February 13, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor A. Hopkins discloses a pecuniary interest in item 13, clause 3.8 of the 3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee having to do with City-Wide 5-Bedroom Limits and Increased Permissions for Additional Residential Units (OZ-9661) by indicating that her son owns a rental property.

At 1:04 PM, Councillor S. Trosow enters the meeting.

At 1:06 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enters the meeting.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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 subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation with respect to various personal injury and property damage claims against the City. (6.1/3/CSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:09 PM to 1:14 PM.

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

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the Minutes of the 2nd Meeting and 3rd Special Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on January 23, 2024, and January 31, 2024, respectively, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

6.1    4366 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9676)

  1. K. Barlett 

  2. M. Scott and F. Scott

6.2    City-Wide 5-Bedroom Limits and Increased Permissions for Additional Residential Units (OZ-9661)

  1. D. Bartlett, London Neighbourhood Community Association Inc. 

  2. (ADDED) AM. Valastro

6.3    1310 Adelaide Street North and 795 Windermere Road (OZ-8709)

  1. D. Windsor, North London Golf Centre Ltd.  

  2. F. Noory, CEO & President, Royal Premier Homes 

  3. W. Newton 

  4. J. Thrasher 

  5. (ADDED) K. Kelly 

  6. (ADDED) P. Green 

  7. (ADDED) V. Moretti 

  8. (ADDED) A. Brander 

  9. (ADDED) E. Brander

6.4    (ADDED) Remembrance Gardens at 2315 River Road

  1. (ADDED) D. Hryckiw, President, and O. Nowosad, Vice President - Ukranian Canadian Congress

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   3rd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-01-29 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 3rd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 7 (2.6)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Grand Theatre 2024-2027 Multi-Year Grant Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 47)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 29, 2024, related to the Grand Theatre 2024-2027 Multi-Year Grant Agreement;

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to:

i)    approve the Grant Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between The Corporation of the City of London and Grand Theatre, setting out the terms and conditions of the City’s grant of funds to Grand Theatre;

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

iii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, to act as the city representative for the purposes of the above-noted Grant Agreement; and,

iv)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, the authority to amend the above-noted Grant Agreement with respect to the total maximum amount of the City’s contribution towards the funded activity under the Grant Agreement; and,

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2024-F05A)

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) The London Arts Council 2024-2027 Multi-Year Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 48)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 29, 2024, related to the London Arts Council 2024-2027 Multi-Year Agreement:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to:

i)    approve the Purchase of Service Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between The Corporation of the City of London and the London Arts Council, setting out the terms and conditions of the City’s grant of funds to the London Arts Council;

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

iii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, to act as the city representative for the purposes of the above-noted Purchase of Service Agreement; and,

iv)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, the authority to amend the above-noted Purchase of Service Agreement with respect to the total maximum amount of the City’s contribution towards the funded activity under the Purchase of Service Agreement; and,

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2024-F05A)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) London Heritage Council 2024-2027 Multi-Year Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 49)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 29, 2024, related to the London Heritage Council 2024-2027 Multi-Year Agreement:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to:

i)    approve the Purchase of Service Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between The Corporation of the City of London and the London Heritage Council, setting out the terms and conditions of the City’s grant of funds to the London Heritage Council;

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

iii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, to act as the city representative for the purposes of the above-noted Purchase of Service Agreement; and,

iv)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, the authority to amend the above-noted Purchase of Service Agreement with respect to the total maximum amount of the City’s contribution towards the funded activity under the Purchase of Service Agreement; and,

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2024-F05A)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) 2023-2024 Next Generation 9-1-1 Transition Funding Support – Transfer Payment Agreements (Relates to Bill No. 50 and Bill No. 51)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 29, 2024, related to the 2023-2024 Next Generation 9-1-1 Transition Funding Support Transfer Payment Agreements:

a)     the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to:

i)    approve the Year Two (2023-2024) Next Generation 9-1-1 Transition Funding Support Transfer Payment Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London and London Police Service Communications Section; it being noted that this is the second round of three years of funding;

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

iii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts that are necessary in connection with the above-noted Agreement;

iv)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or written delegate, to execute any financial reports required under the above-noted Agreement; and,

v)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services to approve and execute a future agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the London Police Services Board assigning the terms of Schedule ‘A’ of Appendix ‘A’ to the London Police Services Board; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024 to:

i)    approve the Year Two (2023-2024) Next Generation 9-1-1 Transition Funding Support Transfer Payment Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London (London Fire Department-Communications Division); it being noted that this is the second round of three years of funding;

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

iii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts that are necessary in connection with the above-noted Agreement; and,

iv)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or written delegate, to execute any financial reports required under the above-noted Agreement. (2024-P16/F05A)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) Municipal Compliance Annual Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report, dated January 29, 2024, with respect to the Municipal Compliance Annual Report, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that accepting this report does not preclude the committee from further inquiry into 2023 data and future reporting will provide additional information and fulsome aggregate tables on Short Term Accommodations and Property Compliance. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.7) Data Regarding the Relocation of Homeless Individuals

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 29, 2024, related to Data Regarding the Relocation of Homeless Individuals:

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

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to update the snapshot of London Homelessness on the City of London website on a quarterly basis. (2024-S14)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (4.1) Possible Amendments to the Vehicle for Hire By-law

Motion made by D. Ferreira

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with recommendations on possible amendments to the Vehicle for Hire By-law to address cab owner regulations on minimum vehicle operation periods and licence renewal timeframes; it being noted that the Civic Administration will be reporting back on vehicle age limits in 2024; it being further noted that a verbal delegation from H. Savehilaghi, Yellow London Taxi Inc., with respect to this matter, was received. (2024-T03)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (5.1) Remembrance Gardens at 2315 River Road

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Remembrance Gardens Located at 2315 River Road:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with a memorandum of understanding laying out the roles and responsibilities of the City of London and the Remember the November 11th Association, for the shared operations of the Remembrance Gardens, located at 2315 River Road, by the end of Q2 of 2024; it being noted that this report would include any costs that may be incurred on the part of the city for regular maintenance, electrical, or infrastructure upgrades which may be required on the property;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to recognize and promote Remembrance Gardens as an attraction for both residents and visitors and to include park signage; and,

c)    the communication from Councillor H. McAlister and Councillor D. Ferreira, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE RECEIVED. (2024-M02)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) Operational Transition Plan for 446 King Street Housing Project

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 29, 2024, related to Operational Transition Plan for the 446 King Street Housing Project:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to disburse up to an additional $300,000 as municipal contribution to this housing project from the Service Manager Administrative Funding account, conditional on the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”) taking ownership of this property and entering into an agreement of assignment and assumption with The Corporation of the City of London and Council of LIFT Non-Profit Housing Corporation;

c)    the Deputy City Manager BE AUTHORIZED to approve and execute an amendment to the Municipal Contribution Agreement for CMHA to support the business transition plan;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to allocate rent subsidies to this project; and,

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide an update to Council after the transition plan has been successfully implemented. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.2   3rd Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-01-30 CWC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 3rd Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 5 (2.5), 6(2.6) and 8 (2.4)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

The following actions be taken with respect to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC), from the meeting held on January 17, 2024:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend a future meeting of the ITCAC to present options for Thames Valley Parkway detours during the upcoming Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant Flood Protection Project; and,

b)     clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.3 and 4.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) 2023 External Audit of London’s Drinking Water Quality Management System and 2022 Management Review

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report, dated January 30, 2024, with respect to the 2023 External Audit of London’s Drinking Water Quality Management System and 2022 Management Review, BE RECEIVED. (2024-E13)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) RFP 2023-189 Large Diameter Watermain Inspection

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 30, 2024, related to RFP 2023-189 Large Diameter Watermain Inspection:

a)    GHD Limited BE APPOINTED to conduct consulting engineer services in the amount of $1,275,707.94 including contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 12.2(b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report”, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-E13)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.7) Professional Consulting over $100k: Highway 401 and Wellington Road/Highbury Avenue Area Traffic Study

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 30, 2024, related to Professional Consulting over $100k for the Highway 401 and Wellington Road/Highbury Avenue Area Traffic Study:

a)    the contract with WSP E&I Canada Limited BE INCREASED by $31,948, to a total amended value of $122,438 (excluding HST), to allow for completion of additional traffic study activities, in accordance with Section 15.1 c) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T08)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (3.1) Jenkens Municipal Drain Improvements (Relates to Bill No. 72)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 30, 2024, related to the Jenkens Municipal Drain Improvements:

a)    the drainage report, as appended to the above-noted staff report, prepared by Spriet Associates London Ltd, Consulting Engineers, for the for the construction of the Jenkens Municipal Drain (2023) BE ADOPTED; it being noted the notice of the public meeting was provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 41 of the Drainage Act; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at this meeting and BE GIVEN two readings at the February 13, 2024 Council meeting to authorize the construction of the Jenkens Municipal Drain 2023 project; it being noted that the third reading of the by-law for enactment would occur at the Council meeting after holding of the Court of Revision in connection with the project. (2024-E09)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.5) Contract Award - Tender No. RFT-2023-241 - East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3C - Highbury Avenue

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 30, 2024, related to a Contract Award for Tender No. RFT-2023-241 for the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3C Highbury Avenue:

a)    the bid submitted by Bre-ex Construction Inc. at its tendered price of $28,487,258.16 (excluding HST), for the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3C project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-ex Construction Inc. was the lowest of six bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $2,253,446.80 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project as it relates to interaction with Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern (CPCK) Railway;

f)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3C project contract;

g)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender RFT-2023-241); and,

h)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-L04)

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.2.6   (2.6) Contract Award - Tender No. RFT-2022-314 - Rapid Transit Implementation - Clarks Bridge and Wellington Road from Thames River to Watson Street

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 30, 2024, related to a Contract Award for Tender No. RFT-2022-314 for Rapid Transit Implementation at Clarks Bridge and Wellington Road from the Thames River to Watson Street:

a)    the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc, at its tendered price of $18,297,251.48 (excluding HST), for the Rapid Transit Implementation, Clarks Bridge and Wellington Road from Thames River to Watson Street project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc was the lowest of three (3) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,899,245 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Rapid Transit Implementation – Clarks Bridge and Wellington Road from Thames River to Watson Street project contract;

f)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender RFT-2022-314); and,

g)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T03)

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.2.8   (2.4) Contract Award - Tender No. RFT-2023-264 - East London Link Phase 3A West - Dundas Street

