June 27, 2023, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted that Councillors E. Peloza and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Recognitions

None.

At 1:07 PM, Councillor S. Trosow enters the meeting.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

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

4.1    Personal Matters/Identifiable Individuals        

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individuals, including communications necessary for that purpose, as it relates to interviews for nomination to the London Police Services Board of Directors. (6.1/17/SPPC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/12/CSC)

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 building by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/12/CSC)

4.4    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice        

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions and advice which is subject to solicitor client privilege and communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.3/12/CSC)

4.5    Litigation/Potential Litigation/Matters Before Administrative Tribunals / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations        

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board; litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; 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 or local board. (6.4/12/CSC)

4.6    Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual        

A matter pertaining to an identifiable individual; employment-related matters; advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/13/CSC)

4.7    Litigation/Potential Litigation        

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/10/CPSC)

4.8    Solicitor-Client Privilege/Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction for Negotiation Purposes        

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees or the Corporation 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 or local board. (6.1/10/CPSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council convenes, In Closed Session, at 1:17 PM, and reconvenes in public session at 1:56 PM.

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

5.1   11th Meeting held on June 6, 2023

2023-06-06 Council Minutes - Full

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Minutes of the 11th Meeting held on June 6, 2023, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

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

6.1   Blackfriars Bridge - Long Term Use, excluding item 4.

6.2   221 Queens Avenue

6.3   5 Year Review - Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentive Programs

6.4   Building Division Staffing Enhancement: A Path to 47,000 Units by 2031

6.5   955 Gainsborough Road

6.6   755, 785 & 815 Wonderland Road South;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That NO ACTION BE TAKEN with respect to communication 6.1, item 4, as noted on the Council Agenda.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   10th Meeting of the Civic Works Committee

2023-06-13 - CWC - Report

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 10th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 8 (3.1) and 9 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 6th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on May 17th, 2023: 

a)    that the Municipal Council BE REQUESTED to consider the following actions arising from the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC) review of the Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan Pilot Program:

i)    to amend the Mobility Policy 349 to request that all city streets exempted from this policy be designated for parking on one side of the street only clearly defined exceptions such as cul-de-sacs;

ii)   to direct the Civic Administration to investigate appropriate means to review the future draft of the Neighbourhood Connectivity Plans with ITCAC in advance of consideration by the Civic Works Committee; and

iii)   to commend the Civic Administration for a very thorough and successful process which should now be formalized and applied; 

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1 and 5.2, BE RECEIVED. 

it being further noted that the presentation and attached photos, from D. Foster, related to this matter, were received;

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Contract Award - RFT-2023-083 - Traffic Signal Rebuilds for Wonderland Road South at Village Green Avenue and at Teeple Terrace- Irregular Result

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 13, 2023, related to the Traffic Signal Rebuilds for Wonderland Road South at Village Green Avenue and at Teeple Terrace – Irregular Result (RFT-2023-083):

a)    the bid submitted by ERTH (Holdings) Inc., at its tendered price of $941,478.00 

(excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED as per Section 8.5 a) iii) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that the bid submitted by ERTH (Holdings) Inc., was the only compliant bid of two bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements;

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

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

d)    the 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 2023-083); and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-L04IT04)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Vauxhall WWTP Pilot Plant - Request to Negotiate and Execute Site Access Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 187)

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 June 13, 2023, related to the Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plan Pilot Plant Request to Negotiate and Execute Site Access Agreement:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023, to: 

i)   authorize the Civic Administration to negotiate the terms of a site access agreement with Pall Water for the purposes of establishing a research test facility at Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plant; and,

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

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2023-E07 2023-E03)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for Contract Administration Services - Stormwater Infrastructure and Channel Remediation Projects

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 13, 2023, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineers for Contract Administration Services for the Stormwater Infrastructure and Channel Remediation Projects:

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

i)    AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration of Mud Creek Phase 2A Culvert replacement on Oxford Street West in the total amount of $127,098.00, including contingency (excluding HST);

ii)    the engineering design fees for AECOM Canada Ltd. BE INCREASED to recognize the additional design scope of work for the project, in accordance with the estimate on file, by $196,758.61 (excluding HST), from $746,074.00 to a total upset amount of $942,832.61;

iii)    Stantec Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration of Hyde Park Assignment ‘A’ Project, in the total amount of $188,054.50, including contingency (excluding HST);

iv)    the engineering design fees for Stantec Consulting Limited BE INCREASED to recognize the additional design scope of work for the project in accordance with the estimate on file, by $15,534.00 (excluding HST), from $301,032.57 to a total upset amount of $316,566.57; and, 

v)    Matrix Solutions Inc. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration of Hyde Park Assignment ‘B’, in the total amount of $159,815.03, including contingency (excluding HST);

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

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-E01)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) Funding to Support UTRCA Capital/Maintenance Projects and City Watercourse Monitoring Program

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 13, 2023, related to the Funding to Support UTRCA Capital Maintenance Projects and City Watercourse Monitoring Program:

a)    the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the following projects with the City share in the total amount of $85,000.00, including contingency (excluding HST); it being noted that the requirements of this provincial funding program are unique, in that only Conservation Authorities can apply, requiring the use of clause 14.3. (a) of the Procurement of Goods and Service Policy:

i)    Fanshawe Dam – Safety Boom Design;

ii)   Fanshawe Dam – Monitoring Upgrades;

iii)  Fanshawe Dam – Drainage Gallery & Pressure Relief Well Repairs; and,

iv)  West London Dyke – Supplemental Hand Railing Design and Installation.

b)    the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE APPOINTED to complete the 2023 Dingman Creek Surface Monitoring Program, in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $243,701.00, including 10% contingency (excluding HST); it being noted that this is a unique program for which the UTRCA offers licences as well as full services to complete this work in accordance with Section 14.4 (d), (e) & (h) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

f)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-E13)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) Contract Price Increase - Springbank Reservoirs 1 & 3 Roof Membrane Replacement and Repairs Project

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 June 13, 2023, related to the Contract Price Increase for the Springbank Reservoirs 1 & 3 Roof Membrane Replacement and Repairs Project:

a)    Springbank Reservoirs 1 & 3 Roof Membrane Replacement and Repairs (Tender RFT 2022-016) construction contract value with Stone Town Construction Limited BE INCREASED by $1,499,636.96 for a total contract value of $10,768,014.71 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-L04/E08)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the Deferred Matters List for the Civic Works Committee, as of May 9, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (5.2) Community Advisory Committee Vacancies

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the communication as appended to the Added Agenda, from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, BE RECEIVED. (2023-C04)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (3.1) Blackfriars Bridge - Long Term Use

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the long-term use of the Blackfriars Bridge:

a)    the Option 1 – to continue with the current bridge configuration – as outlined in the staff report dated June 13, 2023 BE APPROVED;

b)    the above-noted recommendation from the Long Term Use Study BE SUBMITTED to the Director of the Environmental Approvals Branch, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, as required by the previous environmental assessment review; and, 

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

  • T. Loubani

  •  D. Guccuado

  •  R. Andary

  • L. Durham

  • K. Bice

  • J. Culbert

  • M. Wallace

  • J. Harris

  • A. Loewan-Nair

  • M. Miksa

  • J. Necktal

  • Q. Flemming

  • G. Brown

  • A. Lee;  

it being noted that the staff presentation from G. Dales, Manager Transportation Planning and Design, as appended to the Agenda, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

it being further noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Fyfe-Miller, N. Sproule, H. Tallman and L. Durham, with respect to this matter, were received. (2023-T04)

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

8.1.9   (4.1) Core Area Parking Initiatives

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 13, 2023, related to the Core Area Parking Initiatives:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a business case as part of the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget that provides funding to undertake a Downtown Parking Strategy Update;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a procurement process to redevelop the parking lot at 185 Queens Avenue for the purposes of a mixed-use development including affordable and market units and a privately owned and operated parking garage that provides both public and reserve parking;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to extend the current temporary free parking promotion in the Core Area to the first quarter of 2024;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law amendment that would allow reserved parking in City parking lots at a bulk discounted monthly rate; and,

e)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2023-T02)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2   17th Meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-06-05 SPPC Report 17

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That pursuant to section 2.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, the rules of the by-law BE SUSPENDED for the purpose of permitting members to speak more than once to this matter.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.2   (5.1) Consideration of Appointment to the London Police Services Board

At  3:06 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair.

At 3:11 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Consideration of appointment to the London Police Services Board

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of Selection to the London Police Services Board - run off (round 2)

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of Selection to the London Police Services Board - run off (round 2)

Majority Winner: Ryan Gauss

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Ryan Gauss BE APPOINTED to the London Police Services Board for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

At 3:58 PM, Councillor C. Rahman leaves the meeting.

The Council recesses at 3:58 PM and resumes at 4:22 PM.

8.3   18th Meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-06-20 SPPC Report 18

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Items 1 to 10 (3.4) the 18th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.3) London Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) Activity Report Update 2022

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the London Economic Development Corporation Activity Update 2022 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.4) London Community Recovery Network - Update Report 2020-2022

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager the report dated June 20, 2023, with respect to the London Community Recovery Network – Update Report 2020-2022 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.5) London Community Grants Program Innovation and Capital Funding Allocations (2023)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the report dated June 20, 2023, titled “London Community Grants Program Innovation and Capital Funding Allocations (2023)”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.6) Anti-Hate Response Pilot Agreement with Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (Relates to Bill No. 190)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the City of London’s Anti-Hate Response Pilot BE ENDORSED;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2023, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023, to:

i)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement, attached as Schedule A to the proposed by-law, for the Anti-Hate Pilot Project (“Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement”) between His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism and The Corporation of the City of London;

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement approved in paragraph i) above;

ii)    delegate authority to the City Manager, or their written delegate, to approve and execute further amending agreements to the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement if they are consistent with the requirements of the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement approved in paragraph i) above and do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget and do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London; 

ii)    delegate authority to the City Manager, or their written delegate, to undertake all administrative, financial and reporting acts, including signing authority regarding: application forms for funding, budgets, cash flows, other financial reporting including financial claims, and directions, consents and other authorizations as may be required, provided that the monetary amounts do not exceed the maximum amount of the Funds specified in the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement that are necessary in connection with the Transfer Payment Agreement  approved in paragraph i) above; and,

iii)    delegate authority to the City Manager, or their written delegate, to make the necessary inquiries of all internal Service Areas and, if appropriate based on those inquiries, to execute the Attestation as appended to the staff report as Appendix “B” from the City of London regarding compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code as required by the Province for the purposes of the Transfer Payment Agreement;

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

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.7) 5th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 5th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on May 29, 2023 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (3.1) London Hydro Inc. - 2022 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions (Relates to Bill No. 191)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)  the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2023 as Appendix “A” entitled “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc.” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held June 27, 2023; 

b)  the proposed “Recruitment Process for Director Appointments”, as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2023 as Appendix ‘B’, BE APPROVED;

c)  the presentation by V. Sharma, CEO and C. Graham, Board Chair, London Hydro Inc., BE RECEIVED;

d)  the 2022 Annual Report on Finance BE RECEIVED;

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

f)  London Hydro Inc. BE REQUESTED to bring forward 2 names for consideration for appointment to the August 16, 2023 Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (3.2) London and Middlesex Community Housing - 2022 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions (Relates to Bill No. 192)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)  on the recommendation of the City Manager, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 2023 as Appendix “A” entitled “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023;

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

c)  the 2022 Financial Statements BE RECEIVED; 

d)  the 2022 Annual Report - Building for the Future BE RECEIVED; and,

e)  the London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors BE REQUESTED to bring forward a tenant’s name for consideration to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting on September 19, 2023; 

it being noted that for the current tenant vacancy on the LMCH Board the City Clerk will circulate to all members of Council all of the applications received at the same time that these are provided to the LMCH Board in accordance with the current Recruitment Process for Director Appointments.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (3.3) Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) - 2022 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)   the recommendation of the City Manager, the Independent Auditor’s Report of KPMG LLP for the Shareholder of Housing Development Corporation, London, dated December 31, 2022, BE RECEIVED;

b)  the 2022 Financial Statements BE RECEIVED;

c)  the 2022 Year End Report to the Shareholder BE RECEIVED; and,

d)  the verbal presentation from C. Cooper and added presentation from M. Feldberg, CEO, Housing Development Corporation BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (3.4) 2024 Growth Management Implementation Strategy (GMIS) Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the 2024 Growth Management Implementation Strategy Update BE APPROVED as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2023 as Appendix “B”; it being noted that:

i)    Sunningdale SWMF E1 will be rescheduled from 2022 to 2024;

ii)    White Oaks SWMF 3 – West will be rescheduled from 2022 to 2024;

iii)    Stoney Creek SWM 10 will be rescheduled from 2027 to 2028;

iv)    Kilally (A30) Growth Area – Kilally Water (Phase 2, Webster St. to Clarke Rd.) will be rescheduled from 2023 to 2024; and

v)    it being further noted that further review with the development industry will take place to address housing supply opportunities in the Northeast GMIS Area/Kilally Road area;

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

it being pointed out that the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions regarding this matter:

  •    A. Beaton, Urban League;

  •    J. Dionne, Sifton Properties; 

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

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

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2023 from A. Beaton and S. Levin, Urban League of London;

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2023 from P. Masschelein, Senior Vice President and J. Diotte, Manager, Engineering, Sifton;

  •    a communication dated June 19, 2023 from P. Masschelein, Senior Vice President, Sifton.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (4.1) Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority (LTVCA) and Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA) - Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Motion made by S. Lewis

Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority (LTVCA) and Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA) - Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority and Kettle Creek Conservation Authority:

a)  the communication dated May 30, 2023 from The Honourable Graydon Smith, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry BE RECEIVED;

b)  Councillor H. McAlister BE APPOINTED to the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority for the term ending November 14, 2026; and,

c)  Councillors J. Pribil and P. Van Meerbergen BE APPOINTED to the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve parts a) and b):

Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority (LTVCA) and Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA) - Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority and Kettle Creek Conservation Authority:

a)  the communication dated May 30, 2023 from The Honourable Graydon Smith, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry BE RECEIVED;

b)  Councillor H. McAlister BE APPOINTED to the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority for the term ending November 14, 2026; and,

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part c)

c)  Councillors J. Pribil and P. Van Meerbergen BE APPOINTED to the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Failed (1 to 13)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Councillor J. Pribil BE APPOINTED to the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part b) of the motion approving the appointment of Councillor H. McAlister to the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority for the term ending November 14, 2023 BE RECONSIDERED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Following the approval of reconsideration, the following motion is put

b)  Councillor H. McAlister BE APPOINTED to the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority for the term ending November 14, 2026; and,

Motion Failed (0 to 13)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Councillor P. Van Meerbergen BE APPOINTED to the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority for the term ending November 14, 2026

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry BE PETITIONED to provide for the appointment of one citizen for the final vacancy for membership on the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Board of Directors; it being noted that two Council members are appointed as members of the Board of Directors.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.12   (2.1) June Progress Update - Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response

At 5:08 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair.

At 5:3 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the June Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.3.13   (2.2) Core Area Action Plan 2022 Review

At 5:20 PM, Councillor E. Peloza leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the staff report dated June 20, 2023 entitled “Core Area Action Plan 2022 Review”, including its appendices, BE RECEIVED;

b)    one-time funding of $100,000 in support of the Holly Jolly Market and Downtown for the Holidays events BE APPROVED from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve; and,

c)    a one-time funding increase of $50,000 to support 2023 Summer, Fall and Winter Core Area events and activations BE APPROVED from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated June 18, 2023 from D. Brown, Coordinator, Midtown Community Organization with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

8.4   10th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

2023-06-12 PEC Report 10

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 4 (3.1) and 5 (3.2);  it being noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision 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 Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 6th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 18, 2023, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) ESA Lands Asset Plan and Data Management Tool - Contract Award (RFP-2023-018)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of consulting services for the completion of an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) Lands Asset Plan and Data Management Tool:

a)    North South Environmental Inc. BE APPOINTED project consultants to prepare an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) Asset Plan and Data Management Tool, in the total amount of $179,394.00 (including contingency), excluding HST;

b)    the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated June 12, 2023 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (5.1) Deferred Matters

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Deferred Matters List for the Planning and Environment Committee, as at May 31, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (3.1) 221 Queens Avenue (TZ-9598) (Relates to Bill No. 201)

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 Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 221 Queens Avenue:

a)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property by extending the Temporary Use (T-69) Zone for a temporary period of three (3) years, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the request is not consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

ii)    the request does not conform to the established policies of The London Plan regarding temporary commercial parking lots;

iii)    the request does not implement the goals of Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan; and,

iv)    the request does not implement the recommendations of the Downtown Parking Strategy;

 

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 12, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), by extending the Temporary Use (T-69) Zone for a period not exceeding one (1) year;

 

it being noted that the purpose of the recommended short-term one (1) year extension of the temporary zone is to allow the applicant an opportunity to provide a detailed strategy for the subject site in line with the Downtown Plan policies;

 

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

  •    A. Haasen, Sifton Properties Limited; 

 

it being further noted that the Municipal Council refuses the three-year extension for this application for the following reasons:

  •    the request is not consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the request does not conform to the established policies of The London Plan regarding temporary commercial parking lots;

  •    the request does not implement the goals of Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan; and,

  •    the request does not implement the recommendations of the Downtown Parking Strategy;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves the one-year extension for this application for the following reasons:

  •    the request to extend the temporary zone for a period of three (3) years, representing the maximum extension permitted, does not encourage long-term redevelopment of the site in support of achieving London’s Housing Pledge target of 47,000 units by 2031; and,

  •    the recommended one (1) year extension is a balanced approach that allows existing users of the surface commercial parking lot to make alternative parking arrangements while encouraging long-term redevelopment of the site to a more intense, transit-supportive use that is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, and The London Plan. The additional year will also provide an opportunity for Civic Administration to collaborate with the landowner to facilitate a strategy that generates new housing units in the Downtown Core and work towards achieving London’s Housing Pledge target of 47,000 units;

It being noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the application related to 221 Queens Avenue, BE REFERRED back to the Planning and Environment for additional discussion with the applicant including the incorporation of an enhanced landscaping plan and the consideration of a three (3) year extension for the temporary use.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

8.4.5   (3.2) 5 Year Review - Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentive Programs (Final)

That Item 5 (clause 3.2) of the 10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE FURTHER AMENDED by adding a new part d) xxi):

“xxi) that 206 Piccadilly be added to the Downtown Community Improvement Plan Project Area”

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 Incentives Programs:

 

a)    the recommendations identified through the 5-Year Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Programs Review that can be addressed through existing budgets BE IMPLEMENTED:

i)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to revise the City of London Community Improvement Plan for Brownfield Incentives to update references to The London Plan, Provincial planning legislation, and Provincial financing tools;

ii)    the Community Improvement Plan for Industrial Land Uses BE AMENDED to remove ‘businesses that develop computer software or hardware for license or sale to end users that are on land zoned for industrial uses’ and to remove ‘enhanced transportation and logistics’, it being noted that ‘enhanced transportation and logistics’ is not defined as targeted in Schedule 3 of the Community Improvement Plan;

iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to remove references to the former 1989 Official Plan and Provincial Policy Statement and to replace them with The London Plan and the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement in all Community Improvement Plans;

iv)    that the Upgrade to Building Code Loan Program and the Façade Improvement Loan Program BE AMENDED to modify the repayment schedules to reduce the term length for loan amounts that are equal to or less than $5,000 from 114 monthly payments to 54 monthly payments instead;

v)    the Airport Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP) BE AMENDED to revise the eligibility criteria and requirements for retroactive applications, it being noted the Airport Area CIP requirements are inconsistent compared to other City of London CIPs;

vi)    the goals and objectives of the Downtown and Old East Village Community Improvement Plans BE AMENDED to introduce measurable objectives to inform when the CIPs’ identified Community Improvement goals have been achieved;

vii)    the Heritage Community Improvement Plan, City of London Community Improvement Plan for Brownfield Incentives, and Community Improvement Plan for Industrial Land Uses BE AMENDED to include performance measures, indicators of success, and targets to align with current City policies and Municipal Council Strategic Directions;

viii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the effectiveness of the Financial Incentive Programs supporting the City of London Community Improvement Plan for Brownfield Incentives; and,

ix)    the Development Charges Grant and the Tax Increment Equivalent Grant Programs in the City of London Community Improvement Plan for Brownfield Incentives BE AMENDED to limit the duration of Municipal Council’s commitment, it being noted that the Program does not define a time limit for holding City funds committed in future budgets;

b)    the recommendations identified through the 5-Year Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Programs Review that result in a funding reduction, or a program being suspended, BE IMPLEMENTED:

i)    the Industrial Land Corridor Enhancement Grant Program BE DELETED from the Community Improvement Plan for Industrial Land Uses;

ii)    the funding for the Property Tax Assistance Grant Program in the London Community Improvement Plan for Brownfield Incentives BE SUSPENDED in the next Multi-Year Budget pending review of the impact of 2023 changes made to the Provincial Brownfield Financial Tax Incentive Program; and,

iii)    that funding for the Wharncliffe Road Corridor Sign Loan Program in the Lambeth Area Community Improvement Plan BE SUSPENDED in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget, it being noted that this program will continue to be approved as part of the Lambeth Area Community Improvement Plan;

c)    the recommendation identified through the 5-Year Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Programs Review that continues existing financial incentive programs with an existing budget BE IMPLEMENTED:

i)    that, based on results from the review of the City’s current Community Improvement Plans and the associated Incentive Programs, the following Programs, BE CONTINUED, noting that funding for these Programs was set to expire December 31, 2023:

A)    Residential Development Charges Grant Programs offered in the Downtown and Old East Village Community Improvement Project Areas;

B)    Downtown, Old East Village, and SoHo Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Tax Grant Programs;

C)    Downtown, Old East Village, Hamilton Road, and SoHo Upgrade to Building Code Loan Programs;

D)    Downtown, Old East Village, and Hamilton Road Upgrade to Building Code Loan Programs, including existing provisions for forgivable loans;

E)    Downtown, Hamilton Road, Old East Village, Lambeth and SoHo Façade Improvement Loan Programs;

F)    Downtown and Old East Village Façade Improvement Loan Programs, including existing provisions for forgivable loans; and,

G)    City-wide Industrial Development Charge Program that continues to distinguish between targeted and non-targeted industrial uses;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit business cases for all recommendations requiring additional investment through the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget process:

Enhancing an Existing Financial Incentive Program

i)    the Core Area Community Improvement Plan BE AMENDED to make available to properties facing Dundas Street in the Midtown Area, the Façade Improvement Loan, Upgrade to Building Code Loan, and the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Tax Grant Programs;

ii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of funding the Upgrade to Building Code Loan, the Façade Improvement Loan, and the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Tax Grant Programs approved in 2021 for the Argyle Core Area CIP, including consideration of a forgivable loan component for properties facing Dundas Street between Clarke Road and Hale Street;

iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of amending the Upgrade to Building Code Loan Program offered in the Downtown and Old East Village Community Improvement Project Plans to increase the amount of the forgivable portion from 12.5% to 75% for residential units created in building levels above the ground floor and from 12.5% to 50% for commercial units created in building levels above the ground floor;

iv)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the feasibility of including a Safety Audit Grant Program in the Hamilton Road Area and Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plans;

v)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Municipal Council with recommendations for eligible property security improvements under the Core Area Safety Audit Grant Program to supplement recommended improvements from safety audits which also consider community visual impact;

vi)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of amending the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Tax Grant Program offered in the Downtown and Old East Village Community Improvement Plans to increase the grant value for Level 2 properties to promote occupancy in above ground floors;

vii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate improving the functionality of the existing Additional Residential Unit Loan Program to encourage the construction of Additional Residential Units in alignment with the multi-year budget process;

Creating a New Financial Incentive Program or Community Improvement Plan

viii)    that, following Council’s adoption of the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget setting funding for Financial Incentive Programs in existing Community Improvement Plan, Civic Administration TO REPORT BACK on the policy and financial impacts of introducing a new Community Improvement Plan for the Hyde Park Hamlet on Gainsborough Road;

ix)    the Heritage Community Improvement Plan BE AMENDED to add a new Heritage Grant Program to incentivize the rehabilitation of Heritage properties up to $5,000 capped at 50% of completed eligible improvements;

x)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of adding energy upgrades and climate change adaptation measures into London’s Community Improvement Plans;

xi)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan and report back to Municipal Council on how to improve the Plan to incentivize affordable housing developments;

xii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare new Community Improvement Plans and programs to support low-cost housing within primary transit areas;

xiii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of introducing a new grant program in the Downtown, Old East Village, SoHo, Argyle Core Area, Lambeth, and Hamilton Road Area Community Improvement Plans for funding 100% of eligible interior and exterior building improvements undertaken by business tenants, up to a maximum of $5,000;

xiv)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of a new community improvement financial incentive program to support conversion of vacant commercial buildings with a low potential for continued commercial use to residential units in alignment with the multi-year budget process;

xv)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of introducing a new community improvement financial incentive program to support attainable housing within primary transit areas in alignment with the multi-year budget process; and,

xvi)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the Core Area Community Improvement Plan to consider amendments addressing property acquisition options and financial incentive programs aimed at identifying and encouraging commercial occupancy options identified through the Core Area Land and Building Vacancy Reduction Strategy;

Boundary Changes to a Community Improvement Project Area

xvii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of consolidating the Core Area, Downtown, and Old East Village Community Improvement Plans, it being noted that the Core Area comprises of three distinct areas: Downtown, Midtown, and Old East Village;

xviii)    the Old East Village Community Improvement Plan Project Area BE AMENDED to include the properties located at 425 Rectory Street, 419 Rectory Street, 417 Rectory Street, 415 Rectory Street, 800 King Street, 796 King Street, 794 King Street, 790 King Street, 786 King Street, 784 King Street, 774 King Street, 768 King Street, 764 King Street, 762 King Street, 758 King Street, 754 King Street, 748 King Street, 376 Hewitt Street, 378 Hewitt Street, 380 Hewitt Street, 382 Hewitt Street, 386 Hewitt Street, and 390 Hewitt Street; and,

xix)    the Hamilton Road Community Improvement Plan Project Area BE AMENDED to include the property located at 512 Horton Street East; and,

xx)    the comments and communications received as part of the associated public participation meeting relating to affordable housing BE FORWARDED to the appropriate external reference group(s) for consideration;

 

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

  •    a communication dated June 5, 2023 from K. Duever, VP, Public Affairs, London Chamber of Commerce; and,

  •    the revised staff report;

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated June 12, 2023 from Councillor S. Franke;

  •    a communication dated June 8, 2023 from B. Maly, Downtown London Executive Director and S. . Collyer, LDBA Board Chair;

  •    a communication dated June 8, 2023 from A. McClenaghan, Chair, Mainstreet London; and,

  •    a communication dated June 9 2023 from S. Levin;

 

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

  •    S. Levin;

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  •    D. Bellrose;

  •    B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London Business Improvement Area;

  •    K. Duever, London Chamber of Commerce;

  •    J. Ryan, Indwell;

  •    Sister J. Atkinson, Sister of St. Joseph and Vision SoHo Alliance Group;

  •    J. Pastorius, Old East Village Business Improvement Area; and,

  •    J. A. John, Partner Housing.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Item 5 (clause 3.2) of the 10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE AMENDED by adding a new part e), as follows:

“e)     that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review existing (and consider in future) housing-related CIPs opportunities to include and incentivize the creation of affordable housing units, and report back no later than Q2 of 2024, including but not limited to:

i)    the introduction of mandatory minimums to access CIP funds; and 

ii)    options to include affordable housing units in existing buildings;

it being noted that changes to provincial legislation on affordable housing necessitates a review of the existing financial incentive programs;”

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Item 5 (clause 3.2) of the 10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE FURTHER AMENDED by adding a new part d) xxi):

“xxi) that 206 Piccadilly be added to the Downtown Community Improvement Plan Project Area”

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the motion as further amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Item 5, clause 3.2, as amended, reads as follows:

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 Incentives Programs:

  

 a) the recommendations identified through the 5-Year Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Programs Review that can be addressed through existing budgets BE IMPLEMENTED:

 

 i)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to revise the City of London Community Improvement Plan for Brownfield Incentives to update references to The London Plan, Provincial planning legislation, and Provincial financing tools;

 ii)    the Community Improvement Plan for Industrial Land Uses BE AMENDED to remove ‘businesses that develop computer software or hardware for license or sale to end users that are on land zoned for industrial uses’ and to remove ‘enhanced transportation and logistics’, it being noted that ‘enhanced transportation and logistics’ is not defined as targeted in Schedule 3 of the Community Improvement Plan;

 iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to remove references to the former 1989 Official Plan and Provincial Policy Statement and to replace them with The London Plan and the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement in all Community Improvement Plans;

 iv)    that the Upgrade to Building Code Loan Program and the Façade Improvement Loan Program BE AMENDED to modify the repayment schedules to reduce the term length for loan amounts that are equal to or less than $5,000 from 114 monthly payments to 54 monthly payments instead;

 v)    the Airport Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP) BE AMENDED to revise the eligibility criteria and requirements for retroactive applications, it being noted the Airport Area CIP requirements are inconsistent compared to other City of London CIPs;

 vi)    the goals and objectives of the Downtown and Old East Village Community Improvement Plans BE AMENDED to introduce measurable objectives to inform when the CIPs’ identified Community Improvement goals have been achieved;

 vii)    the Heritage Community Improvement Plan, City of London Community Improvement Plan for Brownfield Incentives, and Community Improvement Plan for Industrial Land Uses BE AMENDED to include performance measures, indicators of success, and targets to align with current City policies and Municipal Council Strategic Directions;

 viii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the effectiveness of the Financial Incentive Programs supporting the City of London Community Improvement Plan for Brownfield Incentives; and,

 ix)    the Development Charges Grant and the Tax Increment Equivalent Grant Programs in the City of London Community Improvement Plan for Brownfield Incentives BE AMENDED to limit the duration of Municipal Council’s commitment, it being noted that the Program does not define a time limit for holding City funds committed in future budgets;

 

 b) the recommendations identified through the 5-Year Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Programs Review that result in a funding reduction, or a program being suspended, BE IMPLEMENTED:

 

 i)    the Industrial Land Corridor Enhancement Grant Program BE DELETED from the Community Improvement Plan for Industrial Land Uses;

 ii)    the funding for the Property Tax Assistance Grant Program in the London Community Improvement Plan for Brownfield Incentives BE SUSPENDED in the next Multi-Year Budget pending review of the impact of 2023 changes made to the Provincial Brownfield Financial Tax Incentive Program; and,

 iii)    that funding for the Wharncliffe Road Corridor Sign Loan Program in the Lambeth Area Community Improvement Plan BE SUSPENDED in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget, it being noted that this program will continue to be approved as part of the Lambeth Area Community Improvement Plan;

 

 c) the recommendation identified through the 5-Year Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Programs Review that continues existing financial incentive programs with an existing budget BE IMPLEMENTED:

 

 i)    that, based on results from the review of the City’s current Community Improvement Plans and the associated Incentive Programs, the following Programs, BE CONTINUED, noting that funding for these Programs was set to expire December 31, 2023:

 

 A)    Residential Development Charges Grant Programs offered in the Downtown and Old East Village Community Improvement Project Areas;

 B)    Downtown, Old East Village, and SoHo Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Tax Grant Programs;

 C)    Downtown, Old East Village, Hamilton Road, and SoHo Upgrade to Building Code Loan Programs;

 D)    Downtown, Old East Village, and Hamilton Road Upgrade to Building Code Loan Programs, including existing provisions for forgivable loans;

 E)    Downtown, Hamilton Road, Old East Village, Lambeth and SoHo Façade Improvement Loan Programs;

 F)    Downtown and Old East Village Façade Improvement Loan Programs, including existing provisions for forgivable loans; and,

 G)    City-wide Industrial Development Charge Program that continues to distinguish between targeted and non-targeted industrial uses;

 

 d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit business cases for all recommendations requiring additional investment through the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget process:

 

