. I’d like to ask staff if the homeowner’s still is required to pay for the permit fees.

Thank you. We need your microphone. Thank you, through your worship. Yes, that would be the case.

And any remediation that they would have to fix the porch, the elements of the porch as well. Thank you. Okay, any other speakers? So this, there’s, I will remind colleagues that it is the staff recommendation on the floor.

Some people would like to defeat that and do something different. Some people would like to support that and go with the committee’s recommendation. I just want to be clear. There’s no amendment on the floor.

It’s the staff recommendation on the floor. Okay, I don’t see any further comments. So we’ll open that for voting. Just indicate that although you saw Councillor Plaza leave the meeting, she’s actually joined us digitally.

So colleagues know. Closing the vote, motion is lost, seven to seven. Okay, so the committee’s recommendation is defeated. I see Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. I will put a motion on the floor that the Heritage Alteration Permit for this property on Brew Street be approved. Just remain standing for a moment in case I have to— If you’re making a motion against the staff. In a motion against the whole time.

So I’ll look for a seconder for that motion. I see Councillor Hillier. So this is a new motion. So we can have a debate and discussion on this as well.

I’ll look for speakers. I don’t see any. So this is motion to approve the Heritage Alteration Permit. I’ll open that for voting.

Councillor Palose, the vote’s yes. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries nine to five. Back to you, Chair.

Thank you. I’d just like to confer with the clerk for a second. Chair, go ahead. Okay, thank you.

I will go to number 10. The first of three items that we will have to look to amend for housekeeping purposes. Number 10, we have the amendment before you. The rationale is that the map was inadvertently missing from the by-law.

So I would like to move that amendment. So that amendment needs a seconder. So look for a seconder. I see Councillor ramen as a seconder.

Any discussion on this? I’ll go to the chair to just identify the item that we’re on and what you’re doing. We are on item 10, 3.1. This is regarding 340 to 390 Saskatoon Street.

And before you, you have an amendment sheet. All right, any other questions on this? Okay, we’ll open this for voting. This is on the amendment that the chair is bringing forward.

Opposing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. So I would like to move that as amended. Okay, as amended needs a seconder.

So look for a seconder. Councillor ramen. Any discussion on the motion as amended? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you. I’d like to move to number 13, which is additional residential unit amendments as a result of more homes build faster act.

The rationale for the amendment is the previously considered by law reference to the London plan instead of the official plan for the city of London 2016. So I would like to move that amendment. Okay, amendment is moved by the chair. It needs a seconder.

I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Cuddy, any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor McAllister, closing the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. So I’d like to move item 13 as amended. Item 13 as amended. I need a seconder for the as amended.

See Councillor Hopkins. I will have discussion, Councillor Troz. Yes, through the chair, I did want to pull and discuss item C that the civic administration be directed to undertake a review of the current five bedroom limit and report back. So could that be pulled from the rest of the motion and discussed separately?

Just give us a second on that. Okay, so yes, certainly possible to divide that up. I’m going to ask the chair if he can. So we’ve made the technical amendments.

Now we’re back to the kind of main motion as moved and seconded. A council would like to have part C debated separately. So in consultation with the clerks, it seems like it’s easy to do that as the first item we deal with. We can make a decision on that and then we can vote on the remainder of the item.

So chair, I’ll see if you’re willing to put just 3.4 C on the floor. Yes, let’s put C on the floor. Okay, and because this is amended, I’m going to ask for the same seconder if she’s willing to, no, okay, I need a seconder for just 3.4 C. Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second.

So just 3.4 class C, which is the part of it under taking a review of the current five bedroom limit and report back to the future planning is on the floor. I’ll look for discussion now, Councillor Troz. Thank you and through the chair, I’d like to start by asking staff what the rationale would be to in addition to making all of the changes that were mandated by the province, why we would also undertake this particular change, which is a very major change. For you, Your Worship, it was a direction from committee to ask for the consideration of the five bedroom limit.

As we do know that the near campus neighborhood did review, did require ultimately a three bedroom limit and through that review, subsequently, the five bedroom limit was applied citywide. And through the review of the additional residential unit, it was discussed as part of this to consider looking at that five bedroom limit citywide. Councillor. Through the chair, does the current legislation, as it’s been amended, allow the city to continue applying a differential to different neighborhoods based on whether it’s, for example, the near campus neighborhood or not, because that would be a very important consideration here.

Go ahead. Through you, Mr. Your Worship, there is no requirement. This is a city mandated in terms of the near campus neighborhood and the five bedroom limit is, in this case, would be unique to London as compared to the municipalities.

There’s no limit that I’m aware of. Councillor. Thank you, through the chair. I would like to request that we pull item C.

And the reason for that is, this is a long, long discussion that has a lot of history. And I know that we’re doing this because we’re implementing the provincial mandate, but I think to open up this issue, I should ask Steph through the chair, how, is that something that you can easily do, or is that something, ‘cause your original recommendation was to retain the five bedroom limit. Mr. Mathers.

Through you, Your Worship, just to be very clear, this wasn’t brought forward by staff. This came up through the discussion, and it was a resolution that was brought forward by the committee. So we will take direction from the committee. There were the recent changes from the province.

It doesn’t preclude having a limit, such as it’s in place right now, we’re having a limit in certain areas. However, if it is the direction of council to take back this back and analyze it, we would add that to our work plan, noting that we do have a lot in our work plan currently. Councillor Haynes. Thank you.

In my view, you cannot have a reasonable discussion about removing the five bedroom limit without at the same time having a discussion about the enforcement of the boarding house by law. Because one of the objections historically, which led to the institution of the five bedroom limit was the way that some property owners were over packing properties relating to a lot of other problems. And we do have a boarding house by law. It’s been my view that it hasn’t been enforced as well as it can.

