April 2, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted that Councillors S. Stevenson, P. Van Meerbergen, E. Peloza (6:49 PM)  and S. Hillier (enters at 1:07 PM) were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

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

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/6/CSC)

4.2   Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality. (6.2/6/CSC)

4.3   Solicitor-Client Privilege / Financial Information Supplied to the Corporation in Confidence

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and financial information, supplied in confidence to the municipality, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons or organization, with respect to the financial information related to the London Cares Winter Response contract. (6.1/5/CPSC)

4.4   Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Confidential Matter Under the ss. 239(2)(f) Municipal Act, 2001 / Confidential Matter Under the ss. 239(2)(i) Municipal Act, 2001

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose (ss. 239(2)(f) Municipal Act, 2001); and financial information, supplied in confidence to the municipality, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization (ss. 239(2)(i) Municipal Act, 2001) regarding the financial information related to the London Cares Winter Response contract.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:13 PM to 3:10 PM.

At 3:19 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

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

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Minutes of the 5th Special Meeting and 6th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on February 29, 2024, and March 5, 2024, respectively, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

6.1 192-196 Central Avenue (Z-9695)

(Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #6 (3.3) of the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee)

  1. F. Devereaux 

  2. A.M. Valastro

6.2 900 Jalna Boulevard (Z-9697)

(Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #7 (3.4) of the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee)

  1. Fr. C. Bourdeau, Pastor, London South Catholic Family of Parishes

6.3 Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Land Needs Assessment Update (O-9595)

(Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #10 (3.8) of the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee)

  1. C. Kaufman 

  2. C. Taylor

  3. R. Therrien

  4. B. Morrison and M.A. Hodge, Climate Action London        

  5. T. Bell

6.4 613 Superior Drive (Z-9691)

(Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #11 (3.9) of the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee)

  1. W. Leon

6.5 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

(Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #14 (5.2) of the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee)

  1. A.M. Valastro

6.6 Renovictions – Initial Research Report

(Refer to the Community and Protective Services Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #9 (2.4) of the 5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee)

  1. J. Smith, Chair, Carling-Stoneybrook Chapter of London ACORN

6.7 Business Licensing By-law and Fireworks By-law – Amendments

(Refer to the Community and Protective Services Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #10 (2.6) of the 5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee)

  1. A. Kanji        

  2. B. Groombridge        

  3. J. Snoeijer        

  4. Councillor H. McAlister and Councillor J. Pribil        

  5. The attached form letter has been submitted by 265 individuals.  All names are on file in the City Clerk’s Office. 

  6. L. Macklem        

  7. S. Deebrah        

  8. S. Varapravan, President, Chinmaya Mission London        

  9. L. Miller              

  10. Hindu Legacy

Clerk’s Note: communication from B. Amendola received regarding this matter.

6.8    Reduced Parking Incentive Pilot Project

(Refer to the Community and Protective Services Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #13 (5.1) of the 5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee)

  1. J. Recker        

  2. S. Mei        

  3. D. Carnegie        

  4. K. Morrison        

  5. N. Gurr        

  6. T. Arthur        

  7. Bella        

  8. B. Maly        

  9. Councillor D. Ferreira

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the following communication BE RECEIVED, and BE REFFERRED as noted on the Agenda:

6.7    Business Licensing By-law and Fireworks By-law – Amendments

  1.    Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor S. Lehman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, pursuant to section 10.5 of the Council Procedure By-law, with respect to the Chair’s ruling regarding personal point of privilege, “shall the ruling of the Chair BE SUSTAINED?”

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Council Agenda BE APPROVED, to provide for Item 8.4 in Stage 8, Reports, to be considered before Item 8.1 in Stage 8, Reports.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.4   5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-03-18 CPSC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 4 (2.3), 10 (2.6), 12 (4.1), and 13 (5.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on February 22, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) 3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on March 7, 2024:

a)    the Mayor’s Office BE REQUESTED to write a letter to the Pearce family thanking them for the contributions of Johnny and Gabrielle Pearce for their actions relating to wildlife; it being noted that the attached Community Contributor article entitled “A Closer Look at the Wildlife in Our Neighbourhood” was received;

b)    the Civic Administration BE INVITED to discuss the use of rodenticides and potential impacts to wildlife to a future Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (AWCAC) meeting; it being noted that the AWCAC held a discussion with respect to this matter;

c)    the following actions be taken with respect to a potential Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (AWCAC) display at Go Wild, Grow Wild on May 4, 2024:

i)    the Civic Administration BE ASKED if the AWCAC can join the City of London booth; and,

ii)     the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee BE ASKED if they are interested in attending with the AWCAC and potentially the City of London booth;

it being noted that W. Brown, A. Hames and M. Toplack volunteered to be present at the booth; and,

d)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1 and 5.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.5) Inspections By-law – Housekeeping Amendments (Relates to Bill No. 101)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend the Inspections By-law. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.8) London’s Newcomer Strategy: Choose London – Innovative, Vibrant and Global

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Acting City Manager, the staff report dated March 18, 2024, with respect to London’s Newcomer Strategy: Choose London – Innovative, Vibrant and Global, BE RECEIVED. (2024-C08)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.9) Data Provision Agreement Update for HIFIS Usage (Relates to Bill No. 99)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Social and Health Development the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to:

a)    approve the Data Provision Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between The Corporation of the City of London and His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities;

b)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designate, to undertake all administrative acts, including amendments to the agreement that are necessary in connection with the above-noted Data Provision Agreement, on the condition that no additional funding is required or if funding is required and it is provided for in the City’s current budget and that there is no increase in the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London; and,

c)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Data Provision Agreement. (2024-S14)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.10) Winter Response 2022-2023 Final Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report, dated March 18, 2024, with respect to the Winter Response 2022-2023 Final Report, BE RECEIVED. (2024-S14)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.4) Renovictions – Initial Research Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to a Renovation License and Relocation by law; it being noted that a public participation meeting will be held with the introduction of a new By-law. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (2.7) Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services and Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated March 18, 2024, with respect to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report, BE RECEIVED. (2024-R04)

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (2.6) Business Licensing By-law and Fireworks By-law – Amendments (Relates to Bills No. 102, 103 and 107)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Managers, Planning and Economic Development and Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 18, 2024, related to Amendments to the Business Licensing By-law and Fireworks By-law:

a)    the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend Business Licensing By-law by adding a new Schedule for Consumer Fireworks Sales;

b)    the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend Schedule “A-5”, being the Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPs) By-law and adding new penalties for Consumer Fireworks Sales;

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend By-law A-59 being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” to add Consumer Fireworks Sales Business Licence Fees;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from B. Amendola, D. Ronson and B. Samuels, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-C01)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion BE AMENDED by adding a new part d) to read as follows:

“d)       that the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on April 2, 2024 to amend the Fireworks By-law PW-11 by allowing for consumer and display fireworks to be discharged on four specific days; it being noted that this restores Municipal Council’s approved direction to allow for discharge on Diwali and Chinese Lunar New Year.”

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

At 4:07 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 4:11 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion BE AMENDED by adding a new part e) to read as follows:

“e)     that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the Toronto Fire Department with respect to their “Proposed Ontario Fire Code Amendments Regarding Fireworks” and report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee on its status and with a recommendation regarding whether the London Fire Department should be directed to join this request.”

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by C. Rahman

That item 10, clause 2.6, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Item 10, clause 2.6, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Managers, Planning and Economic Development and Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 18, 2024, related to Amendments to the Business Licensing By-law and Fireworks By-law:

a)    the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend Business Licensing By-law by adding a new Schedule for Consumer Fireworks Sales;

b)    the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend Schedule “A-5”, being the Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPs) By-law and adding new penalties for Consumer Fireworks Sales;

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend By-law A-59 being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” to add Consumer Fireworks Sales Business Licence Fees; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on April 2, 2024 to amend the Fireworks By-law PW-11 by allowing for consumer and display fireworks to be discharged on four specific days; it being noted that this restores Municipal Council’s approved direction to allow for discharge on Diwali and Chinese Lunar New Year.

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from B. Amendola, D. Ronson and B. Samuels, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-C01)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 4:30 PM and reconvenes at 4:50 PM.

8.4.4   (2.3) Approval of Odell-Jalna End of Mortgage Exit Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 98)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to the Approval of Odell-Jalna End of Mortgage Exit 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 April 2, 2024 to:

i)    approve the Exit Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between Odell-Jalna Residences of London and The Corporation of the City of London and its Schedule “A”, the Rent Supplement Agreement between Odell-Jalna Residences of London, Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. and The Corporation of the City of London;

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to approve amendments to the above-noted Agreement;

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

iv)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, to approve and execute future exit agreements and rent supplement agreements between The Corporation of the City of London, Odell-Jalna Residences of London and Homes Unlimited (London) Inc.; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

i)    continue discussions with Odell-Jalna Residences of London and Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. regarding exit agreements having the same framework as the Exit Agreement and Rent Supplement Agreement, being a framework, which permits Rent Geared to Income units, once vacant, to be moved within the Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. and Odell-Jalna Residences of London portfolio to create mixed income buildings, noting that the funding for each designated housing project entering into an Exit Agreement shall be based on an evaluation of the applicable building’s financial plan and result in no material increase to the City’s overall housing subsidy budget;

ii)    to re-invest any anticipated future municipal mortgage subsidy savings in the larger social housing portfolio to address the long-term financial sustainability of the sector while maintaining existing service levels in order to retain existing rent-geared-to-income units until necessary agreements are negotiated; and,

iii)    report back to Municipal Council on an overall strategy outlining the requirements to meet legislated service level standards, to ensure an adequate local supply of social housing that is financially viable and in adequate operating condition;

it being noted that the Civic Administration are anticipating strategy reports on the financial analysis in Q2 and a service agreement report in Q3 of 2024. (2024-L04A)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to add a new part b) iv) to read as follows:

“iv)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the 2022 AMR to establish the subsidy amounts in the agreement, allow rental increases to the most current AMR on future vacancies and report back on a standard approach for future agreements in the financial analysis report for Q2;  it being noted that the Director of Municipal Housing Development has communicated to Municipal Council in response to correspondence from the provider’s Board of Directors that clause 5.1 with respect to the market rent units will be deleted”

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That item 4, clause 2.3, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 4, clause 2.3, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to the Approval of Odell-Jalna End of Mortgage Exit 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 April 2, 2024 to:

i)    approve the Exit Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between Odell-Jalna Residences of London and The Corporation of the City of London and its Schedule “A”, the Rent Supplement Agreement between Odell-Jalna Residences of London, Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. and The Corporation of the City of London;

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to approve amendments to the above-noted Agreement;

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

iv)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, to approve and execute future exit agreements and rent supplement agreements between The Corporation of the City of London, Odell-Jalna Residences of London and Homes Unlimited (London) Inc.; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

i)    continue discussions with Odell-Jalna Residences of London and Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. regarding exit agreements having the same framework as the Exit Agreement and Rent Supplement Agreement, being a framework, which permits Rent Geared to Income units, once vacant, to be moved within the Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. and Odell-Jalna Residences of London portfolio to create mixed income buildings, noting that the funding for each designated housing project entering into an Exit Agreement shall be based on an evaluation of the applicable building’s financial plan and result in no material increase to the City’s overall housing subsidy budget;

ii)    to re-invest any anticipated future municipal mortgage subsidy savings in the larger social housing portfolio to address the long-term financial sustainability of the sector while maintaining existing service levels in order to retain existing rent-geared-to-income units until necessary agreements are negotiated; 

iii)    report back to Municipal Council on an overall strategy outlining the requirements to meet legislated service level standards, to ensure an adequate local supply of social housing that is financially viable and in adequate operating condition; and,

iv)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the 2022 AMR to establish the subsidy amounts in the agreement, allow rental increases to the most current AMR on future vacancies and report back on a standard approach for future agreements in the financial analysis report for Q2;  it being noted that the Director of Municipal Housing Development has communicated to Municipal Council in response to correspondence from the provider’s Board of Directors that clause 5.1 with respect to the market rent units will be deleted.

it being noted that the Civic Administration are anticipating strategy reports on the financial analysis in Q2 and a service agreement report in Q3 of 2024. (2024-L04A)

8.4.12   (4.1) 2024 Rock the Park One-Time Policy Exemption Request (Relates to Bill No. 106)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 18, 2024, related to a 2024 Rock the Park One-Time Policy Exemption Request:

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

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to amend CPOL.-142-394, being “Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual” to the April 2, 2024 meeting of Municipal Council should approval be given for a one-time policy exemption for the use of Harris Park for 5 consecutive days, (Tuesday July 9 through Saturday July 13, 2024) for the Rock the Park event;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, from B. Jones, A.M. Valastro and B. Amendola, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-M02)

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

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

At 5:02 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.4.13   (5.1) Reduced Parking Incentive Pilot Project

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Community and Protective Services Committee considered the implementation of a reduced parking incentive as a pilot project until the end of Q3 2024 for Municipal Lots 1 & 2 utilizing the existing HONK mobile application.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE AMENDED by adding a new part to read as follows:

“that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the next Community and Protective Services Committee meeting with a source of funding for issuing free 1-hour on-street parking and the ability to suspend free 1-hour on-street parking during special events in the Core Area for the 2024 calendar year”

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion BE FURTHER AMENDED by adding a new part to read as follows:

“that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a parking incentive as a pilot project until the end of Q3 2024 for Municipal Lots 1 & 2 utilizing the existing HONK mobile application”

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That pursuant to section 11.11 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Council BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion BE FURTHER AMENDED as follows:

“That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of Community and Protective Services Committee regarding a source of financing for the parking incentive in Municipal Lots 1 & 2.”

