Open Council

20th Meeting of City Council

Open Council

20th Meeting of City Council

November 28, 2023, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:01 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Lehman disclosed a pecuniary interest related to item 10, clause 2.4 of the 27th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with the 2023-2027 City of London Strategic Plan: Core Area, by indicating that it relates to funding for Downtown London Business Association and the Councillor indicated they are a member of the Association.

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Franke disclosed a pecuniary interest related to item 12 Emergent Motions.

2.   Recognitions

His Worship the Mayor recognizes the recipients of the 2023 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Awards Recipients: Oakridge Presbyterian Church Mission and Outreach / Islamic Relief Canada London Regional Team / Project SEARCH / the London Track 3 Adaptive Snow School / Yesalihuni “They Will Teach You” Youth Initiative.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, in Closed Session

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Franke

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

4.1    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation        

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to 2005 Kilally Road at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/18/PEC)

4.2    Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual        

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/17/CPSC)

4.3    Ongoing Ombudsman Investigation        

A matter pertaining to an ongoing investigation with respect to the municipality by the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, and communications necessary for that purpose.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:23 PM to 1:33 PM.

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

5.1   18th Meeting Held on November 7, 2023

2023-11-07 Council Minutes - Full

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Minutes of the 18th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on November 7, 2023 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

6.1 2023-2027 City of London Strategic Plan: Core Area

  • D. Brown, Coordinator, Midtown Community Organization

6.2 Community Cold Weather Response Update

  • D. Wardlaw, Chair of Council and Rev. Dr. Joshua Lawrence, Minister of Worship and Congregational Life, First St. Andrew’s United Church

6.3 1990 Commissioners Road East and 2767 Doyle Drive (Z-9656)

  • A. Johnson, Greenspace Alliance

6.4 978 Gainsborough Road (Z-9247)

  • G.M. Vallecera, Medical Investment Team (MIT) Inc.

  • T. Whitney, Intermediate Planner and H. Froussios, Principal Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.

  • D. Szpakowski, CEO/General Manager, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association

6.5 200 Albert Street (Z-9561)

  • D. Galbraith, President, UP Consulting

6.6 New Sidewalk Project List 2024

  • A. Clark and K. Kastelic, ASRTS Co-Chairs

  • M. Flynn

6.7 Northridge Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan

  • A Petition from Tweed Crescent Residents with Approximately 67 Signatures is Available at the City Clerks Office

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   27th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-11-21 SPPC Report 27

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 27th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 10 (2.4) and 17 (4.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Lehman disclosed a pecuniary interest related to item 2.4 regarding the 2023-2027 City of London Strategic Plan: Core Area report as it relates to funding for Downtown London Business Association and the Councillor indicated they are a member of the Association.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.5) TechAlliance – Grant Agreement (2024-2027)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that item 2.5, entitled TechAlliance - Grant Agreement (2024-2027), was withdrawn from the agenda at the direction of Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.6) London Economic Development Corporation – Purchase of Service Agreement (2024-2027)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that item 2.6, entitled London Economic Development Corporation - Purchase of Service Agreement (2024-2027), was withdrawn from the agenda at the direction of Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.7) Small Business Centre – Grant Agreement (2024-2027)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that item 2.7, entitled Small Business Centre - Grant Agreement (2024-2027), was withdrawn from the agenda at the direction of Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.8) Creative Sector Incubation Hub – Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to Creative Sector Incubation Hub - Update:

a)    the Creative Sector Incubation Hub - Update report BE RECEIVED; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue discussions with the Trinity Centre Foundation as the project proponents develop the Creative Sector Incubation Hub business case for Council’s consideration.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.9) 7th Report of the Governance Working Group (Relates to Bill No. 423)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on November 6, 2023:

a)    on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 28, 2023 to amend By-law No. CPOL.-228-480, as amended, being “Council Members’ Expense Account” to update various provisions of the policy;

b)    the following actions be taken:

i) the Deferred Matters List dated November 4, 2023, BE RECEIVED; 

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the necessary revisions to Council Procedure By-law A-50 sections 9.8, 11.7, 11.10, 11.11, 15.10, 31.8, 33.5, 33.8, 33.9 and 38.9, to reflect no meeting of Council or Standing Committee shall extend beyond 6:00 PM, unless otherwise decided by a 2/3rds vote of eligible members; and

iii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to schedule a time at a future meeting for general discussion regarding efficient meeting management;

c)    clauses 1.1 and 3.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.1) Recruitment, Retention and Accommodation of Planning and Development and Building Staff

Motion made by S. Lewis

That item 2.1 and items 6.1 to 6.4 BE REFERRED to a Special Meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to be held on Wednesday, December 6, 2023, at 1:00 PM.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.2) Update to Request for Proposal (RFP) 2023-199 Hubs Implementation Plan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken regarding the Update to Request For Proposal (RFP) 2023-199 Hubs Implementation Plan report:

a)    the portion of Request for Proposal 2023-199 awarded to Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addition and Mental Health Services (CMHA) by Municipal Council at its meeting held October 5, 2023 BE CANCELLED, subject to the execution of a mutual release between the City and CMHA; 

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake all administrative acts necessary to facilitate the execution of a mutual release between the City and CMHA in relation to the Request For Proposal 2023-199, in a form satisfactory to the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide Municipal Council with the option of additional time equal to one committee cycle to consider the results of any future Hubs Request for Proposal (RFP) prior to requesting a final decision;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 16, 2023 from B. Brock with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (2.3) November Progress Update - Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken regarding the November Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response report;

a)    the November Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Report BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    a one-time allocation up to the amount of $251,000 BE APPROVED for Ark Aid’s meal Invoice program from July to March 31, 2024;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 16, 2023 from B. Brock with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (3.1) 2024-2027 Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law (Relates to Bill No. 421)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, with respect to the 2024-2027 Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law, the following actions be taken:

a)    the 2024-2027 Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law “Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship, Bike Locker - Hourly Rental Rate” BE AMENDED to allow for two hour free parking for every 24-hour rental period; and

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 21, 2023 as Appendix, as amended above, “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 28, 2023, for the purpose of repealing By-law No. A-58, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges”, and replacing it with a new 2024-2027 Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law that lists various fees and charges for services or activities provided by the City of London;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 16, 2023 from C. Butler with respect to this matter;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (3.2) 2024 Water and Wastewater Rates (Relates to Bill No.’s 453 and 454)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Water and Wastewater rates and charges:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 21, 2023 as Appendix “A”, to amend By-law WM-28 being “A by-law for regulation of wastewater and stormwater drainage systems in the City of London”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held November 28, 2023 to effect rates and charges increases of 4.0 percent for wastewater and stormwater services effective January 1, 2024; and,

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 21 2023 as Appendix “B”, to amend By-law W-8 being “A by-law to provide for the Regulation of Water Supply in the City of London”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held November 28, 2023 to effect rates and charges increases of 2.5 percent for water services effective January 1, 2024;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.13   (3.3) Christina Fox, Chief Executive Officer, TechAlliance - Annual Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from C. Fox, Chief Executive Officer, TechAlliance.

Motion Passed

8.1.14   (3.4) Kapil Lakhotia, President and Chief Executive Officer, London Economic Development Corporation - Annual Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from K. Lakhotia, President and Chief Executive Officer, London Economic Development Corporation.

Motion Passed

8.1.15   (3.5) Steve Pellarin, Executive Director, Small Business Centre - Annual Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from S. Pellarin, Executive Director, Small Business Centre, London.

Motion Passed

8.1.16   (4.1) Committee Appointment Preferences Submitted by Council Members

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following appointments BE MADE to the Standing Committees of the Municipal Council for the term December 1, 2023 to November 30, 2024:

a)      Planning and Environment Committee

Councillor C. Rahman

Councillor S. Hillier

Councillor S. Lewis

Councillor S. Franke

b)      Civic Works Committee

Councillor J. Pribil

Councillor D. Ferreira

Councillor S. Trosow

Councillor S. Franke

c)    Community and Protective Services Committee

Councillor D. Ferreira

Councillor H. McAlister

Councillor J. Pribil

Councillor S. Trosow

d)    Corporate Services Committee

Councillor P. Cuddy

Councillor C. Rahman

Councillor C. Stevenson

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

e)    that the Communication dated November 13, 2023, from Mayor Morgan with respect to standing committee chairs BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the following Councillors were appointed by the Mayor as Chairs of the following committees:

Councillor S. Lehman (Chair) - Planning and Environment Committee

Councillor A. Hopkins (Chair) - Civic Works Committee

Councillor E. Peloza (Chair) - Community and Protective Services Committee

Councillor H. McAlister (Chair) - Corporate Services Committee.

Motion Passed

8.1.18   (4.3) Asylum Claimants

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Impacts of Asylum Claimants:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Council on the impacts of Asylum claimants on our local shelter system. Based on the findings from the staff report, that staff apply if appropriate for Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) funding if necessary, to address the impacts on local shelters; 

b)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to undertake immediate advocacy efforts with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Ontario Big City Mayors Caucus, and the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario to advocate for resources for cities to address the influx in asylum claimants; and

c)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to write a letter on behalf of Council in support of the request by London Cross Cultural Learning Centre (CCLC) in collaboration with Mission Services for funding from the Province of Ontario to support the hiring of staff to provide additional supports for Asylum claimants;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 12, 2023 from Councillor Rahman and Mayor Morgan and a communication dated November 16, 2023 from E. A. Ronson, Executive Director, Mission Services of London with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.19   (5.1) Request for Term Extension of the Community Advisory Committees

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, notwithstanding the General Policy for Advisory Committees is currently under review (including collecting feedback from Community Advisory Committee members related to recruitment and term) the following actions be taken with respect to the City of London’s Community Advisory Committees:

a)    the current membership BE EXTENDED to April 1, 2025 for the following Community Advisory Committees:

i)     Accessibility Community Advisory Committee;

ii)    Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee;

iii)   Community Advisory Committee on Planning;

iv)   Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee;

v)    Ecological Community Advisory Committee;

vi)   Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee; and

vii)   Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee.

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to postpone advertisements for Community Advisory Committee vacancies for citizen-at-large and sectoral Community Advisory Committee members until January, 2025 for the term beginning April 1, 2025, in accordance with the General Policy for Advisory Committees; 

c)    auxiliary recruitments BE CONTINUED on an as-needed basis in response to any Community Advisory Committee resignations in accordance with the General Policy for Advisory Committees;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to notify the aforementioned Community Advisory Committees of Council’s decision; and

e)    the Community Advisory Committee structure BE REFERRED to Governance Working Group to review potential redundancies and to review opportunities to improve operations of advisory committees.

Motion Passed

8.1.20   (5.2) 12th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 12th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from the meeting held on November 14, 2023:

a)  the request from the Awards and Recognition Sub-Committee for budget allocation of up to $2,500.00 for the 2023 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, BE APPROVED; and

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (2.4) 2023-2027 City of London Strategic Plan: Core Area

Motion made by S. Lewis

That with respect to the 2023-2027 City of London Strategic Plan: Core Area, the following actions be taken:

a)    the 2023-2027 City of London Strategic Plan: Core Area BE REFERRED back to Civic Administration;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a comprehensive review considering current conditions and existing plans. This should involve the removal of outdated components from previous work, prioritizing essential elements. Additionally, the examination should determine the necessity of a new downtown master plan, extending beyond the immediate 2023-2027 City of London Strategic Plan timeline while aligning with its scope; and 

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with a prioritized grouping of next steps including short term actions, a longer-term plan of action, draft targets, metrics and fulfilment requirements to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee;

it being noted that recent funding approvals by Municipal Council for the Downtown London and Old East Village Business Improvement Associations provides some bridge funding to assist with short-term challenges and needs while this work is being undertaken;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 19, 2023 from B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London and S. A. Collyer, LDBA Board Chair with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 1:48 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair. 

At 1:49 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.1.17   (4.2) Community Cold Weather Response Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that the following Actions be taken regarding Community Cold Weather Response Update Report, that;

a)    the Community Cold Weather Response Report Update BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED by Municipal Council to proceed with the following contracts for overnight spaces to support the cold weather plan:

i)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to enter into a contract with The Ark Aid Street Mission in the amount up to $826,686 (excluding HST) for the provision of all services to operate 30 overnight spaces at 696 Dundas Street for the cold weather response overnight spaces from December 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.2;

ii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to enter into a contract with The Ark Aid Street Mission in the amount up to $1,472,739 (excluding HST) for the provision of all services to operate 65 spaces at 432 William Street for the cold weather response overnight spaces from January 8, 2023, to May 31, 2024, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.2;

iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to enter into a contract with The Ark Aid Street Mission in the amount up to $404,323 (excluding HST) for the provision of all services to operate 15 overnight spaces at CMHA Coffee House, 371 Hamilton Road for the cold weather response overnight spaces from December 11, 2023, to May 31, 2024, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.2;

iv)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to enter into a contract with The Ark Aid Street Mission in the amount up to $335,216 (excluding HST) for the provision of all services to operate 10 overnight spaces at CMHA My Sisters Place, 566 Dundas Street for the cold weather response overnight spaces from December 15, 2023, to May 31, 2024, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.2;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the contracts selected in part b); and, 

d)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London amending/entering into all necessary agreements noting that Civic Administration will report back to Council on the outcome of the negotiated agreements and then further report back to Council on conclusion of the cold weather response, with details including the dates contracts are signed as well as the dates and amounts of the payments made;

it be noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a delegation from Sarah Campbell, Executive Director, The Ark Aid Street Mission with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part b) as follows:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED by Municipal Council to proceed with the following contracts for overnight spaces to support the cold weather plan:

i)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to enter into a contract with The Ark Aid Street Mission in the amount up to $826,686 (excluding HST) for the provision of all services to operate 30 overnight spaces at 696 Dundas Street for the cold weather response overnight spaces from December 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.2;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Motion to approve part b) as follows:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED by Municipal Council to proceed with the following contracts for overnight spaces to support the cold weather plan:

ii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to enter into a contract with The Ark Aid Street Mission in the amount up to $1,472,739 (excluding HST) for the provision of all services to operate 65 spaces at 432 William Street for the cold weather response overnight spaces from January 8, 2023, to May 31, 2024, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.2;

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

At 2:39 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair. 

At 2:44 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Motion to approve part b) as follows:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED by Municipal Council to proceed with the following contracts for overnight spaces to support the cold weather plan:

iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to enter into a contract with The Ark Aid Street Mission in the amount up to $404,323 (excluding HST) for the provision of all services to operate 15 overnight spaces at CMHA Coffee House, 371 Hamilton Road for the cold weather response overnight spaces from December 11, 2023, to May 31, 2024, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.2;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Motion to approve part b) as follows:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED by Municipal Council to proceed with the following contracts for overnight spaces to support the cold weather plan:

iv)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to enter into a contract with The Ark Aid Street Mission in the amount up to $335,216 (excluding HST) for the provision of all services to operate 10 overnight spaces at CMHA My Sisters Place, 566 Dundas Street for the cold weather response overnight spaces from December 15, 2023, to May 31, 2024, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.2;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Motion to approve the balance of the clause as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following Actions be taken regarding Community Cold Weather Response Update Report;

a)    the Community Cold Weather Response Report Update BE RECEIVED for information;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the contracts selected in part b); and,

d)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London amending/entering into all necessary agreements noting that Civic Administration will report back to Council on the outcome of the negotiated agreements and then further report back to Council on conclusion of the cold weather response, with details including the dates contracts are signed as well as the dates and amounts of the payments made;

it be noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a delegation from Sarah Campbell, Executive Director, The Ark Aid Street Mission with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2   18th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2023-11-13 PEC Report18

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 18th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 8 (3.5).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Application for Brownfield CIP Incentives - 400 Southdale Road East

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Economic Services and Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by LJM Developments (Halton Hills) Inc., relating to the property located at 400 Southdale Road East:

a)    a total expenditure of up to a maximum of $624,000 in municipal brownfield financial incentives BE APPROVED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 28, 2023 and BE ALLOCATED in the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for Brownfield Incentives (‘Brownfield CIP’):

i)    APPROVAL BE GIVEN to provide a grant through the Development Charges Rebate Program for the eligible remediation costs, as follows:

A)    if development charges are paid in one lump sum amount, the Development Charges Rebate grant will be issued in one instalment; and,

B)    if development charges are paid annually over six years, the Development Charges Rebate grant will be issued in six annual instalments, noting that any interest charged by the City of London for deferred development charge payments is not included in the rebate; and,

b)    the applicant BE REQUIRED to enter into an agreement with the City of London outlining the relevant terms and conditions for the incentives that have been approved by Municipal Council under the Brownfield CIP; the agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and LJM Developments (Halton Hills) Inc. will be transferable and 

binding on any subsequent property owner(s);

it being noted that no grants will be provided through the Brownfield CIP until:

i)    all remediation work approved under this application is finished;

ii)    the payment of development charges has begun;

iii)    a Record of Site Condition is filed with the Government of Ontario’s Environmental Site Registry; and,

iv)    The Corporation of The City of London receives receipts showing the actual cost of the eligible remediation work;

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-D04)

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Monthly Heritage Report - October 2023

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the Monthly Heritage Report for October, 2023, BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (3.1) 6019 Hamlyn Street (Z-9654) (Relates to Bill No. 456)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Ltd., relating to the property located at 6019 Hamlyn Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 13, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 28, 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 Residential R4/R5/R6/R7/R8 Special Provision (hh-100R4-3(2)R5-7(18)R6-5(74)R7(29) D75H20R8-4(62)) Zone with provisions for a maximum density of 75 units per hectare and a maximum height of 20 metres TO a Holding Residential R4/R5/R6/R7/R8 Special Provision (hh-100R4-3(2)*R5-7(18)*R6-5(74)R7(29)D100H20R8-4(_)) Zone with provision of a maximum density of 100 units per hectare and a maximum height of 20 metres;

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

  •    A. Haasen, Sifton Properties Limited;

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

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

  •    the recommended zone conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Environmental Review Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable The London Plan policies;

  •    the recommended zone conforms to the policies of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the recommended zone is appropriate and will permit open space/park uses consistency with the planned vision of the Neighbourhoods Place Type and built form that contributes to a sense of place, character and connectivity;

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

8.2.5   (3.2) 187 Wharncliffe Road North (HAP23-074-L)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for the demolition of the existing building and approval for a proposed new mixed use building comprised of office and residential, as described herein and shown in Appendix C, on the property at 187 Wharncliffe Road North, within the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

a)    horizontal painted wood or fiber cement board be used for the exterior cladding of the proposed building, including the gable ends;

b)    painted wood doors be used on the north and west elevations of the proposed building;

c)    front (west) porch to feature panelled columns with cap and base details, and a painted wood railing/guard following EC-2 of SB-7, primed and painted;

d)    side (north) porch to feature panelled columns with cap and base details, primed and painted;

e)    front yard parking is prohibited;

f)    any signage for the proposed office use be limited to the small band above the west entrance and be indirectly illuminated by hanging light fixtures, as indicated on plans submitted;

g)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the Building Permit application drawings to verify compliance with this Heritage Alteration Permit prior to issuance of the Building Permit; and,

h)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated October 25, 2023, from R. Annis, with respect to these matters;

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

  •    T. Dingman;

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

8.2.6   (3.3) 607 Queens Avenue (Z-9650) (Relates to Bill No. 457)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 1934643 Ontario Inc., c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 607 Queens Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 13, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 28, 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 R3 /Office Conversion (R3-1/OC5) Zone TO a Residential R3 /Office Conversion Special Provision (R3-1/OC7(_)) Zone;

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

  •    L. Jamieson, 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 (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 recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Urban Corridor Place Type policies; and;

  •    the recommended amendment would permit a new land use that is considered appropriate within the surrounding context and will facilitate the adaptive reuse of the existing converted dwelling;

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-D04)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (3.4) 1990 Commissioners Road East and 2767 Doyle Drive (Z-9656) (Relates to Bill No. 458)

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 Lux Homes Design & Build, (c/o SBM Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1990 Commissioners Road East & 2767 Doyle Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 13, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 28, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve Special Provision (UR4(5)/UR4(7)) 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)    shift Blocks 1 and 2 to the west and Block 3 to the east to centralize the buildings on the site;

ii)    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;

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

iv)    review short-term bicycle parking spaces allocated to the site; 

v)    landscaping to include at minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted; and,

vii)    include a minimum of 5% EV charging spots;

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

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz; and,

  •    A. Johnson;

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 with an appropriate form of infill development that provides choice and diversity in housing options;

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

8.2.9   (3.6) 200 Albert Street (Z-9561) (Relates to Bill No. 460)