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated January 30, 2024, related to a Contract Award for Tender No. RFT-2023-264 for the East London Link Phase 3A West Dundas Street:

a)    the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc., at its tendered price of $9,277,302.47 (excluding HST), for the East London Link Phase 3A West project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. was the lowest of five (5) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,244,545.50 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project, as it relates to interaction with Canadian National Railway (CNR);

f)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3A project contract;

g)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender RFT-2023-264); and,

h)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-L04)

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.3   5th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-02-06 SPPC Report 5-Complete

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

That the 4th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 4 (2.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Special Meeting of the Shareholder of the Housing Development Corporation, London (Relates to Bill No. 52 and Bill No. 53)

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-laws appended to the staff report dated February 6, 2024 as Appendix “A” and Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to:

a)    to ratify and confirm the special resolution of the sole shareholder of the Housing Development Corporation, London to authorize the Housing Development Corporation, London to make application for Articles of Amendment to change the number of directors to a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of ten (10);

b)    to ratify and confirm the special resolution of the sole shareholder of the Housing Development Corporation, London to address certain corporate deficiencies and outstanding corporate matters, specifically to ratify, confirm and approve the following: 

i)      ratify, confirm, and approve that Stephen Joseph Giustizia has never been elected as a director of the Corporation; 

ii)     to ratify, confirm and approve the resignations of directors set out in the special resolution; 

iii)    to ratify, confirm and approve that Craig Cooper was elected as a director of the Corporation on May 6, 2020; and 

iv)    ratify, confirm, and approve all resignations and/or removals by the shareholder of the Corporation, and past appointments and elections of directors of the Corporation made by the shareholder of the Corporation.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.4) Contract Award for RFP 2023-346 - Consultation for Ward Boundary Review

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

That on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contract for the Request for Proposal RFP 2023-346 – Consultation for Ward Boundary Review:

a)    Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. BE APPOINTED to conduct consultation services in the amount of $123,600 including contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 12.2(b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report” as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”;

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

d)    the approvals given herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. for this work; and

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

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.3) Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) - Terms of Reference

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

That the report entitled Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) Terms of Reference BE REFERRED to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning for consultation on the amended Terms of Reference;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy received a communication from S. Bergman, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (5.1) Capital Project Overruns - Mayor J. Morgan, Councillor S. Franke, Councillor A. Hopkins

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

That, with respect to the resolution from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the following actions be taken:

a)   that the attached resolution from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, requesting the Province of Ontario to undertake a comprehensive social and economic prosperity review to promote the stability and sustainability of municipal finances across Ontario BE ENDORSED;

b)   that Mayor Morgan, Councillor Franke and Councillor Hopkins BE SUPPORTED by Municipal Council in raising these concerns at Ontario Big City Mayors (OBCM), Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), respectively; and

c)   that the communication on the Added Agenda, from Mayor Morgan, Councillor Franke and Councillor Hopkins, with respect to this matter BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.2) SS-2024-042: Housing Stability Services Single Source

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that this SS-2024-042: Housing Stability Services Single Source report be received, and the following actions be taken regarding Housing Stability Services Municipal Purchase of Service agreements:

a)    single source procurements (SS-2024-042) with the Service Providers as outlined in Schedule 1, as appended to the staff report, for the period April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2026, with the option to renew for up to two additional two-year periods subject to the availability of future funding BE APPROVED;

b)    one-time funding requests of up to $273,204 (with costs related to compensation and diversity recruitment consultant, fundraising supports, and security needs consultant removed) as outlined in Schedule 3, as appended to the staff report for the period of April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025 BE APPROVED;

c)    a drawdown from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve in the amount of up to $4,576,168 BE APPROVED to fund the costs of these procurements in excess of available budgets;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to continue to engage with the Encampment Reference Table in the design of an inclement weather plan that will be brought back for council endorsement in Q3 2024;

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

f)     the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation amending or entering into a Purchase of Service Agreement or other existing agreements;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated February 2, 2024 from C. Lazenby, Executive Director, Unity Project with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the Housing Stability Services Municipal Purchase of Service Agreements BE REFERRED back to Civic Administration to meet with the service providers and review the proposed budgets to identify savings based on the two-year rather than one-year renewal agreements and report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

8.4   3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-01-30 PEC Report 3

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 13 (3.8); and 14 (3.9).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Delegated Authority for Consent (Relates to Bill No. 59)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to amend By-law CP-23 to provide for the Committee of Adjustment and Consent Authority and to repeal By-law CP-23, as amended;

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. (2024-D28)

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Building Division Monthly Report - November 2023

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) Building Division Monthly Report - December 2023

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of December, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information. (2024-A23)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on January 18, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (3.1) 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP), from its meeting held on January 10, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from S. Bergman, Chair, CACP, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (3.2) 900 Wilton Grove (Z-9677) (Relates to Bill No. 65)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Blackbridge Property Inc., (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants), relating to the property located at 900 Wilton Grove Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, 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 Light Industrial (LI2, LI3, LI7) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI2, LI3, LI7(_)) Zone;

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

-     A. Lagrou, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

it being 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 Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Light Industrial Place Type policies; and,

-     the recommended amendment would permit an additional use that is considered appropriate within the surrounding context and will facilitate the reuse of the existing building;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (3.3) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Properties at 16 Wellington Road and 26, 28 & 30 Wellington Road

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the demolition requests, the following properties BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources:

a)     16 Wellington Road;

b)     26 Wellington Road;

c)     28 Wellington Road; and,

d)     30 Wellington Road;

it being noted that commemorative measures will be implemented during the BRT Wellington Gateway construction project in recognition of the significant cultural heritage value of the abovementioned properties;

it being further noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with these matters;

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. (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (3.4) 3502 Manning Drive (OZ-9674) (Relates to Bills No. 55, 56, and 66)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to the property located at 3502 Manning Drive:

a)     the proposed by-laws appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” and Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to:

i)     amend Map 1 – Place Types to change the designation of portions of the subject lands FROM an Environmental Review Place Type TO Green Space Place Type and Waste Management Resource Recovery Area Place Type; and to change the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM a Waste Management Resource Recovery Area Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type; and,

ii)     amend Map 5 – Natural Heritage to DELETE a portion of the Valleylands designation; to ADD Significant Valleylands designation to a portion of the subject lands; to change the designation of the northerly-located wetland FROM an Unevaluated Wetlands TO Wetlands; and to DELETE the Unevaluated Wetlands designation from the westerly located feature;

b)     the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of portions of the subject property FROM an Agricultural (AG2) Zone TO an Open Space (OS5) Zone and a Waste & Resource Management (WRM1) Zone;

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

-     M. Williams; and,

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

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

-     the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Key Directions, Environmental Review Place Type, Open Space Place Type and Waste Management Resource Recovery Area Place Type;

-     environmental studies have been undertaken and recommendations have informed the proposed designations and zoning;

-     the recommended amendment is not intended to impact the character of the agricultural area and is solely intended to expand the Waste Management facility within the allocated subject lands; and,

-     the recommended amendment considers both the long-term protection of agricultural resources and the long-term compatibility of uses;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (3.5) 4366 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9676) (Relates to Bill No. 67)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Lambeth Health Organization Inc., (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.), relating to the property located at 4366 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)     the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, 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 Arterial Commercial (h-17h-18h-124*AC2) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)) Zone;

b)     the requested Special Provision, as part of the amendment to Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, that a single-lane drive-through exit shall be permitted onto Colonel Talbot Road, BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)     the requested Special Provision does not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including the Mobility policies and criteria of the Planning Impact Analysis, the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, nor the regulations of the Access Management Guidelines or Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 with regards to drive-through facility locations;

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

i)      relocate the exit of the drive-through lane internal to the site;

ii)     a landscape buffer between a drive-through lane and adjacent properties of 3.0 metre to the north and 1.5 metres to the east shall be provided;

iii)    implement the recommendations of the noise study; and,

iv)    short-term bicycle parking is required;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the Project Summary from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc., with respect to these matters;

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

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

-     M. Zuech;

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 Building policies, and the Main Street Place Type policies;

-     the recommended amendment conforms to policies of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Main Street Lambeth North Neighbourhood policies; and,

-     the recommended amendment facilitates the redevelopment of an underutilized site with an appropriate range of uses at an appropriate scale and intensity;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (3.6) 934 Oxford Street West (Z-9678)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2419361 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 934 Oxford Street West:

a)     the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)     the proposed development does not conform to the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the City of London including, but not limited to, the Key Directions, City Design policies, and Intensity and Form policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

ii)    the proposed development, in its current form, is too intense and cannot meet site design requirements such as appropriate building and parking area setbacks, appropriate parking configuration, impact mitigation and waste and snow storage;

iii)    the proposed development sets a precedent for similar developments in the area.  This would result in multiple access points to Oxford Street West which is not in keeping with access management guidelines which seek to consolidate access points along higher order roads to ensure access points appropriately separated and safe.