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the amendment, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That item 13, clause 5.1, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Item 13, clause 5.1, as amended read as follows:

That it BE NOTED that the Community and Protective Services Committee considered the implementation of a parking incentive as a pilot project until the end of Q3 2024 for Municipal Lots 1 & 2 utilizing the existing HONK mobile application;

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the next Community and Protective Services Committee meeting with a source of funding for issuing free 1-hour on-street parking and the ability to suspend free 1-hour on-street parking during special events in the Core Area for the 2024 calendar year; and

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a parking incentive as a pilot project until the end of Q3 2024 for Municipal Lots 1 & 2 utilizing the existing HONK mobile application and report back to Community and Protective Services Committee with a source of financing.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 6:10 PM and reconvenes at 6:29 PM.

At 6:12 PM, Councillor S. Stevenson leaves the meeting.

8.1   7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-03-26 SPPC Report 7-Complete

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 7 (4.4).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Resignation and Appointment to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the resignation of Kelsey Watkinson and appointment of Luke Unger, Ungers Market to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association Board of Management for the term ending November 14, 2026 BE ACCEPTED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated February 8, 2024 from D. Szpakowski, General Manager/CEO, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) City of London Community Grants Program Multi-Year Funding Allocations (2024-2027)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the report dated March 26, 2024, titled “City of London Community Grants Program Multi-Year Funding Allocations (2024-2027)”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (4.1) Consideration of Appointment to the London & Middlesex Community Housing (Requires 1 Member) (Relates to Bill No. 100)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

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

b) the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to ratify and confirm the Resolution of the Shareholder of the London and Middlesex Community Housing.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (4.2) Evaluation Framework - Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Evaluation Framework – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response report;

a)    the Evaluation Framework – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response report BE RECEIVED for information; 

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back annually on the data and outcomes collected through this Evaluation Framework, in addition to data that is captured through the 2023-2027 City of London Strategic Plan; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the metrics and the report format for the annual data sharing by the end of Q3 2024;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from M. Kunze, Manager, Forensic and Supportive Housing Programs, St. Leonard’s Community Services, London & Region and M. Meyer, Senior Director LHSC and Middlesex London Ontario Health Team Assistant,  Professor Western University with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (4.3) London’s Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Proposed Highly Supportive Housing Plan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to London’s Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Proposed, Highly Supportive Housing Plan report;

a)    the Saving Lives, Alleviating Suffering, & Building a Healthy, Strong, & Safe Community for All - London’s Health & Homelessness Response: Highly Supportive Housing Plan as appended to the staff report dated March 26, 2024 as Schedule 1 BE ENDORSED; and

b)    the staff report BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from D. Astolfi, Director, Supportive Housing - Independent & Youth, CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 24, 2024 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with the following item:

the cost breakdowns for this new Highly Supportive Housing program (to update Schedule 1, as appended to the staff report dated March 26, 2024) and/or a Draft Operating Budget (per the new Highly Supportive Housing Plan).

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (4.5) Request for Proposals for External Auditor of the London Transit Commission - Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Budget Chair E. Peloza

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London Transit Commission:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a Request for Proposals for an external auditor to initiate a comprehensive operations and performance audit of the London Transit Commission, with the following audit scope:

i) inclusion of current routing of service in regard to best practices in major municipalities, structure of the organization, financial structuring of various passes and contracts, operational preparedness and readiness to integrate with future Rapid Transit corridors, and to other KPIs to identify strengths and weaknesses;

ii) identification of alternate service delivery model considerations and associated savings/cost implications, including but not limited to the municipality delivering the service directly; and

iii) provision of recommendations to Municipal Council at the completion of the audit with a copy of the full public report provided to the London Transit Commission;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to identify an appropriate source of financing;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

  •    a communication from M. Jones;

  •    a communication from M. Sheehan; and

  •    a communication from W. Lau, CEO, LEADS Employment Services and J. Preston, Associate Professor, King’s University College.

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (4.6) Request for Accountability from the London Police Services Board -Mayor J. Morgan and Councillors S. Franke and C. Rahman

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to request a letter as an agenda item to the London Police Service Board (LPSB) to discuss and report back to Council on the planned accountability activities including:

Potential Metrics:

Metrics as proposed by LPSB in the police budget business case:

a)    Reduction in code 2 (urgent) and code 3 (non-urgent) response times;

b)    Reduction in calls for service holding in que prior to being dispatched;

c)    Crime Severity Index as tracked by Stats Can (available annually in July);

d)    Crime Rate as tracked by Stats Can (available annually in July);

e)    Increase in proactive (preventive) policing;

f)     Increase in time spent on crime prevention and high-harm initiatives;

g)    Increased traffic enforcement;

h)    Increased police visibility;

i)     Decrease in service complaints;

j)     Increased community engagement;

k)    Decrease in shootings;

l)     Decrease in fatal motor vehicle collisions;

Other potential metrics:

m)   Overall call volume;

n)    Initiatives that address violence against women and girls;

o)    Hate crimes;

p)    Response to mental health; and

q)    Impact of body worn cameras on community and officer safety, and service complaints;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from Councillors S. Franke and C. Rahman and Mayor J. Morgan with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (4.7) 2nd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with the 2nd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on February 8, 2024:

a)  the request to reconfigure the Terms of Reference for the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) specifically in order to better utilize the talents, efforts and viewpoints of racialized communities within the City of London BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for consideration; and

b)  clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 4.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (4.8) Request for an Off-Site Meeting - Mayor J. Morgan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to a change of location for a meeting of Municipal Council of the City of London on April 17, 2024, starting at 5:00 PM:

a)    pursuant to s.236(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, a change in meeting location from Council Chambers to the Oneida Nation of the Thames in Southwold, Ontario, for the above-noted meeting BE APPROVED;

b)    pursuant to s.2.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, the speaking limitations and protocol contained in s.9.6, s.9.7, and s.9.15; and the ceremonial mace protocols contained in s.7.1 and s.7.2, BE SUSPENDED for the duration of the above-noted meeting to facilitate dialogue between the two Councils; and

c)    pursuant to s.11.10 of the Council Procedure By-law, Council BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond the hour of 6:00 PM for the above-noted meeting.

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (2.3) 2024 Assessment Growth Funding Allocation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2024 Assessment Growth Funding Allocation report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.13   (5.1) Request for Support for the Thames Valley District School Board - Councillors C. Rahman and A. Hopkins

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Mayor BE REQUESTED to send a further communication on behalf of London City Council with particular focus on the pressing needs for approval on the West London and Southwest London schools in order to option school blocks set to expire in the near term.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (4.4) Mobility Master Plan 2050 Mode Share Target

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Mobility Master Plan;

a)   the 2050 mode share target for the development of the Mobility Master Plan BE SET at the levels described in Option 2 (representing 32.5% Mode Share split) or greater for Transit and for Walking and Cycling; and

b)   the mode share targets for the Mobility Master Plan BE REVIEWED at least every four years and adjusted appropriately.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard delegations from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

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

  •    R. Buchal, Chair, Mobility Master Plan Subcommittee, Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee; and

  •    M. A. Hodge, Climate Action London;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications from the following individuals:

  •    a communication from A. McClenaghan, Co-Owner, London Bicycle Café;

  •    a communication from J. Riedstra;

  •    a communication from Councillor S. Franke;

  •    a communication from M. Metson;

  •    a communication from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee;

  •    a communication from E. Febrey;

  •    a communication from L. Blumer;

  •    a communication from R. Buchal, Chair, Mobility Master Plan Subcommittee, Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee;

  •    a communication from C. Evans;

  •    a communication from B. Morrison and M. A. Hodge on behalf of Climate Action London;

  •    a communication from E. Poirier, Vice President External Affairs, University Students’ Council; and 

  •    a communication from C. Taylor.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

8.2   5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-03-19 - PEC REPORT

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 4 (3.1), 6 (3.3), and 11 (3.8).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Heritage Designation for 244 Base Line Road East

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the request for designation of the property located at 244 Base Line Road East:

a)    Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property located at 244 Base Line Road East to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of the associated staff report; and,

b) should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property located at 244 Base Line Road East to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of the associated staff report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

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

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

8.2.3   (2.2) Building Division Monthly Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Building Division monthly reports for the months of January and February, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (3.2) 6097 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9698) (Relates to Bill No. 113)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2803767 Ontario Inc., c/o MHBC Planning, relating to the property located at 6097 Colonel Talbot Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 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 an Agricultural (AG2) Zone TO an Agricultural Special Provision (AG2()) and holding Agricultural Commercial Special Provision (h-17h-18AGC1()) Zone;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 18, 2024, from A. Johnson, with respect to these matters;

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

  •    J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning;

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

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

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

  •    the proposed use is considered appropriate within the adjacent land uses and 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

8.2.7   (3.4) 900 Jalna Boulevard (Z-9697) (Relates to Bill No. 115)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 900 Jalna GP Ltd, c/o MHBC Planning, relating to the property located at 900 Jalna Boulevard:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 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 Commercial Recreation (CR) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(_)) Zone;

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

i)    the main building entrance for units fronting Southdale Road East shall be oriented to the street;

ii)    provide a minimum parking setback of 1.5m from the western property line to allow for appropriate landscape buffering and screening;

iii)    consider revising the right-in, right-out, access driveway to be a full access driveway instead;

iv)    consider providing a communal paratransit layby internal to the property;

v)    consider providing a safe and accessible pedestrian connection between the central townhouse block and the rest of the property;

vi)    enhanced tree planting;

vii)    consider inclusion of green roof elements, as per submitted renderings

viii)    include 50% native species for landscaping

ix)    larger parking setbacks and/or larger landscape islands be considered to increase tree planting in addition to the existing SPA directions

x)    include short-term bike parking

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended amendment is reflective of the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Meeting, existing permissions, and the existing development on site;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 18, 2024 from A. Johnson with respect to these matters:

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

  •    J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning; 

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and is considered compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; and

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

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (3.5) 300 and 306 Princess Street (OZ-9688) (Relates to Bills No. 105 and 116)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 1000566345 Ontario Inc. & Domus Development (London) Inc., relating to the properties located at 300 and 306 Princess Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 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 properties FROM a Residential R3/Office Conversion (R3-2/OC2) Zone and a Residential R3/R11 (R3-2/R11) Zone TO a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-18R6-5()) Zone and a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-18*R6-5(**)) Zone;

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

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the evaluation criteria for Specific Policy Areas, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, the Near-Campus Neighbourhoods policies, and the Woodfield Neighbourhood policies;

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the policies of West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the restoration and intensification of the existing heritage buildings at an appropriate scale and intensity within the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area;

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

8.2.9   (3.6) 3010-3050 Yorkville Street (Z-9692) (Relates to Bill No. 117)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 731675 Ontario Limited, (c/o York Developments), relating to the properties located at 3010-3050 Yorkville Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 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 Residential R9/Convenience Commercial Special Provision/Restricted Office Special Provision Bonus (R9-7/CC4(5)/RO2(32)B-57H40) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision Bonus (R9-7()B-57H68) Zone and a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Convenience Commercial Special Provision/Restricted Office Special Provision Bonus (h-_R9-7(**)/CC4(5)/RO2(32)B-57H45) Zone;

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

i)    implementation of the Urban Design Guidelines for 3080 Bostwick Road;

ii)    implementation of the recommendations of the Noise Study;

iii)    details regarding garbage storage and collection be finalized; and,

iv)    consider a design for the forecourt at the principle building entrance that complements the design of the forecourt and playground at the Bostwick Community Centre;

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended amendment is reflective of the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Meeting, existing permissions, and the existing development on site;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 18, 2024 from A. Johnson with respect to these matters;