 Enhancing an Existing Financial Incentive Program

 

 i)    the Core Area Community Improvement Plan BE AMENDED to make available to properties facing Dundas Street in the Midtown Area, the Façade Improvement Loan, Upgrade to Building Code Loan, and the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Tax Grant Programs;

 ii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of funding the Upgrade to Building Code Loan, the Façade Improvement Loan, and the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Tax Grant Programs approved in 2021 for the Argyle Core Area CIP, including consideration of a forgivable loan component for properties facing Dundas Street between Clarke Road and Hale Street;

 iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of amending the Upgrade to Building Code Loan Program offered in the Downtown and Old East Village Community Improvement Project Plans to increase the amount of the forgivable portion from 12.5% to 75% for residential units created in building levels above the ground floor and from 12.5% to 50% for commercial units created in building levels above the ground floor;

 iv)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the feasibility of including a Safety Audit Grant Program in the Hamilton Road Area and Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plans;

 v)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Municipal Council with recommendations for eligible property security improvements under the Core Area Safety Audit Grant Program to supplement recommended improvements from safety audits which also consider community visual impact;

 vi)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of amending the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Tax Grant Program offered in the Downtown and Old East Village Community Improvement Plans to increase the grant value for Level 2 properties to promote occupancy in above ground floors;

 vii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate improving the functionality of the existing Additional Residential Unit Loan Program to encourage the construction of Additional Residential Units in alignment with the multi-year budget process;

 

 Creating a New Financial Incentive Program or Community Improvement Plan

 

 viii)    that, following Council’s adoption of the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget setting funding for Financial Incentive Programs in existing Community Improvement Plan, Civic Administration TO REPORT BACK on the policy and financial impacts of introducing a new Community Improvement Plan for the Hyde Park Hamlet on Gainsborough Road;

 ix)    the Heritage Community Improvement Plan BE AMENDED to add a new Heritage Grant Program to incentivize the rehabilitation of Heritage properties up to $5,000 capped at 50% of completed eligible improvements;

 x)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of adding energy upgrades and climate change adaptation measures into London’s Community Improvement Plans;

 xi)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan and report back to Municipal Council on how to improve the Plan to incentivize affordable housing developments;

 xii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare new Community Improvement Plans and programs to support low-cost housing within primary transit areas;

 xiii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of introducing a new grant program in the Downtown, Old East Village, SoHo, Argyle Core Area, Lambeth, and Hamilton Road Area Community Improvement Plans for funding 100% of eligible interior and exterior building improvements undertaken by business tenants, up to a maximum of $5,000;

 xiv)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of a new community improvement financial incentive program to support conversion of vacant commercial buildings with a low potential for continued commercial use to residential units in alignment with the multi-year budget process;

 xv)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of introducing a new community improvement financial incentive program to support attainable housing within primary transit areas in alignment with the multi-year budget process; and,

 xvi)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the Core Area Community Improvement Plan to consider amendments addressing property acquisition options and financial incentive programs aimed at identifying and encouraging commercial occupancy options identified through the Core Area Land and Building Vacancy Reduction Strategy;

 

 

 Boundary Changes to a Community Improvement Project Area

 

 xvii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate the feasibility of consolidating the Core Area, Downtown, and Old East Village Community Improvement Plans, it being noted that the Core Area comprises of three distinct areas: Downtown, Midtown, and Old East Village;

 xviii)    the Old East Village Community Improvement Plan Project Area BE AMENDED to include the properties located at 425 Rectory Street, 419 Rectory Street, 417 Rectory Street, 415 Rectory Street, 800 King Street, 796 King Street, 794 King Street, 790 King Street, 786 King Street, 784 King Street, 774 King Street, 768 King Street, 764 King Street, 762 King Street, 758 King Street, 754 King Street, 748 King Street, 376 Hewitt Street, 378 Hewitt Street, 380 Hewitt Street, 382 Hewitt Street, 386 Hewitt Street, and 390 Hewitt Street; and,

 xix)    the Hamilton Road Community Improvement Plan Project Area BE AMENDED to include the property located at 512 Horton Street East; and,

 xx)    the comments and communications received as part of the associated public participation meeting relating to affordable housing BE FORWARDED to the appropriate external reference group(s) for consideration;

 xxi) that 206 Piccadilly be added to the Downtown Community Improvement Plan Project Area

 

 e) that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review existing (and consider in future) housing-related CIPs opportunities to include and incentivize the creation of affordable housing units, and report back no later than Q2 of 2024, including but not limited to:

 

 i)    the introduction of mandatory minimums to access CIP funds; and 

 ii)    options to include affordable housing units in existing buildings;

 

 it being noted that changes to provincial legislation on affordable housing necessitates a review of the existing financial incentive programs;

  

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

 

 -    a communication dated June 5, 2023 from K. Duever, VP, Public Affairs, London Chamber of Commerce; and,

 -    the revised staff report;

 -    the staff presentation;

 -    a communication dated June 12, 2023 from Councillor S. Franke;

 -    a communication dated June 8, 2023 from B. Maly, Downtown London Executive Director and S. Collyer, LDBA Board Chair;

 -    a communication dated June 8, 2023 from A. McClenaghan, Chair, Mainstreet London; and,

 -    a communication dated June 9 2023 from S. Levin;

  

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

 

 -    S. Levin;

 -    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

 -    D. Bellrose;

 -    B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London Business Improvement Area;

 -    K. Duever, London Chamber of Commerce;

 -    J. Ryan, Indwell;

 -    Sister J. Atkinson, Sister of St. Joseph and Vision SoHo Alliance Group;

 -    J. Pastorius, Old East Village Business Improvement Area; and,

 -    J. A. John, Partner Housing.

8.5   11th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

2023-06-19 PEC Report 11 - Full

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 6 (2.3), 7 (3.1) and 10 (3.4);

it being noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) ReThink Zoning Progress Update

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated June 19, 2023 entitled “ReThink Zoning - progress update” BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-D14)

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Request for Heritage Designation - 81 Wilson Avenue

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the request for designation of the property located at 81 Wilson Avenue:

a)    Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix E; and,

b)    should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 81 Wilson Avenue to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix E appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. (2023-R01)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.4) Heritage Alteration Permit - 1 Cathcart Street and 115 Bruce Street - Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District (HAP23-036-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 approval for alterations to the existing heritage house on the subject property located at 1 Cathcart Street and 115 Bruce Street, and to also construct two, new 2-storey houses on the subject property (specifically on Lot 1 – Bruce Street and Lot 3 – Cathcart Street as appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix C) within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District BE PERMITTED as described in the staff report dated June 19, 2023 and as shown the aforementioned staff report as Appendix C, subject to the following terms and conditions:

i)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the applicant’s Building Permit application drawings to verify compliance with this Heritage Alteration Permit prior to issuance of the Building Permit;

ii)    detached, single garages proposed on Lot 1 – Bruce Street and on Lot 3 – Cathcart Street to be clad with a painted wood siding or fiber cement board with a smooth finish, in a colour to match the brick of the respective houses; and,

iii)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed. (2023-R01)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.5) Building Division Staffing Enhancements: A Path to 47,000 Units by 2031

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated June 19, 2023 entitled “Building Division Staffing Enhancements: A Path to 47,000 Units by 2031” with respect to staffing enhancements for the Building Division to accommodate the requirements of Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022) related to the creation of 47,000 residential units by 2031, BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-H05)

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (3.2) 1176, 1180, 1182 and 1186 Huron Street and 294 Briarhill Avenue Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ-9596) (Relates to Bill No.’s 195 and 203)

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 2864876 Ontario Inc., relating to the properties located at 1176, 1180, 1182 and 1186 Huron Street & 294 Briarhill Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023 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;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-18*R9-7(_)*H27) 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)    provision of adequate outdoor amenity space;

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

iii)    no portions of the building or landscaping features (i.e.: planting boxes or privacy screens) are permitted to encroach into the City right-of-way;

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

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

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the recommended by-law;

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

  •    the project fact sheet;

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

  •    M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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, the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies, the Zoning to the Upper Maximum policies, and the Evaluation Criteria for Planning and Development Applications 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.  (2023-D04)

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (3.3) 954 Gainsborough Road - Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ-9502) (Relates to Bill No. 204)

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 Royal Premier Homes, relating to the property located at 954 Gainsborough Road:

a)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3), Holding Urban Reserve (h-2*UR3) and Open Space (OS5) Zone TO a Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-5()) Zone, Residential R5 (R5-5) Zone and a Residential R9 Special Provision Zone (R9-7(), BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)    the Application did not include Holding Provisions, a number of holding provisions are considered necessary to address a range of planning and servicing issues associated with the proposed development.

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 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 Urban Reserve (UR3), Holding Urban Reserve (h-2UR3) and Open Space (OS5) Zone TO a Holding Residential Special Provision R4 (hh-100R4-5(_)) Zone, Holding Residential R5 (hh-100R5-5) Zone and a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision Zone (hh-100*R9-7(_)); and,

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised through the application review process for the property located at 954 Gainsborough Road:

i)    enquiring if a Transportation Impact Assessment has been completed;

ii)    enquiring if a Shadow Study has been completed;

iii)    enquiring about the amount of green space and community space as the area feels enclosed;

iv)    enquiring about the proximity of the proposed building to the fence of a neighbouring property in terms of privacy and open space as they will have a big wall built close to them; and,

v)    privacy concerns;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed Plan of Subdivision as submitted by Royal Premier Homes. (File No. 39T-22501), prepared by ENG PLUS (Project No. 20.221), certified by Jake Surgenor O.L.S., dated April 13, 2022, as red-line revised, which shows a total of three (3) medium density blocks and five road allowance blocks served by one Neighbourhood Street (Sophia Crescent) and one Neighbourhood Connector (Coronation Drive), SUBJECT TO the conditions appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “B”;

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

  •    a communication from M. Al Ashkar;

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

  •    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    B. Chohan;

  •    F. Briceno;

  •    D. Pencilo; and,

  •    T. Raphael;

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

  •    the recommended zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

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

  •    the zoning will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents;

  •    the proposed and recommended zoning amendments will facilitate an appropriate form of low and medium density residential development that conforms to The London Plan; and,

  •    the recommended draft plan supports a broad range of low and medium density residential development opportunities within the site including more intensive, mid-rise apartments along Gainsborough Road.  The Draft Plan has been designed to support these uses and to achieve a visually pleasing development that is pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and accessible to the surrounding community. (2023-D12)

Motion Passed

8.5.11   (5.1) 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on June 14, 2023:

 

a)    the communication, from B. Boughner, London Majors Alumni Association, as appended to the June 14, 2023 Community Advisory Committee on Planning Agenda, BE REFERRED to the Culture Office in order for additional consideration in conjunction with the Education Sub-committee and a report back to a future meeting of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning for further discussion; it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Boughner, with respect this matter, was received;

 

b)    the appointments of S. Ashman and J. Wabegijig BE RESCINDED from the Community Advisory Committee on Planning due to lack of attendance and,

 

c)    clauses 1.1, 1.2, 3.1 to 3.4, inclusive, 4.1 and 4.2, inclusive, 5.1 to 5.3, inclusive, 5.5 and 5.6 BE RECEIVED for information;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from S. Bergman, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.3) Request for Heritage Designation - 599-601 Richmond Street

Motion made by S. Lehman

That notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated June 19, 2023 entitled “Designation of the Property at 599-601 Richmond street pursuant to Part IV, Ontario Heritage Act, Ward 13” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-R01)

Motion Passed (8 to 5)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That notwithstanding the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor A. Hopkins BE PERMITTED to speak twice with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (8 to 5)

8.5.7   (3.1) 568 Second Street Zoning By-law Amendment (Z-9522) (Relates to Bill No. 202)

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 of Parkit Enterprises relating to the property located at 568 Second Street:

a)    the revised, attached, proposed by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 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 Light Industrial (LI1) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h*R9-7()H41) Zone AND a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Temporary (hR9-7()*H41/T- _) Zone,

b)    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 seven (7) 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;

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

i)    any required amenity space be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the project; 

ii)    limit parking between the buildings and Second Street to one row of parking spaces on the subject site;

iii)    provide direct and convenient walkway access from the main building entrances to the public sidewalk;

iv)    ensure pedestrian connections are included throughout the site to provide for safe, direct and convenient pedestrian connectivity between sidewalks, building entrances and parking and amenity areas;

v)    consolidate long-term indoor bicycle storage on the ground floor;

vi)    consider the feasibility of providing access to the rear of the neighbouring property;

vii)    consider moving the garbage area away from the centralized outdoor amenity area; and,

viii)    provide all-season landscaping within and surrounding parking areas to screen parking from the public streets as much as possible;

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

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    the applicant’s presentation;

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

  •    D. Hannam, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    J. Flynn, MTE;

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

  •    the recommended alternative Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended alternative Zoning By-law amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, and the Zoning to the Upper Maximum policies contained in Our Tools part of the Plan; and,

  •    the recommended alternative Zoning By-law amendment facilitates the development of an underutilitzed site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development and the interim temporary use of the land until servicing capacity can be confirmed.  (2023-D04)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Item 7 (3.1) 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 of Parkit Enterprises relating to the property located at 568 Second Street:

a)    the revised, attached, proposed by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 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 Light Industrial (LI1) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h*R9-7()H41) Zone AND a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Temporary (hR9-7()*H41/T- _) Zone,

b)    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 seven (7) 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;

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

i)    any required amenity space be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the project; 

ii)    limit parking between the buildings and Second Street to one row of parking spaces on the subject site;

iii)    provide direct and convenient walkway access from the main building entrances to the public sidewalk;

iv)    ensure pedestrian connections are included throughout the site to provide for safe, direct and convenient pedestrian connectivity between sidewalks, building entrances and parking and amenity areas;

v)    consolidate long-term indoor bicycle storage on the ground floor;

vi)    consider the feasibility of providing access to the rear of the neighbouring property;

vii)    consider moving the garbage area away from the centralized outdoor amenity area; and,

viii)    provide all-season landscaping within and surrounding parking areas to screen parking from the public streets as much as possible;

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

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    the applicant’s presentation;

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

  •    D. Hannam, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    J. Flynn, MTE;

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

  •    the recommended alternative Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended alternative Zoning By-law amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, and the Zoning to the Upper Maximum policies contained in Our Tools part of the Plan; and,

  •    the recommended alternative Zoning By-law amendment facilitates the development of an underutilitzed site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development and the interim temporary use of the land until servicing capacity can be confirmed.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Item 7 clause 3.1, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5.10   (3.4) 755, 785 & 815 Wonderland Road South (OZ-9565)

Motion made by S. Lehman

of the request to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to ADD a Specific Area Policy in the Shopping Area Place Type applicable to the subject lands to permit a maximum building height of 16 storeys, and to permit an increased amount of office gross floor area of 30,000 square metres, for the following reasons:

i)    the total amount of office space is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) as the level of intensification proposed on the subject site would compete with the downtown and does maintain or enhance its vitality; 

ii)    the increased height and office space does not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to:

A)    the Key Directions that ensure new development is a good fit within existing neighbourhoods;

B)    the proposed intensity does not conform to the City Structure Plan and the intensity of office uses;

C)    the design criteria contained in the City Design chapter for site layout and high-rise buildings;

D)    the Evaluation Criteria for Planning and Development Applications in the Our Tools chapter of The London Plan;

E)    the Shopping Area Place Type policies to complete a master plan on large commercial infill development sites;

iii)    the increased amount of office space is significantly over the 2,000 square metres contemplated for a suburban shopping area and undermines the role and future health of the Downtown as the primary office destination in the City; and,

iv)    the requested amendment does not provide a suitable transition to the existing low density residential neighbourhood and represents an over-intensification of the site;

b)    Municipal Council supports refusal of the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (RSA2(3)) Zone TO a Residential R5 (R5-7) Zone; Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (RSC2()/R9-7()H25D120) zone; Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (RSC2()/R9-7()H40D200) zone; Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (RSC2()/R9-7()H48D200) zone; Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (RSC2()/R9-7()H55D200) zone, for the following reasons:

i)    the total amount of office space is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) as the level of intensification proposed on the subject site would compete with the downtown and does maintain or enhance its vitality; 

ii)    the increased height and office space does not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to:

A)    the Key Directions that ensure new development is a good fit within existing neighbourhoods;

B)    the proposed intensity does not conform to the City Structure Plan and the intensity of office uses;

C)    the design criteria contained in the City Design chapter for site layout and high-rise buildings;

D)    the Evaluation Criteria for Planning and Development Applications in the Our Tools chapter of The London Plan;

E)    the Shopping Area Place Type policies to complete a master plan on large commercial infill development sites; 

F)    the increased amount of office space is significantly over the 2,000 square metres contemplated for a suburban shopping area and undermines the role and future health of the Downtown as the primary office destination in the City; and,

G)    the requested amendment does not provide a suitable transition to the existing low density residential neighbourhood and represents an over-intensification of the site;

c)    Municipal Council supports the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “A” at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023 to amend The Official Plan, The London Plan to ADD a Specific Area Policy in the Shopping Area Place Type applicable to the subject lands to permit a maximum building height of 12 storeys along Wonderland Road South and Viscount Road;

d)    Municipal Council supports the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 19, 2023 as Appendix “B” at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 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 Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (RSA2(3)) Zone TO a holding Residential R5 Special Provision/Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (h-5h-54h-63h-123h-149h-213h-()*R5-7()/RSA2()) Zone; a holding Residential R8 Special Provision/Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (h-5h-54h-63h-123h-149h-213h-()R8-4()/RSA2() Zone; and a holding R9 Special Provision/Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (h-5h-54h-63h-123h-149h-213*h-()*R9-7()*H36/RSA2(_)) Zone;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    G. Halle;

  •    T. Frederick;

  •    E. Slivinski and,

  •    W. Murray;

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

  •    the total amount of office space is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) as the level of intensification proposed on the subject site would compete with the downtown and does maintain or enhance its vitality; 

  •    the increased height and office space does not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to:

  •    the Key Directions that ensure new development is a good fit within existing neighbourhoods.

  •    the proposed intensity does not conform to the City Structure Plan and the intensity of office uses;

  •    the design criteria contained in the City Design chapter for site layout and high-rise buildings;

  •    the Evaluation Criteria for Planning and Development Applications in the Our Tools chapter of The London Plan;

  •    the Shopping Area Place Type policies to complete a master plan on large commercial infill development sites;

  •    the increased amount of office space is significantly over the 2,000 square metres contemplated for a suburban shopping area and undermines the role and future health of the Downtown as the primary office destination in the City;

  •    the requested amendment does not provide a suitable transition to the existing low density residential neighbourhood and represents an over-intensification of the site;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the City Structure policies, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable The London Plan policies; and,

  •    the zoning will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands and broaden the use of the site.  (2023-D04)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Clause 3.4 BE AMENDED by adding the following at the end of the clause:

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:

a)    Submission of a noise and vibration study certified by an accredited professional; and, 

b)    Submission of a shadow study.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That item 10, clause 3.4, as amended, BE APPROVED.

motion withdrawn with the consent of council

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That item 10, clause 3.4, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Failed (6 to 7)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Lewis

That a recess of the Council BE APPROVED at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 6:47 PM and reconvenes at 7:18 PM.

8.6   12th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2023-06-12 CSC Report 12-Complete

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 12th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (2.2) Industrial Land Development Strategy Annual Monitoring and Pricing Report - City-Owned Industrial Land (Relates to Bill No. 186)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with concurrence of the Director, Economic Services and Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City of London’s Industrial Land Development Strategy, the following actions be taken with respect to the annual monitoring and pricing of City-owned industrial lands:

  

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 12, 2023 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023 to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under Section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001” by deleting Attachment “B” to Schedule “A” – Sale and other Disposition of Land Policy of the By-law and by replacing it with a new Attachment “B” to Schedule “A”  to amend the current pricing for City owned serviced industrial land as follows:

The current pricing levels of all City owned industrial parks, established effective  September 1, 2023, are as follows:

Innovation Park (Phases 1 to 4) and Huron Industrial Park (all phases):

  • Lots up to 4.99 acres – price change from $175,000 per acre to $225,000 per acre 

  • 5.00 acres and up – price change from $165,000 per acre to $200,000 per acre

Pricing for serviced industrial land in Trafalgar Industrial Park:

  • All lot sizes – price change from $165,000 per acre to $200,000 per acre

Pricing for serviced industrial land in Innovation Park Phase V

  • All lot sizes – price change from $250,000 to $300,000.00 per acre

Surcharges are as follows: 

Highway 401 Exposure – 15% 

Veteran’s Memorial Parkway Exposure – 5%; and,

b) the staff report dated June 12, 2023 entitled “Industrial Land Development Strategy Annual Monitoring and Pricing Report – City-Owned Industrial Land”, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Terry Fox Week

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated May 19, 2023 from Terry Fox Run London, September 11-18, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Terry Fox Week.

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Emancipation Month

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated June 2, 2023 from W.E.A.N Community Centre, the month of August 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Emancipation Month.

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Pride London Festival (Pride in London)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated June 5, 2023 from Pride London Festival, July 13 to 23, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Pride London Festival (Pride in London).

Motion Passed

8.6.6   (2.1) 2023-2027 Strategic Advocacy Framework

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    that the attached, revised, 2023-2027 Strategic Advocacy Framework BE ENDORSED, it being noted that specific notation has been included to specific reference to working with Indigenous organizations and the inclusion of the example of the existing Giwetashkad Indigenous Homelessness Strategy in the Framework document; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with implementation of the Strategic Advocacy Framework;

it being noted that specific notation was made by the Committee with respect to advocacy regarding the rent control regime and other actions which would be included in the advocacy outcomes identified in the Report.

Motion Passed

8.6.7   (2.3) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - 652 Elizabeth Street

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to a City-owned property municipally known as 652 Elizabeth Street, being Part Lot 11, Concession 1, in the City of London, London Township, being part of PIN 08279-0210, and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited (the “Subject Property”): 

a)    the Civic Administration be AUTHORIZED to engage the Department of National Defence (DND) to release a restrictive covenant registered against the property, which limits the available uses with the property and complete any other duties as required by the Civic Administration in relation to the restrictive covenant; and,

b)    the declaring surplus the property located at 652 Elizabeth Street and potential associated sale BE DEFERRED to a future meeting the Corporate Services Committee, and upon the completion of part a), above.

Motion Passed

8.6.8   (5.1) Councillor Expense Approval Request

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, notwithstanding current interpretations of the Council Members’ Expense Account Policy, the expense request from Councillor S. Lewis for a Canada Day Event advertisement, including contact information, in flyers and an on-stage banner in the amount of $300.00, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.7   13th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2023-06-20 CSC Report 13

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 13th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.7.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.8   10th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2023-06-13 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 10th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 15 (4.3) and 16 (4.4).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.8.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.8.2   (2.1) 6th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on June 1, 2023:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the attached report from the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee Sub-Committee:

i)    the above-noted report BE FORWARDED to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC); and,

ii)    the ESACAC BE REQUESTED to consider the following actions from the above-noted report:

A)    the recommendations;

B)    the proposed language for the brochure;

C)    the image from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority signage; and,

D)    the example from the Province of Alberta’s Don’t Let it Loose Campaign;

it being noted that the above-noted report from the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee Sub-Committee was received;

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.8.3   (2.2) London’s Newcomer Strategy - Choose London - Innovative, Vibrant and Global

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated June 13, 2023, with respect to London’s Newcomer Strategy: Choose London – Innovative, Vibrant and Global, BE RECEIVED. (2023-L08)

Motion Passed

8.8.4   (2.3) Completion of Downtown Camera Program and Code of Practice Information Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 13, 2023, related to the Completion of the Downtown Camera Program and Code of Practice Information Report:

a)    the information, as appended to the above-noted staff report, with respect to the Civic Administration’s approach for the completion of the Downtown Camera Program, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the revised London Downtown Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Program Code of Practice, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE APPROVED. (2023-C08/P15A)

Motion Passed

8.8.5   (2.5) Neighbourhood Decision Making Program Fairness and Equity Review

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report dated June 13, 2023, with respect to the Neighbourhood Decision Making Program Fairness and Equity Review, BE RECEIVED. (2023-S12)

Motion Passed

8.8.6   (2.6) London Fire Department Single Source Traffic Management System Vehicle Monitoring Units

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated June 13, 2023, related to London Fire Department Single Source Traffic Management System Vehicle Monitoring Units:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with Applied Information Inc. of 510-4411 Suwanee Dam Road, Suwanee, Georgia, 30024, USA for pricing for a single source contract for one (1) year with three (3) option years for the provision of vehicle monitoring units 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 Applied Information Inc. to provide vehicle monitoring units to the London Fire Department; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the above-noted authorizations. (2023-L04)

Motion Passed

8.8.7   (2.7) London Fire Department Single Source Request for Fire Apparatus - SS-2023-172

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated June 13, 2023, related to London Fire Department Single Source Request for Fire Apparatus (SS-2023-172):

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 City View Specialty Vehicles, 1213 Lorimar Drive, Mississauga, ON, L5S 1M9, for pricing for a single source contract for one (1) year (2023) with four (4) option years (2024-2027) for the provision of Fire Apparatus to the London Fire Department;

b)    the London Fire Department BE AUTHORIZED to procure four (4) Fire Apparatus: 1 Pumper Rescue, 1 Tanker Pumper, 1 Heavy Rescue, and 1 Decontamination Response Vehicle from City View Specialty Vehicles, for $7,895,136 (excluding HST), including a contingency for currency exchange rate; and, 

c)    the funding for this 2023 procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2023-V01)

Motion Passed

8.8.8   (2.8) London Fire Department Single Source Request for a Decontamination Pod Report - SS-2023-171

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated June 13, 2023, related to London Fire Department Single Source Request for a Decontamination Pod Report (SS-2023-171):

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with Advanced Containment Systems Inc, (ACSI) 8720 Lambright Rd., Houston, TX, 77075, for the purchase of one (1) Decontamination Pod; 

b)    the London Fire Department BE AUTHORIZED to procure one (1) Decontamination Pod that will replace the current Decontamination Trailer; it being noted that the Decontamination Pod will be procured from Advanced Containment Systems Inc, for $362,731 CAD ($251,168 USD at current exchange rate) (excluding HST), including a contingency for currency exchange rate, and with a minimum 50% downpayment at time of order; and,

c)    the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Finance Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2023-V01)

Motion Passed

8.8.9   (2.9) Recreation Activity Management System Contract Extension (Relates to Bill No. 189)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 13, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on June 27, 2023, to:

a)    approve the terms within the original 2018 PerfectMind Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between PerfectMind Inc. and The Corporation of the City of London for two additional five-year renewal periods; 

b)    approve the PerfectMind Contract Extension Agreement between PerfectMind Inc. and The Corporation of the City of London, substantially in the form appended to the above-noted by-law;

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

d)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or written delegate, to execute further amending agreements;

e)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or written delegate, to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in regards to the above-noted Contract Extension Agreement. (2023-R06/L04)

Motion Passed

8.8.10   (2.10) 2019-2023 Multi-Sector Service Accountability Agreement - Dearness Home Adult Day Program and Ontario Health West - Declaration of Compliance – April 1, 2022 – March 31, 2023

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Declaration of Compliance with respect to compliance with the terms of the 2019-2023 Multi-Sector Service Accountability Agreement Dearness Home Adult Day Program and Ontario Health West for the reporting period of April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023, as appended to the staff report dated June 13, 2023. (2023-S03)

Motion Passed

8.8.11   (2.4) Delegation of Authority for Municipal Contribution Agreements for Affordable Housing (Relates to Bill No. 188)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development the following action be taken with respect to the staff report, dated June 13, 2023, related to the Delegation of Authority for Municipal Contribution Agreements for Affordable Housing:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on June 27, 2023, to:

i)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, to approve and execute an agreement of assignment and assumption related to a Contribution Agreement between an affordable housing provider and The Corporation of the City of London;

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, to approve and execute an amending agreement related to a Contribution Agreement between an affordable housing provider and The Corporation of the City of London to approve a rent increase for operations in financial difficulty; it being noted that no rent for affordable units in a building to which a Contribution Agreement between an affordable housing provider and The Corporation of the City of London applies shall exceed 80% of Average Market Rent or Median Market Rent for a rental unit, by unit type, as determined by the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation;

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, to approve and execute an amendment to the Contribution Agreement to provide for additional permitted encumbrances, to consent to postponements of the City’s security under a Contribution Agreement and to approve and execute priority, standstill and subordination agreements satisfactory to the City Solicitor’s Office;

iv)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, to amend a Contribution Agreement between an affordable housing provider and The Corporation of the City of London to add requirements related to the affordable housing units, to add further affordable housing units, to address approved changes to the development schedule, project information form or increases to the equity contribution made by the affordable housing provider; 

v)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, to amend a Contribution Agreement between an affordable housing provider and The Corporation of the City of London to attaching or detaching a property from/to the Contribution Agreement as long as it is not in the detriment or loss of the total number of affordable units;

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report, semi-annually, outlining the actions taken by the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, under the delegations under the by-law along with an update on equity retention discussion; it being noted that this report will be included as an appendix to the semi-annual Roadmap 3000 update;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, and the verbal delegation, from G. Playford, Devonshire Consulting, with respect to this matter, were received. (2023-S11)

Motion Passed

8.8.12   (3.1) Housekeeping Amendments -Administrative Monetary Penalty Systems and Business Licensing By-law (Relates to Bill No.’s 193 and 197)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 13, 2023, related to Housekeeping Amendments to the Administrative Monetary Penalty Systems and Business Licensing 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 27, 2023, to amend By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to repeal and replace Schedules “A-2” through to “A-22” and “A-26” through to “A-27”; 

b)    the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023, to amend By-law No. L.-131-16, being “A by-law to provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Various Businesses” in order to update processes and definitions, clean up grammar throughout, save and except for amendments to remove the Adult Entertainment Body Rub Parlour location at 609 Clarke Road (formerly operating as Sweet City) for which a public participation meeting be held in the future to provide for public comments for the removal of this location from the by-law; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a Draft Terms of Reference in the fall of 2023 related to a thorough review of the Business Licensing By-law, which will outline the detail of public outreach and participation to occur throughout 2024. (2023-C01A)

Motion Passed

8.8.13   (4.1) Occupant Noise Enforcement - Partnered Pilot Project Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated June 13, 2023, related to the Occupant Noise Enforcement Partnered Pilot Project: 

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; 

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue the partnered Occupant Noise Enforcement program; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward as part of a multi-year budget, a business case that provides funding to continue and improve the intake of the partnered Occupant Noise Enforcement program or other service improvements. (2023-P01)

Motion Passed

8.8.14   (4.2) Fireworks By-Law Options Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 13, 2023, related to Fireworks By-law Options:

a)    the Civic administration BE DIRECTED to hold a public participation meeting at a future of the Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) in order to receive comments on proposed changes to the Fireworks By-law PW-11; it being noted that additional direction to the Civic Administration will be provided, following the consideration of comments and submissions at the public participation meeting;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the CPSC summarizing public comments including the submission of a draft by-law amendment; and,

c)    the requests for delegation, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, from V.R. Anber and A. Kanji BE DEFERRED to the above-noted future public participation meeting with respect to this matter;

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

  •    V.R. Anber;

  •    A. Kanji;

  •    M. Luce;

  •    Brandy;

  •    D. Ronson and B. Amendola; and,

  •    J. Morton and A. Haase. (2023-P01)

Motion Passed

8.8.17   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at May 16, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.8.15   (4.3) Encampment Response Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated June 13, 2023, related to the Encampment Response Update:

a)    the funding allocation, from the Social Services Reserve Fund, for the total municipal allocation amount of up to $255,000.00 BE APPROVED to support a portion of the costs of the Phase 1 Encampment Response on a temporary basis as outlined in the above-noted report; 

b)    a one-time contract amendment of existing agreements, in the total estimated cost of $100,000, BE AUTHORIZED and BE APPROVED to support London Cares and Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA);

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation amending a Purchase of Service Agreement, and; 

e)    the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designate, BE DELEGATED authority to take all necessary action to implement Phase 1 of the Encampment Response. (2023-F11A)

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

8.8.16   (4.4) Councillor J. Pribil - Winter Response Program

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include a year over year comparison, for the past three years (2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023), on the number of bed days available/occupied, number of bed nights available/occupied, number of hours service bed facility, number of hours service non-bed facility and total expenses, with the Winter Response Program Outcome Report at the August meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee. (2023-C04)

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

8.9   (ADDED) 11th Meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2023-06-22 CPSC Special Meeting Report - 11

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.9.1   (ADDED) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.9.2   (ADDED) (4.1) Building Safer Communities Fund (BSCF) Multi-Year Contribution

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed By-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 22, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 27, 2023, to:

a)    repeal Schedule “A” to By-law No. A.-8328-35, being “a by-law to approve and authorize the execution of the amended Building Safer Communities Fund (BSCF) Contribution Agreement between His Majesty the King in right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and The Corporation of the City of London” and replace with the new Schedule “A”, as appended to the above-noted by-law;

b)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services to execute the above-noted Building Safer Communities Fund (BSCF) Contribution Agreement;

c)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services to approve and execute any future amendments to the above-noted Building Safer Communities Fund (BCFS) Contribution Agreement; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.10   2nd Report of the Audit Committee

2023-06-14 Audit Report 2

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 2nd Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.10.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.10.2   (4.1) 2022 Financial Audit

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Financial Audit:

a) the 2022 Financial Report of The Corporation of the City of London BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Audit Committee received a presentation from the Director, Financial Services with respect to this matter; and,

b) the Audit Findings Report as prepared by KPMG for the year ending December 31, 2022, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Audit Committee received a presentation from KPMG with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.10.3   (4.2) 2021 Old East Village Business Improvement Area Board of Management Audited Financial Statements

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report along with Appendix ‘A’, as appended to the staff report dated June 14, 2023, entitled Financial Statements of Old East Village Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the year ending December 31, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.10.4   (4.3) Briefing Note From Internal Auditor - MNP

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication from MNP, with respect to the briefing note from the internal auditor, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.10.5   (4.4) Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard - MNP

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication from MNP, with respect to the internal audit follow up activities update dashboard, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.10.6   (4.5) Recruitment and Selection Audit - Final Report - MNP

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication dated June 2, 2023 from MNP, entitled Recruitment and Selection Audit - Final Report, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.10.7   (4.6) PS 3280 - Asset Retirement Obligations (ARO) Audit - MNP

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication dated June 1, 2023 from MNP, entitled PS 3280 - Asset Retirement Obligations (ARO) Audit, Final Report, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

9.1   10th Report of Council in Closed Session

At 8:24 PM, Councillor S. Stevenson leaves the meeting.