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to transfer the planning application fee for this Zoning Bylaw amendment to a subsequent application on the same property;

it being noted that the Applicant submitted a revised concept plan on January 16, 2024 with the intention of working through issues with Staff; however, the statutory timelines under the Planning Act require a decision at the February 13, 2024 Council meeting to avoid issuing a refund;

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

-     a communication dated January 25, 2024, from T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

-     a communication from A. Johnson; and,

-     a revised recommendation from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis;

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

-     T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; 

-     C. Beck on behalf of A. Johnson;

-     A-M. Valastro; and,

-     M. Zwart, Oakridge Presbyterian Church;

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

-     the proposed development does not conform to the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the City of London including, but not limited to, the Key Directions, City Design policies, and Intensity and Form policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

-     the proposed development, in its current form, is too intense and cannot meet site design requirements such as appropriate building and parking area setbacks, appropriate parking configuration, impact mitigation and waste and snow storage; and,

-     the proposed development sets a precedent for similar developments in the area.  This would result in multiple access points to Oxford Street West which is not in keeping with access management guidelines which seek to consolidate access points along higher order roads to ensure access points appropriately separated and safe;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (3.7) Housekeeping Amendments to the Zoning By-law (Z-9679) (Relates to Bill No. 68)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, by correcting errors and omissions, adjusting and adding definitions, and amending general provisions and definitions;

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

-     M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

it being 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 general intent of The London Plan, including but not limited to the City Building Policies; and,

-     the recommended amendment support’s Council’s commitment to supporting streamlined planning and building approvals, avoiding unnecessary processes and increasing the supply of housing;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed

8.4.15   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (3.8) City-Wide 5-Bedroom Limits and Increased Permissions for Additional Residential Units (OZ-9661) (Relates to Bills No. 57, 69, and 70)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law requirements for 5-bedroom limits and additional residential units:

a)     the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024 TO AMEND the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, Policy 942 relating to additional residential unit permissions and amend wording referring to accessory buildings containing additional residential units;

b)     the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024 TO AMEND Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 relating to additional residential unit permissions, in part to conform with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above; and,

c)     the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2024 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024 TO AMEND Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to remove the city-wide 5-bedroom limit from Section 2 “Dwelling” definitions, to modify Section 2 “Dwelling Unit” definition to include reference to the Near Campus Neighbourhood 5-bedroom limit, and modify Section 4.37.5 to include provision for bedroom limit increases related to additional residential unit creation within Near Campus Neighbourhoods;

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

-     a communication dated January 10, 2024 from A. Kaplansky;

-     a communication dated January 19, 2024 from J-M. Metrailler;

-     a communication dated January 24, 2024 from the R. Zelinka, Chair, London Area Planning Consultants;

-     a communication dated January 26, 2024 from J. Halsall;

-     a communication dated January 28, 2024 from M. Bartlett;

-     a communication dated January 28, 2024 from C. Barker;

-     a communication dated January 30, 2024 from S. Bentley, Interim President, Broughdale Community Association and area resident; and,

-     a communication from AM. Valastro;

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

-     A. Kaplansky;

-     J. Reid;

-     A-M. Valastro;

-     T. Rutten;

-     J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders Association;

-     M. Wallace, London Development;

-     J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions on behalf of Copps Backyard Homes;

-     S. Copp;

-     J. Halsall;

-     D. Jones, Orchard Park Sherwood Forest Executive;

-     J.M. Metrailler;

-     H. Pearce;

-     S. Saker, Saker Realty;

-     M. Bartlett, Broughdale Community Association Executive; and,

-     M. Blosh;

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 general intent of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Policy 942; and,

-     the recommended amendment support’s Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.14   (3.9) 1310 Adelaide Street North and 795 Windermere Road (OZ-8709) (Relates to Bill No. 58 and Bill No. 71)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Royal Premier Development, relating to the property located at 1310 Adelaide Street North & 795 Windermere Road:

a)     the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Green Space Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)     the  attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “B”)  BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Open Space Special Provision (OS4(2)) Zone TO a Holding Open Space Special Provision (h-18*OS4(_)) Zone;

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

i)     ensure there is a network of walkways between the parking areas, building entrances, the public sidewalk on Adelaide Street North and the Thames Valley Parkway along Windemere Road to allow for safe and convenient pedestrian connectivity throughout the site and support transit usage; and,

ii)    review City parking lot upgrades and field house as part of site plan review process;

d)    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;

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;

-     S. Pratt, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority;

-     D. Windsor; and,

-     M. Blosh;

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 permits development and site alteration in those portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects and risk to public safety are minor, could be mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, and where development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, protection works standards, and access standards, vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding, erosion and other emergencies, new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated, and no adverse environmental impacts will result; 

-     the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Policies for Specific Areas, and the Green Space Place Type policies;

-     the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to Specific Area Policies (Map 7), the Green Space Place Type, the Our Tools, and all other applicable policies in The London Plan; and,

-     the recommended amendment will establish a principle of development for a site by allowing some additional development opportunity, while ensuring protection of public safety and minimizing property damage;

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. (2024-D14)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following amendment BE APPROVED to the associated by-law (Bill No. 71) as it relates to an area of land located at 1310 Adelaide Street North and 795 Windermere Road:

amend by adding a regulation to the zoning by-law (Bill No. 71) to allow for a maximum of three (3) commercial units on the property, including one restaurant with a drive-through facility.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

Pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, that further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law.

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That item 14, clause 3.9, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

8.5   3rd Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-02-05 CSC Report 3

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 3rd Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) Single Source SS-2024-032 Argyle Arena Refrigeration Condensing Unit Replacement

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the procurement of a refrigeration condensing unit:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to single source the supply and installation of a refrigeration condensing unit at Argyle Arena from CIMCO Refrigeration, valued at $330,000, including contingency, excluding HST;

  

b)    the approval a) above, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London’s satisfactory review and confirmation of quoted pricing, terms, conditions, and entering a contract with CIMCO Refrigeration to supply and install the required condensing unit:

c)    the financing for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated February 5, 2024 as Appendix “A”; and

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

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Federation of Canadian Municipalities Advocacy Days and Board Meeting

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the communication dated January 15, 2024 from Councillor S. Franke regarding the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Board of Directors Advocacy Days from the meeting held in Ottawa, ON on November 24, 2023, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (5.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Multiple Myeloma Awareness Month

Motion made by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated January 29, 2024 from London and District Myeloma Support Group, the month of March 2024 BE PROCLAIMED as Multiple Myeloma Awareness Month.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (5.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - BGC Club Day

Motion made by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated February 1, 2024 from BGC London, June 7, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED BGC Club Day.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

None.

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No 46 to Bill No 72, and excluding Bill No’s 57, 69, 70, and 71 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Second Reading of Bill No 46 to Bill No 72, and excluding Bill No’s 57, 69, 70, and 71 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Third Reading and Enactment Bill No 46 to 68 excluding Bill No’s 57, 69, 70, 71, and 72 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 57, 69, and 70, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Franke

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 57, 69, and 70, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 57, 69, and 70, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Second Reading of Bill No 71, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:00 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 15 minutes)

Okay, thank you, please be seated. This is the fourth meeting of municipal council. I’m gonna start with a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peowak, and Adwondron peoples.

We honor and respect the history languages and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. The two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Nant Van Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827, with the Anishinaabak, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames, First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, customs, and cultures.

The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request, to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact council agenda at london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. So on the heels of us singing at our special council meeting, I’m delighted to let you know that we have a guest singer today. George McCleary is a member of the London Gospel Collective who performed a three concert series beginning February 25th at the Grand Theatre’s Auburn stage.

The London Gospel Collective are also one of the musical acts featured in the Greenbin promotional campaign, building awareness about the new Greenbin program. As a UNESCO city of music, London is actively contributing to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, placing music at the forefront of London’s sustainable development actions. The London Gospel Collective are an example of a contribution to sustainable development. Please join me in welcoming George, who will now sing the national anthem, and please rise for that.

Thank you. (singing in foreign language) And I’ll just note that all members are present either here in the gallery or remotely. Disclosure of peuniary interest, Mr. Hopkins.

Yes, I would like to recuse myself on item number 8.4, number 13 citywide five bedroom limits. My son does own his student house in the near campus neighborhood. Others, Councillor Hopkins, I’ll just note for you, that also relates to bylaws 57, 69, and 70 when we get there. There are no recognitions for today.

We have no review of confidential matters to be considered in public. We do have an item for a council in closed session. Saw a look to colleagues for a motion to move into closed session. Moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Ferrera.

I don’t see any discussion, so we will open that for voting. So there’s purple, traso, and frank. There’s a traso indicating yes. Councillor purple indicating yes.

Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, well, we took community room five colleagues. Okay, please be seated. We’re on to item five, confirmation, and signing of the previous minutes.

We have two sets of minutes. I don’t know if it’s set up to do together. Yes, okay, we can do them together. So I’ll look for a mover of both sets of minutes.

Councillor ramen, Councillor McAllister is the seconder. Any questions or discussion on the minutes? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Traso indicating yes.

Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Item six, communication and petitions. There are three items on the regular agenda. One added item.

Those can all be referred to the different areas of the agenda where we’re dealing with those matters. So I’ll look for a general motion to do so. Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion on referring those?

Okay, we’ll open that for voting as well. Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Traso indicating motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, we have no motions for which notice was given.

So we’re on to item eight, which is the reports. We’ll start off with community and protective services committee and I believe Councillor Ferrera, the Vice Chair is presenting that report. So I’ll turn it over to you. Thank you.

Your worship and reporting out for the third report of the community and protective services committee. Most consents, which is speaking about their multi-agreements. Councillor. I think what we’ll do is we’ll start with seeing if anybody wants, do you know of any items that will be dealt with separately yet or no?

I believe I heard that someone wanted to pull 8.8. I’m looking for anyone to pull. Okay, yeah, well, I think we’ll just do that. Items, Councillor, I will need your microphone.

Councillor Ferrera, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I wanted to pull seven, 8.1, number seven, the operational transition plan for 446 King Street. Okay, so just that so far, anything else?

Then Councillor, I’ll let you make a motion for the remaining items. I will make a motion for the remaining items. So the Councillor’s moving items one through six and eight through 10 on the council agenda. I’ll look for any comments or questions on that.

Yes, go ahead, Councillor McAllister. I just wanted to take this opportunity quickly to say in terms of item 10 on the remembrance gardens, I just wanted to thank the committee. I know that was a late. In addition, I also wanted to take the opportunity to thank staff for working with me on that.

You know, it’s an area, it means a lot to the ward in terms of a solemn area to remember our veterans. And I really do appreciate the support committee. As could my colleagues support this as there are some longstanding issues that we should address with that property. So thank you.

All right, any other speakers? Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, just a quick comment to eight, the data regarding the relocation of homeless individuals. And I just wanted to thank staff.

There was a lot of appreciation for the quarterly reporting that’s gonna be coming. And I just wanted to say thank you. Anyone else? Let’s see none.

So with those items open and moved by the vice chair, comments are done. So we’ll open this for voting. What was in the vote? Motion carries 15 to zero.

There’s one more item left, you gotta move that one. So it’s item seven, which is the operational transit plan. And I’ll move that item. Move by the vice chair.

I’ll look for questions or comments. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just want to say I won’t be supporting this motion.

I had a long conversation with our staff and I truly appreciate their efforts to return, to retain much needed affordable housing units here in London, yet something seems very wrong. I’m concerned about how many other problems are out there amongst our other 63 providers. I’ve heard very concerning things about this particular property in recent months, very concerning high risk behavior and several empty units. It was set up as 30 affordable units for low income single people and those with disabilities.

And then it became 20 supportive units for mental health and victims of domestic violence. Currently, all are in need of mental health supports and 10 of which have individuals with high acuity. We need affordable and accessible units. And it just seems as though all of our resources are being moved and redirected to the high acuity.