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

  •    J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including, but not limited to the Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood policies and the Urban Design Guidelines for 3080 Bostwick Road; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an appropriate form of high density, mixed-use development within the Built Area Boundary;

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

8.2.10   (3.7) 460 Asher Crescent (Z-9701) (Relates to Bill No. 118)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Drewlo Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 460 Asher Crescent, known legally as Block 231, 33M-826:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 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 Residential R4/R5/R6 (hh-54h-71h-100R4-6/R5-4/R6-5) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5 (_)) Zone;

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

i)    locate and design the apartment and townhouse buildings to provide street-oriented development along Commissioners Road East, Jackson Road, Reardon Boulevard, and Asher Crescent;

ii)    locate apartment building ‘B’ closer to Jackson Road to provide more landscaped open space between the apartment buildings ‘A’ and ‘B’;

iii)    realign townhouse Blocks D, E, F, G, H & I to run north-south with townhouse buildings oriented to Jackson Road and an internal grid network of private drives;

iv)    provide pedestrian connectivity between the townhouse and apartment portions of the proposed development and to the public streets, including Commissioners Road East;

v)    provide adequate landscaped open space and outdoor amenity areas to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed development;

vi)    provide enhanced design of side elevations of apartment and townhouse buildings that face municipal streets; 

vii)    provide enhanced tree planting; and,

viii)    include 40% to 50% native species for landscaping;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 18, 2024 from A. Johnson 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 this matter:

  •    C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings; and,

  •    S. Munn;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment contributes to the range and mix of housing options within the area;

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

8.2.12   (3.9) 613 Superior Drive (Z-9691) (Relates to Bill No. 119)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by The Ironstone Building Company Inc., relating to the property located at 613 Superior Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 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 Neighbourhood Facility/Residential R1 Special Provision (NF/R1-3(7)) Zone and a Neighbourhood Facility/Residential R1 (NF/R1-2) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-5(_)) Zone;

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

i)    provision of direct pedestrian connections from individual units to the city sidewalk along Superior Drive, including the corner units with wrap around porches; and,

ii)    work with the applicant for park enhancements or onsite amenity that may serve the neighbourhood, including play structures etc.;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to work with the developer on the following:

i)    to ensure the road conditions in the adjacent plan of subdivision are improved and communicate with the developer on paving the unassumed streets (Kleinburg Drive and Appletree Gate) in the near term to ensure an accessible vehicular access to Sunningdale Road West; and,

ii)    Phase 4 of the subdivision to establish the east/west access on Superior with the connection to Adelaide Street;

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

  •    a communication dated March 10, 2024 from K. Ladd;

  •    a communication dated February 16, 2024 from P.V. Hinde, The Ironstone Building Company Inc.; and,

  •    a communication dated March 18, 2024 from A. Johnson;

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

  •    C. O’Brien, The Ironstone Building Company Inc.;

  •    K. Ladd;

  •    S. Andrus;

  •    K. Ladd;

  •    R. Seshan;

  •    J. Chen;

  •    M. McGarry;

  •    J. Findlay; and,

  •    K. Stillert;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant parcel of land 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

8.2.13   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Deferred Matters List dated March 11, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.14   (5.2) 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on March 13, 2024 BE RECIEVED for information;

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

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (3.1) Amendment to the Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan (O-9647) (Relates to Bill No. 104)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Economic Services and Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to amending the Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1494-217, as amended, being “A By-law to adopt the Community Improvement Plan for Industrial Land uses”, by:

i)    DELETING Schedule “2”, the Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan and REPLACING it with Schedule “2” as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024;

ii)   DELETING Schedule “3”, the revised Industrial Lands Development Charges Grant - Incentive Program Guidelines and REPLACING it with Schedule “3” as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024; and,

iii)   DELETING Schedule “4”, the Industrial Corridor Enhancement Grant - Incentive Program Guidelines, from By-law C.P.-1494-217;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 14, 2024 from C. Butler, with respect to these matters;

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

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

  •    implement Municipal Council direction following the 5-Year Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Review;

  •    an Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan that aligns with the latest policies outlined in relevant City of London documents, such as the City’s Strategic Plan 2023-2027, the Industrial Land Development Strategy and other Community Improvement Plans; and,

  •    remove outdated Community Improvement Plan goals and replace them with update Community Improvement Plan goals and objectives; it being noted that this action will result in an Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan that aligns with current City policies and Municipal Council strategic directions;

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-D19)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to amend clause 3.1 to read as follows:

“That, on the recommendation of the Director, Economic Services and Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to amending the Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1494-217, as amended, being “A By-law to adopt the Community Improvement Plan for Industrial Land uses”, by:

i)    DELETING Schedule “2”, the Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan and REPLACING it with Schedule “2” as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024;

ii)    DELETING Schedule “3”, the revised Industrial Lands Development Charges Grant - Incentive Program Guidelines and REPLACING it with Schedule “3” as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024; and,

iii)    DELETING Schedule “4”, the Industrial Corridor Enhancement Grant - Incentive Program Guidelines, from By-law C.P.-1494-217;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 14, 2024 from C. Butler, with respect to these matters;

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

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

  •    implement Municipal Council direction following the 5-Year Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Review;

  •    an Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan that aligns with the latest policies outlined in relevant City of London documents, such as the City’s Strategic Plan 2023-2027, the Industrial Land Development Strategy and other Community Improvement Plans; and,

  •    remove outdated Community Improvement Plan goals and replace them with update Community Improvement Plan goals and objectives; it being noted that this action will result in an Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan that aligns with current City policies and Municipal Council strategic directions;

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-D19)  (3.1/5/PEC)“

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That item 4, clause 3.1, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Item 4, clause 3.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Economic Services and Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to amending the Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1494-217, as amended, being “A By-law to adopt the Community Improvement Plan for Industrial Land uses”, by:

i)    DELETING Schedule “2”, the Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan and REPLACING it with Schedule “2” as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024;

ii)    DELETING Schedule “3”, the revised Industrial Lands Development Charges Grant - Incentive Program Guidelines and REPLACING it with Schedule “3” as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024; and,

iii)    DELETING Schedule “4”, the Industrial Corridor Enhancement Grant - Incentive Program Guidelines, from By-law C.P.-1494-217;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 14, 2024 from C. Butler, with respect to these matters;

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

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

  •    implement Municipal Council direction following the 5-Year Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Review;

  •    an Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan that aligns with the latest policies outlined in relevant City of London documents, such as the City’s Strategic Plan 2023-2027, the Industrial Land Development Strategy and other Community Improvement Plans; and,

  •    remove outdated Community Improvement Plan goals and replace them with update Community Improvement Plan goals and objectives; it being noted that this action will result in an Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan that aligns with current City policies and Municipal Council strategic directions;

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-D19)  (3.1/5/PEC)

8.2.6   (3.3) 192-196 Central Avenue (Z-9695) (Relates to Bill No. 114)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Farhi Holdings Corporation, relating to the property located at 192-196 Central Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 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 Residential R10/Office Residential/Temporary Zone (R10-4H26/OR5D303*H26/T-70)) Zone TO a Residential R10 Special Provision (R10-4(_)) Zone

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

i)    ensure the landscape plan is implemented;

ii)    ensure a west interior side yard setback of 1.5 metres for 3rd floor amenity space encroachment;

iii)    ensure a minimum setback of 1.5 metres from all property lines to the underground parking structure;

iv)    demonstrate that the recommendations included within Section 9 of the Heritage Impact Assessment are implemented;

v)    consultation with the Municipal Housing Development division for the provision of affordable units be undertaken as part of the Site Plan process;

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

  •    D. Galbraith, up consulting; and,

  •    a communication dated March 18, 2024 from A. Johnson;

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

  •    D. Galbraith, up consulting;

  •    F. Devereaux;

  •    M. O’Dwyer;

  •    P. Cullimore; and,

  •    A.-M. Valastro;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the High-Density Residential overlay, Near-Campus Neighbourhoods and Talbot Mixed-Use Area policies; and,

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

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 made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE AMENDED with the following new parts:

“Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Farhi Holding Corporation relating to the property located at 192-196 Central Avenue:

(a)    the proposed by-law attached hereto BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 2, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R10/Office Residential/Temporary Zone (R10-4H26/OR5D303*H26/T-70)) Zone TO Residential R10 Special Provision (R10-4(_)) Zone;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

IT BEING NOTED, that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons:

i) The recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

ii) The recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

iii) The recommended amendment conforms to the High-Density Residential overlay, Near-Campus Neighbourhoods and Talbot Mixed-Use Area policies;

iv) The recommended amendments would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding neighbourhood”.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That item 6, clause 3.3, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Item 6, clause 3.3, as amended, reads as follows:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Farhi Holding Corporation relating to the property located at 192-196 Central Avenue:

(a)    the proposed by-law attached hereto BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 2, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R10/Office Residential/Temporary Zone (R10-4H26/OR5D303*H26/T-70)) Zone TO Residential R10 Special Provision (R10-4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    ensure the landscape plan is implemented;

ii)    ensure a west interior side yard setback of 1.5 metres for 3rd floor amenity space encroachment;

iii)    ensure a minimum setback of 1.5 metres from all property lines to the underground parking structure;

iv)    demonstrate that the recommendations included within Section 9 of the Heritage Impact Assessment are implemented;

v)    consultation with the Municipal Housing Development division for the provision of affordable units be undertaken as part of the Site Plan process;

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

  •    D. Galbraith, up consulting; and,

  •    a communication dated March 18, 2024 from A. Johnson;

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

  •    D. Galbraith, up consulting;

  •    F. Devereaux;

  •    M. O’Dwyer;

  •    P. Cullimore; and,

  •    A.-M. Valastro;

it being noted that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the High-Density Residential overlay, Near-Campus Neighbourhoods and Talbot Mixed-Use Area policies; and,

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

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)

8.2.11   (3.8) Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Land Needs Assessment Update (O-9595)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan Review with Land Needs Assessment:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reinitiate the Official Plan Review which is consistent with Section 26 of the Planning Act, noting the review will be phased to prioritize a Land Needs Assessment in support of the City’s housing supply initiatives;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to incorporate the industrial conversions into the City’s land supply of the Land Needs Assessment, with the exception of 2496 Dundas Street;

c)    the property located at 2496 Dundas Street BE RE-EVALUATED for consideration of possible industrial conversion and for possible amendment to The London Plan, noting that additional background materials are being submitted for evaluation;

d)    the staff report dated March 19, 2024, entitled “Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Land Needs Assessment update” BE RECEIVED for information.

e)    that, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to incorporate the industrial conversion for 2251, 2253 and 2257 Trafalgar Street into the City’s land supply of the Land Needs Assessment;

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review development opportunities on lands to be converted within the Hyde Park Commercial Industrial Area and consider specific area policies to ensure future development includes a mix of commercial uses and other neighbourhood amenities.

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the 25-year planning horizon to the Land Needs Assessment;

h)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward associated recommended amendments to The London Plan Amendment on clauses c), d), e) and f), above, to a future public meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

 

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a revised recommendation;

  •    a communication dated March 11, 2024, from J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions;

  •    a communication dated March 15, 2024, from P.V. Hinde, Tanfield Consulting Ltd.; and,

  •    a communication dated March 18, 2024, from L. Clark, Sifton Properties Limited;

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

  •    M.A. Hodge, Climate Action London;

  •    P. Hinde, Tanfield Consulting Ltd.;

  •    J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions on behalf of York Developments, S. Copp and 3C Holdings;

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute; and,

  •    M. Cory, Malone Given Parsons Ltd. on behalf of Dancor Construction Limited;

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

  •   Municipal Council approval of the reinitiation of the Official Plan Review of The London Plan is consistent with the provisions of the Planning Act, section 26; and,

  •  the recommended changes to the Planning Horizon of The London Plan and conversion of Industrial lands to other non-Industrial Place Types in the London Plan is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conforms with the policies of The London Plan.    (2024-D14)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion BE AMENDED to include the following parts:

“i)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a future growth management implementation strategy for the built-area including a higher intensification target to align with the 32.5% mode share target;

j)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of Sewer and Water Servicing capacity within the Built Area Boundary to meet the 2028 DC Bylaw deadlines; and

k)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake review of policy changes within The London Plan that would be needed to support increased intensification opportunities within the Urban Growth Boundaries.”

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Motion TO AMEND by adding part i) as follows:

“i)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a future growth management implementation strategy for the built-area including a higher intensification target to align with the 32.5% mode share target;“

Motion Passed (9 to 4)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Motion TO AMEND by adding parts i )and j) as follows:

“j)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of Sewer and Water Servicing capacity within the Built Area Boundary to meet the 2028 DC Bylaw deadlines; and”

“k)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake review of policy changes within The London Plan that would be needed to support increased intensification opportunities within the Urban Growth Boundaries.”