Motion made by H. McAlister

  1.    Partial Property Acquisition – 1080 Dundas Street – East London Link Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 1080 Dundas Street, further described as Part of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Plan 471, in the City of London, being part of PIN 08288-0325, containing an area of approximately 1,513.08 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by 1803299 Ontario Inc. (the Vendor), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $75,650.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”;

b)    the additional sum of $60,000.00 as full and final payment for the loss of parking spaces located within the subject property BE APPROVED;

c)    the Temporary Easement Agreement over the Easement Lands, for the sum of $5,000.00 for the purposes described herein and the Vendor is agreeable to providing same BE ACCEPTED, subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the agreement, and,

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

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

  1.    Commercial Lease – Materials Recovery Facility – 3438 Manning Drive

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, the Lease Agreement Sheet between the City and Miller Waste Systems Inc. attached as Appendix “A”, for the lease of approximately 88,358 square feet of Rentable Area, located at 3438 Manning Drive, for a term of ten (10) years commencing July 1, 2023 and ending on June 30, 2033 BE APPROVED, subject to four consecutive renewal options each with a five (5) year term.

  1.    Execution of Collective Agreement – Unifor Local 302, July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025

That, on the recommendation of the Director, People Services, with the concurrence of the City Manager, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the Mayor and the City Clerk to obtain the necessary authorization to execute the Collective Agreement for the years 2022-2025, appended as Schedule “C” to the staff report dated June 12, 2023, pursuant to Memorandum of Agreement dated September 27,2022 (Schedule “A”), and the Agreed to Items dated June 21 and 22, 2022 (Schedule “B”) between The Corporation of the City of London and Unifor Local 302 (Unifor).

  1.    Contribution Agreement with Vision SOHO Alliance for the Housing Development Project at the Old Victoria Hospital Lands

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 the confidential staff report, dated June 13, 2023, related to a Contribution Agreement with Vision SOHO Alliance for the Housing Development Project at the Old Victoria Hospital Lands:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to negotiate the Contribution Agreement with the Vision SOHO Alliance based on the terms and instructions outlined below:

i)    continue with the approved $13,876,000 grant given the recent increases in construction costs, mortgage rates and exemptions of Development Charge for non-profit corporations;

ii)    the contribution period align with those of the Federal and / or Provincial governments;

iii)    notwithstanding the Roadmap’s intent to have units filled from the City’s waitlist, staff be directed to work with Vision SOHO and their partner agencies to align their waitlists with the City’s to increase the number of affordable units filled by tenants from the City’s list(s);

iv)    require the Tenant Placement Agreement be incorporated into the Contribution Agreement;

v)    include a rental protocol and occupancy standards for the affordable units; and,

vi)    include language in the Contribution Agreement that would require an initial report following occupancy and an annual occupancy report, and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee with a Contribution Agreement suitable to all parties.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 185 to 204, including the revised Bill No. 202 and excluding Bill No.’s 196 and 201, and the Added Bill No.’s 206 and 208 to 211, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 185 to 204, including the revised Bill No. 202 and excluding Bill No.’s 196 and 201, and the Added Bill No.’s 206 and 208 to 211, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

At 8:38 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair.

At 8:40 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 185 to 204, including the revised Bill No. 202 and excluding Bill No.’s 196 and 201, and the Added Bill No.’s 206 and 208 to 211, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 207, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 207, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 207, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

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

Bill No. 185

By-law No. A.-8372-130 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 27th day of June 2023. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 186

By-law No. A.-6151(ah)-131 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001” by deleting and replacing Attachment “B” to Schedule “A” – Sale and other Disposition of land Policy of the By-law to amend the current pricing for all City owned industrial parks. (2.2a/12/CSC)

Bill No. 187

By-law No. A.-8373-132 - A by-law to authorize the negotiation of a site access Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Pall Water and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement when finalized. (2.3/10/CWC)

Bill No. 188

By-law No. A.-8374-133 - A by-law to authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to approve and execute certain agreements related to Contribution Agreements between affordable housing providers and The Corporation of the City of London. (2.4/10/CPSC)

Bill No. 189

By-law No. A.-8375-134 - A by-law to approve and authorize the execution of the PerfectMind Contract Extension Agreement between PerfectMind Inc. and The Corporation of the City of London. (2.9/10/CPSC)

Bill No. 190

By-law No. A.-8376-135 - A by-law to approve and authorize the execution of the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between His Majesty the King in right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism for the Province of Ontario and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding for the Anti-Hate Response Pilot. (2.6/18/SPPC)

Bill No. 191

By-law No. A.-8377-136 - A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc. (3.1/18/SPPC)

Bill No. 192

By-law No. A.-8378-137 - A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. (3.2/18/SPPC)

Bill No. 193

By-law No. A-54-23013 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to repeal and replace Schedules “A-2” through to “A-22” and “A-26” through to “A-27”. (3.1a/10/CPSC)

Bill No. 194

By-law No. C.P.-1512(ce)-138 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 340-390 Saskatoon Street. (3.1a/9/PEC)

Bill No. 195

By-law No. C.P.-1512(cf)-139 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 1176, 1180, 1182, and 1186 Huron Street and 294 Briarhill Avenue. (3.2a/11/PEC)

Bill No. 196

NO ACTION – A by-law to amend the Official Plan relating to 755, 785 & 815 Wonderland Road South. (3.4c/11/PEC)

Bill No. 197

By-law No. L.-131(h)-140 - A by-law to provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Various Businesses. (3.1b/10/CPSC)

Bill No. 198

By-law No. S.-6233-141 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Wilton Grove Road, east of Sise Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA22-012)

Bill No. 199

By-law No. S.-6234-142 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Hyde Park Road, north of Gainsborough Road)  (Chief Surveyor - for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA20-043)

Bill No. 200

By-law No. W.-5669(a)-143 - A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5669-63 being, “A by-law to authorize the Dingman Drive Road Improvements – HWY 401 to Wellington Road (Project No. TS1746).” (2.5/9/CWC)

Bill No. 201

REFERRED BACK – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to extend a temporary zone located at 221 Queens Avenue. (3.1b/10/PEC)

Bill No. 202

By-law No. Z.-1-233120 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 568 Second Street (at Oxford Street East). (3.1a/11/PEC)

Bill No. 203

By-law No. Z.-1-233121 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1176, 1180, 1182, and 1186 Huron Street and 294 Briarhill Avenue. (3.2b/11/PEC)

Bill No. 204

By-law No. Z.-1-233122 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 954 Gainsborough Road. (3.3b/11/PEC)

Bill No. 205

NO ACTION – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 755, 785 and 815 Wonderland Road South. (3.4d/11/PEC)

Bill No. 206

By-law No. A.-8328(a)-144 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-8328-35 being “a by-law to approve and authorize the execution of the amended Building Safer Communities Fund (BSCF) Contribution Agreement between His Majesty the King in right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and The Corporation of the City of London” to repeal and replace Schedule “A” to the by-law. (4.1/11/CPSC)

Bill No. 207

By-law No. A.-8379-145 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and 1803299 Ontario Inc., for the partial acquisition of the property located at 1080 Dundas Street, in the City of London, for the East London Link Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/12/CSC)

Bill No. 208

By-law No. A.-8380-146 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Lease Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Miller Waste Systems Inc. for the lease of the Materials Recovery Facility, containing a rentable area of 88,358 square feet, located at 3438 Manning Drive in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/12/CSC)

Bill No. 209

By-law No. A.-8381-147 - A by-law to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Collective Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Unifor Local 302. (6.3/12/CSC)

Bill No. 210

By-law No. A.-8382-148 - A by-law to appoint John Paradis as Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports and repeal By-law No. A.-8144-215 being “A by-law to appoint Jacqueline Davison as Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports.” (6.1/13/CSC)

Bill No. 211

By-law No. S.-6235-149 - A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Kent Subdivision – Phase 1, 33M-730)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 8:44 PM

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (7 hours, 53 minutes)

be seated. Okay, colleagues, I’m calling the 12th meeting of City Council to order. I’m going to start off by reading our land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek Honoshone, 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 Honoshone Confederacy, Silver Covenant and Chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfant Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishnabek and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishnabek and Haudenosaunee. With three Indigenous nations that our neighbours to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs.

Let me also add that the City of London is committed to making every effort to providing alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact Council Agenda or 519-661-2489-2425. And with that, it brings us to our wonderful O Canada singer. Today, we have Wade Mackie.

Wade Mackie is a London-based musician, fronting the band Hot Is Drugs. Wade is a graduate of Fanshawe’s Music Industry Arts program and is a proud member of London’s Pride community. Wade will be performing this Thursday as part of the London City Music Concert Series in Market Lane. Please join me in welcoming Wade Mackie at this time for O Canada.

Prompting the collapse at the wrong time there. I’ll move to a disclosure of a peculiar interest. Are there any disclosures for colleagues today? Seeing none, we’ll move on to recognitions.

I’m going to start with Councillor Ploza and then I’ll move to the podium and do a couple. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It’s an honor tonight to rise and recognize our own Zanth Jarvis.

Zanth serves as the Director of Sports Tourism with Tourism London. He’s helped to bring a lot of programming to Lebatt Park, the Briar to London, the Van Yag Cup for 2022 and just announced today the 2024 Office of Track and Field Competition. Zanth has been now named to a two-year board appointment with Sports Tourism Canada. He makes London proud and elevates us on the national stage and definitely worthy of the recognition tonight for all his work he does for London.

Thank you. Move this over. I don’t want to knock over the base. So I have two recognitions to do.

The first, just because of a little bit of an odd council schedule, this is a recognition from last month. But I’d like to celebrate an offer belated recognition and congratulations to the London Lightning for capturing their sixth national basketball league championship last month. To the players, the staff and team owner, Vija Frugia, Avido Frugia, congratulations on a fitting end to an incredible season. You’ve proven yourselves not only to be champions on the court, but champions in our community.

From your commitment to local charities at risk youth and providing affordable sports entertainment for families, you make it incredibly easy to cheer for you when you’re loose. The London Lightning has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that London is not only a hockey and football town, we are as we are now, or baseball, I would add, because we have also this wonderful basketball franchise. So once again, let me offer my congratulations to all those involved in the latest championship. We look forward to another exciting season next year at Budweiser Gardens.

And so for the final recognition, and for colleagues who are wondering why there’s a bunch of firefighting personnel in the audience today, there’s no carbon monoxide alarm that’s gone off or anything like that. But for those who don’t know, this year, we celebrate the 150th year of professional firefighting services in the city of London. And I stole this from Acting Chief Hayes because he gave it a wonderful speech, but it spoke to me. When you think about 150 years, that means professional firefighting coverage 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365, sometimes 366 days a year, for 150 years consecutive.

That is a phenomenal accomplishment for professional firefighting in this city. Londoners have had that support and that protection continuously for the last century and a half. There are many of those who support firefighting in our community. There are the firefighters who ride the trucks.

There are also the trainers, the communicators, all of the staff who work for the fire department over the many years. We thank all of them for their incredible service. When you think about those in our community who are in need of help, there are those who respond to it. And this service and the individuals who have served it over the last century and a half have answered that call time and time and time again.

And I also think as we recognize and celebrate the 150 years of firefighting in this community, we also have to continue to pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the provision of this service over that period of time. We thank them. We honor them. We honor their families and we remember them each and every time we gather at the memorial outside of the headquarters.

So with that, I wanted to invite members of our fire service up to the podium today and Acting Chief Hayes is going to share a few words as well. So go on up. Thank you, Mayor Morgan, members of council, senior leadership and yes, thank you all for being here today and for hearing us out for a few words. First off, we’d just like to say to this council, thank you for your and I apologize marching orders to speak into the microphone.

I’d like to thank you for your ongoing support to public safety and not just you but previous councils before you as well. I’d like to introduce to you our management team. We have Deputy Chief Al Hunt. He’s the deputy chief for training and communications.

We’ve got Matt Heptich. He’s the deputy chief for fire prevention public education. Assistant deputy chief at Gary Bridge. He’s our wellness and health and wellness specialist.

We also have platoon chief Brent Che. He’s our newest platoon chief and very grateful for him being on board. He’s actually on shift today. That’s why he’s dressed a little differently.

Plus we have our able-toon platoon chief, Gary Mossberger. So thank you all for being with us. And of course, our hub of all things is our executive assistant, Keisha Powell. So thank you for supporting.

What we have today is a presentation to council. And this, if you want to hand those out, folks, that would be great. These are challenge coins. And I want to give you a brief history on what a challenge coin is.

After many years, the soldiers would take something tangible with them into war, whether that be a coin or something that they could touch and just hold on to to remember better things. They remember what was in the past. And as they went through the hell of war, they can hold on to something that was a better place. Over time, that’s morphed into these challenge coins.

And the challenge coin that has been handed out to you today is very personal. And it represents the London fire. On that challenge coin, you will see a steam fire engine. And that steam fire engine is this exact replication of this one here that you see on the picture in front of us.

That was the actual engine that was in service in 1873 here in the city of London. Also, you see on there our values. So prevent harm. Be safe.

Be caring. Those are our core values that we attempt to esteem to. On the other side of that coin, you can see the commemoration for 150 years. And then our fire department emblem as well.

The challenge is the fun part. So the challenge comes where if I meet you in a coffee shop and I tap my coin, if you don’t have your coin, you get to pay for my coffee. I had one of the firefighters asked as we were giving these out to all of our family. One of the firefighters asked, does that work at the gas bar?

So I’m yet to try that one. But stand by, you might be the lucky recipient. We want to give you this coin. And this card kind of gives a brief history of what I’ve just gone over as well.

So the information there is for you to take back. But we wanted to issue these coins to you because you are part of our family. You are an integral part of that, both the senior leadership and our council. So thank you for that.

And we wanted to share this momentous time with you at 150 years. Well, thank you for your commitment. Well, I can, Chief, I don’t usually do this because usually we end the recognition. But let me let me share just a quick two quick stories with you about the fire service and how it has such a wide ranging impact.

I could tell you I started serving on City Council in 2014. And I’ve had a few kids from that since then. And one of the one of the exciting things is always, you know, the fire trucks. So the first time I got to go home, first time I got to go home, one of my kids asked me, what did you do at work today?

And I said, I bought a fire truck. I was like, that was pretty, a pretty cool moment. Now a budget, I know the treasure is here and I get a careful about budget. But that was a pretty phenomenal experience.

And then there was another time, and this one was, was a little bit awkward for me, where, you know, the fire station, it was Halloween and not too many people came up to station 14 to collect it. The weather wasn’t great. And so they decided to just, you know, take a truck out in the community and hand out the candy that they had available. And they just picked a random street.

Now, in an odd series of coincidences, they parked across the street from my house as a City Councilor. And I went out there and they’re like, Councilor, what are you doing here? And I said, well, I live here. And little, my neighbors are saying like, gosh, you got a fire truck to come to our street.

This is great. And I was like, whoa, no, I did not do that. Like I did not ask the fire service to come and hand out candy on my street. But what that was was a moment to see where, you know, this is a service that goes out into the community, a service that creates connections, a service that inspires others to want to serve their community in many different ways.

And so for all of the humor in that story, it reminds me each and every day when we see a fire truck on our street, it’s that connection with community, that protecting and serving that is really, you know, the core values of the service. So thank you for all that you do. And please pass along on behalf of Council. Our congratulations on 150 years to all of the members of the fire service.

Thank you. Okay, colleagues, number three review of confidential matters to be considered in public. There are none. Council in closed session, we have a number of items from our regular agenda.

I believe there are eight of them for closed session. All of the reasons for going into closed session are on the agenda before you. I would look for a motion from colleagues to move into closed session. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Stevenson, any discussion?

Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Close on the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. And for those who’ve served on Council for a few terms of last from the past, we’re not staying here.

We’re actually going to a committee room. We’ve made the arrangements to go back to the old process so that we don’t have to kick people out of our gallery or make everybody leave. But colleagues will be joining us for closed session in committee room five. So we can move there now.

Bring your notes. Okay, we are back from the confidential session. We’re on to item five. Compromations signing of the previous minutes.

We have the 11th meeting held on June 6, 2023. I’ll look for a mover. Those minutes moved by Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Van Mirberg. Any discussion on the minutes?

Okay, see none. We’ll open that for voting. Close on the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

Okay, next we have communications and petitions. Normally, we would just refer all of these to the various areas in the agenda. I’ve been asked to deal with one of them separately. So we will have a motion up that will refer all of the communications to all of the relevant sections in the agenda with the exception of 6.1 item four, which I’ve been asked to deal with separately.

So the motion will be for everything to move to the relevant areas except for that piece. I look for a mover. Councilor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councilor Frank. Any discussion?

Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Councilor Ferer, those in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Okay, and next I would look for a motion to refer item 6.1, item four, the various section of the agenda if someone’s willing to make that.

Okay, no one’s willing to move that. I need an alternate motion to deal with that matter. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

I am going to move that we take no action on the communication received listed as item 6.1.4 on the agenda. Redacted, though, it has been. I’m looking for us to take no action on that. Okay, so I’ll look for a seconder.

I see a seconder. Okay, so moved and seconded. Now we could have a discussion on this if colleagues need to have discussion on this. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins.

Sorry, Your Worship. I had a hard time hearing you there. Which item are we referring? Well, I’ve got the item, but what letter?

Yes, it’s 6.1, item four, page 75. It’s a letter where half of it is redacted from AM Vlastro related to Black Friars Bridge item. Any discussion? So, motion is to take no action.

It’s been moved and seconded. Okay. I’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to 1. Okay, motion to which notice is given. There are none onto reports. We’re going to start with the 10th report of the Civic Works Committee.

That’s item 8.1. I will turn it over to the chair to present. Good afternoon, everyone, and through you, I am presenting the 10th meeting of Civic Works Committee. We had a very in-depth discussion at that meeting.

We had a number of items for consent that are in front of you. And then we had schedule items including the Black Friars Bridge, as well as the core area parking initiative up for discussion. And it generated a lot of participation as you’ll see in the correspondence and from what you probably observed in the PPM as well. So, I would like to move the items that are from the consent agenda first.

So, I’ll look to move on the original numbering 2.1 through to 2.6 as I’ve not received any information to pull any of those items. Could we do that with disclosures, deferred matters, and the community advisory committee vacancies piece or does that need to be separate to? No, I’m happy to put all those together. So, it’s just 8 and 9 would be separate?

Yeah, that’s fine. Just go to try to move a bunch of ones. Perfect, happy to streamline. Okay, so anybody want any one of those dealt with separately?

So, right now, all we have separate from that report is 8 and 9. So, the things that are separate are the Black Friars Bridge item and the core area parking item, everything else the chair is going to move the motion for. Okay, Sherry. Thank you.

Yes, I’m happy to move that motion. Okay, that’s moved. Any discussion on any of these items? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Thank you. I’ll move to item number 8 in our agenda package, item 3.1 on the committee agenda, which was the Black Friars Bridge long term use.

You’ll see in front of you the recommendation from the committee. The committee had made the recommendation for option 1 to continue with the current bridge configuration as outlined in the staff report dated June 13th, 2023 and be the above noted recommendation from the long term use study be submitted to the director of environmental approvals branch Ontario Ministry of Environment conservation and parks as required by the previous EA review and being pointed out that the following individuals made a verbal presentation at the PPM held in conjunction with this matter and the list is provided. I am looking to move that recommendation and there was discussion and there were of course you’ll note from the committee discussion that four members of the committee were in support and one was not. So I will keep that for the discussion here.

So the chair will put the committee recommendation on the floor. I know lots of colleagues want to speak. If you’re looking to do something different, this committee recommendation would need to be defeated. So you can speak for or against the committee recommendation at this time.

I have Councillor Trost there and then Councillor McAllister. Thank you very much. I am speaking in opposition to the recommendation of the Civic Works Committee and I’m asking Councillors to join me in voting down the proposal to allow year round vehicle access on the Black Fires Bridge. I’d like to explain my reasoning for why I dissented at the committee and I’d like to talk a little bit about my vision for the Black Fires Bridge which informs why I took the dissenting vote.

The vote today on the future of the Black Fires Bridge is about much more than just traffic and cars. It’s about people. It’s about a neighbourhood. It’s about heritage and history and it’s about a creative vision for the bridge.

We have the opportunity to create a car-free public space on this bridge. Imagine, imagine a pedestrian and cycle bridge with planters, for trees, with benches and public art alongside the walking, running and biking spaces. Envision a safe place to just sit, visit with friends, have a coffee, walk the dog, or set up a tripod or artist’s easel. Think about an attractive location for photo or film shoots and think about a space to appreciate and recognize the historical and heritage value of the bridge, the river and its beautiful setting.

The alternative is the committee recommendation. A road for year round motor vehicle access under option one. A road on which speeding is a demonstrated problem. A road which crosses the Thames Valley Parkway creating continued safety hazards.

And a road which will be used by motorists hoping to shave a few minutes from their downtown destination. This is a choice. This is a conscious choice. This city council has to make this conscious choice and the council should not prioritize vehicles over clean air, public safety and creative uses of this unique heritage resource.

Today’s decision comes at a crucial time. We know that the city must find solutions to reducing carbon emission. And that means reducing personal vehicle use. We have to make some hard, hard choices that will reduce personal car trips.

And which align with London’s climate emergency action plan, the committee recommendation fails to do this. Procedurally, we have option one on the table and I’m asking you to defeat this. This will be the first step in working towards an alternative vision for the space. We already have ample roadways for vehicles to use.

Surely, we could do without the small change added by this bridge. And the staff report has made it clear that it would not make much of a difference in terms of overall roadway capacity. In closing, car-free space in this area will create a desirable and safe destination for London residents and tourists alike. And that is central to my vision for the future of this bridge.

So I’m asking my council colleagues to let this discussion go to the next stage and please join me in voting no on this committee recommendation. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you.

I was the one who put forward this motion originally and I have had some time to think since committee and I realize this has sparked a lot of passionate discussion in the community and within London. And I personally took it upon myself to go down to Black Forest Bridge, spend some time there watching the traffic flow and just seeing for myself the concerns that have been raised by residents and other Londoners. And then after going to Black Forest, I decided to go down to my own ward and I went to Meadowlily Bridge and Meadowlily is an area which I think is the natural gem of the east. And I saw firsthand what a bridge with no road traffic on it can be.

And thinking now of the committee recommendation, I believe that I was wrong and I’m happy to admit that because that’s part of this process. We listen to people make determinations and from my perspective, I think that this would, as Councillor Trusso said, I think he puts us in the right direction in terms of the vision we want for London, in terms of the goals we put into our strat plan. And so I will be voting against my own motion and I encourage colleagues to do so. And I think that our second option is actually more appropriate.

I do still think it was a 50/50 split and I’m sure, you know, if I could have been a fly on the wall and staff discussed this, I’m sure they went through similar deliberations and I think that option 2 is actually the compromise option and I would encourage us to support that. So I would ask to defeat this and I’d be happy to put an alternative motion on the floor. Thank you. Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m going to rise and disagree with Councilor McAllister. I think you got it right at committee. And I’m going to try and speak to this why I will be supporting the recommendation now.

And first through you, Chair, I would like to ask our staff because it was commented that speeding is a demonstrated problem on this bridge. Has that been confirmed by a traffic study? Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship.

The traffic study that was completed did not demonstrate on the bridge itself that there are speeding issues. We have had concerns raised in the adjacent neighborhood in Black Friers on one side of the bridge. And through you, Chair, have residents of that area been directed to the appropriate traffic calming measures, policy and petition that would allow them to seek relief through that process. Go ahead.

Your Worship, I’m afraid I don’t have that answer now, but certainly that is an easy thing to remedy. Should we have concerns raised again? Thank you. I appreciate those answers from staff.

I will share that a street in my own ward, Burnside Drive, just went through a traffic calming petition and was successful because it’s a walk to school route. And so there are ways for neighborhoods to mitigate speeding issues if those speeding issues have been verified through a traffic study. I also wanted to share some thoughts because on the weekend, we had the first, and I don’t know how long, probably in living memory for me in the east end, the first bicycle rodeo at the East Lions Community Center. And we had this so that we could educate particularly young people, but residents in the area about how to properly use the new Wavell bike lane infrastructure that’s now there for them.

And when I was there, I had an opportunity to speak to Ms. Lo and Nair, who’s one of the people who’s communicated to us on the agenda, as well as Ms. Mica. And, you know, we had some good conversations.

And we talked about Black Friars Bridge. And they talked about, would I be open to changing my vote? And I said, you know, at this point, my comment is going to be the same as it was at committee. My position is not never, but my position is not now.

Because we are in a period where there’s a lot of transportation challenges in getting around the downtown core, because we have spent $8 million of taxpayers’ money to rehabilitate and restore a bridge for multimodal traffic. And I grew up in a town in Walsburg, where there was a pedestrian bridge across the Sydenham River. I also quite enjoy Medal of the Woods as Councillor McAllister referenced in his comments. But neither of those bridges were designed, engineered, and paid for with the intent of carrying vehicle traffic and then made pedestrian.

When they were installed, they were installed or in the case of medallally when it was rehabilitated. Actually, the bridge in Walsburg was rehabilitated too. In both cases, when they were rehabilitated, they were not rehabilitated with the intent of carrying vehicle traffic. So the investment was less, because they did not have to sustain vehicle loads.

I think we owe it to our, particularly our downtown London businesses, who are still trying to bring business back into the core. We’re going to have lots of activations along Dundas Place this summer. We see, you know, popular patios starting to fill up as the weather gets nicer. Hopefully, it’ll stop raining, so we have some more opportunities to do that soon.

But that’s the reason why I think right now our best option is that we proceed with the current bridge configuration. After the downtown loop construction is complete on the Rapid Transit Line, and the Rapid Transit Services up and running, and people have alternate ways to get to downtown, I’m absolutely open to revisiting the future Black Friars bridge at that point in time. But we are not there yet. Even when the construction wraps up, hopefully sooner than later, but when the construction runs up, we still have to get the service up and running.

We still have to get those buses using those dedicated lanes and bringing people to and from the downtown that way. And we haven’t actually finished the discussions around how that service is actually going to be provided and integrated with our conventional transit service. So I think to start closing an access point to the downtown right now through Black Friars and utilizing that bridge to access, and I would say I used it last week to access City Hall because I was at a meeting in the West End. And when I came back, I accessed it to come right on to Duffer Nav and down to City Hall.

I’ve also used it to actually return east after a London majors game because the downtown is not accessible right now. For me to come to head home from a majors game, Dundas is closed, so I have to take an alternate route. So that is the route that I’ve taken. I also had an opportunity to bike over it when I was at the bicycle cafe grand opening.

I think there’s room on this bridge to accommodate all modes of transportation right now in one direction, and that’s why I’m supporting the recommendation that committee put on the floor. Councillor Vame here, Bergen. Thank you, Mayor. I had the privilege of seconding this motion at committee, and I’m pleased to say that I stand by the decision that the committee made.

Frankly, I’m proud of it. The fact of the matter is public participation meeting that we had at committee made it very clear that there was a whole other element to having vehicles going through that bridge at any time of year, any time of day, any time of night, and that element was public safety. That came out loud and clear in the public participation meeting. The neighbors closest to the bridge were informing us that there was all sorts of drunkenness, lewd behavior, wild behavior, all kinds of night, even early morning, a whole manner of skulled duggery.

In the final analysis, we have to say to ourselves, we spent $8 million on this bridge, and we did not spend $8 million of taxpayer money to have a stand-alone footbridge for pedestrians or even cyclists. Cars are part of this bridge. They always have been, and they always will be. Thank you, Mayor.

Councillor Pribble. Thank you. And the last two speakers, they actually took a lot of my points, but I want to say reiterate again, same thing, investment of $8.6 million and not just for walking bridge. The neighbors in the Black Fires area telling us and the Councillors who were in present actually in support of having the car traffic there, what was just stated.

So it’s not really that all of them are against it. No, not at all. And one thing is that I don’t hear too often as much the business area. And I’ll tell you right now, the businesses, they do want it open.

I talked to over 20 of them, and there wasn’t even one that would say no. And we do have this proposal from 2024. I’ll tell you right now, we are talking about closing other bridges, having other infrastructure improvements, and we are going to be limiting access to downtown. And I think there’s a way, and actually what Peter Mayor Lewis said, I’m not ready to do it now.

Maybe in future, but we are not ready for it. It doesn’t make sense for our business. We want downtown to strive. We need to keep it open and we’ll deal with it with sooner.

So I hope all of you will be supporting the original motion. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to just start off thanking Councillor McAllister.

I know it’s not very easy to vote against your own motion. And for me, it reminds me how we always have to be open to being convinced that we may have it wrong. So I thank you for your courage. I know with this recommendation that’s in front of us, it says long-term use.

And the Deputy Mayor talked about not now, maybe not now. I know there’s lots of construction, but when this is the third time I am voting on the Black Lives Bridge in the past number of years, and when it originally opened, it was closed for a long period of time. And for me, the original, and there was a lot of debate about that bridge. And there was a plan.

We finally came up with a plan. I have not supported cars on this bridge. I was pleasantly surprised with this recommendation. For me, it was a compromise.

Have the cars off during the summer and on during the winter. That’s something I can compromise with. And the reason I’m willing to make that compromise is that I do think we need to think about what’s best for the community here. And there are two different points of view in the community, but I don’t think, and I know, this bridge was not designed just for car use, pedestrian use, having it in the neighborhood.

Councillor Trisault really made some really good points around the heritage aspect. But I would really like to remind all of this, that when we make decisions here, it should be for the greater good of that community and how it relates to our strategic plan. And to me, if this does fail, I will be bringing the option to forward as much as I have not supported cars in the previous years on the bridge. I think it is that compromise.