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 200 Albert London Incorporated, relating to the property located at 200 Albert Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 13, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 28, 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 R10/Office Conversion/Temporary (R10-3*H24/OC7/T-70) Zone TO a Residential R10 Special Provision (R10-3(_)*H56) Zone;

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

i)    provide a minimum transparent glazing on the lobby/vestibule of 50% abutting Albert Street;

ii)    consider changes to the building design above the 7th storey to reduce the building width (north-south); 

iii)    provide a taller ground floor height to benefit the site from a streetscape activation perspective; 

iv)    incorporate alternative landscaping design to ensure adequate tree and vegetative plantings above the parking garage; 

v)    consider revisions to the layby to ensure safe and efficient vehicle movements; and,

vi)    seek opportunities to provide additional step backs along all lot lines above the 3rd and 6th floor;

vii)    landscaping to include at minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

viii)    include a minimum of 5% EV charging spots;

ix)    ensure the building is built to a minimum of Bronze LEED certification or similar green building standard;

x)    ensure that at least 50% of the rooftop is green roof or solar; and,

xi)    bird friendly design incorporated (lights point down and 90% of all glazing 5 storeys and below treated);

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

  •    D. Galbraith;

  •    M. Villemaire; and,

  •    A.M. Valastro;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies in The London Plan; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Committee Clerk BE DIRECTED to update the Deferred Matters List to remove any items that have been addressed by the Civic Administration.  (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (5.2) 12th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 12th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on November 8, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (3.5) 978 Gainsborough Road (Z-9247) (Relates to Bill No.’s 422 and 459)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Highland Communities Ltd., relating to the property located at 978 Gainsborough Road:

a)    the request to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the City of London by AMENDING a site-specific policy for the Neighbourhoods Place Type to allow a maximum density of 370 units per hectare and a maximum height of 17-storeys, BE APPROVED;

b)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-5.h-11.h-17. R9-7(17).H50) TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-.h-5.h-11.h-110. R9-7(  ).H60 Zone to permit the development of two, 17 storey residential apartment buildings interconnected by a 6-storey podium with a total of 481 residential units, BE APPROVED;

c)    the Civic Administration, including but not limited to the staff of the Municipal Housing Development team, BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to provide for affordable housing units in the above-noted proposed development; it being noted that any such units could be a part of the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units, as well as assist with Council’s Strategic focus to increase access to a range of quality affordable housing options;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the required implementing by-laws to the November 28, 2023 Council meeting for approval;

e)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the changes will not significantly alter the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Public Meeting; and,

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

i)    include a highly visible and distinguishable principal building entrance for pedestrians on the north elevation. This entrance should be designed with architectural features such as transparent glazing, weather protection (such as canopies), signage and other architectural features that distinguish it as the principal building entrance;

ii)    provide a safe and convenient pedestrian walkway from the public sidewalk on Gainsborough Road and the public sidewalk on the future Coronation Drive extension to the principal building entrance(s);

iii)    consider locating the entrance(s) to the underground parking on the east and/or west elevations of the building as opposed to the north elevation to allow space for a central pedestrian access closer to the public street, to allow for more active uses on the front of the building, and to not have the parking garage entrance be the view terminus for the main access into site;

iv)    consider providing individual unit entrances for the ground floor units along the ‘service road’ and include individual walkway access from each unit to the sidewalk along this street;

v)    consider designing the proposed ‘service road’ to include pedestrian amenities such as landscaping, street furniture, human-scale lighting and sidewalks on both sides of the street;

vi)    ensure that rooftop mechanical penthouses and equipment should be screened from view and/or incorporated into the overall building design;

vii)    provide easily accessible temporary bicycle parking facilities on-site;

viii)    confirm the location(s) of garbage pick-up and/or loading areas and ensure they are screened from view from public streets and/or pedestrian connections;

ix)    provide fully dimensioned site plan and elevations for all sides of the proposed buildings;

x)    landscaping to include at minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

xi)    achieve a LEED certification or similar green standard; and,

xii)    include a minimum of 5% EV charging spots (Mix of Level 1 and 2);

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

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

  •    M. Al Ashkar, Highland Communities;

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

  •    the application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement; and,

  •    the application is consistent with the neighbourhood character, with the appropriate holding provisions for servicing and easement requirements;

it being further noted that the applicant verbally indicated that in lieu of affordable housing units at 80% of AMR, a financial contribution of $300,000 will be made toward Council’s Roadmap to 3000 and Whole of Community Response at the completion of the Site Plan Approval process; it being noted that detailed information will be provided by the applicant prior to Council’s final approval;

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-D04)

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:34 PM and reconvenes at 3:58 PM.

8.3   17th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2023-11-14 CPSC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 17th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 7th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 7th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on October 26, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 11th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 11th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 2, 2023:

a)   Paul Yeoman, Patrick Donnelly and a member of Civic Administration with knowledge of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) BE INVITED to the December 2023 meeting of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee to give an update on the status of the Clear Your Gear initiative;

b)   a member of Civic Administration from the Communications division BE REQUESTED to assist the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (AWCAC) in producing library displays related to how to safeguard windows for birds; it being noted that the AWCAC will finalize the information for the display for approval at the next meeting of the AWCAC;

c)   a budget expenditure BE APPROVED, as outlined on the document, from the 2023 Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee to pay for three displays for libraries related to ways to safeguard windows for birds, including carrying cases for the displays; it being noted that, if there are funds left after the above-noted purchase, said funds will be used to purchase bird-friendly window collision tape; and,

d)   clauses 1.1 and 3.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) 2023 Annual Emergency Management Program Update (Relates to Bill No. 418)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 14, 2023, related to the 2023 Annual Emergency Management Program Update:

a)   the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting, to be held on November 28, 2023, to amend By-law No. A.-7657-4, as amended, being “A by-law to repeal By-law No. A.-7495-21 and to adopt an Emergency Management Program and Plan” in order to repeal and replace Schedule “A” to the by-law; and,

b)   the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2023-P03)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Housing Collaborative Initiative Follow-Up and Next Steps

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 14, 2023, related to the Housing Collaborative Initiative Follow-Up and Next Steps:

a)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED close out all existing financial obligations related to the Housing Collaborative Initiative;

b)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on next steps to implement a platform to manage housing data following business readiness and project planning;

c)   the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

d)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the financial costs (by municipality and the total cost); and,

e)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on monies collected and the details on any that remain uncollected;

it being noted that existing software and systems continue to be used by city staff, housing providers and clients (2023-S11)

Motion Passed

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated November 14, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 28, 2023, to permit the potential demolition of the abandoned buildings and structures in the City of London, located at the following addresses: 712 Adelaide Street North, 1803 Bradley Avenue, 19 Redan Street, and 188 Wharncliffe Road South; it being noted that the properties may be cleared of all identified buildings, structures, debris and refuse and left in a graded and levelled condition in accordance with the City of London Property Standards By-law and the Ontario Building Code Act, if required. (2023-P10D)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) Building Safer Communities Fund Grant Recipients and Agreement Template (Relates to Bill No. 420)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 14, 2023, related to the Building Safer Communities Fund (BSCF) Grant Recipients and Agreement Template:

a)   the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 28, 2023, to:

i)   approve the standard form Grant Agreement (London’s Building Safer Communities Fund), as appended to the above-noted by-law, to be entered into between The Corporation of the City of London and corporations who have applied to the City for a grant;

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

iii)   delegate authority to the City Manager, or their designate, the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services to act as City Representative for the purpose of this standard form Grant Agreement and to amend the standard form Grant Agreement as outlined in the above-note by-law; and,

b)   the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2023-F11)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.7) Review of Water Servicing in City Parks (Relates to Bill No. 455)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 14, 2023, related to the Review of Water Servicing in City Parks:

a)   the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)   the practice of including outdoor drinking water infrastructure with the construction of new field houses and community centres BE MAINTAINED;

c)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a prioritized plan to add drinking water to appropriate locations as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update work commencing in 2024 in order to inform investments and budgets beyond 2027;

it being noted that Parks and Forestry staff will continue to review opportunities for low cost/low maintenance drinking water installations in the regular consideration of parks infrastructure renewal projects in the interim. (2023-E08)

Motion Passed

8.4   16th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2023-11-14 CWC Report

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 16th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 4 (2.3), 5 (3.1), and 6 (3.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 11th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 11th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on November 1, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Endorsement of Updated Operational Plans for the City of London Drinking Water System

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 November 14, 2023, related to the Endorsement of Updated Operational Plans for the City of London Drinking Water System:

a)   the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)   the current Operational Plan for the City of London Drinking Water System BE ENDORSED by Council as per the requirements of O. Reg. 188/07; and,

c)   the current Operational Plan for the Elgin-Middlesex Pumping Station (London Portion) BE ENDORSED by Council as per the requirements of O. Reg. 188/07. (2023-E13)

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) New Sidewalk Project List 2024

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 14, 2023, related to the New Sidewalk Project List 2024:

a)   the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to remove Sovereign Court from Appendix A of the above-noted staff report. (2023-T04)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.5   (3.1) Northridge Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion BE AMENDED to remove Dalkeith Avenue from the list of exempted streets for sidewalks in the Northridge Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan.

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the Northridge Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan, as appended to the staff report dated November 14, 2023, BE APPROVED to inform the annual Renew London Construction Program with the exception of the proposed Glengarry Avenue, Dalkeith Avenue, Algoma Avenue, Glengyle Crescent, Dunboyne Crescent, Maxwell Crescent and Tweed Crescent sidewalks;

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

  • B. Bontje;

  • K. Leitch;

  • G. Finlay;

  • W. Takola;

  • N. Nielsen;

  • D. Berberich;

  • P. De Sensi;

  • M. McDonald;

  • P. Harris;

  • S. Burns;

  • P. Sanford; and,

  • B. Lazar;

it being noted that the presentation from J. Dann, Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, with respect to this matter, was received. (2023-T04)

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

8.4.6   (3.2) Huron Heights Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan

That the Huron Heights Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan, as appended to the staff report dated November 14, 2023, BE APPROVED to inform the annual Renew London Construction Program with the exception of the proposed Kaladar Drive, Cayuga Crescent, Mark Street and Michael Street sidewalks;

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

it being further noted that the presentation from J. Dann, Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, with respect to this matter, was received. (2023-T04)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the motion BE AMENDED to remove Michael Street from the list of exempted streets for sidewalks in the Huron Heights Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 6, clause 3.2, as amended, reads as follows:

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the Huron Heights Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan, as appended to the staff report dated November 14, 2023, BE APPROVED to inform the annual Renew London Construction Program with the exception of the proposed Kaladar Drive, Cayuga Crescent, and Mark Street sidewalks;

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

it being further noted that the presentation from J. Dann, Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, with respect to this matter, was received. (2023-T04)

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.5   3rd Report of the Audit Committee

2023-11-15 Audit Report 3

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 3rd Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (4.1) Updated Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with regards to the Updated Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan:

a)     the Internal Audit Plan BE REVISED, in consultation with MNP, to move the compliance audit related to Creating a Safe London for Women and Girls to Q3 of 2024, and to move the compliance audit related to Anti-Racism Anti-Oppression (ARAO) to 2025; and

b)     the communication dated November 15, 2023 from MNP with respect to the Updated Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (4.2) Briefing Note From Internal Audit

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (4.3) Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (4.4) Vendor Risk Management (VRM) Audit

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication dated November 1, 2023 from MNP with respect to the Vendor Risk Management (VRM) Audit BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.5) Community Arts Investment Program Value for Money (VFM) Audit

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication dated November 2, 2023 from MNP with respect to the Community Arts Investment Program Value for Money (VFM) Audit, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (4.6) Community Heritage Investment Program Value for Money (VFM) Audit

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication dated November 1, 2023 from MNP with respect to the Community Heritage Investment Program Value for Money (VFM) BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

9.1   17th Report of Council in Closed Session

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

At 5:00 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 5:03 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, pursuant to section 20.2 of the Council Procedure By-law, Mayor J. Morgan BE GRANTED leave to bring forward an Emergent Motion with respect to 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.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

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.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 5:04 PM to 5:31 PM.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 417 to Bill No. 460, and excluding Bill No. 422 and Bill No. 459, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 417 to Bill No. 460, and excluding Bill No. 422 and Bill No. 459, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 417 to Bill No. 460, and excluding Bill No. 422 and Bill No. 459, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 422 and Bill No. 459, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 422 and Bill No. 459, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 422 and Bill No. 459, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

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

Bill No. 417

By-law No. A.-8435-318 – A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 28th day of November, 2023. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 418

By-law No. A.-7657(f)-319 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7657-4, as amended, being “A by-law to repeal By-law No. A.-7495-21 and to adopt an Emergency Management Program and Plan” to repeal and replace Schedule “A” to the by-law. (2.3/17/CPSC)

Bill No. 419

By-law No. A.-8436-320 – A by-law to approve the potential demolition of vacant buildings at 188 Wharncliffe Rd S, 19 Redan St, 1803 Bradley Ave, and 712 Adelaide St N under the Property Standards provisions of the Building Code Act. (2.5/17/CPSC)

Bill No. 420

By-law No. A.-8437-321 – A by-law to approve and adopt the standard form Grant Agreement (Building Safer Communities Fund); and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2.6/17/CPSC)

Bill No. 421

By-law No. A-59 – A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges and to repeal By-law A-58, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges”. (3.1/27/SPPC)

Bill No. 422

By-law No. C.P.-1512(co)-322 – A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 978 Gainsborough Road (3.5a/18/PEC)

Bill No. 423

By-law No. CPOL.-228(c)-323 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-228-480, as amended, being “Council Members’ Expense Account” to update various provisions of the policy. (2.9/27/SPPC)(3.1/7/GWG)

Bill No. 424

By-law No. S.-6269-324 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Warbler Woods Walk; and as part of Riverbend Road)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-711 requires 0.3m Reserve on abutting Plans 33M-478 and 33M-638 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 425

By-law No. S.-6270-325 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Brayford Avenue)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-725 requires 0.3m reserve on abutting Plan 33M-713 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No.  426

By-law No. S.-6271-326 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Old Garrison Boulevard)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-726 requires a 0.3m Reserve on abutting Plan 33M-624 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No.  427

By-law No. S.-6272-327 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Silverfox Drive; as part of Medway Park Drive; and as part of Tokala Trail)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-729 requires 0.3m Reserve on abutting Plans 33M-622, 33M-637, and 33M-652 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No.  428

By-law No S.-6273-328 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of South Carriage Road; as part of Noah Bend; and as part of Emma Chase and Noah Bend)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-733 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting Plans 33M-526 and 33M-700 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No.  429

By-law No. S.-6274-329 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Lawson Road)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-747 requires 0.3m Reserves on abutting Plan 33M-710 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 430

By-law No. S.-6275-330 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Heardcreek Trail)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-750 requires 0.3m Reserve on abutting Plan 33M-730 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 431

By-law No. S.-6276-331 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of South Winds Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-751 requires 0.3m Reserve on abutting Plan M-64 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 432

By-law No. S.-6277-332 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Dyer Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-752 requires a 0.3m Reserve on abutting Plan 33M-685 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 433

By-law No. S.-6278-333 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Upper West Avenue and Riverbend Road; and as part of Boardwalk Way and Trailsway Avenue)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-754 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting Plan 33M-711 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 434

By-law No. S.-6279-334 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Frontier Avenue; and as part of Mersea Street)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-755 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting Plan 33M-726 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 435

By-law No. S.-6280-335 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Kains Road; and as part of Gatenby Street)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-768 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting Plan 33M-596 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 436

By-law No. S.-6281-336 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Kennington Way)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-769 requires 0.3m reserve on abutting Plan 33M-765 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 437

By-law No. S.-6282-337 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Callaway Road)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-771 requires a 0.3m reserve on abutting Plan 33M-633 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 438

By-law No. S.-6283-338 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Emilycarr Lane)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-780 requires 0.3m reserve on abutting Plan 33M-582 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 439

By-law No. S.-6284-339 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Applerock Avenue; and as part of Twilite Boulevard)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-784 requires 0.3m reserve on abutting Plan 33M-750 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 440

By-law No. S.-6285-340 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of David Milne Way; and as part of Emilycarr Lane)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-786 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting Plan 33M-780 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 441

By-law No. S.-6286-341 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Applerock Avenue)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-793 requires 0.3m reserve on abutting Plan 33M-784 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 442

By-law No. S.-6287-342 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (part of Applerock Avenue)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-804 requires 0.3m reserve on abutting Plan 33M-750 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 443

By-law No. S.-6288-343 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Silver Creek Circle; and as part of Pack Road)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-806 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting Plan 33M-742 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 444

By-law No. S.-6289-344 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Upperpoint Avenue; as part of Fountain Grass Drive; and as part of Upper West Avenue)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-810 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting Plan 33M-754 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 445

By-law No. S.-6290-345 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Apricot Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-811 requires 0.3m reserve on abutting Plan 33M-490 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 446

By-law No. S.-6291-346 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Buroak Drive; and as part of Bridgehaven Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – registration Plan 33M-812 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting Plans 33M-622, 33M-750, and 33M-767 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 447

By-law No. S.-6292-347 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Eagletrace Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-815 requires 0.3m reserve on abutting Plan 33M-687 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 448

By-law No. S.-6293-348 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Ayrshire Avenue and Campbell Street North)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-816 requires reserve on abutting Plan 33M-762 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 449

By-law No. S.-6294-349 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Green Gables Road; and as part of Cardinal Road)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-818 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting Plan 33M-584 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 450

By-law No. S.-6295-350 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Campbell Street North)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-821 requires 0.3m reserve on abutting Plan 33M-821 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 451

By-law No. S.-6296-351 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Applerock Avenue and Buroak Drive; as part of Bob Schram Way; and as part of Buroak Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-824 requires 0.3m reserves on abutting Plans 33M-793, 33M-799, and 33M-824 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 452

By-law No. S.-6297-352 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Frontier Avenue; and as part of Old Garrison Boulevard)  (Chief Surveyor – registration of Plan 33M-837 requires 0.3m on abutting Plan 33M-755 to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the subdivision)

Bill No. 453

By-law No. WM-28-23011 – A by-law to amend By-law WM-28 being “A by-law for regulation of wastewater and stormwater drainage systems in the City of London”, as amended, by providing for an increase in the rates and charges. (3.2a/27/SPPC)

Bill No. 454

By-law No. W-8-23010 – A by-law to amend By-law W-8 being “A by-law to provide for the Regulation of Water Supply in the City of London”, as amended, by providing for an increase in the rates and charges. (3.2b/27/SPPC)

Bill No. 455

By-law No. W.-5698-353 – A by-law to authorize Project FS1046 – Fire Replace Portable Radios Phase 2 Corridor. (2.7/16/CPSC)

Bill No. 456

By-law No. Z.-1-233160 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 6019 Hamlyn Street (3.1/18/PEC)

Bill No. 457

By-law No. Z.-1-233161 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 607 Queens Avenue. (3.3/18/PEC)

Bill No. 458

By-law No. Z.-1-233162 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1990 Commissioners Road East & 2767 Doyle Drive. (3.4/18/PEC)

Bill No. 459

By-law No. Z.-1-233163 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 978 Gainsborough Road (3.5b/18/PEC)

Bill No. 460

By-law No. Z.-1-233164 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 200 Albert Street. (3.6/18/PEC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:38 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 57 minutes)

[20:37] Please be seated. Oh, sorry, not quite yet. Thank you, now you can be seated. Okay, this is the 20th meeting of City Council on November 28th, 2023. We acknowledge that we’re gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran.

[21:11] We honor respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nantfan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, and the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Pre-Indigenous nations that are neighbors to Lene are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Haudenosaunee Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations, individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs.

[21:59] The City of Lene is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings of own requests, to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. Andrea Padrassa and Oscar Asabedro are a dynamic musical duo of Colombian origin.

[22:39] Andrea is a professional singer, saxophonist, and composer who has graced the stage’s worldwide, including leading Caribbean beats band in the United Arab Emirates. Oscar is a seasoned professional singer, a multi-instrumentalist, and accomplished songwriter. With expertise and a range of instruments from piano to percussion, he has contributed his talents to various bands. Together, Andrea and Oscar bring a rich blend of musical talent and teaching experience. Their collaborative efforts transcend borders while having worked in Ecuador, Canada, and beyond.

[23:14] Whether captivating audiences on stage or imparting their musical wisdom, this duo embodies harmonious fusion of artistry and education. Please join me in welcoming Andrea and Oscar who will now perform “The National Anthem” for us and please rise. Don’t take offense colleagues, but that may have been just a step up from our special council meeting where we all sang, but amazing performance.