Motion Failed (6 to 7)

At 7:15 PM, Councillor E. Peloza leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That item 11, clause 3.8, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 3)

Item 11, clause 3.8, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan Review with Land Needs Assessment:

a)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reinitiate the Official Plan Review which is consistent with Section 26 of the Planning Act, noting the review will be phased to prioritize a Land Needs Assessment in support of the City’s housing supply initiatives;

b)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to incorporate the industrial conversions into the City’s land supply of the Land Needs Assessment, with the exception of 2496 Dundas Street;

c)        the property located at 2496 Dundas Street BE RE-EVALUATED for consideration of possible industrial conversion and for possible amendment to The London Plan, noting that additional background materials are being submitted for evaluation;

d)        the staff report dated March 19, 2024, entitled “Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Land Needs Assessment update” BE RECEIVED for information.

e)        that, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to incorporate the industrial conversion for 2251, 2253 and 2257 Trafalgar Street into the City’s land supply of the Land Needs Assessment;

f)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review development opportunities on lands to be converted within the Hyde Park Commercial Industrial Area and consider specific area policies to ensure future development includes a mix of commercial uses and other neighbourhood amenities.

g)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the 25-year planning horizon to the Land Needs Assessment;

h)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward associated recommended amendments to The London Plan Amendment on clauses c), d), e) and f), above, to a future public meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee; and

i)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a future growth management implementation strategy for the built-area including a higher intensification target to align with the 32.5% mode share target;

 

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a revised recommendation;

  •    a communication dated March 11, 2024, from J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions;

  •    a communication dated March 15, 2024, from P.V. Hinde, Tanfield Consulting Ltd.; and,

  •    a communication dated March 18, 2024, from L. Clark, Sifton Properties Limited;

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

  •    M.A. Hodge, Climate Action London;

  •    P. Hinde, Tanfield Consulting Ltd.;

  •    J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions on behalf of York Developments, S. Copp and 3C Holdings;

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute; and,

  •    M. Cory, Malone Given Parsons Ltd. on behalf of Dancor Construction Limited;

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

  •   Municipal Council approval of the reinitiation of the Official Plan Review of The London Plan is consistent with the provisions of the Planning Act, section 26; and,

  •  the recommended changes to the Planning Horizon of The London Plan and conversion of Industrial lands to other non-Industrial Place Types in the London Plan is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conforms with the policies of The London Plan.    (2024-D14)

8.3   6th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-03-25 CSC Report 6

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That the 6th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) City of London Days at Budweiser Gardens - United Way Elgin and Middlesex

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk and in accordance with Council’s City of London Days at Budweiser Gardens Policy, the request from the United Way Elgin & Middlesex to host the annual Stairclimb on November 13, 2024, BE APPROVED as a City of London Day at Budweiser Gardens, notwithstanding Council’s policy which restricts groups from having more than two event days over a consecutive five-year period.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 2024 Debenture Issuance

Motion made by P. Cuddy

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

a)   the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to proceed with the issuance of debentures in the capital markets upon suitable market conditions to provide permanent financing for capital works in an amount not to exceed $30,000,000; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE INSTRUCTED to schedule and convene an appropriately timed Special Corporate Services Committee meeting upon successful placement of the City’s debt in the capital markets to ensure adequate time for Council approval while adhering to the necessary financial settlement requirements.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Hyde Park Business Improvement Association Request for Five-Year Payment Plan for Amounts Owing

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, in accordance with section 6.2 (b) of Municipal By-Law No. C.P.-1519-490, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association (BIA):

a)    the request from the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association (appended to the staff report dated March 25, 2024 as Appendix “A”) to repay their amounts owing due to tax reductions in the net amount of $155,423 over a period of five years, from 2024 to 2028, in equal installments BE APPROVED; and

b)    interest on the outstanding amounts owing due to tax reductions BE WAIVED during the period of the repayment plan;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated February 29, 2024 from D. Szpakowski, CEO & General Manager and T. Delaney, Chair, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members 2024 Remuneration

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated March 25, 2024 regarding Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members 2024 Remuneration BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Employee Attendance 2023

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, the report dated March 25, 2024 regarding Employee Attendance 2023 BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - World Press Freedom Day

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That based on the application dated February 23, 2024 from Ink Stained Wretches, May 3, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED World Press Freedom Day.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Apraxia Awareness Day

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That based on the application from Apraxia Kids Canada, May 14, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED Apraxia Awareness Day.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and Two-Spirited People

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That based on the application dated March 4, 2024 from The City of London’s Indigenous Employee Resource Group (ERG), May 5, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED National Day of Awareness for Missing & Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls & Two-Spirit People.

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (4.4) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - GBS and CIDP Awareness Month

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That based on the application dated March 7, 2024 from GBS-CIDP Foundation of Canada, the month of May 2024 BE PROCLAIMED GBS and CIDP Awareness Month.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (4.5) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - World Sickle Cell Awareness Day, Ontario Sickle Cell Awareness Day

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That based on the application dated March 8, 2024 from Sickle Cell Awareness Group of Ontario (SCAGO), June 19, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED World Sickle Cell Awareness Day, Ontario Sickle Cell Awareness Day.

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (4.6) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National British Home Child Day

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That based on the application dated March 11, 2024 from Home Children Canada, September 28, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED National British Home Child Day.

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (4.7) Consideration of Appointment to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (Requires up to 6 New Members)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That Michael Rist BE APPOINTED as a voting member to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025.

Motion Passed

8.5   5th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-03-19 CWC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 5th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 12 (2.12)

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) SS-2024-090 Single Source Contract - Telematics Services

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to the Single Source Contract for Telematics Services (SS-2024-090):

a)    approval BE GIVEN to exercise the single source provisions of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy under sections 14.4 (d) and (g) to contract with AdvantageOne Technology Inc. for the supply and delivery of telematic services for a two (2) year contract with an option to renew for two (2) additional two (2) year periods;

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

c)    approval, hereby given, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2024-V01)

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Award of Consulting Engineering Services for Detailed Design, Tendering Assistance, Construction Oversight and Contract Administration for Expansion of Landfill Gas Collection System W12A Landfill Site

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 March 19, 2024, related to the Award of Consulting Engineering Services for Detailed Design, Tendering Assistance, Construction Oversight and Contract Administration for Expansion of Landfill Gas Collection System W12A Landfill Site:

a)    Comcor Environmental Ltd. BE APPOINTED to carry out detailed design, tendering assistance, construction oversight, and contract administration consulting services for the expansion of the landfill gas collection system at the W12A Landfill site, in the total amount of $176,640, including a contingency of $23,040 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the work identified in (a), above, 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 work; 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-F18)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) W12A Landfill Community Mitigative Measures Fund - Glanworth Tennis Court

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, and based on the approved motion of the W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee, funding of $35,000 BE APPROVED from the W12A Landfill Community Mitigative Measures Fund for the Glanworth Tennis Court Improvement Project. (2024-F11)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.5) Contract Price Increase - Victoria Bridge Replacement Consulting Services

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 March 19, 2024, related to a Contract Increase for Victoria Bridge Replacement Consulting Services:

a)    the Victoria Bridge Replacement contract for resident inspection and contract administration with AECOM Canada Limited BE INCREASED by $225,000 to $1,965,991 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T06)

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.6) 2024 Watermain Cleaning and Lining Contract Award

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 March 19, 2024, related to the 2024 Watermain Cleaning and Lining Contract Award:

a)    the bid submitted by Fer-Pal Construction Ltd at its tendered price of $6,282,196.17 (excluding HST) for Watermain Cleaning and Lining Services BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this is the second year of a five year contract submitted by Fer Pal Construction Ltd. and where unit prices were carried over from the original tendered contract plus an increase in line with the Consumer Price Index;

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

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project; 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-F18)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (2.7) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program

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 March 19, 2024, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program:

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

i)    GM BluePlan Engineering Limited, BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2024 Infrastructure Renewal Program Leonard Street and Second Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $358,072.00, including 10% contingency (excluding HST); and,

ii)    Spriet Associates London Limited, BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration, including a detailed design fee increase, for the 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Charles Street, West Lions Park and Paul Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $606,032.90, including 10% contingency (excluding HST);

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

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

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

e)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (2.8) Contract Award-RFT 2024-700 - 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program - Cavendish Crescent, Riverside Park and Mitchell A. Baran Park

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 Contract Award RFT 2024-700 for the 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program for Cavendish Crescent, Riverside Park and Mitchell A. Baran Park:

a)    the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited at its tendered price of $7,264,752.80 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited was the lowest of nine bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

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

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (RFT-2024-700); 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-T04)

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (2.9) Contract Award RFT-2023-265 - 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Downtown Sewer Separation Phase 4 - York Street and Wellington 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 March 19, 2024, related to Contract Award RFT-2023-265 for the 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program for the Downtown Sewer Separation Phase 4 for York Street and Wellington Street:

a)    the bid submitted by L82 Construction Ltd at its tendered price of $15,630,086.52 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by L82 Construction Ltd was the lowest of four bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)     AECOM Canada Limited, BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Downtown Sewer Separation Phase 4 project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,418,789.00, including 10% contingency (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 the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

e)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (RFT-2023-265); and,

f)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (2.10) Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No. 108)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (PS-114). (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

8.5.11   (2.11) 2023 Administrative Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-Law (Relates to Bill No. 109)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (PS-114) with respect to the 2023 Administrative Amendments. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

8.5.13   (2.4) 2024 Renew London Infrastructure Construction Program and 2023 Review

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to the 2024 Renew London Infrastructure Construction Program and 2023 Review:

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

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide options for ongoing traffic diversion for Dundas Place between Wellington St. and Ridout St., and to report back to Civic Works with an operational plan in Q4 2024. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

8.5.14   (3.1) 3rd Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC), from the meeting held on February 21, 2024:

a)    the above-noted 3rd Report of the ITCAC BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the four recommendations contained within the ITCAC Last Term (2022-2023) Report, as appended to the above noted 3rd Report of the ITCAC, BE FORWARDED to the Governance Working Group for review and consideration;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from T. Khan, Chair, ITCAC, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.5.15   (3.2) 4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC), from the meeting held on March 6, 2024:

a)    the expenditure of $1,000 from the 2024 Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee Budget BE ALLOCATED to printing the attached yard signs for naturalized lawns;

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to the City of London Tree Protection By-law:

i)    the Civic Administration BE ASKED to review opportunities to enforce the Tree By-law within the Provincial Offenses Act window of enforcement; and,

ii)    this matter BE INCLUDED on the appropriate Standing Committee Deferred List;

c)    the Committee Clerk BE REQUESTED to add the following matters to future Agendas:

i)    the Tree Protection By-law related to aerial mapping; and,

ii)    Neighbourhood Decision Making Grants related to climate related projects; it being noted that a Sub-Committee consisting of B. Samuels, A. Hames and M.A. Hodge was created to discuss these matters; and

d)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 4.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, Chair, ESACAC, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.5.16   (4.1) Harris Park Shoreline Reconstruction

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, and the verbal delegation from A.M. Valastro, with respect to Harris Park Shoreline Reconstruction, BE RECEIVED. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

8.5.12   (2.12) Vendor of Record Contract Award - Rapid Transit Shelters Amenities - Request for Proposal Submissions - RFP-2023-271 Station Lighting, RFP-2023-272 Obelisks and RFP-2023-273 Station Furniture

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 March 19, 2024, related to Vendor of Record Contract Award for Rapid Transit Shelters Amenities and Request for Proposal Submissions – RFP-2023-271 Station Lighting, RFP-2023-272 Obelisks and RFP-2023-273 Station Furniture:

a)    with respect to the following rapid transit shelter amenity request for proposal submissions:

i)    the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating of $683,896.22 (excluding HST), for the future design completion, supply and installation of Rapid Transit Shelter – Station Lighting (RFP-2023-271) BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that the proposal submitted by J-AAR Excavating was the highest scoring of two (2) proposal submissions received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

ii)    the bid submitted by Enseicom of $882,461.00 (excluding HST), for the future design completion, supply, and installation of Rapid Transit Shelter – Obelisks (RFP-2023-272) BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that the proposal submitted by Enseicom was the highest scoring of two (2) proposal submissions received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas; and,

iii)    the bid submitted by Enseicom of $430,033.00 (excluding HST), for the future design completion, supply and installation of Rapid Transit Shelter – Station Furniture (RFP-2023-273) BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that the proposal submitted by Enseicom was the highest scoring of three (3) proposal submissions received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to appoint J-AAR Excavating and Enseicom as Vendors of Record for the supply and installation of shelter amenities in connection with these purchases for a period three (3) years with the option of four (4) one (1) year periods for renewal based on positive performance and cost noting cost escalation may be negotiable;