And I would like to also just sort of remind all of us about how staff’s recommendation, you know, has many checkboxes when it relates to our strategic plan. And we spend a lot of time here with our strategic plan. We’re not always going to have construction downtown. I do know one thing, though, that once this is approved, it’s not going to come back to us soon.

And that is my concern. It is the long-term use that the recommendation is looking for. So with that, I’m willing to compromise. I will not be supporting the committee’s recommendation.

I have Councillor Frank and Councillor Ploughs on the list. I’ll go to Councillor Frank first. Thank you. And I just wanted to echo many of Councillor Trosto and McAllister’s sentiments.

And I appreciate Councillor McAllister as well being willing to change his mind. I think that shows a lot of courage from the communications I’ve heard from my community, for the broader community and from residents in my immediate area. I’d be supporting option three, but I am very happy to compromise for option two. So I won’t be supporting the committee’s recommendation.

I do think it’s okay for us to choose not to use certain assets, even if there are sunken costs associated with them, if they don’t align with our strategic goals. And I know we can’t go back in time to change decisions that were made by previous councils, but we do have an opportunity moving forward to make different decisions and more appropriately use the assets that we have. As we know, cars are the number one source of emissions in London and making more space for safe and active transportation options help us reduce our emissions. And the point of making active transportation options safe is to encourage people to bike, walk and roll.

And we have heard from various community members that they don’t feel very safe. Even if we don’t have statistics that demonstrate there’s been an accident at that intersection, we weekly are reading news articles from almost every intersection or city of people being hit by motor vehicles and killed or seriously injured. When this came to committee, there was an article about a pedestrian being hit and killed at Huron in Highbury. An elderly woman in the last couple weeks was hit when she was going on a pedestrian area for across the street at South Dillon Warren Cliff was hit by a truck in her electric wheelchair.

So we know that this happens constantly. And wherever possible, I want to make our streets safer for people who are walking, rolling and biking. As a young female walking around at night, I’m more afraid from being hit by a car or truck than being accosted by skullduggery at night. And my safety feels more threatened by drivers in the community than it does by strangers walking past me.

I’ve almost been hit many times in the city. And so I’m knowing where there is that intersection going over Black Forest Bridge, where is the cycling path and the walking path in connect with the driving path. I think it’s really important to make this space safe. And I’d rather do preventative methods than reactive.

So given that the majority of people have contacted me want to keep the bridge open to active transportation only, I will not be supporting committee recommendation and would be happy to vote for option two or three. Thank you. Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. And thank you to Councillor Frank for those comments as a jogger in the community. Lots of near misses or finding yourself at someone’s car window while using modes of active transportation. My stance on this has not changed since the last term of council.

I also would prefer option three, good settle and compromise for option two. This is one of the only points on the Thames Valley Parkway that pedestrians walking, rolling or cycling come into a car contact point with vehicular traffic. If we’re concerned about sunk costs that we’ve already invested and cost recovery, the bridge will last a lot longer than most we can do to limit vehicular traffic on it due to wear on tear the weight of the vehicles and our methods of snow removal for the vehicles. If we’re concerned about the bus rapid transit construction, what a wonderful opportunity to alleviate traffic by providing a continuous safe route for those using active modes of transportation to access or downtown.

If we’re talking about potential traffic calming measures and what residents can do later, council could make that a priority and do that right now without the need for more traffic calming petitions and staff time. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councillor Lehman next.

Thank you. As was mentioned earlier, this was an eight million dollar bridge to design to handle multimodal traffic, including two-way car traffic. When COVID hit, cars were banned from the bridge to provide safer, wider space for transportation and at that time when we came out of those restrictions, this was before the previous council and a compromise, I hear a lot of what compromise, a compromise was then worked out and we will have only one direction of traffic. I don’t believe this is a safety issue here.

I’ve driven across this bridge. I’ve walked across this bridge. I think it provides actually an excellent example of safe multimodal usage of a passageway. For closing down the summertime, well, that’s the worst time of year to close this bridge because that’s the time when heavy construction is preventing access to downtown and I hear from businesses and those who have jobs downtown, it’s very difficult to get to work in the morning.

I also hear from my residents in the West End that this provides another access point for them to access their jobs and businesses downtown and events such as that, what we had in Victoria Park the previous weekend. Finally, what I will say is at the same time that we went through this discussion last time, I heard from many people in the local area, some that would like to see it as traffic and limited to cyclists and pedestrians, a lot that would like to see access for them to drive and as previously mentioned as well, to have higher traffic for safety as this is a very remote area in the evening, so I will be supporting staff or the committee recommendation. Councillor Cady. Thank you, Your Worship and through you.

I want to thank the Deputy Mayor and my colleagues for supporting the committee recommendation. I too will be supporting it for the reasons that have already been cited. I’d like to also mention that during the committee meeting, which was very spirited and if you didn’t have a chance to watch it, I highly recommend you watching on YouTube and my thanks to our chair for doing a great job of chairing a little bit of a hostile meeting at times. When I asked a couple of questions to staff and I’m doing this in recollection, one of the questions I asked was if we close the bridge to traffic, vehicular traffic, would we see an increase in the 147 bicycles across the bridge daily?

And the answer was probably not. And I also asked the question, would we see an increase in traffic, which is now at 1000 cars daily? And the answer was probably not. And my colleague, Councillor Van Mirberg, and asked a very good question, I think you asked the question, where is the vehicular traffic going to go if it doesn’t cross the bridge, those 1000 cars?

Are they just going to disappear? And I believe the answer was they’re going to exit off of Riverside or they’re going to exit off of Oxford now. Both streets, both routes are gridlocked much of the day, especially Oxford. And that’s not a solution.

And those cars will not disappear. They will be there somewhere. And as the deputy mayor had suggested very clearly, we need more access to downtown, not less. And by closing the bridge to vehicular traffic, we will definitely be limiting the amount of traffic or the routes to downtown.

In conclusion, I would go back and suggest that this is a very safe bridge. It has been completely rebuilt. I will give you a personal note. I lived above the bridge on Talbot Street for 30 years.

And I never witnessed, I tried, I moved across the bridge daily with my kids and my light wife. And I never ever saw an accident. And I seldom signing with speeding. So in conclusion, thank you colleagues for supporting this motion.

And I look forward to seeing a successful result. Thank you. I have myself next on the list. So I’ll turn the chair over to Councillor Layman.

Please go ahead, Mayor. So I appreciate the debate that colleagues had on this, both at the committee and today. I’ll just let you know, I’ll be supporting defeating the committee recommendation and supporting option two. I’ll tell you why.

I think in the past, we’ve had very strong opinions on either side of some of these transportation issues, I think, back to Dundas Place. And whether or not to close it completely, allow cars or go with what we ended up going with, which for lack of a great term, filtered permeability, I think, was the technical transportation term. But the idea that we would try something different that would allow for some access, but also try to try to restrict it and provide a different feel to the street. I think that that experiment went quite well.

And we’ve continued it for a few years now since then. So, you know, I’m willing to try the staff recommendation as it was at committee, open sometimes the year closed others, wouldn’t start until 2024 as per the draft by-law that they prepared. And so that’s going to be my position. I just wanted to share it with colleagues.

Now to turn the chair back to the mayor. Any other speakers? With that, the motion is for the committee recommendation, which is to keep it open all year long. So we will open that for voting.

Close in the vote. Motion carries. Eight to seven. Thank you.

I’ll look to put item 4.1, the core area parking initiative, item 9 on your agenda forward. There was good discussion at the committee about the parking initiative. It dovetailed well also with some of the discussion that was happening at planning at this during that same week. So I’ll look to put that on the floor.

Okay. So that’s on the floor. Put on the floor by the chair. Any discussion?

Yes, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I just really want to take a moment to thank our staff for moving forward with the RFP process for procurement, potentially for 185 Queens Ave. For those not familiar with this particular parcel of property, there was a process that was started in the prior term of council.

And then this thing called COVID came along and brought it to a screeching halt. And while we continue to need to have some discussions about how and where parking is occurring in our core area. And in fact, I know we’ll have that discussion later on in the planning committee report again as well. This particular item is really important because we’re talking about a mixed use.

We’re not talking about a surface parking lot. We’re talking about what is currently a surface parking lot potentially becoming something so much more, including a parking structure that can have accommodation for individuals who may live in residential units above that can have accommodation for public parking and perhaps even address some of the needs we have around reserved parking so that downtown commercial spaces can fill up with employees who are using a personal vehicle to get to and from work. I suspect we will also see proponents who submit applications also hopefully offer bicycle parking and hopefully that they will be looking for EV charging station parking spaces in that development as well because I’ve said this many, many times the car is not going away but it hopefully is going electric sooner than later and so for future proofing by getting some EV charging stations in a parking structure like that all the better. But I know that both Mr.

Mathers and Ms. Barbone and their teams have put a lot of work into getting this process back off the shelf and up and running so very supportive of that and I just wanted to thank them for all the work that’s gone into that and I know that I mean I look forward to seeing what comes back as a recommendation. I hope that there’s lots of interest in this. We’ve heard from the private sector repeatedly that they need a parking structure in the downtown.

Well my response to them now is it’s time to put your money where your mouth is and put forward a proposal that we can see a development come forward on this site so I just wanted to share those thoughts with people. Other speakers. Okay the chairs move the motion I’ll open it for voting. Opposed in the vote motion carries 15 to 0.

Thank you that. The next item is item 8.2 which is the 17th meeting of the strategic priorities and policy committee. This is the meeting where we had interviews for the Glen and Police Services Board. I’ll turn it over to the deputy mayor to present this report.

Thank you Your Worship. So this is a very brief report on my part. This is that the consideration be forwarded to a strategic priorities and policy committee for confidential interviews and then forwarded to this council for a decision point. So here we are and perhaps at this point I will turn it over to you to explain the process to colleagues from where we take it from here.

Yes so for colleagues we went through a process we directed to have interviews we conducted those interviews in camera. For the public I will just inform you there was no discussion in camera. The purpose of the in-camera piece was simply to have the question and answer directly with the candidates but there was no cross discussion with counselors that occurred after the candidates had left the room. So this is the point at which we’ve gathered that additional piece of information that colleagues decided to gather and we can make a we can proceed with the process to make an appointment.

What we would do essentially by our committee policy was returned to the preferential voting system unless colleagues are going to direct to go a different way. That’s the process that we have agreed to that is in our committee policies. That means there are five candidates. There’s one position people could vote for one but I see I see colleagues with their hands up.

Chair if you don’t mind I’m going to just see see what the Council of Mayor Bergen would like. Thank you Mayor. I just wanted to bring to your attention and to the clerk in fact I’ve already spoken with the clerk but I was actually in attendance at this meeting and it’s I’m down as not being in attendance so I was in a zoom call. I was there for most of the in-camera portion which of course was most of it so I just wanted that noted.

Thank you. Yes the clerk can can make that correction and this is also a good time for me to remind that this was the also the meeting where we made available to any colleagues who may have had to step out. It was I think six hours of interviews for a brief period of time that they would have access to review those those interview tapes and I think a number of colleagues took took the clerks up on that. So everybody’s had full access to all of the discussions and we’ll make that correction for you.

Councillor Vamea Bergen. So with that there there is a lot to be a debate on these matters as well. So I know we’ll have a ballot before us but assuming colleagues are okay to proceed with that ballot I would entertain any discussion that you’d like to have on any of the candidates before we proceed just to be clear because we’ve done this a few times. The selection process is to help us determine our common preferences.

After we’ve done that we still have to make a ratification vote. So the selection process that we do in the system is not an election. It doesn’t mean someone has one and we’re bound by that. What we have to do is we use that to determine our common preferences and then we use that to make a recommendation that colleagues can then vote on formally for the appointment.

So I will look for speakers on the one side. Okay I have Councillor ramen. Thank you and three chair. As discussed previously about the opportunity to have more discussion about this we did discuss the possibility of suspending our rules to allow for the opportunity for Councillors to speak more than once.

So I’d like to move that if that’s possible. So we’re just going to craft up the language for that. That is yes something we discussed and certainly something we can do according to our procedure by-law. Go ahead Councillor ramen.

Thank you. Just for clarification do you require a two-thirds vote? Yes. Okay so we’ll craft up the language to allow Councillors to speak more than once.

Since this is a suspension of the procedure by-law it requires two-thirds of council to support it to proceed. So I look for a seconder for that. Councillor Frank. Okay so this sort of motion is one second.

Yeah so we’re going to have this allowed debate on the motion to suspend the rules. So any debate or discussion on the move to second of motion? Seeing none. So this will be a debate.

This will be a motion to suspend the rules to allow individuals to speak multiple times just like we do at committee and I’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 12 to 3. Okay the deputy mayor the clerk would prefer given we’re going to go through this process.

We could approve the item one disclosure of the computer interest from the report and just get that taken care of so we don’t have to clean that up later. So if you’re willing to move that. I am happy to move that now. I’m also going to take this opportunity to worship because I’ve already had a colleague ask when you’re explaining the runoff ballot system.

We are making a recommendation for an appointment to only one position. So I think it’s just important to be clear with people you are not ranking the five candidates in your order of choice. You are selecting your top candidate and the candidate with the lowest number of votes will drop off and we will proceed round by round until we have a candidate who achieves 50 plus one. That’s correct.

So you’re willing to move disclosures just the disclosure. There’s no other decision that’s moved by there’s no need for a seconder. Any discussion disclosure? Okay we’re going to open just taking care of the disclosures of interest.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay so now we just have the item. I’m going to allow for the rules are suspended.

I’ll allow for discussion on the candidates before we proceed with the vote in the system. As Deputy Mayor mentioned there are only five candidates left in the process. We interviewed all of them. You get one vote.

If no one achieves a 50% majority there would be individuals who drop off. We would all get one vote again for whoever’s left. Councillor Frank. Thank you.

I want to start off by thanking colleagues for giving us this opportunity to go through this process. I was excited to have the opportunity to interview the various candidates and was open to having my perspective changed on this decision. So appreciate everyone’s flexibility and also I applaud all the candidates who applied and also who interviewed. I think we can all say it was somewhat of a probably a heavy interview just given the amount of Councillor sitting around a horseshoe and one person interviewing.

So it’s probably a little bit nerve-wracking for everyone. But I appreciate all the effort candidates put in as well. Through this process you know we had I think 52 or 54 candidates to start with reading through all their applications. Lots of amazing people with great different experiences and talents I think would add a lot to the board.

And as we went through the interview process given people’s answers and their ability to speak on the different issues that are timely with the police board and police matters. It did change my perspective. So I will be supporting Stephen Demelio for my vote for the police board for the following reasons. I thought he interviewed very well.

He has background working with the police and community and has had to go through a couple different experiences. I think that would help shape his perspective on the board as well. He shares a unique perspective given his life experience and his personal background and he also and most importantly to me seems like he’d be a lot of fun to work with. And I think not that the current police board isn’t fun but I think it never hurts to add a little bit more.

So for those reasons I’ll be supporting Stephen for this role. Thank you. Other speakers. That’s a ramen.

Sorry I was just checking online because I didn’t want to ignore our colleagues who are there. Thank you and through you. I want to take a moment first to thank my colleagues for allowing the opportunity for a full-sum conversation here in this meeting of council. I want to start by saying thank you again reiterating what Councillor Frank said.

A huge thank you to the applicants that applied before the interview process and those that took part in the process. I have to say I think as a community we’re very lucky to have such a strong caliber of candidates that have put themselves forward for such a role. I reflect on how we got to where we are in this process of the interview process, the decision making that we’ve went through already, the amount of attention that this process has had on it as well. And I’m thankful and grateful for those applicants that went through the interview process for sticking with this process because I’m sure and I’m certain that there may have been some hesitation along the way.

I was very pleased to have the opportunity to get to know the candidates in a different way through this interview process and I too think that I walked away with a better understanding and more information than I did before I had just read the application so that was very helpful as well and I too was very impressed with Stephen DeMello from that process. Not only did I feel that he was very prepared for the discussion but I got to learn more about his work in the community and the leadership that he’s shown and for that reason I’ll be supporting him. Thank you. There’s speakers.

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, worship. First, I think it’s important to one possibility that I would like you to provide all members of council with some clarification on there are 15 of us. It is possible that there could be a three-way five-five tie.

So I just wonder if you can provide information to all members of council about how that would be reconciled in the event that occurred. Okay, so good news is the smart people and the governance working group from last term thought of this scenario and if there is either gets down to a final two candidates or a final three candidates and there’s a tie there is a lot drawn so just a draw from a hat or I don’t know if we use a hat but a lot is drawn and that person is the successful person through the process. So the lot is drawn for the successful person through the process. So in the case of what you’ve asked and that’s if three people got five votes each we would draw lots or a lot.

One per name would come out and it would be deemed that person successful in the process. Now we would have to after that point have a ratification vote of all of council so that would be that would be how the procedure contemplates handling a tie whether it’s two people or three people or four people. Thank you. I just thought it was important that we clarify that process being part of last term’s governance working group.

I appreciate the compliment but I’m not sure that I was actually satisfied with that way of resolving it but it was the best option we had at the time. That said I want to make a comment now about the process and about the candidate that I will be supporting. Colleagues had I think some idea when we first proposed the interview process that perhaps there was just going to be an unwillingness to change and that we would end up back with two candidates and an eight seven vote and I said at the time that I was making a personal commitment to go in with eyes open and being open to changing my vote based on the results of those interviews and I am changing my vote and I too will be moving my vote to Stephen to mail. Not only did he interview quite well and yes Councillor Frank is not wrong he is a little bit of fun and I know that from my history of involvement with Pride London and I want to speak specifically to that and this relates back to the comments that I made at our last council meeting about this being Pride Month.

We have a young black man from the LGBTQ plus community who has put his name forward at a time when the LGBTQ plus community itself is under attack. It’s just that simple. A resurgence of hate has reared its ugly head and now more than ever a voice around safety and security for that community I think would be of value to the police board but I also know the work that he has done that ensured that our London police services continue to participate and be welcome at Pride and I understand the work that he had to do to bridge two different parts of his identity at a time when there was contention between the black community and the LGBTQ plus community on whether or not the police should be involved in Pride. There’s those intersectionalities that come up in people’s lives and he had to bridge those and did so in a productive way that addressed the most important concerns of both communities at that time.

So that work in bridging a divide between community and police speaks volumes to the value that he would bring to the police services board and I also want to say that I in reaching this decision and in committing to being open to arriving at a different conclusion I stepped back from my council perspective I stepped back from my individual interviews of candidates perspective even and I’ve talked about this before in this chamber I put on my coaching hat and what do I look for on a hockey team as a coach bench strength I don’t need actually if I could have four Austin Matthews at center ice on all four lines I would take it but when you already have a first line center and you got a couple solid defenseman and you’ve got a power forward you look for a playmaker and we have some great people on the police services board already but I think that we have some skill sets that are already filled that some of the other candidates we interviewed were offering which would have been a bit of an overlap and nothing wrong with having that sort of depth but I felt that mr. DeMello offered something we didn’t have in our bench strength and that’s why I am I’m moving my support to him and the reason why I’ve come to that conclusion in all of those considerations so I think everybody has said it already it was a long process for six hours it was not an easy road to get to where we are but I went into it with an open mind and I’ve arrived at a different conclusion and I hope that whatever the outcome of today’s vote is that folks in the community whether they agree with the appointment that we make at the end of the day or not recognize that we went an extra mile to address concerns that we heard and whatever the outcome of this vote is today it’s based on an informed and lengthy process and I hope that will be respected at the end of the day ultimately while we are making political decisions it should political decision shouldn’t also be personal they should be based on what’s best for the community and that’s why I’m supporting Stephen. I have Councillor Tross out then Councillor Brübel. I want to ask another voting process question I know the bottom would drop off but say just for example if it’s six five four zero zero would the zero zero drop off or would the floor also drop off.

Okay so according to the rules if it was six five four zero zero both the zero zero and the four would drop off so everybody who got nothing plus the lowest vote getter and then it would be the six and five that would remain Councillor Brübel. Thank you Chair and I would like to also thank all the all the people that applied for this position that five that came for the interview because doing to read from a panel like we had I don’t know 1314 people that is quite challenging so thank you to all of them. During my career I interviewed I would say I hired over 200 people and I interviewed even more and honestly from line level four minimum wage to high executives making over $200,000 a year and I honestly hired every time in my life based on the best qualifications and I honestly hired everyone who was representing the five final candidates I hired every single one that would be representing certain group of people. I did prepare for this interview and I did 13 different categories that I believed and it’s not just it’s through my research as well for the police board as well as board member period to add to the to our board.

I did come up with that in my eyes the winner which is Ryan Goss and the reason why he was ready for every answer and he actually supported it every single one of them supported it with strategy his past experience or vision. He was the only one out of out of the questions who did that. I don’t think and you know what I love fun as well and I think you some of you don’t know me as well but certainly I know I love fun as well but what we heard yesterday from the outgoing chief for the incoming chief and from our mayor I think we are far away from the fun on this board. We have crucial issues left and right.

We hear it at the door. We need a member who is ready and who is ready to attack it to challenge the other ones to challenge the other ones to challenge the chief and to deliver the results based on we had two things. First the resume second was the interview. There is no doubt that Ryan is the winner in my eyes and I’ll tell you one thing is whoever in the past I interviewed and didn’t get a job with me if they asked me why not I was able to tell them why they didn’t get it and what someone else did.

In this case of the five I can tell the other four why not to Ryan Goss I would not be able to. I hope that most of us will support Ryan Goss because board of the police is tremendously important for us. We have a new chief which sounds totally fantastic. I had a one-hour meeting with him.

He’s a great guy. We need an it’s not a board of 10, 12, 15 people. It’s a small board. We need anyone everyone to be ready and to deliver.

We heard that at the door. We heard it yesterday. We need someone who is ready and who’s got to deliver the results. That’s what London is want from us and I do believe if you are going to be thinking of half a million of London is to deliver the results then we are going to have a higher turnout at the polls as well.

So I hope the other council members will support Ryan Goss. Thank you. Other speakers. I’ll give you time.

I’ll put myself on the speakers list. I’ll turn it over to Councillor Layman to chair. Please go ahead Mayor. So I’ll say a couple of things.

First with respect and through the presiding officer to Councillor Bribble. I think those are great points but I also think we can differ in our assessment and our opinions of how we rate the candidates, how we score them with whatever process we use and I think we can have a difference of opinion on who we think is the best candidate. I can tell you I also use the scoring system and went through the interviews in a throw away. And I did not arrive at the same conclusion as you did.

What I want to say is I think the process we use the first time around was very flawed. And I’ll tell you why I think it was flawed because it doesn’t allow us to communicate enough information with you. When we had that first vote and it was you get one choice, you throw it down, I have no idea who has a second choice, I have no idea who’s third choice. There were 54 candidates.

You may have had four people that you thought all these four people would be great and none of us were able to share that with each other. None of us were able to see where the commonality lies. What I think the interview process allowed us to do was dig a little deeper, was have a little wider perspective, was to explore those top options that we had. And I think the debate today is allowing us to communicate a little more information than we did the first time with each other.

There’s there’s this challenge I think when you when you have to drive everything down into a single vote that you may say I like these three people and it may be everybody’s got the same second choice or many people do. There might be a block of first choices. We struggled to create a system that would try to show preferences with each other and we went through multiple iterations and I would say some of them were very accurate but took a very very long time to do a frustrating long time to the point where I remember the media stories saying about how long it took to get to an accurate representation of preferences. We sped that process up.

What we lost in the process was we lost some of that information that we shared with each other. So I am glad the governance working group is looking at making this process better. We’re still using that flawed process today but what I see us doing is sharing a little more information to each other. So when I asked council to kind of pull back and say let’s do interviews to have that ability to gather a little more information I was hoping we could try to find a wider consensus on this appointment.

I agree with everything council purple said this is a really important time for the police services board. We need to choose someone who can add a voice and perspective to that board that is needed at this time. In my case I actually sided with a number of my colleagues who said that Stephen Demello was the candidate. He also was in my scoring system the top ranking candidate through the interview process.

So I won’t reiterate what others have said. I agree with most of the assessments that have been made. I will say although that will be my vote I think we had multiple multiple capable candidates make their way to the end of this process. Multiple people who would be great additions to the police services board.

Those people would bring very different perspectives and the board does not have the capacity to ever be reflective of every perspective which is why we rely also on administration and the advisory communities that the board has created to put some experts expertise on them. And I think any organization that’s trying to add as many voices as they possibly can to be reflective of the community is going to struggle if you have a board of five or seven right it’s just not possible. So I think Mr. Demello adds some really important perspectives particularly with policing and his history of engagement with the police and the discussions that he’s had to go through and the bringing together of individuals.

And at a time when we struggle you know I really do like that perspective I’ll be supporting him with my first vote. And I’ll return the chair to the mayor other speakers. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you I wasn’t in the speak on this topic but as a member of the police services board and a director on the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards this is a governance position at a very critical time.

The Police Services Act is changing. We’ve got public safety and security concerns widespread. We do have advisory committees for different perspectives. This is a governance role.

We need strength. We need ability to learn and understand the new act to hold the services accountable to that and to guide and lead. And I think I just want to encourage the other Councillors to know that that is what is needed right now is leadership and governance. And perspectives are great.

We have that through many many many other channels. So my request is that we prioritize that when we vote today. Any other speakers? I’m just looking online.

I don’t want to ignore anybody. If if nobody needs to speak we can proceed with the sorry Councillor Hopkins. Go ahead. Yeah I was just waiting for a few more.

Oh sorry your worship. I was just waiting. Are you closing the comments? Good question.

Well there’s no one on the speaker’s list. So I could wait but people aren’t obligated to speak if they don’t want to. So yeah I’d be pleased I was just waiting to see if I can be convinced here a little bit that I may have it wrong. So I do appreciate the comments that I’ve heard so far.

I guess I’ll just start off and I think it’s really important and as I listen to each and every one of you I hear your own perspectives and I hope when you listen to me you will take that into consideration. This is my perspective and I’d like to first of all start off with the applicants that we interviewed. I really want to take us back before that interview process and where we received a request from a leaving from a resignation from the police services board really asking us as a council to really look at what is needed and from that perspective what was needed was Black Indigenous. That’s what was missing on the board and following up we did extensive outreach seat over 50 applications.

It’s great. We made a decision not probably the right decision that was made at that time and I think we should allow ourselves for making a mistake and maybe reviewing it going through the application process was I think a good thing. I really want to thank staff for doing the bias training. That really helped me out taking that training because as I made a decision I wanted to make sure that I was open and I was listening to each and every candidate in the right way and I will be supporting Joseph Wabishik.

My vote has not changed and I wrote down a couple things and reasons why I supported him. His knowledge is extensive. He addressed each and every one of us. He did not shy away from answering questions even when he was challenged on a question by one of the members.

He was informative. He when asked what does he want? What’s the job? Why did he choose to put his application forward?

I wrote down it’s because he has the experience for this board and Councillor Stevenson commented about the governance portion. He may not be the most fun but I do think he brings that experience that is needed on the police services board. There are many challenges going on. You could see at the ceremony with the new chief yesterday how it was a very uplifting and moving ceremony but in lies the challenges of that.

I think the biggest and most important challenge that the police services will have is trust and we need to instill and build that trust and that’s why I will be supporting Joseph Wabishik. Okay any other speakers? Councillor McAllister. Thank you Your Worship and through you.

I’d just like to echo what Councillor Hopkins just said and that was something that really resonated with me with the new police chief and I think back to his speech. It was a very heartfelt speech and you know how policing really matters to him and the two things that stood out for me were the trust in community and to Deputy Mayor Lewis’ point I think that there is an opportunity to build trust and community with LGBTQ+ and I think that that is a group that feels under attack. I do think that Stephen has the necessary qualifications to do the job and I do think that he represents a group that needs that voice at the table and I think that goes a long way in terms of restoring trust and building the community. Thank you.

Any other speakers? Councillor Pribble. I’ll take the opportunity to speak more than once. Oh I’m asking Michael.

I actually sorry I missed Councillor PLOS that you can speak more than once but she has her hand up so I’ll let her speak first and then I can get you on the list. Thank you Mr. Mayor and just ever so briefly thank you to the candidates and to the colleagues who really did go into this open-minded as I know I challenged us going in that just don’t go through the steps if we’re not going to actually be open for change. Thank you for that and as we met some of the colleagues mentioned before some really good candidates coming forward through the interview process really showing diverse aspects and attributes they could bring to the London Police Services Board and different community and lived experience that they come with.

For me having met with the chief already one-on-one and you know we serve in public office together really concerned about this vital time and as Councillor Stephen said said the policies and being able to navigate the system so for me I wish you could put a couple of people on this board perhaps maybe the board will grow in the future but really trying to balance that lens of the policy and governance aspect that someone could bring to the table versus the lived experience and a community they could hopefully entrench and start changing perspectives of so just for me that’s why I’m balancing with my vote today thank you. Thank you and back to Councillor Pribble. I would like to repeat or stress the 15 of us here are representing half a million of Londoners the trust we are going to earn if we are going to make the decisions to serve half a million of Londoners not percentage or sorry the percentage that’s going to be very high 80-90-100 percent and we are going to be judged by the results we deliver. Many vote please think about this because we are serving half a million of Londoners and we do need the results and we heard it yesterday most of us attended the session yesterday for the new chief of police lots of crisis lots of challenges we need to deliver the results please think about it when you vote and which individual is going to help us to deliver the results for half a million Londoners that’s what it’s about today thank you okay thank you any other speakers okay going once going twice okay we’re going to proceed with the first ballot then so just a reminder all five candidates that we interviewed will be on the ballot everybody gets one vote so we’ll do that the clerks will announce the results and we’ll see what the subsequent rounds of voting look like results of the vote Ryan Goss seven Stephen Demilo six Joseph Wabaje two Michelle Anderson zero Gita Caneran zero okay so the second round of voting will include Ryan Goss and Stephen Demello so colleagues will again get one vote and they’ll be able to proceed with that and so we’ll open that for voting now.