And I think that once we start raising, removing this additional protection that neighborhoods have, if you want to do that, I think it should be brought forward as a separate item in conjunction with the question of the boarding house by law. But to just do this in isolation, I think is not good policy and finds in the face of a lot of history in terms of why this was brought forward. So procedurally, do I need to make a motion to remove C? Or should I ask for it to be voted on separately?

Well, we’re debating it separately. So you can vote on it separately, but just let me confer on your procedural option. So Councilor, just let me give you some advice because we’re at council. Given this is a matter that is made it to the council floor.

If we defeat it, it would become a decided matter of council. Your other option is if you want to have a larger discussion about this, is you could refer this piece back for that larger discussion that you’d like to have. If we either pass it or defeat it here, if we pass it, that action would be taken and there would be a review and a report back. If we defeat it, we will have decided not to do that.

And so that would create potentially a binding precedent for us not to review that for a period of time with that reconsideration of council. So your two options are, if you’re happy with that option, you can just defeat it. If you want to refer it back for some other discussion, you could also make a motion for referral. To the chair then, my preference would be to defeat this addition because I think it’s going to raise a lot of other issues.

However, I would be very happy to have a separate discussion about this in conjunction with the boarding house issue. And I believe that if this is brought up in conjunction with the boarding house issue, that would ameliorate some of the harm that I see coming from this. So with the mover of this emotion, either be willing to defer it for now or accept as a friendly amendment adding in a thorough review, which is going to add time with respect to the boarding house by law. So the mover of the motion doesn’t have a choice.

The committee report is being presented. This is a committee direction. And so the really has to dispense with the committee recommendation in some way. So you can defeat it, you can refer it back to committee.

And you can add the piece in conjunction with a discussion about whatever else you’d like to discuss or it passes, the potential alternatives that you have before you. But we should, we have to dispense with the committee’s motion. Okay, so I would like to then suggest that we refer this back to the committee for further discussion on only C. So it’s only C on the floor at the moment.

So the motion would be to refer C back to planning committee for a discussion, a further discussion. Yes, thank you. Seconder for the referral. Councillor Layman, you’re willing to second.

Okay, so a referral takes precedent. So the motion on the floor is now to refer C, clause C, which is the only thing on the floor, back to planning committee for further discussion. I will take speakers now on the referral and I have, let me just make a list. Okay, speakers on the referral are Councillor Raman, Councillor Frank, Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis, and Councillor Hopkins so far.

Thank you, Thrive. I won’t be supporting the referral. I do think that Councillor Frank, when she brought this forward spoke quite powerfully to the rationale behind bringing this forward. Additional residential units, if we’re going to contemplate them, we have to contemplate them fully.

And I think that that happens within the five bedroom, exploring the five bedroom limit. I understand why, and I appreciate Councillor Trosto and his thoughts on this. And again, this is for staff to take a look, bring it back to planning. So to me, that gives us the opportunity to then have further conversation allow the community to participate in that conversation in the future.

Thanks. Councillor Frank. Yes, thank you. Councillor Raman, quite succinctly, kind of emphasized what I was going to emphasize, but I was just hoping to get a further examination by staff.

I know that there is quite a lot of history with this file, but that’s from previous council. And this is a new council. There’s new sets of eyes on this. A lot of things have changed in the last four years, as I mentioned at that PEC meeting.

And I think that it warrants a second look. I’m not saying that we are already making any kind of decision at all. This is simply, I just want to understand better what the limitations are, what restrictions should be there. Is this a possibility?

So it’s really just more information. And as Deputy City Manager, Mather said, they have lots in their plate. I don’t imagine that this is going to rise to the top. And that’s fine.

I just think eventually, if we are going to be doing ARUs, as Councillor Raman said, we need to make sure that we have looked at everything. And if this is not a stone, we want to lift up and go under, then I’m okay with that. But I at least like to understand, should we look at this or not as a possible way to augment how many bedrooms we have across the city and existing neighborhoods? So I will be supporting the original motion from committee.

Thank you. Okay. And there’s a referral on the floor, so people are speaking to the referral. So that sounds like against the referral, but I’ll let you make that choice yourself.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I want to start by saying, I agree with everything Councillor Trussow said about his concerns around C and the history of the five bedrooms. I supported, in fact, I seconded this at committee because as Councillor Frank said, I also would like some more information to come back.

And I’ll tell you why I’d like some more information to come back because I think it’s relevant to the referral and to Councillor Trussow’s concern about the boarding house rules. Even with the five bedroom cap, we are not stopping people. Unscrupulous, often unlicensed landlords from jamming people into homes. You can find examples around the city where there are 12 people living in a three bedroom home, sharing rooms, because that’s how they’re making it affordable, making ends meet.

And often it is in the near campus neighborhoods, even where they don’t have five bedrooms. They’re cramming those students in, regardless of the bylaws, and often without a rental unit license in place. That was actually why I had added clause C to the report as well, because we see neighborhoods suffering from parking overflow from the result of this over cramming of people into these homes. So I understand Councillor Trussow’s ask, I’m listening to the debate and I’m honestly struggling on whether I want to support the referral or whether I want staff to come back with some more information, and then dive into this a little more deeply.

Because I think the boarding house bylaw does have a role to play in this. I think the rental unit license bylaw has a role to play in this. I don’t think this is simply a matter of a five bedroom limit. I think that there’s some other pieces that come into this.

And so that’s why I’m leaning towards not supporting the referral, because as Councillor Frank said, this is not gonna rise to the top. I know Mr. Mathers and Ms. McNeely and their teams have more than enough work, probably to keep them busy for the whole term of council, let alone adding to their plate.

But I do want them, when time allows, to come back to us with some further thought on how we can control this situation, because it’s not actually just the number of bedrooms, it’s how we’re controlling the jamming of people into housing that doesn’t fit the reasonable number of people. I know we have a piece, and I will just ask for a little clarity through staff, is the, I believe there’s a restriction on habitability that limits the total number of occupants in a home to 100 square meters per occupant. But I’m not sure where that falls in our bylaws and licensing either. I know that’s been referred to by staff in terms of rental unit license inquiries I’ve sent in before.

