September 26, 2023, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:03 PM; it being noted that the following were in remote attendance Councillors P. Van Meerbergen, S. Hillier and Councillors E. Peloza (after 4:01 PM) and D. Ferreira (after 4:01 PM).

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Recognitions

His Worship the Mayor Recognizes City of London Employees who have achieved 25 years of service during 2023.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

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

4.1    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. (6.1/16/CSC)

4.2    Litigation/Potential Litigation/Solicitor-Client Privilege/Confidential Information Supplied by Canada/Province/Territory/Crown Agency of Same

A matter pertaining to 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; information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board by Canada, a province or territory or a Crown agency of any of them; 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. (6.1/13/CWC)

4.3    Personal Matters / Identifiable Individual/Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to a personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, and advice that is subject

to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, related to appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors. (6.1/22/SPPC)

4.4    Personal Matters/Identifiable Individuals

A matter pertaining to an identifiable individual(s). (6.2/22/SPPC)

4.5     Personal Matters/Identifiable Individuals

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.3/22/SPPC)

4.6     Personal Matters/Identifiable Individuals

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/15/PEC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The Council convenes, In Closed Session, from 1:19 PM to 2:00 PM.

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

5.1   14th Meeting held on August 29, 2023

2023-08-29 Council Minutes - Full

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Minutes of the 14th Meeting held on August 29, 2023, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by H. McAlister

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

6.1     Vehicle for Hire By-law - Amendments/Information Report;

6.2     Council Resolution - Housing Accelerator Fund;

6.3     176 Piccadilly Street;

6.4     1364 - 1408 Hyde Park Road (OZ - 9635)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   16th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2023-09-11 CSC Report 16

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 16th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Contingencies/Stabilization and Risk Management Reserve Fund Rationalization Report (Relates to Bill No.’s 335, 336, 337, 338 and 339)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the Contingencies/Stabilization and Risk Management Reserve Fund Rationalization Report BE RECEIVED for information; noting that reserve fund targets established in accordance with the authority provided to the City Treasurer in the Council approved Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy are presented in Appendix “B”;

b)    the Contingencies/Stabilization and Risk Management Reserve Funds to be maintained, listed in Appendix “B”, BE APPROVED;

c)    the Contingencies/Stabilization and Risk Management Reserve Fund proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated September 11, 2023 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Capital Asset Growth Reserve Fund Rationalization Report (Relates to Bill No.’s 340 and 341)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the Capital Asset Growth Reserve Fund Rationalization Report BE RECEIVED for information; noting that reserve fund targets established in accordance with the authority provided to the City Treasurer in the Council approved Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy are presented in Appendix “B”;

b)    the Capital Asset Growth Reserve Funds to be maintained, listed in Appendix “B”, BE APPROVED;

c)    the Capital Asset Growth Reserve Fund proposed by-laws appended to the staff report dated September 11, 2023 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) SS-2023-215 - Facilities Maintenance and Operations Single Source Refrigeration Services Provider

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the single source procurement of a Refrigeration Service provider:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter negotiations with CIMCO Refrigeration for pricing for a single source contract for one (1) year with one (1) option year for renewal to provide refrigeration services for the City of London arenas;

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 CIMCO Refrigeration to provide preventive maintenance service and repairs to the City arena refrigeration plants; and,

 

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

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) RFP 2023-124 Consultant Services for City of London Vacancy Residential Property Study Award – Irregular Result

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to Request for Proposal (RFP) 2023-124 for Consultant Services for City of London Vacant Residential Property Study:

a)    the proposal for consultant services, submitted by Ernst and Young (EY), 100 Adelaide Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1J7 BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

c)    the approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the City of London (The Corporation) entering a formal contract, agreement or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) 2022 Annual Reporting of Lease Financing Agreements

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2022 Annual Report of Lease Financing Agreements BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) Council Policy Review - Flags at City Hall and Illumination of City of London Buildings and Amenities (Relates to Bill No.’s 346 and 347)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 11, 2023 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on September 26, 2023 to amend CPOL.-114-366 being “Flags at City Hall” to repeal and replace Schedule “A”, and;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 11, 2023 as Appendix ‘B’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on September 26, 2023 to amend CPOL.-127-379 being “Illumination of City of London Buildings and Amenities” to repeal and replace Schedule “A”.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Probus Month

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated August 15, 2023 from Probus Clubs of London; Probus Club of North London; Probus Club of South London; Mens Probus Club of London, Womens Probus Club of London, the month of October 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Probus Month.

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Sikh Genocide Awareness Week

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated August 16, 2023 from the London Sikh Society, November 1 - 8, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Sikh Genocide Awareness Week.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Sikh Heritage Month

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated August 7, 2023 from Guru Nanak Mission Society, April 2024 BE PROCLAIMED Sikh Heritage Month.

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (4.4) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National British Home Child Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated August 15, 2023 from Home Child Canada, September 28, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED National British Home Child Day.

Motion Passed

8.2   14th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2023-09-12 CPSC Report 14 - Full

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 14th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Item 5 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 5th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 5th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on August 24, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (3.1) Business Licensing By-law Amendment to Schedule 2 Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Parlour - 609 Clarke Road (Relates to Bill No. 348)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the revised proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023, to amend By-law No. L.-131-16, being “A by-law to provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Various Businesses” to reduce the number of Adult Entertainment Body-rub Parlour Owner licences authorized under this By-law from six (6) to five (5) and to delete “Map 6 – 609 Clarke Road” from Schedule 2A of the By-law;

it being pointed out that M. Walker made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter. (2023-C01)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (3.2) Vehicle for Hire By-law - Amendments/Information Report (Relates to Bill No. 349)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 12, 2023, related to the Vehicle for Hire 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 September 26, 2023, to amend By-law No. L.-130-71, being the Vehicle for Hire By-law, including increasing the vehicle age limit requirements of all zero emission vehicles and hybrid gas-electric vehicles and accessible vehicles;

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

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to: increasing the age of gas powered vehicles in service from 10 to 12 years, report back on concerns of increasing the age limit requirements of all zero emission vehicles, hybrid gas-electric vehicles and accessible vehicles from 12 years to 15 years and other concerns raised during the public participation meeting (ie. vehicle inspection frequency, the consideration of forming a vehicle for hire task force and an environmental scan of other municipalities related to vehicle inspection frequency, including a specific inspection schedule directly related to age of vehicle and all regulations related to the age of a vehicle;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from K. Al Tarhuni, Mygreen Taxi, with respect to this matter, was received;

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

-    G. Tabidi;

-    F. Bander;

-    K. Al Tarhuni;

-    M. Abbasey;

-    H. Savehilaghi;

-    Paul;

-    M. Wni; and,

-    Y. Fekre. (2023-C01)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (5.1) Request for Funding for Soil Remediation - Vision SoHo (West Block)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the request from members of the Vision SOHO Alliance for funding for soil remediation; it being noted that a conditional grant of $13,876,000 was approved by Council on August 3, 2022 for the Vision SOHO Alliance to provide up to 400 affordable housing units: 

a) an increase to the conditional grant BE APPROVED, with the amount of such increase to be determined by the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development and not to exceed $3,900,000 and the approval of the increase is subject to the following conditions:

i)    the members of the Vision SOHO Alliance, working with the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development or designate to establish a final value and volume for the removal and disposal of unsuitable soils at the Zerin Development Corporation, The Chelsea Green Home Society, Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. and London Affordable Housing Foundation development sites;

ii)    the submission and approval of updated proformas from members of the Vision SOHO Alliance;

iii)    the members of the Vision SOHO Alliance commit to filling up to 50 additional units from the City’s waiting lists;

iv)    the members of the Vision SOHO Alliance providing all engineering reports and/or technical analysis related to the removal and disposal of unsuitable soils for review and acceptance by the City; and,

v)    the provision of a strategy for the distribution of the funding and additional waitlist units between the Vision SOHO members;

b)    subject to the conditions above, the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development BE AUTHORIZED to enter into the previously approved Contribution Agreements with the affected members of the Vision SOHO Alliance and once the amount of the increase to the grant is determined, amend the Contribution Agreements to support the increased conditional grant as the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development deems appropriate;

c)    the source of financing for this request BE APPROVED as capital project SH3000 (Municipal Housing Division’s approved Roadmap to 3,000 Units funding), noting that Finance Supports confirms there is sufficient budget in this capital project to support this request, and also support the original $13,876,000 grant, as noted in clause a), above;

it being noted that the communication, dated August 24, 2023, from G. Playford, with respect to this matter, was received. (2023-E05)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (4.1) Community and Neighbourhood Safety and Security Concerns Options for Agencies, Staff, Volunteers and those Accessing Services

Motion made by E. Peloza

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 September 12, 2023, related to Options to Address Safety and Security Concerns:

a) the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b) a one-time funding allocation of up to $174,210 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for London Cares Homeless Response Services to support security services for 602 Queens Avenue and 448 Horton Street locations BE AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED;

c) the additional programs identified to support safety and security in the Old East Village area, including additional Coordinated Informed Response programming and street cleaning to be accommodated within existing Housing Stability Services budgets BE ENDORSED;

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

e) detailed services and cost breakdown for the one-time funding of $174,210 BE PROVIDED prior to the Municipal Council meeting of September 26, 2023;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

-    M. McMahon, Thames Valley Family Health Team;

-    D. Wiseman, London Health Sciences Centre;

-    B. Mitchell and L. Sibley, Canadian Mental Health Association;

-    C. Lazenby, Unity Project;

-    J. DeActis, The Salvation Army Centre of Hope;

-    S. Courtice, London InterCommunity Health Centre;

-    M. McIntosh, Regional HIV/AIDS Connection; and,

-    Sister M. Ritchie, Sisters of St. Joseph. (2023-S14)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That part c) of the clause BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“c)   the additional programs identified to support safety and security in hotspot service request areas, including additional Coordinated Informed Response programming and street cleaning to be accommodated within existing Housing Stability Services budgets BE ENDORSED;“

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Item 5 (4.1), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

That Item 5 (4.1) as amended, reads as follows:

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 September 12, 2023, related to Options to Address Safety and Security Concerns:

a) the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b) a one-time funding allocation of up to $174,210 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for London Cares Homeless Response Services to support security services for 602 Queens Avenue and 448 Horton Street locations BE AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED;

c) the additional programs identified to support safety and security in hotspot service request areas, including additional Coordinated Informed Response programming and street cleaning to be accommodated within existing Housing Stability Services budgets BE ENDORSED;

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

e) detailed services and cost breakdown for the one-time funding of $174,210 BE PROVIDED prior to the Municipal Council meeting of September 26, 2023;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

  •    M. McMahon, Thames Valley Family Health Team;

-    D. Wiseman, London Health Sciences Centre;

  •    B. Mitchell and L. Sibley, Canadian Mental Health Association;

  •    C. Lazenby, Unity Project;

  •    J. DeActis, The Salvation Army Centre of Hope;

  •    S. Courtice, London InterCommunity Health Centre;

  •    M. McIntosh, Regional HIV/AIDS Connection; and,

  •    Sister M. Ritchie, Sisters of St. Joseph. (2023-S14)

8.3   13th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2023-09-12 - CWC Report 13

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 13th Report of the Civic Works Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 2024 Stormwater Management Remediation Project - Consultant Award

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 September 12, 2023, related to the 2024 Stormwater Management Remediation Project Consultant Award:

a) AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers in the amount of $125,345.00, including contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (d) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b) the financing for the 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; 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-E03)

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) RFT-2023-224 Removal and Management of Hazardous & Special Products

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 September 12, 2023, related to the Request for Tender (RFT-2023-144) for the Removal and Management of Hazardous and Special Products:

a)    the tender submitted by GFL Environmental Services Inc., 203 Lottridge Street, Hamilton, Ontario, L8L 6W1, for Removal and Management of Hazardous and Special Products BE ACCEPTED at their tendered unit rates including the optional additional unit rates (excluding HST) listed in Appendix A; it being noted that this is being reported as an irregular tender result as per the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 8.10 (a) as the annual estimated net cost of approximately $360,000.00 (net of Producer Responsibility Organization funding) of the lowest compliant tender exceeds the 2023 Council approved budget amount for this service;

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

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2023-E05)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) SS-2023-233 Single Source Purchase of Cured In Place Pipe (CIPP) Lining Trailer

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 12, 2023, related to SS-2023-233 Single Source Purchase of Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) Lining Trailer:

a)    approval BE GIVEN to execute a single source purchase as per section 14.4 (d) and (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the single source negotiated price BE ACCEPTED to purchase one 2024 Bravo Aluminum Star Cargo Trailer for a total estimated price of $108,099.83 (excluding HST), from Bluewater Trailer Sales Ltd., 940 Wright Street, Strathroy ON N7G 3H8;

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval in accordance with Sections 14.4(d)(e) and 14.5(a)(ii) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

e)    the financing for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2023-E09)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (4.1) 9th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on August 16, 2023:

a)    the attached presentation, with respect to the Mobility Master Plan, BE RECEIVED by the Civic Works Committee for their consideration; and,

b)   the London Transit Commission BE REQUESTED to provide the following information to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee:

i)    provision of transit services; 

ii)   current Service Plan (Conventional and Special); 

iii)  criteria of provision of transit services in new subdivisions; 

iv)  areas and subdivisions in London where no transit services are available; 

v)   zero emission bus fleet implementation and rollout plan; 

vi)  when Londoners may see the first group of zero emission buses on the roads; and, 

vii) how many buses and which routes will be used in the pilot project; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 BE APPROVED.  

it being noted that the delegation request from R. Buchal with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.4   22nd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-09-19 SPPC Report 22 - Full

At 2:42 PM, His Worship Mayor Morgan places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair.

At 2:45 PM, His Worship Mayor Morgan resumes the Chair.

At 2:46 PM, His Worship Mayor Morgan places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair.

At 2:48 PM, His Worship Mayor Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 22nd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 10 (5.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.3) 4th Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on August 28, 2023: a) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to undertake the following with respect to the Electronic (Remote) Participation of Members of Council at Council and Standing Committee Meetings:

i) report back to the next Governance Working Group with an additional draft policy that incorporates additional edits, including the following:

A) the requirement to have cameras active; B) specific requirements for confidential participation including cameras and headset usage; C) clarification of the expectation for voting Members to attend meetings in person, rather than remote participation; requirement for voting Members to provide advance notice to the City Clerk and Chair of the committee, including reasons for remote participation; D) consideration of a threshold for in person attendance at meetings;

ii) a draft administrative policy, for the information of Council, with respect to the participation of staff and the public for hybrid meetings; b) the matter of a Ward Boundary Review BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration in order to report back to a special meeting of the Governance Working Group, to be scheduled the week of September 11, with respect to a revised Terms of Reference to support the various options, as outlined in the report dated August 28, 2023, including consideration of future growth with the intent that any ward boundary changes will be relevant for the next three elections, inclusive of student population data and additional data points that may be applicable, as well as additional detail related to deliverables; c) clauses 1.1 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.4) 6th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 6th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on August 10, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.5) Education and Training Session Special Meeting

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to an education and training session with the Integrity Commissioner for the City of London:

a) that pursuant to section 2.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in meeting location from Council Chambers to the Civic Gardens Complex on September 28, 2023 from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM BE APPROVED; and

b) that the Municipal Council convene In Closed Session pursuant to s.239(3.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 for the specific purpose of Council Member training and education by the Integrity Commissioner for the Corporation of the City of London, on September 28, 2023, at the location and time noted in clause a).