[26:00] We’re lucky to have such talent in our city each and every time we have a council meeting, so. With that, I will move on to disclosures of pecuniary interest. There was one at committee. Mr. Lehman, I think it was that. Thank you, your worship. And I believe from SPPC was related to quickly find it here.

[26:36] I apologize for not being prepared on this one. Rack number 10, Steve London’s strategic plan inquiry, as I am a member of the LDPA. Anyone else? Okay, that moves us to recognitions, and we have some special recognitions today. The 2023 diversity, race relations, and inclusivity award recipients, I’m gonna move to the podium at the center for the presentation of those awards.

[27:55] Just kind of waiting for the award winners, so. Just know we’re waiting. That the diversity, race relations, and inclusivity award policy, the successful nominees are presented with awards tonight. And we always do this at the council meeting that is closest to the meeting date for the December 10th human rights day. So we try to find a meeting that lands within proximity to that, and here we go. So human rights day is observed every year on December 10th, the day that in 1948 that the United Nations General Assembly adopted the universal declaration of human rights.

[28:34] The UDRH is a milestone document which recognizes the inherent dignity of the equal, indivisible, and in alienable rights of all members of the human family. And it is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. Regardless of race, color, religion, sex, language, political, or another opinion, national, or social, or origin, property, birth, or other status. Available in more than 500 languages, it is the most translated document in the world. The diversity, race, relation, and inclusivity awards focuses on four key areas to which nominees are asked to respond in their submissions.

[29:17] The first contributions to the promotion of diversity, race, relations, and inclusivity, human rights in London, and promotes London as a welcoming city. Second, there is a short or long-term impact that the initiative has on the promotion of diversity, race, relations, inclusivity, and human rights in London, and promotes London as a welcoming city. Third, the potential for expansion or inspiration for the replication of the initiative. And finally, how receiving this award can be used to further engage diversity, race, relations, inclusivity, and human rights in London, and further promote London as a welcoming city.

[29:52] And this year, we are pleased to recognize the contributions of five local community organizations. The first, which I might ask them to join me up on stage is the Oak Ridge Presbyterian Church Mission and Outreach. Come on up. We’ll do the applause after we make a few remarks. This is the category is a small business and small labor, which is 49 or fewer employees or members. And their initiative, the Oak Ridge Presbyterian Church Mission and Outreach provides an indigenous soup kitchen, seeks out schools, partners with mission services, my sister’s place, and delivers hundreds of bags of one pound dehydrated vegetable soup.

[30:37] Church members work across cultures and interfaith, volunteering their time to make a difference in people’s lives. I want to invite someone, if you want to share a few words, to come to the front and share a few words with the organization, and then I’m going to present to you with a nice plaque. So go ahead. My name is Tim Archibald. I’m the Minister at Oak Ridge Church. We are a 500-member congregation and community of faith on West Oxford Street and have been there for about 70 years. We’re an ethnically diverse congregation.

[31:10] And so our ministry flows out of that. And it’s our hope to make London a place of flourishing life for everyone. We want to be good neighbors. And we look forward to partnering with you, folks, as well in the future in any way that we can, especially in serving the most marginalized in our community. It’s really with a desire to love our neighbors, that we aim to bring that greater flourishing life, one relationship at a time, or one bowl of soup at a time. So thank you so much.

[31:42] We’re honored for this. Joining— please join me in congratulating them. Sorry. Councilor Lam has got to line up because it’s an Oak Ridge thing, right?

[32:56] Thanks again. We really appreciate the work you do for our community. The next recipient is Islamic Relief Canada London Regional Team. This is the large business, our large labor organization, our sector of the awards, 50 or more employees, or members. Islamic Relief Canada London Regional Team provides back to school and winter war gatherings.

[33:31] Please come on up. Food campaign drives, a truth and reconciliation assembly, as well as giving backpacks full of supplies to vulnerable children in the community through the Muslim Resource Center, Anova Shelter, and the London Muslim Mosque. I’ll invite you to come up and just say a few words if you’d like, and then I’ll present you with a plaque. I’m deeply honored and privileged to accept this award on behalf of our incredible London Regional Team of Volunteers. Throughout the challenging times brought upon us by the pandemic, this team has exemplified the true spirit of community resilience and generosity.

[34:11] From the very inception of our efforts, our team has been driven by unwavering commitment to make tangible in differences in the lives of those around us. We’ve embraced the opportunity to serve the vulnerable in our society, feeding the homeless, distributing winter kids, assisting refugees with essential appointments, and bringing smiles to children in need with toys and back to school supplies are just some of the many things that this group has done. Our volunteers didn’t just stop at the basics. They’ve extended their support by organizing drives for local shelters, hosting engaging community activities like movie nights and festivals, and orchestrating captivating fundraising dinners that brought our community together in the most meaningful ways.

[34:52] The spirit of our team has resonated far and wide, drawing in support from the university and high school students, painting London blue with acts of kindness and raising substantial funds that have made substantial impact on our initiatives. Today we stand here, and I want to express our deepest gratitude to every single person who has been a part of this journey. Your unwavering dedication, tireless efforts, and unwraving support have made this honor possible. It is truly a testament of the power of unity and collective action. We are immensely proud to give back to our greater community, and this award serves as a testament to the collective heart and soul of our team.

[35:30] On behalf of all of us, I extend our heartfelt thanks for this humbling recognition. This award is not just ours. It belongs to every volunteer, every donor, supporter, and partner who has been part of this meaningful endeavor. Thank you for this incredible opportunity, and may this award ignite our passion to continue making a positive difference in the lives of those who need it most. Thank you. Thank you very much. Can somebody here? Please have fun.

[36:04] Come on in, then. Want to go to the other side? If we could bring out the representatives from Project Search, that would be fantastic.

[36:49] So this category is the Social and Community Service category, including not-for-profits, 49 or fewer employees or members. Come on right up. All right, yep. So this initiative, in conjunction with the Thames Valley District School Board and Hutton House Project Search, works with students with intellectual disabilities to gain employment skills. The students work three unpaid internships over 700 hours in various occupations, and I’ll invite someone that want to share a few words up to the podium. There.

[37:25] Thames Valley District School Board and Hutton House and St. Joseph’s Health Care have partnered together for Project Search. We are housed at Parkwood Institute, and the greatest advantage of the program for the student interns is that we are in a business environment, and they learn those skills so essential to getting competitive employment later on. So it’s a real collaborative effort. We’re in our second year, so we had seven graduates last year, and we’ll have about the same number this year. So thank you for this recognition. It’s been a lovely event.

[38:40] OK, if we could bring up London Track 3 adaptive snow school. This category is the Social and Community Service category, including not-for-profits, 50 or more employees or members. Now, London Track 3 adaptive snow school is a volunteer-run not-for-profit organization dedicated to providing inclusive instruction for students with diverse physical and cognitive abilities to allow them to learn how to ski or snowboard. Students have the ability to interact with a dedicated volunteer instructors and fellow students in a non-judgmental manner.

[39:14] If someone would like to come up and share just a few words, we would greatly appreciate that, and then I’ll present you with the plaque. You were so delighted to be recipients of this award, along with all of the other groups that were awarded today. London Track 3 is an organization that shares their passion for skiing and snowboarding with students. We’d love to see the smiles. We’d love to give lots of hot chocolate. It’s a great organization. Thank you. The final recipient couldn’t join us today, but I’m just going to read out a short description.

[40:22] Yes, Alejuni, or they will teach you, is dedicated to empowering Indigenous youth and fostering truth and reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Their mission is to provide a transformative program that addresses mental health challenges, promotes self-empowerment, and offers a safe space for artistic expression and growth amongst Indigenous youth. Please join me in congratulating them, and we’ll get them their plaque in a future time. And that concludes the diversity and race relations and inclusivity awards.

[40:59] I do want to just conclude by thanking all of the members involved in the process to get to the awards, including those who make the nominations, those who serve on the selection committee, those who volunteer, and those who were able to host a reception for some of the award winners, and of course, organize the celebration today at Council. Thanks to everyone behind the scenes who made this possible. We really appreciate all you do as well. Thank you. OK, we’re on to a review of Confidential Matters to be considered in public.

[41:55] There are none. Next, we have three items for Council on closed session. We will move to Committee Room 5 after the vote. So I’ll look for a motion to move into closed session. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Frank. We will open that in the system. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

[42:30] OK, so Council will move to Committee Room 5. Thank you.

[57:02] Please be seated. OK, next, we have confirmation of the signing of the minutes of the previous meetings. We have the meeting held on November 7, 2023. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder of those minutes. Moved by Council Member Ayman, seconded by Councillor Ferra. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Palazzo votes yes.

[57:51] First call for Councillor Troso. Marking, Councillor Troso, absent. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. OK, communications and petitions. There are seven items on both the regular and added agenda you can see. We have a motion prepared to refer all of those to the different areas of the reports where the committees are. Councillor Palazzo moves. Councillor Hopkins moves. Councillor Palazzo seconds. Any discussion on that? We’ll open that for voting momentarily.

[58:34] Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. OK, there are no motions to which notice was given. So the first— that’s on to reports. So the first report that we have is 8.1, which is the 27th report of SPPC. I’ll ask the deputy mayor to present that report for the committee. Just note that so far I have Councillor Lehman wanting 10 dealt with separately for a pecuniary issue. Thank you, Your Worship.

[59:08] So I’m happy to present the 27th report of SPPC. I do want to just note for colleagues that although the titles are in our agenda, I want to point out that the grant agreements for Tech Alliance, the Small Business Center, and LEDC are actually referred to a future meeting. We did not receive their grant applications at SPPC. We simply received their presentations, which are items later in the agenda. So I want to note that although they’re listed, we’re not actually approving grants today.

[59:44] Those will come forward to a future meeting. I will also ask that item 17 be pulled to be dealt with separately. That’s the community cold weather response update. And I am not aware of anything else that colleagues wish to have dealt with separately. So that would be moving all excluding 10 and 17 unless something else needs to be pulled. Sure, I can just check now if anybody would like anything other than those two items dealt with separately. No, it looks like you can make that motion that you’ve suggested.

[1:00:21] So that’s everything on the SPPC report with the exception of 10, the city of London strategic plan, core area, and item 17, which is 4.2 from the committee, which is the cold weather response report. Other than those two things, everything else is on the floor. I’ll see if there’s any comments, questions. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just have a question on 2.3. The November progress update on the health and homelessness whole community system response. I was surprised at the SPPC to find out that the 18 beds for Atlosa for the hub weren’t net new that we had done.

[1:01:01] We had funded 18 transitional beds plus 10 cold weather, I think, in the last winter response. And those beds were supposed to go to March 2024. And the hub is supposed to start December 2023 with the 18 transitional and 10 respite beds. And I just wondered, it was just in social media with the big diggers and some excitement about the build. So I just wondered if we could get an update on that project. Are the, is the hub going to be ready to be open in December? Like, sort of what’s with the construction and the beds?

[1:01:40] Like, what will the change be? Just wondering on that, an update on the hubs for— yeah, Atlosa. Thank you, Mr. Dickens. Through you, your worship, yes, the Atlosa Indigenous hub will be open in December. The construction that you’re seeing and the activity that the organization has been promoting is the leveling and the creating of the space for the pallet structures to come on site. So that is what is also fundamentally different about the inner of the cold work that Atlosa had been doing previously.

[1:02:14] They’re fundamentally changing the services that are provided and really fundamentally changing the space itself. So the pallet structures are en route. St. Joseph’s HealthCare has a facility team that’s been leading this in partnership with Atlosa. And they expect to have those open here in December. OK, thank you. That’s great to hear. Yeah, thank you. All right, any other questions or comments? Go ahead, Debbie or Louis. Thank you, worship.

[1:02:47] I just wanted to take a moment to extend my personal thanks to both yourself and Councillor Ramen on item 18 of the asylum claimants and to the folks at Mission Services who provided us some information on that. I think it highlights, again, 40% of the beds in the men’s mission being occupied by newcomers, half of those being asylum seekers, same sort of statistics with the family shelters, of which we have precious few already. I think it’s really incumbent to highlight that there is a failing here.

[1:03:22] And it is not on the City of London’s part. It is not on the men’s missions part. It is on policies from the federal government. And they need to be addressed. And we cannot look to just funding alone because these folks, if we’re going to be bringing folks to Canada, we need to be providing them with a place to stay. We need to have options for them for housing. It is extremely unfortunate that this is the situation we find ourselves in. And it makes it that much more difficult to provide shelter beds for those who are already in our community in need. This cannot be understated the importance of calling on the federal government to take some responsibility and to deliver some support for our community on this.

[1:04:07] This goes hand in hand with the changes that we made with regard to urgent status tenant placement agreements and trying to help folks in our own community. We’ve been on the wait list for years and years and years and are still waiting for housing. This goes hand in hand with a number of the other initiatives that we’re undertaking. And so I really, really want to thank Councillor Ramen and yourself for bringing this forward on this agenda. And again, I want to say to the folks at men’s mission, I know there’s sometimes a reluctance to provide this kind of information, but it’s important that we have it.

[1:04:39] And I think that the numbers don’t lie. They are really clear that part of the challenge we are having is with newcomers and not that we don’t want newcomers coming to this country, but that we’re not planning for how they are going to be supported and how they’re going to have opportunities once they arrive here. And that is tragic and it’s something that needs to be highlighted and fixed. So thank you both for bringing this forward and getting this on our agenda today. Okay, thank you very much. Don’t see any other speakers. Okay, so this is moved by the chair.

[1:05:13] This is the full slate of items with the exception of 10 and 17. We will open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Your Worship. I will put item 10 on the floor now. This is the City of London strategic plan core area. Yes, and this is the referral motion back with a number of other items that the committee considered.

[1:05:49] So I’ll look for speakers on this one. Okay, seeing none, I’m going to add myself to the speakers as I’ve got a question. I’m going to hand the chair to Councillor Layman. Madam Mayor. So this is when we dealt with like a little later in the evening and there was a question that I had jotted down to ask, but I never got to it ‘cause I was trying to chair a meeting that was going a little late.

[1:06:22] And I just wanted to give Mr. Mayor there’s an opportunity to respond. I know we’re shifting a little bit of direction here and adding some components. So I just wanted to ask a question about the staff capacity to handle an alternate approach. Not that that means I oppose it. And is there anything that would be adjusted in kind of the workload that you have? I just realized you’ve got housing accelerator fund improving development processes a lot on your plate. And I’d want to ensure that we have the capacity to do this. And if we don’t, I mean, we should consider how we support that.

[1:06:56] Again, not because I oppose what the Councillor’s brought forward in the referral, but I’m just conscious that you can’t do everything if you don’t have the capacity to do it. So I wanted to ask through the presiding officer, Mr. Mayor, there’s any comment that he might have about this workload, the ability to get it done and anything he might need to proceed in this direction. Mr. Mayor, through the presiding officer, very much appreciate that question. The way that we really saw this rolling out was following the multi-year budget deliberation. So we have, as part of our submission, included some funding to be able to undertake a plan.

[1:07:34] If this, what was highlighted in the report is not where the direction council wants to go and we want to look at a different way to do it, very happy to do that. It would depend on that funding to be supported going through the multi-year budget process to be able to proceed, but we can, of course, really frame out and do exactly as the community and council wants to do moving forward, but it’s going to take that funding to be able to bring forward a new plan for the downtown. Mayor Morgan. Yes, I appreciate that answer. That’s, I’m glad that that additional context is there and it’s important to know that there’s a business case associated with this work that would need to be approved to proceed with it.

[1:08:12] So that’s all the questions I had. And I’ll return to chair to the Mayor. Any other speakers on this item? Councilor Ferrer. Thank you. I guess I’ll make some comments on this. Like I understand that we do have the multi-year budget deliberations coming up and things are a little bit compressed, so I was expecting that it would be probably after how much funding we approved here on council for that. Like I said, this is a long-term vision, a long-term motion, it’s going to take several years. So there’s no rush moving it forward.

[1:08:46] So I guess I’ll keep my comments there. I’m still looking for your support and I do look forward working with staff in the future on this. Councilor Pribble. Thank you, Chair. And I completely agree that our staff and Mr. Mayders will need a support and I’m glad it’s coming forward. And I hope my colleagues will support us at a council today. And one thing is I want to mention, I do think it’s urgent. I do, but on the other hand, I understand that it’s going to come through the multi-year budget. Thank you. Okay, any others?

[1:09:20] Okay, so it’s on the floor by the Deputy Mayor. We’ve had discussion. I’m going to open this committee recommendation for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. Deputy Mayor.

[1:09:57] Thank you, Your Worship. So that brings us to item 17. There was considerable debate committee about this. There were split votes. So I think the best way for me to proceed is to move parts A, C, and D first, because those will all be necessary on regardless of the outcome of the votes on the different clauses in B. So I think we can move those the way that the clerks of the language structured part C says, authorize administrative acts, which are necessary in connection with contracts selected in part B.

[1:10:32] So I think we can move A, C, and D first, get that out of the way, and then we can move on to part B. So I just, I’m going to suggest how we handled it at committee was we did B first and then everything else after because depending, like, essentially, you don’t want to authorize the administrative acts and B until you’ve dealt with B.

[1:11:07] So like we could take care of the components of B. If all of B is there, then that’s great. We can do the next piece. If not all of B is there, it doesn’t change C, but for an order of operations standpoint, it makes more sense to know what we’re doing before we move to the authorizing the administrative acts piece. So perhaps we can start with B, just on the advice of the clerks. I am happy to do whatever the clerks deem procedurally is the best way to proceed. So I will look for someone else to present part B because I wish to vote on those separately and was not in support of all of them at committee.

[1:11:43] So you don’t have to, so if there’s one part of B, you don’t want to present, you could do that. We voted on them all separately at committee, so we could proceed that way. Again, it’s kind of in the hands of council, but I do have to address the committee’s report here. Councilor McAllister, go ahead. Are you looking to speak to it? Okay, we’re not quite there yet. We’re just gonna figure out exactly what we’ve got on the floor. Can I ask colleagues if there’s something they’re looking to have dealt with separately at this point, just so I can figure out how to craft a motion.

[1:12:18] If there’s a part of B you want to vote on separately, that’s great. If there’s other parts of B you don’t. I’m not looking for commentary right now. I’m just looking for guidance to try to deal with the committee’s recommendation. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m just asking, is it the chair asking for them to be voted on separately? Or is that, ‘cause I didn’t hear that request from anyone else, so maybe that’s just coming. The deputy marriage said he’s not willing to support B. He wanted to do something separately, so that’s why we’re dealing with B separate. What I’m asking for is does anybody want anything to be dealt with separately? So, what he’s asking is do be separate.

[1:12:51] That’s all I’ve divided out so far. And now I’m saying, does anybody want sub components to be divided? So, I’ve not done anything with the motion yet, except for what a member of Council’s asked. And I’m just saying, procedurally, help me understand. The deputy mayor already voted no at this. Like, we’ve all had a chance to do our vote. So, in pulling it separately now, I’m just wondering, it just seems odd to me. If people want to change their vote or something, that makes sense. I can seem odd to you, but I will tell you, this happens almost at every council meeting. People want stuff pulled apart again, like a committee, so they can replicate their votes at committee.

[1:13:25] People want bylaws dealt with separately. People want to be able to express their vote. And between committee and council, some people sometimes want to change their vote. So, we need to allow for councilors to delineate it, at least to the level that we did at committee, in most cases, to allow them to do that. And it’s not abnormal. We’ve done this many times, okay? So, what I’m looking for is, we’re gonna deal with B first for the deputy mayor. What parts of B do we need to deal with separately, if at all? ‘Cause you don’t want to present all of it, so go ahead, you go first, and I’ll look at others.

[1:13:58] So, B, I, I, I want to vote on separately. Does anybody else want anything else dealt with separately? Here, sure, I can give everybody a second. What I’ll just so you know, what I’ll do is, if no one else wants something dealt with separately, we’ll do B, I, I, I, I, and IV first. And then I will ask someone else to present that section of the committee report, so the deputy mayor can not present and move what he’s not supportive of.

[1:14:32] And someone else from the committee will present that. We’ll deal with that, then we’ll go back and present the rest of the item. But I’m just gonna make sure everybody doesn’t want B further divided. Right now, we’re gonna deal with all of B with the exception of II, which is the part related to William Street, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’d like them all done separately then. Sure, well, then there’s easy path forward, but there’s no way to subdivide it more, so I’ll let the deputy mayor put the first one on the floor.