Councilor Hopkins sorry yes I’m just going to be excusing myself and if I can be asked once the final vote has been given I’ll return yes mr yes um I don’t see any reason why people can’t speak between rounds no it’s a preferential process the ballot has changed so people can speak between rounds go ahead thank you mare I’m rising to speak in favor of Ryan Goss it was clear from the exercise we went through with the five certainly in my opinion or any objective opinion and no disrespect to the others but he rose to the top he understands the issues he’s highly articulate obviously intelligent and more importantly he also knows the issues because of his day-to-day work that he is involved with deep understanding of the issues of all of London and I think it’s incumbent on us choose somebody who has the best ability best attributes go to the police board and that’s who we should support okay other speakers Councillor Stevenson Councillor Layman thank you I’ll be supporting mr goss because I believe he is the most qualified to meet the challenges that I see faced in my role on the board on the police board mr goss as many years experience with the RCMP we’re governed by the police act very complicated very specific act that governs our actions with the board and also with police services but I’d also like to touch a bit upon what he did with the RCMP he was in human resources and I know bringing on a new chief from out of out of the area we’ll bring with it some challenges and and I think mr goss’s experience in his role with these RCMP will be of great value to those of us on the board and as far as diversity is concerned it was touched on upon mr goss’s job that he has day-to-day that job requires interaction with all diverse groups across the city on a regular basis he’s familiar and here’s their concerns all the time in his role as a chief of staff for a member parliament and I really truly believe mr goss will represent those diverse groups with fervor at the board and I think from my opinion he would be a solid addition to go we’re on a great spot we’ve got a great chief got great great two great deputy chiefs we have a big challenge in front of us from policing aspect but we’re gonna get there and I think mr goss is the person that will well we spoke of bench strength and I’ll go to deputy’s mayor analogy in my opinion mr goss adds that bench strength because of his experience with with our cmp and with his experience with the diverse groups across the city so for those reasons I’ll be supporting mr goss mr goss thank you and I too will continue to support mr goss I believe that the legislative experience the input from the constituents in london will be very valuable when I did the training with the ontario association of police service boards and we were talking about the diversity requirement it is far beyond skin color and culture right there’s diversity of opinion diversity of thought diverse they just there’s lots of different things it does not specify anything there there is a new police services act coming in things are going to change being able to understand that led just let legislative changes and guide this police force is really really important and I believe mr goss is the best candidate for that mr caddy thank you your worshiping through you I too will be supporting mr goss um I felt he was the strongest candidate he spoke about policing which I felt wasn’t really touched upon by many of the other candidates he also spoke with passion and he had a story to tell and it was a story very similar to what we heard from our new chief yesterday it was a story of tragedy but but that he was able to pull himself up he he has significant experience as a counselor leman suggested with the rcmp but more importantly your worship he spoke with tremendous dedication and passion and as someone also like counselor pribble who’s hired many people in the past in my business career I recognize that passion as something that that’s vital in an organization especially with the new chief uh in a in a strong board so thank you and I will be speeding uh be uh supporting mr goss um I got counselor for story counselor Stevenson you want to back on the list okay all right I’ll do counselor for our first thank you your worship so from what I’m taking I can see that colleagues have pretty much stated where they’re going so it seems like the vote is going to be on me on where this is going to go right now so I’m just going to say it um my first candidate that I wanted to pick joseph has been eliminated and the other candidate that I saw and as you all know I was asking pretty tough questions um but some of the questions that I didn’t get to ask to mr goss he actually answered so he did show that he knew uh what was going on so I was impressed by two candidates off the bat joseph was number one mr goss was number two i’m going to be voting for ryan goss counselor stevenson you wanted back on the list no okay any other speakers counselor paloza go ahead thank you your worship um in in committee for this conversation um and into the community please know um going into this I was very clear on what I was looking for what my preferences were recognizing um some community’s interaction with the rcmp colonialism and whatnot um I guess more for our our viewers and our residents please know that some of you and your neighbors have reached out behind the scenes and confidence sharing personal very personal stories or interactions that they’ve had with some of the candidates and very personal stories of how they would like to see london shaped and formed in their concerns within their individual communities I am sorry that some of those conversations that i’m sure several counselors or many counselors have had one-on-one with residents in the city aren’t public and we’re not able to share it but please know i’m sure others and myself for sure have weighed that behind the scenes in accordance to my vote today thank you counselor ramen thank you and through you i’m just wondering if perhaps some of my colleagues on the police service board or perhaps if there’s a staff person available to help me to understand um we counselor stevenson alluded to the comprehensive ontario police service act and the updates that are coming i’m just wondering if someone might be able to comment on some of those changes that are happening or propose to to the comprehensive police services ontario police service act sorry uh that relate to the composition of that uh board i i could try to put mr kart on this bottom i’m not sure if he’s um it just because it’s uh about um questions about an act forthcoming now i i will say for colleagues i don’t think you knew that question was coming so i’m not sure what he’s read or hasn’t read but i don’t know if you can provide any context mr kart or let us know that it’s not something you’re prepared to do today yes uh your worship i i am aware that the act has changed i am aware that there are certain requirements with respect to outreach and appointments to police service boards but i don’t feel that i’m well enough first to provide opinions with respect to that act because for one thing we don’t operate under it generally other than the act of making appointments go ahead counselor sorry thank you for acknowledging me uh your worship okay um my understanding and uh i’ll speak broadly about this because i am in by no means an expert on this topic but my understanding uh of some of the interpretations and i’ll cite hicks morally here for those that are familiar um is that under the comprehensive police service act there is a requirement for a municipal diversity plan which includes the makeup of the municipal police service board it requires that at the time that this comprehensive act is uh enacted that there is a reasonable step to promote appointments to the board of members of historically under represented groups that is the required language that the provincial government is looking at i want to put that out there for consideration because i want to take us back when when mr top left the police service board this is exactly what she pointed to this is the piece of legislation that she said is is before uh before the province for consideration um and that it it needed to be taken into consideration and the reason that i’m bringing this up is because this could mean within the process that we are back here again after the diversity plan is complete by the police service board whenever this is enacted to make a different recommendation so i want to put that out there because i think it’s an important consideration we’re talking about governance skills we’re talking about all of those other attributes as well i saw candidates that have all of those uh on with all five including a leadership role with an organization uh pride london over a considerable amount of years when that organization was facing a lot of of internal turmoil but also a lot of external responsibility in the community so i want to bring that up again um i do think both candidates uh you know offer a different perspective different perspective and a different opportunity uh to complement the existing board and i heard very loud and clear yesterday as well from the ceremony with the chief from my own personal one-hour meeting with the chief as well a commitment to engaging with the community deeply and to look to serve those historically underrepresented groups i also want to say you know there was and i never want to speak for what someone shared as their lived experience but there were multiple references to different points of lived experience and one of those lenses i think is particularly important to the work that work that we’re doing on health and homelessness as well as well so i want to leave it at that but again i if other members of the police service board want to speak to their understanding of that that piece of legislation the changes that are being proposed i’m happy to hear it if they have a different understanding but that is my understanding of what what uh changes being considered thank you um i have uh counselor stevenson and then i’ll go to counselor frank and then i’ll go to counselor truss out thank you and i appreciate the question i’m actually heading to toronto tomorrow to do a day of planning with the ontario association of police service boards and i did do a training a half-day training on diversity and the the upcoming changes so and and as i said i’ll try to find the presentation and i’m happy to share it with with council but it was really stressed and made clear that the diversity was very broad based so there’s many many different aspects and ways to fulfill that and um skin color was not it was not prioritized it was not uh mentioned so and when it comes to lived experience we do have um the mental health and addictions advisory committee and we do have the anti-racism advisory committee for the board and i i know that miss toth said a lot as she was leaving but we weren’t talking about this when we did the vote in november the police act nothing has changed and i’ll i’ll speak personally i find this a little disturbing that mr goss was chosen you know voted eight seven at the last time again now he’s coming to the top and there’s this fight we we accepted a close eight seven vote when it was missed off now all of a sudden we’re talking about the importance of diversity that wasn’t talked about before we get to choose the best candidates for the positions and and i’ll say that i find this very disturbing very uncomfortable that that we’re somehow i don’t even know how to put it into words i’m not sure i want to go there mr frank thank you um and yes i agree with counselor stevenson we do get to choose the best candidate for the role i think we have differences of opinion on what best is um and that’s why we’re here sharing our perspectives um i have a quote i really like optimism won’t change the situation but optimism will change how the situation feels and i think that we’ve heard a lot actually during the interviews one of the challenges that the police um uh sector is facing across Canada and in london is recruitment and we know that’s from a public perception an opinion on on police across north america across canada um and in various cities and i do think um that public perception is is one of the reasons and we’ve heard from the police themselves that that could be a deterrent as to why someone would want to enroll into the police services um and i think we need to provide optimism to potential police uh recruits that if they enter into that workforce which we know that we are going to be currently recruiting for and and over the next couple years given the challenges we have um that they’re going to be welcomed and that their their needs are going to be reflected by upper management and um the board so i think providing optimism actually is a way that we can ensure that this uh the police board and also um police services are still able to recruit and we need to be changing public perception i think that starts with um who is leading and who is able to provide opinions um and i think that again we’ve been talking about who we think is the best candidate for the role and i do think uh lived experience is sometimes as important or more important than educational experience or work experience i value that very highly um so i appreciate that colleagues value other things very highly but that to me is one of the reasons why someone would do an excellent job in the role and i have um faith that a lot of us came into this role with no experience as counselors and no experience on police boards and yet people are serving on both of those roles and i think they’re doing a good job and i think we can offer that belief to other people as well. Councillor Trossan. Through the chair and in all and all due respect council i think that was an important question that was asked and i’m sorry i don’t have the document in front of me today but i do remember um in in in Susan Toth’s outgoing letter i believe was signed by other persons um there were citations to the new law and i’m i regret that i don’t have that in front of me right now but i i think it’s important to be able to say as somebody with a legal background when you don’t know the answer i’ll go look it up and get back to you and i and i think we have to ask for that because um there were there there were um important amendments to the act which have subbearing i’ve tried to pull out little pieces of it uh but i’d i’d rather not i’d rather not give a definitive opinion but i don’t think it would take that long to look it up and find it and i’m just wondering i’m just wondering how we could um remedy to this i i think it’s a reasonable question for this council to ask and it has to do with diversity plans i have this so i have deputy mary lewis and then i can add you after so um i guess the mr card the um the council was asking um about uh the new act and anything in it i know you don’t have the information before you and you’ve not reviewed it but um sorry councilor the question is how much time would it take him to figure that out what do i need to know what you’re asking to direct the conversation mr card yeah i don’t think this is a major legal research job and if i and if i had just a few minutes i could i could find it but i i would like him to work on that for a few minutes i’ll continue with the debate and then i’ll go to mr card um he may not have the answer still but i’m i’m happy to i’m happy to check deputy mary lewis thank you your worship i caution colleagues to be very careful about interpreting provincial legislation that has not received royal assent it is not in force and effect in this province so while it may have bearing on future decisions and future plans uh it actually does not uh impact our decision today uh and i have not seen any provincial government anywhere in this country uh and i have been working at various levels of of political involvement since 2003 uh repeal or rescind appointments because they’ve changed legislation typically the existing appointments are grandfathered until the new legislation uh has taken effect so i i’m very very hesitant to start speculating on how the provincial legislation will be interpreted moving forward what i am going to say though is that and what i’m going to share is after this entire interview process uh and i i want to pick up on the optimism that council frank talked about a little bit um while my first vote changed mr goss still was slotted as my second choice and so i am very comfortable even if i am on the losing end of a vote this afternoon knowing that we have two excellent candidates for this position and either one would do an excellent job so i am going to leave here today feeling optimistic about the future of the police services board no matter who uh comes out with eight votes because uh i think they’re both good candidates the last time around i had mr goss is my first choice my interviews i went into with an open mind my first choice changed but mr goss was still my second choice uh and had mr de mellow fallen off the ballot uh earlier in the process my vote would have moved to mr goss and i have no problem sharing that with people because i think that we are are going around now at a point when we actually should be calling a vote and making a decision um i think we have two excellent candidates uh we are going to perhaps have differences of opinion uh as counsel frank stated um but we can have those differences of opinion as as happy warriors for this community as people who say we’ve got two great choices so democracy will play out we will cast a vote and one of those people will move forward onto the police services board and whoever isn’t i hope will keep their name available to serve in another capacity uh we have vacancies on other committees we have uh always needs for people to contribute communistically to the the benefit and well being of our city so whatever the result of this vote is we would be well served by having either one of these gentlemen on the board we’d be well served by having either one of them on serving in another capacity so i hope we are not going to be negative about this i hope we’re going to be optimistic as counsel frank said recognize we’ve got two great choices and let’s have a vote and and uh give one of them the opportunity to move forward and serve on the police services board okay um i can’t move things along we suspended some of the rules so uh we’re gonna have the debate and i’m gonna go to counselor stevenson next i agree with everything the deputy mayor just said i just wanted to clarify that i am not speaking at all my role as director of the OAPSB i wasn’t even a director when i went to the training i am happy to share if i can what i uh got there um so new counselor new uh director and i just wanted to clarify that as i put it out there but it is uh an advantage that i do bring back um being a director there that i will have more information to share with counsel over the next few years as i participate more okay any other speakers before i check in with mr card calistair thank you worship and through you um i’m still with with steven on this and i think he brings uh valuable experience i know we value we keep talking about experience and i i think it speaks to like you know the values that we hold and how we interview people and personally like i i’m open-minded i was open-minded about changing my vote earlier and um i’m not with this i i think there’s an opportunity to embrace change in diversity and i think that’s really important in this conversation and you know i know people really stuck on this thing in terms of um the experience that ryan brings and i do think he’s a great candidate but i think we need change and we need new experience what we have on the police board and i applaud everyone who serves on it um they bring their own unique perspective but we need more of those unique perspectives and i i think that i would i would hope that people open their minds to the possibility of change and diversity and a new perspective on policing for what counselor frank said policing is in static the population has changed canada is a very diverse place london is a very diverse city and i think we need to acknowledge that of all levels and when we have these opportunities to put people with those unique perspectives and leadership roles we should encourage that and i would hope um with the next vote that people keep an open mind and uh i i’m still supporting steven and i would hope others will consider that thank you okay any other speakers mr. card can i just check in with you to see if you have any other additional information or if you are as you were before no your worship uh i’m still looking through the material to see if i would be in a position to offer useful information in response to uh whatever questions might be coming forward i know that i do have it and i did look at it a few months ago but uh at this moment my comments are not showing up so uh if you wish to check back in a few minutes i’d be pleased to uh provide you with an update colleague okay that’s where we stand um i don’t have any other speakers so move the meeting along i’m going to proceed with the next vote unless unless something else is directed okay there’s no more speakers um there’s two candidates left so we’re going to proceed with vote on those two candidates results of the vote no majority given to me all seven ryan goss seven okay colleagues i’m going to read the section called resolution of a tie i’ll make a ruling and then if anybody dislikes that they can challenge me on it so section 6.61 a runoff vote between the tied candidate shall be conducted and tabulated electronically candidate that receives the most votes in the runoff shall be recommended for appointment um 6.62 in the event of a tie between the same two or more candidates in a runoff vote the tie will be resolved by lot uh as follows with the candidate choosing so then there’s some procedures there so um now that we have a tie slightly different than what i said before we will have a runoff vote now between the tied candidates and if that’s still tied then we will draw the lots so that’s the way i’m going to proceed according to the procedure by law because that’s what it that’s what it says or to the it’s actually the policy not the procedure by law okay so same two candidates um this is the runoff between the two tied candidates okay so the runoff actually the system does this automatically so um we will open the runoff vote same two candidates this is because there’s a tie there’s a tie there’s a now a runoff there is a majority ryan goss eight Stephen Demilo six okay so the process is determined one recommended candidate in um ryan goss so now i would look for a mover of a ratification i see deputy mary lewis seconded by uh counselor layman pithers possible discussion on this any discussion the colleagues would like to make at this point so we’ll open the ratification of the process for voting so i’ll just be clear this is the appointment to the board now we’ve run the process like this is the motion to make the appointment closing the vote motion carries 12 to 3 so that’s done i think that’s the committee’s report deputy mare uh that concludes the 17th meeting of the strategic priorities and policy committee okay so lots of meeting left maybe time for a break if colleagues would like to take a break i’d look for motion to move uh my legs would love a 20 minute recess 20 minute okay 20 minute break move by uh counselor cutty seconded by counselor tro so we’ll do this one by hand all those in favor of a 20 minute break motion carries uh please be seated okay uh so two reports down we’re on to 8.3 which is the 18th meeting of the strategic priorities and policy committee i will go back to the deputy mare to present that thank you your worship uh so i am happy to introduce the 18th report of the strategic priorities and policy committee i believe we have colleagues who want uh item 11 the appointments of the conservation authority item 12 the june progress update from the health and homelessness or community system response and item 13 core area action plan 2022 review uh pulled to be dealt with separately i’ve not been made aware of any other items colleagues wish to deal with separately any uh colleagues like something go ahead counselor by mare burgen thank you i just want to clarify um on the report it’s 4.1 has been pulled okay thank you yes okay anything else so what we’ve got um from the council agenda is 11 12 and 13 being dealt with separately if you’re looking at the committee agenda it’s 4.1 2.1 and 2.2 dealt with separately does anybody want anything else dealt with separately okay go ahead so with that your worship i will put uh items 1 through 10 uh from the 18th meeting of the strategic priorities and policy committee on the floor for a vote okay comments on those items from colleagues council sorry is there someone over here go ahead wanted to uh merit uh just briefly on the report from london hydro i thought the uh presentation was very professional and uh we are we should be very grateful that we have such a well-run efficient utility uh here in london um but as we know that utility is for distribution purposes we should also be thankful for the hydro generation that takes place in the province of ontario company that i’m with outside of this place uh is a consumer a big consumer of electricity we consume about 1.3 million kilowatts of electricity yearly and biggest customer is um headquartered in europe and europe is very big on co2 emissions etc it allows us to be on their prime supplier list because the generation in ontario is 93% co2 free the german’s but some of us may know made a big mistake when they decoupled from nuclear uh that was under angela merkel and now because of what’s happening with ukraine they’re burning uh wood and coal to generate electricity so the german co2 levels are far far higher so again i just want to say thanks to ontario generation but also to uh london hydro thank you okay thank you add their comments go ahead counselor stevenson thank you i just wanted to talk about uh 3.2 or number eight i guess the lmch annual date it was great to get their presentation i just wanted to stay against thanks to them for all that they’re doing for our social housing um and and thank you for the request that was made by the chair around um looking at uh who and how many of our um i acuity people are going into the social housing because it really is an issue i talked to a lot of residents in the social housing and having people in their space inside their building that are bringing uh safety and security concerns is is a really big problem so i was very excited to hear about the ask looking forward to seeing um some changes there to provide um more optimal setting in our social housing it um it is a really big concern for people and uh i know there’ll be other solutions uh for the people who need the highly supportive housing so that’s great news too other speakers to the slate of items before us oh and i’ll just remind everybody we’re back to normal rules so you only get to speak once um that was just for that one item just in case colleagues were trying to slip one by me um i’ve got two clerks who are on it uh so with that i don’t see any other speakers so we’re going to open the vote uh that the um deputy mayor put on the floor for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 mayor thank you worship uh item 11 i’m now ready to put on the floor uh this is the appointments to the two conservation authorities um and i was using my uh incredible powers of intuition to predict the counselor in mierberg and wanted to vote separately on clause c um so i think we could put uh clause a and b on the floor first and then deal with c separately okay so you’re putting um item 11 4.1 the appointments to the conservation authority um everything but c everything but c okay um that’s moved by um the deputy mayor any discussion on this okay we’ll open those pieces for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 i’ll put item c uh counselor’s privilege and vin mierberg and be appointed to the cattle creek conservation authority for the term ending november 14 2026 on the floor uh and i’ll just uh remind colleagues that if we want to do something different we have to defeat this committee recommendation before an alternate motion can go on the floor okay i look for speakers on this else are mierberg and thank you mier um last week i attended the sppc meeting the agenda that we’re actually in the report we’re looking at now um but i had to leave at the dinner break for a family commitment i heard later that unbeknownst to me without my knowledge and certainly without consenting to anything that my name went forward um again without my knowledge and at first i i didn’t believe it um but sure enough it’s true and with that came some editorial comment um about some of us not having an appropriate workload um i have to stay and i think most of us know this that our system is is set up so that it’s flexible enough to meet the needs of individual counselors depending on their circumstance so you can have a full-time career and still be a counselor now that may not look like others who feel that their way of doing things is better but i’ve been doing this for 16 i’m in my 16th year i’ve been elected five times for the people of ward 10 and they seem to be pretty happy with the representation they’re getting as far as i’m concerned i report to the residents and voters of ward 10 not to other counselors i would never put somebody’s name forward as another counselor and not ask them first i think that is completely unprofessional um i think it’s discourteous and frankly i’m very disappointed to see this go in this direction again my 16th year i’ve never seen a counselor do this to another counselor like there isn’t a reasonable expectation that we be treated with each other on a professional level and at least communicate with each other if if i had gotten a even a phone call a text ahead of time um an email if it was at all possible i certainly would have considered it but the bottom line is i do have other commitments i do have um another career path outside of this place and it wouldn’t have taken much just to have a just a simple call uh to do it in this manner uh is not good for any of us and as i said i’ve never ever seen from whatever whatever political stripes or beliefs or philosophies a particular counselor do this to another counselor so again i’m very disappointed um frankly saddened by these actions and i’ll just leave it at that mayor yes i’m just going to add a context um i know you’re centering out a counselor um i would say that um through the process there was a majority of the committee who supported that direction and so i i think you’re speaking in broader terms there as well um so are you asking for us to defeat the motion you’re asking for the motion to be defeated i think you were speaking to it so that’s what you’re asking well if i was asked mayor um i would have stated that i could maybe have the lower tennis valley conservation authority work because they they meet me in the uh in the afternoon as opposed to the morning so i don’t know if uh others involved would be willing to do a swap as it were uh i’d even go so far as to say i would try to go to chat them in a canoe or a bike one or the other thank you okay um so the process we had before us is i understand what you’re saying but uh we’ll have to make some changes people have to speak to it i’ve got other speakers counselor cuddy thank you worship and through you i’d like to uh offer uh counselor vane mareberg and apology um i agree it was inappropriate we counselor vane mareberg and i speak on a regular basis i had every opportunity to to mention this to him and i didn’t and it wasn’t because of anything malicious but i forgot and um i do apologize counselor vane mareberg and it was uh it was inappropriate i was part of this cadre and i uh i do apologize thank you any other speakers to the motion that’s on the floor um since there’s no other speakers we’re going to open the motion um which is for the appointment of the two counselors to the board uh for voting closing the vote motion is the last one okay so we can take an alternate direction now i’ll look to the deputy mare thank you worship i’ll point out that the motion that we just defeated uh had two names in it so an alternate motion does not preclude counselor pribble from continuing to serve because it is not the whole motion it was only a part of the motion so if another counselor were to offer to fill this a motion could still come forward or a motion could come forward with just counselor pribble at this time and leave the other uh spot vacant uh for the time being we’ve we’ve got a couple of different options here uh but the defeating of uh the motion that we just defeated does not require counselor pribble to be removed from consideration and filling one of those two roles yes i will say that’s my that’s uh correct and my understanding of our rules as well and that’s how i would be willing to proceed um as chair so if someone would like to put um a couple counselor’s names for they could if someone would like to deal with counselor pribble they could if someone would like to deal with counselor pribble and then see if someone else is interested we could do that as well so we could we can chunk this out so deputy mare uh thank you worship so i am prepared to put counselor pribble’s name forward for one of the two positions i need a seconder seconded by a counselor trossow okay counselor pribble’s name is forward um and just the motion counselor pribble we can deal with the second appointment afterwards is there any discussion on that okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 at deputy mare luice thank you worship i want to offer counselors another option uh now in terms of the uh current vacancy our original communication uh to the minister of natural resources in forestry uh was indicating that we were seeking to fill three vacancies at that time with non counselors uh and citizen appointees uh we now have only one vacancy we have filled two of the three um one option we could consider is forwarding a new communication to the ministry asking for permission to fill one vacancy with a citizen at large rather than three vacancies with a citizen at large uh if it is not workable for any member of council schedule to step up and fill this vacancy um and i would uh encourage uh that if we were to send such a communication uh that include an it being noted uh that given the number of boards agencies and commissions counselors are expected to serve on uh no one was able to fill this time in their schedule counselor mareberg and well again i’ll just offer um if it’s possible i’m not sure uh counselor mccallister’s uh schedule but um i could do lower tems valley and perhaps we could do a swap counselor mccallister goes to kettle creek if that worked okay so i’m going to allow the question just because it’s nice to try to get the board filled even though it’s not really 100 percent procedurally correct if this were to be something that works we’re gonna have to reconsider what we just did uh and then shift some things around but i’ll go to counselor mccallister to see if it’s even an option thank you worshiping through you um i i can’t swap i mean i do already have uh heavy load with all the committee’s commissions and boards i currently sit on counselor wants to take that they can but i would not be able to switch with kettle creek um i chose the lower tems because it worked with my schedule and as there were no other volunteers i wanted to step up to fill that vacancy out of courtesy to the conservation authority so counselor mccallister your answer is you’d be happy to give up the spot but you’re not well you you can’t make the other committee work you will so counselor remember you’re willing to go on the lower tems conservation authority in place of counselor mccallister okay i just want to make sure i understand because i hear talking not on microphones so counselor mccallister said he’d be willing to vacate the spot that we just appointed to on lower tems valley conservation authority but he’s not able to take on the kettle creek because it doesn’t work for his schedule so we still have a vacancy so whether or not you want to offer to take that on we could i just need to know whether you want to take on the lower tems it it doesn’t solve our you okay can you say that on the microphone yes maryll take on lower tems uh valley okay so colleagues so i can accommodate this um what we need to do is um make a motion to reconsider the appointment of counselor mccallister only because we um asked be already um so we could reconsider that um after the reconsideration we can appoint counselor famirbergen and then we can come back to the kettle creek and see if there’s any other options there so i’ll look for someone so okay i was just checking to make sure the vote was 14-dope because only someone on the winning side can move reconsideration so just was double checking counselor drossal you’re willing to move reconsideration of the appointment of counselor mccallister seconded by counselor kettie so that takes two-thirds of counsel to support the reconsideration you’ve heard the discussion it’s not debatable so we’re just going to go to the vote okay so this is to reconsider the appointment of counselor mccallister to the lower tems valley board which we have another counselor for that so vote yes if you want to help us solve this resolution pose in the vote motion carries 14-0 okay so in more fun procedural antics the motion to appoint counselor mccallister which was delivered us to the committee is now back on the floor so now we get to vote on that again and if we defeat it then we can put counselor famirbergen forward so the motion to appoint counselor mccallisters on the floor and i believe colleagues are looking to have this defeated so that we can put counselor famirbergen on it so i will open the appointment of counselor mccallister for voting your your worship i’m just hearing some confusion among colleagues so reconsidering the vote to a point yes so you need to vote no in order to open the appointment back up for a new member of council when we reconsidered it it means it got brought back to the floor even though we made a decision so the current committee recommendation to appoint counselor mccallister is on the floor if colleagues defeat that we could appoint someone else so the motion on the floor we’ve reconsidered it’s there if it’s defeated we can appoint someone else that’s what we’re voting so we’ll open that for voting counselor hillier counselor hillier will be marking counselor hillier is absent closing the vote motion fails 0 to 13 okay now i can entertain an alternate motion to appoint counselor famirbergen would like to move that counselor hoppins survey merebergen seconded by counselor cuddy any discussions on the appointment of counselor van merebergen to the lower tems conservation authority board okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 okay so counselor van merebergen has been appointed to lower tems um i’ll just move back to uh kettle creek we still have one vacant spot there um i’ll look to see if there’s any um interesting committee to making an alternate motion since we defeated the one that was existing there we subsequently appointed counselor pribble counselor stevenson thank you i’d like to put forward the motion that we send uh the request to the province to um sign a citizen to that one spot remaining okay as our seconder for that counselor cuddy discussion on that that’ll just take a moment not a vote we anticipated having reloaded in so just take a moment to type it up we’re in the middle of debate on this item so if you’d like to say something hopefully it’s related to this item go ahead reading the um thank you through through the chair reading the letter that came from the ministry on this which i really disagreed with quite a bit as being somebody who follows these authorities i’m very skeptical that um we’re going to get much movement on on this however sure let’s let’s give it a try so i’m going to vote yes on this but in in voting and supporting your motion i i just don’t want that to be misconstrued that um i’m hopeful that the province is going to be considered but i will vote yes on that thank you will we wait for the clerk to type that up i will say that i agree with counselor truss out i am skeptical but i think that uh the way the province has structured these bodies they have helped create this problem so let’s put it back in their court to help fix it um we’ve we put a counselor on to fill a position uh they could meet us halfway and allow the other position to be filled by a citizen the worst they can say is no and we will be back to looking at our schedules again uh with regard to a vacancy um but we’re not the ones who defined the structure of how many counselors need to be on each of these conservation authority boards so let’s go back to them and let them know that they’ve created a problem any other speakers okay that wording is done now so if there’s no other speakers which i see none we’ll open this for voting those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 okay deputy mayor uh thank you your worship moving on item 12 it’s 2.1 from the committee report uh is the june progress update health and homelessness poll of community system response uh prior to the meeting uh spoke with counselor stevenson who indicated she wanted this pulled uh so that’s why it’s been pulled and i’ll turn it over to you take it from there okay so you put the committee recommendation on the floor uh look for speakers counselor stevenson thank you and through the chair um i know i only get to speak on this once i had a lot to say about this at sppc i i wondered if staff wants to have a chance to speak before i give comments i don’t want to presume anything or whether i’m good to go okay so the reason that i’m pulling this and the reason that i’m be voting against it i just want to be clear that i support the whole of community plan i want us to come together as a community with all of the all of the wisdom and experience within our city to address this crisis so i don’t want to derail this process and i don’t want to but but but we are in a governance position here and we have endorsed a plan that’s building a bridge as we cross it and we don’t really know exactly the details and things are coming to us done so for instance 403 tomsen road the switch from affordable housing to highly supportive housing those 44 affordable housing units are desperately needed and the switch to highly supportive came to us basically the cake was baked iced and pre-sold because it came to sppc saying this is what we’re doing next week it’s at council and indwell starts the next week indwell does amazing work i support that completely and i know council has already ruled on that but my my concern is the way that things are coming from the in the governance model we’re at the top but we’re saying to do it but we don’t not saying how and then things are coming from the bottom up i don’t know how else to say it except that you know the the report with the the endorsed plan when it came february 28th it says throughout 2022 londoners from all sectors and backgrounds said clearly that something needed to change that is so true we all heard that at the door we were all united in that people had hope that there was an election new counselors maybe that would change something then there’s a health and homeless gathering again more hope a 25 million dollar donation again more hope it’s been seven or eight months there’s a lot of anticipation and expectation around things changing in london and the first thing that came to us was the encampment strategy which is meals and care at the river it’s i don’t know if it’s just the timing and that’s what’s come to us first but it’s creating a loss of hope right if this is what we’re talking about i am not saying people don’t deserve to have food and water but community can handle that they need us to do the big things that they can’t do they’re looking for the big things and maybe i’m just ahead of myself and that’s coming but the communication is really lacking i’m getting the monthly reports but it’s so high level there the details aren’t there um i did a a video clip of what i said at sppc it has 42 000 views on facebook the message is resonated those are not all in london but the message is really resonating people are frustrated their concerns aren’t being met and so this whole like again even in the page that was handed out at the um at the aquatic center it says it says what people want to hear but the actions aren’t there and there’s no timeline for the actions and so if i’m the only council member that is willing to speak that voice then that’s the way it gets to be i’m going to be voting no on this it is not me saying no to the concept it’s me it’s me speaking on behalf of the people who do not feel safe in their own homes do not feel safe go into the park do not feel safe in their backyards this is this is a really big issue and this is not something that is just a policing issue our new chief of police has his work cut out for us for him but so do we the city gets to do their part and then i want to know how the community the residents and the neighbors and the businesses can do their part because it’s going to take all of us working together to to solve this and i have talked to many moms of addicts on our streets and you know they want their kids to stay alive they’re checking for them every day but the the meal isn’t it you know we do not have people starving to death that isn’t it is a basic need but it is not the root of this problem and people want to hear us get into the root and if my time is almost done i just want to reiterate that i am not wanting to be a problem i am wanting to help us be excellent at this this matters to our city our core area our our residents are hurting there’s so many of them that are hurting and this needs to expand to the whole of community thank you um sorry i was trying to this signal is like getting near the end of the time sorry i didn’t i’m not everybody can okay um counsel trosa thank you very much i want to go straight to the matter of the encampment strategy because i think it’s the encampment strategy that’s causing a lot of the controversy i think that’s just give me one sec there’s an update on the health and homelessness whole community response in the community protective services report there’s an item on the encampment strategy so it sounds to me like you’re looking to speak on that one i’ll defer my comments until the appropriate report i i sounded to me like it was coming up but i’m sorry it is coming up it’s just not quite here yet so i’ll let you know um so no um staff doesn’t just respond to comments counselors make um if there is a question then they can respond to a question but i i i took your comments like you were making comments so other speakers to this Councillor Layman thank you before i get into my comments i just have a couple of questions for staff um with the almost uh strategy how will that address individuals suffering from a high community level of um addiction and mental health issues that’s one and two once the once we’re up and running um with our hubs has there been discussion or strategy um talks to address those that will continue to live uh in city on spaces and refuse uh the help that the city is uh willing to offer Ms.