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.6) London’s Approved Housing Accelerator Fund

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (4.1) City Manager, Recruitment and Selection Process

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, in consultation with the Mayor, and on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports and Director, People Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the City Manager recruitment and selection process:

a) the staff reported dated September 19, 2023, related to the City Manager recruitment and selection process, BE RECEIVED for information;

b) the Recruitment and Selection Plan for the new City Manager contained in the above-noted report, BE ENDORSED; and

c) that the following Council Members BE APPOINTED to the Recruitment and Selection Committee:

Councillor Lewis

Councillor Rahman

Councillor Pribil

Councillor Stevenson

Councillor Lehman

Mayor Morgan

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee will be interviewing candidates before Council endorsement.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (4.2) Consideration of Appointment to the London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors (Requires 1 Member)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment to the London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors:

a) Kathleen Savoy BE APPOINTED to the London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors as a Second Class Tenant Member for the term ending December 31, 2024; and,

b) the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023, to ratify and confirm the Resolution of the Shareholder of the London and Middlesex Community Housing;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated September 1, 2023 from Councillor H. McAlister, Board of Directors, London and Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.1) Development Charge Exemptions and Discounts

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a) the report, entitled, ‘Development Charge Exemptions and Discounts BE RECEIVED for information;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to incorporate funding requirements associated with statutory development charge exemptions and discounts into the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget, it being noted that adjustments may be made through the Annual Budget Update process as more experience is gained, including adjusting for any Provincial funding should it be received; and

c) the Mayor and Councillor Hopkins will continue advocacy on this matter through both AMO and OBCM.

it being noted that the communication as appended to the Added Agenda, from C. Butler, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.2) Municipal Accommodation Tax - Tourism London Annual Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Developments, Tourism London’s report on the expenditures of Municipal Accommodation Tax revenues BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (5.2) Proposed London Hydro and Newco Affiliate

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services, the following actions be taken:

a) the report dated September 19, 2023, titled “Proposed London Hydro and Newco Affiliate” BE RECEIVED; and,

b) no further steps BE TAKEN with respect to the incorporation of a retail affiliate for London Hydro Inc.

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (5.3) 5th Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on September 11, 2023:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Ward Boundary Review Process:

i) the report dated September 11, 2023, entitled “2023 Ward Boundary Review Process – Terms of Reference”, BE RECEIVED for information;

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the amended Terms of Reference, with the inclusion of a target to strive for no greater than 15% population variance and consideration of ward naming conventions, for adoption at the October 17, 2023 Council meeting;

iii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a competitive procurement process to retain an independent third-party consultant to initiate Option 1 as the preferred option of Municipal Council and under the adopted Terms of Reference for the City of London;

iv) that matters regarding governance and compensation be referred back to a future Governance Working Group (GWG), as related to deferred items; Remuneration of Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members, Training and Onboarding Process for New Council, Selection Process Policy for Appointing Members to Committees, Civic Boards, and Commissions (as it relates to Council), and it being noted that as previously directed by GWG Chair Lewis & Vice Chair Franke have been collecting data on workloads and council job description reflecting the workload, as appended to the agenda, for further deliberation and discussion; and b) clause 1.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (5.4) 7th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 7th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on September 14, 2023 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (5.1) Consideration of Appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors (Requires 2 Members) (Relates to Bill No. 343)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors:

a) Tim Watson and Tracy Gustafson BE APPOINTED to the London Hydro Board of Directors as First Class Members for the term ending the close of the annual meeting of the shareholders to be held in 2025 for the financial year ending December 31, 2024; and,

b) the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023, to ratify and confirm the Resolution of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Item 10 (5.1), Consideration of Appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors, BE REFERRED back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration.

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the question now be put - with respect to the referral motion on the floor.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

With respect to the Chair’s decision that Councillor S. Stevenson cannot further speak to this mater, shall the ruling of the Chair BE SUSTAINED?

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

8.5   14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2023-09-11 PEC Report 14

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Item 8 (3.4).

Motion Passed (15 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) Building Division Monthly Report - May 2023

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of May, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.   (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Building Division Monthly Report - June 2023

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of June, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) 9th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 9th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-C04)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (3.1) 2908 Dundas Street (Z-9627) (Relates to Bill No. 358)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2908 Dundas Street Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 2908 Dundas Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 11, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 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 Holding Light Industrial  (h-17LI1) Zone TO a Holding Light industrial Special Provision (h-17LI1/LI6(_)) Zone;

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

  •    A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Light Industrial Place Type and Key Directions; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of industrial lands within the Built Area Boundary with an appropriate form of development; and,

it being acknowledged 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. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (3.2) 447 Ashland Avenue (SPA23-074)

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 Extendicare, relating to the property located at 447 Ashland Avenue (1156 Dundas Street):

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval by Extendicare, relating to the property located at 447 Ashland Avenue (1156 Dundas Street) to permit a new continuum-of-care facility:

i)    enquiring what the plan is for the empty field on Gleason Street; and,

ii)    enquiring what is proposed for the McCormick Factory as it is decaying and an eyesore; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing the Site Plan Application by Extendicare, relating to the property located at 447 Ashland Avenue (1156 Dundas Street);

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

  •    E. Wittman, GSP Group; and,

  •    L. Longhurst;

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which directs growth to settlement areas and enhancing main streets;

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to The Official Plan for the City of London 216 – The London Plan and the McCormick’s Secondary Plan including but not limited to the policies of the mid-rise residential designation;

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan meets the requirements of the Site Plan Control Area By-law; and,

it being acknowledged 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. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (3.3) 1992 Fanshawe Park Road West (TZ-9636) (Relates to Bill No. 359)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to the property located at 1992 Fanshawe Park Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 11, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 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-45) Zone for a period not exceeding three (3) years;

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

  •    T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan and the Farmland Place Type policies; and,

  •    the recommended temporary use provides the portion of the subject property used for the golf driving range the opportunity reverted back to agricultural use should the lands be required for that purpose; and,

it being acknowledged 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.   (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (4.1) Council Resolution - Housing Accelerator Fund

Motion made by S. Lehman

That clause b) of the Municipal Council resolution adopted at its meeting held on August 29, 2023, with respect to the Housing Accelerator Fund BE DEFERRED to a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (3.4) 1515 Trossacks Avenue (Z-9632) (Relates to Bill No. 360)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Daniel Boyer c/o Polocorp Inc., relating to the property located at 1515 Trossacks Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 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 R9 (R9-3*H21) TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-3(_)*H21) Zone; and,

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

i)    fencing and/or landscaping be provided along the perimeter of the site to ensure adequate buffering is maintained between the subject lands and adjacent residential properties;

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

  •    G. Saini, Polocorp Inc.;

  •    C. Melo;

  •    M. Zemes; and,

  •    E. Cartwight;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application 

for the following reasons:

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type and Key Directions; 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 infill development that provides choice and diversity in housing options; and,

it being acknowledged 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.   (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That part b) of clause 3.4 BE AMENDED by adding the following part ii):

“ii)     increased capacity in the undergound parking;”

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

8.6   15th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2023-09-18 PEC Report 15

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 15th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Items 3 (3.2), 6 (3.5) and 7 (3.6).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (3.1) 1588 Clarke Road

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the demolition request for the heritage listed property located at 1588 Clarke Road:

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

b)    the property located at 1588 Clarke Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; and,

c)    the property owner BE ENCOURAGED to commemorate the historic contributions of the Tackabury family in the future development of this property;

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

  •    A. Haasen, Sifton Properties Limited;

  •    L. Tackabury;

  •    G. Tackabury;

  •    C. de Hart; and,

  •    B. Johnson;

it being acknowledged 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. (2023-R01)

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (3.3) 3030 Singleton Avenue (Z-9640) (Relates to Bill No. 361)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Schlegel Villages Incorporated, relating to the property located at 3030 Singleton Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 18, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 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 R5/R6/R7 (R5-5/R6-5/R7D100 H30) Zone TO a Residential R5/R6/R7 Special Provision (R5-5/R6-5/ R7(_)D100H30) Zone;

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

  •    B. Rosser, on behalf of Schlegel Villages Incorporated;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an appropriate land use within a new development in the Built Area Boundary; and,

it being acknowledged 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. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (3.4) 1208 Fanshawe Park Road East (Z-9539) (Relates to Bill No. 362)

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 Masar Development Inc. (c/o Abdul Zaro), relating to the property located at 1208 Fanshawe Park Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 18, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 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 (R1-14) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

i)    ensure consent to injure or remove boundary trees is provided by the applicant;

ii)    additional tree plantings will be required to compensate for loss of trees;

iii)    relocate and screen the garbage collection pad away from the shared amenity space and consider providing private outdoor amenity space at the rear of Building B;

iv)    retain the walkways from each stacked-townhouse unit entrance to Fanshawe Park Road East, 

v)    consider consolidating walkways to minimize impermeable surfaces and provide a wider shared walkway connection to the sidewalk along Fanshawe Park Road East;

vi)    screen any surface parking exposed to a public street with enhanced all-season landscaping, including low landscape walls, shrubs, and street trees;

vii)    provide additional landscaping or other measures to mitigate noise and lights from Fanshawe Park Road for the basement units located within Building A; and,

viii)    include short-term public bicycle parking in the development;

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

  •    a communication dated September 15, 2023 from E. Kane;

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

  •    J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), 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 London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and provides a broader range and mix of housing options within the area; and,

it being acknowledged 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. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.6.8   (5.1) 10th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 10th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on September 13, 2023: 

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Planning Application and Public Meeting, dated September 5, 2023, from B. Coveney, Planner, with respect to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to Increasing the Number of Additional Residential Units to Permit Four Units as-of-right, City-Wide:

i)    the Planner BE ADVISED that that the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) is supportive of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, recognizing that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are a form of gentle density that help improve housing supply while maintaining the character of heritage neighbourhoods;

ii)    the Planner BE ADVISED that the CACP recommends that definition of height in the Zoning By-Law for accessory buildings serving as ADUs be made more flexible as to not disincentivize any particular architectural roof styles (especially gable and hip roofs) versus flat roofs; and,

iii)    the comments of the CACP, herein, BE FORWARDED to the Planner on the ADU file and to the Planning and Environment Committee in advance of their scheduled public participation meeting and to appropriate Planner for ReThink Zoning; 

it being noted that the above-noted Notice of Planning Application and Public Meeting was received; and, 

b) clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.3, inclusive, 3.5, 4.1, 5.1 to 5.3, inclusive, and clause 6.1 BE RECEIVED for information;

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

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (3.2) 176 Piccadilly Street

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the property located at 176 Piccadilly Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being pointed out that no action be taken with respect to the communication dated September 15, 2023 from A.M. Valastro, with respect to this matter;

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

it being acknowledged 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. (2023-R01)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

Motion Passed

That Council recesses at 3:38 PM and reconvenes at 4:01 PM.

8.6.6   (3.5) 3234-3274 Wonderland Road South (Z-9618) (Relates to Bill No. 363)

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 Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to a portion of the property located at 3234-3274 Wonderland Road South:

a)    consistent with Policy 43_1 of The London Plan, a portion of the subject lands, 3234 and 3274 Wonderland Road South, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Shopping Area Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 18, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Special Provision (ASA8(17)) Zone and a holding Light Industrial (h-17*LI1/LI7) TO an Associated Shopping Area Special Provision (ASA8(_)) Zone;

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

i)    ensure all landscaping fronting Wonderland Road S is designed and installed to create a strong built edge with a minimum depth of between 4.0 - 6.0 metres south of the proposed Wonderland Road South access, and that the enhanced landscaped area contemplate a forecourt element to accommodate parking spaces that are located immediately abutting the built edge landscape feature, which also provides for a pedestrian-oriented streetscape and an active street frontage, and the integration of a future Pad (Pad 10) that can be phased in over the life of the plan. 

ii)    ensure there is a robust pedestrian network throughout the site, linking the primary building entrances to each other and internal walkways through the parking lot with all crossing connected directly to sidewalks;

iii)    locate the principal building entrances and transparent windows to face the public right-of-way to reinforce the public realm, establish an active frontage and provide for convenient pedestrian access;

iv)    provide individual unit entrances with walkways leading to the public sidewalks on Wonderland Road South;

v)    provide a minimum 40% of glazing along the intersection of the Wonderland Rd South and Bradley Ave facades; 

vi)    reduce the amount of asphalt provided to the minimum amount required and provide additional landscaping to assist with stormwater management and reduce the heat island effect; and,

vii)    ensure the Transportation Impact Study has been updated to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division;

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    K. Mazzone, Tesla Canada;

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 (PPS), which encourages long-term economic prosperity to be supported by promoting opportunities for economic development and community investment-readiness (1.7.1.(a));

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Wonderland Road Community Enterprise Corridor policies in the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP); and,

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

it being acknowledged 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. (2023-D09)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That part c), BE AMENDED to read as follows:

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

i) ensure all landscaping fronting Wonderland Road South is designed and installed to create a strong built edge with a minimum depth of between 4.0 - 6.0 metres south of the proposed Wonderland Road South access, and that the enhanced landscaped area contemplate a forecourt element to accommodate parking spaces that are located immediately abutting the built edge landscape feature, which also provides for a pedestrian-oriented streetscape and an active street frontage, and the integration of a future Pad (Pad 10) that can be phased in over the life of the plan.

ii) ensure there is a robust pedestrian network throughout the site, linking the primary building entrances to each other and internal walkways through the parking lot with all crossings connected directly to sidewalks;

iii) locate the principal building entrances and transparent windows to face the public right-of-way to reinforce the public realm, establish an 220 7 active frontage and provide for convenient pedestrian access;

iv) provide individual unit entrances with walkways leading to the public sidewalks on Wonderland Road South;

v) provide a minimum 40% of glazing along the intersection of the Wonderland Road South and Bradley Avenue facades;

vi) reduce the amount of asphalt provided to the minimum amount required and provide additional landscaping to assist with stormwater management and reduce the heat island effect;

vii) exceeding the minimum tree planting requirements;

viii) further investigate the ability to install low impact development (LID) features within the site; and,

ix) ensure the Transportation Impact Study has been updated to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division;