This, so I have two concerns with it. One is from the people perspective in terms of, are the, what is our responsibility in terms of governance and accountability and care for these people? And the other is, you know, making sure that we do have access to affordable and accessible units for those who are not high acuity, just for the regular Londoners who are having a difficult time financially. And when it comes to finances, this particular property, there was a three and a half million dollar development in 2009, 69% of which was funded by three levels of government.

So that was 2.45 million. The current mortgage is less than 1.2 million. So I know CMHA is looking at purchasing this property. And like I said, it’s great that we’re gonna be able to retain it as affordable housing.

But I’m assuming that they are purchasing it at far less than fair market value. And I’m having a hard time understanding why the $300,000 deficit can’t be absorbed through refinancing or through some other measure. London taxpayers are being asked to pay up to $300,000 to help dissolve past and current operating deficits. Just in October, Council approved the request from the Middlesex London Health Unit to keep our portion of their surplus in the amount of $611,898 to make a payment on their variable rate loan that they took out to move to City Plaza.

One of my colleagues said at that time that this is good fiscal policy to pay off variable rate loans. And I agree, if they’re our debts, I’m seeing a pattern of London taxpayer money being used to find shortfalls that do not seem to be our responsibility. I have a desire to help people and ensure that we have affordable units. But we have a responsibility here as a board of directors, especially when we’re coming under such an increase in our property tax rate, that do London taxpayers want to pay out a deficit on a property that was, there’s concerning things happening there.

And is that the best use of our money? I definitely want to see this retained as affordable housing, but I don’t see it as a good investment of taxpayer money. Okay, any other speakers to this? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Mr. Troso, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. All right, thank you, Councilor.

Onto the next report, which is 8.2, the third report of Civic Works Committee. I’ll turn it over to Chair Hopkins to present that report. Yes, I’d like to present the third report for Civic Works Committee. I have not heard from anyone.

Want anything pulled? I do see a hand that’s going up. Yes, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I’d just like to pull five and eight, please.

Anyone else want anything pulled? Yes, Mayor, if you could pull six, please. Six, yes. - Yes, please.

Okay, so five, six, and eight so far, separate. Anything else? Perhaps we could do five and six together to save time and efficiencies. Is that okay with you, Councilor Stevenson?

We do five, six, and eight together? Yep, that’d be fine, right? Excellent, okay. So we won’t do five, six, and eight yet.

I’ll turn it back over to Councilor Hopkins to put together a motion on the rest, but it looks like five, six, and eight. Some colleagues want to deal with separately, but together. So I’ll put one, two, three, four, seven, and nine on the floor. Okay, that’s moved by the Chair.

We’ll go to discussion now. Yeah, if I could just give my report on the committee now, or do you want me to wait till the end? If it’s related to these items now, would be appropriate, but other items will deal with it at that time. I’ll wait till the end then.

Okay, so we’ve got the items on the floor, one through four, seven, and nine. There’s no discussion. We’ll open that for voting. Councilor Troso indicating yes, closing the vote.

Motion carries, 15 to zero. Councilor Hopkins. To put number five, which is 2.5, the contract award for the East London Link Immunecible Infrastructure Improvements, Phase 3D, Highbury Avenue on the floor. Councilor Hopkins, the colleagues who wanted five, six, and eight, Paul said that we could do them all together if you’re okay with that.

I’ll put five, six, and eight. Six is the Rapid Transit Implementation at Clark’s Bridge in Wellington Road, and eight is the East London Link Phase 3A West, which is down the street on the floor. That’s so five, six, and eight. Moved by the Chair, I’ll look for any comments or discussion on this.

Just give us a second just to get that vote ready. Okay, the vote’s ready, so I’m gonna open that for voting. Those in the vote, Motion carries, 13 to two. Councilor.

Well, I guess there’s no point making my comments after the vote, so I will leave it for that. That moves on to item 8.3, the fifth report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that report. Thank you, Your Worship, for the fifth report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, I’ve had a request from Councillor Stevenson to pull item four, that’s 2.2 from the Committee agenda, as the Housing Stability Services Single Source. I’m prepared to move all other items from that report, so one through three, as well as five and six.

I’m ready to put on the floor now. Okay, would anybody like anything, dealt with separately what the Deputy Mayor’s proposing? Okay, so that means moved by now the Chair of the Committee, I should say. Everything but item four, any discussion on that?

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, Motion carries, 15 to zero. And Your Worship, I’m now ready to put item four on the floor, this is the Housing Stability Services Single Source, that was dealt with that Committee. We had a robust discussion.

We also made a couple of changes, and it is those changes that are reflected in the report today that are going on the floor. Okay, moved by the Chair, I’ll look for discussion. Go ahead Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanna begin again by saying thank you to staff, they spend a lot of time this morning answering a lot of questions, and I have a much better understanding of this than I did, and I do appreciate it.

I’m still unable to support this motion though. The premise of this is to stabilize the service providers, quote, while a new system begins to scale up. We haven’t seen the model that we are moving toward in terms of the impact on these service providers. I haven’t heard any reason why we won’t be in the same situation in 2026, that is a shortfall of another 4.6 million.

And I don’t see how this is one time funding, when this is our base shelter providers. This 4.6 million does not create any additional beds or expand services, we are told that they can’t operate without this increase in funding. The whole of community came out of a hunger strike where people stood on the front lawn of City Hall and said no more excuses, people are dying. Yet since then I have heard so many excuses and little reporting on the number of deaths.

A year ago we were told that this new whole of community system response would mean there would be no more need for a winter response. Then we needed one desperately and only arcade was willing to meet that need, or able to meet that need. The other organizations were unable. Now they need a 30% increase in funding, which we don’t have.

Yet we are willing to dip into the operating budget contingency reserve for 4.6 million. When at the very same time, we are saying that there is no money for transit or libraries or the housing stability fund and the other programs that struggling low income Londoners rely on to remain housed. I want to see the safety of our shelters improved. I want to see more shelter beds available and shelter spaces for couples and for other unique needs.

This does not do that. In the one time funding request, there is $50,000 for a phone system upgrade, $43,000 for HVAC insulation, close to $80,000 for computers, laptops, iPads. We’ve been asked to make up for fundraising shortfalls. I have still been unable to see the budget that goes along with the $3 million London cares contract from the previous year’s winter response.

So for these reasons, even this one time funding request, I don’t see lockers to secure belongings. I don’t see in this motion any sober housing options. How does this address the safety concerns that we hear about in the shelter? How does this address the concerns of homeless individuals and couples who do not want to be in a low barrier space surrounded by drug use?

How does this fit into the bridge we are building as we walk across it? What will happen next winter? We’ve been told there’s no funds available for next year’s winter response, so I’m hoping that we can hear that there won’t be a need for one. How are taxpayers supposed to understand that we have money to give a 30% increase to our shelter operators while all of our other, or most of our other boards and commissioners, commissions are held to 5% or some other smaller figure?

Do London taxpayers agree? I don’t think they do. And so I’m not gonna be able to support this motion. As much as I do want and I do value what our shelter operators are doing, this just doesn’t seem, I need a more whole picture in order to be able to support this.

Now the speakers, Councillor Preble, go ahead. Thank you and as well, thank you to the staff for all the work that was done with these organizations. I’m just gonna kind of repeat what I said at the last week’s meeting. A lot of these organizations, they reached out to us throughout the last year and they mentioned if we receive a longer commitment, we can plan better.

We can find certain savings. And there’s this proposal, and I do understand that there are inflationary situations which we are all experiencing, but I just felt that these increases are, some of them are quite high and it doesn’t reflect, if we were, so what are the savings from some of these organizations? If we really made a commitment for two years. So I would like to have a proposal, I have a referral proposed, and the referral is to direct this back to the staff and for our staff to get back with these organizations and based on the two year commitments from our side, if they were to sit with them and look for potential findings of the cost savings.

I don’t know if the clerk could please bring this up. Sure, we just need a seconder for the referral, seconded by Councillor Stevenson, okay. So referrals moved and seconded. We’re now on the referral, so we will bring that up on the screen so that colleagues can read the referral and I will start a debate on the referral.

So you’d like to start, Councillor Prabble? This is a new motion now, it’s the referral. Okay, so I’m just gonna— - On the referral. I’m just gonna add to the referral repeating myself.

I really think that if our staff can sit together with these organizations and look at the potential findings and savings, and I do understand that these savings that are gonna reflect in the property tax increases or some people ask me about if this would decrease, I totally realize it’s not. But on the other hand, I do believe we need to find, we gotta be accountable everyone to, we gotta be accountable to Londoners and our staff to us and I’m just hoping that there will be savings found after this additional initiative, thank you. Sorry, on the referral, Councillor Prabble has spoken and the speakers to the referral, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’ll just quickly say that I’m supporting the referral in the hopes that what comes back is something that I can support because I do want to provide that two-year stability to the shelter system, it just needs to be stable with stable funding.

Other speakers to the referral? Councillor Ramen, go ahead. Thank you, and through you, I’m just wondering if staff might be able to clarify with the referral what the implications of referring might be? Mr.

Dickens. Through you, your worship, our Civic Administration team has been working for a couple of months now with service providers to land on the number that you see before you in this report. So there has been multiple back and forth to try and land these budgets to pair back where we thought we could pair back. The implication of this would be we would want to make sure we turn around and come back to committee quite quickly as the service agreements do end at the end of March.

New ones would come into effect April 1st. The February SPPC at the 27th would require a report into the clerk’s office by Friday at 9 a.m. So with budget being on Thursday, it doesn’t give us a lot of time for contract negotiation reporting back this month. Also, the due process has taken place and I’m not sure how optimistic I could be that we would find the level of savings that this type of effort would garner.

Councillor Ronna. Thank you, that was helpful. I’m supportive of finding ways to find efficiencies. I don’t think that at this time, we would be having a conversation that would lead to an ability to do that in such a short period of time.

I do believe that organizations are understanding of the fact that we have cost pressures as well and that we need to look for opportunities to find those efficiencies and savings. But I will say I was concerned on item B. I am still concerned around seeing the continued mentioning of fundraising support and coverage of fundraising dollars or loss of events or things like that that were listed in this report. I will be looking for ways to address that in our upcoming committee meetings and such because I think it’s something we’re going to see more of this year with organizations realizing that they’re going to have some shortfalls and wanting to find other places to make up from them.