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with J-AAR Excavating and Enseicom for this work; 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-F18)

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

9.   Added Reports

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 7th Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

That clause 1 of the 7th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

Grant of Easement and Temporary Easement Agreements – Part of 1035 Sarnia Road – Hyde Park Stormwater Infrastructure Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to a permanent and temporary easement agreements over the property owned by the Greek-Canadian Community of London City and Vicinity, legally described as Part 6, Plan 33R-21517 (permanent easement) and Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Plan 33R-21517 (temporary easement), in the City of London, known municipally as 1035 Sarnia Road, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Grant of Easement Agreement between the City and the Greek-Canadian Community of London City and Vicinity granting the City a permanent multi-purpose municipal easement BE APPROVED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C” for the sum of $267,300.00;

b)    the Temporary Easement Agreement between the City and the Greek-Canadian Community of London City and Vicinity granting the City a temporary access easement BE APPROVED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “D” for the sum of $127,700.00; and

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

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 97 to Bill No. 120, excluding Bill No. 102, Bill No. 103, Bill No. 106, Bill No. 107, and including Revised Bill No’s. 104 and 114 and Added Bill No. 121, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Franke

That Second Reading of Bill No. 97 to Bill No. 120, excluding Bill No. 102, Bill No. 103, Bill No. 106, Bill No. 107, and including Revised Bill No’s. 104 and 114 and Added Bill No. 121, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 72, Bill No. 97 to Bill No. 120, excluding Bill No. 102, Bill No. 103, Bill No. 106, Bill No. 107, and including Revised Bill No’s. 104 and 114 and Added Bill No. 121, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No’s. 102, 103, 107, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Second Reading of Bill No’s. 102, 103, 107, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No’s. 102, 103, 107, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 122, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 122, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 122, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 106, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Franke

That Second Reading of Bill No. 106, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 106, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 7:45 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 (7 hours, 4 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. I’m gonna start by informing all colleagues, staff, members of the public who are here. Mayor Morgan is currently at a federal announcement with some other mayors who are all attending announcements in their own communities across the country at the same time. He will be joining us in a little while, and I’ll relinquish the chair to him when he joins us.

Until then, I will be sharing our meeting, and I wanna begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabeck, the Haudenosaunee, the Lene Peiwach, and Adawanda and Peoples, and we honor and respect the history, languages, and cultures of the diverse indigenous people call this territory home. We acknowledge all the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Silver Covenant Chain, the beaver hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nan Phan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827, with the Anishinaabeck and the Dish of the One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabeck and the Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames, First Nation, the Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, all who continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. I also want to remind everyone that the City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

And to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at London.ca, or phone 519-661-2489, extension 2425. And as is our custom colleagues, I am now going to introduce you to our national anthem singer for today. First of all, you will be happy to know that Mr. Usher is not former Councillor Usher, who may have been sensational at many things leading us in the national anthem was not one of those.

However, Matthew Usher is joining us today, and Matthew Usher is a London-based trumpet player. He enjoys performing a diverse range of genres and styles, ranging from classical to jazz, and you can catch him live performing on April 22nd as part of the London Jazz Festival. The London Jazz Festival is proud to be recognized as an official partner and organizer of the UNESCO International Day of Jazz on April 30th, 2024, where London will also be participating in the UNESCO Cities of Music Jazz Relay. This year’s theme is Sustainable Development, World Number 13, Climate Action.

So please join me in welcoming Matthew, who will now perform the national anthem for us. We move into our agenda colleagues. We have two recognitions today. I will call on Councillor Hopkins for the first recognition.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, for allowing me, just to speak, about a community leader that passed away, March 1st, Martha Powell. She was the president and CEO of the London Community Foundation from 2007 to 2023. I met Martha here, right in these chambers. She was always so thoughtful, kind and very involved in our community.

She was a leader in terms of the foundation in setting the goals for the foundation, which established social impact funding to support affordable housing projects, collaborating on the Back to the River initiative, as well as convening the Vision Soho Alliance to redevelop a historically insignificant area to allow for the much needed housing that we are asking for in our city. I know as a leader in our community, she will be missed. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

The second recognition I am presenting, the last colleagues to bear with me a little bit. I had not originally intended to be chairing today, so I’m utilizing the Microsoft OneDrive to access my comments. So if you see me look down to scroll, that’s why. Aviation as a major part of a nation’s military force had yet to be proven when Canada entered World War I on August 4th, 1914.

Canada did not have an Air Force, and Canadians instead served directly under British command in the RAF. But Canadian flyers established a record that was second to none, with individuals such as Billy Bishop and Billy Barker and Alan McLeod being among the top allied aces of the war, and being awarded the Victoria Cross, Britain’s highest award for military valor for their actions in the air. Following the war, after five long years of debates and policy starts and restarts, on April 1st, 1924, 100 years ago yesterday, the Royal Canadian Air Force was established, and it served the country in diverse purposes in its early years, aerial mapping, spotting forest fires, fishery patrols, assisting various government departments, and exploring the feasibility of flying in the Arctic. And then in 1938, the Chief of Air Staff became directly responsible to the Minister of National Defence, making the Air Force a separate service, equal in status to the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Navy.

And in the midst of these changes, World War II erupted in Europe. In 1939, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King agreed to support a major air training scheme located throughout the Commonwealth, but with the largest component in Canada, including right here in London, Ontario. Originally opened at the Kremlin Airport on June 24th, 1940, as the home of the number three Elementary Training Flying School, and the number four Air Observer School of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, by the end of the war, more than 4,400 Air Force personnel had been trained here in London. By 1944, the RCAF reached its peak as the fourth largest Allied force, Air Force, with more than 215,000 personnel in uniform, including 17,000 members of the Women’s Division.

By the time the war ended, more than 18,000 members of the RCAF had given their lives in service to their country. After World War II, the RCAF would continue to serve in Korea as a NATO Defence Force on the front lines in the Cold War, and in many other deployments around the world right up until today. In London, the RCAF station, Kremlin, remained open after World War II, eventually becoming part of the post-war RCAF effort, and the station became, in September of 1948, the home of the 420 fighter squadron, flying the first Harvard’s and then Mustangs, and for a very short time, Thunderbird Jet Fighters, out of the London Airport, until it was disbanded on September 1st of 1956, at which point the base became home to the 22 Auxiliary Wing, and home to the 427 Wing of the Air Force Association of Canada. The 427 Wing remains on the grounds of the London International Airport to this day, continuing to occupy the grounds originally, and the building that was originally the 1939 Airmen’s cantina of the original base.

It’s the last of its kind to our knowledge in Ontario, and in 1979, an expansion to the building was added, and today that expansion is the home of the Secrets of Radar Museum, a key part of preserving our military and our aviation history in southwestern Ontario. So it’s my privilege today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and its important role in contributions not only to our country, but to our city, and to all those who have served, we salute you. The colleagues moving on, we will look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. I see none in chambers, and I see none online.

I will advise colleagues that we have Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Van Mirbergen, and Councillor Hilliard with us virtually. Councillor McAllister is not with us today. So moving along, we have a review of confidential matters to be considered in public, and I see none. And so we now move along to our council enclosed session.

So I’m gonna look for a motion to move into closed session, as we have several items to deal with, moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor ramen, and I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Councillor Stevenson. Susan votes yes. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you colleagues. We will move to committee room five for our closed session. We have a number of items in closed session, so I just want to advise those who are in the gallery.

Please be patient, we may be a little while. You will find on the third floor outside of council chambers that are as a vending machine, if you need a refreshment or water fountain out there as well, we will be back as soon as we’re done dealing with our confidential matters. Thank you colleagues, please be seated. And Mayor Morgan has joined us, so your worship, I stand relieved, I return the chair to you.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that, and thank you for chairing while I was at the federal announcement today, so that was very good. Took some staff, we’re gonna make some applications soon, so it’ll be exciting. But with that, we’ve completed the in-camera portion of the agenda, we have the confirmation and signing of minutes from two previous meetings, the special meeting on February 29th, and the March 5th meeting.

I’ll look for a mover for approval of those minutes. Moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Any discussion on the minutes? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

President O, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, item six is communications and petitions. There are, there’s a number of them, six, one through six, eight, some of them with subsections. All of those belong to different places in the agenda, so I don’t know if anybody wants anything dealt with separately.

Oh, Councillor Trossai, you want something separate? Yes, and I’ve indicated to the clerk, I would like to pull 6.7, subdivision 10, to raise a point of personal privilege. And I don’t know if now is the time to do that, or when we get to the CAPS committee. Well, so if you want to potentially take a different action on that item, pulling it would be great, I’ll refer everything else, then someone will make a motion to refer this, then you could speak on it.

Or raise a point of personal privilege at that time, is that okay? Okay, I don’t want to, since I just spoken and I’m going to sit down, I don’t want to waive my ability. No, no, you still get to speak. You’re just asking this to be pulled separately.

I’m going to deal with, let me get everything else taken care of first. Sure. - Okay. All right, so that’s one piece dealt with separately, so that means I’ll ask if anybody wants to make a motion to have everything except for six, seven, subsection 10, referred to all of the relevant areas in the committee agenda.

And then we’ll deal with that one next. Yeah, yes, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I would like to take 6.88 and nine and refer them to a future community and protective services committee meeting as they don’t relate to the motion that I have for the pilot project.

So, Councillor, to make this less complicated, could I ask if you could be okay with us referring it to the CAHPS agenda? So it just has a place in our agenda. If at that time you want to refer them to a future meeting, you could refer from there. We’re just shuffling it in the agenda, so these land in the committee reports, but at that time you could refer those pieces to a future meeting when we get there.

Okay. - I see your thumbs up, so I’ll look for someone who can move everything, except what I said, 6.7, 10. Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Layman, any discussion? Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, and now I’ll look for someone to refer 6.7 item 10 to the relevant part of the agenda, and then I’ll look for speakers on that, and at that point I can come to you, Councillor Troso. Moved by Councillor Ploza, seconded by Councillor Layman. Okay, any discussion or any points for civil privilege?

Let’s say on this, Councillor Troso. Yes. I’m gonna make sure I have the right page. I would like to make a point of personal privilege with respect to the portion of this letter that begins on the third line of the second paragraph, beginning with this was in direct opposition all the way down to the end of that paragraph.

And I’m making a point of personal privilege because I believe that parts of that statement were very derogatory, if not the famitory, and I would like to request that the makers of that statement retract that portion and issue an apology to the Councillors involved. Give me a second, I just wanna reread that section. So with respect to the point of personal privilege, here’s what I’m gonna say. In rereading this and then talking to the clerk, I would fully agree that Councillors could have a different opinion on procedure and could have a different opinion on whether it’s a breach of the code of conduct and could have a different opinion on whether or not reconsideration is required.

I don’t see anything in there that is naming specific Councillors or defaming them. And I think a Councillor could now stand up with this on the floor and make the counterpoint about their opinions on whether these procedural pieces apply or not. So although I appreciate that the Councillor is raising a point of personal privilege, all I see in here is Councillors giving their opinion on what procedures they thought applied, and they’re specifically mentioning in their opinion, these things, in fact, they mentioned it several times. You don’t have to agree with their opinion.

Their opinion doesn’t need to be fact, it could be factual, it could not be. So I’m gonna suggest that there isn’t personal privilege here, but that if at this time someone wanted to in debate counter the points of this letter as we refer to parts of the agenda, or after it’s referred, you could do it at that time, that that would be the proper way to counter it. I wanna be relatively permissive in people having opinion on procedure here, where there isn’t, in my opinion, some sort of defaming of a member of council, because we have differences of opinion on which procedures apply in different circumstances all the time, and we make decisions on that. So I’m not gonna ask the councilors to take any action on this.

I’m gonna deem this to be something that could be debated, but I’m not going to rule that it’s a point of personal privilege, and you’re welcome to challenge the chair on that if you like, but I’m giving my interpretation of this letter, saying it’s opinion, people can have different opinions. Yes, I would do that because it’s very clear that it applied to three particular councilors, and there is a claim here that there was a potential violation of the code of conduct, which I think is a very, very serious claim, and that’s why I wanna clear that part of it, at least, we can have a debate on this later. Sure, so you’re challenging the chair, that you believe it is a point of personal privilege that I should deal with as such, correct? Particularly the part that could constitute the code.

Yes, yes, you identified the whole paragraph of which that’s contained, so I will accept that as a challenge to my decision that it’s not a point of personal privilege, and so we’ll move to an immediate vote of should the ruling of the chair be sustained? Is there a seconder to that appeal? We’ve done it before with a seconder, so we’re gonna see if there’s a seconder. There’s a seconder, okay.