[1:15:13] Okay, so I will put B, I, on the floor now. Okay, that’s moved as the committee’s recommendation, so it doesn’t need a seconder discussion on this one, on this one specifically. So this is the Dundas Street, this is the arcade mission one, just the I. So go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I wasn’t expecting to go through all this again, so as we are, I would just like to say to colleagues that this particular one, if you’re opposed to having social services too close together, then I’d remind you that we just approve safe space right across the street from arcade, so please take that into consideration.

[1:15:59] If you are concerned about costs, I would also like to say that based on my math, we weren’t given it, but based on my math, safe space is $4,300 a month per bed, it’s not 24/7, as far as I know, it closes at 7 a.m., and the women need to leave. And I’ve got, by my math, and my sister’s place is 6,000 a month per bed, and that’s only overnight. My coffee house is $4,900 a month per bed, and Dundas Street, this one here is 4,600 per month per bed.

[1:16:35] So if cost is an issue, I’d like you to consider that, the one at William Street is about $4,500 a month for 24/7 and meals. So we’re looking at financial costs. Can you just keep it tight to the one on the floor? I hear your point. Yeah, my point is, though. Cost. I’m asking colleagues to be consistent. If your concern is location, if your concern is cost, I’d be looking for consistency, that would be me. Obviously, people get to vote however they like, but that’s something to take into consideration. I am supporting this, even though I’m opposed to the location in the heart of our business district, because we’ve already approved day services there, and I think it’s only fair going into winter that we also approve overnight, so I am in support of this.

[1:17:19] Okay, I have Councillor Pribble next, and then Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, I just, it’s not a point just to this one, but all the other three ones. I just want to remind all my colleagues that last year, we had 143 beds, and there was a budget $5 million for winter response. This year, we are at, if we approve all four, we are at 150 beds at $4.9 million. And again, consideration, our homeless population is not decreasing, it is increasing, and again, we are not just saving lives of people, we are making our city more safer as well for businesses and residents, so please consider those points as well.

[1:17:57] Thank you. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you to you. Speaking to just like my thinking, ‘cause I do feel like I need to explain myself for consistency, especially with respect to locations being across the street. There’s other things that are also— Just, we’re not picking up your mic, maybe just tilt it a little bit towards you. Sorry, sorry. There’s other things that I also would include on my decision-making, like with respect to the church as it is, there is a lot of work that has to be done, and the timeframe of when it opens, we’re still unsure of that, because of that.

[1:18:30] With the location that the arc is in right now, there are actual location on Dundas. They already have the beds, they have 30 beds ready to go, and it’s a matter of just giving them the operational funds and giving them the permission to open the doors at nighttime, so I do feel like the amount of barriers that are in ahead of that one are much less than the amount of barriers on the other one, so I just wanted to make a comment on that. Okay, Councillor McAllister, on B.I. Just to be mindful of time, if council doesn’t have an issue, I just want to speak to it as a whole.

[1:19:08] Most of my comments do relate to all of them, so I’ll keep it brief. I just wanted five minutes, and I’m good. So I appreciate that you want to do that. That’s not what’s on the floor, and council decided to divide this up, so I want you to speak to the item. If you want to make some general comments about everything at the whole, there will be kind of the A, B, C, D. The C is kind of the authorized and implement, so you could speak there, but if you’re looking to convince colleagues of supporting or not supporting something, I would suggest that you maybe speak to the item on the floor, and not speak more broadly, because we’re going to have four votes here, and if everybody is that for everyone, it’s going to be a long night, so maybe just keep your comments tight to this.

[1:19:51] If you want to pick the last one, and make some more broad comments, it’s probably best. Just hold my comments. Any other speakers on BI? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote.

[1:20:36] Motion carries 15 to zero. The American. I will not be supporting BI, so someone else will have to put that on the floor. I would ask your ship to add me to the speakers list for this one. So Councillor Troz has willing to put it on the floor, so you’ll stand for the debate, Councillor, ‘cause you’re presenting this section of the committee report now. And Deputy Mayor Lewis would like to be on the speaker list, so I’ll go to him first, and I’ll start a speaker’s list on BI.

[1:21:14] Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship. So I’m going to be as brief and concise as possible, but I will not be supporting this one. Councillor Ferrer has already indicated, start dates are in question. The building itself is not suitable for this. I’ve not heard any addressing of accessibility issues. This is an old church. stairwells are an issue for people with mobility issues. We do have the concentration of spaces, and we are dealing with a cold weather response.

[1:21:51] So the concentration of existing spaces is not a factor in my decision making personally. This is a temporary situation. I am concerned about a number of cost factors in terms of approving all of these above the 1.8 million that we were suggested. I’m concerned that we have an agency that’s willing to come forward and use this space when a much better space was highlighted in the report at the Bob Hayward YMCA, where washroom facilities, showers, those kind of situations were already there.

[1:22:26] And I would still be supportive of seeing the Bob Hayward YMCA be used as a space for this winter. Now I understand that there were concerns about the stop date on that one, but respectfully. And I really want the sector to hear me on this too, please. People are recreationally camping in May to say that May is a cold weather response month to me is a considerable stretch. I would rather, frankly, that you were coming to us and saying we want to start up in November than say we want to run until the end of May.

[1:23:03] I think we have work to do on these cold weather response issues. And when the encampment table strategy comes forward, as we know, is coming forward in a few weeks, I’m going to be looking for some measures to implement moving forward so that this isn’t a year-by-year work-on-it approach, but that there’s an RFP with very specified conditions, start and stop dates, staffing ratios, those kind of things. Because I’ve heard a lot of comparisons to the hub model in this debate. But this is not a hub.

[1:23:36] This is not a hub where a five-to-one ratio is the standard. We don’t actually have the encampment strategy yet, so we don’t know what the strategy for what the recommendation is for a staffing ratio. But this is not providing the same number of wraparound services. And I want to be really, really clear and consistent on this moving forward. If requests come for physical renovation of the space, outside of this funding envelope that’s been suggested, I will be a hard no. I do not believe we should be spending public dollars to renovate a building for whatever purpose that enjoys tax-free status as a faith institution.

[1:24:17] I will not be supporting any more requests for added security or personnel beyond this funding envelope that is required. And if the funding envelope evaporates before May 31st, I will not be supporting any request for additional funding to keep this site moving. So I will not be supporting this, but I want colleagues to understand that should this be approved and other challenges come forward rather than sending this back to staff to look at the YMCA again to reach back out to try and continue that discussion. When we don’t have a firm start date on this one yet, if we approve this one, then this is it for me.

[1:24:56] If we defeat this one, I am happy to entertain a motion to direct our staff to continue discussions about the use of the Bob Hayward YMCA until March 31st for the same 65 bed count, where there are showers, where there are kitchen facilities, where the building is already on its own piece of property, where securing it would be relatively easy to do, in my opinion. And so I encourage colleagues to think about whether this is really the right building or whether we should say, okay, we’ll approve the ones that we have before us today, but staff, we’re not gonna do this one.

[1:25:30] We want you to go back and talk to the provider again about the YMCA, which is already set up for a lot of these accessibility issues, including elevators in the building, that would make it a much better site and decentralize some of the concentration. Councilor McAllister. Thank you, I was gonna leave my comments, but most of them relate specifically to this one, so I think this is the opportune time to talk to it.

[1:26:06] And thank you through the chair. I wanna start off by acknowledging all the hard work that has gone into getting us to this point. I know there have been a lot of long meetings, late nights to get to these options before us. Saying that, we need to acknowledge that lessons have been learned along the way. We’ve gotta get better on our timelines for these plans. I know the work on this started many months ago, but what’s been put before us really has a lot of hallmarks of a rushed plan, and I don’t particularly find that that’s best suited for decision making.

[1:26:41] We need to hammer out more options with our agency partners and have them before council well before winter. I know a great deal of collaborative work has gone into the development of the hubs, and we need to utilize that to ensure that other types of temporary housing such as shelters and longer term supportive housing also get the attention that they require. I would also like to know how we can better support other agencies moving forward to ensure that the responsibility of net new shelter beds does not rest solely with one agency. We can and must do better with this planning in the future. I do have a few questions for staff, but I’ll end my comments by saying these decisions weigh heavily on not only council, city staff, our social agencies, and even our constituents.

[1:27:23] At the end of the day, none of us want to see people suffering on our streets. Our hearts are in the right place, and now we need to plan accordingly and mobilize our resources. I’m asking all underners to do what they can as we enter winter to support one another and show compassion towards those experiencing homelessness. I do have a few questions I’d like to now put to staff. Recognizing with the facility, which is before us right now, to Mr. Mathers, do you foresee a change of use permit taking a long time, or what do you expect your team to be able to do? I’m gonna turn around for that, Mr. Mathers.

[1:28:13] Through the worship, through your worship. It’s a 90 day process to be able to turn around a change of use permit, so that would be the time for him to be able to undertake that work. Say, thank you, through the chair. So noting that it’s normally 90 days, is there any way we can accelerate that, noting that we’re in the end of November. Through your worship, we need to try to fast track that application process, so 90 days is the maximum, but we would try to do that in a shorter amount of time.

[1:28:49] I don’t have specific details on the actual number of days, but we would try to urgently process that application. Okay, thank you, and through the chair again. The main follow-up questions will now be for Mr. Dickens. First question, in terms of the conversations that went on with our social agency partners, what do you see as the barriers in terms of having other agencies potentially come to the table with other options? Through your worship, what we’ve heard from a number of organizations dating back to the end of July and August when this work started was that everybody was willing to do everything that they could.

[1:29:31] You saw that in the October report, that we were opening up daytime and evening spaces. You saw that in the October report with continuing or sustaining overnight spaces, and you see it in this report with folks identifying where they can help and actually where two organizations are willing to partner where they can’t do it alone. And so the number of limitations, it’s not one singular source. This is a sector that has been grappling with exponential growth and the number of individuals experiencing homelessness with a significant increase in the acuity and unpredictable behavior of those experiencing unsheltered homelessness.

[1:30:09] And a sector that has not grown to the capacity that it requires to be at to address that growth in the population. So everyone’s maxed out. Everyone’s doing absolutely everything they can. They are converting space. They are finding ways to partner and folks are trying to staff up and grow as fast as they can. We also have a community that has come together to share services in locations. We see that playing out through the hubs lead agencies and the partners that are coming to that table as well. And it is a different way of doing our work.

[1:30:44] But I would say there’s not one singular reason why we don’t have more folks being able to do more. What we’ve been able to demonstrate and reflect back to council is what people have brought forward and everything they’re able to do. Thank you for that question. And again, through the chair, do appreciate obviously the capacity and resourcing issues that the sector is experiencing. And I know obviously city staff are working with them. I also want to appreciate the work that went into in terms of trying to find alternate locations. Obviously there’s a lot that goes into this and it’s not as straightforward as I think sometimes people think it is.

[1:31:18] My final question has to do with the funding which I think largely is what’s been driving a lot of the decisions and discussion around this. And I would like to know in terms of, we originally had the 1.8, but do we have the capacity and the funds in other areas to pull together to fund all of these? I’m gonna start with Mr., sorry. I was gonna say, Ms. Barbara, but you look very different, sorry. Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship and through you.

[1:31:52] We have the team since we met at SPPC has gone back to look at as the quarterly reporting comes in as we look at other sources of funding within our existing housing stability services budget through our provincial funding, federal funding and municipal funds. As it was raised at SPPC, when we entered into the last year’s cold weather response or winter responses, it was called. We had some provisions where we earmarked funding and sort of set aside allocations. One of those allocations was the potential for a two year service provision at the indigenous cold weather site because that site is winding down from the previous iteration.

[1:32:38] And now that that organization has submitted and been successful at becoming a hub, it does provide some funds that have now been freed up to do that. So we’re confident through that source of funding as well as some funding that is coming in under spent in admin costs due to organizations being unable to fill staff vacancies, there’s under spending across the sector. So we’ll be able to reallocate those funds to be able to ensure that all four options are funded for this temporary measure. Thank you through the chair.

[1:33:14] I appreciate all the answers of staff for able to provide us today. Just some final comments, recognizing what’s before us, the time we’re in winter snowing right now, we do need to act. But I would encourage all of my colleagues when we get to the end of the winter, the previous response, obviously we were in a lame duck session. We didn’t have nearly as much input, but I would say when we get to the end of the winter, all of us need to look at the plan and plan accordingly for the next winter. I think we need to have that lead time as I indicated earlier. We really need to get tighter on our timelines.

[1:33:48] And in terms of the locations, I think it’s also incumbent on all of us on council to support the counselors who are leading in terms of the locations. I’m happy to be standing to OEV, to downtown, to go out in Canvas. Likewise, if you’d like to come down to Hamilton Road, I’m sure the coffee house would appreciate that. Thank you. I know the tires need in our community and we do need to act. Thank you. Councilor Ramen. Thank you and through you.

[1:34:20] So I won’t belabor the point here. We are at the 11th hour. We are at the 11th hour and we have to make a decision. And that decision involves 65 spaces. And what’s in front of us is the only proposal for those 65 spaces. So to me, this isn’t just a decision about, you know, one of many choices. This is a decision about what we need to do now at this moment. I wanna address the accessibility, access and concerns that were raised.

[1:34:55] My understanding is the building is accessible, that there’s elevator access and that there’s access through a breezeway as well. So I think that those concerns, although I’m not, I’m not toward the building myself. I think those concerns are in hand. As it relates to the permitting, as it relates to getting this place up in order, I think that there’s a collective will to do that as soon as possible and to make that a priority. And I think that that’s really important and key.

[1:35:28] This is a partnership, as we’ve said with all of these proposals that are in front of us, as we’ve said since July, with the conversations that have been happening with the encampment tables, this is about a partnership and collaboration. And that’s what we’re seeing presented here. I also think that it’s important that although there’s a January 8th start date that’s listed here, that as was shared in the presentation, as I’ve heard quite clearly, the desire to get this up and running is as fast as possible.

[1:36:02] It’s a lot of the reasons for needing to provide a January 8th date was around training and staffing. And again, that’s underway because arcade went ahead and started to do some of that work themselves already before this was fully approved at their own costs and expense. And I think that’s also really a positive step. And I thank them for that effort. I’m happy to hear that the funding is there and that we’re going to be able to fund at the same level pretty much as we did last year, what’s in front of us here today.

[1:36:39] So I think a lot of the concerns that have been raised have been addressed outside of the location. And I understand that for many, this may not be ideal and I get that. And I understand that we are at a point where we need to make a decision about these 65 spaces. This was a very close vote at committee. And I want to say a lot is at stake here. And so I think it’s really important to have as much of a discussion as we need to today to get comfortable with this decision so that the community knows where we stand.

[1:37:24] And again, weighing those costs of the 65 spaces. Thank you. Other speakers? Councillor Pribble and then Councillor Troso. Thank you, just a few points that were made actually when during the last meeting, I just wanna reiterate, it is accessible with elevator in place. And when we talked about or we were advised when there was the comparison of the Y that the Y Bobs, there’s too much outdoor space up to six security guards would be needed.

[1:37:59] The advantage of this location was also approximately to the actually arcade that the shared resources, volunteers, the kitchen would be tremendously helpful. And if I look at the two locations where we have the most in this area homeless, it’s 602 Queens, I think it is 602, 602 Queens and at the parking lots behind the arcade. And with the 60 plus 35 or let’s say just under 100, I do believe that we could accommodate those people that are actually outside or most of them and provide the roof over their head.

[1:38:34] So that is the reason why I supported it during the last meeting and I will support this one as well. I do believe that if the agency will not be able to deliver for whatever reason, then again, we would not be funding it this initiative or we would partially fund it if it’s not delivered based on the month quantity or whatever it is. But we have done that before and we certainly could do it in this case as well. But as I said, I will, I supported last time and I will be supporting this time as well based on what was already said here. Number of beds, the timing and we are really 11th hour of what I call the yard five to midnight and we really have to make decisions and move forward.

[1:39:14] Thank you. Councilor Trossal. I wanted to go last, could I defer to Councillor Cutty? You just see, I see, you’re just asking to be withdrawn from the speakers, that’s fine. Let me know when you went back on. Well, Councillor Ferrer is next and then Councillor Cutty is probably going to be others. So if you don’t want to speak now. No, no. All right, Councillor Ferrer. Thank you.

[1:39:47] So with the vote that I put down on SPPC, I’m going to continue with that vote. And I did say why. However, I am going to be at the will of council here. So if the will of council sees that all four locations are voted on, then that will be the way it goes. I would also like to note that I have multiple locations of encampments in my ward. So I hope that it’s the people that will be serving with the cold weather response locations that we’re opening. Don’t just come from people behind arcade on Dundas. It has to be spread out throughout the entire city. Just because I have a lot of people in the ward who need that space, who need that shelter.

[1:40:23] And I know that they’re looking forward to it. So I do hope the way we do that placement or however that works does include everybody. Going to the canvassing part. So I, considering the conversation that we had at SPPC, I do plan on canvassing for both locations in my ward. I would come out to help the councilor for award one, but I do have two that I need to do myself. So my time is a little stretch. So I’m going to be focusing on the two. I do extend the invite to anybody who wants to help me do that. And that’s where I guess I’ll keep the comments for now. But it’s, for me, it’s a matter of engagement.

[1:41:01] It’s a matter of helping people on the street, giving them shelter and warmth in the winter time. I am with council on that. We need to bring as many beds as possible, but I also am trying to do it in a reasonable and doing it the right way. I understand that we’re at the 11th hour. I would even say the bottom of the 11th hour and going further than that. So just considering where we are, I get the will of council on where it seems to be leaning, but I do extend that invitation out to every one of you who can come and help me campus.

[1:41:34] Scheduling for that, it’s looking like I’m going to be doing the area around my sister’s place first, because we do have a little bit of delays that may come with the church if we do decide to open the church. And that will be something that will be later right before it opens. But I do hope that I do get everyone here, if you can, to join me, respectful of quorum anyways, for that canvassing, so we can do that proper outreach and community engagement. Councillor Cady.

[1:42:07] Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. I’ve heard several Councillors refer to this as the 11th hour. And that’s actually a very appropriate description. And the worst possible business decision that can be made is at the 11th hour. And despite the best efforts of staff, as Mr. Mathers has said, if there’s a problem in change of use application, if there’s a problem with getting this building to meet all of the codes, we’ve lost our opportunity. And we’re talking about $1.5 million, and we are stewards of the city’s money.

[1:42:45] So I ask all Councillors to think about this as a business decision, and not to suggest for a moment, that we’re not all humanitarians, and we all want all the best things for people out there in the streets. But think about this opportunity that could be lost, if everything doesn’t fall into place. And yes, 11th hour decision is a bad decision. Thank you. Other speakers? Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I just wanna remind my colleagues that this has come from, it says, “The proposal submitted “by the encampment strategy table, “London’s health and homelessness response, “encampment strategy table, cold weather response plan.” This is coming through SPPC, not through corporate and protective services.

[1:43:35] These are the experts that have come, that have brought this forward. It says right here in the report, interim measures, cold weather response plan. There is a high degree of confidence in the system response, including the hubs implementation plan, and the challenge being faced as a community is still incredibly complex. Under priority populations, it says, it is the expectation for all cold weather response programs to work together to ensure the maximum number of individuals can be served this winter. The inherent challenges in this new approach are recognized, and will likely require adjustments to be made along the way by all services.

[1:44:13] At the very end, under quality improvement, it says the elements of a cold weather response have been sought since the planning process began in July. The additional proposed spaces and the ability of participating agencies that are enclosed in this report are a result of the multitude of conversations and actions taken over the course of several months as outlined below. We have been guided through this whole process with the experts know who are we to question, we’re building the bridge as we walk across it, and now all of a sudden, with the snow falling, I mean, we were told in the spring, “Oh, we’re not gonna need a winter response.” Now we’re brought an 11th hour response, but we are brought an 11th hour response by the experts, by agencies that have been proven themselves over several years with a commitment by the agencies to work together and to support it.

[1:45:04] I’m truthfully, I am shocked. The camp that was the people are dying, we have to do something. These are the experts who are we to say. I’ve all of a sudden are looking to abandon ship in this 11th hour. It is winter time. These people need shelter, they deserve shelter, they deserve a chance. If we have challenges and we aren’t able to meet it, that has happened before and it may happen again, but let’s not try because we’re worried it might fail. The conversations around may being good for residential camping, I mean, most people don’t camp until the end of May and even then it’s the hardy ones, and all four of these options go to the end of May.