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part b) of Item 6 (clause 3.5) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to a portion of the property located at 3234-3274 Wonderland Road South:

b)    the revised, attached, proposed by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Special Provision (ASA8(17)) Zone and a holding Light Industrial (h-17*LI1/LI7) TO an Associated Shopping Area Special Provision (ASA8(_)) Zone;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That item 6 (3.5), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 6 (3.5), as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to a portion of the property located at 3234-3274 Wonderland Road South:

a)    consistent with Policy 43_1 of The London Plan, a portion of the subject lands, 3234 and 3274 Wonderland Road South, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Shopping Area Place Type;

b)    the revised, attached, proposed by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Special Provision (ASA8(17)) Zone and a holding Light Industrial (h-17*LI1/LI7) TO an Associated Shopping Area Special Provision (ASA8(_)) Zone;

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

i) ensure all landscaping fronting Wonderland Road South is designed and installed to create a strong built edge with a minimum depth of between 4.0 - 6.0 metres south of the proposed Wonderland Road South access, and that the enhanced landscaped area contemplate a forecourt element to accommodate parking spaces that are located immediately abutting the built edge landscape feature, which also provides for a pedestrian-oriented streetscape and an active street frontage, and the integration of a future Pad (Pad 10) that can be phased in over the life of the plan; 

ii) ensure there is a robust pedestrian network throughout the site, linking the primary building entrances to each other and internal walkways through the parking lot with all crossing connected directly to sidewalks; 

iii) locate the principal building entrances and transparent windows to face the public right-of-way to reinforce the public realm, establish a 220 7 active frontage and provide for convenient pedestrian access; 

iv) provide individual unit entrances with walkways leading to the public sidewalks on Wonderland Road South; 

v) provide a minimum 40% of glazing along the intersection of the Wonderland Road South and Bradley Avenue facades; 

vi) reduce the amount of asphalt provided to the minimum amount required and provide additional landscaping to assist with stormwater management and reduce the heat island effect;  

vii) exceeding the minimum tree planting requirements; 

viii) further investigate the ability to install low impact development (LID) features within the site; and, 

ix) ensure the Transportation Impact Study has been updated to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division;

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

 -    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

 -    K. Mazzone, Tesla Canada;

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 (PPS), which encourages long-term economic prosperity to be supported by promoting opportunities for economic development and community investment-readiness (1.7.1.(a));

 -    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Shopping Area Place Type policies;

 -    the recommended amendment conforms to the Wonderland Road Community Enterprise Corridor policies in the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP); and,

 -    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of development;

it being acknowledged 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. (2023-D09)

8.6.7   (3.6) 1364-1408 Hyde Park Road (OZ-9635) (Relates to Bill No.’s 344 and 364)

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 the City of London, relating to the property located at 1364-1408 Hyde Park Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 18, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to create a new specific policy area for the subject lands within the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 18, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO a Special Provision R9 Residential (R9-7(_)) and Open Space (OS1 and OS5) Zones;

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

i)    include short-term public bicycle parking in the development;

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

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    the project brief from J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning/Design;

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

  •    J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning/Design; and,

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application 

for the following reasons:

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type and Our Tools; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of housing on a greenfield site within a residential area; and,

it being acknowledged 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. (2023-D09)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Item 7 (3.6), BE AMENDED, by adding the following new part c) ii) as follows:

“ii)   an increase to parking on-site in the development;“

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Item 7 (clause 3.6), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Item 7 (clause 3.6), as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the City of London, relating to the property located at 1364-1408 Hyde Park Road:

a)     the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 18, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to create a new specific policy area for the subject lands within the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)     the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 18, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO a Special Provision R9 Residential (R9-7(_)) and Open Space (OS1 and OS5) Zones;

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

i)  include short-term public bicycle parking in the development;

ii) an increase to parking on-site in the development;

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

 -    the staff presentation; and,

 -    the project brief from J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning/Design;

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

 -    J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning/Design; and,

 -    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

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

 -    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;

 -    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type and Our Tools; and,

 -    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of housing on a greenfield site within a residential area; and,

it being acknowledged 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. (2023-D09)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   13th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by J. Pribil

  1.    Property Acquisition – 1241 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 1241 Wellington Road South, further described as Lot 4, Plan 880, Geographic Township of Westminster, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 08485-0016 (LT). Part Block A, RP 653 and Part Lot 24, Concession 2, designated as Part 1 on Plan 33R-11797, Geographic Township of Westminster, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 08485-0198 (LT) containing an area of approximately 23,958 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)         the offer submitted by Cenovus Energy Inc. (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $852,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 334 to 364, excluding Bill No.’s 343 and 360, and including the revised Bill No. 363, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 334 to 364, excluding Bill No.’s 343 and 360, and including the revised Bill No. 363, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 334 to 364, excluding Bill No.’s 343 and 360, and including the revised Bill No. 363, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 343, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

At 4:50 PM, Councillor D. Ferreira leaves the meeting.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No. 343, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 343, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 360, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Second Reading of Bill No. 360, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 360, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 365, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 365, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 365, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Council meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The Council meeting adjourned at 4:55 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 7 minutes)

Found check from council chambers. Found check from council chambers. I can hear you. Thank you.

Please be seated. Thank you. So I’m calling to order the 15th meeting of municipal council. I’m gonna start by reading a land acknowledgement.

We acknowledge that we are gathered here today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lenny Paywalk and Adawandran. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. The two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Silver Covenant Chain to be for Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Nanfand Treaty of 1701.

The McKee Treaty of 1790, the Lenny Township Treaty of 1796. The Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are our neighbors to Lenny are the Chippewas 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 unique languages, customs, and cultures. I also want to mention that the City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact Council Agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. It’s now my pleasure to welcome our O Canada singer. Jay started playing guitar when he was eight years old. He learned a bunch of songs back home in India and started singing and playing at the same time.

His music tastes range from pop, R&B, to hip hop. Jay draws inspiration from artists like Jeremy Zucker, the Lumineers, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, I know, Sheeran, just watched a movie with him in it. Daniel Caesar and H-E-R. Jay got into songwriting at the age of 12 and completely fell in love with an art that tells people stories and makes them relate to it in the best way.

Please join me in welcoming Jay, who will now perform the National Anthem for us. Bon up, Jay. And he’s got someone with them to play guitar, so it’s a nice duet today. ♪ Can tell that patron loves come ♪ ♪ We see the rise ♪ ♪ But true, not strong and free ♪ ♪ Far can stand stand ♪ I’ll now move to disclosures of pecuniary interest from colleagues.

If you have any disclosures now, it’s the time to note them. Seeing none, recognitions. I’m going to move to the podium to do recognitions of city of London employees who’ve achieved 25 years of service during 2023. So today we’re recognizing city of London employees who reached 25 years of service in 2023.

Members of council had the opportunity for a small reception to get to know some of the employees who’ve served this corporation and the citizens of the city of London over the past 25 years. I just want to say, in my opportunity to engage with some employees, just some tremendous stories over the years and things that I forgot. I mean, I was speaking with one of our friends from the IT area and I said, what was it like when you started? And he said, I started right before Y2K.

And he’s like, so starting during a pandemic is one thing, starting when everybody thought the world was going to end, maybe another thing. But tremendous stories of hope, resilience, challenge, making friends, making memories, but all at the same time serving the people of this great city. And so we will welcome them up, those who can be here today. One at a time, the clerk is going to read the names and then I’ll present them with a certificate.

We can pause so that many of the family members who are here today up above can get a photo if you want and we’ll obviously take some down on the floor too. But let me also say there are many people here who have served the corporation. There are many people here who serve them in the audience today, their friends, their family, their loved ones who may have made sacrifices over the years to let them do the jobs that they were going to do. I think of people who may have had to come in late, come in, or stay late, come in early, maybe miss a family event or two.

During emergencies and emergency situations, those who work in those supports for those divisions, drop everything, come into work to help others in our community. So let me also say as we congratulate those who have served this community for that period of time, thank you to the families and loved ones who support them in their service to this community. I know that I appreciate everything that my family does for me to allow me to do the job and I know you appreciate your loved ones. I hope you celebrate in their accomplishments today with them and thanks again for everything you do to make this possible for them.

And with that, we will start the proceedings. So, clerk, take it away. Thank you, Your Worship. From London Police Services, Bernard Scheidt.

Enterprise Supports, Michelle Blackburn. Also from Enterprise Supports, Stephanie McCabe. Enterprise Supports, Jeanette McComb. Enterprise Supports, Dean Thompson.

From Environment and Infrastructure, Karen Beavers. Also from Environment and Infrastructure, Pam McLennan. Finance Supports, Annalisa Barbone. Finance Supports, Ryan Crichton.

From Neighborhood and Community Wide Services, Samuel Diaz. Also from Neighborhood and Community Wide Services, Justin Salt. (audience laughing) Neighborhood and Community Wide Services, Justin Thurgood. Running and Economic Development, Kimberly Wood.

From Social and Health Development, Angela Haldane. I want to say to Kim, we were just talking. You know, everybody’s got stories in their career, but one of the things that Kim got to do was when we got our amazing amount of money from the Housing Accelerator Fund, Kim got to host the Prime Minister to give a tour through the beautiful Sylvan Street Project. And we really appreciate everything you did on that.

I know everybody’s got a story, but that must be a kind of a cool thing to do in your 25th year to finally get that opportunity to engage in that. So again, everybody’s got a story. Everybody’s got a contribution. Let’s have a huge warm round of applause for our 25 year service of those.

They’re all welcome to stick around for an exciting council meeting, but maybe you’ve got a lunch plan or something. So if you have to go, that’s fine. But you’re always more than welcome to stay. But thank you so much again.

We appreciate it. Okay, with recognitions completed, we have a review of confidential matters to be considered in public. There are none, which moves us to council and closed session. There are six matters before us on the agenda as items to go into council for a closed session.

I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that. Moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor McAllister. We will open moving into closed session for voting. All vote, yes, Mayor.

Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 14-0. Okay, colleagues, we’ll transition to committee room five for our in-camera session for our municipal council.

Thank you, please be seated. The colleagues joining online just confirm that they’re back in this meeting for the, thank you, appreciate it. Okay, that completes council and closed session. We have the confirmation signing of the minutes from previous meetings.

We have the 14th meeting held on August 29th, 2023. I need a mover and a seconder for the minutes. Moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Layman. I need a discussion on the minutes.

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Ryan Mirberg and closing the vote. Motion carries 15-0. Communications and petitions.

There are a number of them related to a number of different items. The clerk has prepared a motion referring each of those to all of the relevant pieces of the agenda in those appropriate spots. I’d look unless someone wants something dealt with separately, we can do those all together. I don’t see anybody who wants to do that.

So I look for someone to move that. Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Any discussion on moving those? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote. Motion carries 15-0. There are no motions for which you notice was given, which means we’re on to reports. We have 8.1, the 16th report of the Corporate Services Committee.

I’ll turn it over to Chair Lewis to present that report. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, with regard to the 16th report of the Corporate Services Committee, I have not been made aware of any items that individuals wish to be called separately. I will, however, note with regard to the item regarding the British home children proclamation, there was a question raised at Council.

Ms. Corman and I can confirm that we did reach out to the London constituents and the proclamation does include her support for this to answer the committee’s questions at the time. So there is a London sponsor for that proclamation. Okay, so you’re willing to move all of them, but does anybody want anything dealt with separately from the Corporate Services Committee?

Don’t say anybody need anything separately, so you move the entire block chair. Any discussion on any of the matters that are before us, now all of them moved? Seeing none, then we’ll open the Corporate Services Committee report for voting. Closing the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, 8.2, the 14th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. Turn it over to Councillor Ploza to present. Thank you, Your Worship.

It’s a pleasure to put the 14th report of the Community of the Services Committee on the floor, but with item five being 4.1, Community and Neighborhood Safety and Security Concerns Options for Agency staff, all tiers in those accessing services as Councillor McAllister has a small amendment for that one. So five will be dealt with separately. Does anyone else want anything else separated from the one to four block? Go ahead, Councillor.

Okay, thank you. So the remaining items, we did hold two public participation meetings, one which would remove body Rob Parler license and reduce the count in the city of London by one. And the main one of the evening with the most participants were the vehicle for higher Biola amendments information report that was item four. The key takeaways are that with committee is in 2024, the accessible vehicle tax the license fees will be waived.

The city of London currently has 11 taxis that accessible and we’re hoping to entice drivers to add to that fleet number. We’re gonna be increasing the number, the age of the vehicle from the current 10 year cutoff limit to 12. And a report back coming from staff will look at an environmental scan and neighboring municipalities to see if there’s any concerns in increasing that number to 15 years as the industry is requesting that, noting that different vehicles come into their fleet at different ages. And sometimes older vehicles are actually in better service with lower kilometers than other ones.

Thank you. Any other comments on items one through four? Go ahead Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I mentioned the set committee. This is regarding 8.23 fully support the motion that’s coming forward here and the sentiments that I read in the newspaper and on social media. We have a commitment to the safety of well-being in girls, women and girls. And this is an alignment.

And I just wondered with the winter response under delegated authority, we funded a women’s shelter that supports sex workers. And I just wanted again to just clarification as to what direction this council or like just confirmation. I guess what is my question? Councillor, I don’t understand what that has to do with the business licensing by-law amendments for this particular location.

That’s another matter that you could talk about a committee, but it’s not, this is a matter before us, very specific to a license with a by-law that the committee has made a recommendation on. Yes, and it is pertinent to a strategic focus that we’ve chosen for the next four years as well as a commitment to safety and well-being of women and girls listening to what the London Abuse Women’s Center made public comments regarding the risk that that puts to women. I just wanted to, I guess, highlight that, that that is a strategic focus item for council. And we need to make sure that all decisions and all funding decisions that we make is in alignment with that focus.

Okay, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I do have a question around 3.2 vehicles for hire by-law amendments information report that is coming back to us. I did not view the committee meeting and maybe it was discussed.

I could see there was a conversation to be had a committee and directing staff for a report back given the need for accessibility taxis in out city. We only have 11, we most likely need twice that amount for a growing city. Just wondering what we can expect in the report back and when we can expect the report back. Go ahead, Mr.

Mathers. Through Your Worship, so there was some changes to the recommendation that was brought forward and we said we were comfortable with those changes. So it was extending a timeline from 10 years to 12 years. One of the other pieces that were requested was us to take a look at whether that could even be extended further to 15 years up to that.

So we committed to bring back an analysis of the surrounding municipalities just to see if there’s any municipalities offering that opportunity to people. So we’d also take back anything else that we heard at the meeting to bring forward some future options to support accessible tax service in the future. Go ahead, Councillor. Yeah, and if I may, just to follow up, any, just expecting when this report comes back to us.