So what, it’s Councilor Ferra. Okay, so this is not debatable. We’re just going to make the vote on my decision, so if you vote in the affirmative, you’re saying that I’m right, because it’s should the decision of the chair be sustained. If you vote in the negative, you agree with Councilor Trossal that it should have been a point of personal privilege, okay?

We’ll open that for voting. Councilor Stevenson, closing the vote. Results of the appeal. Are that the decision of the chair is sustained 10 to four?

Okay, so Council supports my decision. Councilor, you’re welcome to make comments here, but we’re on a referral, so this actual letter will be part of the agenda later. You can hold your comments at that time and deal with it in the committee report if you like. I will hold my comments until that time.

Okay, thank you. Okay, so the motion on the floor is to refer this to the relevant part of the agenda. It’s moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion or debate?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councilor Proupler, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Councilor Ramen, you had your hand up, go ahead.

Thank you and through you, Mayor. I’m wondering if we might be able to deal with item 8.4, so I’m asking that the agenda be moved so that we could deal with item 8.4. We have a number of people with us today for that, for items on that agenda. Yes, so that’s a change of order motion.

It’s not amenable or debatable. It requires a seconder, I see a seconder, so we will deal with that and it requires two-thirds of the members present to pass. So yes, we can do that. Councilor Close is a seconder.

Are you moving up the whole CAHPS agenda? Are you moving up just that item from CAHPS? I’d like to move the whole agenda. I think that that may be helpful for all that are here.

All right, so I just want to be clear on the motion. So that is what you’re willing to second. Councilor Close is too? Okay, great.

All right, no amendments, no debates. So we’re just going to open that for voting. That’s a motion to change the order to deal with the Community Protective Services Committee first in the reports. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

I’ll just make a note. Item seven, motions to which notice is given there were none. So we’re on to reports and reports has been reordered now to deal with 8.4 first, which is the fifth report of the Community Protective Services Committee. I’ll have Chair Palosa to present that report and craft motions in whatever order she wants to craft motions in because it’s her report to present.

Thank you. I have been given notice to pull the following items. Four, being 2.3, the Odell-Jalna and of Management Exit Agreement. Ten, being 2.6, the Business and Lacing By-law and fireworks by-law amendments.

12, being 4.1, the 2024, rocked the park one-time policy exemption request. And 13, being 5.1, the reduced parking incentive pilot project. Looking to see if there’s any others. Okay, so anybody else want anything that’s remaining dealt with separately?

Okay, seeing none, I’ll go back to you, Councilor Palosa. Thank you. I will put all those that haven’t been pulled on the floor to deal with. And then when that is done, my intention is to go to the fireworks one.

So that would be putting all items except four, 10, 12 and 13 on the floor. I will also recognize that this Community Protective Services Committee went as three and a half hours in length. So it would be lengthy as we get into some of these other items. So that looks like everything except four, 10, 12 and 13 put on the floor by the chair.

I’ll look for any discussion or comment on the items in that group. I see Councilor Stevenson remotely, go ahead. Thank you. And through you, I just had a question to staff regarding the winter response 2022-2023 final report.

In the briefing note that we received, it did show that that 602 Queens have for the day drop-in. The expected result was seven days a week, 12 hours a day. And the actual result was five days a week, two times three hours a day or six hours a day, which is actually only 36% of the service hours that were expected. And there was also some lower usages, 68%, 58%.

And they just wondered when I’m gonna call a point of order. Just sorry, Councilor Stevenson. I got Councilor Stevenson’s message. If they wanna vote on it separate, it will need to be pulled and dealt with.

Oh, Councilor, are you looking to just ask a question or vote on it separate? Just a question. All right, so we’re good. You can proceed, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. I just wanted through you to staff to ask about the difference in actual results compared to expected results and how that was reconciled to the financial amounts that were spent. Okay, thanks. I’ll go to Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through your worship. The program had challenges finding and operationalizing with staff at that time. So they were only able to offer the program five days a week to three hour windows each day.

That program overall has had some surplus. As we’ve looked at and started to receive and review the quarter, the Q4 reports. So it does match up to the reduction in the challenges that that program faced. Councilor.

Thank you. So just to follow up then, when we contract for services, what, how do we ensure accountability to the results? Or in this case, even the service hours that were available and the amounts that we agreed to pay in the beginning? Because as I said, we got 36% of that, of what we were expecting.

And many of the others there were below 70%. And so how do we ensure accountability in terms of the dollar spent for the service provided? Mr. Cooper.

Thank you. And through your worship, my team does meet quite regularly with each proponent of the contract that we signed. There is a schedule B which does outline the agreed upon services. We do amend contract schedule B from time to time in cases where an organization may be struggling with staffing and ramping up of services that has been fairly typical of many of the winter responses that and cold weather responses that have been operationalized in the last couple of years.

We do get actuals every quarter from organizations. And part of that work that my team does to review the actuals and meet with organizations does address any challenges that our team sees with a change in service. Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you.

Just one last question then. I noticed that some of the service providers have very high usage and in terms of meeting the expected results and others not. Is there a way of sharing best practices or in this whole of community, are they looking to share to ensure that whatever some organizations are doing that’s working is shared amongst the others? Mr.

Dickens. Thank you and through you, your worship. I would just perhaps articulate that each organization is very different and unique. So high usage rates, the ability to have a preexisting staffing complement that would allow an organization to scale up, the ability to attract and retain staff in a short period of time to scale up would be different from organization to organization.

Absolutely, these organizations do work in tandem. They work across organizations to ensure that they create the best possible response to vulnerable individuals during the coldest months of the year. The stats that you see before you is everyone’s best effort. This is not for a lack of trying.

As we juxtapose what we’re temporary urgent emergency cold weather responses to a planned whole of community system response, as you’ll discuss later in the SPPC report, we have an evaluation framework that Council, that committee has endorsed that will start to pave the way and articulate best practices so we can better identify what is working and what needs course correction. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, one last question then. So this is a report that comes for the winter response of 2022, 2023, which was the one that came as a result of the hunger strike, where people stood on or the front lawn of City Hall and said, no more excuses, people are dying.

And we had organizations who created very short term staff ups and locations with success. And we had organizations that were not able to do that based on the reports that I saw. So I am just as a representative of award that is highly impacted and deeply caring about the situation. I just wanted, I’m highlighting this because it’s very, very important.

I in no way want to put any shade on these organizations. I’m sure everyone’s trying to do the best that they can. And there are lives out there. And 36% of the service hours, five days a week, instead of seven days a week, six hours a day, instead of 12 hours a day, a few nights or five nights instead of seven nights, it matters.

It matters to the people on the streets. And I think staff for their answers, I think there’s a lot of people who really care about this and just want to ensure that we’re doing the most that we possibly can with the dollars that we have. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Any other comments on the list of items that are before us right now that the chair has put on the floor? Go ahead, Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. I just wanted to comment on the report for item nine, the initial research report from run evictions.

So first I wanted to thank staff and fellow counselors for their work on this and for leading the charge on looking for a London made solution. However, I just wanted to discuss a little bit more the timeline for what we’re looking at in terms of having a report or having a bylaw in place. Because I understand it is quite urgent to the community but at the same time, we’re also seeing federally, I’m hoping more provincially, that there’s been some work happening on strengthening what can be strengthened at the federal level but more again on the provincial level around run evictions and our movement on that file. What I’m wondering is in parallel to the work that we’re doing on bringing this forward ourselves, what actions will we be taking from a government relations perspective to continue to advocate for the province to take and fulfill their duties and their roles and responsibilities while we continue to work to shore up our own bylaws?

Sure, thanks, Councillor Roman. I don’t, so that’s probably a question for myself and even Councillor Hopkins about work that either OBCM or AMO is doing or the City of London directly. I don’t know if Councillor Hopkins, if you have anything that you wanna share at this time. Why don’t both of us pull something together and get back to you on the work that those organizations are doing?

As you know, we have both organizations that have a large suite of lobbying objectives as well as a range of policies. They don’t lobby on everything at all time, on every file, but sometimes there’s work that is being done staff to staff behind the scenes, particularly as issues like the one that happened in London a number of years ago flared up as well as when municipalities start to engage on working on this like Hamilton and even London. So I don’t have that detail with me before myself at this council. I don’t think Councillor Hopkins does, but perhaps we can endeavor to provide an update on that to you at a future of either committee meeting or meeting or even as a memo that circulated.

Thank you, and that would be great. Any additional communication on the role that we’re taking to strengthen our advocacy provincially to look for leadership from the provincial government on this matter, I believe is quite essential. And I would personally love to see the Ontario government do what British Columbia did, which is one, Hamilton has now brought in this bylaw to now bring in provincial legislation like it was done in British Columbia. So again, I thank my colleagues for their work and their leadership on this.

I hope for us to continue to work with the province to bring and strengthen some much needed legislation for renters, thank you. Got the comments. Oh, go ahead, Councillor Plaza. Thank you, just following from the last item for the initial research for renovations.

Just Mr. Catolik did say at the meeting that this is one of the top priorities for his staff and we’ll have it back as quickly as possible for council’s consideration. Okay, thank you. Any other comments on these items?

Okay, they’re moved by the chair. We’re gonna open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, Councillor Plaza.

Thank you, I’m gonna go numerically out of order to respect our guests in the gallery this evening. I’m gonna put item 10, 2.6, the business licensing bylaw and fireworks bylaw amendments. On the floor, I will note that this was also a lengthy discussion at committee. At committee, we did pull apart and vote on separately.

Clauses, A, B, C, and D. I’m also aware that Councillor Layman has amendment. We’ve heard as well, concerns from Councillor Trousa out earlier. So I will move to the chair’s discretion of how I would like to proceed by putting the entire package on the floor for item 10.

Okay, thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Layman and then I’ll go to Councillor Trousa next. Thank you, Chair. Basically, I’m just gonna put my amendment on the floor and then I would like to speak to it after that.

That’s okay with the chair. Yeah, do you have a seconder? Yeah, so let me just basically say this. My amendment is basically to address the committee’s recommendation that excluded Diwali and Chinese Lunar New Year from the recommendation to council.

I know a number of Councillors are concerned about that. Councillor ramen for sure was working on something as well. She recognized that my motion was, my circulation, my communication was there. So I would look to the Councillor for her second.

That’s correct, Councillor ramen and I were working on something at the same time. So you guys wrote a letter about, I think that’s a nice, a nice way to do it. So you move, Councillor ramen, we’ll second. That amendment then is on the floor, which is to add back in those pieces.

I’ll let you speak to it now. Okay, thank you. Back in August, we had a very robust discussion around a review of our fireworks by-law and council came to a decision at that time to expressly include an extra day for celebration for our new community to celebrate a very important occasion, Diwali, as well as for Asian community, South Asian community to celebrate Chinese lunar new year for that period of time since August, reparations have been made based on council direction. Council directed staff to work with the recommended, or the comments that came during that consultation to draft some housekeeping things with our current fireworks by-law and bring back that to committee for further review and discussion and recommendation to council.

Committee is fine for all of staff’s changes to the details of our fireworks by-law, but expressly excluded two days, celebration of Diwali and Chinese lunar new year. My comments, which the council are referred to earlier and will be referring to after, go to my concern. My concern is when we make a council directive, whether you agree with it or you don’t agree with it, we should support the will of council. And you can say, well, I didn’t vote for it, but at the end of the day, this is a body of 15 people that makes decisions and decisions aren’t gonna be agreed to by all.

The concern I have is after since August, or many months that more than half a year, where communities have been planning based on that decision in council to try to change that, in my opinion, by excluding the specific days that we’re added in and the days of concern. Once again, you can see by the signs today at council, the community feels that here we go again. We thought that this had been decided upon, and now we’re gonna have to communicate with counselors, come to council to once again, have to go through the position of trying to convince this body to go in a certain direction. We have to make a decision at some point, and we did back in August.

My comments in that communication were directed to that. We do have ways for reconsideration, if you believe that the will of council should be changed to just come back, use a committee process to go against the will of council. I don’t think is for sure the route to go. So I’ve encouraged my fellow counselors to support this motion, brought forward by councilor ramen and myself, to allow these communities to celebrate to Wally and Chinese lunar area.

Thank you. Okay, councilor Trossa, I had you on the main motion. There’s now an amendment on the floor. Would you like to speak to the amendment?

You’re welcome to do that. Well, I— It relates to the thing you want. I do not want to waive my ability to explain my general opposition to fireworks and so we’re on the amendment so you can speak to your concerns with the amendment now. There is a main motion.

If the amendment fails, you could still speak on the main motion. If the amendment passes, there’ll be an as amended motion. So yes, you can still speak to the— I also want to note that I did circulate with the clerk and counselors another amendment which I hope would be relatively non-controversial. It would not be contrary in my view, although the clerk might want to roll on that.