[1:45:48] So I know we had a conversation about moving it to March, but you can’t vote against, or you can’t, you can’t even vote however you like, but I’d suggest that it not be because you oppose going to May. So, you know, people are watching us, they’re listening. The social service agencies, the people who are currently unhoused, and like it or not, this is, we are their only hope here. There may be other options and I’m open to those. Councillor ramen asked when we approved lunches and snacks, will there be enough money to do shelter?

[1:46:25] And I recall being assured that we would, we approved that this is the request for shelter, for shelter in the winter. We have the money, people deserve it, and let’s trust the experts on this. They brought this forward, the money has been found. Who are we as a city? Who are we as a council? Are we gonna find a way to meet the needs, or are we gonna limit things? And we get to answer to the people on that. Other speakers, Councillor Trostoff, go ahead.

[1:47:07] Yes, thank you very much through the chair. Many of the points that I wanted to raise were raised very well by colleagues today. I’ve heard a lot of good reasons why we need to do this. I am the main reason why I recognize that there are issues that people are raising with this proposal. Really, when it comes down to it for me, there are 65 reasons why we have to do this. And I’m trying to think about the human suffering.

[1:47:43] This council is going to allow, because of a good business plan. If we don’t go ahead with this, and I just think it’s, at some point, we need to say, yes, there are problems with this. There are some flaws. They’ve been very aptly laid out. But we cannot turn our back holes on the 65 people who are just going to endure incredible human suffering. If we don’t do this, and I am not willing to do that. Now, that might make me fiscally or responsible.

[1:48:16] It might make me unaware of the planning process in terms of what has to happen to this building. But I have confidence that if we have the collective will to do this, we will be able to push ahead and get this done. So I will be voting yes on subdivision two, and I would request that everybody else join me. Thank you very much. Other speakers, Councilor Lehman. Thank you.

[1:48:48] So I think we agree more on what we, I think there are more things we agree on than the screen on quite frankly. I think we agree that shelter is required. I think we agree that we’re having to make this decision at the last possible moment. And we should have been at this point months ago. So I’ve listened to what folks have said. And I agree with Councilor Trossa. If we’re going to boil down to 65 people, I look at more than that.

[1:49:22] I look at the toll number of people that are in all the three locations. But where I disagree I guess is my confidence in us being able to shelter those at this specific location, this church. I’m concerned about its proximity to other shelters. I’m concerned about its proximity to Old East Village. I’m concerned about its proximity to Dundas Street. I’ve seen other years where there has been a high concentration of shelters and there are serious issues that evolve from that.

[1:50:00] I have concerns with the actual structure itself. The church being able to house 65 people with proper shower washroom facilities, bed and food services. If we had known of the Bob Hayward YMCA option earlier, quite frankly, I don’t think we’d be at this point. But we didn’t. The reality is we are here. But I don’t think that precludes us from looking at that option.

[1:50:37] And the reason is this, I believe there’s a higher probability of success using that other facility as opposed to this facility under discussion tonight. My concern is this won’t be ready in time. My concern is that the issues around security, around the area won’t be dealt with. I believe that the Bob Hayward facility could be up and running beginning of January with the same intensity and resolve that people have been asking staff and the agencies right now to at this particular location.

[1:51:18] So I will support, if this fails, I’ll support a motion to direct staff to proceed ASAP in looking at the Bob Hayward facility as an alternative to this particular one. ‘Cause quite frankly, that’s where I believe the best success we will have in housing these individuals. That’s our plaza. Thank you, Your Worship.

[1:51:51] Guess a couple of things on this. One is we have these conversations and they’re long on this topic or the hubs or any housing thing. Staff capacity is limited. So the more time we take up on other things that aren’t as important, it takes them longer to get us the reports that are before us and to get to the important conversations. My question through you to staff, I am not familiar with either of these locations. The one that’s before us and I mentioned one that I would have a pecary interest on so I don’t speak about it. But to staff, looking through you to staff, just to hear their overview points on this location that I’m not sure what retrofits it would need and if they believe that these timelines are able to be met, that if those conversations are no one behind the scenes, I’d like to know them now for our decision-making purposes.

[1:52:48] Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. While I can’t speak in great detail, the location staff have not visited the site. We have not toured this location. Through this planning process, the arcade has been working diligently to find a number of possible locations. They did work early on in the process to find a location in the east end of London and unfortunately it was unable to materialize and this location came to us pretty short notice, but good on them for their diligence and trying to find an alternate location.

[1:53:28] So we have not been able nor would we at this point be going into this space to inspect it. We did hear from the arc in terms of some of the anticipated fixes that they’re currently aware of that are likely to need to take place in this location. Some of those are related to fire safety updates. I don’t know in great detail what that means, exactly. Security features such as cameras and locks, plumbing fixes, replacing toilets, putting in showers and getting laundry machines, maintaining kitchen equipment and fixing some electrical or lighting as well as some paint and flooring maintenance fixes.

[1:54:08] So they’ve been working with the property owners on understanding what that will be. We do know through previous organizations, including the arc, using church facilities. Sometimes the infrastructure is not prepared to withstand large volumes or large usage of flushing and showers and things like that. So it’s probably due diligence to make sure those things are upgraded and replaced. Thank you and a follow-up question through you to staff. Just looking to be reminded if we proceed, if there’s any rezoning and PPMs required with this or just realizing recent lived experience.

[1:55:00] For your worship, so it’s only administrative work that would have to be done to allow these new forward. You know, public information sessions at all or rezoning applications required. Thank you. Yeah, the speakers, that’s all right, go ahead. Thank you and through you, just wondering if the Bob Hayward Y is still even available. Mr. Dickens. How your worship is our understanding that the YMCA is still available, yes.

[1:55:37] Thank you, yes. Then I’ll still be supporting this and I think that it is a good backup if things fall through at this location. Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Hopkins, if you have your hand up, go ahead. I do your worship and I’m feeling a little disappointed that we’re having this conversation here at Council when we have the conversation and the debate committee. I know we can do this at Council. But my concerns are that sometimes we listen to the experts when we want to.

[1:56:15] We try to do what’s best for our community, but I think sometimes we can get too much into the weeds and create problems. And I don’t want that to happen. I trust I’ll be supporting all four recommendations depending on where we’re looking at AI now, depending on what happens there. We’ll have that conversation.

[1:56:48] But I just want to express my disappointment in myself, not being able to be in this position as a city, protecting our vulnerable is important. Being fiscally responsible is also important. But I think we do have to trust the experts and not get into the weeds. And I feel that’s what we’re doing here as a council when we do this and just feeling very, very uncomfortable.

[1:57:23] But see where this goes. Jack, is there anybody online looking to speak? Okay, other speakers here. Okay, I’ll put myself on the list. I’ll hand the chair to Councillor Layman. No, go ahead, Mayor.

[1:58:01] I’m gonna start with just a question to staff. ‘Cause I will say there’s some new information that was not available at committee. And then I’ll make some comments on that based on the answers. Mr. Dickens, in a question and answer, obviously through the presiding officer, in a question and answer, you have indicated that you may be able to cobble together a series of surplus funding sources to accommodate not just the budget that was put before us, but a budget that could deal with essentially all four requests. At what point did you, were you aware that that was a possibility?

[1:58:38] Like I assumed some work was done between committee, but like, is that something that is, like how much work was that and wouldn’t you find that out? Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship. We received that information just prior to council. Mayor. Okay, thank you. So I’m gonna say a few things here. One is people get to vote how they wanna vote at committee. And it does no good, no good to anybody when people assume or project why people vote the way they do.

[1:59:17] It’s not responsible to your colleagues. It’s not fair to your colleagues. They represent constituents and they have their own reasons. So let me tell you one of the reasons why I voted against this at committee. Source of financing. The motion of committee, when the council put forward everything, had absolutely no source of financing. No idea how we’re going to spend this money. The last term I got accused for having a source of financing by Councillor Squire at the time of Alec Hart budgeting was the term he used for an amount that was about $160,000 because I was trying to do something found a source of financing, put it all together.

[1:59:52] In this case, for some reason, a majority of committee was willing to move forward having no idea how we would pay for something. No idea, a lot of maybe assumptions or guesses, but that’s not a way to move forward on a project. You meet with staff, you try to find the source of financing, you work between committee and council, you try to land that. That’s how we should be doing things here. Posting on social media, projecting how other people are voting is not responsible. Talking to them and asking why they voted a certain way is a much better way to go. So for me, Mr. Dickens comments are actually quite helpful because it sounds to me like we have the ability notwithstanding some of the other challenges with the location to actually fund all of these locations and find more bets.

[2:00:34] Now, I was hopeful that the Bob Hayward could have worked out, but I don’t know if that’s possible yet. I know that the conversation could start, but that’s not where I am. Now, where I am is, I don’t know if this is going to go very well or not. I think there’s going to be a lot of challenges with this location, but the counselors in the area seem to be supportive of it, and then there’s other counselors who are looking for some support to communicate, and I think we can provide that to them. I think listening to our colleagues on this is important. I think this is one where you’re going to be torn after the decision today, and you’re probably going to be torn all the way through because this is a very difficult thing for us to navigate.

[2:01:11] This is providing emergency shelter to people in a way where we’re not having all of the information to make the best possible decision we’d like to make, but we have to with the information we have. And today, I appreciate the additional information we have, which can move me from my position at committee to a different position today because the budget is there. What I will say is I am optimistic that I hear many people on the council talking about the core principles of our health and homelessness work, trying to move forward, finding a better path, working together, listening to experts, trying to help them most marginalize in our community in many different ways.

[2:01:52] One of them being sheltered through the winter. I know that Mr. Dickens brought forward a comprehensive report about the over the daytime spaces, and I know colleagues have been anticipating this report as well, and it takes time. It’s unfortunate that the sector is so, so stretched that there aren’t a lot of service providers who can come forward in the amount of time that we need to do this. It’s not a fault of our staff, not trying to work hard. It’s not a fault of the sector who are desperately trying to find individuals. It is a reality of the situation that we can stand here and criticize everybody for the situation we’re in, or we can try to make the best we possibly can as it and take the next best step forward with the information we have at the time we have it.

[2:02:35] So I’ll support all of these options before us today, including the one that is on the agenda now. I appreciate the diligent work that our staff did between committee and the meeting to find and cobble together a source of financing. That is the responsible way to do things. Now that we know that we have the money, and now that we have a proposal before us, it might not be perfect, but it is something we can move forward with. And so I’ll support it today. I will support the counselors who require some support in communicating to their constituents on it. And I appreciate the dialogue today, but I would ask colleagues to try to work together on these things.

[2:03:11] These are very, very difficult discussions to have. And the more we communicate clearly and openly with each other, the more we talk about the reasons for our decisions, I think the better we can be as a council together to solve incredibly challenging issues that our community is facing. And I’ll turn the chair back to the mayor. Okay, I don’t know if there’s any other speakers. I’m not really actually sure how many members of council are left could speak, but it sounds to me like no one online wants to speak. Can I, can I, oh, it’s on? Can I make a point of personal privilege or clear? You can ask for a point of personal privilege, sure.

[2:03:46] Just, there was one point that you made there with the counselor in the ward and their support for that. The William Street location is in my ward. My apologies, I withdraw that. There’s a lot of locations here, so sorry about that. Other speakers, welcome this for voting then. Opposing the vote, motion carries nine to six.

[2:04:45] Okay, definitely, I don’t know if you want to present the next two items. No, I already won’t. Yes, okay, Councilor Trossai, no, no. Can I have Councilor Trossai proceed then? Councilor Trossai, can you present item B3? Put that on the floor. Yes, I will move. So when we move item B3 with respect to 371 Hamilton Road? Discussion on this one, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I just quickly wanted to say that I am supporting this one.

[2:05:27] The cost based on my math is $4,900 a month per bed just for the overnight. ‘Cause we paid for the day previously. It hurts me to support this in the sense that the costs are so high. And I appreciate this location becoming 24/7. I think that’s really important. It’s winter. I’m looking forward to doing much, much, much better, much faster in 2024. And I appreciate that I have something here to say yes to. Any other speakers on this one? Go ahead, Councilor McAllister.

[2:06:01] Thank you. Through the Mayor, I’m recognizing that this is in my ward. I’ve had a lot of discussions with the coffee house in terms of work to date. I know they do their best in terms of community engagement and try to provide for their participants. And I just want to take this opportunity to stay publicly that I’ll be there for the community, be there for the coffee house. We need to have those conversations like I indicated to my colleagues that also have locations. We have to have that community engagement component.

[2:06:35] It’s vitally important. People need to know what’s going on. They need to feel safe, secure. But we also need to support those who are living in these precarious situations. So we have to do all of it. And I’m happy to support this. I think the CMHA have a good track record. I know they do their best and I’ll be there to support them and the residents of the community. Thank you. Other speakers. No other speakers on this. So this is B-I-I-I.

[2:07:09] So we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. Hey, Councillor Trostoff. You can present the next one. Finally, I’d like to move B-4 with respect to 566 Dundas Street. Okay, that’s on the floor as the community’s recommendation.

[2:07:48] I’ll look to speakers on this one. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. Similarly on this one, my quick math says $6,000 a night. I just wondered if staff could maybe explain if there is anything about this one as to why the costs are a little bit higher than the others. And also I listened to a podcast. Now it was regarding the hub and the 10 respite beds that were gonna be there. But CMHA put air quotes around the beds said that many of them would be reclining chairs. So I just don’t know if we have any information on that at this time or if there’s anything that we can share to support either the cost or what kind of beds would be available.

[2:08:30] I’d like Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship. Just looking at trying to get you an answer on the beds, but as far as the higher cost goes, it is for 12 hour security. So it’s the primary reason why this site is more expensive is the security costs. As far as the beds, I believe these are in fact beds, not reclining chairs. Other speakers on this item, Councillor Ferriero, go ahead. Thank you.

[2:09:04] So this is one that’s in my word that I’m also supporting. So I hope that we do get support for that. I do see that the opening date starts in December, which is good. And I just wanted to ask an overall question. If we have any delays with any of these, and if there is a delay that goes beyond the start date, for whatever reason, at what point do we decide at what date beyond that delay do we ask ourselves, okay, it’s gone on too long. We got to start considering another location. Is there a date after one of the opening dates? I’m just trying to be general, but I do have a specific location in mind that I forgot to ask before.

[2:09:46] Take a shot, Mr. Dickens, go ahead. To you, Your Worship, I’m not sure how to answer that question in terms of if there’s a date where these haven’t opened. Again, the nuance in this report is that staff are in the position where we didn’t bring forward staff recommendations. These are the ideas, proposals, planned budgets, service delivery that the community has brought forward, that specifically are as brought forward. So I can’t speak to what those anticipated delays would be. There, as we heard last week, they shared a number of areas where they feel confident and a number of areas where they have some concern.

[2:10:25] So I wouldn’t be in a position to make a judgment call on what the drop-to-date is on the delay. These are options for council to consider. Council needs to make these considerations with all the information that’s been provided. Thank you for that, I appreciate that. So I would just want to bring this idea to this council here for any of the locations, but I’ll just pick one specifically. Let’s say if we don’t hit the date of January 8th and we’re in March, I feel I’m speaking generally to all the locations, but I am pulling out one example.

[2:11:00] So I would just would like us to maybe consider that date if we hit that month, a couple of months after the opening date for whatever delays we do need to start considering maybe now. So we’re not at the 11th hour again. What would be an alternative location and just start thinking about that? Okay, thanks for your comments, Councilor. Other speakers to this one. So this is B-I-V, we’ll open this for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[2:11:48] Councilor Shosa, maybe I can ask you to put now items A, B, C and D on as well as the if being noted. Yes, Chair, I will do that. I will place A, B, C and D on the floor. Any discussion on those pieces? Councilor Vamever, I can go ahead. So currently, as I understand it, it’s A, B, C and D. Is it possible to call B separately?

[2:12:25] No, Councilor, we’ve dealt with B. B is all done and approved by the different votes. We’re just doing A, C, D and the if being noted. A is received a report. Okay, thank you. I thought I heard A, B, C and D. Yeah, it’s possible. All right, my mistake. It’s possible I said that wrong or Councilor, one of us. I’ll take the blame, Councilor Shosa. That’s fine, thank you. Okay, thanks. Yes, B is now dealt with by Council. So Councilor Palosa, go ahead. Thank you. Following up with a question just for based off Councilor Ferris’ question, as we’re looking at the part C’s of administrative acts in our authorization, I’m familiar that if the beds aren’t all open on time, that traditionally we just, we don’t find those for the days that they weren’t offered ‘cause we didn’t offer that service.

[2:13:13] But as this is a different process of a community brought something forward versus staff in our normal process of it, I’m asking through if staff has an answer on this or could work for an answer on this, that if there’s an issue at what point would Council be made aware of it? Like usually we build in like updates back to Council if there’s something, but if there’s an issue behind the scenes recognizing partners all wanna get this done together, but at what point would Council be made aware of it, of how would that come back to Council versus a report after the date?

[2:13:49] And we’ve already missed our idea opening dates to provide service for unhoused individuals. Mr. Dickens. Through you, Your Worship, we would rely on the updates through the lead agency and we would be reporting or making Council aware of those delays at our first opportunity to do so. So we could share that through an update to Council, briefing note to Council, or if it falls within a Council cycle, we can do it that way as well. So the organizations have been pretty good to notify us when there’s a delay.

[2:14:21] To your earlier comment, as we have done with this past year’s winter response, if organizations are unable to open those beds for any number of reasons that money is withheld and held back and those costs are retained. Thank you to staff for that. And also, I just want to thank Arc Aid and Ms. Campbell, who’s in the gallery. And I know she’s listening and I see her nodding and for being able and willing to come forward to see what part of the solution they can play. So thank you. Yeah, any other speakers? No, Councilor Stevenson, go ahead.

[2:14:55] Thank you, just a general question to staff around the cold weather response. In previous years, we’ve had cold weather alert beds. I didn’t see any of those this time. I also know that when we received the report on last year’s only a third of the cold weather beds that we had available were even used. And I didn’t hear what the issue was there. I wondered if there was a reason that didn’t work and that’s why we don’t see any of this time. So Councilor, there’s A, C and D. I don’t know how that addresses any of those pieces.

[2:15:32] It’s all that’s left now is the implementation of the decisions we’ve made in B. So the time for general questions about previous cold winter responses is not part of what’s before us at Council. I think you could ask that question at committee through whatever updates we have. But I’m trying to keep this tight to now what we’ve got left. And that’s basically the components of the motion that implement what we’ve already now approved. And so, okay, thank you. Okay, so any other speakers, the parts on the floor? No? Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting.

[2:16:16] Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, that concludes the SPPC report. So you can sit down, Councilor, thank you. We’re now on to the 17th report of Community and Protection Services Committee. Oh, no, sorry, Councilor, I mean, you’re right.

[2:16:50] The 18th report of the Planning and Environment Committee, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I’m pleased to put the 18th report of the Planning and Environment Committee on the floor. I’ve had a request to pull number eight regarding 978 Gainesboro Road. I had no other request for any items being pulled. Okay, would anybody like anything else dealt with separately? Eight will be dealt with separately, but is there any other items? No? Okay, Councilor?

[2:17:24] Then I’d like to move all items one through 11 excluding number eight. Okay, so that’s everything on the floor with the exclusion of number eight. Any comments or discussion? Councilor ramen, go ahead. Thank you and through you. I just had a question about 1 990 Commissioner Road East and some of the tree considerations on the property specific to the parking lot and some mature trees that are on the property and what staff looked at in order for tree preservation or if that’s to be discussed during the site plan?

[2:18:10] Through your worship, these are matters that are typically done at site plan. Unfortunately, we don’t have conditional zoning so we can’t place conditions. However, through committee and council, ultimately you can direct the site plan approval authority to include such matters as additional trees or things like that in terms of those preservation. As normal a practice, as tree preservation is done at site plan and with these mature trees, they were planted trees.

[2:18:43] Development does occur in a lot of these properties and there are usually tree enhancements along perimeter of properties through development at the site plan stage. Thank you. So there’s no additional as any direction needed here ‘cause that will all be taken care of in the site plan. Through you worship, yes, that’s correct. All right, any of the speakers to the, all of the items before us, which is the entire report with the exception of eight. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

[2:19:19] Okay, Councilor McAllister, go ahead. Thank you through the matter. Sorry, just a quick call up to Councilor ramen’s point. I am noticing that there is a mention of the additional tree planings will be required to compensate for tree loss. It was already included. So I would imagine you would take that direction as the site plan was for. Through you worship, yes, any direction to the approval authority would be taken into consideration. Thank you. Okay, now I think we’re ready for voting. Okay, seeing no one else, we’ll open this for voting. Vote yes.