Just the expected timeline, generally. Through Chair, through Your Worship. So expect a timeline at this point would likely be Q1 of 2024. First quarter of 2024.

Okay, that’s all the speakers I have for items one through four. It’s moved by the Chair. We will open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Chair Palosa. Thank you. I will now put item five being 4.1, the community neighborhood safety and security concerns options for agency staff volunteers and those accessing services on the floor, noting that it was a good conversation at committee discussing what needs to be done in the community and noting that Councillor McAllister has a small amendment who would like to propose to part C. So the Chair has put the item on the floor.

Councillor McAllister, you’re looking to speak, go ahead. Thank you and through you. This is in relation to item 4.1, clause C. In terms of changing the wording, it would be, it would read as the additional programs identified to support safety and security in hotspot service request areas, additional coordinated informed response programming and street cleaning to be accommodated within the existing housing stability services, budget be endorsed.

In terms of the intention behind this amendment, recognizing the original intention of the motion, I think anyone would debate that all these village has its challenges. Before Councillor, you’re moving it. I’m just gonna get your seconder confirmation, then you can make your debate case on it. Councillor Ferri, you’re willing to second?

Okay, it’s moved and seconded. This is amendment to that piece. We’ll get the language up on the screen so colleagues can read the amendment, but you can go ahead and make your case for the amendment now. Thank you and again, through you.

This is just recognizing that our coordinated informed response, which is very important, should be allocated according to hotspots service request areas. I do believe that we shouldn’t limit ourselves. I do understand the challenges specifically in Ward 4, but I do think that we shouldn’t geographically limit the CIR response and that’s why I made that amendment. Thank you.

Okay, I can start as speakers list for the amendment, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I agree with Councillor McAllister in that the CIR is a valued service and relevant for many areas of the city. This specific motion was addressing the security costs at 602 Queens, which meant you’ve got a social service agency that is attracting a large number of unhoused individuals and then we’re paying for security to not allow them on that property, which the taxpayers pay for and have them go across Adelaide Street into the municipal parking lot.

So the reason it was specified in Old East Village is because of this specific funding request around security. I had requested something to support to allow the security to happen there without the impacts directly across Adelaide Street. Given that the security is also for Hamilton Road, I’d be open to it saying Old East Village area and Hamilton Road because the security that we’re paying for is on both of those areas. And so the mitigating factors would be for both of those areas.

So I’m wondering if Councillor McAllister would be open to that change so that we could keep it tight in terms of this additional CIR team. I am for expanding CIR tremendously when it comes to budget time for hotspot areas across the city, which will probably be relevant if the hubs are passed. But in this particular case, I’d like it to be specific to the mitigating factors to the security at London Cares. Okay, other speakers on the amendment, Councillor Ferreira.

Thank you. And thank you for the Councillor for Ward 1 for bringing this. I think the Councillor of Ward 4 said it hotspots, hotspots is the word, which is why we thought it would be appropriate to use that type of language because it’s not just hotspots in Ward 1 or hotspots in Ward 4 or hotspots in Ward 13. It’s hotspots citywide.

So I worry, as I said at the committee meeting about the flexibility and how that would be constrained for the CIR increased compliment if they were only to be focusing on all these villager certain specific areas. Again, we say this again, but it’s, we got to vote on items before us for the city wide. So I would like to maybe ask some questions about the flexibility for the CIR compliment to the deputy city manager. So I just wanted to know, if would the flexibility be constrained for that extra compliment if it was just focused on one area like all these villager, an area in all the OEV or Ward 1, or would it be more appropriate to use the word hotspot so the flexibility is not constrained for that compliment when it’s needed citywide?

So I’m not gonna ask Mr. Dickens to talk about the appropriateness of your motion, but he can answer the other questions you’ve asked in relation to it. Thank you, Your Worship and through you. What was in the committee report was a direct reflection of the ask of civic administration to go out and look at options.

If we were to create a dedicated additional compliment CIR team, and it was focused specifically in that area surrounding that wood field, old East Village area, we would wanna make sure that that team is concentrated there to fully commit to what was in the staff report. That would mean that our ability to call on that team to go and address other urgent calls and urgent matters. They would not be at our disposal to do that. We would wanna make the commitment to that area.

The hotspots throughout the city, we do have a number of them. They span, I’m sure as you all know, because we receive your emails on them. They span across the city and across many wards, including 13, Ward 4, and the like 6, 13, and Ward 1 as well as the mover noted. So we do have a number of hotspots that do require a lot of our CIR time and attention.

We also have areas that are more proactively addressed, more of a no go zone or low no tolerance. And those are really densely populated public parks, public spaces, but it also includes private property. So essentially what we have is a CIR team right now that is being pulled across all corners of the city, responding to an increase in the number of service requests, and to increase, respond to an increase in the number of hotspots. Having a dedicated team will address the acute concerns identified in the oldies village area, but it would limit us from being able to use that team to address the growing concerns throughout the city.

Thank you for that. So everyone has said the word here, hotspots, which I feel is the most appropriate. We don’t wanna limit the flexibility of an increased compliment to one area of the city. We could find ourselves in a situation where we have that compliment in that specific geographic location when the services are needed in other areas.

So this is why I think we should be amending the language to change for hotspots. That’s why I’m seconding this motion and I’m hoping that we can pass it. Okay, other council you’ve already spoken to this matter, it’s council. So other speakers, councilor Pribble, go ahead.

I agree with the proposed motion. The only thing is I want to make sure a couple of things. Let me talk directly to this motion. I do agree that we should include the area of Ward 1 as well.

And I know if the hotspots is the right word or we just specified the areas directly influenced by this motion, by this area, by this initiative. But I did, even though staff and Mr. Dickens already mentioned it, I do wanna reiterate that because of passing this motion, whichever we are gonna use the words that really the rest of the city is not gonna be kind of overlooked by the CIR. That’s the only things I wanna make sure and I just wanna get a potentially another assurance for Mr.

Dickens that the other areas are not overlooked. As for this motion, I do think we should include the areas of Ward 1, not just to Hamilton Road. Because again, you have streets, roads, east and west of Hamilton Road, south stories, mainly south and north, but bottom line is if we can come up with the words, the affected areas, not just Hamilton Road and not just hotspots. Thank you, Mr.

Dickens. Thank you and through you, your worship. Happy to take any, if there’s clarification required on my part. So I believe the question was, if we were to concentrate this team on Old East Village, would we be able to still address the other hotspots?

Is that correct? Okay, perfect. So yeah, so right now we have our CIR complement. What’s proposing this report is that we use one time available funds to increase our CIR complement through until the end of March.

That team that would be created through to the end of March would focus specifically on Old East Village. With or without that team, we would still have our existing CIR complement. That is trying to respond to a number of those, no fly, no go zones in terms of public sidewalks, roads, private property, as well as addressing the hotspots. What’s been a challenge for us is that the number of service requests that have come through service London have stretched what started as a very core area specific program years ago into a response that were going out east of the Argyle area and west of the block.

So we’re spread throughout the city. So again, we will maintain our existing CIR complement and try to address those service concerns and those call volumes. If we had an additional team, it would be through until the end of March with existing budget focused specifically on Old East Village. To the earlier question around flexibility, we would not be using that team to help address those other call volumes.

Thank you very much for the detailed answer. And I’m very satisfied with the answer. Thank you, Mr. Dickens.

I think it’s not Councillor Troe’s side. Did you have your hand up? Thank you and through the chair. I’m just trying to understand what the downside of using the term hotspot is.

‘Cause it just seems to me, and correct me where I’m wrong, it just adds a certain amount of flexibility, understanding that circumstances often change and certain issues might emerge in certain areas. And this would just provide a little bit of extra flexibility. So I’m not sure why this is controversial. And if I’m missing something about the evil that will be done by putting in the word hotspot, I’d like to better understand what that is.

Councillor, I don’t know if your question was rhetorical or you were actually asking it to someone. Sometimes there’s debate where you ask a question, but you’re not actually asking it to anyone. I think that my answer would best be, my question would best be answered by person who raised the point. So yeah, I think so.

Okay, I’m not— - What’s possible? I will allow it because you’re asking a question and you’re a counselor. What I’m not gonna get into is having someone then redubate something. So I’ll have Councillor Steem as an answer.

Councillor Trost has a question, and then I’ll come back to you. I’m finished. - If she’s willing. Councillors don’t have to answer the Councillor’s questions, it’s up to them.

I’m simply asking the question that I’m done. Okay, thank you. I am so willing, thank you. The reason why it matters here is what was asked was for us to fund 24/7 security at a particular location to keep the encampments and the tents and the unhoused off of that property.

And what it resulted in is they shifted across Adelaide Street into the municipal parking lot. So this, my request here, which I really did everything I could to beg for in the committee was the mitigating factor would be. We put a CRR team in that exact spot just to mitigate that funding request. So that’s the reason why it was specified to Ollie’s Village and not hotspots around the city, which is a whole nother business case.

Councillor Trost, that was the answer to your question. Just to say the fact that people are moving around sort of leads me to think the hotspots is probably a good idea. But thank you for that information. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship and through you. I would be the last person to say that the work for Councilor isn’t at the ground zero of hotspots right now. I think that that is absolutely true of Ollie’s Village at the moment. That said, I have had hotspots in Ward 2 and well, I am not asking for that additional compliment to be sent out to Ward 2 at this time either.

I have been around and paying attention long enough to recall back in the before times by which I mean, creep pandemic when under a different leadership, let in police services used to conduct blitzes in certain areas of the city targeting sex work. And the result of those blitzes meant that problem would move from Ollie’s Village to Hamilton Road. And then it would move when the next blitz came to Hamilton Road, it would move out to Argyle. And then when the blitz came to Argyle, it would move back to the Ollie’s Village.

And that was the nature of essentially almost a game of guacamole in terms of trying to enforce certain things that the London Police Service felt that they needed to do enforcement blitzes on. And so for me, from what I’ve heard from Mr. Dickens with regard to this being very specific to the OEV and that there wouldn’t be added flexibility, my concern is that if we add staff and the hotspot moves from Ollie’s Village into the downtown, which is quite possible, or over to Hamilton Road, which is quite possible, or out to Argyle, which would not be the first time it’s happened, that we wouldn’t have the flexibility to respond to that movement. So what I did want to ask through you, Chair, to Mr.

Dickens, in terms of the flexibility piece is if this team is going to be dedicated specifically to the OEV area and only working there. And I recognize that there is a value to team members coming to know individuals and perhaps be better to de-escalate them when they have an established trust relationship. But does that free up other components of the CIR to respond to concerns in other hotspot areas? Or in fact, will we continue to be deploying those as we typically are on a first-come-first serve basis, knowing that there’s a ridiculous number of service requests right now?

So I don’t know if Mr. Dickens can indicate whether this would allow more flexibility for the standard CIR responses or if it is really not going to change his answer previously in terms of the flexibility. And, Councillor, just because I see— I want you to be specific about what you’re— sorry, let me stop your time. I want you to be specific because we have an amendment that is a change.

Sounds to me like you’re asking about the original motion, which helps you decide on the amendment. But I just want to make sure Mr. Dickens knows what you’re asking. You’re asking about is there flexibility if the council proceeded with the committee’s recommendation, not the amendment, right?

OK. I just wanted to be clear so that the answer you’re getting is the question you’re asking Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Through you, Your Worship, the way the CIR calls are handled and the request made through service London is not necessarily a first-come-first serve.

So the flexibility notion is a really difficult one. So each call is triaged and evaluated to determine what needs an immediate response, be it the specific location that that call is coming from or where that concern is specifically located. Some of the environmental factors that might be at play, such as a floodplain in terms of that location. So the flexibility that could be created by having the same team stay in the same area day in day out is possible, but really we’re responding to calls through a bit of a triage system.

So it’s not really, hey, if I have the same team here, that frees everybody else up in terms of outreach and roads, crews, and other CIR staff. We currently have extended our team of four municipal law enforcement officers to six. What is proposed in the report is we would add two more to that complement to make it eight. So two would remain in that oldies village dedicated service level, and we would have our six, which two are also temporary, to address those other hotspots.

So we’re trying to be as flexible in response as we can, but it’s a triage system, and each is evaluated on its own merit. Okay, I appreciate that answer. I do understand what you’re saying. It’s not a first-come, first-serve, ‘cause the triage level impacts what is first in terms of response.

So I’m not sure if that leaves me any more confident in the original versus the proposed change, because I do support the idea of flexibility, but I also recognize that right now, the biggest need is in OEV. So I guess I’m gonna listen to what others have to say on this. I see the value of the flexibility in hotspots, but I know where the ground zero problem is right now. So trying to weigh those two considerations in my mind.

Thank you. Other speakers to this, and Councillor McAlister, since you have the amendment on the floor, you also get to stand and join Councillor Flosa until the amendments dealt with, so just let you know. I have nobody else on the speakers list for this. Councillor Ferrer, you spoke to the amendment, try.

Anybody who hasn’t spoken? I see, so Councillor, you don’t get to ask a question. You are, as the mover at the end of the debate, allowed to reply, but your reply needs to be restricted to essentially explaining a material part of your speech or a motion that may have been misquoted or misunderstood by members of council. So if it relates to that, I’ll allow it, but technically, you don’t get to wrap up or anything like that.

Oh, you had an answer to the question that, for your answer, okay, that’ll allow, but just don’t get into debating twice on it. So what’s the answer? Sorry, could Councillor Trosto repeat his question that he had asked? Sorry, it’s just a question about the reason about, yes, Councillor, you’re, your, Councillor, I don’t want, I would prefer not to do that.

That’s like, that’s to me, feels like debating again. If you feel like something that was said or asked is misunderstood about the intent of your motion, use the reply to explain that piece of the intent of your motion. That would be an appropriate use of your time at this point, given the procedure bylaws. So it sounds to me like you have additional information that may be related on a better understanding of your motion.

So if you could stick to that pretty tightly, then I’ll let you go ahead. Yes, thank you through you. Yes, it is just to add some clarity because it was raised and it does speak to the Councillor’s earlier question in terms of being tied to the two locations. To me, Horton Street, it’s outside what I would deem the parameters of all these village.

And as other Councillors have indicated, those geographical boundaries is the issue that I have because the services, as we’ve indicated, do not believe are limited to all these village. And I do think that we have to have services directed according to the demand. And with the two addresses, Horton would directly impact Hamilton Road and my work. That’s all I wanted to add.

So that was the Councillor’s clarification through the rarely used reply piece at the end. With that, there’s an amendment that’s moved and seconded and we’ve had debate. It’s the amendment to change it from specifically all these village to hot spots. So that’s what we’re gonna vote on.

So I’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries eight to seven. Okay, so I now need a mover for the as amended motion. Councillor Palosa, willing to do it.