So I think we do probably need a policy in general around fundraising support. And when we do provide that backstop and where we don’t. So at this time, I won’t support the referral but because of the timing of the contracts. But I do appreciate my colleagues bringing these concerns forward.

Any other speakers on the referral? Okay, see none. So we’re voting on the referral. So we’ll open that for voting.

Those in the vote, motion fails three to 12. So referral fails. We’re back to the main motion as was put on the floor. Two people’s have spoken to it.

Any other speakers? Seeing none, then go ahead. Deputy Mayor. Sorry, your worship to pull my hand up late.

I wanted to wait and see if anybody else wanted to speak first. But I will say I share a number of Councilor Robbins concerns around this. And I hope that both civic administration and the service providers are hearing those concerns because we cannot continue to be asked to backstop fundraising goals that weren’t met, those kinds of things. I recognize that this two year contract is going to give them some stability, some time to adjust as the hubs are stood up and noting that two of those are now up and running, both the Atlosa and the YOU hub are now serving folks in need.

So that’s great. I recognize we’re going into an adjustment period, but to the points that colleagues have made at the end of this contract, another 30% increase and another fundraising backstop and consultant fees and things like that are gonna get a hard no for me. So this is a transition contract for me, but that’s because of the point in time we’re in. Moving forward, I hope that this opportunity is taken to make some systemic changes to how things are done so that it is more sustainable in future years.

Okay, any other speakers to the main motion? You’ve already spoken, Councilor. You spoke and then you moved to referral. Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open this for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two. That concludes the fifth report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. All right, well, before you sit down, the third report of the Planning and Environment Committee is up and I know Councilor Chair Layman is remote and I think he asked if you would present that report as the Vice Chair, so I’ll let you proceed with the Planning and Environment Committee report. And that’s why I stayed standing.

Your worship, I’ll get my exercise doing a stair climb at the end of the meeting and just stay standing through this report. So on behalf of Chair Layman, I have been asked to pull item 14, that’s 3.9 from the committee agenda. Adley Street North and 795 Windermere Road. I’ve not been made aware of any other items.

Council, Councilor Hopkins declared a conflict on 13 as well. So we’ll have to do that one second. Okay, so we’ll pull 13 as well. So I’m prepared to move one through 12 and 15 at this time.

Okay, I’ll look for others who want other items pulled from that list. So you can proceed with that motion. So the chair or the Vice Chair is moving, one through 12 and 15. So that’s on the floor, any discussion on those items?

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Sir Stevenson, sir Stevenson, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. And your worship, I’ll prepare to put item 13, 3.8 from the committee agenda.

These citywide five bedroom limits and increased permissions for additional residential units on the floor. So that’s on the floor, any discussion on that? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. And your worship, I’m now ready to put item 14 on the floor. This is 3.9 from the committee agenda. 13, 10, Adelaide Street, 795, Windermere Road.

Councilor Frank has asked for this to be pulled. And I will advise the council as well. The councilor Pribble has circulated a potential amendment on this application as well. Okay, that’s on the floor by the chair.

I’ll look for speakers to this. That’s Frank. It’s kind of, I tried to look at both of you at once to give you equal opportunity. So you put your hand up first, go ahead.

Thank you, yes. I was hoping to have this pulled and dealt with separately as I floated against it at committee. And I’ll just reiterate a couple of points for those who missed this interlating meeting of planning. I’m generally not as part of this development application.

I do think our job as council is to approve development applications that make good sense. And I don’t think it’s necessarily our job here to approve development applications just because they took a really long time. I also don’t think it’s our job to make sure developers get their return on investment. So I think sticking to prudent planning decisions is really what we are supposed to be doing here.

And I personally can’t say with a straight face that approving McDonald’s drive-through in a floodplain is a good planning decision. And I think that buying this piece of land and trying to develop it was always a gamble. And I don’t think it’s a gamble that is going to or should pay off because it’s in a floodplain. Understand legally that people are allowed to rebuild on the same square footage that’s on an existing floodplain.

I don’t think that’s a very compelling planning decision for me in this case, especially when we know that the intensity has gone up significantly. And I think that when we know better, we should do better. So in regards to this development also being engineered to be flood proof because there’ll be a moat around it, I really don’t think that again, that is a compelling reason to approve it. I think that we see a lot of time, most consultant reports will agree with the developer.

And I think that just because something is said to be flood proof, given the impacts of climate change and our increased flooding incidents, we know this area floods pretty much every single year and it floods significantly. It’s not a little flood. It’s a very damaging flood. I do think that this area will flood and this development will be eventually underwater.

Regardless of whether or not there’s a moat and a drop bridge. So I just want to reiterate that as well, if this development does get approved and goes to upper Thames and gets denied, I would encourage all my colleagues to respect the work of the conservation authorities. It is 100% their lane to comment on hazards and floodplains are hazards. So floodplains are literally the lane of conservation authorities and it is their literal job to ensure the safety of people and property.

So if this does go through, I encourage everyone to let the conservation authorities do their work as I think it’s important work and they are trying to protect people and property. So I will be sporting this for the reasons I just explained and would hope that other people as well will reject this development application. Thank you, other speakers. Council approval, I think you said he had an amendment.

So we’re probably waiting on you. Council waiting if anyone else wants to speak towards it. As you can see, I circulated an amendment and the amendment states that decreasing the number of units from four plus the restaurant to two plus the restaurant. So three units, that’s the proposal of my amendment.

I just want to state and I really spent a lot of time on this one talking to the developers, our staff and went through the reports. And there are actually the area, no doubt that this area has been flooded before. Councilor, before you go too far, which you have every right to be your amendment, let me just see if there’s a seconder for what you’re looking to do. You said you circulated it.

I don’t know if everybody’s seen it. You’re willing to second. Okay, so you got a seconder. So we’re going to get that up on the screen.

We’re now going to move to the amendment. So new speakers list. And you’ll be allowed to speak to the amendment now. Councilor Pribble, so feel free to go ahead.

Okay, sorry, I just, it’s council. So I want to, got to follow the procedure. So go ahead. Totally understand.

So there were, as we know, and I wouldn’t say that I’m in this era a lot as well because of the soccer fields, because of the golf course right beside. And yes, it certainly did get flooded before. I wouldn’t say that it’s on every year basis. But one of the things that I was looking at, are there any improvements with this project in actually improve the flooding situations that we had in the past?

And there actually is, and there’s going to be a creating of the channel that’s going to be 16 to 20 meters wide that actually is going to improve the situation for flooding for this area. And I talked to a lot of residents. And yes, there were more against certainly that reached out to me than the ones for, but the ones that were for, they actually thought that it was a good idea in terms of the facilities around to have this establishment there. The ones they were against, when I talked to them, there was a lot of misunderstanding about this piece of land.

The first one is that it is not owned, some people thought it was owned by the city. So it’s not, it’s a privately owned lot with a commercial use permit. So whoever owns it, they can, just like this developer, he came forward and he proposed this project there. In addition, I just want to let you know that with this development, there’s a Thames Valley Parkway extension proposed park land dedication from two to 7.3%.

New field house, approximately 67 and a half square meters in the area to provide public washroom facilities, municipal storage and changing facilities. To reconstruct a municipal parking lot, the parking lot, restoration of those encroach lands back to natural state. And there’s also another thing that people didn’t think there’s going to be an additional access road south of this development. So I just want to say that all these positives come with it and when I researched it more and talked to more people, there’s actually this project in terms of this area, it’s going to be an improved condition in terms of the flooding and floods in this area.

Thank you. Okay, so this is on the amendment. I’ll go to the next speaker on the amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And thank you to the Councillor for the amendment. I will not be supporting it though. I do appreciate the work that is done into reducing the commercial space.

But I think it’s really, really important that we do not do planning on the fly. That’s how it feels to me. I would, if this amendment does fail, I would put a referral on the floor to have it go back to civic administration and to upper Thames and to the applicant to further discuss this application. We know quite well, there’s a lot of engineering work that is being going on here.

It’s like a moat that’s being built. We do know it’s too intense. This is a new application, four years in the making. A lot of work has gone into this application.

And I think it needs to still continue to have further discussions. We know that upper Thames is the authority when it comes to giving permits on floodplains. Councillor Frank said it very well. The authority is there to protect people and property.

That is their job, and I don’t think it’s up to us to start making these decisions here at council. We don’t even know if that’s going to be supported through the process. There is a process, the applicant is welcome to do that, but I would definitely encourage staff, upper Thames, and the applicant to continue refining and keeping it less tense. We heard loud and clear at the public participation meeting, the effects of owners and their concerns.

We do need to do our due diligence in protecting property here as well on council. So I will not be supporting it, but we’ll be bringing forward a referral. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’ll just say right up front that if it referrals brought forward, I won’t be supporting it.

The first pre-consult with upper Thames on this piece of property was 2014. We are 10 years now since the first pre-consultation. And I have a letter here that was given to the applicant from upper Thames on December 8th of 2023. The proposed structure must not exceed the total footprint area of the original structure as it existed April 25th, 2000.

Addressed, the gross floor area was 982 square meters. The proposed development has a gross floor area of 975 square meters. The flood issue that has been raised, the development has been designed. This is upper Thames comments.

The development has been designed with flood proofing to be finalized through the section 28 application hearing process, not through the planning and environment committee, through the section 28 permit process. So on that, Councilor Frank and I agree, that is a decision for upper Thames to make through their section 28 process, but not for us to hold back further at the planning committee stage. So like Councilor Pribble, I received some emails on this from people who thought that this was city owned land. It is not, and in fact, not only is it privately held, but it has commercial use zoning as of right.

So we don’t get to judge whether we like a McDonald’s or a Tim Hortons or a dry cleaner or a subway or whatever the tenant might be. That’s up to the land owner and the tenants that they want to lease out to. Now, what we do get to consider is whether or not from a planning perspective, the concerns have been addressed. To me, the concerns have been addressed around flooding.

And I’ve heard that from both our staff and through the communication with upper Thames that they have some flood modeling, the said the flood modeling has been completed and accepted. They have some flood proofing to matters who finalized through section 28. So I’m happy to let them finalize that through section 28. So the idea that somehow this was going to be land that was going to become city park land, open space, not have anything develop on it, it’s just falls.

It’s privately owned and it’s commercially zoned. Yes, there are restrictions on what can happen here. And when it comes to even the question of whether a drive-through is more intense or not, and I appreciate that the Council, the Ward Council, worked with the applicant. The applicant’s willing to go down to a smaller number of units to address the intensity.