[2:20:11] Councilor Ferreira, King Councilor Ferreira absent, closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Councilor Layman. Thank you all now, but number eight, 978 Gainesboro Road on the— Okay, 978 Gainesboro’s on the floor, looking to Councilor ramen, go ahead. Thank you and through you. I wanted to once again voice my concern with the development at 978 Gainesboro Road.

[2:20:48] Although I’m supportive of growth and more housing, I have concerns with this particular proposal and the density of this particular plan. One of the concerns I have, I mean, while all of the concerns I have are stem from the concerns expressed in the staff report, which I think highlights some really key issues with this particular proposal. For those of you that have been following along in this discussion and have been reading through the report, a lot of this is summed up on page seven of the 57 page report that was provided at Planning and Environment Committee.

[2:21:31] It states that through the review of the application, staff raised several concerns with respect to the proposed intensity and form of the site. In addition, and as you’ll see noted in the motion here today, the number of special provisions required to facilitate the proposed development were concerning as these can often be indicative of over development. So I wanna say that you’ll see from the letters that were provided here in the report, this has been a back and forth with this community.

[2:22:13] And that back and forth started before I was the counselor. And I will say that that discussion that took place with the community on this proposal, it started when this was a 20 story residential apartment and it continued to a 17 story residential apartment building. The concerns are very much the same outside of the height. So the 17 story isn’t the issue. It’s the density that’s associated with this location.

[2:22:50] 481 residential units was not supported by staff. It was not what was contemplated at this location. This is a density of 370 units per hectare. When you look at the motion that’s in front of you on this particular application, you’ll see that there are a number of things that are being asked of consideration. I will say the reality though, is that when you read between the lines, it looks like we’re trying to accommodate the anticipated density, but we can see that it can place strain on essential services and amenities in the area, our sewer systems, our roads, and our overall neighborhood functionality.

[2:23:41] I think this is really important for us to be discussing and taking the time to have adequate discussions because although we’re looking at this proposal in isolation, we’re talking about a corridor that is experiencing intense development. There are a number of proposals that we’ve dealt with around this area already. And one of the things that I am very concerned about is the lack of green space, the lack of amenities in the area, the traffic considerations.

[2:24:14] And again, you’ll see supporting documents from others in the area stating concerns around traffic. And although the applicant and Zalenko-Pramo on behalf of the applicant have stated that those are minimal, I think that again, we’re looking at it in isolation and not in conjunction with the other proposals that are already going forward in this area. So you’ll see also some communication from the Hyde Park BIA, which this development is in the area of.

[2:24:51] You’ll see them talking about the fact that we’re going to need some more planning tools in order to address all of this density in the area. And that includes looking at our master mobility plan, looking at whether or not we need a secondary transportation plan up here. The fact is that when we looked at increasing density in areas, we were talking about in our areas with more transit. And this is not one of them. So I understand and I share your desire for more housing in the city.

[2:25:25] I absolutely do share that desire for more units. However, and I know that our staff, by the way, also share that desire and that will. But when they’re coming back with a refusal, we need to ask ourselves some very tough questions. What are the sacrifices that we’re asking of the rest of the community that’s there? You’ll see that in this 57 pages. You’ll see some comments by neighbors, some things that I’ve heard, that they feel like they’re going to be surrounded by these buildings that are coming in in a very quiet residential neighborhood that was not planned for this.

[2:26:03] So again, I understand where we’re headed. I get the significance of this discussion. However, I don’t think we need to extend ourselves to this degree and look at 370 units per hectare, which was not anticipated at this particular location. Thank you. Councillor, I think I had Councillor Hopkins. Yes, Councillor Hopkins. And then I’ll add to this speaker’s list. Sorry, Councillor Troz, are you here to end up to?

[2:26:37] Yes, look, yeah, I’ll add, no, I’m just going to add you. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship, and I really do appreciate the word Councillor’s comments as well. I didn’t support this at the Planning Committee, and I’d like to speak really here to my colleagues why I still won’t be supporting it. And I will try not to repeat what the word Councillor said, because this is truly about density. So for me, I do think when applications for rezoning come in, we all want intensification.

[2:27:22] That is what the London Plan is about. That is what I’ve supported. If you look at a lot of recommendations, I am the believer in flexibility in our London Plan, but also the intensification. I think it’s great, honorable, that the applicant wants to build in our city, wants to, if he’s not able to put in affordable housing here, there is a request in lieu of that to donate $300,000 to the whole of community response. I acknowledge that, I appreciate the willingness there of the applicant to give back.

[2:28:04] I do want to thank the committee for the holding provisions that were put on there. I know they added a few, and they’re very important because without these holding provisions that must be adhered to, this development will not happen. But it doesn’t take away the challenges that will exist in this community if these units go forward. I want to just sort of add that this is going to be built on a site.

[2:28:37] It is landlocked. It’s not on a road. It’s not on a transit route. It’s on a laneway. So there’s a lot of density going in. There’s going to be a lot of density going around. It is to me about community and how a community lives and works together. And there needs to be opportunities for amenity space, walkability, pedestrian circulation. We don’t even know how that is going to exist.

[2:29:15] Going forward, yes. There’ll be a holding provision for a site plan and we’ll have that discussion, but we are approving this density here at council. For me, this is a very large scale development. I do think it’s suitable for downtown areas, not here in a residential area. I often wonder when we’re a planning committee where that missing middle is and how we want to do more and put these units in, but are we putting these units in?

[2:29:47] It’s always a big question for me. And how is this going to be built going forward? It’s not going to be built soon. There’s a lot of work still to be done on this application. I would like to basically sum it up, my concerns, when we just want to do well, want to approve as much as possible, but we have to sometimes pause and think, how can we do a better job, working with staff, working with the community?

[2:30:24] I think it’s really, really important here, taking into account community plans. Or do we just completely ignore everything now just to build more density? I’m not prepared to do that. I think the word counselor said it best when she talked about having those conversations and taking it slow. It doesn’t mean that we’re not going to build here. We want density. We want to build as much as possible, but just because we’re going to approve this doesn’t mean it’s even going to be kept built.

[2:31:00] So those are my thoughts. Thank you. Councillor Trostan. Thank you, a question first through the chair. At what point when we’re evaluating traffic impacts for a project, do we look at the cumulative effects? And I’m using the term cumulative effects as a very, very specific term of art. At what point do we look at the cumulative effects of other projects extrinsic to the application that are either in the application stage or reasonably anticipated?

[2:31:42] Because I think that it’s something we have to start doing. And I would like to know what the state of that is. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. Generally speaking, we would expect an applicant in this situation to provide a traffic impacts assessment. That would come in using the most current volumes that are in existence on our roads so our most current traffic counts. And then we would try to tie that back to any other developments that are in process but not yet generating traffic. So we do try to calibrate that model as best we can.

[2:32:16] There is always a certain amount of human judgment that happens there because drivers often pick the routes they wish and they may not be exactly as we model, but we do try to balance our current data with what comes in from the applicant and with other applications that we know about. Thank you, also through the chair. But if you have a traffic study that came out before other potential applications are known, that does throw that off, doesn’t it? Through your Your Worship, we are always trying to work the best data we have at hand from applications.

[2:32:49] But yes, the time you, the data that we receive it and the information that an applicant may use in preparing their study, obviously would be based on what’s available at the time they start that work. Through the chair, I know you can’t predict people’s driving patterns, but say this goes through and people want to go either to the university or the hospital or downtown. How would they, what kind of route would they take in your estimate? Councilor, can you tell me, can you give a little more context on why you need this information to vote on this item?

[2:33:26] Yes, because I wanna make the, I’m gonna be opposing this item for the reasons that the word counselor stated. But I don’t want people to come back and say, this is sort of a nimby response to people not wanting too much density in their area, because I think that when you put this type of development out there, given the weaknesses that we have in our current transit system, it’s reasonable, okay, I’ll be very frank, it’s reasonable for me as the Ward six counselor to ask what kind of cut-through traffic I’m gonna be looking at.

[2:34:08] And I think it’s reasonable for that to be done too. So one of the objections to the objections is that people are just being short-sighted and just looking at their own neighborhood. And I think the questions that I’m raising are cumulative questions that need to be looked at for other developments as well. Okay, so you wanna go back to your question? If you got the question?

[2:34:40] I do your worship, I’m afraid I can’t answer that. That kind of information will need to go through a robust modeling process in order to try to predict people’s preferred routes relative to other impacts and constraints in the system. We will see a traffic impact study from the applicant, I believe. And Ms. Biel, you would be best to answer what we expect to receive. Thank you, but to the chair, shouldn’t that impact statement from the applicant happen before this council approves it? Do you worship? - Go ahead. We received a traffic impact study as part of the application, and then further refined through the site plan process when they come in with their application, and then we can identify to atmosphere with mentioning in terms of patterns and within the cumulative impact on the neighborhood.

[2:35:26] Okay, well, thank you, thank you. And I won’t push this point further. I think I’ve made my point. I’m not gonna be supporting this application. I think this question of cumulative traffic effects because of other applications and what the implications of that are gonna be for other communities is a legitimate question, and I plan on asking that question a lot more. In the future, and since I’m not on planning, I will pass my concerns on to traffic staff that I think this is something that needs to be taken more seriously, and also at the planning.

[2:36:00] And thank you very much for indulging me. Thank you. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor Frank. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m gonna be supporting this, and I’m gonna start out by thanking the applicant for their willingness to make a contribution to the Fund for Change as a way to assist our whole community response. As we all know, we don’t have tools anymore to require affordable housing. So to me, this is a great way for them to do that and help us out with that response. I wanna also talk about, in particular, the communication we received from the Hyde Park BIA.

[2:36:38] I had a chance to speak to the executive director of the Hyde Park BIA earlier today. I understand the concerns. However, I also took the opportunity to talk to her about the fact that concerns around infrastructure, sewer capacity, water capacity, those kind of things are covered by holding provisions. And in fact, a shovel can’t go on the ground until the applicant can prove that they have met the capacity requirements to build those buildings. I noted that the school capacities were referenced again, and I’ve said this at committee, and I will say it again here with all due respect.

[2:37:10] Schools are the provincial government’s jurisdiction, and allocating school properties is the school board’s responsibility, and as much as we share data with them as best we can, that has to come to them. That is not something that we can adjust for here at council. But I really wanna come back to the density and the cumulative impacts. When we are dealing with an application for a zoning bylaw amendment at planning committee or here at council, we have to look at the merits of the application itself. We actually are not able to bias our opinion on the merits of the application, based on what somebody a block down the road might be doing.

[2:37:53] If we were to reject this application based on, I think we have enough density now because someone down the road is doing this, that argument at the Ontario Land Tribunal, I feel very confident in saying we’ll lose every time. Because when the Ontario Land Tribunal is evaluating an application, they’re evaluating the merits of that application and that property and that zoning bylaw request change. Recognize the concern about cumulative impacts.

[2:38:27] But that is where discussions have to happen with BIA’s. For example, I do know the Hyde Park BIA’s has a request in for a community improvement plan. There are certain tools in a community improvement plan that can help a BIA with planning. I had a great talk with Ms. Bukowski about that this morning. And so I recognize that there’s some issues they wanna see addressed in terms of overall neighborhood planning, that’s the appropriate place to have that conversation. Transit service and the lack of buses was expressed, we’re not going to have ridership until we have people living in the area and transit.

[2:39:02] It’s a chicken and an egg question. And transit is separate from us here at council. So we can’t even direct LTC to provide more transit there. They have to have the business cases to justify sending buses out there to do that. So I come back to this application now. There is a legal easement that’s been in place since 2019 to provide access. There are holding provisions in place to address the sewer water capacity and those concerns. So I believe that we’ve met the conditions necessary to send this along to site plan approval because we don’t as a council, as a governance body, micromanage the operational implementation of site plan.

[2:39:48] That is what our staff do with the general directions that we’ve given them. So I think it’s really important to separate out our governance role in approving a zoning change versus the operational details that our staff have to work out through the site plan approval, through back and forth with the applicant. That’s where those discussions need to happen, not here at the council horseshoe. So while they’re valid concerns, I think that their concerns that individual councilors need to have with staff as applications in their wards come forward. I think there are conversations that councilors need to have with folks in the sheriff’s department and folks in this ramaloo’s department about what capacities are in their area for transportation and water.

[2:40:31] But those are not factors to funnel down into whether or not we’re approving a single application. An area-wide plan is separate from— 30 seconds. The merits of an application before us and that’s why I’m recommending colleagues that we support this. Councillor Frank. Thank you and I appreciate all the commentary that has been shared so far, especially from the word council representing the residents of the area. I’ll be supporting what was determined at planning. For a variety of reasons, many of which the deputy mayor has already covered, but just to highlight, we’ve already put holding provisions on all the servicing requirements and the easement that I was already discussed and I feel confident that that will be dealt with in advance as well regarding transit.

[2:41:19] There is multiple buses that run within the area, does take about 45 minutes to an hour to get from there to downtown, but that’s non-usual for the vast majority of our city unfortunately. And as the deputy mayor highlighted, with more people in that area and given that we’ve already approved a variety of high density and medium density in that area, I believe it’ll actually improve ridership along Hyde Park in Gainesville in the long run because if we continue to build single family homes, the density will never be there to support transit. So despite there being not great transit there, although again, you can get a bus within 45 minutes to downtown, not ideal, but it does exist.

[2:42:02] As well, it is my understanding in regards to approving a higher density than was originally allowed. Staff’s main reason and through the chair, I’d love to chat or get the answer from staff. The main reason this was rejected was because it did not fall in line with the London Plan policy and I just was hoping we would get confirmation and explanation from staff why they recommended refusal. Thank you through your worship. It was an OLT decision, which is the Ontario Land Tribunal for a maximum density of 150 units per hectare and staff were honoring that OLT decision from a year ago.

[2:42:45] Thank you and to follow up on that. So, I mean, perhaps there were other factors into staff’s decision for refusal, but using that as the primary one for me, I don’t mind going to a higher density if that is the only reason staff we’re not recommending it if staff came forward with other recommendations for refusal. Perhaps I’d entertain those with a heavier weight, but having a higher density for me personally is preferable. Again, as long as we’re able to build complete communities and to some of the other comments made by counselors and by residents in the area, I would love to see a walkable community.

[2:43:16] So again, if the focus is we need parks in that area, better transit and a walkable neighbourhood, those are issues I would love to address and I think we should be addressing. I don’t think it comes at the expense of density though. So, if there are ways that we can work with staff or provide direction to try and make that corner of Hyde Park and Gainesboro more walkable and complete community, I am all ears and very supportive of that. Thank you. Councillor Lehman. Thank you.

[2:43:49] You know, as chair planning and representing the planning committee, this is what we’re faced with all the time, unfortunately. It’s hard because when we’re focused on meeting our housing demands through intensification, high density in fill, it does impact areas where these projects are happening and it will impact this area. You know, this, the applicant came back after concerns or height.

[2:44:21] Now they’ve reduced it down to 17 from 20. Density is a concern now. But I’ll push back a bit on the London Plan. London Plan envisions areas where there are communities and blockability, as Councillor Frank said, where you’re able, you don’t have to get in your car and drive down to Costco. You can shop within a few blocks and this is what this project is. It’s fairly close, a block or so outside of Gainesboro and Hyde Park, which I believe is rapidly becoming a more major node. And with that, I’m confident that transit will come and other supports for allowing people to get around more efficiently.

[2:45:05] The concerns that I heard from the BIAA, I too spoke with the head of the BIA, were mitigated, as Deputy Mayor said, by the holding provisions that the committee put on. But I think what is underlying all of this is a concern about that area of town that’s growing very rapidly. And do we have a plan to handle this rapid growth, considering green spaces and transit, traffic, et cetera? So I think what we have to entertain is at some point looking at a secondary plan for this area.

[2:45:44] And I intend to reach out to the word Councillor and perhaps we can work together with staff at looking a way to see if this is a suitable area for a secondary plan and with the timing of that, et cetera. So I intend to pursue this further, but I will be supporting this project. Okay, other speakers.

[2:47:06] Seeing none, so I want people to be clear about what the committee’s recommended because there was a staff recommendation. The committee did not go that way. The staff recommendation at the committee was refusal. What the committee did before us was approval as you see in the PEC report. So I just wanted to make sure people knew what Councillor ramen, yes. Thank you and through you. Will we be able to vote on the it being further noted separately? There’s two it being noted.

[2:48:04] So are you just looking for one of them? One refers to all the oral and written submissions. The other one refers to the verbal contribution piece. Thank you. I have concerns with the it being noted that it— Oh, that one, yeah. The application is consistent with the provincial policy statement and the application is consistent with the neighborhood character. It says it being further noted, sorry, that the municipal council approved the application for the following reasons, which are in a direct contradiction to what was in the report.

[2:48:39] Yes, yes. So let me find out if we could go on that separately. One second, your worship, a point of order before you consult with the clerk. So I’m gonna seek some guidance from a planning staff.

[2:49:33] So my understanding of the planning act is, and this has happened before a council where there are different sections of the provincial policy statements. Council must attach a reason to its decisions that is rooted in that. It can be different reasons than staff identifying the PPS. Can you just comment that like that part cannot be separated from the application ‘cause it’s required or is it able to be separated? For your worship, it must be attached because that’s the recommendation with the rationale and they must go together.

[2:50:10] So the recourse is to vote against all of it. If you don’t like it being noted clause because it’s a requirement of each and every planning application. So I can’t break that out, go ahead. Can it be amended to say it being further noted that the municipal council approves the application for the following reason, again, see advice of staff? Go ahead, and then I’m gonna interject here.

[2:50:47] Go ahead, go ahead. Through your worship, the first statement, the notwithstanding the recommendation of the director of planning and development, that’s that notwithstanding. So that would then everything else would fall under that. Yeah, so it’s covered in the notwithstanding. It can’t be changed to that. It needs to be in it being noted. It’s all part of one motion. It’s attached to that other piece. So it’s there. Any further discussion on this for voting? Councillor Hopkins.

[2:52:06] Hasn’t come up, but I vote no. Opposing to vote, motion carries 12 to three. Sorry, go ahead, Councillor Limin. Thank you, that concludes the 2018 through port planning. It’s been a two and a half hours. I wanna look to see if colleagues would like to take a break. There’s food available if you need it. Make a motion, then Councillor Ferra. Aye, motion for a 20-minute break. 20 minutes, I see nods.

[2:52:42] Okay, 15-minute break, 15-20, 20-minute break. 20 minutes in a 20, 20. A year move, 20, seconder, seconder. Okay, we’ll do this by hand. And just keep your hands up ‘cause it sounds like some might oppose. All those in favor of the 20-minute break. Motion carries. 20 minutes.

[3:17:11] Okay, I’m gonna call the meeting back to order. I’ll just have any colleagues joining online just indicate to the clerks with either a camera on or a hand up that you’re there and present. We’ve completed the planning and environment committee. We’re on to 8.3, the 17th report of community and protective services committee. So I will go to Chair Ploza to present that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m willing to put all items on the floor. As I have not been given notice to pull anything, I’ll note that all votes were unanimous at committee.

[3:17:45] And in our regards to item five being 2.4, the Housing Collaborative Initiatives follow-up and next staff. Committee did ask staff with some questions to be made available before council. And those questions did come through to all counselors in their email last night around. 9 o’clock being the shared services memorandum of understanding for information technology strategy and supports and a memorandum of understanding for housing continuum initiatives. Does anybody want anything to help us separately?

[3:18:18] Council is willing to put everything on the floor right now. Councilor Troso? I just have a question on 8. I don’t want a separate vote, but I do have a question I’d like to ask. Okay, a question is fine. As long as you’re not going to want to do anything like amend it or change it. So it’s just a question. Okay, then it can stay in. Anybody want anything separate? No? Okay, Councilor? Yeah, so all items on the floor. I already pointed out items for five. And we did note a committee that the review of water servicing in city parks was initiative of last city council.

[3:18:52] And this was report coming back that was initiated before. Everything’s on the floor, questions. Councilor Troso, go ahead. On the city parks, water servicing through the chair. How do we find out which parks are included and which ones aren’t? Or perhaps did I miss some detail in the package? Through you, Your Worship. If I might ask a clarifying question, are you looking for information about the ones that currently have services or the ones that we would propose to have services through the parks and rec app master plan update? Okay, I’ll be explicit through the chair.