Okay, as amended motion is now on the floor. So this is the exact same as the committee’s report with the change of, oh, I need a seconder for an as amended motion. My apologies to Councillor Ferra, go ahead. As amended, I don’t have any other further speakers.

The as amended motion, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanted to say thank you to my fellow committee members and to staff. I appreciated them taking the time to re-look at this situation, to come back with options. I was very pleased with the additional CIR team.

It was greatly appreciated by all these village area. It is a delicate balance, this serving the people and at the same time, making sure it’s not at the expense of our businesses and our neighborhoods. And in the meantime, I really did appreciate the willingness to stop, pause the funding, re-look at things, come back with options. And I just wanted to say thank you to my colleagues and to city staff for that.

It is very much appreciated. I know there’s speakers on the as amended motion. So we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

Thank you, and that concludes the four to three port of the community, which is services committee. Okay, next we have the Board of the Civic Works Committee. I have Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you.

The committee met for the 13th meeting of Civic Works on September 12th. In front of you, you have the agenda package for that meeting. We dealt with items 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 for consent. And we had an item for direction, 4.1, or the ninth report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee.

I’m looking to move items on the Civic Works Agenda numbers that’s not, I hope it’s not confusing, or maybe I should use the numbers in front of me. Sorry, I’ll look to move items 1, 2, 3, 4. And I did not have anyone pull any items for as of now, but I will check and see if anyone else. Okay, so you wanna just do one, the four?

Yeah, one, four, and six. I was gonna do one, four, and six, just two. I’m looking at the, I’m sorry, I’m looking at the council agenda, that’s my. Yeah, I haven’t had any notification pull any items, so I’ll do one to five.

Okay, so that’s the whole thing. Does anybody want anything from the Civic Works Committee dealt with separately? Nothing, okay. Then, chairs, we’ll move in the motion.

Thank you, yes, I’m moving that motion. Great, any discussion for the Civic Works Committee report? Okay, seeing none, we can open that for voting. Motion to vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you, that concludes my report. Thank you very much, I have the 22nd report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting. I’ll have Deputy Mayor Lewis present that report. Thank you, Your Worship.

If it looks like I’m sitting down momentarily, it’s ‘cause my computer screen keeps going off, so I have to keep looking down to see what is happening there, but I am going to move the 22nd report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. I am going to pull item 10, that’s the consideration of appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors, as I know that was a divided vote, and I suspect there may be colleagues who wish to vote differently on that item, so I’m just gonna pull that proactively. I’m not aware of any other items that require a separate vote, so I’m prepared to remove, prepared to move one through 13, excluding 10. Would anybody like anything else dealt with separately on that report?

Right now, only the hydro appointments are dealt with separately. So you’ve moved the motion for one through 12 with the exclusion of 10, any discussion, comments on any of those? Just that it’s one through 13. Oh, excluding 10.

Yes, that was my error, sorry, I’m looking. I flipped the regular agenda, not the added, so. Okay, I do have a comment, so Councillor Lehman, maybe you can take the chair. I’ll go to the mayor.

I just wanted to, and I said it’s a committee, but I wanted to repeat it here at council. London has approved Housing Accelerator Fund report outlining that tremendous opportunity for our city to take action on housing. I know even last night we had a debate about the work that we’re doing on homelessness, and time and time again, we have the issue of affordability come up in that debate. And so the Housing Accelerator Fund is really a phenomenal opportunity of partnership between us and the federal government, much like we partnered on RHI projects and the many other funding streams at the provincial level for us to make some of those gains on affordability.

And I know everybody, everybody who participated on the staff side and pulling together that application quickly and accurately for council for approving it through our process, and of course for all of the back and forth work to ensure that we had the opportunity for the prime minister of the country to make the announcement and us be very first in being announced for our Housing Accelerator Fund. You look at the ministers and the way he’s going across the country now using our submission as an example and trying to get other municipalities to be as aggressive on housing and their submissions as we were. This is going to be an opportunity for us to create more units in our city, more units that have general affordability, more units that have deep affordability, more partnerships, more opportunities to speed up our processes, more opportunities to bring housing to fruition quicker, opportunities to engage in new and innovative programs that we may not have tried before, like incentivization in transit corridors, working with our educational institution partners to ensure that there are places for students to live who are coming to our city. The Housing Accelerator Fund is a phenomenal opportunity to do that and for me, one of the greatest things having seen for years, the types of federal funding and provincial funding programs come forward with tons of strings attached to them, the flexibility built into this program that although we have defined a framework that we work within, that we have some actual on the ground flexibility to shift the resources to where we’re creating some units.

Obviously that’ll be done in consultation with council, but we have a plan, it’s a solid plan, but ultimately our goal is to create more units than we otherwise would have with this. And I think we’ve got a great staff team, some great innovative thinkers who are going to really do some things that we know are tried and true and work very well in the city to deliver housing, but also improve some processes and try some new things and see if we can accelerate things even more. And all this will also support us in our commitment to be part of the province’s desire to create 1.5 million homes. And I’ll tell you the way the province announced the additional funding that may be made available for new municipalities who exceed their annual provincial targets.

Having this money early on to get it deployed quickly puts us in a good position to potentially take advantage of going above and beyond our targets in certain years and maybe even getting more money from the province, which can only then accelerate our opportunity to create more housing. So I wanted to just say thank you to council, thank you to staff, thank you to the federal government for this partnership and now the hard work starts about actually getting units created over the next three years more than we did. So thank you very much for letting me say a few words on that. I’ll return to chair to the mayor.

Thank you. So we have everything except number 10. Go ahead, councilor Trossa. I think what you just said was just so valuable and important I’d be remiss if I didn’t add my kudos to the staff here, to the chair, did I hear you correctly when you said that the other, that the prime minister is using our template with other jurisdictions?

I better turn the chair over to councilor Lehman to answer a question. So go ahead, mayor. Yes, well, you can see if you look at what the minister’s doing. He’s posting similar letters to what he wrote to us.

He is talking in other municipalities, I know, ‘cause I’m getting the text from mayors from those municipalities about the leadership that London took and saying, this is the direction London’s going. We want you to be a little more bold than maybe your application that’s been submitted. I know Mr. May, this is probably hearing similar things from his colleagues, he’s nodding.

And so, yes, the answer is yes. We are being used as an example on how to be a little more aggressive than maybe the applications that came in. And I want to say, I also thank council for making some adjustments even in response for application, which I think was a bold and needed move by this council to set that leadership role. Can we get a little licensing fee from all the other jurisdictions that used your work?

But seriously, the question I did want to ask in seriousness, I think that this gives us so much flexibility that is uncharacteristic from getting this kind of money. And we’re going to have a lot of work to do in order to sort of live up to the expectation. But I just think that this was, the one thing that bothered me, if I may, is that there were press accounts of people saying, well, this was nothing new, this was an announcement that was made a long time ago, there was nothing new here. And there was something new here.

Because to those of us in London, this is very significant. So for people who were saying this was just a photo op for funding, it was very significant to us here in London. And I hope that that point is made very strongly. Thank you.

And assuming no other questions will be coming to the mayor, I’ll turn the chair back to the mayor. Okay, any other speakers on the entire committee report? Except for a number, 10, of course. Okay, see none, we’ll open that for voting.

Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues, and through you, your worship, I’ll now put item 10, the consideration of appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors on the floor with the committee recommendation. Okay, the chair has put the committee recommendation on the floor. I can look to any speakers for this matter.

Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, and through the chair, I have a couple of questions. When the board did their recommendations, was there any conflict declared? Councillor, I’m not sure I can answer your question.

There’s, that would be a question for, I think, London Hydro, since it was their process, and I don’t have the answer to that top of my head. I believe Councillor Ramen said she could answer the questions we had for the board. I don’t know if she’s willing to do that today. I’ll just, I’ll go to Councillor Ramen, but I will say I know Councillor Ramen has made that off in the past.

I do not believe if she’s sitting as a counselor here, if she chooses to answer and provide information as some Councillors sitting as Councillors do on behalf of their board, she can. So obligation for her to speak on behalf of the board, if she’s not the spokesperson, but I can go to her. But she has, as well within her rights to say, I don’t speak on behalf of the board. So I’ll see if Councillor Ramen has any information, but it is, I just wanna be very clear to colleagues.

Colleagues who may serve on boards are not obligated to come here and speak on behalf of those boards. Thank you and through you. I have been asked this question previously when we first did the interview, sorry, when we first looked at this, I think back in April, and at the time, and again, I don’t speak on behalf of London Hydro, but no conflicts were declared. Thank you.

Councillor Stevenson. One other question, possibly, for Councillor Ramen, if she’s willing to answer it, is that just did everyone vote, or was there any abstains or absence? Your choice to answer Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you, I need more specifics.

If she’s, what exactly are you asking for the interview process, the vote for recommendations? I’m trying to recall that we, yeah, there was no abstentions. Okay, thank you. This process and what has transpired through this process, I have some concerns about it.

And it got me looking into London Hydro, and I noticed on the website, it says that there’s a single shareholder, which is the city of London, and the website says that basically all Londoners own London Hydro. So when I look now at the process where we have delegated to the board this process that they went through to bring forward recommendations, and the strength with which those recommendations came, I’m just a little concerned about the governance there when the board, which is responsible for control and management, is then choosing its own board members basically, and it doesn’t have that independence. So I’m wondering if a resident even had a concern about the financial statements and maybe a policy choice that was made on a certain complex financial matter, do we know what the process would be for that person to bring that forward? So Councilor, that’s not the matter that’s before us now.

The matter before us is the appointments to the London Hydro Board of Directors. You kind of started your comments in that space asking questions about the way that citizens ask questions of the board is not within the confines of us appointing some board members. So the board becomes for us to refer reports. The board comes for us through the shareholders meeting.

There are opportunities to engage with them at that point. We have made invitations to boards in the past to come and speak to us. But the recommendation from committee is specifically appointing these members. And so I don’t want to move into a bunch of other questions about London Hydro on the process.

Certainly those processes can be changed and modified in the way that Council does stuff. As we’ve said in the past, irrespective of when we ask a board in commission to make a recommendation as we have with Hydro or we have with London Community Middlesex Housing, it’s up to us to decide whether we want to do that or not. It’s up to us to decide whether we want to end that or not. But ultimately all those recommendations come back for the full approval of Council, which is why.

We have this motion before us today because this is fully a decision that we can make. Anyway, we want people to vote for it or against it. Doesn’t matter who’s recommended what. That is our power and our decision making that we have before us.

So I don’t want to get into questions of a general nature of asking questions about London’s hydro processes because essentially we’re here to do the appointments. And I want to keep it tight to that particular matter. Yeah, and I understand that. And yet the appointment of the board members is all about corporate governance and financial governance and oversight.

And so we acting on behalf of all Londoners are appointing people to a board to ensure the shareholders best interests. And that’s a big responsibility when we’re the only shareholder. We’re representing the entire city of London in their ownership of London Hydro. There’s a small board that provides governance and oversight.

And if that board’s recommendations are more than recommendations, because in committee, in the first committee, we chose two people. One was recommended, one was not. It’s important, I think, that council has the right to make the appointments. As you said, we can vote any way that we want.

And the question that I asked is relevant in my vote to know what is the proper procedure so that I can determine who I want to vote for. And if I’m happy with the appointments that are currently before council. Okay, so it’s rooted in your decision making. Can you ask, can you just let me know the question you’re asking again?

And I’ll try to answer if you can make a decision on the board point. Yeah, if there was a concern about the choices made around a complex financial reporting decision, what is the professional proper path for someone to take? Or council or for a member of the public? No, well, for a member of the public.

I’m not an expert in corporate governance, so I don’t know if Mr. Card has anything he can add about any processes. I know he doesn’t, he’s not the solicitor for London Hydro, but Mr. Card, I don’t know if you have anything to add on that question.

We may not just not have the answer here today, but I’ll see if you have anything that you can add. Thank you, worship. The London Hydro is subject to a rate review process periodically by the Ontario Energy Board. And in connection with its rate application, it does provide a considerable amount of financial information.

So my suggestion would be that anyone who is interested in the finances of London Hydro, first of all, contact London Hydro to determine what information is already publicly available. And there is a considerable amount of it because it goes into the detail of how much we pay for electricity. So I think unlike many business corporations, LHI is required to undergo this kind of public scrutiny and approval for its rate application. So I hope that helps your worship.

It does, thank you. And if the, through the chair, if the board was not responsive, would the next place be the shareholders? I’ll have Mr. Card answer this one, but I feel a little bit like we’re getting away from the appointments, so I’ll do this one.

And then we’ll go, we’ll move forward. Go ahead, Mr. Card. Thank you, Your Worship.

Well, London Hydro reports periodically to the shareholder. And in that meeting environment, members of council are able to ask questions of London Hydro about its financial performance, for example. I recommend that as the forum for those kinds of questions on the part of council. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I would like to make a motion to refer this to the next meeting. Yes, a referral is a motion that can be in order at council. So I would need a seconder for the motion to refer.

Can you just be specific about the meeting you’d like to refer to, just so it’s not an open to referral? Yeah, then the next SPPC. So refer it back to SPPC. ‘Cause we’re at council now.

So you don’t want to refer it to another council, you want to refer it back to SPPC. Yes, SPPC. Okay. Second.

Okay, a referral of the appointments of London Hydro to SPPC moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconder by Councillor Trossau. So I will start a new speaker’s list on the referral. Did you want to make your case for the referral now? I’m just reminding you to speak once.

You can wait if you’d like the referrals on the floor. So I’ll see who would like to speak to the referral. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yes, your worship to the referral.

I would like to know reasons why the referral I heard from the Councillor that she will be speaking to it at the end. So I’ll just wait. That’s fine. Councillor’s gonna provide her comments later in the debate.

She can jump in at any time she’d like, but we all get to speak once. So it’s your choice. I’m not gonna do it. Okay, Councillor Trossau, you go ahead.

I’ll try to answer this. In order for me to give a full response to this very good question, I believe I would need to refer to matters that came up in closed session and I don’t want to do that. So I feel as if that’s a legitimate question. As the last question was about where would one go?

I would have had a much fuller explanation for why that was a relevant question, but that again would involve talking about things that happened in closed session, which I’m not willing to do. So I feel as if I share the concerns and I feel as if I’m at somewhat of a disadvantage in terms of laying them all out on the table right now and I think I’m going to arrow on the side of not answering that question, fuller in more detail, but I do think in my mind that I’m going to support the referral, thank you. Okay, other speakers, Councillor Frank, go ahead. Thank you, I’d like to put the question on this.

Okay, so yes, Councillor Frank, you mean all the requirements to put the question on this? So for colleagues, the question will be for us is that the question now will be put. The result of that is that the debate ends and we move immediately to a vote on the matter. It requires two thirds of the members present to pass.