But can staff clarify where that piece falls? Mr. Mathers? Three or worship.

My understanding is that comes from the building code as an element there. So something that is quite fixed. So that’s my understanding where that value comes from. Okay, so that’s helpful.

So that number we’re stuck with ‘cause that’s provincially regulated. So we can’t do much about that. So I’m gonna listen to the rest of the debate. I know that you’ve got another speaker or two on your list.

As I said, I’m leaning towards not supporting the referral, not because I don’t respect the concerns ‘cause I think they’re very, very valid. I see them even in my neighborhood, let alone in the near campus in ward six. But I do need some more information on how this works moving forward. So I’m gonna listen to the rest of the debate and probably make up my mind when the voting button comes up.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And just following up on Deputy Mayor’s comments there. I think we all want the same thing.

We do want more information. That’s why I’m supporting the referral. It’s that simple. I wanna thank the committee for bringing the conversation.

I think it’s an important conversation. Councillor Frank referred to, it’s got a bit of history. It’s got a long history and it is complicated. And I think before we brush into anything, we should really try to understand how it’s gonna affect our policies.

And referring it back, eventually, we’ll get to the same place. So I do take note, this is coming from a Councillor who represents a ward full of students. I will say that from my ward’s perspective, it may not be such a challenge but when it comes to neighborhood, near campus, neighborhoods, boarding homes, things like that. I will look to the Councillor who has those challenges in his ward.

So I’ll be supporting the referral back. Getting more information, it’s that simple. I think that’s what we’re looking for with the committee recommendation coming to us here at Council. So again, I’ll support the referral.

Councillor Lehman. Thank you and I seconded Councillor Tracelle’s referral. I have had properties in my ward. Where absentee landlords have been renting homes out, not by the home, but by the room and turning living rooms and dining rooms into bedrooms.

Turning the property into higher density and not zone higher density. It’s a low density neighborhood and some serious issues have arisen. So I think for the reasons the Councillor raised, I thought it was prudent to look for a referral and to have a discussion in that context. Councillor Pribble.

I will not be supporting the referral because I believe that it’s going to, when we go back to our committee, we will discuss it and at the end, we are going to send it to the staff anyway. So I want to be prompt. I’m going to send it. I want to make the decision today.

I want the staff to do the work and then we’ll discuss it anyways when it comes back with the staff findings. So I want to be more efficient, more prompt and we are not making the decision right now that we are increasing the five, but we are going to have the legitimate information from the staff. I will not be supporting the referral. Okay, that exhausts my speaker’s list.

So the motion on the floor is a referral. Back to Planning and Environment Committee. So everybody’s clear that we’re voting on the referral only at this point. So I’ll open that for voting.

Opposing the vote. Motion fails. Seven to six. Okay, so we still have 3.4 item C on the floor.

Okay, colleagues, so Councillor Trossa, I would like to speak again on this matter. That’s important to his ward. He’s technically spoken to this motion. Then he moved the referral.

We went to something else. So I would seek if colleagues want to provide leave for him to speak a second time to this matter. So to move an amendment or something else, you’d need to be on the speaker’s list again. So I would look to see if colleagues are willing to give the Councillor leave to speak again, because the Councillor has spoken once at council on this matter.

Then attempted to take an action. That action wasn’t successful. There’s been a speaker’s list on the action. So I deem him to have spoken.

So is anybody willing to move a motion to let the Councillor speak again? Otherwise he’s spoken to this matter already. Councillor Frank, you’re willing to let the Councillor speak twice. Councillor Hopkins willing to second it.

I don’t think we need to debate this. Were they gonna let him speak again or not? So we could do this by hand now, colleagues. We’re gonna do this by hand, but I want you to keep your hands up ‘cause the clerk needs to count them, okay?

So the motion is to let the Councillor speak a second time at council not withstanding our procedures. All those in favor, opposed? My motion carries. Okay, thank you.

Councillor, go ahead. I’d like to, through the chair and to the clerk, I would like to amend C to also include in the report, in the report back a consideration of the boarding house by-law and the rental registration by-law because I think they’re related. So registration by-law boarding house by-law would be added to the staff, what’s going to staff. I think we get a much more useful report back.

So Councillor, there’s a seconder for your motion. Just wanna make sure you don’t wanna speak to it while you’re here ‘cause you’ve got the motion on the floor. It’s moved and seconded, you can speak to it now. Okay.

You cannot separate, you cannot separate. And this is the lived reality of my neighborhood. You cannot separate out the five bedroom limit without considering what goes on in those five units, in those five bedrooms. And you also cannot separate out the extent to which the owners are complying with the underlying registration requirement.

Now, I have very serious concerns that that could be stepped up. But I also have very serious concerns that the boarding house by-law is not being enforced. And it’s a very difficult by-law to enforce because you have to get inside, you have to get inside and you have to sort of, you have to play detective and you have to look at things like are there locks on the doors? Or are there other latches?

Or have there been rental advertisements that make it clear that what’s being rented out is not a rental unit. A rental unit means, regardless of how many bedrooms are in it, that the tenants of that unit have the right to possession of that unit. And a boarding house is very different because in a boarding house, you have the right to possession of your room and you have shared possession of everything else. Now, that may seem like it’s the same thing, but from a legal point of view, these are very different.

I don’t think we’ve spent a lot of time since, I don’t think we’ve spent a lot of time since the Oshawa case came out, talking about the implications of the litigation in Ottawa. And I think a lot more thought needs to be given to the boarding house and the registration requirements. And as long as we’re going to potentially open up this five, the five bedroom discussion, I think for balance. And for the, in the interest of consumer protection, I think we need to also look at these other two matters.