Great, I appreciate them doing that. When it comes from my personal perspective, a drive-through versus a parking lot intensity issue is a matter of opinion. It’s not a planning decision. What some of the planning, there are good planning practices around drive-throughs though, and we’ve seen it in the Colonel Talbot Road application that we just passed.

Where the drive-throughs contained on site and has a single entrance access point with all other vehicles going on site. That’s a good planning principle to apply to drive-throughs, maintaining their entrance and exits within the site itself. So it minimizes traffic impacts. But whether a drive-through is more intense than additional parking spots, that to me is a matter of opinion.

And it’s why we have people both on our staff, professionally accredited individuals who are consulting for the applicant, upper Thames, everybody has a different opinion on that because it is subjective. It is not a hard, fast rule. It is a subjective interpretation of a planning application. So that is why I’m gonna support the referral, or I’m gonna support the amendments.

I will not support a referral, and I will support the main motion as amended if the amendment passes. Councillor Troz, sound then Councillor Ramen. Thank you very much. And just to respond to some of the comments that were just made, the fact that this application has been pending for a long time does not mean we should push it ahead.

We still have to deal with it on the merits, regardless of how long it’s been staying around. I’ll reserve most of my comments for later, where we’re just on the amendment right now. But I’m not gonna support the amendment because for me, it just doesn’t get to the gist of what the objection is to this application, which is the drive-through. And I’ll save my comments on a referral and on the main motion until later.

But I do appreciate you trying, and I do appreciate you talking to people in your area. This bumps up against my ward too, and I’ve gotten a lot of response. But I’m not gonna be supporting the amendment. Thank you.

Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you to staff. I’m just wondering if staff can address, does decreasing it to two plus a restaurant address the number of units on the property concerned? Go ahead.

Through you, Your Worship, in terms of the reduction in intensity, it still allows the range of uses that were contemplated through the staff recommended zoning. However, we did not have a requirement for a number of units. This is an addition that’s being proposed by the Councillor. It’s still the same square footage.

It’s still the same number of parking spaces. It’s just an idea of reflecting in terms of the level of intensity of the range of uses with the drive-through facility. So my understanding with the Councillor’s motion is to identify the number of units within the range of units that are contemplated for this property. Go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you, I appreciate the answer. Okay, my second question is around the channel improving the flooding in the area. I’m just wondering if staff can comment on whether or not they believe that the channeling improves the flooding in the general area. Mr.

Withers. Through Your Worship, all that assessment has been completed by the applicants engineer and has been reviewed by the conservation authority. So that’s not something that we get deeply involved in but our understanding based on what’s been provided in the comments from the conservation authorities that they feel that it does address the issue. Thank you, and through you, I mean, I think it’s pretty easy to understand that I’ve struggled with this one.

I voted against it at planning for the intensity on the site based on the number of buildings. With the number of buildings addressed in this motion amendment story, I am supportive of moving forward. I think that the applicant has shown a willingness to work with us on potential strategies to address this concern and to provide for additional contemplation of what can be put on the site and I appreciate their willingness to work on that. I agree personally, it may not be my preference, it may not be what I personally would like to see at that corner, but I also think that I have to respect that staff looked at this and the types of use that were specified, this is within the types of use that were specified.

So now that the number of buildings is settled and that they believe that this will help with the flooding in the area, as well as the contemplation of some additional pathways, walking paths, as well as the field house, I think that satisfies me in where we’re heading with this particular development. All right, next I have Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Layman. Thank you, I just wanted to say thank you to Councillor Pribble for working with the developer on this and from my understanding, the developer has been willing to work with us and work with us and work with us and work with UTCRA. And I think for me, like we want people to develop in our city and I know there’s certain parameters but outside of that, I think we need to let people do business and do their development.

My understanding is the engineering allows for the flooding and so I think we get to put our own subjective opinions on this aside and allow people to do what is allowed. So I will be supporting the amendment and the motion. Councillor Layman. Thank you and I’ll be briefing, keeping my remarks just to the amendment.

I’ll speak later on to the motion at hand. I just want to thank the work Councillor for doing his work here, speaking to constituents, clarifying some perhaps some misconceptions and also working with between the constituents and the developer here to find some medium ground to bring forth a proposal that could possibly work here. So I will support the work Councillor in his amendment. Councillor Cutty.

Thank you Your Worship and through you. I too want to thank Councillor Pribble for the work he’s done in this, working with the developer. I attended the planning committee meeting even though I’m not a member of committee, but I attended because this development comes very close to my ward, which is on the other side of the river. And I too, like Councillor Troso, had a number of constituents contact me and with varying thoughts on the subject.

And I want to make a correction too to maybe be Councillor Frank and others who think they’ve been calling us a moat. And I guess you can call it a moat. But I did have a chance to speak with the developer at length. He explained the technology to me.

To me, I actually grew up at a farm and I understand drainage and so on. So I understood what he was explaining about the new technology. And I think quite frankly that it will work. And while there may be some flooding, it’s really not our problem.

It will be the problem of the developer and the owner. So I will be supporting this motion. Thank you. Okay, other speakers to the amendment.

Seeing none, so we’re on the amendment. Everybody’s spoken who wants to speak. We’ll open that for voting. Who’s in the vote?

Motion carries 11 to four. Belly’s, I’m just gonna pause for one moment so just bear with me. So I have to not have to read the planning act during a meeting. So now that we’ve changed a by-law that has had public participation meeting associated with it, as per the planning act and our procedure by-law, which if you’re reading along as section 11.21, when Council amends a proposed zoning or rezoning by-law that has been recommended by a relevant standing committee after holding a public meeting by the relevant standing committee as required into the planning act, Council shall immediately vote on the question of whether or not further notice is to be given with respect to that proposed by-law as amended.

So what would occur now is we would determine whether or not further notice is necessary, which means if Council deems yes, further notice is necessary, we would not pass those by-laws tonight at this Council meeting, but we would at a subsequent Council meeting, given the, giving the public the ability to write in, any correspondence on this before Council passes it, it’s just one by-law, yes. And if we said no, no further notice is required than we could actually proceed today. So this is solely within Council’s right to decide this under the planning act. So again, I know this is something you probably haven’t dealt with yet this term because it’s not often that we would change, even if we change it in a small way, a by-law at this committee that has just gone through a public participation meeting.

So it’s our obligation now to determine that question as whether or not we feel more notice is required. So I’m just gonna get that motion and item ready for us to decide on, so just give me one second. So I need like a mover for the question of notice. So everybody wants to do it.

So you’re presenting already, so Deputy Mayor can move this. I’m happy to second just to get it out of the way. We’ll just have that question up in a second, and this is debatable so colleagues can give comment on this. Okay, so I’m taking some advice here and I’m gonna make a call.

So motions generally should be given in the positive. So the motion that we’re gonna put is that more notice be given, not no further notice be given. If someone else wants to move the can, like obviously this is a decision of Council. So I don’t, doesn’t really matter who moved it and who seconded it, we’re making a decision here.

So the motion is going to be need to be refreshed. So everybody knows which way we’re voting and I’m gonna read it out. So people following along are in the gallery can. So what we’re determining now is given, we’ve changed a Biola that had a PPM associated with it at committee.

We’re determining whether or not, which is in Council’s discretion, we give further notice of this. So whether we pass it today, whether we pass it at a subsequent meeting of Council. So it’s pursuant to section 37, 17 of the Planning Act as determined by Municipal Council that further notice be given with respect to the proposed bylaws. So if you vote for this, we will not be passing those bylaws tonight.

We will pass them at the next Council meeting. If you vote against this, we have the ability to pass the bylaw tonight. And this is just the notice being attached to the main motion. We will have determined that question based on the amendment.

We can still debate the main motion and you still have the right to either vote for or defeat the main motion. This is simply a question of, are we going to have notice given or not? Everybody’s clear? I know we haven’t done this before.

So I’m happy to just make sure everybody knows what we’re doing. Okay, sorry, I said 37, I said 37, 14, it’s 34, 17 section of the Planning Act. If it makes me, corrects me when I do that. Okay, so a vote for is yes, more notice be given, not pass today.

A vote against is that we would, we could actually have the right to pass it today, but that’ll be determined by the votes of Council. If it was clear, debate can happen now. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

And just for you, I’m just going to ask whether it’s Mr. Mathers or Ms. McNeely to confirm that typically when we amend an application at the committee level and there is a notice issue, we simply attach a clause that says and no further notice shall be given. Is that, can I just ask if staff can confirm that’s correct procedure at the committee level?

I can also have the clerk weigh-in who manages this at the committee level, if you’d like. And then I think this is more of a procedural question. I’ll have the clerk weigh-in on how it’s normally done at the committee level and why it’s a little bit different when it comes from the committee with that already decided it’s before us. In this case, the amendment was generated here and it was not determined in the amendment.

So Councilor, sorry, Councilor. Clerk, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

There are parallel provisions in the Council procedure by-law related to the provisions required in our section 3417 as it is a recommendation to Council and under the planning act, it’s Council that determines whether any further notice is to be given. Typically the wording will be something along if the fact that no further notice be given, that’s a recommendation to Council. Council is the final decision maker and there is a separate provision under the Council procedure by-law related to that. Okay, thank you.

I just wanted colleagues to understand that there’s a provision for doing this at committee as well. They’re parallel, but they are slightly different in terms of how it happens at committee and Council. I also wonder if through you, your worship staff could indicate what the approximate cost is in recirculating notice. Your worship, if it helps, if the clerks don’t have a precise number, if they can just confirm there is in fact a cost, that would be satisfactory.

I’m determining whether or not under this section, it requires the same notice or whether the notice of the Council meeting is sufficient. So just let me sort that out because I’m not gonna put our staff in a position to give their advice on something that may not be relevant to this. And I may seek some legal guidance on this just so that Council’s clear in its decision maker. So I’m gonna ask for staff who are familiar with the planning act more so than I and legal if necessary to weigh in.

My understanding is it would be the same sort of notice provision that would be required under other sections of the act, but I’m not gonna assume that myself. So I’d like to get your feedback on when we have to give further notice, whether it’s circulated the same way from both planning staff and legal staff. And then we will know, and I’ll just say, that’s what we’re doing. And Council can challenge me if they like.

Thank you. In response to your question, in terms of further notice, we would evaluate it whether or not it’s more intense. In this case, the notice provisions, I was taking a look at the notice. It’s the same square footage.