Livingston your worship uh through you the uh focus of this response is on the highest acuity people in London there are about 2,000 2,200 folks that are on our by name list who are homeless at some point of that we have about 600 of the highest acuity folks mental health addictions very severe physical health problems that is what this plan this response is focused on so the list of functions that are described in that in that hub are geared to those folks that’s why you see in there things like primary care access to mental health services and supports access to addiction recovery along with a harm reduction and trauma-informed response so those are the combination of functions that are geared entirely to try and meet people where they’re at and support them to be ready to be able to move to housing and when they are the other side of the plan is to have the highly supportive housing available so that we are dealing with those that are of the highest acuity and I forgot your second question the second question is once the we’re up and running um with those that refuse uh our assistance what are the discussions and strategy around that through you your worship again the design around the hubs is to try and remove as many barriers as possible for people accessing service right now there are wonderful services throughout our community but you have to move around to get them and in many cases there are rules you have to leave after a certain time you can’t come in before a certain time so the idea is to create and take away as many of those barriers as possible and the good work of our outreach workers to engage those folks and encampments to have them understand that this is a place where they can access services and supports in a different way and begin to move into a place of being able to access highly supportive housing so that is why in the longer term we’re also talking about so I know we’re going to come to the encampment stuff in terms of their emergent response but in the longer term as part of this work there’s also work underway to say how do we address encampments as we are then having the hubs in place the desire and belief is that we’ll see fewer encampments as we stand up hubs and put highly supportive housing in place but how do we address them when they’re there that is also part of this work as we move through it thank you and if I may just with some comments chair so I listened to SPPC as we discussed this strategy that’s coming forward and I listened to comments and I recognize there’s frustration I think we’re all at that point including those are developing a strategy and it’s fine that frustration is felt here in this chamber because we represent our constituents in the public and I agree with Councillor Stevenson there is that level of frustration will this work I don’t know but I think it’s got a really good chance to improve what we currently are seeing but I don’t think it will completely solve it what I do know what doesn’t work encampments don’t work putting people in housing without supports don’t work we’ve heard that from London housing I’ve witnessed it out in my ward we had a housing there with high needs individuals and it didn’t work what I’m very encouraged about and I’ve had discussions with the city manager quite a while on this is the involvement of our hospitals in this strategy because up until now I felt that the medical community was not addressing what I perceive at the base of this a medical crisis high needs medical mental health mixed with addiction because they’re not two separate things one cause and effect they’re intertwined there are core of individuals I believe that are living rough right now that desperately need high intensive care and long-term care I don’t think many individuals will ever be able to live on their own without continued care to support them and so I’m encouraged by the city manager in saying that this is a direction of this plan but at the end of the day what I see across Canada is this situation in cities of all sizes and what I don’t see is a better solution I believe we’re we’re forging ahead I believe there’s flexibility where we’ll move where we need to move but we’re doing what people have asked us to do and we’re acting is it as fast as someone like maybe not as a direction that people like to go maybe not but there’s certain realities that we have and what we can do I mean we cannot we can not arrest people please when they arrest people for let’s say vandalism or threat of violence a lot of times it doesn’t meet the threshold where they can hold them they have to give them a court date slip a paper and release them back in the community frustration you know it’s the hospitals we take I needs individuals down the hospital please sit with them for four hours in emergency now they’re treated and showing the front door and they’re back into the community we need something more what we do need at the end of the day again to address to 600 I believe is a solution that is above the resources that municipalities can provide we need higher levels of government to step in now I don’t think it’s any coincidence that about 20 years ago we had two hospitals that dealt with this issue that had 750 bets now we have 150 bets at LHSC 600 what a coincidence that that’s kind of the number I think those type of facilities at some point are going to have to be considered by higher levels of government so I will support the direction we’re taking but I really hope that the other levels of government will look at other means to help us out and clean our cities up thank you counselor layman I have myself on the speakers list next I’m going to turn the chair over to you I’ll go to the mayor I just want to on the health and homelessness update plan I want to pick up on a just a couple of comments that were made particularly the comments from counselor layman I think it’s really important for us to to be very clear in my observations in my engagement with the public there’s a lot of things we got a lot of irons in the fire a lot of things we’ve got going on there’s a lot of mixing of components into the different strategies so I wanted to take a moment to emphasize just a couple of things that counselor layman brought to light one is the health and homelessness work as the city manager said and as counselor layman was relating to we have a very high needs population who require services provided in a different way the agencies who are working for many years are come together and said we recognize the status quo doesn’t work and we’re willing to get behind a new plan and this is all to serve a very high needs population who you can’t just give a house to you can’t just expect them to be successful in a housed environment without proper supports you may not even be able to get people off the street without proper avenues into accessing the services they need at the time that they need them and over the years too often people have been ready for help and the answers come back next month there isn’t enough space so the health and homelessness plan is targeted towards a very high needs population to build our capacity to serve that marginalized population now at the same time we know that it’ll take some runway to get there and so that’s where we will talk later tonight about what do we do in the interim to addressing caments very different strategy completely unconnected it’s about getting us from point A to point B and a little further down the road from where we are today because there are challenges in that space but ultimately too and mr mathers is here and i i just want to see if you’ll look up yeah there’s a lot of work being done in his division on housing affordability and housing creation generally we know that part of the homelessness challenges people can’t afford to live in some of our Canadian cities because the cost of living has gone up we know that there are multiple solutions to that of which the municipality is just one piece we know social assistance rates aren’t sufficient in the province and that that’s one of the avenues that can help we know that we need to create housing because we have a supply issue we need to know we know we need to create affordable housing councilor frank and i have a motion later tonight to look at that within our cip structure we created a whole housing supply action plan and we’re developing it in consultation with all of the partners to try to drive that piece that that is part of the work right people cannot afford to live in this city or these some people can’t and every time interest rates go up more people are pushed to the margins every time inflation goes up and groceries cost a little bit more more people are pushing the margins other levels of government absolutely have a role to play in this which is why our external lobby effort is robust it involves myself, Councillor frank, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor ramen we serve on external organizations the number of times i’ve met with the premier and number of cabinet ministers on this or senior federal ministers they know what we’re doing we are aligned as municipalities we are speaking with one voice and we are trying to move all of these pieces forward in unison so we got a lot of irons in the fire and it’s really easy to get confused with all of them when you go to a session and people say these depots they’re the hubs right no they’re not the hub that’s being called the hub on Queen Street that’s not a hub in the way that we’re envisioning it there is a lot of confusion out there and so it is our job to do the best we can to separate these things to communicate clearly and and to keep things on the go and it’s very difficult to do because we can’t just stop do one thing make sure that’s very clearly communicated then do the next thing we have to have all of these things going on at once so i’m glad that the question was asked i’m glad that we have some clarity on the population we’re serving where we’re trying to get to on health and homelessness later tonight we’ll talk about a different piece in the planning reports we’ll talk about a different piece there’s a lot of things we’re doing all at once here to serve a common purpose to get people the supports they need to try to make housing options available supports available affordability and help serve Londoners as best we can but it is a very challenging job and you’re right counselor layman we cannot do this alone it requires a multitude of community partners industry partners and other levels of government so thank you for the questions and i just wanted to add that context and i’ll turn it to her back to the mayor counselor for counselor for a thank you uh your worship so i thought i i do have some comments for the encampment strategy so i hope i don’t overlap them but just from some of the comments that i saw here today i thought i should i should say just so i’m clear i know i touched on that but um we will have the encampment strategy report that’s related to the depots in the cpsc the health and homelessness item is before us i’m going to try not to touch the encampment strategy sure so if i do you can just talk about that later for sure i just wanted to make some comments of for what i for what i’ve seen so yes like we have all been to the door and during the election and we all heard that something needs to be done what is working is not working and what i’ve heard and i what i’ve said myself before is the status quo is simply not working and people are asking for something let’s do something so that’s what we’re doing with this new community system response um i’ve heard will this work um i’m very hopeful that it will i’ve been really studying it up as much as i can i’ve been making a comparison on the system that exists right now and the system that is being developed right now and there’s big differences so i have big big faith that it will work and i see that the hard work that staff is putting in and everybody who’s sitting at all the tables and the experience and the expertise that’s coming around and i do see that there are some really good ideas come into the table we are still engaging um every uh the community as much as we can specifically for the hubs on the implementation of it and that just shows you of the pieces that we’re trying to bring in because we do recognize that we can’t think of everything ourselves do we need our bigger government siblings to step in yes we do should we can we wait for that no we can’t wait that’s why we’re taking the action that we are now hopefully our government partners will see what we’re doing and step in when they see our success that’s what i would say to that um and i also should say there’s two ways we can go about this as leaders we can be leaders in front of our community or we can be leaders behind our community if our community doesn’t understand or there’s confusion or there’s misstatements or there’s just anything that kind of confuses what it is that we’re doing because i have seen this the only way i’m going to this the only place i’m going to touch the service debels but i have seen a lot of confusion between the service debels and the hubs it’s up to us to clarify that as much as we can and a lot of these you know um a lot of this confusion can come up because of the speed that we’re going at i’ve heard the deputy mayor say this before and i’ve said it myself where we’re traveling at light speed government doesn’t travel this fast and when we travel at this speed because of the needs that we need to address right now we do find ourselves sometime trying to get the message out and it’s difficult to have that message disseminate throughout the entire community but we’re trying our best to do that i had my own um community engagement session that’s another part i’ll touch on the campus strategy but i won’t go any further and just trying to do as much as i can to reach out to as many people as i can to really kind of let everyone know what’s going on but i would challenge everybody here just to remember that if you do have individuals coming to your constituents or anybody in the city and they are coming at you asking questions that clearly show there’s some confusion i would say please take the hard move and try to clarify stand in front of them and try to tell them what it is that we’re trying to do do not stand behind them and just egg them on because as leaders that is our role we need to stand in front of our communities and show even though there is fear and anxiety and i totally get it we need to show that this is something that we’re trying to do this is different because you know the alternative is do nothing and that’s not working and everybody agrees so we’re trying to show that we’re doing something and describe and explain what it is of the system that we’re working on right now so that’s what i would say to my colleagues here and i guess i’ll speak more to the encampment strategy once we get to that thank you counselor any other speakers counselor pribble thank you chair and i would just like to say that i will support this because we’ve been working or our staff has been working on it for a long time and don’t get me wrong i would like us i would love us to have more details and be more even ahead of the game but right now this is going forward again and to reiterate it has nothing true with the encampments which is coming up this is the this is the summit and the initiative our staff came up with so as i said well i’d love to have more information would like to be faster absolutely but i do want this to move forward and i’m very interesting on the july 19th when we get the update during the sppc i do realize that it’s going to be only the services and design i would love to have the financial sustainability as well but i’m hoping that’s going to be by the end of by the end of august but i will be supporting this because i want this to move forward and i want to hear the detailed uh uh suggestions from our staff thank you counselor i just want to just correct one thing you said july 19th which was the original date i don’t know if everybody’s seen the notification i sent around recently about creating a dedicated sppc meeting on receiving that information for monday the 24th um which will allow that document to go on the regular agenda gives counselors and the public more time with it so i just wanted to add that piece so i appreciate that that was the date but we’ve it’s just a little bit further down and people have a little bit more information with a little more time to work work with it okay uh other any other speakers on this okay so the motion’s been moved i’m going to open the vote closing the vote motion carries 13 to 1 and now your worship that brings us to the last item from the 18th sppc item 13 this is 2.2 from the committee agenda the core area action plan 2022 review okay that’s on the floor comments on this go ahead counselor stevenson thank you and through the chair the core area action plan it’s interesting because the front cover of this says making a difference october 28th 2019 we did not make a difference and i understand i’ve been told what you know there’s varying factors maybe as to why but in the short eight months that i’ve been here there are so many plans and strategies i love optimism but optimism without is just wishful thinking and i think it’s a disservice to the people of london to continue to bring forward our plans tick them off as complete and congratulate ourselves there are many of us who believe that our core area is entering a precipice san francisco is showing us where that can go we talked about in our strategic plan our commitment to the core area but we are not committed to results and so i am going to vote no to receiving this update because it’s a disservice to londoners it’s a disservice to the people in the core area i am going to change my tact a little bit in that i’m going to work with staff and try to not try i’m going to be bringing forward motions to my fellow counselors over the next little bit to see how we can what can we do in the next few months in the last six months of this plan so that’s going to be my shift um but i’m i’m voting no because we got to be honest we got to be honest with ourselves about what it is that we’re creating or not creating no blame shamer guilt what are we going to do about it and how are we going to move forward okay any other speakers okay seeing none oh Councillor preble go ahead thank you chair i do believe that there is a lot of work ahead of us in terms of the core action plan and we need to coordinate it and i said it at the last meeting and development when this was discussed i think that i believe that we are on a better track and i do believe that the bottom step that we included now in the strategic plan which we call implementation plan is going to help us because i do think for the core area that we never honestly been pointed out the biggest issues and we never really went as far as implementation plan with the tactics with people responsible individuals responsible and deadlines so i do agree there there’s a lot of room for improvement we need to address it we need to attack it and we got to look at within our own structure uh how we can get certain departments certain individuals involved so we are more accountable and we need to deliver better results no doubt uh i do hear from some people that vf invested and we are doing a lot of things for downtown don’t get me wrong you know don does place and there have been investments but again on the other hand that’s a lot of things that they cost money and we are spending taxpayers money but the hard work is actually how to make things work how to make them happen how to make people coming uh coming downtown and the strategies the implementation plan so i do agree that there’s uh there’s we are very far far from petting ourselves on our shoulders that uh we on our back that we’ve done a great job but on the other hand i hope we will consider it and again now i would just repeat what i said last week or during the last meeting thank you okay thank you any other speakers okay this is moved and that exhausts the speakers list so we’re open that for voting pensor polosa ponoco for polosa uh mark your absent closing the vote motion passes 12 to 1 deputy mayor uh thank you worship i suppose i will save for inquiries uh the question from is barbon if if the budget would allow for a treadmill while i stand for two hours uh and conclude the 18th report of the sppc thank you very much i’ll tell you about uh in my first term uh food truck debate and a taxi bylaw debate that i had to stand for for i’ve what felt like a few days um onto the 10th report of the planning and environment committee thank you chair um i’m just going to read this out before i continue on it being noted that any and all written submissions relating to applications that were made to the planner on file the planning and environment committee and to 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 so with that um i’d like to present the 10th uh meeting of the planning environment committee um i have request to pull uh item 5 3.2 i have no other items um requested be pulled okay would anybody like anything else pulled so right now it’s just the um community improvement plans item councilor lewis thank you worship um i would also ask uh that we pull item 4 3.1 from the committee report 221 queens off anything else tell us separately so right now we’ve got 4 and 5 being dealt with separately councilor so then i’d like to put um items 1 through 3 and 6 on the floor okay items 1 through 3 and 6 moved by the chair any discussion on those items okay seeing none uh we can open those items for voting those in the vote motion carries 13 to 0 thank you um chair i would now like to put um the first item pulled number 4 regarding 221 queens avenue on the floor okay 4 is on the floor i’ll look for speakers to 4 deputy mayor lewis thank you worship so we had a debate about this committee uh we discussed the need for uh when we’re going to continue these extensions uh looking for things like enhanced landscaping uh and things like that uh and how we’d like to see a longer term used brought forward sooner than later um i’ve had an opportunity uh to hear from the applicant as well as uh consult with uh our planning staff uh briefly on this as well um something that did not really come out in terms of the report either from the applicant or in the staff report on this is that um this surface parking lot which does serve one London place um is not only at capacity in the zone 3 4 where we’re running extremely high capacity anyway um but that these are monthly leased spaces that are not when they’re described as tenant spaces um they’re not for tenants used to have customers come in these are spaces used by employees as reserve parking and that it’s actually key control entry so they’re similar to what we would have here at city hall you have to tap to even have access um so this is a bit of a controlled law this is not a uh you know a surface parking lot where people just come and go for a couple hours at a time here and there um so in and then I also had an opportunity to consult with miss McNeely if we could direct somehow some landscape uh architect from our side to work with the applicant to have some enhancements uh there is some street scaping there already but the addition of some uh you know native species uh to the streetscape uh and provide that little bit of enhanced screening from uh the street level pedestrian experience uh would be something that I could be supportive of in a three-year renewal so that their investment is a little bit longer term in terms of their enhanced landscaping so uh I am going to encourage colleagues to consider defeating the committee recommendation and if that is successful I will put an alternate motion on the floor uh that essentially says the same thing except it will uh extend it for three years and direct civic administration through our landscape architect and site plan approval to work with the applicant to enhance the streetscape screening uh with native plant plantings uh to make the streetscape a little more pedestrian friendly in terms of getting something right away um that enhances the streetscape rather than being in a situation where we’re just going to it’s been made very clear to me we’re just going to be back here in a year asking for another extension because until there’s an option to accommodate those reserve parking spaces elsewhere for the applicant that they’re going to continue to seek a renewal uh so if that’s the case I’d prefer to get the landscaping enhancements done in a renewal now rather than wait a year and do it when they come back um so um deputy mayor small challenge with that and I’ll look for a second or in a second um I may not be able to allow you to do what you’re doing there there isn’t a by-law the other way prepared for council and I’m unsure on if the changes that you’re looking to incorporate would require incorporation into a by-law so I need to go to our staff to see because if you want to do that and you may have to refer back to committee to prepare the proper by-law rather than try to make the change here so let me just do that once we understand what’s before us then I’ll look for a seconder so I’m going to go to staff to see if uh if this would be incorporated into a new by-law because I’m the clerks right now don’t have an alternate three-year extension by-law prepared at this moment that might not envision the way that you want to incorporate these changes into it I’ll go ahead go ahead thank you you worship that’s correct we don’t have a by-law rates for the one year and not the three years so I’ll that’s information for you you may want to refer this back with that intention um rather than and then once referred back the committee could change defeat adjust um change it back to three years as well there’s lots of options before you but you don’t necessarily have to defeat it here if you want to refer back referral tip and take precedent so uh and that and that is actually very helpful information your worship and I’m happy uh then having shared my comments I’m going to move a referral uh back to the planning and environment committee as well as with some direction to civic administration uh to work with the applicant to return with an enhanced landscaping plan uh when that returns to the planning and environment committee so that the committee consider that as part of its deliberations okay we’re working on that is there a seconder for that um again I’m going to put the language up because we’re at council I want to want to make sure everybody’s crystal clear on the language um so I’ve got a seconder in counselor Stevenson and now that people are understand what we’re doing this is a referral referral takes precedent we’ll deal with the referral and we can speak to the referral so I’ll look for speakers now counselor Stevenson and then counselor Pribble thank you I just want to thank the deputy mayor I’m really happy to hear this I was going to speak on this anyway I was not happy with um with this uh one year when our core area looks the way that it does I mean like we cannot have high expectations for others when we’re doing this and so I think being kind and thankful and grateful for the people who have stuck with us downtown who run businesses who are keeping their employees there I am very very happy to support the three-year term and I’m very grateful for that business in our downtown counselor Pribble thank you I had more points to discuss but uh all I would do at this time is uh ask my colleagues to refer back to the committee and I will talk to you back more into the committee instead of taking more time no thank you counselor Hopkins uh yeah I was happy with the committee um um the committee’s recommendation to go one year but I will support the referral back I think there’s something to be said about working with the applicant I do have concerns when we do these one-year um extensions for some and for others we don’t and I really appreciate siften’s comments about the temporary use zone that uh it should be applied uh to all downtown landowners for surface commercial parking lot so if this is referred back I would like to work with staff to see how we can incorporate uh that one-year extension having that fairness with everyone in the downtown area uh looking at uh parking lots looking at other plans that we have in the downtown core incorporating it and having a plan moving forward so with that I will be supporting the referral um back counselor Ferra thank you Your Worship um I’m not necessarily a fan of surface level parking lots and I thought that the recommendation and vote at committee was appropriate for what uh what our stance is now but I just wanted to before considering the alternative go to staff and maybe request if you can outline um the reason for the recommendation for the one-year just one more time go ahead thank you through uh Your Worship the rationale for and the recommendation from staff is really to get the conversation going in terms of starting to build a strategy towards what that future parking lot would look like and uh it has been close to 28 years um with uh extra three years it’d be another 30 years so it’s it’s been it doesn’t meet necessarily the policy framework from that perspective and uh we recognize that there are changes within the downtown so now it would be the time to start having that conversation thank you um that’s that’s good for me thank you Councillor Troz-Halle thank you very much and through the chair um I’m not going to support the referral back I think the staff report got it right and I support the staff report we don’t like the way downtown looks so we’re going to extend surface parking lots that that is just counterintuitive to me because I think one of the biggest problems with the way downtown looks is because we have so many surface parking lots and we just cannot keep renewing these one technical question I have is um in terms of the one-year extension if we approve this tonight the one-year extension speaks as of the date of the by-law which would be today right I don’t have by-law right in front of me but um maybe the staff have it pulled up can uh let me know the effective date of the by-law who you worship yes the by-law would be established based on the timeline of the council approval um recognizing that this the current by-law in place laps is august 25th okay thank you that’s helpful also through the chair so if we refer this back essentially we’re giving a much longer extension uh and explain if that’s wrong because it would go back to the staff they would come back to planning and then we’d come to this council which if which if the one-year extension was passed would would trigger the running of the one year so basically uh it will let me let me ask is that is that reasoning correct go ahead through you he worship it would allow us for that year of conversation with the with the property owner to determine what those next steps would be but through the chair but that year would start to run at a later date yeah I think just if I can help the council is asking for the difference between kind of the effective dates of the by-law so we pass the one-year extension tonight as is the committee’s recommendation when does the year clock start ticking if we refer it back and come back and say we want to do the same thing when would the year clock start ticking in that scenario your worship it would be effective at the day of the passing of this by-law and that’s when the clock starts ticking um if they bring it back in a year’s time it could be before that at any time okay thank you to the chair but if we don’t pass a by-law tonight the one year doesn’t start ticking so um I’m I’m I’m absolutely even more opposed uh to this and I I suppose I suppose we can ameliorate this by saying in a separate uh in a separate motion that the one year starts ticking tonight in in any event in that conversation could go on but I I think the staff report just just got it right and we need to do something about the problem of the proliferation of surface parking lots downtown and this is the in in my view and in the view of many others the worst possible land use we’ve got too many of them and we need to control this so I’m just prepared to support the staff report this evening thank you any other speakers okay seeing none um this is on the referral back to staff um I just want to have the language pulled up is it in it’s any scribe so just to the mover and the seconder if you could just refresh your screens and read it make sure you’re okay with it before I call the vote and I of course other colleagues to know what you’re voting on should take a look as well mover’s okay seconder you’re okay with the way it’s worded okay all right so moved and seconded it’s in the in there uh we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 10 to 3 thank you uh I’d like to put uh the final item uh for the 10th uh meeting item number five uh five year review community improvement plans and financial incentive programs on the floor okay that’s on the floor speakers to that Councillor Frank thank you yes we had a nice debate about CIPs at PEC and um I had made some efforts to um address some of the use of CIPs and uh sure that we have more affordable units going in um with the introduction of mandatory minimums um which was a discussion that we had um but since then having chatted with some colleagues uh and the mayor um hoping to bring forward an amendment that looks at having staff directed to to look at opportunities to include affordable housing units we know that staff are already have this on their work plan but this is to provide further direction to specific areas including but not limited to the introduction of mandatory minimums and then options to include units in existing buildings so I’d like to make a motion to add this amendment to this item yes so um that’s an amendment I’m willing to second because I wrote the letter with you um so we’ll be on the amendment now um if since Councillor Frank didn’t read out the amendment I’m just gonna read it out I know we it’s on the added agenda but not everybody at home reads the added agenda so so that civic administration be directed to review the existing and consider in future housing related CIPs opportunities to include and incentivize the creation of affordable units including but not limited to A the introduction of mandatory minimums to access CIP funds and B options to include units in existing buildings it being noted that changes to provincial legislation on affordable housing necessitates to review the existing financial incentive programs being further noted that staff will report back no later than Q2 2024 so that’s the amendment to the motion as before us we’ll keep the debate on the amendment to look for speakers Council Deputy Mayor Lewis yes I’m going to be very brief yes yes I’ll just let you know um Councillor Ferra was asking about an amendment he wanted to bring forward that he circulated that’s not specific this part of the motion so he’ll be able to make that amendment once we’ve dealt with this one it’s not an amendment to the amendment it’s actually a different piece so Council will let you deal with that at the time I’m I’m just going to speak briefly to this Councillor Preble will you take the chair yes I will and Mayor is on my list thank you we’ll see we get everybody standing once here first I want to thank Councillor Frank for working with me on this motion I know I spoke against the original motion that she brought forward a committee for me it was it was too specific and didn’t give us the opportunity to integrate some of the changes that are being made at the provincial level but I absolutely do support the idea that we need to find as many ways as possible to incorporate affordable units into our incentive programs by doing this we are giving staff the time direction and runway to look at a number of options that can generate more units in there we’re also giving staff the ability to incorporate what are some existing changes to the provincial legislation they kind of adjust the way that our incentive programs particularly the financial ones work because of the provincial waiving of certain types of DCs some of which are defined some of which aren’t finally defined yet when you get into affordable and attainable so this is an important direction for us to stake out our ground to say we’re committed to looking at ways to incorporate affordable units into the work that we’re doing for accessing our financial programs but the leeway with staff to figure out how to make this work best with the existing programs and the provincial changes another piece in there is an option that I want colleagues to know the option to include units in existing buildings this is something that Council has had the ability through bonusing to toy around with and it can be successful in other words if a developer has an existing building and they want to pitch another one there’s an option here where you can get affordable units sooner in an existing building right away at the time of the pulling of the building permit rather than have to wait for that construction to come to fruition we’ve we’ve all seen some approvals done that include affordable units that have yet to come to fruition and I think that can be frustrating so I think having staff investigate other options to bring units forward sooner in in more ways I think that’s also something that staff can look into and again all of this will come back for our decision so I want to thank Councillor Frank for working on this with me and I hope colleagues will support this amendment and I’m going to chair back to the mayor any other speakers on the amendment Councillor Ferrera thank you worshiping through you I just wanted to say thank you to both of you I think this is a much bigger deal than the feeling I’m getting from the room right now just to really kind of emphasize that this this is a very big deal where we’re tying in the affordable units with the CIP so that’s something that I’m very excited about so I do want to say thank you to Councillor Frank and to the mayor and you know just everybody just realize how big of a move this is right now so I do hope that everybody supports it and I do too. Councillor Hopkins yeah I just want to follow up after Councillor Ferrera’s comments it is a big deal and I really want to thank Councillor and the mayor for broadening the conversation I really do think it’s important as a municipality we give direction in particular to the province they need to hear what’s going on in our municipalities and the need to have those extra tools available to us for affordability so thank you. Thank you Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Preble. Thank you chair and I will support this motion as well and thank you for bringing it up but I have a question kind of when we talk about the affordable units and I have a question actually to the staff and in 2017 when we did the CIP and we had the two triangles with the tax increments starting high to low and then we had the remainder from low to high and it was a 10 year kind of a 10 year model and my question is did we ever because I’m a big supporter of deeply affordable housing units tremendously in terms of the affordable housing units not this this motion but my question is this did we ever approach I’ll step back bill 23 changed this before bill 23 we had the we had the bonusing and we went to the community and we said to the developers that for certain exceptions we can allow you to do we you need to deliver a certain number of units did we ever consider starting a certain fund and instead of doing the affordable units and I know bill 23 doesn’t kind of allow it allow it but on the other hand we can still approach the industry so my question to the staff is did we ever consider any fund instead of waiting these five 10 15 20 years if these affordable units will ever happen instead of going something with this model for the developers so we have actually money to spend as soon as possible on the deeply affordable housing units thank you mr.