So the clerk will let us know if that happens or not. And there’s no debate and he can’t amend it. And so we will consider that motion now. So given this is a typical motion, is there a seconder for putting the question?

There is, Councillor Flosa. Okay, so that motion is prepared and we will open it for voting. Worship question, we are voting for the referral or? You’re voting to end debate.

So if you say yes, debate is over and we go immediately to the vote after. That’s all we’re voting on right now. Closing the vote, motion carried 11 to four. Okay, so the motion to put the question is successful, which means we will now immediately move to the vote for the matter that is before us on the floor.

The debate is over and we’ll open that for voting. This is, oh sorry, I will clarify this, people know. The question has been put on the referral. So this is the question of referring this, right?

Not on the appointments, the question to refer this to a future SPPC, that is the matter which we are voting on now. Closing the vote, motion fails for two 11. Okay, so the referral may, motion has failed. Okay, so the main motion is on the floor about the appointments, which is the SPPC’s committee recommendation that the deputy mayor put on the floor, I’ll take speakers to that.

So Councillor, with the utmost respect and inconference with the clerk, you spoke to the motion, asked a number of questions, then you moved the referral. And so once you’ve spoken the matter and taken an action, you don’t get to speak to it again and then make multiple motions. So I’m going to, and you can challenge the chair, I’m gonna rule that you have spoken to the matter so you can’t make an additional amendment now as per the procedure by-law under 9.8. The council would like to challenge the chair’s ruling that she’s already spoken to this matter.

Okay, we’re gonna get up to the challenge of the chair motion. People know what my ruling is, it’s fairly clear the council is challenging it. So the effect of that is if you just one second and you get the wording from the procedure by-law. Okay, so the question before us will be, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

If you vote yes, you support my ruling that Councillor Stephen says I already spoken and she will not speak again if you vote no. My ruling is overturned. The effect of that would be Councillor Stephen Sink and speak again and introduce the amendment. So we’ll open that for voting.

Yes, so the way that wording is worded, is shall the ruling of the chair be sustained, which means if you vote yes, you agree with my ruling. If you vote no, then you disagree with it. Opposing the vote, motion carries 11 to four. So my ruling is sustained, the councilor has spoken, I’ll go to others on the speakers who have not spoken yet, any other speakers.

Seeing none, then we’re back to the original community recommendation for approval. There’s no other speakers. This is on the appointments to the London Hydro Board. We’ll open that for voting.

Opposing the vote, motion carries 12 to three. I think that concludes the report, Deputy Mayor. That does conclude the 22nd report of SPPC. Let me just as I look through my agenda, let me just make just a comment for colleagues procedurally.

I want you to know, I honestly never take any offense to the challenging the chair. In fact, if you feel like I’ve made a ruling that you haven’t, you welcome to challenge that. It is a decision-making mechanism in our procedure by-law. Sometimes you have to make a call base in the by-law.

Council has the ability to disagree with that, and that’s the mechanism we go through, but I want people to know, I openly welcome that, when you feel that there’s a different ruling that should be made, and I take no offense, nor I think should anybody chairing at any time do so. It is a right and a procedure to help us move through the decision-making process. The next report is the 14th report of the Planning and Environment Committee. I’ll turn it over to Chair Layman.

Thank you, Mayor. I’ll be presenting the 14th report of the Planning and Environment Committee. I’ll be pulling number eight, regarding 1515 truss acts. I have, I’ve had no other requests for anything else to be pulled.

Anybody like anything else pulled? Seeing none, so you’ll like- I’ll put the entire report on the floor excluding number eight. Okay, any comments or discussion on those items? Thank you, just a very quick comment on 8.56, which is 447 Ashland Ave.

The area is so looking forward to some development happening in that old McCormick property. So we’re celebrating this moving forward, looking forward to the rest of it as soon as possible, but this is a great, great news for this area, great news for the seniors who are looking forward to that new long-term care. So thanks to staff, this is good news. Any other speakers to the items that are before us?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Sorry, Councilwoman, go ahead.

Thank you. I’ll put number eight, 3.4 or 1515 truss acts on the floor now. Okay, that’s put on the floor, Councilor. Is this the one that has the go-ahead Councilor Hopkins?

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. This is a zoning application for landfill development in the area. I didn’t support it at Council. Just because I felt very strongly that the amenity space and the bay lay-by was important to the development.

And it was taken off in the recommendation. We heard loud and clear from the public the need for more parking in the area. That was one of the reasons for the change in the amendment. So I would like to add a friendly amendment to that amendment to request.

And this is going through a site plan process. And obviously we cannot direct staff what to do through the site plan process. But we have requested that they look at reducing the amenity space and to allow for more parking on the ground floor. But there’s also underground parking in the plan as well.

And my amendment to the recommendation is to look at underground parking for increasing parking space, just adding that to the recommendation. So I’m hoping Council can support it. It was a difficult conversation to have for me because as we intensify, we need extra space outside. But we heard loud and clear from the community that parking is needed in this site as well.

And I would encourage that we also look at underground parking. There is a plan and to review it through the site plan process. I’m hoping my colleagues can support that as well. Okay, so thank you, Councilor, for submitting some language on that.

I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for Councilor Hopkins amendment. Sorry, Councilor Frank, yes, okay. So that’s moved and seconded. We’ll get that up on the screen.

Just because I don’t think you said the exact wording of the amendment, I might just have the clerk readout. I might just have you do it. The Worship, I do have it here. Oh, you do?

Can you read out just the exact wording? Yeah, so the amendment is to add a II to the changes in the recommendation, increased capacity in the underground parking, just directing or requesting staff to look at it through the site plan process. Okay, any debate or discussion on that? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship, through you. I won’t be supporting this amendment. I don’t want to frankly ask staff to put in more time and energy onto a recommendation that they’ve already brought forward, where we know that the underground, and where we actually at Planning Committee removed a referral to the site plan approval authority because we are at capacity here. And we know, this is no secret to anyone around this horseshoe, that if you’re going to ask for the addition of underground parking, it is at a considerable cost to the applicant.

It will decrease affordability. And ultimately, at the site plan approval process, when it’s requested to consider, they can simply say, we can’t do it. So we’re asking staff to put in work on whether or not underground parking should could potentially be increased when we’ve already heard from the developer that that is a no. And we heard that at committee.

So I’m not going to ask staff to do work over again that they’ve already done even through the site plan process. Any other speakers? Councillor Lehman, go ahead. Yeah, just to give some context here, we were presented with a development where there are certain number of spots allocated, less than a one to one ratio for each unit.

There was thought that we should take surface parking away to provide more green space. We heard from the gallery and from residents, especially those that lived right beside this development that had a townhouse complex which parking, many spaces apart of their parking, that their concern was, if there’s not enough parking at this, people will just be parking in their spots over there. And they did use one example of the engineers that were there working on the property, actually did park in that townhouse development. And as far as green space, just in the other side of that condo development or townhouse development, there’s a park.

So I think what we have to do when we’re doing all this in film, we have these PPMs. We’ve got to be, I think, aware of what people are telling us and do what we can. We’re pushing in fill, we all get, we need more housing, but it does impact neighborhoods. So we have to listen closely and take what they say seriously and under serious consideration.

So that was the thought process behind maintaining the surface parking. I understand where Councilor Hopkins is going here, but I agree with the deputy mayor. Underground parking is extremely expensive. Even though it’s just a consideration, it’s extra staff time to do this.

So I cannot support the amendment. Councilor Pribble, go ahead. Thank you as a word, Councilor. I did speak to the neighbors in both North and West of the area who do own townhouses and we will have challenges there in terms of the private lanes and restrictions to parking.

And they do have a concern that the new residents at this development will be parked there. But on the other hand, if I look at the city and as it was said here, in terms of the infill, the number of units and affordably units and certainly additional underground parking would increase the price of the units. And we need to deliver these units to be affordable as much as possible. We do have in the other areas of London, we have approved a ratio that’s even lower than the one that’s proposed here.

And I do plan still to be with the developer and talk about potential opportunities for additional parking. But the only things I would agree on now to maximize the ground level parking spot but not in terms of going anymore. In the underground, Alice, the developer would tell me that he can still make it affordable as the proposal is on the table. So I just want to, I will not be supporting it either.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Councillor Hopkins, I think you moved the amendment but happy to take your rationale for your amendment now. Yes, and I would also like to respond to a comment that was made here.

Would you like to do that at the end of the debate and kind of the reply phase? Like wait, I can wait to make sure everybody’s done. I wasn’t sure if we were going to be taking any more speakers. I don’t have any other speakers.

So might be, unless someone else wants to speak, Councillor Hopkins is looking to speak last. Okay, go ahead, Councillor. Yeah, I think we’re all on the same page here with this amendment that we want to look at having availability for parking within this development. And I would really encourage my colleagues or maybe remind my colleagues that this is a request.

It isn’t going through the site plan process. It is not going to be extra work from what I understand. I have spoken to staff about looking at the plan that already exists. Can they move it?

Can they shift it around? That is going to be done through the site plan process. We heard loud and clear from the public that there is a need for extra parking. It’s why we’re taking away amenity space.

But to look at a parking plan that already exists, we’re not directing staff. We’re just requesting them to look at it. So I would encourage my colleagues to support the added, the addition to looking at having more available parking for this development. That’s all the people I have in the debate.

You’ve already spoken, Councillor Provost, sorry. You’ve already spoken, that’s it. We’re going to open this voting if there’s no other speakers. This is on the amendment.

This is Councillor Hopkins amendment. It’s seconded by Councillor Frank. We’ll open that. Councillor Van Neibergen closing the vote.

Motion fails seven to eight. Okay, so we’re back to the original motion that Councillor Layman put on the floor. Go ahead. Yeah, I will again put that on the floor.

I guess you didn’t need to again, because there was no change to it. Any other discussion on this matter? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open the committee’s recommendation for voting. Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Frank, closing the vote.

Motion carries 14 to one. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, that concludes the 14th report. Today we got two for the price of one.

One of those fun times when there’s two planning community meetings in the same cycle. So I will now put 8.6 to 15th report of the planning environment committee on the floor. I’ve had a request to pull number six regarding 3274 Wonderland Road South, and nothing other than that. Councillor Trostoff.

I’m sorry. Can I just ask a quick question about three? Yes, let me just see if anybody else wants to pull anything. When it’s on the floor, you could ask that question.

If you’re looking to change it, I’d suggest just to pull it separately. So if it’s just a question, just a question. Okay. So does anybody want anything dealt with separately other than what Councillor Layman said?

Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. I did, 3.2, I did support it, but I didn’t support the other motion to it, so I should go ahead then, just to be consistent with my voting. Okay, you’d like to vote on 3.2, the Piccadilly Street, separate. Sure.

Okay, that looks like it leaves one, two, four, five and seven. Is that correct, Councillor? Yeah, you want to move? Oh, and eight, and eight, sorry.

That’s correct. All the items except for three and six. Okay, perfect. So that’s moved by the chair.

Any debate or discussion? Councillor yours got pulled through South, so you’ve got a chance to do that later, because Councillor Hopkins pulled out number three, I think the Piccadilly one was you wanted to comment on? Yeah, not yet, so I just wanted to make sure that was the one. Okay, so we’ve got one, two, four, five, seven and eight on the floor, any comments on those?

Councillor ramen, go ahead. Thank you, and through you, my comments are related to item seven, 3.6, 1364 to 1408 Hyde Park Road. There was some communication shared and actually following up almost nicely related to parking on this property, just wondering if there was a response to the center of that, and perhaps I could reiterate concerns over the lack of parking associated with this site, in the— Mr. Maynard’s or Pass it Off to whoever you think is appropriate.

Through your worship, just wanted to confirm it’s related to the Hyde Park application. So there hasn’t been any change from the decision that committee had made related to it. So I don’t have anything else to report on. Thank you, and through you.

So just to clarify, there was some communication shared just concerns from residents around the parking on site and what they see as potentially inadequate amount of parking pertaining to the fact that we mentioned in the report as well that there’s limited transit to this area and concerns that there would be some challenges. And I know that where we are in this process right now is just the zoning, but do you see that being something that the community can provide feedback on elsewhere? So Mr. Maynard, just go ahead.

Absolutely, through your worship. So if there is any direction to the site plan approval authority that council would like to provide, then this would be the opportunity to do it because the next part of the planning would not have a public participation component. So that would be the place to do it. So the site plan is associated with this.

So any information that the council would like to direct the approval authority from a site plan perspective to consider now would be the time to make that consideration. So, and if you’re looking to do that, Councilor, what I might suggest is we might want to deal with this one separately if that’s the direction you’re going. Thank you and through you, yes, I will. I’ll look to deal with this separately then, thank you.

Yes, and okay, so Councilor Lehman, we’re gonna have seven dealt with separately too. Let’s try to deal with the ones that we all agree with or not, we not necessarily agree with, but want to vote on as a block. So that’s now one, two, four, five, and eight. So Chair, the Chair has moved those.

Any discussion on those? Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting. Chair is 15 to zero. Chair Lehman.

I’ll put number three regarding 176 Piccadilly Street on the floor. Okay, 176 Piccadilly Street is on the floor. I’m looking for comments on that, Councilor Trossa. Excuse me, through the Chair, it’s my understanding that this is an example of a property that has become so dilapidated that it was removed from the red that is being removed from the register.

I want to make sure I’m on the right item. Is that correct? Can I ask the Chair and you can go to staff if you want? Okay, go ahead.

Three-year worship, that’s correct. So I guess my question, how does the property get to the point where it is so dilapidated and in such bad condition and in such substantial violation of building codes and safety codes that it has to be removed from the register? Guidelines, does the city have an effect to make sure that adequate inspections are being done so this does not happen? Because the community sees this as demolition by neglect and it’s just not being tolerated.

So how does it get to this point? Mr. Mayor, you can take a stab at that, go ahead. Three-worship, so this property is on the register but it’s not designated.

If it was designated, there would be more of an ability to do that, but because it wasn’t at that stage in the process, then those actions are gonna be taken. Councilor? Through the Chair, putting aside the question of whether it’s designated or on the register or not on the register, it’s a property in the city of London. How does the property in the city of London get to the point where it is so dilapidated that it is not being properly inspected and properly cited?

Why do we let it get that far? Mr. Mayor, there’s three-worship. So this property, like any other property in London, really would be covered under our property standards by law.

So for the most part, that is driven by complaints and not through a proactive means. So if we would have received a complaint, then we would have gone investigated and there possibly could be some action, but in this case, that didn’t happen. Go ahead, Councilor. Would the dilapidations be such that a person could visibly see them from the street?

Mr. Mayor’s? Through your worship. So it could be either from the street or if it was someone living in the building or associated with a neighbor, they could also put forward a complaint and then we would investigate it.