So I would put that forward as an amendment. Thank you. So that’s moved and seconded. It’s on an amendment now.

So new speakers list, get to speak again now. You don’t have to, but you can. So I look for any speakers to the amendment. It’s moved and seconded.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I don’t mind adding these two things. I think again, I kind of cleared it off and packed, but to reiterate, I understand that they’re near neighborhood, sorry, near campus neighborhood concerns.

I think again, since this policy applies to the entire city, perhaps there is an ability to separate those two concerns, but moving forward, I do see the Councillor’s desire to have as much safety for the public as possible. So I don’t mind adding that. And I hope staff are able to, to I guess pull what they will from the two documents to add to this review. That all being said, I think again, we do need to move forward on this.

I think when we’re looking at ARUs now as well, it’s a bit of a different landscape. One house, like one unit with five bedrooms in it, I can see a lot of the sporting house stuff applying to. But if there’s a house with two units upstairs, two units downstairs and two in the back, all separate, all different locks, all, maybe there are three semi-professional couples. This is a different discussion and I don’t want to prevent an affordable housing opportunity for somebody to have access to.

So happy to have these two things looked at. Again, this isn’t top of my list and I think that staff have a bunch of stuff to get through in the next year. But happy to have these two things added for consideration. Also keeping in mind that I’m hoping that this will be looked at not only at the near campus neighborhoods, but the ability to have more than five bedroom units on a parcel of land in other areas of the city where the concerns are different.

I have Councillor Palosa next on the list. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and happy to support this. And thank you for today, Councillor for his advocacy on this and realizing it’s just not a downtown issue or close to campus issue, recognizing there are multiple campuses for post-secondary education institutions throughout the city.

And as housing becomes more sparse or out of reach for many, many people are taking leeway on their own to set up different units, renting out bedrooms, sub lending other things. So thank you for the work and happy to support this. Those are the speakers I have on the amendments. It’s moved and seconded.

So we’ll open the amendment for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Okay, so now I need a mover and a seconder for 3.4C as amended. Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to move seconded by Councillor McAllister.

Any discussion on 3.4C as amended? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, and now chair, if you could put the rest of 3.4 on the floor.

I will put the remainder of 3.4 on the floor. Okay, any discussion on the rest of 3.4? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Sorry, before we open the vote, I need a seconder for that because there was technical amendment to it earlier, so Councillor Hopkins is willing to second.

Okay, 3.4 as amended from the technical amendments on the floor, excluding C, which we’ve already dealt with. We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Mr.

Lehman. Thank you, and I will go to item 15, just 3.6444-646 here on street, we have a housekeeping amendment, amended the zoning by-law and clause B in section one to correct the zoning amendment to R8-4 zone and to remove the reference in section two to the exterior side yard. So I will put that amendment. Okay, so the chair puts the original on the floor and then moves an amendment, I need a seconder for the amendment, Councillor Hopkins.

Any discussion on the amendment? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Trassel, do you close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. And I will put item 15 as amended on the floor.

Okay, and a seconder for the as amended motion. Councillor Cuddy, any discussion on the motion as amended? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting two. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

Thank you, that concludes the ninth report, planning environment. Thank you very much, that brings us to 8.5, the 10th report of Corporate Services Committee. I will turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I’m going to put the 10th report of the Corporate Services Committee on the floor. Before I seek to see if anybody wants anything pulled to be voted on separately, if you’ll indulge me in a little introduction, because I think I might be able to assist right away on whether we need to pull anything or vote on it separately. Item nine, 4.1 from the committee agenda. The Budweiser Gardens expansion and renovation proposal.

I just want to be clear on what was done at committee, so the colleagues know what we’re voting on before they decide whether they need to vote it on separately or not. First, we receive the staff report for information. Second, in clauses B and C, we’re directing the civic administration to prepare amending agreements. Those agreements have to come back before the committee, and then ultimately before council, before they are ratified.

And then we added a D to this at committee, which included the direction to civic administration to also, at the same time as they bring forward the amending agreements, to bring forward a more thorough review of the financial case for the proposed expansion, including the overview of the city’s return on investment from the expected from the proposed phases of the expansion in comparison to the ROI of the current agreements that we have. So before we make a decision, when these, ultimately, when these amending agreements come back, we will be able to compare the proposed return on investment moving forward, as well as how that looks in relation to the existing return on investment that we are getting from the current deal. So in both cases, these agreements are going to come back for a final discussion at committee and a final approval. But we do need to direct staff on whether or not they’re preparing an amending agreement before they can bring that additional information back to us.

So it’s a little bit complicated because of the order of operations on things, but I hope that explanation makes it easier for colleagues to digest ‘cause there was a lot of information on this item. So I hope that makes it a little easier for folks to digest what direction the committee provided. So I’ve not been made aware of anything that people specifically want pulled to be voted on separately, but I would seek the will of the council before I put the whole entire report on the floor. Okay, I’m going to look to see who would like stuff pulled separately, Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes, I’d like to pull item nine. Okay, good try, but we’re going to have nine separate. Anybody want anything else separate? Okay, I’ll go to the chair.

Oh, Councillor Aymer, we’re good. Go ahead, what would you like separate? Yeah, thank you, Mayor. If we could pull seven and eight and if it’s feasible, vote on both of them at the same time.

Okay, so seven and eight separate, but you’re okay to do them together. Okay, so I’ll let the chair take that as a note for if their motions you need to craft, anyone else? Okay, chair. All right, so I am going to move the entire committee report with the exception of items seven, eight and nine.

Those are items 2.5, 2.6 and 4.1 from the committee reports. Chair, before you finish crafting that motion, there’s some additional information from the clerk related to items that you have contained within that motion, which is items 4.3 and 4.4, which the committee referred back to civic administration for further information regarding the organization’s connections to London. I could tell you if we proceed with the referral back, there’s no additional information that has come now before council. So the dates for those proclamations would pass before we would even get the information back.