It’s implying the same. It’s actually a less intense by putting the cap. So those are the evaluation criteria that we would consider in terms of further notice. My opinion, I don’t believe a further notice is required because it is a reduction in terms of what was previously circulated to the public.

Having said that, in terms of further notice, it would involve a recirculation, 120 meter radius circulation to landowners, as well as publication in the Londoner. Yeah, I’ll just see if our legal staff are okay to comment on this as well publicly. Thank you, and through your worship, I think what Ms. McNeely’s just given us is accurate.

Okay, so now that we’ve determined that, and I will say that I agree that that is the process we should follow. If council deems notice be given, then we should recirculate as we would under the other part of the Planning Act. If council doesn’t, they could take your advice for what it’s worth. But the question is, to the council, what is the cost generally of circulating these things for a planning application, is the question the deputy mayor asked.

Through your worship, we know that the Londoner notice is about $200, mailouts, not 100% accurate, but we’re looking in a couple thousand dollars at least. Okay, you’re speaking. I will start your time again. Thank you, worship, and thank you, staff, for providing that commentary and feedback.

It’s helpful. I’m generally supportive of no further notice at committee. So here at council, I will be voting no, even though I moved it. I will not be supporting further notice.

As we heard, the opinion of our director of planning is that the unit cap does reduce the intensity. And so from a perspective of recirculating, I don’t see value in spending public dollars on telling the public that it’s actually gonna be less intense than it was. Those who will object will have not changed their opinion because it’s less intense. So I think that all we’re really doing is spending some money and delaying until the next council meeting.

So I will be voting no on the further notice be given motion. Any other speakers to the notice further notice being given motion? Go ahead, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, yes, I do have a question through you to staff our public dollars being spent on the notices that are gonna be sent out, I guess.

I just want clarification. Go ahead. Through you, worship. This is part of the normal application processing.

So it’d be part of the application fees that we’ve already taken, thank you. Okay, Councilor Frank. Thank you and just a quick follow up. When I do 120 meter radius around this location, it includes the waltzing weasel, the tin cup, one house and the caddy shack.

So I’m wondering just, I understand that maybe in a larger area, it would be thousands of dollars, but I’m wondering if you could comment on if it would be thousands of dollars for this four houses that fit in the 200 meter radius. Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. I don’t actually have the full amount in terms of the distance and the actual costs.

If it’s within that circulation area, there are apartment buildings nearby along Windermere. So that would also involve that notification as well. But without actually having done the circulation, it’s very difficult to provide that answer for you. Councilor Stevenson.

Thank you. I will be supporting or I will be saying no to this motion of notice. The public does not like to see us do things twice and I don’t think it’s gonna look good to send out a noticing that we’re reducing things from the way they were. So I do not want to see a notice.

Councilor Pribble. I’ll be as well voting no. And the reason why is as it was solid as said by the Peter Mayer and our staff, it’s the intensification is lower. And I think we are just delaying our decision.

So I’ll be deciding no and I would like to move forward. Thank you. Okay. Councilor Trossa.

Wouldn’t it make more sense through the chair or the clerk to vote on the referral that’s coming up because it would moot this question. And if the referral happens, there probably would be the need for another notice anyway if there was a change. Yes, Councilor, so the referral or the, there’s no referral. The amendment passed under the procedure by-law, it says shall immediately vote on the question or whether or not.

So we’re dealing with this now because that’s what our rules say we will do it in that order. So although it might make sense, that’s not what we say. So we have to deal with it now. Okay, well along those lines then, one question I have is, where do we stand with this application with the developer in terms of any time deadlines?

Are we in risk of bumping up against the time deadline or does that not apply here? Through your worship, there is no exact timeline. It’s well past the 90 days as they’ve indicated. It was some time ago when the application was made and the applicant can appeal at any time.

Thank you. And my problem with not supporting this is, there seems to be mandatory language in the Planning Act saying we should do this. Am I wrong about, I guess that’s a question to somebody, either the planning staff or legal staff, but do we have discretion in this matter if the Planning Act tells us we should do it if something happens and that something happens? So Councilor, I will answer that because I have the section of the Planning Act before us.

It’s not that the Planning Act is saying that we shall provide notice. It’s that we shall determine whether or not notice is to be given with respect to the proposed by-law. So as you heard, this is often dealt with at the committee when they change something before it gets here. The reason why this feels a little bit awkward is ‘cause it is not very often that we change the by-law at Council and so this has to be determined under a different section of the procedure by-law, but the act basically says that we should or should not, it’s that we shall determine whether or not further notice is to be given.

So it’s within our full jurisdiction to do it or not. It doesn’t prescribe that there is one way or another. Okay, thank you very much. I mean, I still think this would be more expeditiously dealt with if we did the referral first, but I understand what you’re saying ‘cause it says immediately.

So I think I, yeah, thank you. Okay, any other speakers on the idea of determining the question of notice? Just make sure you read how it’s worded so you can determine which way you wanna vote. I see none, so we’re gonna open this for voting.

Just refresh your screen because we changed it to a motion in the positive. The motion that you’re voting on right now is that further notice be given in respect to the proposed by-laws. It is in the positive. It is a motion to give notice.

Closing the vote, motion fails four to 11. Okay, so we’ve determined that question. The amendment has passed. We’ve determined the question of notice.

We’re back to the amended motion now, which is a new motion and a new speaker’s list. And I will just make a comment from the chair. This is why it is very, very helpful to circulate things a little further in advance and also very helpful to when possible, although there is the right of council to deal with things at council, to deal with it in committee as often as possible. But I could have determined a lot more of this if I would have had just a little bit more notice.

And I appreciate you allowing me to work through this a little bit on the fly with our staff. It’s necessary when I don’t have a heads up that is enough for me to determine these questions in advance. We will proceed with the amended motion voting now or speaking, so I’ll look for speakers. I need a mover and a seconder for the as amended motion.

Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. So as amended motion on the floor, speakers. Councillor Layman, go ahead. Thank you.

So basically this comes down, I think, to whether we should allow something to be built in a floodplain, and I agree with Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins, you know, that upper Thames needs to basically weigh in here. That’s the reason we have upper Thames Conservation Authority is to provide guidance and actually have legislative rules or authority to allow this to happen. So from my standpoint, I see a building that is decaying there. I’d like to see something done with that building, quite frankly, but let’s move ahead and let us get it to upper Thames who have been part of the process.

So far and have been guiding potential development there. So let’s move it to the next step and whatever they decide, that’s fine. If they believe that their concerns are met regarding building on this particular section of the floodplain and so be it. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I just had a couple of questions for staff around the city benefits that come out of this. From my understanding is there were several city benefits requested and then some added and I just wondered, is there a standard practice for that? Is there a certain dollar amount that we attribute or percentage to the development?

Like how do we know how many public benefits we get out of a particular development? But through your ship, I may, I’ll start and I may pass on to my colleague, Ms. Shear. In terms of the benefit for here, we know that there’s no bonus thing anymore with these zoning bylaws.

So this is a nice thing to do that the applicant is offering but there’s no obligation for them to do that as part of tide with this development application. So what we’ll try to do our best is work it through in terms of the site plan that comes forward and work with the applicant that way. It’s also in a land that are not owned by the city. There are upper Thames lands.

So there’s that facet to also work through. In terms of the dollar value, I don’t have a figure for you on that. Those details still have to be worked through but my understanding is restoration to the parking facility as well as this field house that the applicant has identified and potentially working with our parks planning folks. Thank you and a follow up.

So my understanding was that this city that makes the asks around these public benefits or city benefits, is that true? Like is it not us asking the developer to do these things? Through your ship, we did not ask for this. This is something that the applicant has offered to do.

I think maybe part of the question here is under old versions of the act, things like section 37 and bonus thing with some types of developments, the city could compel community benefits from a zoning application. However, that section of the act no longer exists. And so although these things come up from time to time, there isn’t a built-in mechanism now where the city used to do it, it doesn’t do it anymore. Go ahead, Councilor.

Okay, thank you, I appreciate the clarity there. I am gonna support this and I would, I am concerned about the amount of times I hear how difficult it is to do business and development in London. And whether we agree with this particular development or not, it goes through the process, the engineering is designed to meet standards, we have our particular rules and restrictions, and after that it should be the right of the property owner, I think, to be able to do what they want within our minimal restrictions. So I’m a little concerned when we get into whether we want it or not, whether we like it or not, ‘cause that’s so subjective.

And so for me, I’m grateful to the developers who persevere and who are willing to contribute the public benefits, it’s always very nice to have. And I do appreciate those developers who persevere and add new and exciting things to our city. Some people will find whatever it is that goes up to be exciting. Other speakers to the as amended motion.

Go ahead, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I do have two quick questions. I want to make sure I understand the zoning that is in place on this property.

I know it was referred to that it is a commercial by right, but I’d like to understand the zoning through you to Seth. Sure, go ahead, Ms. McNeely. Thank you, Through Your Worship.

The zoning is for an open space special provision, the special provision being a commercial recreation establishment. Thank you for that. And the second question I have is regarding the question around the, if the lands do get flooded, would the city be included in any lawsuit that go forward? Well, I’ll look to our legal council on a possible answer to that.

Thank Your Worship. It’s difficult to predict that. It really depends on the circumstances, but I mean, lawyers generally look for a number of defendants, so it’s not impossible, but it is really difficult to predict. Go ahead, Councilor.

Thank you for that. I know it’s difficult to predict, but I do think the city would be named in a lawsuit when it comes to flooding. So basically, I’m just going to go back to what I said before. I am not going to be supporting this recommendation.

I am supportive of staff’s recommendation. What we have done here is we have ourselves decided what should happen, planet. To me, it’s planning on the fly. I’m not a planner.

I appreciate the work council’s work on this. I think more work can be done for years. There was a lot of extensive work done on this, and I think that work could have continued to decrease the intensity that would allow for this development. So we’ve heard from the public, I am very disappointed that we would not, since we’ve changed the plan, that we wouldn’t even send notices out to the public.

It wouldn’t cost us very much. There’s a few, it wouldn’t cost a lot. I just don’t understand why we wouldn’t want to include the neighbors in particular, and what we have done here at council. Sorry, go ahead.

It’s a point of order. So what’s your point of order? Point of order is it was a decided matter of council. Yes.

That we weren’t going to send notice out. Right, yes, the councilor’s commenting on her opinion. It has been decided by council what we’re going to do with notice. So I’ll let you continue with your comments, but I appreciate the councilor pointing that out.