Mr. Chair, Councilor Trossa. What I’m looking for here is probably a policy change ‘cause if I’m being told that this is complaint driven, well, have there been complaints over the years? Mr.

Mayor’s? Through your worship, I don’t have that in hand at this point, so I can’t provide that at this time. What would be the proper, if that’s an important question to me, what would be the proper way of getting that information before we vote on this? Could I ask this be put over?

‘Cause I think that’s a really important question. I think if you’re looking for that information, at this point, you would need to likely refer it because staff does not have that, if staff, I’m gonna go to Mr. Mayor’s. Is this something that is quick to look up or is this something that essentially requires a referral?

Through your worship, so it would take a matter of, I’d say at least 20 minutes for me to be able to find that answer for you, so at least that amount of time. Could we come back to this then? After what the other Councillors have to say? ‘Cause I wanna know if they were complaints and if so, how they were dealt with.

Give me one second, Councillor. As the Chair, I’m gonna try to be as helpful as I can. So, Councillor, procedurally, you can move an item to later in the agenda, there’s a process for that. I would say, too, we’ve also been meeting for two hours and 40 minutes, there are some snacks.

We can also take a break. At this point, I was pretty close to suggesting that anyways, depending on how much longer the agenda’s gonna go. I don’t know if that would be enough time for staff, and I also don’t like to take away their break, sorry, Mr. Mathers, so there’s really two options before us, it’s not, we’ve taken a break in the middle of an item before.

If we do that, I’d suggest no one to talk about the item as we normally caution, but those are the two options before us, so the Councillor could suggest to move it later in the agenda, and I’d get the exact wording on that, but also, I think we’re pretty close to, depending on how much longer the meeting is, to take a recess for a little bit. Councillor Stevenson. Yeah, I’d like to make the motion that we take a break. Give me 20 minutes?

20, 25, maybe 20 minutes with a little win stability. Not 10, the staff need 20 minutes to look, yeah. So the Councillor Stevenson is suggesting a 20 minute break, is there a seconder for that? Councillor Cuddy.

Okay, we’re gonna do this by hand. All those in favor? Okay, now all those opposed? That motion turns.

Four o’clock is the return. Thank you, please be seated. Planning report, Councillor Trostai, used one minute and 57 seconds of your time. There was a question you asked of Mr.

Mathers, and I think he’s ready for an answer. Through you, worship, thanks for the extra time. So this property’s actually been on the vacant building list since 2019, so to get on that list, it’s a property that’s been flagged through a complaint or through our fire prevention staff. With that process, it requires a monthly visit to the site by the fire prevention staff, and then if there’s any issues related from a by-law perspective or for a life safety perspective, then the city staff are brought in.

So from the by-law perspective, there was actually an order against the property in 2022 that wasn’t addressed. So there’s now a lien on the property in relation to it. It wasn’t life safety related. It was most part related to some of the aesthetics of the building through a property standards by-law, but that’s some of the background of what’s happened on this property.

Excuse me, please stop me if I’m getting too far afield from this item, and maybe you need to put a different item on a different agenda. In your view, does the current by-law regime adequately protect the public from demolition from neglect, or do we need to make changes to the by-law, or could this be changed by more proactive enforcement practice? He is getting a little bit outside. It’s also an opinion of our staff, like that’s something we can decide.

Mr. Mayor, as you can provide in context, you want, but if you have some information that’s helpful, but you may not be able to answer it in the way it was exactly asked. Through your worship, I think when we look at the result of what’s happened at this property, it shows that it’s very difficult for cities or even through our fire partners to be able to deal with some of these issues, whether that’s something that we can do as a municipality, or whether that’s something that is having a private citizen being able to comply with what we’re requesting, maybe that’s a part of the component of the problem. If there’s a council’s perspective to do a review of our framework, and that’s something that we could carry through, but there would be limitations as far as what we actually could possibly do, just from a legislative perspective, but very much open to any comments or direction from council.

And I would say council, the direction piece is probably best handled at a committee with the discussion and bringing forward a letter and a motion and a perspective. So I think you’re asking it in the context of this property to make your thing— Yes, one more question about this property, and then I’m going to take your advice and bring it up at a different— Thank you. I had a different meaning. When the city have, through the chair, when the city have, once there are code violations, when the city have the power to go in and make those improvements and build the owner, at some point.

Mr. Rathers. Three worship. I’m not completely familiar with all of the aspects of it.

I do know that where we’d start from would be providing an order to the property owner to undertake those actions before the city would get involved. However, in this case of this property, we didn’t get any indication that there was an issue from a building code perspective through those monthly inspections. Okay, well, thank you very much. And I’ll leave this matter for today and just maybe raise this broader question at some point in the future.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor. I have Councillor Hopkins next. Yeah, I just want to say that there is a being pointed out that no action be taken with respect to a communication that we receive from a resident.

I just want to acknowledge I did not support this committee. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I want to take an opportunity to speak to this briefly.

And I think that I would encourage Councillor Trussau as well to reach out to Mr. Catolic because I believe from my own experience in my ward, that well, we can do exterior things like cut the grass. Any entrance into a property actually requires a court order for our MLEOs to have the authority to do that, which is a much more significant timeframe. It’s something that I experienced not with anything listed on the registry, but with a property in my ward that took 18 months to have a resolution through the courts before our MLEOs could execute any further action on that.

So I want to share that so that it’s a discussion that can be pursued with the appropriate folks in bylaw and the enforcement branch of our city. But I do want to speak specifically to this recommendation to remove this property from the registry. I think it’s important to note that this was brought by the community for consideration of the registry back in 2020 and as a result of the condition of the property, our staff have brought forward the recommendation to remove. But when you look at the summary of the evaluation criteria for heritage designation, and we received a number of communications saying that this property should have been designated and it’s only not being designated because it’s in poor repair.

But that in fact is not the case. Under the criteria, the property has designed value or physical value because it’s rare, unique or representative. No, property has designed value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. No, the high historical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

No, I could read all nine of the criteria on the list. It met one of nine criteria. So we have properties that meet two, three even that are still up for our consideration that we have chosen not to designate as a council. So to only meet one and to receive a number of communications that are saying we’re, and I actually had an engagement on social media with a constituent who said, oh, you’re removing the heritage designation?

No, it never had a heritage designation. It was requested to be evaluated for its heritage value and the evaluation was complete. It was provided to the planning and environment committee. It only met one of the nine criteria and we supported the staff’s recommendation to remove it from the registry.

It doesn’t need any further evaluation. It doesn’t meet the criteria to warrant a designation. So I really encourage committee to support or council to support the committee’s recommendation and move forward with removing this so that we can get this property cleaned up. And if it’s a demolition and replacement, that’s what it’ll be.

That’s because it’s not a heritage property. Okay, thank you, Councilor Lehman. Thank you, I was going to say those things that the deputy mayor touched on because there is some miscommunication out there that is heritage property that has just fallen into neglect and so therefore we have to get around the heritage rules and take it down or the owner. He did talk about how it was considered for heritage designation and it didn’t meet the criteria.

In fact, legislatively, it didn’t because the properties required to meet two or more of the criteria that the deputy mayor referred to. To merit designation, there’s section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. So I just wanna make sure that the information out there to the public is not that we’re going around looking for heritage buildings to take down. This was not a heritage building.

It was on a list, it’s about potential to be a heritage building. It didn’t meet the criteria according to the Ontario Heritage Act. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear for Council and this question. Councillor Coney.

Thank you, Your Worship and through you. On a personal note, I walk by this building four times a week and a half of the past three years and it has been in horrendous condition the past three years and I’m quite surprised it’s taken so long to come here for a demolition permit because and it meets listening to the deputy mayor and the little that I know about designation I can truly tell you that it does not meet any of the requirements but it is a hazard and it’s a hazard that I think needs to remove. Thank you. Okay, I don’t have any other speakers.

The chair has put the committee’s recommendation on the floor so we’re gonna open that for voting. Councillor Palazzo votes yes. Councillor Ferrer votes yes. Opposed on the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

Mayor Lehman. Thank you, I will now put six on the floor regarding 3234 to 3274 Wonderland Road South. I would also like to highlight that we do have a small housekeeping amendment on this item as well. So Councillor, it’s on the floor and if you’re looking for the housekeeping amendment Councillor Frank, go ahead.

Thank you, yes. Do you need a motion for the housekeeping amendment? So I’d like to move the housekeeping amendment as well as I circulated amendment in advance of the meeting just in regards to meeting the minimum and exceeding the minimum of tree planting requirements as well as further investigating the ability for low impact development features on the site. And I’m happy to speak to it after I potentially have a seconder.

We usually do the housekeeping technical amendments separately, the ones that might require debates. So why don’t you do your amendment and then I’ll have the housekeeping one cleaned up afterwards. So Councillor Frank circulated an amendment as there’s a seconder for that. Councillor Hopkins is willing to second.

We’ll get the language on the screen and then you haven’t spoken yet but if you’d like to use your speaking time right at the start to provide rationale, that would be up to you. So go ahead. Yeah, I’d love to. So as was discussed at PEC, this location is introducing 504 parking spaces.

Some are being allocated to the immediate business that will be moving into the facility but others are just being put in advance of the area. So realizing we have a climate emergency action plan and we are trying to improve our biodiversity targets and recognizing that the Southwest area plan is all commercial and so most of that corridor is entirely paved with asphalt with parking lots that are majority of the time, the widely empty. I regularly go to a yoga class down there and except for the week leading up to Christmas and Boxing Day, those parking lots are I’d say 30% full. Recognizing all of that, I did not think I’d be successful in asking for less parking but at the same time, I would really like to see some of the impacts of sea of asphalt being mitigated and knowing that trees provide shade.

If you ever go to a parking lot and you notice there’s one tree, all the cars are parked around it because no one wants to go back into their hot car as well as providing all the benefits that trees offer us. And then on top of that, knowing that seas of asphalt also create stormwater issues. So investigating the ability to include low impact development features in this site would be a good step forward, which is why I circulated those two amendments. So I’m happy to answer any questions that people have but hoping to seek your support and trying to make the best of this space.

Okay, I’ll move to continue the speakers on the amendment. I wanna make sure, okay, so it’s up on the screen so colleagues need to read it, it’s on the screen. So I’ll give you a chance ‘cause there’s a lot to it and I know you didn’t read it out perfectly. Yes, can you highlight the actual additions in, if you look at the way it’s in E-Scribe.

And then what I would like you to do only because the public can’t see what you circulated before is if you could read out the exact changes that you’ve added. You don’t have to read the whole thing that was already contained there, but just the exact changes that you’ve added. Yes, my pleasure. So to reiterate, the only addition part that I’m including as Council can see it is VII and VII.

The rest has already been approved by PEC and I bumped down the last bullet point because I was including a strong group of similar things. So my specific language is VII, exceeding the minimum tree, oh. Seating the minimum. I’d have to delete the, sorry, grammatically, but exceeding the minimum tree planting requirements and further investigate the ability to install low impact development-led features within the site and that’s in relation to advising site plan authority.

So they would be speaking with the developer on that. And as well, my understanding is they’re not currently meeting the minimum. So that is why I hope that they would at least exceed the minimum tree planting requirements. So that’s been read out.

I’ll just make sure the colleagues have seen that. So although it reads as CB amended, there’s really just the two additions to that and that’s VII and VII, so colleagues are clear. Okay, any debate on this? Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.

Yeah, if I may, your worship. I am pleased to second this. I know when we put in massive parking lots like this application has, even though Tesla themselves are only requiring up to around 200 or so parking spaces, the application is looking at 504 to be approved. That’s a massive amount of concrete in this area.

And when we put in our own community centers, we always put in low impact development and really look at softening the hard surfaces. So I really think that, I’m not sure why we would want to do less in this area that is calling for so much asphalt in the area. So to at least do the minimum or above would definitely be encouraged as we deal with the many challenges of water runoff and the vastness of just concrete. I think this would add to the development.

So I would encourage our committee to support it. Okay, any other, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, your worship. And I’ll be brief on this.

Unlike the prior application, I’m gonna support this one because for me, there is a key difference. We’re not talking about residential parking spaces. We’re talking about commercial parking spaces and we’re talking about a development that actually has multiple phases. So there is time for the applicant to actually work with our staff as they look at where phase two comes online and additional developments on the site in the long term to adjust things as they go.

This isn’t going to stop them from getting shovels in the ground once the approval’s in place. Phase one can still go ahead. They can look to accommodate these requests and I always appreciate when counselors do their homework and circulate their amendments in advance. I know I was giving Council Frank a little bit of a hard time about that earlier today, but I appreciate that she sent that around to us before the meeting started.

And I think that where we can have a low impact drainage opportunities, that’s always a benefit too. So I can support this one. And hopefully in working with our staff, the applicants can find a way to incorporate a little more of that into their plan. Okay, that’s all the speakers I have, family.

So— - No. Oh, Councilor Vameerbergen, sorry, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. No, this really is a great news story, not only for London, but Western Ontario, because as some of us know, Tesla owners have to drive to Kitchener to have their vehicles serviced, and nobody else can service them because it will void the warranty.

So this will be a regional hub for all of Western Ontario. It’s a great economic story for London, and the fact that Tesla has chosen London. So it’s when, when, when all up and down. It’s somewhat ironic when I hear a climate change argument for this development, when we’re talking about the very electric cars that will work towards reducing not only exhaust, but carbon emissions.

And so we have the very substance of what is designed to fight climate change, and yet somehow it turns into a climate change argument for the bad to have this dealership, a few trees notwithstanding. So the bottom line here is it’s a great news story. I will not support the amendment, and I think we should all celebrate the fact that they’ve chosen London as their regional hub. Thank you, Mayor.

That’s all the speakers I have. There’s no wrap up. There’s a reply to anything that was misunderstood of it or about your comments that you made. Okay, you have the right to reply.

If it’s the end of the debate, I wanna make sure that you’re applying to something that was perhaps a misunderstanding in the statements you made in the rationale for your change. Go ahead. Thank you, yes. I’d like to echo my appreciation, Councillor van Mirberg’s comments, because I think that what I’m proposing meets both of those.

You can plant trees and have electric vehicles. Both things are good for climate change at the same time, but I love to hear how passionate Councillor van Mirberg knows about climate change, so thank you. Okay, thank you. That exhausted the speaker’s list, so we’re gonna open this for voting.

This is on the amendment that Councillor Frank is bringing forward. Councillor Peruzza votes yes. Councillor Palazzo. Councillor Palazzo votes yes.

Sorry, he’s crowd was uploading. Palazzo in the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Okay, so I need a mover and a seconder for the as amended motion. You go out so that the chair will move it.