It would not be contrary to the four that are on, and it deals with the Toronto matter. And I’m wondering when that would come up and that could be done as a separate matter. Giving you, I don’t, I’m making a small assumption that you don’t agree with this amendment. So why don’t you make your amendment when we’re back on the main motion to add it in?

That way we will have dealt with this. It’s either be in or out based on council’s decision. That doesn’t preclude you at that time from standing and moving an amendment then. So I should not make my Toronto amendment now.

No, no, you could do that after. Should I address my privilege concerns now? Oh, well, well, the privilege matters dealt with, but if you want to speak to a difference of opinion based on what the counselor’s wrote in the letter, for sure. Yeah, it’s the basis and it was raised in the debate, so that’s, yeah, you can have a counter-opinion.

You know, I think I want to focus my five minutes on this amendment talking about, I think people are wondering why did three counselors at committee vote against this? Well, we operate by bylaw. We operate by bylaw, and a bylaw came back, and the bylaw came back with many different moving components to it, not just the addition of the two days. And in my opinion, that bylaw, when you take all of them together, was flawed.

It was flawed with respect to the lack of progress on licensing, you know? We could have the celebration for these two observances and have backyard fireworks. We could still have some stronger licensing requirements. And even more important, we could have some stronger enforcement problems, because I know just from the last few iterations of these holidays, there were many, many, many violations.

And this counselor at some point is going to have to deal with the fact that no matter how many additional holidays you add to this bylaw, it’s not being effectively enforced. And I’m not sure how we effectively enforce it, which does take me to the point I’ll raise later about the Toronto matter. But in my view, the package, the package of four, I voted against all four of them, so I was being very consistent. And I felt that the package of four was deficient in terms of raising additional licensing requirements, which were very legitimate to raise, and same thing with enforcement.

So I’m going to hold my comments on why I feel fireworks are detrimental to the environment at a time of climate change until the next piece of this. I’m going to say my other problem, particularly with the Lunar New Year piece of this, is we did not hold a public participation meeting on the Lunar New Year aspect of this. And I don’t know if it’s absolutely required that we hold the public participation meeting, but if our practice is, this came up after the fact, we had a long discussion about whether we should have option A or option B. And with respect to option A, I want to point out that the Saskatoon Fire Department several months ago sent a communication to the Saskatoon City Council on this exact same question that was before us with A and B.

And they said, don’t amend the bylaw to include one particular celebration, because by their count, they said, we may have over 100, 200 equity-seeking groups who might come in to our council and ask for the same thing. And rather than open the door to this piecemeal legislation, which is not going to stop, why not just say, everyone? Everyone can have their celebration. Everyone can have their celebration.

The only thing you need to do is get a permit, which is very doable. It’s not a difficult thing to do. And have your celebration, and you can have fireworks. The other point that needs to be raised is during the public participation meeting on the Diwali piece of this, we heard from a lot of people that what they wanted to do was be able to have their children hold sparklers.

Well, sparklers are not covered by the fireworks bylaw. You want to have sparklers, you can have sparklers. And if there’s something else that needed to be added to the fireworks bylaw to enhance that exemption, to allow Diwali celebrants to be able to enjoy their holiday, we very easily could have avoided all the division by simply saying, what can we add? What can we add to that definition part of the bylaw?

And we didn’t do that. And I was very disappointed when we got a bylaw back that had really not a whole lot different about enforcement. So there were really good reasons for those of us who have a principled position against fireworks. And you know, you got to admit, those of us that have voted against this have been very consistent all along.

I said throughout the last council term, a post of fireworks, I was very clear during my political campaign that I’d be against fireworks. And I was very clear at council. And I’m going to be very clear today. So I’m going to vote against this package, although I do think that when we get to the Toronto piece, that might be a way that we can maybe find a little bit of unity as a community.

But like when I hear councilor saying things like, it’s not a problem, it is a problem. You’re approaching the end of your time, councilor. You’re approaching the end of your time. Okay, whatever your position is on this, it is a problem for a lot of people in this community.

And I just wish we would show a little bit more respect to approximately the half number of people who said they didn’t want fireworks. On the amendment, looking for other speakers. Councilor Hopkins. Yes, sure, sure.

I do have a couple questions just for clarity ‘cause I’m finding this a little bit confusing, reading the process that happened at committee. And now with this amendment, first of all, the question is this just relates to backyard fireworks, my first question. Go to Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair, yes, this relates to backyard fireworks. Thank you. And I did not support option A, I did prefer option B. I am going to be consistent, but I just wanna make sure that this amendment relates to just the fireworks because if anyone wants to have a celebration, they can apply for a permit to get fireworks and I just don’t think that we need to make this more confusing than it is.

In particular, it’s for the public because I’ve been approached going, why wouldn’t you support a community event and have fireworks? That still exists. This is strictly on adding these two events to backyard fireworks just one last time. Yeah, I don’t know if I need to stop to answer that.

Yes, essentially the amendment is allowing these additional days for backyard fireworks. People can celebrate many events in many different ways, but fireworks are only permitted under the fireworks by-line certain days in certain ways. Commercial displays have other regulations. So this is adding the amendment ads, these two particular celebrations for backyard fireworks.

Okay, other speakers on this. On the amendment to add these back in. Council Raman, go ahead. Thank you and through you.

So I have a couple of questions before I say some comments. My first question is if council were not to amend this now, would the by-law as it currently exists, which has some language attached to Wally and to Lunar New Year? Would the by-law be not just consistent, but it seems to have some inconsistencies because at committee, what we did was we just removed some language that was in the motion, but we didn’t actually amend or make changes within the by-law, so I’m just wondering if you can speak to that. I don’t know.

Thank you and through you. Through you, Your Worship, you’re correct. If as it went forward, a community and protective services committee, that means the by-law itself would not be amended to allow consumer backyard fireworks on Diwali or Lunar New Year, which means we would revert back to the original by-law, along with some changes we made to the proposed by-law, housekeeping, and we cleaned up some words, added some new definitions and updated the Ontario Fire Code. So that recommendation that was not passed at committee and protective services would mean we would default to our current by-law that we have in place right now for fireworks.

Thank you. I appreciate that update. Yeah, I think, I wanna thank first Councillor Layman and Deputy Mayor Lewis for their letter, because I do think it’s important to highlight when things perhaps maybe through committee go in a direction maybe that wasn’t intended. And I think what I saw happen during that committee meeting was that there was a difference of opinion and beliefs that came into play with how we were aligning the new by-law.

And so if we again did nothing or did what’s in front of us right now, we would end up with what we had previously. And the whole point of the option A, option B by-law conversation from August 2023 was to provide leadership and direction to the city of which that was what was brought back to us. So I just wanna circle back for that moment. But I also wanna have a further conversation here because we’re talking about language that’s in the by-law.

And we mention observances when we’re speaking about this, but these are religious celebrations for the Hindu community. And these are significant, somewhat non-secular, but can be considered also steeped in deep tradition, components of the Lunar New Year. And when we engaged in these conversations at times, not just at committee at CPSC, but during the August 2023 conversation, we have to acknowledge that sometimes we struck a nerve. And it was the way that we engaged in that conversation.

So again, I’m not going to take us down that road again, but I do know that the reason there are people in the gallery today is not just because we’re talking about fireworks, but it’s the way we as a council have talked about fireworks. So we have a commitment in our strategic plan to an anti-racism and an anti-oppression framework that you don’t believe we’re using fully enough as council members. And I will say that I felt it myself when we were having this conversation. I’m gonna ask my colleagues today again to support what’s in front of us as the amended version.

And I’m going to continue to seek that we engage in conversation with the community in a way to learn and understand why these traditions are so important and how we can embrace and celebrate them. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor ramen. I have myself on the speakers list as well for the amendment.

So maybe I’ll hand it over to you, Councillor ramen and you can share. Thank you, I acknowledge Mayor Morgan. Thank you. And I appreciate the discussion colleagues are having.

I also appreciate the amendment coming forward, which I’ll be supportive of. That probably comes as no surprise because of my previous votes on this. And I know when the committee made its decision, a number of community leaders reached out to express their concerns about what they thought was going to occur and then different. So let me say this.

Council, when it makes decisions, it needs to be careful about how it directs those forward because if you look back at the actual council direction, we didn’t say, although we could have, go and update this bylaw with option A plus Lunar New Year and bring it right back to council for approval, which is an option we can have. In other words, we’ve had the PPMs. We’re making this change based on the feedback we’ve got. And we’re just going to update the bylaw and it’s going to come back to council.

We actually did send civic administration to report back to committee, which I think does create a presumption and expectation that committee would have a discussion about it and may even want to go different directions. Now, the committee went a direction that I absolutely don’t support, which is why I support the amendment today. And that’s what the process is and that’s why it’s before you. So I think in the future, as we’re considering the procedural options that we want to consider, when we send something back to committee, remember on them, yes, black, we need to be open to persuasion and debate and when an item and report comes back to committee, colleagues are going to make their cases again, that they made before, even if you disagree with them.

So although I respect colleagues’ opinions and the debate that occurred at the committee, I don’t support the committee’s recommendation. I do support the amendment. And I think as Councilor Ramen said, we can project what we think is the importance of something like fireworks or not on a community. And we can say you can celebrate in a different way, but that’s not necessarily listening to the community.

And I actually think they spoke loud and clear about the importance of allowing backyard fireworks in support of the celebration of Diwali and Lunar New Year, which is why we made the changes we made. We were listening to the community and we were delivering on that commitment to listen and make the legislative changes that we feel is appropriate as a majority of Council. Again, respecting the right of not everybody to have the same opinion. So I will be continuing to support the direction that I did in the past, which is supporting option A, which contained the permissions for Diwali, as well as the direction that Council made to bring the update to include Lunar New Year.

I hope Council passes it. I respect that we may not all agree on this, but I appreciate both the work of Councillor Lehman and Deputy Mayor Lewis, as well as the conversations that Councillor Ramen and I had who you guys just beat us to put in the letter in because we were working on something very similar and we were gonna raise it at Council, but good on you for submitting the communication, which is the way to do it. And also I’ll thank Councillor Lehman for doing the courteous thing of letting Councillor Ramen second it given. There’s a number of colleagues who want to express their clear support for the direction that this amendment is going.

So thank you, and I’ll end my comments there. Thank you, returning the chair. Do you have no one on the speaker’s list? Okay, on the amendment.

I do want to make a point of order, okay, go ahead. Was there a public, my point of order is that we did not hold a public participation meeting on the second piece of this. It was not noticed as part of the public participation meeting. We were given option A and option B, and the result is something that emerged after the vote on option A and option B.

Now, I don’t know if we can do that by by law. I will ask the clerk, was it required to have a public participation meeting? ‘Cause if it wasn’t, then fine, we can pass it. But if the practice is to have a public participation meeting, I don’t think we had one.

Gotcha, point of order. So Councillor, I appreciate the thoughts. I think that there’s some opinions here, but I also want to go, and I hope this solicitor is going to get her attention. I want to ask this solicitor, there are legislative requirements and there are certain acts to hold public participation meetings.

The Planning Act being won very clearly. Is there anything that legally obligates us to hold public participation meetings on every by-law that we pass? Because I can, the clerk can comment from what’s in our procedure by-law, which is there’s nothing there that would require it, except under legislation. I just wanted to check with you to help address the point of order to ensure that my understanding is your understanding is that the Municipal Act doesn’t require us to hold public participation meetings on all things, and there’s nothing specific to fireworks.

Yes, and through your worship, that’s my understanding as well. Then on the point of order, Councillor, from the legal advice as well as the clerk’s advice, no, we’re not required to hold PPMs on anything that we’re either not legislatively required to do, or that we don’t have as a requirement in our own policies or procedures of which the advice that I’ve been given by both is they don’t exist for this. In which case, I’ll accept the ruling of the chair. I’m not going to appeal it, but I would like to reframe it then.

Even though there is no statutory requirement, we undertake to have the public. Councillor, stop. You raised a point of order. I responded to it.

What you’re saying now is you accept the point of order and now you’re giving more opinion. But you’ve spoken on the amendment, so I would say if you’ve got more opinion on that, you can make it in the general debate when the motion is all together, but right now you don’t get to just freewheel after making a point of order when you’ve already spoken. So I’m going to have you stop and I’ll move on to the speakers, let’s not appreciate it. Any other speakers on the amendment?

Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to quickly state my full support for this amendment. Thank my colleagues for bringing it forward and to acknowledge the concern that was created in the community.

So thank you and I’ll be supporting this. Yes, thank you. And Councillor, I just want to say in my comments describing that I used the word freewheeling. That probably wasn’t appropriate, I retract using.