Mayors through the chair so previously when we had the bonusing availability this it wasn’t a concern because we were able to have this opportunity for if we provide more height or different opportunities for the developer then we could get affordable housing so previously that wasn’t considered however through the what’s recommended as part of the cip report it’s going to open up the ability to consider that for for different types of development so that is absolutely an option that would be on the table and there would also be other ways that we try to provide incentives one is through our rethink zoning there’s that we’re looking at opportunities to be able to provide incentives for affordable housing but that is on the table for consideration as far as these as part of these reports and that would be coming forward related to the new cip’s perfect thank you and i’m glad it’s going to be considered and i hope the proposal is going to come to the council to the committee as well so we can look at the cost the the benefits of it and potentially and i do understand that developers it’s it’s that they would be willing to that we cannot press it on them push it on them but i’m glad to hear that because that potentially might be a better model for us and we can have more deeply affordable housing units which we need greatly as well thank you okay i have no other speakers on the amendment and this is just on the amendment to add in moved by council frank seconder by me okay we’ll open that for voting on the amendment closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 okay so now we have a motion that needs to be moved as amended um council lamory so willing to move it i’ll put that on the floor okay i need a seconder because it’s as amended uh councilor hopkins yes go ahead uh council fair i believe had uh another amendment yep i just have to put the amended motion on the floor for him to be able to now amend it so the as amended motion is on the floor for further possible amendments council fair you’re on the list thank you worship and through you i circulated something earlier today with council luis i did see that his signature was not on that so i just wanted to look at council luis that he’s still seconding that okay so i’m just looking to amend the downtown cip boundary just to include 206 picadilly street and i feel that uh including this uh location for the business that’s operating there would fit very well into our strategic plan specifically um making London a more sustainable city reducing food waste and supporting small and growing businesses so i was just hoping that i could get your support uh for that okay then willing to second to the mover and seconder what part of the clause are you trying to amend this into just so we can figure out where to land it in this direction as you can tell this is a very long clause there’s like well like it’s a few pages long so we just um because this is council it’s important for us to land this in the right spot your worship if i can assist um and i believe uh the intent is to land this uh as a new clause um after uh clause uh xix uh we’re looking at the xixi right now is that where you are that’s where i am yes in the same spot there um you might you get like seven clerk points for landing in the same spot as the clerks um okay so that’s where we’re gonna land it um so that just an important technical piece because it is a emotional council so we may need to make sure it’s right so that’s moving second and i’ll start debate on this piece go ahead deputy mayor luice uh thank you worship i i’m again going to be brief maybe not quite as brief as yes on the last one um but uh counselor for uh uh had wanted to make a change to the uh cip area um at the planning committee he wasn’t able to stay and provide his comments because he had another commitment and so we did not do anything with it but i had the opportunity to uh discuss this with him one-on-one um i think this is very similar to the changes that we’ve made in the two prior clauses uh where specific properties are being uh amended into the oev and the hamilton road uh community improvement plans uh this is contiguous uh with the existing cip for the core area it’s one property on the other side of the line um the original suggestion at the uh the committee was uh for the street and once we identified that this was a specific property uh next door to properties that are already eligible um i was happy to work with the council to pull this together and uh support this so uh that’s uh why i’m willing to second this far any other speakers to this amendment on the amendment i don’t see anyone so let’s vote on the amendment closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 well i will move amended amended motion so it’s as amended again because it’s been amended so another seconder for that i’ll look to someone who wants a second councilor mccallister any debate on what is now the twice amended clause and its totality okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting thanks for cutting closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 go ahead uh thank you that concludes the uh 10th report i’d like to move uh onto the 11th uh report of the playing committee the play environment committee um i only had uh item six requested to be pulled without further uh request i’d like to put on the floor yeah councilor maverick and you’d like something else dealt with separately i could request um number 10 3.4 be pulled please okay so that’s six and 10 dealt with separately anyone else want something separately from yeah there’s a technical amendment to number seven so we’ll pull that separately as well that was circulated on a pre amendment sheet so six seven and ten dealt with separately i don’t see anybody adding anything else chair i’ll let you make a motion so i would like to put all the items excluding six seven and ten uh on the floor i’ll move those okay moved by the chair any discussion on all items with the exception of six seven and ten okay seeing none we’ll open that for closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 go ahead chair i’d like to put uh number six uh just 2.3 request for heritage destination 5.99 to 6.01 regiment street on the floor okay so that’s item six 5.99 to 1 Richmond street on the floor comments or discussion on this councilor hopkins yeah thank you uh your worship i did ask for this to be pulled i did not support uh the recommendation coming out of uh the committee uh which was to um i guess refuse the request for demolition which was staff’s recommendation and this came to us right at the end of the meeting it was long long meeting and i was uh surprised why we would not do that so that’s where i’d like to start off with uh there are um three buildings um that were uh surveyed and it just speaks to 5.99 and 6.01 and i know there’s a part behind 5.99 um that we’re not considering so through you your worship uh maybe uh to get some clarification from staff i’ll go to staff with the first question around the buildings what what’s looked at and what are we designating thank you through your worship that’s correct the building at 5.99 and 6.01 the front portion along Richmond street are the uh the buildings that we’re looking to have designated under the Ontario heritage act uh the build the ancillary building in the rear the we’ll say the parking lot area did not meet the merits for designation and they’re not being recommended so with that i would like to um you know ask council um to uh really understand what we right now are going to be looking at um as a heritage um potential um designation and it is really about the the front the streetscape along Richmond street looking at just the front portions 5.99 and 6.01 that is the request for designation i uh when you look at the criteria there’s a number uh there’s nine um criterias it meets three of them it only has to meet two and if you look at the cultural heritage evaluation the property why it meets the criteria is um around the design the physical value because it is rare unique representative of early examples and styles of types of expression material and construction but the second criteria which i think is really uh important is the property is contextual value because it is important to defining maintaining or supporting the character of an area Richmond street does have a lot of character it’s got a lot of heritage and as we designate the front of these two buildings top portion of the two buildings um i i i really do think it has great value to the streetscape the other thing i want to mention too is there is a proposal for a development and if you look at the work within that application that is going to be happening behind the building it’s a 12 story it does take into account the developers mitigation and measures to protect uh that building as well so i i’m not exactly sure i’m waiting to hear from my colleagues uh reasons why we would not do that but i am hoping you will defeat the recommendation coming out of uh committee and uh if you do i will put forward staff’s recommendation okay thank you other speakers to this item chair layman um yeah i’ll speak to why i um didn’t support this recommendation um that committee i uh referenced the consultant’s report um the number of reasons why it didn’t meet heritage standards and and i’ll through this purpose all i’ll use our staff’s report um there are nine um uh points where they try to uh where if you meet these points they’re used to uh decide if it should be designated one point the property is design or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit uh no the property has design or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree or technical or scientific achievement no property has historical associate value because direct associations with a theme event leave person activity organization or institution that’s significant to a community no the property has historical or social value because it yields or it has a potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture no the property has historical associate value because it demonstrates reflects the work or ideas of an architect artist builder designer or theorist who is significant to a community no finally the property has a contextual value because it is a landmark no this building’s an old building um that i think that’s the reason why uh maybe some are considering it should be protected um what we’ll do is we’ll tie the hands of anyone who looks to uh improve on this building you know there’s many possibilities along Richmond Street um that um could improve um the landscape of Richmond Street I think you can go down to uh that really unique um residential tower down closer to Ken Street with David E. White um in a beautiful shop uh below a beautiful space out in front um that would not have been able to have been done yeah if it was a heritage property um protected so uh I didn’t support a committee um I will I will support the committee recommendation that we refuse heritage designation okay i’ll go to the council chose town then deputy mayor lewis i want to support what um through the chair i’d like to support what councilor hofkins said um it’s it’s important that we maintain like some sense of streetscape what i was talking about with the bridge earlier and yes it’s an old building it’s usually the case the heritage uh designated uh but build buildings um i just i just think that too um i i think what said rude here is it will tie the hands of a potential developer and i think it’s unfortunate if we start to see heritage preservation especially in our downtown especially especially in our downtown if we start to see that as an impediment to economic development to to the betterment of downtown and i i really think it’s creating a false narrative um in terms of one versus the other so um i just i just want to make it clear that i want to go back to the original staff recommendation and um i i support i support what what councilor hofkins and councilor frank said regarding the design regarding the designation um and that’s really all i have to say thank you deputy mary lewis thank you so i’m going to be supporting the committee recommendation as well i’m not going to repeat everything that councilor layman read out um but ultimately whether or not we seek a part four heritage designation is a choice of this council because it meets three of the nine criteria doesn’t mean we have to pursue it it means it’s eligible to be be pursued but the decision still rests with us and in some cases there are buildings that are worth being preserved for future generations absolutely earlier this month i was happy to be at a celebration where the clerk house in ward two was designated very worthy of that designation but just because something is old doesn’t mean that it needs to have a park for heritage designation um i want to remind people you know we are talking right now about economic development and housing and all those other things the core area action plan if you think that a heritage designation can’t be an impediment uh to downtown renewal i would challenge to go over king street where there is a white building that is only held up by scaffolding because a prior council determined that it should have heritage designation it’s a prime spot where we could have had a housing development move forward and now i will say at the time um as a private citizen i also didn’t agree with supporting a demolition permit because there was no plan for redevelopment at that time um but if if a plan were to come forward right now it frankly uh probably isn’t something that can be done because of the cost of that facade and that building is falling apart uh and it will continue to fall apart through demolition by neglect until it is nothing but rubble and then at some point maybe we will see a tower that provides housing rise there maybe we will see ground floor commercial space there but it doesn’t mean that uh you know there is a building that automatically has to be preserved just because it’s part of the streetscape today neighborhoods have to be allowed to change and grow as a city grows um there are buildings that are absolutely worthy of a park for designation but it is a judgment call and even when you look at some of the criteria that are recited in this report and whether you look at the consultants or the staff’s report these are subjective opinions they are based on some professional accreditation on both sides yes but they are still pretty subjective uh in their approach so i am not going to be supportive of just designating a building as a part four heritage because it meets two or three criteria if this checked off seven or eight of the nine boxes that becomes a much easier decision but i know that we have also the a clock ticking on the the cultural registry so there are other buildings that need to be evaluated as well because of changes to bill 23 for me this one just doesn’t meet the smell test it’s just that simple this is not worthy of the park for heritage designation in my judgment and that’s why i’ll be supporting the committee’s recommendation Councillor Frank thank you yes i’ll be going with Councillor Hopkins on this one um i think staff have brought us a good application they’ve engaged the work of a consultant um they’re the expert in this field and i think staff are as well so um i personally will be um following their recommendation if we are able to defeat this one um because i do think that staff as the deputy mayor have said they’re on a timeline so i think that they are trying to prioritize and deliver us um applications and this one is ready to go for approval um so i think that the if we approve it then they are able to free up their time and move on to the next one um this one the work has already been done they have um encouraged us to designate heritage so i’ll be supporting um the staff recommendation and uh voting against the committee one any other speakers so i was asked like sorry i was asked by Councillor Hopkins if she can sum up and for colleagues who are on council the last term that was something that the previous mayor allowed a lot um you’ll notice i haven’t allowed that um that’s because um i read the procedure by law and the way that it works is speaking only once the exception is called reply so it says a member shall shall not speak more than once than emotion unless otherwise decided by a majority vote of members present but a member who has made a motion shall be allowed to reply for a maximum of five minutes and in the note under what that is is um yes oh um the the context of that is to explain a material part of their speech where you may have been misquoted or misunderstood so if you’ve made a motion and through the course of the debate someone says has misrepresented your approach or your words or your intent you can you can reply but i don’t want to get into what we did last term which is everybody makes a case there’s a debate then the person wants to sum up and and goes back to it so Councillor Hopkins if you have something to add to a reply that would explain a material part of your motion or speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood i’m happy to allow that thank you your worship for allowing me to um yes through that actually Councillor Lehman made the motion you’re right the point of order is Councillor Maitleyman made the motion the Councillor Hopkins did not so although that was a really great explanation of me and how i would approach reply in the future i can’t let a member speak twice unless council wants to by motion allow for it so that’s where we are i’m going to be consistent Councillor for you want to move to allow the Councillor to speak twice seconded by Councillor Troso so this is a vote so it’s silent on the debatability of this so i’ll allow a debate so the motion is to allow the Councillor to speak twice any any question okay so we’ll have a vote on that this is a motion to allow Councillor Hopkins to speak twice yeah that’s open for voting those in the vote motion carries eight to five okay go ahead Councillor Hopkins yeah thank you for allowing me to reply and i wanted to all i want to say is that a request for heritage designation is not an impediment to development i went to the Ontario heritage conference that we held in the city a few weekends ago and as i was walking down Dundas and Richmond i looked at the heritage and the new buildings going up and it really does say something to the quality of our heritage and the development that’s going forward thank you okay thank you any other speakers so the committee recommendations on the floor we’ve had debate i’ll open that for voting so Troso voting on the committee’s recommendation which is what the committee recommended which is the refusal closing the vote motion carries eight to five right chair thank you the only other item is number seven and as we’ve had in the past there’s a small housekeeping amendment that needs to be done we have the amendment sheet in front of us the rationale is that the previously previously considered by-law map inadvertently included the hydro corridor to the west of the property and the hatching so i would like to make that amendment okay so the chair put the original on the floor and then added the technical amendment that was circulated by staff there’s a seconder for the amendment Councillor cuddy any discussion on the amendment seen then we’ll open that for voting we’re voting on the technical amendments that were circulated by staff because it’s just some wording that needed to be changed in the by-law either use your mic or do it in the system closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 chair i apologize i worship oh we need as as amended oh sorry i’ll move that amendment okay seconder for the as amended motion Councillor for any discussion on the motion as amended guessing none we’ll open that for voting Councillor purple closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 apologize again you think i get used to these housekeeping amendments now i i hadn’t circled 10 that had requested to be pulled so i would like to put number 10 dealing with seven five five seven eight five and eight one five one and i wrote seven yes and Councillor veer meer we’re gonna ask that to be dealt with separately i’ll go to him go ahead thank you mayor the number 10 3.4 it applies to the proposed redevelopment of west mount mall and the property around it namely the parking lot which is a fairly sizable space it’s a very aggressive plan it is certainly one that could keep west mount mall obviously very viable for decades to come the immediate neighbors very very close by uh this property literally across a small street on both um yeah on two of the sides um that their concern and frankly could the concern even further down uh is it looks like there’s going to be significant pile driving plan that’s being considered and i’d like to ask staff number one is that a legitimate concern number two is there are there ways to mitigate that and that the city could make sure that uh the construction is somehow mitigated from doing damage from the vibration from pile driving uh to these homes sorry i’ll go to staff go ahead mr. bathers for sure uh through your worship so we have no information currently on the actual construction methods or how they’re going to construct these buildings and for the most part private construction that is something that is undertaken by the owner so that it’s their responsibility to ensure that that uh is done in a way that’s not going to impact their neighboring properties and we wouldn’t have any jurisdiction to require studies under the Ontario building code through the building permit process if this is something that council wants to have um ensure that there’s some uh consideration taken for uh there would be the ability to add in uh note to the approval authority to consider uh noise or a vibration study if that’s something that council wants to uh proceed okay thank you very much mr. mathers uh so what you’re suggesting or what you just added in terms of information would this be the appropriate time or could we do it at another for your worship this would be to add um to this recommendation uh to be noted that uh as part of this site plan that there would be uh an application as part of that application review process that the site plan approval authority would consider um and request a submission of a noise and vibration study by an accredited professional that would be a way to deal with it it would need to be in this resolution thank you mr.

mathers if i could um this it being noted uh would that require a motion yes and if being noted clause would require a motion yes so if i could move that particular motion unfortunately i don’t have the exact wordage um or verbiage we need a little bit of wording mr. mathers i don’t know if you’ve got some that aligns with what you and the council were talking about so we have sent to the clerk some wording to that effect very efficient thank you go ahead counselor well we get that out it’s still in regard to uh this development but we do something similar with a shadow study uh because apparently uh there are no shadow studies that have been done up to this point if we could maybe do that as well another it being noted through your worship if that’s something that council would like to proceed with that this is the time to do it and you would do it in the same fashion thank you mr. moose yeah so that one we don’t have language for and if you want them both together um we should probably touch that up if you want to deal with well they should be both together because you’re going to move an amendment you may as well move them both okay give us a one sec counselor so i’m just to proceed things along we’re getting the language up but essentially the it being noted amendment that the council is trying to make is to add vibration and a shadow study um yes so um i’ll look for a seconder for that well yes counselor layman as a seconder i’m going to proceed with debate while we get the language up just to be for a little bit of efficiency here um but i won’t pull the vote until people can see it so that’s been moved and seconded i’ll go to debate on the amendment which is the addition of an it being noted clause counselor layman um yeah i spoke to um counselor vamirberg it’s the constituents today actually sorry i see mr. mathers okay oh okay okay and um yeah she uh she expressed concerns unfortunately the owner of the mall would not meet um with uh the neighborhood uh to discuss their plans and if they had i’m sure this type of uh arrangement would have uh been included in the discussion um and that’s one of the downfalls we can’t force a town hall or a neighborhood meeting um but boy do we ever try to encourage them just so we don’t go through this uh at council so um this had been experienced in previous uh construction there at west mount and hence i think they have very valid concerns so i will support this amendment any other speakers on the amendment i’m going to read out the wording just so people know exactly what the amendment is you can see it in east gripe but let me just read it out for those who can’t see this uh the clause a 3.4 be amended by adding the following uh at the end of the clause it being noted that this that the following site plan matters have been raised through the application review process for consideration by the site plan approval authority a submission of a noise and vibration study certified by an accredited professional and b submission of a shadow study moved and seconded i see no further debate we’ll vote on the amendment closing the vote motion carries 12 to 1 i will put the uh motion as amended on the floor okay i need a seconder for the as amended motion i need a second yeah okay councilor van mereberg and is seconding the as amended motion so on the motion as amended any debate for the discussion council for our go ahead i thank you your worship uh and through you i have concerns with this development because um from what i have read that is not conforming to with the lemon plan as it stands right now putting as we saw in that correspondence from the lemon downtown bia um i totally support what the bia is saying i feel like that size of office space um out in the suburban area is just beyond uh the measure that what we’re trying to achieve here especially when we’re trying to bring uh workers in office space back to the downtown area so i am not in support of of this uh proposal or this plan and i would be voting against um against the recommendation here deputy mayor lewis thank you worship uh i’m going to be pretty brief again on this one i’m going to say the same thing i said at committee i’m voting no uh because i uh think that the applicants ask is too much but the staff recommendation doesn’t get us to where we need to be either um i understand that this is already under appeal at olt um and so i guess it will be sorted out there uh but i’m not going to support one side or the other although i was happy to support councilor van mereberg and uh request particularly on the vibration um i don’t think this this application has landed properly either side so um that’s why i’m going to be a no okay i have councilor van mereberg and i’ll just note he has not spoken to the as amended motion no this is a new motion because it’s as amended so you get to speak i just wanted to uh make the point um i’m sensitive to counselor uh for his point there um my understanding is uh correct me if i’m wrong there’s only 2,000 square meters even though the request was 30,000 so just to answer uh counselor for error’s point there’s the office space is quite minimal in this particular proposal that’s before us right now uh so it really won’t compete with the downtown core councilor layman on the as amended motion i just want some clarification from staff like this is under appeal at the olt staff is not recommend we’re not recommending uh approved zoning here what we’re doing is we’re saying we don’t agree with the zoning as planned and is being um ejected to it olt because uh i think we were passed a time constraint so um let’s say if we support if we vote if we support staff’s recommendation here um does that give license to staff to work with the developer if the developer meets the staff outline would he get the rezoning based on this vote or would it come back to us for the final approval go ahead through you your ship the um this decision point is to bring a decision from council back to the olt uh the reason being is we haven’t had that deliberation yet through the council process uh the zoning uh by-law was appealed for non-decision so there was three recommendations we could approve uh council could approve the applicants requested amendment this alternative or something else and this is the recommendation that staff are putting forward follow so um getting back to my original question if we um approve staff staff recommendation tonight is there a possibility that this parcel of land would be rezoned based on staff’s um amendments to what the original mall owner has put forward your ship the uh again this would be at the olt would make that final determination they would have what the staff recommendation what the staff would be giving their evidence on at the olt and the applicant can also provide their evidence and ultimately it’s the olt that will decide the outcome thank you i apologize um this is a fairly significant development proposal we have in front of us um all we were i thought we were doing is at olt and the applicant uh is um has brought there because of no decision should the olt agree with the applicant that you have that you’re right then he can go ahead essentially with what he has proposed even though it goes against um London Plan policy what is the risk uh to that decision if we go with no recommendation if we do not go with the staff recommendation we don’t go with the mall owners recommended plans where does that put us with the olt are we in danger of the olt siding with the owner because we don’t have an alternative yes i have mr mathers i know i also have mr card too yeah through through your worship um that would be a great question for our legal staff because they can talk about what that with the implications might be so very mr card thank you your worship the uh olt makes its decisions on the evidence that adheres so it is not able to punish people or councils for not uh offering input but in the absence of evidence that supports a particular position one might expect that the olt would favor the position that is supported by evidence so in a case where the uh council decision is contrary to the recommendation of staff the the olt may be asked to receive evidence from members of staff under summons and those members of staff under summons would be testifying along the lines of the written reports they have provided so there isn’t any automatic penalty but it’s up to a party to introduce evidence at the hearing that supports its position i think that would be the answer to the counselor’s question your worship uh thank you um one final question um if the olt would rule against the mall owner would staff then would it go back to zero would a new application have to be submitted by the mall owner and would that come to through the appropriate committee is big nearly through your worship at the end of the day the uh the board would have the the olt would have the final decision but if they support the evidence provided by the planner uh bringing forward in this in the council recommendation that would be the final outcome i apologize chair um i’m still not clear where to go at mr mr mr has his hand up to i think to add just a context to that question for you mr kard thank you your worship um there isn’t any finality to these matters from the standpoint that an applicant can always reflect on the olt decision and submit a new application there isn’t any legislation that prevents that so i mean if you submit the same application it’s open to the olt to advise an applicant that this is an abusive process and germinated proceedings but generally speaking you know these things are not final so if if an owner doesn’t like an outcome there’s not really any effective means of appealing that outcome but you can submit another application okay thank you so i’m not going to be supporting this it’s uh this is this is too big uh uh an application there’s been no proper public discourse uh in my view uh with or without the owner of the mall um this is a fairly major it reminds me that what was done on um on uh the gateway wellington gateway um it impacts uh neighborhoods um wonderland road um so many areas it’s a multi it could be a decade along on a type of project so i feel uncomfortable um supporting something that i honestly feel has feel hasn’t been vetted so i i will not support it council pribble so to chair to the staff and i just want to make sure that i understand because we had a lengthy conversation during the last meeting and according to my notes staff came to us and they wanted three directions of three either support refuse or modify these were the three kind of the directions you were looking for and at the meeting level because again overwhelming overwhelming development and as well the 30 000 square meters uh and i was the one who mentioned let’s not come up is the number let’s look at a bigger strategy and it was defeated and uh supported the staff decision can you just verify that everything i said is correct or am i wrong somewhere thank you go correct yes you’re correct um there were the three decision points either support the applicant recommendation uh the staff recommendation or an alternative modification and the the public participation meeting that we had was for that conversation so to hear the public input and those matters would be considered as part of the um olt thank you very much okay any other speakers to this yes so okay so the the mover and the seconder um said they don’t support the motion um as amended now um so because the motion is on the committee’s floor i’m going to just seek consent from the group to allow them to withdraw the motion i’m i think we need to decide on this so i’m willing to take over either the moving of the seconding office so we can make a decision but um but just if there’s consent to allow the mover and the seconder to move off of the motion if everybody’s okay with that okay so i i need a a new mover and a seconder for the as amended motion council frank and councilor hopkins are willing to move and second the as amended motion okay so that doesn’t mean everybody gets a new round of speaking um so if you spoke to the as amended motion you you don’t get to speak again is there anyone else who needs to speak to this okay all right then we have a mover and a seconder uh will open this for voting so this is the as amended motion the close in the vote the motion fails six to seven okay so the committee’s um recommendation is defeated um we’re back to you councilor thank you i believe that’s uh all the items i would just like to say uh you allow me chair um its committee and this council um have rezoned a lot of properties in first half of the year and uh those properties have the potential for 1400 units so there’s site plans there’s building permits lots of things that go into getting residential units up but we’re making headway to uh to our long-term goal so i just wanted to bring that to the council’s attention thank you okay that concludes that committee report um good news we’ve been here a while i ordered pizza so um we should probably take a break and um let people have a rest and and have some food um so i’ll look for a 25-minute recess moved by council process seconded by um councilor lewis all those in favor by hand of 25 minutes no motion chairs be seated okay um so we’re on item 8.6 which is the 12th report of the corporate services committee go ahead deputy mayor thank you your worship i have not been made aware of anything that members want pulled to be dealt with separately so i would seek any requests for that now otherwise i’m prepared to move the full report which was supported uh all the items were supported at committee okay anybody want anything dealt with separately from 12th report of corporate services committee okay seeing none go ahead then i will put the whole report uh one through eight on the floor okay that motion is moved by the chair any discussion on those items okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting voting on items one through eight of corporate services committee drosa thank you closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 okay i’ll go back to the deputy mayor uh thank you worship while that concludes the 12th report of the corporate services committee the next item on the agenda is the 13th report of the corporate services committee at this time i am only moving the disclosures disclosures of pecuniary interest this was a special meeting there was only one item on the agenda which was an in-camera matter and so it’s just that disclosures to be received by the council okay moved by you just the disclosures i don’t see any debate on that so i’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 please note that report i’ll go to the 10th report of the community and protective services committee and i believe the vice chair counselor for error is going to present that report thank you your worship uh so uh reporting out for the 10th meeting of the community and protective services committee um it was a productive meeting it was a long meeting um for items uh that i have seen be requested to be pulled that’s 4.3 4.4 so far um and from what i know i don’t know of any other items to be pulled so the councilors uh had requests through poll item 15 and 16 which is 4.3 and 4.4 other items the colleagues would like dealt with separately in the community and protective services committee report so right now the things that are dealt with separately are in camera response uh in camera response update uh and uh councilor pribbles request on winter response program anything else dealt with separately anyone okay if not i’ll i’ll let you craft a motion of what’s left okay i’ll move a motion to move or to vote on the items uh 2.1 all the way all the items with the exclusion of 4.3 4.4 let’s say it like that okay so that’s a motion for all the items with the exception of uh 4.3 4.4 which on your council agenda is 15 and 16 any discussion on all those matters before us okay seeing none um we’ll open that for voting okay if we haven’t opened it yet so you can make a comment on any of those items thank you uh thank you very much i apologize i got distracted there i did have two things i wanted to talk about one is uh number 13 the occupant noise enforcement and i just wanted to reiterate again that we had a lengthy discussion on that about um the lack of response that people have the noise concerns and the the number often doesn’t work and i had mentioned at the time that that is the same phone number that people are asked to use for um any crime that did not just occur lost property vandalism theft from vehicles and trouble with a person and so i i just want to explain again because i i just feel like these voices aren’t being heard that there are areas of our city where our high-acuity population is the same reason that lmch asked us to stop putting them in the social housing units because of the safety security and damage concerns they are in certain neighborhoods in a concentration that is significantly an issue it is a it’s a psychological issue there’s anxiety there’s fear there is loss of property and loss of income at a time when people are really struggling financially so we’ve got a lot of families out there when their bike with their kids bike is stolen when their work tools are taken out of their truck when their truck window is smashed for the fifth time in two years these are tools that our residents are being asked to to bear alone because our city is not listening to them we’re not responding we’re simply focused on one small population and there is i think we’re underestimating the number of people that are really reaching their limits so my my point on this was the occupant noise enforcement and that the concerns with that um there’s larger ramifications but i’d one other thing and that is the fireworks um i wondered if staff could just explain to me because i’m new as to how that got on to the agenda because i know last summer um i was surprised to see it on billboards in the back of buses how do you feel about fireworks when our city was in a bit of a crisis and so i’m just curious as to how is it that and something gets on the agenda is it a petition that is filled out by citizens that’s brought forward a certain number mr smith thank you and three-year worship there are a number of reasons particularly for this one it’s because the bylaw requires to be updated there’s provincial legislation through the interior fire marshals office so many of our bylaws and fire are regularly updated every couple of years when that legislation changes so in order to do that that requires us to review the bylaw which we included a community engagement and then it also requires us to do a public participation meeting prior to enacting a new revised bylaw thank you i appreciate that clarification because again from a public perception perspective uh we’re we spending a lot of time and effort on fireworks when there’s a small percentage of people with a concern and this is something that’s impacting people in a very in a way that i believe to a certain extent the city’s responsible for addressing kelsey tross out thank you in through the chair was not my intent to pull this item or talk about it um i understand that there are people have a very very fundamental disagreement with some of the things that were just said it is it is it is a environmental issue that many people are concerned about it’s an animal welfare issue that many people are concerned about i don’t want to debate it tonight but i don’t want to trivialize the work that your department and the fire department have done over the last year to get public feedback on this and to say that we that we have a homeless crisis and they’re more important issues to deal with we can’t address every issue that comes up by saying but what about they’re more important things to do so i just want to point out we’re going to deal with this in august but there are very legitimate reasons why this got onto the agenda that not the least of which is the massive numbers the massive numbers of complaints the residents have been uh lodging about the illegal discharge of fireworks and the nuisance that that causes to people to animals into the environment so let’s not let’s not trivialize this thank you thank you um so we’re on the everything on the agenda except for 15 and 16 um it’s moved i don’t see any other speakers so we’re going to open that for voting because in the vote motion carries 13 to 0 okay um council for error thank you your worship i will put uh item 4.3 on the floor okay so item 4.3 is the uh encampment response update uh i’ve got the vice chair to move it i’ll look for speakers to this uh councilor stevenson thank you and through the chair i spoke uh at length about this at the caps meeting um again i i seem to stand alone in council and that’s fine that the amount of response that i’m getting via email two page long emails from people thanking me for speaking up because they have not heard anyone speak for them it’s like no one’s allowed to say anything and i really think we’re not reading the room my facebook video is still at 43 000 views it’s going up and up and up the comments the people reaching out there is a group i don’t know if it’s the whole population there’s certainly a large percentage of the population that what i’m saying is resonating with them they are really they’re at their wit’s end i’m i cannot not say again the city our city needs to respond to them needs to hear them needs a a phone number that they can call where somebody will come and listen to their concerns if nothing else we can’t keep saying uh this is different you know things aren’t different because we say they’re different i’m hearing this you know uh we need to try something different what is different about this the i’m still waiting to hear the problems that we have what are the causes of the problems tell me what it is we’ve been doing wrong for the last few years so that we have the confidence in the faith that what we’re doing next is going to work the issues uh we can talk about the hub and say it’s not really a hub there is food and bathrooms provided there and we had people camping on the front lawn and it was a huge problem i would really like to know what is the difference between that and the encampment strategy phase one that we have coming up what were the problems that we had such that we were paying security to clear that lawn which just means that they’re going to the lawns of people who cannot afford security just want to say that the the concern with the public is that we are enabling instead of helping people actually get out of the trap of addiction and the situation that they’re in we’re trying to keep people from having a sudden death when they’re they are on a path of something that’s killing them and so we we want to make sure they stay alive now so that they can get the help they need but where is the help do we are we sure that it’s there for them because otherwise again i’m talking to moms whose children are on our streets some of whom have been there for 10 or 15 years and they’re saying what it is that they need and i don’t hear us talking about that they want their kids to be able to get into recovery to have a place where they will be able to stay until they can get well there’s all kinds of problems with gaps between services that where people fall through the cracks and they’re back to ground zero again sandwiches encampments you’re going to have to convince me and some of the public that this is a good way to go we’re asking them to give up their parks and trails now parks and trails that they’ve paid for parks and trails that we’ve invested in so now it’s like our core area we do the decoration but we can’t use it and people are getting they they’re not seeing hope here and we’re not getting the details and we’re going to find a way to have this conversation so that people can be reassured and some of us are going to agree to disagree on what leadership looks like because i think that listening to people’s concerns they have valid concerns and to just again like i said to just say it’s going to be different with nothing to to back that up look at or our social service agencies right now look at that not a hub on Adelaide and Queen’s what didn’t work what is going to be different that answer is going to create a lot of peace of mind for people then i’ll be right behind it for now as our deputy mayor says this is a hard no for me deputy mayor Lewis thank you worship so let me start perhaps by through you asking a question of miss Livingston or or others on our team which is can could we perhaps get a verbal description of how these service depots which i understand are not going to be there 24/7 the whole time there is some confusion in the public so could we maybe get just a very quick explanation of what is a service depot versus what the longer-term hub situation looks like just to provide a little bit of clarity in terms of public debate miss Livingston your worship the the differences between a temporary immediate response to health and safety issue that is in front of us right now and building towards a longer-term permanent solution that is fundamentally the difference so with the emergency response we are looking to provide water food sanitation fire safety to address the concerns both in the encampments and the neighboring communities that’s the immediate response it is temporary it is not a building it is a 90 minute a day activation in each of those places the hubs are a permanent solution providing multiple functions and services in one place including access to necessary health care services whether that’s physical health mental health addiction recovery and other kinds of supports to work with people to support them to become housed very different in terms of intent and in terms of the kind of structure and physical aspect of it so through your worship just a quick follow-up from his Livingston and I do apologize because I did not share this in advance so I know I’m catching you sort of out in the field as it were if we have a location in these four service depot areas or multiple locations in these four service depot areas that as we roll this out and operationalize them they become a source of community safety concern are we flexible in terms of ending a particular site or you know pulling the plug on this program and reevaluating if things don’t turn out even halfway through the 90 day response that we are hoping that they will go ahead yes through your worship yes we are completely flexible on that what we’re trying to do is respond to what is in front of us in terms of the health and safety concerns in the encampments and the neighboring communities if we find that other issues are arising because of that we’re going to move this was done to try and respond and address the level of desperation and concern and issues that we’re seeing and if other things happen we’ll move with it much like we have done with this and so again it is meant to be temporary and responsive to what we’re seeing immediately while we also work to stand up the permanent solution thank you so I want to share some comments now and I think it’s important to start with recognizing the difference between what this short-term emergency response is and what the longer term hub plan is as well as the fact that there can be some flexibility on this and through you chair I want to be very clear to Councillor Stevenson you’re not the only one who’s hearing these concerns and I’m listening to and I understand why you’re raising these concerns and I’ve got a whole folder in my inbox dedicated specifically for the emails that have been coming in just on this issue what I will say is that for the most part well the emails are raising concerns what I’m not seeing from anyone else in the community is an idea of what else we could do in its place you know and with all due respect to people who are writing in and they’re writing in from a genuine space in their hearts I think to try and offer solutions but when I hear put them in vacant buildings downtown well first of all we’re trying to avoid critical mass of services in any particular area in the downtown particular and second we don’t own those buildings the city’s not sitting on dozens of buildings that are vacant surplus land for us we would see them at corporate services as surplus land declarations we should we try and expropriate these we will spend the next decade in court fighting the land owner and spending money on lawyers instead of spending money on solutions so I get it that people are upset I get it the people are feeling unsafe I see it in my own neighborhood I had to send Mr.