So there’s a couple of alternatives that could be pulled. We could approve them irrespective of not having the information or we could just receive them, but either way, no information has been provided between the committee and council. So I leave that in your hands. Certainly we can, we can approve them as is, but they’re going to come back to the committee with probably no more additional information after the dates that the proclamations were requested.

So if you want to deal with those separately, we could, but I just, that’s an additional piece of information to the clerk had that I’ll share with you as you craft your motions. All right, well, never being a fan of referrals for referral sake. I will then move items one through six and 10 from the committee report and we will deal with other items separately. Okay, so one through six and item 10.

So that’s everything with the exception of the two expropriations that Councillor Vame-Ribrigan wanted separately, the request by Councillor Frank to deal with Budweiser, Gordon separately, and the two proclamations that a committee referred. Those will all not be in this motion. Everything else is. Any discussion on the stuff that’s in the motion?

One through six and 10. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, I will now put items seven and eight from the committee report on the floor.

These are expropriation of lands related to the East London Link Project and the expropriation of lands related to the Wellington Gateway Project. Okay, let’s move by the chair. Any discussion on these? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. I am now going to put item nine.

This is the Budweiser Gardens expansion and renovation proposal on the floor. I will note that Councillor Frank pulled this. I will also also note with apologies, Your Worship, that you had actually sent a note saying that there was an amendment to this coming. So I don’t know whether that’s an amendment from you or from Councillor Frank.

So I don’t know whether I want to turn to you first or to Councillor Frank, but you both wanted this item pulled. So I leave it in your hands as the chair as to who’s going to go first on this one. I’m going to let Councillor Frank lead this one. And so I will go to her on the speaker’s list.

Thank you, yes. It’s always fun when somebody pulls something and you’re like, what’s going on? This, I feel like I gave a sneak peek on Tuesday. So this is following up with discussions about having city-owned assets coming to us for a new one.

When they come for a new one, they’re not going to get another significant investment in the next 30 years, making sure they’re on track to our net zero cloud emergency targets. So we have circulated an amendment to the clerks to have pulled up on the screen, but essentially we’re hoping to end the Mayor said to you a second. So in support of our climate emergency action plan and net zero goal, civic administration be directed to work with OVG360 to bring forward existing and contemplated plans for energy efficiency retrofits, two Budweiser gardens and office support for any applications to financial grant programs for the contemplated upgrades. So this, again, is trying to bring all the assets in line to our net zero plans and helping to get your support in working with the private partner on the Bud to make sure that we can bring it in line with everything.

Okay, and I expressed my willingness to second that. I have myself on the speaker’s list next, so I’ll turn the chair over to Councillor Layman. Thank you, and I’ll go to the Mayor. Yes, so Councillor Frank and I discussed this and I’m happy to second it.

There was also an if-beating noted that we wanted to add in that said it being noted that sources of grant applications could include federal, provincial grants, grants from the FCM Green Municipal Fund. I’m supportive of this because, first off, I think getting that information along with the upgrades to a major facility that is owned by the city and ultimately will fall under our full control. One day is just due diligence. We do have a climate emergency action plan, understanding how our assets will be invested in is important and my understanding from speaking with our deputy city manager on this is that there is a plan that they have in place that could be brought to us fairly quickly so we could see it alongside.

I would also note that it’s not just this necessarily grants or municipal contributions that would be needed to make those energy efficient upgrades and to the facility. There is an actual portion of the agreement where a maintenance and improvement fund can be used. It kind of comes off of the profits that get shared by both the city, sorry, the revenue piece that both the city and OB-G360 share and that is also used for these sorts of investments. So us just having a much clearer picture of what the plans are both current and moving forward.

As we contemplate major investments to the facility, I think it’s just a responsible thing to do and I’m happy to receive that information at the same time and my understanding is it’s not a tremendous amount of work for staff to pull that together because there’s been a good portion of work already done on this in partnership with our provider and I would invite if the deputy city manager feels like there’s anything that needs to be added to this for context on that sort of information. I would ask through the chair that she share any information that feel is relevant to this motion that would give colleagues some more context. So I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chairs.

So I did receive a little bit of information actually from the management team at the Budweiser Gardens. So I think one clarification that I will make is it is not actually a city-owned asset. The city owns the land, which we lease to the trust. The building is actually held by the trust at the moment.

It does not become a city of London asset until the lease expires in 2050. So just to provide that clarification. However, Budweiser Gardens is actually through the OVG, the OVG Group, which purchased the spectra that was previously the manager. They actually were a founding member as part of a program called Gold, which stands for Green Operations and Advanced Leadership.

So it’s a sustainability program that is for arenas and sports and entertainment venues. So they are actually operating underneath that. And through this program, they actually have a digital portal that provides them to linkages to provide metrics and have data-driven decisions on how to best implement solutions over the course. And they’re actually in the process of trying to connect with Mr.

Stanford so they can actually see if there’s things that the city might be able to benefit, perhaps through actually participating in this. So through their normal operations, this is something they’ve already done full energy efficiency. There are things as they have to do life cycle renewal, start to already do. And I have a number of things in terms of their living wall, some of the food and beverage operations that have already implemented to be sustainable.

So I’m sure they will be happy to share a list of the things that they’re doing as they continue and begin to implement more things through their normal operations. So certainly they will not be waiting for the additional expansion and renovations to implement. They have already done a number of things. And I’m sure they will be happy to share them with City Council to bring that forward in our future report.

Go ahead, Mayor. Okay, thanks for that additional context from the deputy city manager. And I just want to be clear that when I said, becomes a city on asset, I meant at the end of the next 30 years after the lease is completed, but it is a significant property in the city, something that we work with them in partnership with. And so I think us having a very clear picture of what those plans are, as we work on our climate emergency action plan and our goals alongside over that 30 year period is actually the timeframe that we’re looking to make substantive change, I think is a responsible course for us to take.