I believe the councilor who’s speaking knows that, and is just referencing it in her comments. And it is unrelated to her case that she’s making about her vote today. Thank you for that. It’s nice to be able to express my opinion here.

One of the reasons I am not supportive of what council has decided moving forward on these changes is one of the things that we know is that we do not build on floodplains. This is a development on this property. We are replacing buildings. There’s a tennis court, a small good life facility.

You are putting in a commercial unit with a restaurant, with a drive-in. It is not like for like for me. That is something that is out of my comfort level that we should be deciding on. It is too intense.

I don’t think too much has changed here. And I also think it’s really important that when we make these decisions that we understand what is happening in the neighborhood and the concerns and take that into consideration. So I will not be supporting this motion. Okay, the as amended motion.

Any other speakers? Councilor Troso, go ahead. I did come to the PEC meeting. I was very surprised at that meeting to see the amendment.

I thought the staff report was very sound. And it was based in science. And it was based on public policy. And it was based on the fact, and I think the public gets this.

It’s a floodplain. It’s a floodplain. And yes, there are all sorts of engineering feats that we’re capable of these days. And whether you want to call it a moat or sort of a high-tech version of an enhanced moat or something, one, and I’m not a scientist, but I know enough to know that if there’s a flood, the water just doesn’t disappear.

And if it can’t go into this particular McDonald’s establishment because of the fortifications, could I just ask a scientific question, maybe from the planning staff through the chair, where does the water go? I’m sure if you can answer that, Mr. Mathers, but let me know your comments. Through the chair, we don’t have anyone here from the applicant who can speak to the actual modeling that was done or what they’ve come up with, but generally it either has to infiltrate or it has to go downhill to the creek or the river or the water and natural water system.

So there’s only those two options. Councilor Trossam. Well, my worry about this whole thing is it’s not gonna minimize the flooding that other property owners on the adjacent properties suffer. Whether it increases it or not, okay, I don’t know, but it’s not gonna minimize the danger of flooding.

We know from a historic fact that this area is flood prone. We know that, we’ve got the pictures, we’ve heard the testimony. It is not speculative to say that you are incurring a danger to public safety if you build this type of facility on a floodplain and I would urge you not to do it. Furthermore, I appreciate the answer that the solicitor gave us ‘cause I think that’s about the best answer.

You could give under the circumstances, but I know back in my days as a plaintiff’s attorney, I would pretty much have to join everybody right at the beginning ‘cause their compulsory joined the rules and I think I would not want to not join the city. But well, I know, I think this is something that I can talk about, Councillor Ramen has a point of order. I need your microphone. Thank you and through you.

I just want to be careful. I understand we all have different opinions and perhaps we are subject matter experts in certain things, but I do get a little bit concerned when we start weighing in on legal opinion. We’ve done it twice now in the last, I don’t know, 10 minutes or so and I just have concerns about that. We’re not here in a legal capacity and we do have legal counsel here.

If we have questions, but I caution that we shouldn’t be going in that direction with our conversation and raising a point of order for that reason. Okay, hold on, Councillor Troso. So, point of orders have been raised. I’m gonna say I think there is a fine line between a Councillor respecting and giving their opinion on a legal matter, but it bears no bearing on the decision of counsel.

So, I think colleagues can have all sorts of opinions on all sorts of things. What matters is what the actions of council are. So, I think the caution is good. I think the councilor has heard the caution and we can be careful not to project wider than our own opinion on this, but I think our legal staff gives advice to council.

Council acts as a group and if one member of council wants to weigh in with their opinion on things one way or another, it’s the will of council that matters. That being said, I think the caution is a good caution. I’m not sure it’s a point of order that I need to deal with beyond this point of order here. So, I’ll let the council continue on.

Let me move on then and talk to the merits of the application. It’s hard for me to not just oversimplify this. This is a floodplain. We are in a climate emergency.

What we know as a matter of fact is that the intensity of climate incidents is likely to get worse before it gets better. I just don’t see how this city can undertake the risk to public safety and the environmental degradation that would be caused by this project at this location. And the very fact that the property owner has been working on this for years doesn’t mitigate our obligation as a council to act responsibly. And the fact that regardless of what we do, Okay, Councilor, just before I get any other, I just wanted you to be careful about projecting council’s action as being responsible or not.

I think you can have an opinion on what you feel is responsible or not, but let’s not project it on the decision of council, will be the decision of council. And I believe every member of council believes they’re acting with responsibility when they’re making those decisions. So, we’re not gonna project that widely, but you can have that opinion yourself saying you don’t feel this is a responsible action, but that’s not projected on other members of council. Let me rephrase that then, thank you.

I believe that this would be, it would not be responsible for me, I believe as a councilor to support this. And I’ve heard a lot from people in my ward, and this isn’t in my ward, but it’s very close. And people have a lot of regard for the soccer fields and the golf tee place, it’s not in my ward, but it’s on the side of it. I really wanna urge members of council to vote no on this.

Now, this is going to go to the upper times, probably gonna go to other places too. I don’t wanna project a legal opinion, but this probably is not gonna be the last word on it. But the very fact that there’s this other set of eyes watching this development doesn’t, in my opinion, to me, take away my obligation as an elected counselor to act in my view responsible. So I hope I’ve qualified that.

And I am going to, obviously, you got about 30 seconds left, council. Okay, in closing, I’m clearly opposed to this, and I’m glad there are going to be other reviews, but I think this is not a good idea, in my opinion. This is not the sort of thing that we should be putting on a floodplain. There are plenty of opportunities for drive-through best food operations in this city that not have to place them on a floodplain.

So please vote no on this motion and restore the staff report. Thank you, Councillor. Other speakers to the as amended motion. Seeing none, then we’re gonna open the as amended motion for voting.

This is the committee’s recommendation with the changes that we approved and the notice decision being decided on. So that’s open for voting. Those in the vote, the motion carries 10 to five. Back to you.

Thank you, Your Worship. That concludes the scintillating, I believe, was the descriptor for it. Third report of the Planning and Environment Committee. Okay, thank you for that.

We have the third report of the Corporate Services Committee, and I’ll turn it over to Chair McAllister to present his report. Thank you, Your Worship. Presenting the third report of the Corporate Services Committee. Not being given in any advance notice to have anything pulled.

So I’d be happy to put items one through five on the floor. Okay, anybody want anything to help us separately from the Corporate Services report? Okay, seeing none, then that’s on the floor. All five items moved by the chair.

I’ll look for some comments from colleagues or debate. Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open those five items for voting. Councillor Trosto indicates yes. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Poots my report. Okay, thank you very much. So I’ll just go to Councillor Raman for the report of Council on closed session. Thank you through you.

Your Council on closed session report that progress was made with respect to item 4.1 is noted on the public agenda. 6.1-3 CSE. All right, thank you very much. That’s great.

We have no deferred matters, inquiries. Seeing no inquiries? Sorry, I had one for I guess a comment. Just looking for the proper time to make a statement.

Is it about meetings this week? It is about meetings this week. So my inquiry for colleagues. Just one sec, I’m going to do that.

But let’s just get through bylaws first. And then before we adjourn, I’ll let you give just any sort of information for colleagues that you need to know for this week. Okay, perfect, thank you. Emergency motions, seeing there are none, bylaws.

So we’re going to deal with bylaws now. We’re going to divide them out a little bit. I know there was a conflict. So Councillor Hopkins, we’ll make sure that we pull out the relevant bylaws for you.

Go ahead, Councillor. Number 71 as well. Okay, well, we’re just piecing this together. Anybody else looking for anything dealt with separately?

Aside from the items that Councillor Hopkins had a conflict on and Bill 71, which is the one we just dealt with in the planning committee report, I believe. Yes, anything else separate? Pulling this together. So now’s the time to let me know.

All right, everybody looks good. We just need a moment to pull those together. Okay, well, we’re just preparing that motion. I’m just going to give colleagues just some commentary so that you know what we’re lining up here.

We’re going to do all the bills with the exception of 57, 69, and 70, which will be dealt with separately as a batch. 71 will be dealt with separately as a batch. 72 for your own interest. It’s only first and second reading.

We won’t be doing third reading. That’s a common thing with municipal drains. If you’re excited about the Jenkins municipal drain, you’ll have to wait for third reading at a subsequent meeting of council. But we’re only doing first and second reading on Bill 72.

That’s a common thing with municipal drains. If you’re interested, I’m sure Ms. Sherke can talk to you all about it another time. So that’s what we’re lining up.

And I’ll just, I’ll let you know when we’re ready and then I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for everything except 57, 69, 70, and 71. Those will be dealt with separately. And we’re ready. So I’ll need a mover and a seconder for everything except those items.

Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. There’s no discussion on first reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, second reading.

I’ll look for mover and seconder, Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Any debate on second reading? Okay, seeing none, we will open that as soon as it’s ready. Councillor Layman.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Third reading, move it in seconder. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. There’s no debate on third reading, so as soon as it’s ready, it’ll open for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, the next section we’re gonna do the three bills that are related to the conflict that was declared by Councillor Hopkins. So ‘57, ‘69, and ‘70, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for those items. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor McAllister.

And as soon as that is ready, we will open it for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. Okay, in second reading, I’ll look for movers and seconders. Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Frank.

Any debate on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting as soon as it’s ready. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. And third reading of those items.

Moved by Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. We’ll open that for voting as soon as it’s ready. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. And now Bill 71, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder.

This is the amended version of Bill 71, which includes the decisions that were made earlier in the meeting. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder. Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. We’ll open that for voting as soon as it’s ready.

Councillor Layman, closing the vote, motion carries 10 to five. Second reading, moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Pribble. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 10 to five. And third and final reading of this bill. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. We’ll open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 10 to five. Okay, by-laws are done. Councillor Palosa, you had just something for colleagues for this week for budget. Yeah, ever so briefly, just a reminder to colleagues that we do commence budget meetings Thursday at 9.30 a.m.

As of right now, I have no amendments. I was hoping to see some amendments tomorrow morning to give clerks and finance team an opportunity to compile those and circulate them for all Councillors. We can have a full sum discussion. So just as of right now, I have none.

So really hoping to see some soon. Thank you. Okay, so everybody can look forward to budget this week. With that, there’s no other business for municipal council.

So I look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Ramen, seconded by. Councillor Troceau, all those in favor of adjournment? That motion carries.

All right, we’re adjourned. Thank you very much.