[3:19:30] Harris Park. Through you, Your Worship, I don’t have the list of the ones that currently are serviced with me, but I can absolutely provide that to the councilor for the current. Okay, I’m not going to raise it at the meeting today, but as you know, I have serious concerns about the water service in Harris Park. Okay, thanks, Councilor. Any other debate or discussion on Councilor McAllister? Go ahead. Thank you through the mayor. Just a quick comment on item six in terms of the property standards related to demolitions.

[3:20:03] I just want to take the opportunity to thank staff for including 19, Reden, it’s been a real pain property. And I know we get a lot of calls, so hopefully in the future it’ll save us a lot of grief. So I know the community appreciates it, and I just want to extend my thanks. Great, any other comments or discussion? Councilor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I just have comment to make on five, which is 2.4 of the Housing Collaborative Initiative. I really struggle with this one. It’s a really uncomfortable look, a lot of residents express concern about the fact that this was a million dollars, that nothing of it being used as of this moment at least, that the ID department was never involved in an IT project, that there was no report back to council for eight years.

[3:20:57] Even though every two years there was an act of decision points, contract renewals, changes. And I know we’ve had a lot of staff changes, but again, oftentimes staff changes is what helps bring something to the surface and get things looked at. It was a very complex structure. It had London paying for things and then getting reimbursed, and none of this was looked into until there was a media report. I appreciate staff’s willingness to speak with me about this and to help me understand some of it.

[3:21:30] For me, I’m choosing to take away a lot of learnings from this personally, that going forward, when we do projects, I’ll be asking for updates to make sure that we do get them that, and that going forward in the budget, like this is happening right before we get our budget next week, which there’s a lot of concern and trepidation around the numbers that we’re going to see there. And I’m hoping that this allows, that this example will open up the discussion more and we’ll be able to answer to the people more about where the billion dollars a year is that we spend each year and that there’s a willingness to really be open and transparent about it so that we can allay any concerns or fears that residents have that this was more than an isolated incident.

[3:22:24] So thank you to staff for the time they’ve spent with me and I look forward to taking those learnings forward. Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Ploza. Sorry, my comment as a follow up to Councillor Stevenson’s was just that staff did report in regards to this, that this was a legacy project and they did do an environmental scan and this was the only outlier that they found. Okay, I don’t see anybody else with comments on this report so I’m gonna open the committee’s report for a vote.

[3:23:12] Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you and that concludes the 17th report of the Community Protective Services Committee. Okay, next we’ll move to the Civic Works Committee. I’ll ask Chair or not Roman to present the report. Thank you. I’ll look to put the 16th meeting of Civic Works Committee items I’ve been asked to pull so far are item 2.3 the new sidewalks project list and item 3.2 the Huron Heights Neighborhood Connectivity Plan.

[3:23:48] I’ve not been asked to pull anything else at this time. So let’s put everything else on the floor. Okay, is there any other items that colleagues would like dealt with separately? Councillor Trostoff. Yes, 3.1, item 5, the Northridge. Anything else? Councillor Roman. Thank you. I’ll look to put everything excluding the 2.3, 3.1 and 3.2 on the floor. The committee chairs put that on the floor, any discussion on those items that are on the floor?

[3:24:26] Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, I will look to put 2.3, the new sidewalks project list forward.

[3:25:03] That’s put down the floor by the chair. I’ll look for comments, questions. Councillor Trostoff, go ahead. Yes, I was through the chair. I was thinking of a couple of different amendments, but I think I can suffice with the question, which I think I already know the answer to. And that is looking forward to the 25-2025 report. Would it be possible to get a little bit more information on that report that could come through the Citics Works Committee at some point of your choosing that we could discuss?

[3:25:37] I could go through what I’d like to see in the report, but maybe we could do that offline, it’s up to you. Go ahead. Through you, your worship staff would be happy to provide more information about the new sidewalk program through 2025 as part of our reporting to council and happy to connect as well. Okay, I’ll leave it at that and raise my other concerns with respect to the next two items. Okay, other speakers to just this item then, seeing none? Thank you.

[3:26:11] And just in the report to say this passed by motion of five to zero, it was A to receive the staff report and then B became, B directed to remove sovereign court from Appendix A of the above noted staff report. And that was after some discussion at committee as to the rationale behind that particular sidewalk being recommended. There’s no other speakers, so we’ll open this for voting. Councillor Hill here.

[3:27:02] Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, I’ll look to put 3.1, the Northridge Neighborhood Connectivity Plan on the floor. As you’ll see, there was some additional communication as well provided with this. That’s on the floor, moved by the committee chair. I’ll look at each other, speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Peruzza. Oh, Councillor Trostoff, go ahead. Thank you, if you were to chair, this was a rather lengthy and somewhat contentious item at the Civic Works Committee.

[3:27:42] My question, I have two general questions. And the first one is, in the view of staff, does the motion that’s on the floor comply conform with the London Plan, given the exemptions? Go ahead. Your worship, I don’t believe I’m the person to provide that sort of legal advice for the related to conformists of the London Plan. I think we would have to go in camera if you’re asking legal advice with respect to whether it conforms to the London Plan.

[3:28:35] That’s what you trust, huh? I don’t think what I’m asking for arises to legal advice. It’s, we do have a provision in the London Plan that addresses sidewalks, that’s very straightforward. It’s plan number 939, if I have the number right. And there are a number of exemptions to 939. And the staff report was to approve a large list of sidewalks, which were taken out by the committee. And my question really goes to whether or not, taking out all of those additional sidewalks as per the committee report, complies with 939.

[3:29:32] Two year worship. What I can tell you is when we brought forward the Neighborhood Connectivity Plan process two years ago, so this is our second year using it, that had been well vetted through planning and through legal with respect to staff providing a minimum connectivity network based on our recommendation for these areas that are being studied. We had not explored whether or not council choosing to exempt additional streets beyond that recommendation is a violation, but we do believe we’re generally in alignment of the intent around more walkable communities. Okay, so just to clarify that your original list of all of the candidates for sidewalks was in compliance with the London Plan.

[3:30:15] Good, with your year worship, the advice we received when we were developing this process was that this approach was in alignment with the intent of the London Plan. Okay, my next question is to what extent are the provisions of the London Plan binding on this council in terms of our deliberations on items that come up that pertain to the London Plan? For example, 939. Your year worship, I don’t want to stray into legal or planning advice on this one. Council has since the inception of the London Plan and the requirement of sidewalks be built on essentially every street at reconstruction on both sides with no exceptions other than a very short list exempted a number of streets through decision of council and we have left that exemption through in the hands of council.

[3:31:07] With respect to enacting exemptions to the 939 Plan language, would it be advisable for council to make a finding or a reason or some factual determination as to why a particular sidewalk does meet one of the exemption criteria? Respectfully your worship, that would stray out of my ability to answer as your chief engineer. Go ahead.

[3:31:44] Again, I’m concerned that we might be straying into legal advice if we’re looking at that. Councilor, I think you’re entering into an area that might have, it seems like a little bit of gray area based on the answers that Ms. Scharer said as well.

[3:32:19] So you might not be able to, despite asking in a couple of different ways, get exactly the answer you’re looking for out of this without giving staff some time to do some sort of more in-depth analysis on it. I’m not sure staff on the spot are going to be able to guide you through this in the way that you’re looking for at this moment. So I’m not looking to dissuade you from asking your questions. I’m just looking not to have you frustrated with not being able to get something that would be very difficult for them to put together given some of the gray area that has been described. And that’s my term, not theirs.

[3:32:52] I’m just, for lack of a better way of saying it. I think you know where I’m going. So I think if you want to speak to what the committee’s recommended or not, that might be a good way to go too. Okay, I’ll let that go. I realize that might be a difficult question of interpretation. Representations were made at committee though, very explicitly that the London Plan is not binding on us. And I just, I was troubled by that. I’m going to go on and ask a more specific question then.

[3:33:29] When staff recommends that a particular street have a sidewalk, does the staff before doing that also look at the other circumstances around the street to determine if there are other traffic safety mitigation measures that might be appropriate? Through you, your worship. We actually do this work for the neighborhood connectivity plan in conjunction with our traffic safety and traffic calming team, with active and safe routes to school.

[3:34:02] So there are a number of factors that are considered as to whether or not we would suggest a neighborhood connectivity plan includes that street. We do also look at things like PXOs, speed management, all those sorts of pieces as well. Thank you, ‘cause it’s my opinion that putting aside the question of the sidewalks, there are some traffic mitigation measures, especially near Fanshawe Park Road, that are very sorely needed in that neighborhood. And I know that that’s not part of the sidewalk at such issue, but is this something that Civic Works will be able to look at in more detail?

[3:34:40] Through you, your worship, there are things identified in the neighborhood connectivity plan related to pedestrian crossover and accommodation that are part of this plan. With respect to traffic calming, we do not bring those reports to Civic Works. They are a matter of administrative process. And any resident or street is able to provide that petition assuming they meet the neighborhood support threshold and they’ll be evaluated based on their merits. Okay, and I guess my last question is, what makes me uncomfortable about this vote?

[3:35:16] Is that I feel that what makes me uncomfortable about this vote? And I did vote against it at Civic Works. And I am mindful of the many, many, many submissions that you received and I’m also mindful of the really diligent work that the word counselor did in terms of going out and talking to people. What makes me uncomfortable about this vote is I’m wondering, is there a better way of having these things come up that is not as contentious as it was?

[3:35:49] We had a process before and we decided to move away from and we moved to this. Will there be an opportunity over the next year to consider improvements to this process such that it might be a little less contentious? Your worship, this process actually was designed to take away some of the street by street debate. We were seeing with respect to sidewalks related with other infrastructure renewal in the past where every single street went through design and generally in March, as we were getting ready to go out for construction, we would have requests coming to us to remove a number of streets and then debated for multiple hours at Civic Works.

[3:36:29] This is intended to help provide a context and connectivity as to what we recommend for sidewalks in a community. That said, the process is only in the second year so we’re always happy to take a look at it and report back on where we’re seeing obstacles and where we’re seeing successes with respect to it. So the answer is, this was meant to be better and yes, we are still open to improving the process. I made a lot of comments at the committee but I think for now I’ll leave it at that. Thank you. Okay, I have Councillor Preble, McAllister, Kadi and Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Preble, your first.

[3:37:11] Thank you. Just on the comment what my fellow Councillor just mentioned, I do would like to revisit this process as well for us, for the entire city. And I do think that I’ll be more than happy to do it with the staff as well as through our Civic Works Committee, which I’m a member of because I do think that there is potential room for improvement and the way we come across to our citizens as well. Just for my colleagues, I just wanna let you know just to quickly update you. There was a proposal for staff from Staff 11th Street proposal for the sidewalks.

[3:37:45] I do recommend four of them and the reason why I recommend four of them is because the width actually allows the curb face sidewalks and all the trees to stay in place and there were also some concerns both from students and the residents about these four. The other seven, I’m not recommending and it is based on, again, not losing the street, the width of the width. And there certainly haven’t been any safety concerns either. I just wanna let you know that all the petitions, even though there’s only one listed on our agenda, all the other ones were submitted to the neighbourhood connectivity team.

[3:38:26] So I just wanna let you know it’s not just this one, it’s all the other seven ones as well. The petitions were signed by 90% plus residents. So it is not that even the 10, I’m not saying that they would disagree with them, but there was less because potentially they were at home or they just don’t like to sign the petitions. But 90% plus, there was an agreement, no sidewalks. I just wanna let you know also that I spoke to over 70 people who were walking on these streets that I recommended and yes, some of them lived them, some of them did not.

[3:39:01] The ones that did not mostly used it for cutting through. I took, I measured the cutting through and we are investing money into Glenra finishing the street lights which has sidewalks on both sides and the other streets as well. And the difference between cutting through and not cutting through is 20 metres. So if I look at average, that’s 30 more steps for people to walk through if they would like to cut through. So I just want to let you know that the committee, they recommend it, they approve my recommendation.

[3:39:38] Thank you to a council colleague who put this forward. Thank you for the committee, other committee members. And I certainly hope that you will support, all of you will support the committee’s recommendation and also the council recommendation who really truly, I did truly do diligence. I truly did that and I feel really good about it. If you have any questions, their colleagues, please don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the mayor.

[3:40:11] I just wanted to take this opportunity to commend all the legwork that both Councillor Pueblo, Councillor Cuddy put into their plan before us regarding the sidewalks and their wards. When I say legwork, I mean just that. They’ve walked and talked to residents of these streets and come back to us with fair and balanced propositions. Even though I didn’t support this committee after further consideration, changed my position and I’ll be supporting both the motions regarding these sidewalks. To my council colleagues, moving on to civic works for next year. I wish you luck with this very contentious topic.

[3:40:44] (laughing) These discussions really do fire up residents and you have to walk a fine line when it comes to balancing safety accessibility with the neighborhood connectivity. I think both the Councillors have done their best to achieve that and I’m happy to support both these recommendations. Thank you. Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Your Worship and through you. And I’m just going to take a minute to talk about Northridge because Sharon Heights is my area and we’ll be speaking about it next.

[3:41:16] And I just want to take a moment, Your Worship, to speak about the exemplary work that Councillor Pribble did on this file. It’s the best. And I want all of Councillor Pribble’s constituents. I think they know the fine work that he’s done. He spent countless hours speaking to constituents. And even Councillor Ramen joined him one day and spent time with him an hour and a half, two hours with him. And Councillor Ramen, if I could reference this, Your Worship, Councillor Ramen and I, as School Board Trustees for four years, know the area very well.

[3:41:52] And we understand the needs and the concerns of the residents of Northridge. And I think Councillor Pribble to his credit has done a wonderful admirable job at responding to his constituents. And one last thing I will say, Your Worship, is I’ve heard the word contentious mentioned three or four times. And this didn’t need to be contentious. It could have been discussed and it wasn’t. And it did become a point of dispute. And I’m sorry that it did because I was part of that dispute.

[3:42:26] But I’ll be giving this, obviously, my full support as I help Councillor Pribble with it. And I look forward to working with you on future projects. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis, thank you, Your Worship. So through you, I’m gonna ask a couple of questions of our staff and sorry to put them on the spot ‘cause I didn’t flag these ahead of time, but I’m gonna put them out there. ‘Cause I’ve been through this before.

[3:43:01] And I have some hesitancy to support the recommendation as brought forward. And I will say, I agree with some of the exceptions. And I shared this at committee. Glen Gail and Du Boine made no sense to me in that we were only proposing to do half a crescent, presuming that the residents who were going to be walking to the park were only coming from that half of the crescent and not the other half of the crescent. So I had an issue with that. But we’ve heard already from the Councillor that curb-facing sidewalks would not fit.

[3:43:38] But have we actually done an engineering assessment on whether in Boulevard or curb-facing are options on any or all of these streets? Go ahead. Through you, Your Worship. We have not done that detailed assessment, nor do we have the resources to do that for streets that may potentially have a sidewalk. That was where we were previously, where we went through a very detailed design process and then had the debate about whether it should have a sidewalk under this program. So we’ve done some very preliminary screening. In many cases, there are the abilities to narrow roadways, to add them curb-facing.

[3:44:11] In some cases, we can get behind street trees and provide them in those locations because driveways in front lots are long. But to have the level of say, number of tree impacts, driveway impacts, extreme detail on that, we’d go back to the old process where we spend the money and time on design and then we debate whether or not that’s a sidewalk we wish to construct. So a follow up to that. In the last item, we approved the new sidewalks list and those are moving forward. If we were to approve in the future neighborhood connectivity plans, and then when they do actually come forward as a budget consideration because there’s a room in the budget to actually advance them, is would there be possibly in the future an interim step that could do a preliminary design that could be shared with the neighborhood?

[3:45:02] ‘Cause I think one of the things that we heard from residents and even in emails that I received over the weekend, a couple of residents said if this was curb-facing, I’d be fine with it, but I don’t wanna lose my trees. But they’re making a presumption that it’s going to be in Boulevard and we don’t know that. So is there a way to do some sort of preliminary evaluation to advise residents? Because one of the things that I hear consistently on all of these is the tree loss. And although I didn’t go with Councilor Pribble, I did take a drive around. I did see that some of these streets do look like there would be some pretty significant tree loss if curb-facing was not an option.

[3:45:40] So I would be less supportive then. But just wondering if there’s a possibility to have an interim step here in the future. I know we have to make a decision on this one today, but moving forward. So through your worship, with respect to the deputy mayor’s question, that actually is the process. So a network that’s approved by Council through a neighborhood connectivity plan will trigger a discussion about the detailed design on each street as those projects come up relative to either the road reconstruction or our infrastructure renewal work. And the next step would be to prepare a more detailed functional design at that time as we’re doing project planning.

[3:46:16] And then that would go out to the community for consultation. And that process generally involves a street level walkthrough with any interested parties, renderings of the street. So there is a piece in here that happens after this plan is approved. And you’ll actually see if you go back to the previous report that we are doing two streets that came out of last year’s approved neighborhood connectivity plans. And that process has been well underway with the community to make those decisions about narrow road widths, potentially giving up parking on one side of the street. Can we get, are we doing curb-facing? Or are we behind street trees?

[3:46:49] Are we street trees that are at the end of life? And perhaps we’re in a situation that this is a good time to renew that urban asset. So that’s actually baked into what we do. Thank you for that. So there’s another reason where I’m hesitant is we’re gonna take some streets right out of the connectivity plan without having all of the information first. At the same time, I understand why the neighbors are concerned and particularly around their trees, which I absolutely empathize with. And for me, that’s why I’ve voted for exemptions in the past because we were into double-digit tree losses.

[3:47:26] I’m struggling with this though because what I’ve heard a lot of emphasis on is we’ve had petitions, we’ve had petitions, we’ve had petitions. And not that I want to dismiss that petitions have no value, but they are a snapshot in time. Some of these sidewalks aren’t projected until 10 years out or more. A great number of residents, I know none of us like to think about our lives 10 years from now, but a lot of residents may not be there. Jobs may have changed, marital statuses may have changed. People like the trees who reach their end of life cycle, we reach our end of life cycle too, that’s part of being human.

[3:48:05] So when we’re taking a snapshot and saying, we’re not gonna consider these roads, even though they’re 10 years out based on petitions, I struggle with that because it is a snapshot in time. I also struggle with removing streets that are immediately around a school. And I’ve been through this in my own ward last term, and I quite honestly thought when I would go canvassing there that it would be pitchforks and torches, but now that they have this sidewalk, it’s enjoyed by a lot of people. That was one where it was curb facing was possible, and so we did save.

[3:48:38] I think it was, we only lost two trees. 19 were saved because it was curb facing, so that was a good trade off there. But I’m struggling with this because I don’t want to take out something that 10 years from now might make sense because today there’s a petition from residents who live there in this point in time. So, and I’m particularly concerned about removing Del Keith. You know, the shorter crescents that sort of dead end, I have less concern about because of the number of people impacted is less.

[3:49:15] But when you start taking a street as long as Del Keith, and then you’re taking all the access to those sidewalks off of those shorter lengths of road as well, that’s a concern for me. I think everything else on here, I can understand the logic if I don’t necessarily agree with that 100%. But Del Keith, I do struggle with. And so, for that reason, I’m going to move an amendment to the committee recommendation, and that amendment would simply read that Del Keith be deleted from the list of exceptions.

[3:51:10] We’ll allow that as a change, and so you’ll need a seconder, Councilor Palosa. So this will be an amendment to the committee’s recommendation to remove one of the streets. So that’s moved and seconded. Do you want to provide your rationale now? ‘Cause we’re on a new, or you could speak once, remember. So, you want to do it an hour later? So, as I said, I can understand the rationale behind the Council putting all of these forward.

[3:51:44] I truly can. Without knowing whether Del Keith can accommodate a curb facing or an in boulevard, or something behind the boulevard trees, I don’t want to remove it from the list. When we look at some of the other ones, Len Gail, Dunboyne, these are simply crescents that circle around to themselves. So they’re only serving the residents directly on that street. When you start talking about Del Keith, though, you’ve got Del Keith crescent, you’ve got Kirkton Court, you’ve got McCloud crescent, all feeding only onto Del Keith. There’s no other way to get out of the neighborhood except Del Keith from those streets.

[3:52:19] So, and then you have Algoma and Algoma Place coming off of Del Keith that feed both to Del Keith and Glenara Drive, so those residents have two options. But the residents on the other streets only have Del Keith as an option. So if you’re walking out of the neighborhood, you’ve got one way to go. And so that’s why I think for me, Del Keith needs to be included in the potential neighborhood connectivity because that design piece still has to happen. And I’m content to leave it on the list and let that design piece happen before we make a decision.