So I hope colleagues support the motion. Thank you, Don. I’ll turn the chair back to the mayor, with Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councilor Farron and the speakers list. Go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship. With regard to the amendment, I’m happy to speak in support of this. And I will say that I’m particularly happy with the it being noted clause, because I see that I read between the lines that Councilor Frank is happy to start taking on the work in her new role as a board member with FCM to help us access the Green Municipal Fund. I know that was an opportunity she and I both took when we were in Toronto to learn a little more about that.

That goes to show you the value of attending some of these conferences. We come home with some good ideas. And this one makes a lot of sense to me. So I will just extend virtually my hand to Councilor Frank and see if she needs help getting some Green Municipal Fund dollars to help with this.

I am standing by ready to assist. Councilor Farron. And thank you and through you. I just also want to thank Councilor Frank and the mayor for bringing this to Council.

I do believe just from our conversation and the last SPPC meeting I believe it was, just for the Climate Emergency Action Plan, everything is going to be coming seemingly by case by case basis. So I do feel that this is a great start. And I would believe that there’s more to come in the future. So I just wanted to also convey my support for this, speaking to this amendment on this aspect.

And I do want to speak to the original motion. So you might as well put me on the speaker list there as well, but I just wanted to echo what I’ve heard in Councilor here. And thank you to both of you. Sure, I’ll add you to the main motion speakers list, but we’ll continue on with the amendment.

I don’t have any other speakers at the amendment at this time. So if there are none, we’ll have the amendment only for voting. Opposing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero.

Okay, so I need a mover and a seconder for the as amended motion now. Chair is willing to do that. Councilor Cuddy is willing to second it. Councilor Faire, your next on the speaker’s list for the whole motion.

Thank you, Mr. Marin, through you again. So from our last conversation that we had a committee regarding this, when I said I wasn’t convinced, I did do a bit of leg work. I’ve been going back and forth as a city treasurer a lot.

She’s been extremely helpful, so I thank you for that. And I have had a meeting with Tourism London, and I have been told, and I’m pretty confident, that just the concerns with what I was thinking with the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund, and that being depleted in the possibility that other monies that could be used, or other funding, that fund could fund other cases, I was concerned with that, and I was also concerned with possible pressure on the taxpayer base, but just speaking with the city treasurer, it is quite clear to me that there’s not a chance for that to happen. The Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund that’s funded by the MATEX seems to be highly scoped, and that scope seems to fit with Budweiser Gardens. So I’m pretty confident that we shouldn’t have any issues with that, just from what I’ve heard so far.

So I just wanted to also give my support for Budweiser Gardens, and I will be supporting the motion as it is right now. So I just wanted to say that, just because from what I’ve heard from residents, and just having discussions after that committee meeting, I’ve had people come through that seemed that they weren’t necessarily very clear on where the funding would come from. So that’s why I was going back and forth really trying to just get that information. So at this point, I’m pretty confident that it is.

So you’ll see me supporting this vote. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I’ll be supporting the recommendation coming out of committee.

I wanna first of all thank the committee for the work that they did. I did not view the YouTube on it, but I’m sure there was a bit of leg work, the added recommendation on getting a review for the financial case. I really appreciate that. I think as a council, we really need to understand the complexity of Budweiser’s.

We’re not approving anything here. We’re just getting the information that we need for the agreements and everything to come back. So with that, again, thank you to the committee for your hard work on this. Councillor Trozau.

Thank you and through the chair. I’m gonna be supporting the measure that’s in front of us today, but I wanna make it really clear that there’s a long way to go on this in terms of getting the information that I need in order to satisfy the questions that I raised at the committee. I still have those concerns. And my understanding, and it’s been repeated by the deputy mayor, it’s been repeated by a number of people.

We’re not approving this today. We are getting, we are asking the staff to undertake certain document preparation, but we are getting more detail, and I don’t think we’re at the decision point on this today. And with that understanding, I don’t have a problem with supporting this. Having said that, though, I wanna say that I still do not understand, and I hope we get some more clarity on this.

The current food operation, the contract for the current food operation, goes through 2027. And part of what we’re being asked to do here in its entirety, which we’re not approving today, is to extend the 2027 end date to 2051. And I’m having a hard time understanding what is so, what needs to be done right away since this is not expiring until 2027. And why we would include such a long extension date?

So I still have a lot of questions about that. So the fact that I’m not going to be voting against this today, I wanna make clear my concerns about the fact that we do not have adequate funds in the accommodation fund right now to pay for this, by a long shot, and we are going to have to incur debt. And I think that we’re going to have to understand what the implications of that are. I don’t believe that we’re being asked to incur that debt through this motion today.

I wanna make that clear. So I am not backtracking on the earlier concerns that I raised about the 80/20 split, why 80? The fact that in terms of on the revenues side, it’s gonna go from 70/30 to 60/40. Why that drop?

I mean, I think that these are all things that still need to be explained. And with that, I’m happy to support this motion today. And I do wanna thank again the mayor for helping us out of the conundrum that we were in at the committee in terms of adding the additional language that sort of satisfies my need to get more information. So with that, I think we’re okay today.

Thank you again. Thank you, Councilor, I hope we’re okay. Most days, but appreciate your comments. Other speakers to this?

Councilor Lehman. Thank you. And I think those concerns mentioned by Councilor Trossow and Councilor Hopkins and touched on by Councilor Ferrer are valid. The Council’s prior to us that initially did this project.

I commend. It was transformational, I believe, in our downtown. And I think it’s paying dividends for what we’re seeing being built downtown for people choosing to live downtown. I think it’s been a good partnership.