Councillor Hopkins, you’re willing to second as amended. Okay, as amended, any other discussion? So now we need to make the housekeeping amendment before I vote on that, so Councillor Layman, did you just wanna put that on the floor as the chair? Yeah, so this is regarding clause 3.5.

The rationale is the previously considered by-law inadvertently missed the percentage of the portion of primary street facing building facade along Wonderland South, occupied by public entrances and window openings within the first four meters, 13.1 feet of building height minimum. The amendment sheet is before you, so I will move that. I need a seconder for the amendment. Councillor Cutty, any discussion on this amendment?

Seeing none, so we’ll vote on the amendment. I’ll open that for voting. Councillor Palazzo votes yes. Councillor for our votes yes.

If you’re talking about the seconder, it’s getting fixed. Yes, Councillor Frank, if the vote is open, but if you have a- Sorry, is this, ‘cause I know this is 7-4 and then we have to redo it, but is this day the accurate change? I just don’t see the notice of like 4% or like the language, I’m not sure if it matches, but I could be wrong. So the motion on the screen refers to an attached by-law that you won’t see on the screen, but that’s where the changes are.

So it should be okay. Opposed in the vote, the motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, now I need another as amended. Councillor Layman is willing to move as amended again.

So I’ll move the item number six as with the two amendments moved or passed. I’ll move that. Yeah, seconder for that, anyone? Second.

Councillor Stevenson’s willing to second. Okay, so this is the as amended now twice. Motion, I don’t see any other speakers. So we’ll open the as amended motion for voting.

As does Councillor Palosa, yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, Chair Layman. Thank you and I’ll put number seven regarding 1364-1408 Hyde Park Road on the floor.

So that’s on the floor. Councillor ramen, I believe you wanted that separate. Go ahead. Thank you and through you.

So I’m looking to amend item CI to include an increase to parking on site. And I’m sorry, I didn’t circulate this ahead of time, but doing it based on some communication that’s come in recently and again today on this matter and the concern around the amount of parking, considering that there’s the possibility that well, considering that this application is looking at affordable housing in an area that does not have a lot of transit access, that’s a concern. And I think being that the tenant profiles have not been completed yet. I think it is important to consider that during the site plan process as well.

So Councillor, before I look for a seconder. Sorry, I should have said yes. That’s okay. Given there’s bylaws attached to this, I just need to check with staff to see if this is a change of some sort of, I need to understand the effect of the change of whether we need to change both the motion and parts of the bylaw, or there’s just a part of the motion.

Through your worship, there’s no changes to the bylaw. It’d be just as long as it’s ingrained in the resolution and then we provide that advice to the approval authority. Okay, so given we don’t have to change the bylaws, I’m gonna let the suggested amendment stand. We’re gonna get the language up so people can see it.

I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for that particular change. Councillor Cuddy’s willing to second, okay. We’re just gonna make sure we get the language right. And we can have some discussion debate on this.

Well, we’re getting the language right, but I’m not gonna open the vote until everybody’s read the language to make sure the mover’s okay with it. Make sure staff, it actually is functional and does the purpose of what the Councillor’s intending before we proceed with the vote. So Councillor, I don’t know if you wanna provide your rationale now or if you wanna wait till later in the day. Yeah, second.

So you go ahead, you can go ahead and make your case. Thank you and through you. What’s been shared is concern over the number of parking spots that are being proposed at this location. And I know that during the consultation, there was discussion about 59 to 132 at the time.

And then since then the numbers come back around to 59. So concern around things like when in the neighborhood that there could be impacts with lots of vehicles on the roads because of lack of parking at the location. So I hear where residents are going with that and trying to mitigate any concerns before they occur. Also concerns about during the winter, having to leave some spaces for snow removal and things like that.

So just wanted to provide that rationale for the motion. Okay, and we have the language up now. It’s the part that is providing, under the part that is providing direction to the site plan approval authority. So that’s just direction to the site plan of approval authority for consideration.

Move to seconded, everybody read it. I’ll open to speakers us now on this particular amendment. Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, worship.

So through you, I saw some of the communications that came through, so through you to our staff. And I think this is probably more for Mr. Dickens than for our planning staff. References to tenant profiles in the communications we received.

When, first of all, I would say I think when we look at zoning, we don’t see tenant profiles because we don’t make zoning decisions based on who may live there. But I’m wondering if Mr. Dickens can comment about where in the process tenant placement agreements or target tenant populations are typically identified when the municipal housing division or other proponents, potentially third party housing providers are looking to advance a project. And again, I’m not sure which staff member might want to comment.

I feel like it’s maybe Mr. Dickens, but if anybody else has thoughts, I’d appreciate hearing those. My question, Deputy Mayor, is the counselor suggesting just in a member right now to increase the on-site parking. So I don’t know if that’s linked to the on-site parking.

The reference was tenant profiles aren’t completed. So more on-site parking might be needed. So that’s where that link is. That is the link I needed.

So Mr. Whoever’s going to answer that, I see like three people, Mr. Peters. Three worship and I’ll let Kevin jump in if he’d like to.

So this is actually going to be a city-led development. So we’re still looking at what the next portion of this would look like. But the timing of when we’d actually be looking at like the populations or the use of the facility would be following the zoning being approved and then looking at the site planner and actually constructing, like designing the building as it stands. So that would allow us to then, once we have that understanding and we’re working through site plan, that’s why this advice being to this site plan of food authority would be helpful for them.

If it’s if we are looking at additional parking, they’d also be able to assess the need based on the populations that would be using the facility at the same time. So this would be the appropriate place to place it. If it’s something that there is a concern about the amount of parking on the property. Mr.

Dickens, you have anything yet? Through you, you worship. I would just echo those sentiments. For example, the Sylvan Street property that is under construction, those conversations and negotiations are going on right now around tenant selection and tenant placement.

And if it was a very specific purpose built type, let’s say highly supportive housing, we may know a broader sense or more defined sense of the tenant selection process based on the specific housing type. That wouldn’t necessarily apply here. Deputy Mayor. So I’ll follow up to that then.

Just the municipality is leading this. It’s intended to be, and correct me if I’m wrong, but a mixed development in terms of a mix of incomes, a mix of building types. So we may see some 80% AMR. We may see some RGI.

We may see some supportive housing. Is that correct? Are we going to see a mix of various levels of affordability? And will that include some market rent units in this development as well through you to staff?

Through your worship. So as far as we’re at in the process right now, we’re trying to establish the zoning and how many units we think will be applicable for this property. We are still coming up with a plan for what this might look like in the future. It would likely be, as suggested, a mix of different uses.

We’re at this point not sure if there’ll be market rent units in this location, but that we are open to that if it allows for a greater affordability. And possibly even working with some partners from the community if they’re willing to take that on, knowing that there might be opportunities for it to be self-subsidizing. So we haven’t got to that point yet, but all of those options are on the table currently. So final question through to our staff.

As you work through those options, and I know we’re going through a similar process at 1958 Duluth and Ward 2, but as partnerships potentially arise, or as partnerships become apparent that we cannot establish for various reasons. At that point, do you need consideration for additional parking space if you are not changing perhaps the density, but you are looking at a different mix of tenants? Do you need that in there or is that something that you would adapt to on the fly regardless? Through your worship.

So we do have the parking minimums that are in effect. We can increase as long as we’re still aligning with the overall zoning byline the minimum. So we can course correct at that time, and really base it on what the need would be at the time of the site plan coming forward. Okay, thank you.

That’s a very helpful answer to my question, because if we have the parking minimums right now, then I’m not prepared to ask the site plan authority to consider additional parking. I would argue that, and we’ve heard it on other applications, we heard it even last night with regard to a hub location. I think every location, every place in the city thinks that they’re under serviced by transit. That’s transit discussion.

That’s not an increase the parking spots discussion for me. So I will not be supporting the addition. Any other speakers? Oh, Councillor Lehman.

I thought you were pointing to some of my apologies. Go ahead. Yeah, this point to you. Go ahead.

  • With respect to Dr. Mira, I have a little different take on it. From my understanding is that parking here sounds like it’s been in flux, depending on the usage. You know, and the Councillor is asking for an increase of parking on site in the development.

So I think it’s a bit of a direction of where her constituents land on this. So in this particular case, I do look for the word Councillor. She spends, the Councillor spends time consulting with her constituents, which I don’t have time to do. In this particular case, if it was in my ward, I’d be doing the same thing.

So there are certain times when I listen to the word Councillor and I’ll support where she wants to go on this. Any other speakers? So we’ve got the amendment moved and seconded. That’s what’s on the floor.

We’ll open that for voting. Councillor Ferriero votes now. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries eight to seven.

Okay, so I need to move her for the as amended motion. I’ll move that. Okay, moved by the chair. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Any discussion on the as amended motion now? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. No. Yes, this is the approval of the development with the change, I was just asked about that.

So this is not any more amendments. This is the amendments been made. Now this is everything that was recommended plus the amendment that was passed. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to two. Councillor Lehman. Thank you, that concludes the 15th report on the planning environment committee. Okay, thank you.

That moves on to the added reports. We have the 13th report of council and closed session. I think I’ll say he volunteered, but I’ll use air quotes around that. Councillor Pribble has volunteered to read out the report for in council and closed session.

I’ll just ask after you read out that report, I’d ask if you would just report progress on all the other matters that we went into camera for. Full report of the council in the closed session. And there was one point that property acquisition 1241 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway Project. That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Reports, is the concurrence of the Director Construction Infrastructure Services.

On the advice of the Director Realty Services, with respect to the property located, 1241 Wellington Road, South, further described as lot four plan 880, geographic township of Westminster in the city of London, county of Middlesex, being all of pin 08 485 die 0016 LT, part block ARP 653 and part lot 24, concession two designated as part one on plan 33R, dash 11797, geographic township of Westminster in the city of London, county of Middlesex, being all of pin 08 485 die 0198 LT, containing an area of approximately 23,958 square feet, as shown on the location map as Pendix B, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken A. The offer submitted by Center for Synergy, the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 852,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and condition as set out in the agreement as Appendix C. And B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as Appendix A. In addition, I would like to report that progress has been made in real points.

Thank you, so that E and your present to your report so you can stay standing, Councillor Per bevel. So that’s moved by Councillor Per bevel, the report reported out of council closed session. I’ll look for any discussion on that matter. Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting.

Council for our votes, yeah. To Frank, Councilman, Pam Mirbergen, Councilman Mirbergen, third time Councilman Mirbergen, Mark Abson closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Thank you, Councilor Per bevel.

To first matters, we have no deferred matters. Any inquiries, I don’t think there are any inquiries that anybody notified me of, no? Okay, emergency motions, there are none, by-laws. Currently we have all of the by-laws with the exception, I’m not sure if Councillor Per bevel Mirbergen will return, but just in case, I’m gonna keep 365, which is the added by-law separate because I know that was his desire.

Oh, he’s back. So Councillor bevel Mirbergen, I’m gonna do 365 separate. That’s the Wellington Gateway by-law. Right now I’m gonna do everything else together unless colleagues would like something dealt with separately.

What would you like? Yeah, if you can pull 360. 360, yes, anything else? Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, if you could pull 343 for London Hydro. Further ones, separate. I don’t see any, so just give us a second to get everything with the exception of 343, 360 and 365. Someone’s looking to pull something, now’s the time, 360 separate, you’re good?

Okay, the motion we’re putting together is all the by-laws with the exception of 343, 360, and 365. That’s the London Hydro appointments, the 15-15 TROSACs have, and the Wellington Gateway. Those will all be dealt with separately, everything else is in. I’ll look for a mover for all of that.

Mayor Mirbergen, our Councillor, Mayor Mirbergen, yes? Are you looking to move? Yeah, okay. Moved by Councillor Mayor Mirbergen, seconded by Councillor Cuddy.

First reading has no debates, so I’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, a mover and a seconder for second reading. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman.

Any debate on second reading? Seeing none, I’ll open second reading for voting. Okay, I’ll vote, yeah. Councillor ramen, closing the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. I’ll move on to seconder for third reading of that group. And Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Third reading has no debate, so we’ll open that for voting.

Okay, I’ll vote, yeah. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, next we’ll do 343, the London Hydro item. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for first reading of that bill.

Moved by Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. That will open that for voting as soon as it’s ready. I’m prepared to vote, yeah. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to three.

Second reading, I’ll look for mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Layman. Any debate? Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, I’m just gonna take the opportunity to say what I was prevented from saying earlier. In that even the prevention of speaking, you know, that I get that it’s allowed, but it doesn’t feel very collegial to prevent me from saying why I want to bring forward a motion. And all of this is just playing into the fact that there’s some kind of pressure here. I’m not sure what it is that the open director positions are not even needing to be filled till January 1st, 2024.

I just checked. So I don’t know what the rush is. I don’t know what the pressure is. I don’t know what the resistance is around looking at what parent concerns to me.

So as I don’t have my designation anymore, but I do feel an ethical responsibility to look into this further, I will be bringing forward some kind of motion to review the process of governance around this. And I do think there should be a willingness for open and transparent appointment process here and due diligence on behalf of the shareholders, which is all of the London’s residents, to do, to put in a really great corporate governance structure. And I think that should be the expectation. Councillor Troso.

I just want to adopt the comments from Councillor Stevenson. And I think she stated it very well. And that’s all I’m going to say. Thank you.

Any other speakers on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Ferriero, Councillor Ferriero. Marking Councillor Ferriero absent.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 11 to three. In third reading of the same bill, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Cady, seconded by Councillor ramen.

We will open third reading for voting as soon as it’s ready. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 11 to three. Okay, now we’re on to bill 360, which is the 15 15 trosacs have bill.

I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Pribble. We’ll open first reading for voting as soon as it’s ready. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one.

Second reading on the mover and a seconder for second reading. Councillor Cady, seconded by Councillor ramen. You guys are battling it out. This is second reading.

Is there any debate on this? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one.

Third and final reading of bill 360 moved by. Everybody wants to stay. That’s why no one wants to move there. Now everybody’s going.

Councillor Cady and seconded by Councillor Layman. We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one.

Okay, and now we’re on the added by law 365, which is related to the report that Councillor Pribble read out related to land purchase for the Wellington Gateway project. I’ll need a mover and a seconder for that. Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank. We’ll open first reading for voting.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one. All right, the second reading of bill 365 moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I need debate on second reading.

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one. Okay, third and final reading of bill 365 moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman.

We’ll open third reading for voting as soon as it’s ready. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one. With that, we’ve completed the bills.

Before I ask for motion to adjourn, I just want to thank my colleagues for inspiring me to continue to keep up on my procedures and reading of the procedural by-law. I know you keep me on my toes on that. And I appreciate that you give me a little bit of time to confer with the clerk’s on those matters. As always, I appreciate the debate and the dialogue we had today.

I look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. We’ll do this by hand. All those in favor?

Motion carries. Thank you very much. We’re adjourned.