[3:52:54] Now, I will say if staff come back and say we’re gonna take out 54 trees, I might feel very differently when that comes forward. But for now, this is where I am on this item. So that’s my rationale for that. All the other ones, well, I may not love them. I can respectfully defer to the ward councilor’s work on that. But Del Keith to me is a bigger issue. Have Councilor Pribble next on the amendment. Yes, on the amendment. So thank you.

[3:53:26] I’m just going to my notes on the Del Keith just so you know, because it is not just a petition. And on Del Keith, I talk to 28 people, nine students, and 19 adults. And I talk to them in terms of the safety concerns or if they heard of any safety concerns or if there were any issues, it was virtually, it was really zero. In terms of the Del Keith, it feel like I saw the only, so we are looking at two things. The first one is the people who are living there. 97%, yes, I heard here not to build it on the petition because potentially we are making a decision five to 10 years.

[3:54:03] So if there will be other people living five to 10 years, I think that with our planning, we could come back actually later to talk to these people and not to make a decision for 97% of people living there. I think it’s very unfair. And again, we should be serving majority people. This is actually not even a, we are saying it’s a dividing issue. I actually don’t think it is because if you look at 97% or 90% against 10, that’s another money dividing. If it’s 55, 45, 50, 50, I get that, but this is not. So I certainly will not support it.

[3:54:37] And again, the ones that are honestly, the only ones that are the ones cutting through. So the people who live there, they don’t want it. They feel safe, everything is great. They say we have other issues that we have in the address and we are trying to push aside work on them. Now, the cutting through, this is the one that I thought there was gonna be an issue. So this is the one that would potentially looks like cutting through people that saved their time. That’s the one I measured and they are saving 20 meters, 30 steps.

[3:55:10] So that’s why I will not support it. It’s one street. And again, we are not doing. And I’m not gonna say no other examples going east because I certainly don’t want more sidewalks there. But some of the things that were mentioned, I would disagree with it. But I will not support it. And again, let’s think about it really. We are here to serve majority of people. 97% on that street said we don’t want it. And yes, five to 10 years from now, again, it’s not that we have to put something on someone now from five to 10 years.

[3:55:43] If we feel things will change in five, eight, nine years, let’s go back. But right now we are serving 97% of population. And are we gonna say no to 97%? And are we gonna say potentially three? Because again, there could have been some people who don’t like to sign petitions. So please think about it in this way. And otherwise, it’s not helping anyone. It has no street lights. And we did a great job in terms of the Glen Gary and in terms of the Glenora.

[3:56:18] We’ll have beautiful sidewalks. Most Glenora has both sides, lighting might safer. And again, for the ones cutting through, I don’t know why would they be cutting through again, because they are not even lights during the dark days or during the night. So please think about it. We are making a decision, 97% people, potentially 3% people, they are living there. That’s what they are asking us to do. I hope we are gonna all agree that we are serving majority of people and not small minority.

[3:56:50] And again, we don’t even know if the 3% are against it. We don’t even know, thank you. Other speakers, the amendment. Councillor Ploza, go ahead. Thank you, I wasn’t playing on speaking, but I’ll follow up just based on some information that was presented in our last speakers. Through you to staff could miss share her team, say how often these street reconstructions take to come around as the lifecycle of these streets. Thank you through your worship generally on roadways. We’re in a 30 to 40 year cycle.

[3:57:23] Could be a bit sooner on busier streets. Infrastructure renewal for undergrounds can be up to 80, 90 years, but usually we’ll see a roadway reconstruction in the middle of there. Thank you, residents always appreciate when you really tear things up and go deep down. So just as we move through these conversations, having chaired civic works last time when these conversations came up and we’re trying to find a easier way to do it with different engagement, there’s no easy way. Everyone’s gonna be upset all the time. But just realizing the decisions we’re making now isn’t necessarily for the residents who are living on that street now.

[3:57:56] By the time the 40 year renewal comes up, chances are most of those residents will have moved in. And on to other things. And I do look at the street connectivity in the plans. I know it’s a difficult conversation with residents of tree preservation, front lawns, especially when it’s the easement right away in the cities and their front lawn, they think it’s their property, it’s not or they own four pickup trucks and then they can’t get them in their driveways anymore and it’s our fault. And we’ve done exemptions in the past and some of them were the connectivity streets that came through and we did exempt them.

[3:58:29] And then I found myself and other people’s words using it and some of them were horrible, especially if you’re trying to get to things. And especially if I’m hearing that there’s no street lighting and now sidewalk really for accessibility or as seniors, children and women are using that space. I’m always in favor of adequate street lighting as well and grateful for the light that we do as a city and any relamping projects as they move throughout our wards. So I seconded it. I’ll be supporting this amendment before us and just mindful that in the past, I championed and removed some streets from it.

[3:59:09] And by the time the city got there to do the streets, the loudest residents on that street who said we had to exempt them and already moved. And I said six months ago, this was the most passionate thing about your forever neighborhood and you’ve already moved on to your next opportunity. So just mindful too of that we’re building it for the future residents of the next 40 years. The speakers to this, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I’m not gonna be supporting this amendment. I’m just taking a quick look at the map and it’s deep inside a residential neighborhood.

[3:59:44] I don’t see even an elementary school. There doesn’t seem to be any plazas, even along Fanshawe Park Road, which is the main strip. There doesn’t appear to be any businesses, any kind of foot traffic other than the people within the residential area going for a walk. So I think it’s really, I do, I have listened to the concerns here and I do think there, we do get to have that big, long view, 30, 40 year view and not listen solely to the residents, but given that the residents have spoken out so clearly and the fact that I can’t see any reason why deep within a residential neighborhood we would put sidewalks in against the will of the neighborhood.

[4:00:34] If there were a lot of shopping or there was an elementary school or there was some other reason, I might be persuaded, but I’ll not be supporting this amendment. Other speakers. So seeing none, this is on the amendment. This is on the amendment to strike the Delquithav from the list of exemptions.

[4:01:07] So if you vote for it, you’re taking that out as an exemption, it’s kind of back into the neighborhood connectivity plan. And if you vote against it, good news recommendation stays as is. So we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion fails, seven to eight. Okay, so committee’s recommendation stays as is.

[4:01:43] I can go back to my regular speakers list of which I don’t have someone next. There’s a number of people who have already spoken. Anybody else looking to speak on committee’s recommendation as it stands? Seeing none, we’re gonna open the committee recommendation for voting now. Closing the vote, motion carries.

[4:02:33] Thank you, I’ll look to put item 3.2, the Huron Heights Neighborhood Connectivity Plan on the floor. Okay, here on Heights Neighborhood Connectivity Plans on the floor, I’ll look to speakers on this. Councilor Cady, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, we’ve made a change to this motion. We’ve added Michael Street back on to the list, and I’m not sure if the motion is up there now that you can see that. And I’d like to explain why we made this change.

[4:03:08] And after consulting with Deputy Mayor Lewis, who knows my word, just as well as I do, he spent a lot of time there. We discussed Michael Street, and there’s some issues. If anyone’s not familiar with the area, it’s almost directly across from Fanshawe College. And in fact, Deputy Mayor Lewis’s wards, and my word’s sort of a boarder of Fanshawe College right there. And on Michael Street, Your Worship, we have a lot of students, a lot of Fanshawe students. We have some traffic calming issues, and also there’s a bit of a curve there, as it takes Michael Street goes into Michael Circle, which is a high density area of a variety of students and lower income homes.

[4:03:51] And we just believe that if we were to add sidewalks to Michael Street, we would probably alleviate some of the traffic issues. Also, when I was canvassing through that area more than a year ago, Your Worship, I spent met with a lot of residents, a number of residents who mentioned that they had some concerns for safety with respect to being walking at night with their dog or with their children, and that maybe something like a sidewalk might prevail. Also, in conclusion, Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I actually met with about 30 residents last summer, a nice barbecue night, and no one really had any concerns about the sidewalk going there.

[4:04:35] They did have some concerns with traffic calming, which we’re working on right now with staff. And so that’s why we’ve added Michael Street back into the list of streets for sidewalks. Now, in final conclusion, I wanna thank staff for the great work you guys have done. Ms. Cher, thank you for talking to me and kind of helping me through all this. Thank you to counselors who I’ve spoken to, and thank you most of all to my residents who I’m not as cerebral as counselor of Pribble.

[4:05:10] I don’t do, I don’t take a lot of notes and I don’t do logistic searches, but I bright my bike through the work, and I speak to my constituents when I see them on the street or I knock on the doors. And all of them told me where they wanted the sidewalks to go. They gave me ample good reasons why. And I’m so glad that we’ve come to a conclusion that I think we can all be satisfied with. And my constituents, most importantly, can be satisfied with.

[4:05:41] Thank you. So, counselor, you have to stay up ‘cause you’re moving in amendments. I apologize. Yes. I haven’t done this before. Yeah, well, it’s good, get ready ‘cause it’s happening. Assuming, assuming you get a seconder, ‘cause that’s kind of the first step. So, is there a seconder? And so, the amendment is to basically delete Michael Street from the exempted list. Counselor Stevens is willing to second. So, now you get to stay standing until everybody’s done debating, right?

[4:06:16] Thank you. And so does Councilor Raman, ‘cause she’s got the main on there. So, it’s enough amendments, everybody gets to stand. So, we’ll look for speakers on just the amendment. Keep very lucky your first time. So, you still stand until we vote. Maybe you did a good job. So, the amendment is moved and seconded. We’re open the amendment to remove Michael Street from the list of exemptions for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[4:07:07] It’s now pretty good for your first time too, 15 to zero. So, great job. Back to now, the as amended motion. So, what I need is Councilor Raman willing to move as amended. I need a seconder ‘cause it’s now as amended. Councilor McAllister, Councilor Cady, you’re allowed to sit down now ‘cause you’ve been successful in your amendment. And we have the as amended now motion, which is as committee recommended with the list of exemptions, but Michael Street is no longer exempted. It’s back in the neighborhood connectivity plan with what’s under consideration. Anybody want to speak to that as amended motion? Councilor McAllister, go ahead.

[4:07:42] Thank you, and through the mayor, I just wanted to reiterate what I previously said. I really do think the Councillors have put in the time they’ve communicated with the residents, even just the amendment we passed shows their willingness to compromise, listen to the feedback, and plan accordingly for their neighborhoods. And so, I really appreciate what’s being booked for us. Appreciate the hard work that went into it. And just thanks again. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship.

[4:08:15] I know I say this a lot. I promise this time I’m going to be brief. I think one of the things that we need to, as we continue to have these sidewalk discussions, keep in mind is not just the changing residents, but as Councilor Cady referenced on Michael Street, we were in a backyard in the summer and chatted with 30 or so residents. What used to be a dead end with nothing, now has some high density residential there. These residents, I’m sure, would have said, two years ago, we don’t need a sidewalk, but now they have all of this traffic coming down their street and heading out to cheap side to get out of the neighborhood.

[4:08:52] And now they don’t feel safe walking your dog on the street at night after work. So there’s a great example of why we have to be careful about projecting today’s realities five or 10 years down the road. And I really appreciate Councilor Cady taking the time to sit down with me. We went over our notes from our meeting in that backyard barbecue, which a wonderful host you’ve gotten word three there. And these were reasons why it was important to put Michael Street back on the list, but it’s also the reason why it’s important to consider changing circumstances and neighborhoods.

[4:09:24] I’m a firm believer that we don’t need to retrofit sidewalks on both sides of a street. I think that a retrofit of one side of the street is perfectly reasonable. I do believe we have to be very cautious about tree loss. And when the lifecycle of those trees is running its course too, if a tree’s got 40 years left in it, that’s a little different than if it’s got three years left in it. So there’s no, Councilor Palosa hit it, right? There’s no easy answer, everybody just is angry with you when sidewalks are coming forward. But I will say to folks again, I’ve been through this inward too.

[4:09:59] And I’ve seen a street go from 98% opposed to 100% in support after the fact. So just wanna share that as food for thought, moving forward as we continue to think about how this process can be better for residents in the neighborhood now and in the future. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. And first of all, thank you to the two board councilors for the work that you’ve done in your communities. I know how difficult it is. Having sidewalk issues are always a hot topic in any neighborhood in the city of London.

[4:10:34] So thank you for your due diligence and looking into it and having those conversations. I think they’re very, very important. I do wanna speak to the process that we have here with us when it comes to the neighborhood activity plan. It is new for if a sidewalk came up, we put in a sidewalk. So now we’re looking at the connectivity of how it functions in the neighborhood. And I think it’s a good thing. It may not be perfect, but we know sidewalks are important for safety.

[4:11:08] One of the biggest issues I have in my neighborhood is keeping our neighborhood safe. And sidewalks are a great opportunity to have people walk on a sidewalk as opposed to a road. I really appreciate the process looking at other opportunities like crosswalks and that and making those recommendations coming forward. It’s not a perfect process. Maybe we can look at it going forward to some learnings as we’re having to deal with these contentious issues. But I do wanna say one thing though, when sidewalks do come into neighborhoods, they are usually used.

[4:11:52] And they’re usually, I think, one of the few times I’m thanked, especially when it comes to sidewalks is when we put them in and then residents have reported back and saying, it works. And I think we have to allow that process to take place without making decisions year after year that can sort of can turn the direction, especially of the functionality of the neighborhood and how it works.

[4:12:25] And when I look at the map and when I look at these suggestions coming in, I know they’re gonna be reviewed down the road, but I think it’s also important to know that we don’t know how it’s all going to work. And these recommendations that have come to us are the minimum of sidewalks for these neighborhoods, not the maximum that we delete and remove. But I do wanna thank the counselors for their work that they’ve done and obviously the work that goes into this. But I am a big supporter of sidewalks.

[4:13:04] And maybe the question should be asked, you’re getting a sidewalk in the neighborhood. Where’s the best place to put it? And that’s how I see this process unfolding. It’s not perfect, but I appreciate the work of the counselors. Okay, as more speakers, okay. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I just wanted to quickly say, I do have the Westerly portion if you’re on heights, just west of Highbury. And I did wanna thank the residents who did come out to our community meeting, who spoke passionately for and against sidewalks.

[4:13:41] Thank staff for coming out and being there to listen and to ensure residents that they do have a say and encourage them in that way. I was fortunate that the streets that were very, very passionately against sidewalks, it came out recommended by staff that it not be in that place. We do have it recommended on Victoria, which will not be well received by some, but I was told that it will be curbside, so it won’t affect the trees. There are 10 years out.

[4:14:14] And if anybody’s been on that section of street, there’s constant pedestrian traffic, from 202 McNay headed to the Tim Hortons and everything else along Highbury. And when I was canvassing last summer, I could literally stand on that street and just canvassed people as they walk past me. Many of them with walkers and with disabled seniors, that kind of thing. So I’ll work with that neighborhood with that when the time comes. If I’m here when that happens, it’s one of those instances where even though there might be some reluctance on that street, there’s a clear need to address some of the safety concerns on that street.

[4:14:52] And I look forward to working with staff on that. Thank you, Councilor Trossa. Thank you very much. I won’t repeat the points I made in the last item, I just would say. I will be supporting the original staff report, even though I do have issues about how that was generated, which I think is something that can be fixed. You know, when we’re voting on something like sidewalks, we’re not just voting for the wishes of the current residents. And that was something that I think was stressed in the staff report.

[4:15:31] And we’re not, we’re looking at this from a citywide perspective. We’re looking at this from a full connectivity perspective. And it’s really hard when the people who might not, might be served by sidewalks, aren’t in the area, you’re not gonna go getting petitions from people from all over the city who feel that better connectivity, citywide is a good idea, especially given some of our points in this strategic plan. And it’s easy, it’s easy, much easier. And, you know, I think the Councilors did a good job canvassing the area.

[4:16:06] But I think as Councilors, we also have a responsibility to the entire city. So I’m not gonna be supporting the committee recommendation. I would feel a lot more comfortable about supporting the committee recommendation if there were more particular, as I suggested before, findings as to why exemptions were appropriate. And I don’t think that was done in this case. We’ve left it up in the air in terms of whether that would be appropriate. But I think I would be more inclined to support the exemption if there was a well-articulated reasoning based on exactly what’s in the London plan, which in my opinion is binding on this Council.

[4:16:51] So I am not gonna be supporting the committee recommendation. I feel bad ‘cause I do wanna acknowledge that you’ve both done good work on this. But I just can’t do it based on the record that’s in front of me, thank you. Okay, that concludes my speaker’s list. We have the as amended motion on the floor. I’m gonna open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to two.

[4:17:41] Thank you, that concludes my report. Okay, great job. We’re on to the next report, which is item 8.5, the third report of the audit committee. I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mary Lewis to present the audit committee report. Key worship, I’m gonna be the briefest I’ve been all day. I’m not aware of anything that needs to be pulled. I’m prepared to put the entire report on the floor. Would anybody like anything separate from the audit committee report? Reports, the full report has moved.

[4:18:16] Any discussion or comments, questions? Okay, we can open that for voting. Councillor Trasso, thank you. Close on the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, added reports.

[4:18:50] 17th report of council and closed session will have Councillor Ramen report progress on some items. Thank you, I’m happy to report that progress was made in the 17th report of council and closed session. So that impacts all the items that were on our closed session. We have no deferred matters. We have no inquiries, emergent motions, and I’m sorry, colleagues, I have one. So I’m going to turn the chair over to Councillor Ramen, left you go ahead. And I’m going to ask for leave to make a motion. Thank you, I have the chair and I have Mayor Morgan on the list, go ahead.

[4:19:30] Thank you. So pursuant to section 20.2 of the council procedure by-law, I’m going to ask colleagues to grant me leave to bring forward an emergent motion with respect to a matter pertaining the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose, advice that is subject to solicitor of client privilege, commercial and financial information that belongs to the municipality or has monetary value or potential monetary value, and a position plan or procedure criteria or instruction that has to be applied to any negotiations carried out, or to be carried out on or on behalf of the municipality.

[4:20:09] So I’m looking for your leave to introduce a new reason to go into camera to talk about a property acquisition matter. Thank you, I have Councillor Palosa. Second. So this is a motion to go on camera, not debatable, and it’s been, sorry for leave, sorry, for this motion for leave.

[4:20:47] And so it’s been second and it’s not debatable. And it requires two-thirds support. And I’ve learned it requires two-thirds voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Mayor Morgan.

[4:21:21] Yeah, so now with leave granted, I’d like to introduce that reason I read, additional reason to go into camera for colleagues. Thank you, so we motion to go on camera and looking for a seconder, Councillor Palosa. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[4:22:10] Thank you, I’ll return the chair to Mayor Morgan. No one on the list. Okay, so now we have another reason to go into camera. So I’m going to look for a motion to actually move into camera now that we have a reason. Before I say that to the colleagues who are participating digitally, you need to check your email. You’ll get a new Zoom link for this in camera session, not the previous one, but you get a new one right now. I’ll look for a motion to move into camera. Councillor Ferrera, Councillor Hopkins, seconded. We will just be a second to open that in the system to move into camera.

[4:23:02] Okay, that’s open now. Councillor Pribble. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. So we’re going to committee room five.

[4:52:56] Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, based on that, I have two things we need to do. I know Councillor Frank, you have something to say. So I’ll go to you first. Yes, in regards to the matter in closed session, I declared a pecuniary interest. Thank you, that’s noted.

[4:53:30] And Councillor Roman, could you report progress? Thank you, I’m happy to report progress was made on the end of which we went camera. Great, so that concludes merchant motions. We’re on to bylaws. We’re going to divide out the 978 Gainesboro bylaws which is 422 and 459. So we’ll deal with those separate. Does anybody else want anything else in bylaws dealt with separately besides those two? Give you a moment to make sure, okay.

[4:54:17] So we’re going to do all of the bylaws. There are no added ones with the exception of 422 and 459. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that. Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Preble. There is no debate on first reading. So we will open first reading of those bylaws for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[4:55:01] Okay, second reading of the same set of bylaws, mover and a seconder. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Ferra. Any discussion on the second reading of those? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, and third reading of those bylaws moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. We will open third reading for voting momentarily.

[4:55:44] Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, now we’ll deal with the two bylaws related to 978 Gainesboro Road. So I’ll need a mover and a seconder for bylaws number 422 and 459, Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. There’s no debate on first reading. So I’ll open first reading for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to three.

[4:56:25] And second reading, looking for movers and seconders. Councillor Ferra, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Any debate on second reading? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to three. Third and final reading of those two bylaws moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Ferra. We will open third reading for voting.

[4:57:08] Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to three. Okay, that’s it for bylaws. We only have a German at the end here. So look for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. All those in favor of adjournment by hand. That motion carries. All right, thank you very much. We’re adjourned.