It was a good financial model, one that I understand is being copied by other communities across Canada. Very prescient in what was designed back then. That being said, we’re at this point now, and it’s incumbent upon us to protect the city’s investment and the city’s return on investment. I’m not against debt financing as long as it produces a good return on investment.

Factoring in the cost of that debt. We’ve had a good partner in Spectrum, which is now OVG 360. I think that was further reinforced by Ms. Barbron’s comments about how they’re climate aware and in their projects, in their ownership, across this one and others.

They’ve been successful. The major tenant, the Knights, have been very financially successful, and I would argue we’ve been successful as a city. And that’s a good business partnership. We’re all partners benefit.

So I will look for the details that come out in the coming negotiations and what’s present to us to make sure that from our point of view, as I represent the city and the city taxpayers, that we are getting appropriate share of the benefits of a sizable investment. Which by the way, I don’t diminish that. It’s a building as age, hard to believe, but the building has had decades into it now. And it’s time.

You have to protect your assets, and I think this is a good way to go. But like I said, and what I’ve heard from other councilors here is we will be doing our job of protecting our interests. Thank you. Other speakers?

Okay, seen on the as amended motion is moved on the floor. Snow Councilor Plaza has had to leave the meeting, so she won’t be participating in this vote. And we’ll open that vote for voting. Oh yes.

Motion carries 13 to zero. So Deputy Mayor, I know you’ve got a couple other items. We’ve still got all the bylaws to go through. There’s a closed session report.

Been about two hours and 40 minutes. I’d look to see if colleagues might want to take a 10 minute break at this point. I see people nodding. So I know we’re not quite done your report, but I think now is a good time because we can come back with some options on those proclamations as well.

So I’ll look for a mover of a 10 minute break. Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Frank. All those in favor by hand. Our motion carries.

Okay, I’m gonna have everybody to take their seats. Our 10 minutes is up. Councilor Vamier, we’re gonna appear online if you could just give an acknowledgement to the clerk so we can count you here or not. Perfect, thank you.

Okay, so where we left off was in the middle of the CSC report. There’s two items left. I’ll turn it back over to the Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Your Worship.

So we just have two items left to deal with on the 10th report of the Corporate Services Committee. Those are two applications for proclamation where the committee recommendation was to refer them back to for more information. More information has not been received. And as noted at the start of this committee report, the application days will have passed before this referral lands back at another committee.

So committee recommendation is to refer, I’m going to suggest to colleagues that it would be best to defeat the referral and then we can dispense with these, either as a motion to receive them or if colleagues want to do something different, we can do something different at that point, but first we need to defeat the referral. So I will put the committee recommendation for the referral on the floor and we’ll be voting against it. So the recommendation is on the floor for us to take a different action which the action in the committee report is essentially obsolete at this point. Looking to see if colleagues are willing to defeat this.

So that’s open for voting and we will vote now. We’re doing them one at a time. So this is just the first one. Motion to vote, motion fails, zero to 13.

So now, unless a colleague wants to do something different, I’m prepared to put a motion to receive the applications on the floor and that’s all we would do is just receive them. Okay, that’s a new motion. So I’ll look for a seconder for receipt. Okay, I see Councillor Hopkins, any discussion on the new motion to receive?

Yeah, go ahead, Councillor Trossa. No, I support this motion. I’m a member of the committee. I just want to say something that I often say at the committee and that is when the applications come in and on the face of the applications, they’re not complete to the committee and we have to go through this and report back up to council.

So this may not be the place to do it but ultimately I would like to encourage whoever receives these applications to send them back if on the face of it, it’s not complete. And I’d be looking for some guidance from the clerk in terms of how to facilitate that ‘cause we do this at every meeting. I’m gonna have the clerk explain the process. So colleagues understand what they do with these applications, go ahead, Clerk.

Thank you and through the chair. So once these are received, we do review them for general completeness. If committee indicates to us that there is a concern such as here where there’s a referral, we will reach out to them. We have considered based on this repeated committee discussion about concern, about connection, direct connection to the city of London.

We have looked at the form and made that clear to applicants and we’re reviewing other options such that that application process is highlighted and the information sought by the committee during its consideration is emphasized to applicants. Okay, so the new motion to just receive the first one is on the floor. I don’t know everybody else on the speakers list. So we’ll open that receipt for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Deputy Mayor. And now please, we will repeat this process for item 12. The application for issuance of proclamation for World Sickle Cell Day.

Again, the committee recommendation was to refer. We have to defeat that first and then we can proceed with dispensing to receive. Okay, so the motion, the original committee motion is on the floor for voting, I’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion fails two to 11.

Deputy Mayor. - Okay. With the committee recommendation defeated, I will now move that we receive the application. Okay, the new motion to receive the application needs a seconder.

I’ll look for a seconder, need a seconder for that. Councilor Ferrer, thank you. So this is the new motion to receive any discussion. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. And that completes the 10th report of the Corporate Services Committee. Okay, thank you. Well, don’t go anywhere ‘cause there’s an 11th report of the Corporate Services Committee.

So if you wanna get back up, you can do that one. Thank you, Your Worship. I am now happy to move item 8.6 on the Council agenda, the 11th report of the Corporate Services Committee. This was a special Corporate Services Committee.

There is only one item on the agenda aside from disclosures of pecanary interest, which was a confidential matter. So that will fall under Council reports of closed session. So I will just move the report, which is simply the approval of disclosures of pecanary interest. Okay, so moved.

I can’t imagine there would be discussion on this. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. And that completes your 11th report of the Corporate Services Committee.

Excellent, we’re on to added reports, which includes the ninth report of Council in closed session. Council fair made eye contact with me at the wrong time. So he’s volunteered to read out our Council in closed session report. So I’ll turn it over to the Council for that.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and through you. I was a volunteer, but that’s okay. I’ll take it.