Dickens and Mr. Cooper another concern about a park and an encampment backing onto school playground last week so I absolutely understand what I don’t have is a better answer than what we’re doing in the short term because we are hearing that it is out there like the tensions are running high and even our outreach workers are not feeling as safe and I said this at the committee as well but perhaps giving people an opportunity for a shower and some clean laundry and a sandwich and a bottle of water we’ll give them a little bit of dignity and help de-escalate that temperature just a little bit it might not work and if it doesn’t I will be certainly knocking on Ms. Livingston’s door as she just said saying you know this isn’t working we’ve got a we’ve got a flex we’ve got to adjust but what I’m not hearing is alternate solutions and I would welcome them you know I’ve heard people say put them on a bus and send them to another city that’s not a solution that’s just moving the problem around just like it’s saying well get them you know put them all downtown that’s not a solution that’s just concentrating the problem in one area I don’t have a better answer and I am certainly hesitant about this encampment strategy because I am worried about the public safety issues that it’s going to cause as well I am worried about folks who are trying to enjoy the TVP and be down along the waterfront in the summer months not feeling safe to be able to use those spaces so I do here and I’m trying to figure out if there are other options I haven’t come up with them yet and I am listening to every email that comes in and I will tell people you know if you’re waiting for a reply I’m sorry that I haven’t gotten one out to you yet but there’s been too many to respond to everybody individually so I know Councillor Stevenson you are listening to a narrative that’s out there that’s very real I don’t think that any of us have the perfect answer right now and I come back to what we heard earlier about the whole of community response when we’ve got the new police chief recognizing its concern when we’ve got LHSC recognizing its concern and Councillors Ferreira said it earlier if for government we’re moving at light speed and and I know I’ve said that before but we also don’t have a map and we don’t we don’t have very many tools in the toolbox Councillor Layman spoke to it earlier we can’t force the province to reopen psychiatric hospitals they should be doing that but that’s not something we can do when I hear people saying you know that their sons and daughters are in need of addiction treatment the city can’t provide health care for the whole province the provincial government needs to step up on that file when we talk about and the mayor mentioned the housing shortage and the affordability shortage you know we need the federal government to be partners in this too they’ve they’ve been good partners in terms of getting money out the door through the housing accelerator fund but we’re thousands of units behind where we should be even with the great progress we’ve made with approving 1400 units already this year so I understand absolutely the anxiety the concern I will tell you there there is an 80 year old resident in my ward who is afraid to sit in her backyard because of what has happened in the park behind her and I feel terrible that I don’t have an answer for her but I do want colleagues to know that we can have philosophical differences and approach on how we best deal with this but that narrative is real and we do have to listen to it but we also can’t wait to do nothing right now because there is an emergency out there so if we can even just lower the temperature a little bit in the short term I want to try that try I’m also going to be open to saying it’s not working we got to stop so whatever that looks like in the next few weeks I’m going to be watching carefully but I think that what we have is well I will say honestly it’s it’s the only option that I see on the table for us right now so I’m going to support it we’re going to be watching carefully and I think all of us are hearing those voices and we can’t ignore them but boy if there’s other ideas out there I think all of us want to hear them. Councilor Trossal.

Thank you very much thank you for your comments and through the chair I have a lot of concerns about the encampments and I think there’s an underlying discourse going on in this town right now about why don’t we just clear the encampments and it wasn’t said exactly at this table tonight but I think that’s implicit in what a lot of people are saying and it’s it’s simple the encampments are in nuisance they’re bothering people let’s clear the encampments and what I want to talk about for a few minutes and maybe maybe bring the solicitor into this discussion is a very important court case that came down in January in Waterloo and I want to put this on the table tonight and I want to put this before this council so you understand that there are serious legal reasons why the city cannot just send by-law or police out to clear encampments this decision in Waterloo and I’m just going to do a 30 second version of it not a not a longer version of it I’m basically the city the the region was asking for an injunction to uh declare encampments and um the the the justice uh this was a this was a provincial court declined to issue the injunction on uh on human rights ground so on the on the grounds that the injunction would violate section seven of the charter and would not be saved by section one and even though this was a this was a um this was a provincial case this was a lower court case london was not a party to this case it’s the belief of uh most of the legal legal legal observers including myself uh that um while it’s not binding on london because london was not a party it’s very persuasive it’s very persuasive a Justice Valente’s decision was very persuasive and what I what I’d like to ask the the solicitor and I did send a note up earlier um is there any merit to to to to the position that while Justice Valente’s decision is not necessarily binding on the city because we weren’t the party it is persuasive and his reasoning in terms of not issuing the injunction could very much and I think likely come come come back and create legal problems for the city of london if we did not if we do not uh exercise constraint in terms of how we deal with the um in terms of how we deal with the encampments so is that is that question framed reasonably uh that’s the how the question is framed I’m not going to run their judgment on it um but I can go to mr card I’m I’m unsure on um when you get into risk what we’re what we can talk about publicly or in camera but mr card will be able to guide guide me on what he can say now and what we we may have to go to another option on mr card uh thank you your worship um I can say that uh the decision is uh has been widely circulated and commented upon it it is actually a decision of the superior court and it was uh as the result of an application by the region of Waterloo for a declaration that people who had erected structures uh actually it was a gravel a half acre gravel parking lodge in downtown Kitchener and uh declaration that those people were contravening the region’s bylaws and also uh the court was asked to issue uh restraining order under section 440 of the municipal act which is a section that uh in the municipal law business we are very familiar with it’s where you go to a court and ask for basically a restraining order so the judge was asked to consider issuing those uh those forms of relief and ultimately it determined it was not in a position to do that because to issue that type of uh order against unsheltered people would be a contravention of their charter rights uh particularly uh section seven and that are right to life liberty and security so uh that’s a principle from a superior court judge that would not be binding on any uh court of concurrent jurisdiction uh other superior court judges but given that it was basically a pioneering decision I would expect it to certainly be considered so there are some differences I think that that case was uh unfortunate in some respects I mean it was a gravel parking lot downtown it wasn’t a park next to people’s homes it wasn’t interfering with other use of that land because the other use of the land was basically a parking lot so and it wasn’t I think even being used for a parking lot at the time so I mean there are other considerations that would have to be entertained on any uh application of this type but but I can agree with the uh counselor that it is certainly uh a case that would be considered in any similar type of application in the future by other municipalities thank you Richard thank you through the chair again I really appreciate that and um I want to point out that the region of Waterloo decided not to appeal that decision so that that decision is uh is is finished and I and I think that when you see a situation where the city of London is not clearing encampments you have to I would urge people to understand that there are some underlying reasons behind that that um really really um the court did not say by the way that you have a legal right always to have an encampment out what the court said based largely on the testimony of Dr. Andrea Sarita uh the court the court said that the city would have the first show that there were adequate shelter spaces where the encampment residents could go and once once once that threshold was met then they could clear the encampments but they had to be appropriate places and she she talked a lot about what it what it meant to be appropriate so I just wanted to put this out on the table and just have a little bit of discussion about it just to sensitize people to the fact that there there are reasons why the city just cannot go out and clear in encampments and I I appreciate Mr. Card’s response and I appreciate you letting me put on this table put this on the table I’m not bringing forward um a motion about this because uh maybe Mr. Dickens has a comment but I think I think the city is acting as uh as sensitively as as it can and they’re monitoring they’re monitoring developments there’s a long line of cases uh this is this was not an isolated situation thank thank you thank you very much okay thank you I have Councillor Ferreira next thank you Your Worship um I guess segueing off of Councillor Trussell’s comments with the legal precedent and um us just really kind of taking a close look at everyone’s charter rights I would also include onto that is you know we have been we have moved encampments before and that obviously doesn’t work for the reasons that have already been stated but on top of that you know if an encampment is moved and it’s moved to the next area and then someone else is gonna have some complaints and then it’s just gonna keep on you’re just moving people around and that’s just not the way we should be doing things and it just goes back to what we’re doing doesn’t work it just doesn’t work we need something new we need to try something new I have heard many many many comments on this I’ve had probably a thousand emails um I’ve had a lot of conversations face to face I’ve had phone calls I still got a ton of emails I got a catch up to and you know I have three of the four service depots in my ward so you could consider me right now an embattled Councillor because I have been trying to go out and I’ve been trying to clear the air because there’s just mainly been a lot of confusion a lot of misconceptions just a lot of misunderstanding of really what it is what is a service depot and what is a hub and I’ve just noticed that you know as that is not cleared up and as that conversation disseminates throughout the society it kind of turns into fact and into statement and then people that’s when people start getting upset because they they simply don’t understand or they just don’t know or they’ve read something in the news or they heard something from a neighbor and just you know if it’s not super correct it could easily fall towards something that is not even close to the reality of what we’re trying to do I’ve been trying my best to to do as much information setting as I can for the people in my community I did have that community engagement where I did hear a lot of concerns from a lot of residents I heard a lot of comments but I do always ask and I think Councillor Deputy Mayor the Deputy Mayor asked this I always ask what other solution do you have tell me what is your idea and sometimes I get some ideas and most of the time I don’t necessarily get another idea and a lot of the times ideas I get are kind of close to what our encampment strategy looks like right now so what I’m always trying to do is I’m just trying to show that the real the best ideas that I’ve seen so far have come out from civic administration have come from the people who are working in our health and homelessness summits they have come up with the best ideas not only good ideas that happen that work right now but ideas that in the future can be integrated into the whole of community system response so I see the good ideas coming from the people who we have asked to do to do the work and I am that’s that’s why I’m really a big proponent for this initiative for this service depot this encampment response which is temporary and it should be because I don’t want to see anybody encampments just like everybody else here doesn’t we want housing but we don’t have that housing right now we don’t have that capacity we need to build that and we’re in such a critical state at the moment that we need to act now we need to act now for both the people who are living in encampments along the river and for the neighborhoods the safety community component for everybody is the biggest aspect for me so this is why I see this as a as a good initiative to bring forward and that’s basically what I’m really trying to do I’m just trying to show that it’s not it’s something different even though it is it’s what’s the alternative do nothing and leave things the way they are and let things just get worse and worse and worse just like we have before or do something about it and this is why I think that this is a good plan that we should be going forward with at my community engagement meeting we did I did get consensus from a lot of neighbors who are concerned and rightfully so they were concerned but that consensus came with let’s try it because they understand if we don’t do anything we’re going to have the same issues but if we do something we may just get out of this just a little bit better and that consensus came with the fact that they want to try something but also that we would reconvene within a couple months so I haven’t set the date yet but I promise my constituents from from the neighborhoods around the service peoples that we will have another meeting in so many days let this encampment strategy play out and then see how it is and if it’s not working then we have to come back to the table and figure something out but the alternative right now is we don’t have any other ideas and the idea that’s come out from civic administration and the health and homelessness summit individuals is a good one I’ve had a lot of conversations with the people who are sitting at the tables of the health and homelessness summit and they are very articulate and very well thought out of the plans and how we’re going forward so I would ask all of you if you can reach out and speak with them because they would be able to clear up a lot of things they would be able to clear out clear up a lot of the issues that and the anxieties that are coming up but that’s that would be my challenge to to everybody here learn as much as you can on exactly what is it of this response entails and make sure to clear the air for any type of misconceptions that your community might have because that’s really what I’ve been doing that’s why I call myself an embattled an embattled council right now just because I am trying to clear that air so I’ll stop right there thank you thank you council approval thank you chair I do believe we could have been better and I think that at this stage of the game at the time there’s probably not other solutions but I do believe that when we were getting closer to the winter response end we should have been being pro be more proactive and talk to the social agencies and making sure that they extend the leases on the premises they had and also the staff they trained they could have gave them a longer commitment and because if you look at the beginning when they had to train the staff getting the getting the spaces so I believe it could have been better having said that that’s past never happened but now I don’t I don’t believe that there are any other solutions they really are not and we are buying we are virtually buying time till the big summit initiatives are going to come in place I do believe encampments would be there either way this summer because we don’t have any other solution so what we are at least trying to provide is what we were told by our staff the food the beverages the toiletries and whatever is needed I truly believe that it does alleviate the pressure from the people who are staying at the encampments and because it elevates the pressure from them their actions however I say are not as potentially strong in the neighborhoods where they are where they are staying so I do believe even though it’s not encampments and we all know that we all are saying it encampments is not an answer but we are just buying time and we are all in hopes and beliefs that the initiatives from the from the summit will be very rewarding for us and will make sense and there’s a light at the end of the tunnel and the future is looking much better but based on current I don’t believe there is anything else I do believe that providing those services in the encampments is more of a benefit and I will be supporting the encampments but I can’t wait really for the initiatives from the summit and I hope it’s going to get us on the right path having said that we should always learn from our mistakes and we should always look you know going back now even though we can’t turn the clock by three four months back could have been done better I believe we could have done better but we are moving on and we are looking for better brighter future thank you Councillor McAllister thank you our ship and through you so I have few comments and questions and I want to start by just saying that the thing I hear every time I talk to award one residents about this is a safety is paramount regardless whether that’s the safety in terms of the residents or whether it’s those living in encampments and so one of my questions in terms of the depot specifically is I know we are contracting to both London Cares and the CMHA but in terms of the what’s being spoken with with the agencies and their response for safety in terms of those living and then those living around these depots do we have anything specifically in terms of what the vision that being like and do they have an appropriate response go ahead you worship by that ask that mr.

Dick he’s come on screen mr. Dickens can comment on the safety aspect mr. Dickens thank you and through you your worship the safety element is one that it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach to reaching encampment or service location we use safety as our primary objective whenever outreach workers or CIR bylaw folks are engaging in encampments and as encampments get dispersed as they get broken up or moved they tend to remove they tend to move to more remote or discrete locations wooded areas more difficult to access and that in itself creates more challenging and unsafe conditions and environments for individuals to engage with those that are experiencing homelessness so with the service depots in particular we are taking a an approach where we are we have a plan we’d like to deliver that plan we would like to assess how that plan is working and then make the necessary adjustments as we need to we have been engaging police throughout these conversations to ensure that we understand what role they can play and what partnerships we can strengthen in terms of dedicated timed inspections looking at clear roles and responsibilities for response to unsafe situations but we will be approaching these four service locations with the intent to engage the individuals in those encampments foster that relationship build that connection develop that trust and encourage that reciprocal response where we’re respecting not only just the space but the neighbors the larger neighborhood but also those that are providing that service and I think through the relationship with the the number and variety of organizations that are involved in this response we should be able to mitigate some of those issues but again we will continue to assess and we will make adjustments if we need to if this response is not working or it’s causing adverse impacts in those communities thank you mr. Dickens and just a follow-up to that because you didn’t mention in terms of inspection so this is a 90 day strategy is there a frequency in terms of how often within the 90 days we expect inspections go ahead mr.

Dickens thank you through you your worship so we’re approaching this really 30 days at a time we’ve we’ve mapped out a sort of 30 60 90 days what do we need to do to adjust what resources need to change what plans need to evolve or scale depending on our ability to be successful or not so the frequency is something that the team is sort of designing in real time that as we hit the ground we want to understand one how like what method are we going to be using to determine if it’s successful or not what are those success indicators and really making sure we are purposeful and intentional around the neighborhood engagement component the inspections in terms of those spaces those are happening right now on a daily basis we have between 40 and 45 active encampments throughout their our community right now and the inspections will be happening as as miss Livingston indicated earlier these service depots are very mobile in nature uh your own we’re talking about staff on site about 90 minutes at a time and coming back seven days a week so there’ll be those daily eyes on daily engagement with the individuals thank you once again for your answers Mr Dickens so I mean as Councillor Ferri indicated he has three of the four I have one of the depots and I just want to take this opportunity to express some of the feedback that I’ve received and what I found interesting especially with the one that is currently a project for my ward in Watson Park it’s proximity to Victoria Hospital so I’ve fielded a lot of questions in terms of I know with our long-term strategy obviously the hospitals have been engaged and so the issue that a lot of residents are concerned about is they’re very close to Victoria Hospital in terms of potential ground we didn’t have the children’s hospital there is some land there and it’s it’s on the hospital grounds so I think some people have expressed a bit of frustration that and I know our strategies were going to where the encampments are but I do think they’re looking for some clarity in terms of the engagement with hospitals and I know obviously our health care system is under strain but as the deputy mayor has mentioned many times we need willing provincial partners and in terms of health care have there been any discussions in terms of the hospital specifically with Victoria Hospital and the land they have available miss Livingston the year worship could I seek clarification are you asking for the depot with respect to the service depot specifically or with respect to hubs so in terms of whether it was considered for the depot but in terms of a long-term strategy I know obviously that you know mental health facilities are the ideal but have there been those discussions in terms of using those grounds because there is quite a fair bit of vacant land I’m thinking on the other side where Parkwood Hospital is and it is emergency like it’s the hospital right so the services are there so I think there’s confusion specifically with that stretch of Wellington Road that they are in such close proximity to hospital that that wasn’t something that was considered or it may have been considered but just to clarify yeah miss Livingston and I’ll just be cautious if question is about the health and homelessness work like I prefer the question to be asked there is the reason why we have confusion is because we keep asking questions cross-purpose here so we’re on the encamp encampment strategy in the service depots so I think there’s a conversation you can have with staff about the engagement with the hospital and the health and homelessness plan or the next time the report comes up but I just want to get the specific question on the depots your worship for the depots I’d ask that Mr. Dickens speak to that Mr. Dickens thank you Your Worship and through you the depot that you’re referencing is one that has been a very popular spot for encampments for a long period of time there has been a working agreement in terms of trying to provide services in that area with the hospital the hospital has been an active member in our broader assistance plan but in terms of concerns discussions land agreements or anything like that that has not come up as part of the depot planning in fact where we plan to put the depot itself will be on city property albeit the encampments tend to sprawl onto hospital lands so the depot itself will not be on the hospital property but the encampments tend to breach those borders thank you once again Mr. Dickens and just to wrap up I do think the open houses we just had did provide us a valuable opportunity to meet with residents hear their concerns I attended one with deputy mayor the East lines I’ve been doing canvassing as well and I would encourage all my colleagues to keep that feedback coming as we see the longer term strategy roll out with the hubs I think that that feedback will be invaluable in terms of the criteria as I just said with the hospital there are some ideas out there and I do think that those are part of the conversations we’re having with our partners and I know that those are ongoing as I’ve been discussed but I do think that there is an opportunity to partner closer to those facilities and in the long term lobby the province for those facilities because we do desperately need them so I’ll end there thank you.

Other speakers okay we have a motion that is moved by the vice chair we had some discussion this is the committee’s recommendation there’s no further speakers I’ll open this for voting. Opposing the vote motion carries 12 to 1. Thank you Your Worship so last item on the list that’s been pulled item 4.4 that’s an added from Councillor Pribble on the winter response program. Yes so the chair is willing to put that on the floor I just I vote it separately on this on a committee so I don’t need to speak to it so I’m just I wanted to go on it separately that’s all.

So I don’t know if others colleagues have comments on this. Those are Pribble. Yeah I just want to because I was the one who proposed it and one of the things says and I’ll tell you any any corporation or any organization that has an issue that feels it’s tremendously important for the organization in our case for the city and we had two different approaches over three years and first of all I was disappointed that we actually didn’t do this evaluation because if this was really so close to our heart and we feel it’s important we should have been already we should have known the two approaches we had what we offered and the cost and cost benefits of both of them the analysis. So I did ask for it and because I would like to know the difference between what did how much did we cost us and what was delivered to us based on when we did it ourselves and when we left it to social agencies and actually looking in the future because I am very hopeful that the initiatives will be much better but on the other hand if there will be no added value and if the cost is going to be high higher and we are going to come up with 143 spaces less than last year then my question is going to be I’m going to be questioning why are we going this way I hope we are not in that situation but that’s the reason why I ask for it because we should know we should know what we did last three years what was more beneficial for our community and if we didn’t do it then I hope we can at least do it now so there was the reason why I asked for it so we have a detailed report and we know what we what we received based on our expenses thank you thank you and through the chair I’m happy to have this report requested as well I think it’s really important that we look at what has been happening over the last couple of years and comparing and finding out what worked and what didn’t work we seem to do a lot of oh we’re doing a lot of great things while all the evidence around us says things are getting worse so the numbers matter the reports matter I think the evaluation it was said that there’s going to be there’s approximately 600 high QD residents in London currently homeless we’re looking at a hundred’s highly supportive housing this year that leaves 500 and I so I think this information coming from the report is going to be helpful to figure out what to do next any of the speakers okay seeing none we’ll open that reporting closing the vote motion carries 12 to 1 all done correct thank you vice chair for presenting that report I appreciate it I know he’s sat down but the next one is the 11th report of the same committee it’s just a one item agenda but I’ll let you present that as well thank you mr mare okay so reporting from the 11th special meeting of the community and protective services committee there’s one item 4.1 and I haven’t heard anybody want to pull that it was kind of handy again so I’m not sure but I can’t leave it there this is just one item agenda so we’ll just put it all together and vice chair is willing to move at any discussion okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting i’m sorry just hear out I vote yes I’m trying to relog in now thank you closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 right now you’re done we appreciate you stepping in on that thank you counselor 8.10 is the second report of the audit committee I’ll go to the deputy mayor to present that thank you your worship colleagues just imagine if this meeting and started at 4 p.m we’d asking for permission to go past 11 aren’t daytime meetings a great idea I am happy to put the second report of the audit committee on the floor I’ve not been made aware of anything that anyone wants pulled to be dealt with separately everything was supported unanimously at the committee okay any m questions oh so first off does anybody want anything dealt with separately on the audit report see none so the chair is willing to move the entire report any comments or questions Councillor Stevenson thank you and through the chair I made a few comments at the audit committee and I just wanted to reiterate them here that there was there’s going to be a plan made as to what the internal auditor will be doing going forward and I did recommend that a value for money audit on the homelessness services be done especially based on what the auditor general Fronterio said around they hadn’t seen a municipality that was able to show that what they were doing was actually helping the homeless so I think it would be really great to show that london is a leader in that area and the the value for money audit would be able to show us how great we are doing or indicate maybe what we could change going forward okay any other questions or comments on the audit report all the items okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 13 is so we now have 10th report of council in closed session I want to maybe councilor McAllister would you be willing to read this out just rewarding you for taking me canvassing with you I I’m just being facetious I actually quite enjoyed canvassing with you so this is a long one though so I appreciate you helping okay I feel like I’m back in school here we go this is the 10th report of council in closed session in terms of our report 6.1 partial property acquisition 1080 Dunsath Street East London link project that as procedural matter pursuant to section 239 section 6 the municipal act 2001 the following recommendations be forwarded to council in closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to council for deliberation and vote in public session that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director realty services with respect to the property located at 1080 Dundas Street for their described as part of lots 1 2 3 and 4 plan 4 7 1 in the city of London being part of pin 0 8 2 8 8 - 0 3 2 5 containing an area approximately 1513 and 8 square feet as shown on the location map for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the east London link project the following actions be taken a the offer submitted by 1 8 0 3 2 9 9 Ontario incorporated the vendor to sell the property sorry to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 75 600 dollars the accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in agreement b the additional sum 60 000 as full and final payment for the loss of parking spaces located within the subject property be approved see the temporary easement agreement for the easement lands for the sum of 5000 for the purpose is described herein and the vendor is agreeable to providing the same be accepted subject to certain terms and conditions as set out the degree d financing of this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report 6.2 commercial lease materials recovery facility at 3 4 3 8 Manning Drive that has a procedural manner pursuant to section 239 subsection 6 of the misswell act 2001 the following recommendation be forwarded to council and closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded council for deliberation in a vote in public session that on the recommendation of deputy city manager finance sports with a concurrence of deputy city manager environment and infrastructure on the advice of the director guilty services the lease agreement sheet between the city and miller waste incorporated for the lease of approximately 88358 square feet of rentable area located at 3438 Manning Drive for a term of 10 years commencing july 1st 2023 and ending june 30th 2033 the approved subject to four-year consecutive renewal options within a five-year term 6.3 execution of collective agreement uniform 302 july 1st 2022 to june 30th 2025 that as a procedural matter pursuant to section 239 subsection 6 of the misswell act 2001 the following recommendation be forwarded to council and closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to council for deliberation in a voting session that on the recommendation of the director of pupil services with the concurrence of the city manager civic administration be directed to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the mayor and the city clerk to obtain necessary authorization to execute the collective agreement for the years 2022 to 2025 appended schedule c to the staff report dated june 12th 2023 pursuant to memorandum of agreement dated september 27th 2022 schedule a and the agreed agreed to items date at june 21st and the second 2022 schedule b between the corporation of the city of london and uniform local 302 uniform 6.4 contribution agreement with vision subo alliance for the housing development project at the old victoria hospital lands that as the procedural matter pursuant to section 239 subsection 6 of the misswell act 2001 the following recommendation be forwarded to council in close session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to council for deliberation and a vote in public session 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 following actions we take in with respect to confidential staff report dated june 13th 2023 related to the contribution agreement with vision subo alliance for the housing development project at all victoria hospital lands a the above noted staff report be received e the septemberation be directed to negotiate the contribution agreement with vision subo alliance based on the terms and instructions out low below i continue with the approved 13,876 grant given the receipt sorry given the recent increases in construction costs mortgage rates and exemptions of development charges for nonprofit corporations contribution period aligned with those of the federal and/or provincial governments notwithstanding the road map intend to have units filled from city waste staff be directed to work with vision subo and their partner agencies to align with wait lists the city to increase the number of formal units filled by tenants from the city’s list i’m sorry i wasn’t doing the letters there but this is uh for uh require the tenants require the tenant placement agreement be incorporated into the contribution agreement five included rental protocol and occupancy standards for the affordable units six include language in the contribution agreement that required initial report following occupancy in an annual report c civic administration be directed to report back to the community and protective services committee for the contribution agreement suitable to all parties here we go okay um the the stream wasn’t running so i just need to do that again okay so you’re presenting a report so councilors have you stand um so now that that now that that report has been presented i believe there’ll be a counselor who want to vote on the east london link portion of that separately so if i could have you put just that piece on the floor um so the councilors read them all out but we’ll vote on them just a little bit separately so the east london link um piece will be first okay so i will put 6.1 um and so we’re just voting on 6.1 right now so that’s um presented by and moved by um counselor mccallister any any discussion no okay then we’ll we’ll open that for voting.

Councillor Ferreira and Councillor van Neerbergen as a reminder this is on 1080 and Dundas Street east London link closing the vote motion carries 11 to 1 okay and if you could present the rest from mccallister okay and i will put 6.2 to 6.4 on the floor okay any discussion on 6.2 to 6.4 as was read out by the counselor we’ll open that for voting okay so the meeting’s gone so long that um clerk’s computer timed out so she’s logging back in closing the vote motion carries 12 to 0 thank you very much counselor mccallister um deferred matters there are none inquiries uh Councillor van Neerbergen thank you mare and thank you for allowing this uh notification or announcement it’s not quite an inquiry uh however i was made aware and perhaps some of you as well uh sadly uh last evening randy colons passed on um he apparently was at university hospital uh randy colons uh was the founder of holly gully which was london’s ultimate toy store far more than that uh he was a deeply uh spiritual uh christian man who really believed in giving back to the community uh a very generous person over the years uh he’s donated hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars for children’s park equipment uh playground equipment in the various parks around london uh just to name a little bit of what uh he’s brought to our city so mare if you don’t mind if you could request a moment or a minute of silence so i’ll just um i think if it’s first off thank you counselor i know not quite an inquiry but um when you find information we can always accommodate um that sort of notification i i i know um mr colons as you said was a philanthropist in our city and and partnered uh with the city on on the provision of many um new play structures for children um in a number of our our um our parks around the city so um if people would join us just in in just a quiet moment of of reflection um for mr colons thank you um other any inquiries okay uh seeing none we have no emergency motions we’re on to bylaws um i think we can deal with all of the well i guess i should ask have any of the regular bylaws setting the added side does anybody want anything to help us separately out of the regular set of bylaws that are on the regular agenda counselor hopkins notice 1312 relates to 755 wonderland road south and 13.21 um i would like those pulled got the wonderland um road one what was so um maybe i need clarification with what happened at um council today just give us one second counselor you’re making a good point here on one matter that has a bylaw so colleagues there just um see counselor hopkins point through is at least one change um bylaw 205 which related to the rezoning of land located at um 755 851 815 waterland road south that recommendation was defeated um by the committee to do that so that bylaw we won’t we won’t be proceeding with like counselor hopkins aside from that one what was the other one you wanted to dealt with separately by law number 196 which is 13.12 196 is the official uh plan amendment related to the same properties so also uh would not be dealt with you worship sorry you worship are we removing them then yeah when the committee report was defeated there’s no that’s what triggers the associated bylaw um in the motion to come forward for council so um those just won’t be voted on we’ll pull them from the actual approvals so recognizing that bill 196 and 205 will not be on the screen is there anything else in those series of bills that college like dealt with separate counselor trossa thank you i’d like to pull 13.7 bill 201 pertaining to this to the 221 clean avenue parking 13.17 just take a minute colleagues i’m going to get this sorted before i continue talking okay so colleagues i’m going to suggest this motion make sure you’re okay with it bills 185 to 204 including the revised bill number 202 but excluding 196 and 201 and then we’re going to have added bills 206 208 and 211 which oh 208 2 211 so i’ll repeat that actually i’m just going to ask the clerk to put that one on the screen so people can see it okay colleagues so that would be everything except the items that we referred or pulled out um plus the added bylaws with the exception of the one related to the eastland and length that one will be separate that’s 207 so 207 won’t be in that isn’t in that grouping but it’s the added bylaws related to the stuff that counselor mccallister read out plus one additional added bylaw that i’ll talk about in one second so i’m going to have the clerk put that on the screen and you should be able to see that in e-scribe now so that looks correct um i will say there’s one added bylaw that um counselor mccallister didn’t mention that i will mention now so that the the public knows what we’re voting on and that’s added bylaw uh number 210 um this is a bylaw to a point uh this is a bylaw to a point john parity is the new deputy city manager enterprise supports and repeal the previous bylaw related to the previous um uh incumbent in the position uh and so um that is also on the agenda that relates to something that we discussed in camera but um uh this would be the first time um the uh the public would see about that so that’s also bill 210 i’ll make some more comments in second reading on that one okay so our colleagues good with that package of bylaws altogether counselor mccallister mccallister mccallister mccallister one that you probably want to vote against that’s not in this um for counselor hopkins all the wonderland road stuff as well as the item that we referred back to committee have been pulled out okay all right so a mover for all that then deputy mary lewis seconded by uh counselor opkins so we’ll open first reading for voting closing the vote motion carries 12 to 0 okay i need to move on a seconder for second reading uh counselor freire and counselor van mierbergen uh on second reading i put myself on the speaker’s list so i’ll turn the chair over to counselor lamen council amen here at the chair sorry your worship bring capacities on extremely low i will uh recognize them there uh yes so i’m going to speak to bill um 210 which is the appointment of our new deputy city manager enterprise supports um now i know this was like a seven or eight hour meeting so hopefully having to change your mind um on the appointment tonight um but you know this is an incredibly important position uh for the city to provide uh those back end supports to pretty much the entire corporation um i know mr parity comes with exceptional experience um uh from his previous uh jobs and um we couldn’t be luckier to uh to have you um i’ll certainly obviously be supporting this um by law appointment tonight i it would invite all of my colleagues to continue voting as you did on first reading and support this unanimously uh and i want to thank um our city manager and the team who did all of the work to bring the candidate before us which we uh had our chance to uh to interview and discuss in camera um we appreciate your um thoughtful and exceptional presentation and answers and uh look i look forward to working with you on the many important things ahead i will say as this position has been vacant for a while i also wanted to take a moment to recognize um both the city manager and the team of people who uh covered those duties for uh for a long period of time while also working on all of the important things that um we dealt with through the agenda tonight things that are ongoing things that are consuming large amount of staff time to be able to uh to navigate through this this gap of not having someone for this position for that period of time um let me also say thank you for the work that you’ve done to uh to keep the corporation running um but now that we have mr parity we can put some of that on his plate and uh and look forward to the work ahead so welcome very uh much we um you know we’ll all clap after third reading when it’s official but um i just wanted to to speak and say thank you through the presiding officer that’s presumptuous colleagues but uh i think that’s okay okay so that any other speakers on second reading okay seeing none then we’ll open the vote for second reading council frank i vote yes closing the vote motion carries 12 to 0 okay and i need to move in a second or third reading councilor layman seconded by councilor ferreira no discussion on third reading so we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 12 to 0 now you can welcome mr parity and it’s the same process to get undone so um you’re uh you’re stuck with us until we remove a by-law so um uh with that that concludes the those by-laws now there was one other bill 207 that we pulled separately this is related to the eastland and lank i’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that particular by-law and councilor ferreira seconded by councilor mckallister we’ll open first reading for voting closing the vote motion carries 11 to 1 and uh mover and seconder for second reading councilor hopkin seconded by councilor ferreira any discussion on second reading for this one okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting councilor preveled councilor ferreira i’m in resuming session mode i say yes thank you closing the vote motion carries 11 to 1 okay motion mover and seconder for third reading uh councilor hopkin seconded by councilor cuddy uh there is no debate on third reading so we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 11 to 1 okay with that that concludes the agenda i look for motion to adjourn councilor mckallister seconded by one second that one was referred back so it was it was pulled out okay so moved motion to adjourn and moved and seconded by mckallister and cuddy all those in favor by hand that motion carries we are adjourned thank you yeah yes