Reporting out at the ninth report of Council in closed session to lease agreement for the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Fanshawe Golf Course. That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager of Finance supports with the concurrence of Deputy City Manager Neighborhood and Community Wide Services. On the advice of Director Realty Services with respect to the lease agreement for the lease of ground spaces at the Fanshawe Golf Course, the lease agreement between the city and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, the landlord for the lease of the Fanshawe Golf Course lands for a term of 10 years at an annual rent to $40,500 prior to taxes payable, which is comprised of part one reference plan 33R-14008 containing an area of approximately 7.07 acres or 2.86 hectares and part four reference plan 33R-14008 containing an area of approximately 65.98 acres, 26.7 hectares, be approved. It being noted that the rent payable is retroactive to June 1st, 2022.

Okay, so that’s moved by the Councilor. I’ll look for any debate or discussion on that motion. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 13-0. Thank you very much. Deferred matters, there are none. Inquiries, I know there is one inquiry from Councilor Van Merberg and who flagged it for me before the meeting.

I appreciate that. So I’ll turn it to you for your inquiry, Councilor. Thank you very much, Mayor. My inquiry has to do with the Bell Five Dig Project.

And this is a large, as many of us know, private infrastructure project that’s being conducted by Bell, primarily on city owned property in the form of boulevards in such in front of residential homes and the like. And I’ve received in the Westmount area, literally dozens and dozens of complaints, not because of the infrastructure project itself on the five network and the upgrades, which is all great. But there isn’t any follow-up in terms of remedying the properties, remedying the boulevards, et cetera, to restore what they were prior to the construction work. So what we’re left with are a series of big holes filled with gravel, exposed water, exposed people and it’s not being fixed in the Westmount area.

Work was conducted later. I mean, we were told that by May the 15th, for the agreement with the city of London and Bell by May the 15th be rectified up in me. And so my question to staff is, you have an update of where this situation currently sits. What can the city do to expedite the required?

I can the residents of Westmount expect their properties in the front of their properties to be rectified. Okay, so that broke up a little bit. But I think we, I see nods that we got the adjust of everything you’re saying. And I believe our staff are confident that they can give you an answer.

So I’ll go to our staff. - Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Ben Van Merberg and for the inquiry, staff are well aware of the issues caused throughout the city related to the Bell fiber upgrade.

And in fact have actually arranged a meeting with the vice president in charge of this project from Bell for Monday involving senior staff from both Mr. Mathers area and mine. We do have some mechanisms at our disposal. We have a one year clause built into the master agreement for renewal, which we’ll be visiting with them.

And we could in, should that not succeed, consider not providing any new permits until restoration is complete on existing works. So we will be working with Bell’s senior management on Monday. We take this matter quite seriously from both the primitive approved works as well as utility coordination perspective. It’s an inconvenience, but it’s also a safety issue in some cases.

We’re on it and I will report back as required. Okay, Councilor, go ahead. Can staff indicate roughly, I realize it’s roughly, one residents can expect some action in terms of actually getting some of getting these properties rectified to the original state. But your worship by understanding is that several of their rectifications do date back many weeks.

We will be asking for an updated plan indicating when they’ll be making full restoration based on the date of original disturbance. I don’t have that information from the utility yet, but we will be requiring that from them. Okay, thank you, Councilor. And just one last follow up.

If it could be notified, because I don’t think I’m the only Councillor with this situation, if we could be notified once you have that information, that would be most appreciated. Yeah, I see lots of nods on that. So that will happen, Councilor. Thanks for the inquiry.

So I see another Councilor putting their hand up. So inquiries are not like where a bunch of Councillors jump in. One Councilor will ask a specific inquiry of staff, staff will answer, it’s not a debate. So Councilor chose how is it on this?

Or is it on something different? I just wanted to say thank you for bringing that up. Well, let’s talk, we gotta do something about this. Councilor, appreciate the witty comment, but that’s completely out of order given our procedures.

So we’re going to, so the inquiry has been asked, answered, appreciate our staff doing that. And thank you for raising that for all of us, Councilor Vamere, we’re gonna, I think, it impacts a large part of the city. Our emergency motions, there are none. Bylaws, we have a number.

I will say, this is how I intend on proceeding with the bylaws, so if Councillors would like it done differently, let me know. My intent is to deal with a package of bylaws ranging from 164 to 169, 172 to 183, and the added 184 related to the in-camera piece. So what that will exclude are the two bylaws that Councillor Vamere, Mirberg, and asked to be separate related to expropriation. So those would be dealt with separately.

So unless someone wants something different than that, that’s how I’m gonna proceed with two sets of votes. One is everything except Councillor Vamere, Mirbergen’s desire to vote on something separate, and then the motions that he wanted to vote on separate. Okay, that looks good. So I see everybody nodding.

So the first set of bylaws, Councillor Vamere, Mirbergen, will not include the ones related to expropriation, but it’ll include every other bylaw. All of the adjusted amended revised bylaws based on the changes we made at the committee reports from Councillor Layman, and the added bylaw that comes out of the in-camera session. So I’ll look for a mover for that. Councillor Hopkins and the seconder, Councillor Troceau.

No debate on first reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. And second reading, move for the seconder. Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor ramen.

Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, a mover for third reading.

Councillor Ferrera and seconded by Councillor Cuddy. No debate on third reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, next, I’ll look for a mover for bylaws 171-71, which were related to expropriations for the East London Link and the Wellington Gateway project.

Mover, Councillor Troceau, seconder, Councillor Hopkins. There is no debate on first reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Mover for second reading of those bylaws.

Moved by Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one.

Third reading of those votes moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Layman. There’s no debate on third reading, so we will open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one. That brings us to a adjournment, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn.

Moved by Councillor Troceau, seconded by Councillor McAllister. We do this by hand, all those in favour of adjournment. My motion carries. All right, we are adjourned, thank you very much.

Hope to see you at the vigil tonight.