You weren’t freewheeling, you were expressing your opinion as Councillors do around the table. I always caution people on the language they use. Sometimes I check myself as well. So I don’t want to be any other speakers on the amendment.

Councillor Ferrer, I go ahead. Thanks, Chair, through you. So I am also not going to be supporting the amendment or the motion as we see as well. And I’m going to be consistent with my vote that you saw on caps.

I’ve been consistent the entire time and my main concern is for the safety components. And in the word that I live in, it’s not unheard to hear fireworks pop off at least once a week. I heard them last week and I’ve been hearing a lot of communication, especially when this first came out, from my constituents. So I’m going to be consistently maintaining my vote.

I will also say, we are speaking to, I guess, Councillor Lehman’s and the Deputy Mayor’s motion later. Okay, well, I’ll save those comments. No, right now. Oh, right now.

This is the amendment, yeah. Okay, okay, well, you know, I was given the option to vote on something at committee. So if I’m given the option to vote for something, I’m going to vote with how I feel I should be voting. So because I had the option, I went that way.

I don’t feel that I have reached any code of conduct. I read through the letter, the preamble, and I don’t feel like any of that applies to my vote on that committee. And like I said, the safety component is really what’s driving me. It’s really what is why I’m here.

It’s why I’m voting the way I am. So I’m going to be consistently going with how I went before and you’re going to see me vote down the motion as it is right now. I am not here to rubber stamp anything. If I have the ability to vote, I will vote the way I feel is the appropriate way.

So that is the reason why you’re going to see me be consistent on how I’ve been voting when it comes to this by-law. Thank you, that’s all the speakers I have on the amendment. Okay, we’re going to open the amendment for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to two.

Okay, Councilor Layman and Councilor Roman, are you willing to move the as amended motion now? Okay, so I’ll move the motion as amended. Okay, so we’re on the as amended motion. I’ll go to a new speakers listed on as amended.

Councilor Trossow, you can go ahead. If you could just use your microphone, I’d be great. Instead I’ve had the opportunity to read the communication that I circulated from the city of Toronto, from the fire department in the city of Toronto. Mayor, may I suggest that that has just passed and I’m not speaking against the Diwali holiday.

Now I’m speaking against the additional safety measure that the fire department is proposing. Just so people understand what I’m talking about. Yes, so are you looking to make, ‘cause you circulated a amendment, we’re on the as amended motion, so if you’re looking to amend it further? Right, ‘cause I see the signs going up as if I’m speaking contrary to what we just passed.

I just want people to understand that the fire department of the city of Toronto is requesting the province to enact certain amendments to the fire code. Now the fire code is an administrative regulation. It is not an act of the legislative assembly. So this is not something that would have to go through three readings at the legislative assembly.

This is something that the fire marshal has the ability to do. So my motion was circulated. I made the motion. Councillor Ferrara indicated on what was circulated, that he seconded it, and I would like to ask, regardless of what your position is, on fireworks.

Guys, Councillor, what I’m gonna do is pause. I’m gonna just gonna confirm with Councillor Ferra that he’s willing to second. Then your amendment will be on the floor, and then you can provide your rationale for it. You’re willing to second, okay, so, Councillor Ferra.

Yeah, so regardless of what your position is on backyard fireworks, as a matter of fact, the Toronto measure assumes that we have backyard fireworks. And what the Toronto measure is asking for is that certain additional safety measures be enacted into the fire code, and certain additional licensing requirements be enacted into the fire code. Now, what’s, I think, what is so ingenious about the Toronto approach is, this is asking the province to do it on a province-wide basis. One of the main arguments that we heard against more stringent licensing requirements was that, well, people will just cross the border and go and go into Lucan, or Thorndale, to purchase fireworks.

What this does is, it requires anybody who wants to purchase backyard fireworks at a pop-up stand to take a, to be prescribed by the fire marshal, but to take a certification. And they would have to show that if they want to purchase the fireworks, and that would be binding throughout the entire process. So what I’m asking London City Council to do today, so I’m not even asking you to endorse that approach. What I’m asking for is very minimal here.

I’m asking for our fire staff to consult with the fire department in the city of Toronto and report back to a future committee of CAPS as to what they found, what the prospects are for this passing, and whether London should join Toronto’s request. So I’m not asking for anything to be enacted. So I don’t think there’s much more I could say about it, but it seems to me as if this is good public policy, and it’s based first and foremost on the fire department’s concern about safety. I should also point out that I did circulate this to the deputy chief who said he could not be here today.

I’ve heard no objection to London joining this request, and I’ve certainly heard no objection to London asking staff to come back to us with a recommendation on this request. So I think I’ll leave it at that. I think this is good public policy. It’s not contrary to anything we pass.

We’re gonna be passing a bylaw later today. One backyard fireworks. I’m gonna disagree with that. But I think that as long as we’re gonna have backyard fireworks, and these pop-up stands, we should undertake to be as safe as possible.

And that’s what this is about. So I hope you’ll be supporting this amendment. Thank you. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor Ferrer.

Thank you, Your Worship. And through you to colleagues, I’m not gonna support this amendment, and I’m gonna speak to why. The Toronto Fire Department did not undertake this on their own, and it’s right there in the communication. The Toronto Council directed the Fire Department to essentially take a lobby position on the Ontario Fire Code.

I was here during the pandemic. There were Councillors who wanted to direct the medical officer of health on safety measures during the pandemic. We have had discussions around this horseshoe in this term of council, around the housing and homelessness issue and the addictions issue. And it has been raised by Councillors about how safe, safe supply is.

Imagine if we took the position that we are going to direct the chief of police to take a political position on safe supply legislation, or if we’re gonna ask the medical officer of health to take a position on an issue that’s before the health unit. When it comes to emergency services, I think it is a very slippery slope, in my opinion, to start providing direction, whether that’s to Chief Hamer, to Chief Tron, or to Doctor Summers, to those folks who are heads of our emergency sport, or Chief Roberts, the folks who are heads of our emergency service providers to start taking political positions on a matter of public safety. I think if they come forward of their own volition with their own recommendations through their professional bodies, we’ve got multiple professional bodies, the association of the chiefs of police across the province, the health unit officers have the same thing. I suspect and Ms.

Smith-Kurick can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the fire associations also have a similar province-wide body. If they come together through their own internal discussions and choose to take a position, that is one thing, because they’re doing that from their professional, credited experience and point of view. But for us to start directing chiefs of emergency services from a political position, I think is a very slippery slope and something that we should not wander down the road of, whether on this issue or others. I wouldn’t presume to tell the Chief Medical Officer of Health when I’m asking mandate should or shouldn’t be put in place, and I don’t want to direct the fire chief in terms of how they feel fireworks should be regulated in the province.

I think there are some reasons that we have some challenges with these, and that is, as Councillor Truss out pointed out, different municipal jurisdictions choose to handle this issue very differently. And they do so, one would hope, with some consideration for the advice of their fire services, just as we’ve had open-air burn bans because of dry weather in the summer, and that’s not subject to our decision as council. The fire chief implements that of their own decision based on their professional experience. So I don’t want to spend time asking staff to go meet with civic administration in Toronto, and then take the time to write a report to us, to come back to this council for us to then debate again whether or not we should or shouldn’t consider directing the fire chief to do something.

So that’s why I won’t be supporting this, and I hope that this is the decision of council that we don’t support this. I don’t think it’s a good use of staff’s time, and I don’t think we should be taking positions, political positions on the chiefs of emergency services and how they position their best practices for their members and for the public at large on public safety. Councillor Ferriero. Thank you, through you.

So I agree, different municipalities have need required different directions and different policy, so they can be incorporated within the municipality specifically. But I do see that there’s some open space that needs to be filled here in the city of London, with respect to the safety component of basically with fireworks. And what I saw in that report, which is why I’m supporting it, is I do see that there’s a lot of safety components that are brought within that. So yes, it would be different whatever we develop here as a city, but we’re not at that point yet, we’re at the initial point, we’re trying to initiate this.

So I would believe that you would see a policy that’s more specific to London, but to initiate that is why I feel like this motion is appropriate, the motion, there’s some provisions in those reports that were circulated along with the motion are specifically for courses for fire safety. So we can mitigate and reduce the chances of people being hurt with the use of fireworks. So I would also say that this motion is directing a consulting with the Toronto Fire Department. So that’s why I would be supporting something like this, because I would like to see the safety component be increased.

It’s, like I said previously, my message and my votes are consistent and mostly when it comes to the safety component. You know, my ward and myself where I live, we’re in a very dense urban area. So people are a lot closer than they are in other parts of the city. So the safety component is increased because of that.

And this is why I believe that we need to look into this a little bit closer, which is why I’m supporting. I’m seconding this motion and why I will be voting with this motion. And again, it is being consistent with how I’ve been voting and how I’ve been speaking to this issue. Other speakers to Councillor Trostaz amendment.

Seeing none, then we can vote on the amendment. Close in the vote, motion fails four to 10. Okay, so we’re back to the as amended main motion. So look for speakers to that.

Don’t have any speakers to the main motion. So I’m gonna open the whole thing for voting. We’ll open it for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 11 to three.

There’s still some stuff left in Councillor Ploza’s board. I think it’s probably a good time for a break. I know some people haven’t had one yet and staff probably as well as Councillors probably need a few minutes. So I’ll look for someone to move, short break, Councillor Cuddy, pick a time, move a motion.

15 minutes, moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Frank. We’ll do this by hand. All of those in favor? Any opposed?

A motion carries. Thank you, please be seated. Right, back to Councillor Ploza. Somebody just asked me if we were dying caps, we are not.

We still have items for 12 and 13 to go, just to remind everyone. So I will put item four on the floor, being the approval of old Waddell, Jalna, end of mortgage exit agreement. And there is an amendment from a member of council to be put forward on this one. Okay, so number four is on the floor by the chair.

I don’t know who’s gonna amend it. Oh, Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. And I did send it over to the clerk.

So we had some back and forth with staff to make sure we were gonna land it in the right clause. So I believe it’s going in section B now as a new item. I will just read out the language so that colleagues are aware of what we’re adding here. And you’ll be aware that we did receive a communication from the housing provider last week as well.

Bear with me for just a moment ‘cause we’ve been back and forth. And the amendment simply reads under the new clause that civic administration be directed to apply the 2022 ARMs to establish the subsidy amounts in the agreement. Comma allow rental increases to the most current AMR on future vacancies and report back on a standard approach for future agreements in the financial analysis report for Q2. It being noted that the director of municipal housing development has communicated to municipal council in response to the correspondence of the provider’s board of directors that clause 5.1 with respect to the market rent units will be deleted.

Okay, seconder for that, Councillor Ploza. So that addition, that amendment is on the floor. I’ll let you provide some rationale and then I’ll gather the speaker’s list. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I’m gonna try and be very quick on this one. We received two different communications first from the provider’s manager and then from their board of directors after their board meeting last week. And there are a couple of things in the agreement that were problematic for them and they indicated that they wouldn’t be able to sign it as it was at that time. In conversation, both parties are civic administration and with the housing provider.

The clause 5 that Mr. Felberg has indicated can be removed was one of the sticking points. The other was that we were paying the AMR to 2022 and that it wouldn’t change over time. Obviously with an agreement that could run 30 years, the AMR may need to be updated in respective future vacancies to allow for long-term sustainability.

This is an end of mortgage exit agreements that the third party housing provider is entering into. They’re one of our providers who’s done a lot of work to maintain their properties as well as they can. They are looking at opportunities to intensify in the future so that they have more market rent units to supplement and support their rent care to income units. But this is part of what’s come out of the multi-year budget.

There was a business case in there to support these end of mortgage agreements and exit agreements with these third party providers so that we would retain the RGI units. Of course, we have to work within the budgets approved. They have to work within a framework that can work for them too. And so what this does is allows them to continue the discussion a little bit.

There’s already a clause in the recommendations that allows for the deputy city manager to amend the agreements as they move forward. So this allows them to continue the discussion and targets it in on the specific area of concern from the provider. So that’s the rationale for this amendment. Okay, speakers.

Councillor Ploza. Thank you to Deputy Mayor Lewis for his work on this one as the general properties within War 12 as the work counselor completely in support of this and making sure that it’s sustainable development for non-profit housing as we go forward as part of, say part of our responsibility to make sure that we make everyone as resilient as possible as the market still fluctuates. So asking for your support on this. All right, any other speakers?

Okay, seeing none, this is on the amendment to add the amendment as described by Deputy Mayor Lewis and now in these scribe. So we’ll open that, we’ll open that amendment for voting. Close on the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. And you’re willing to move the as amended motion.

Second, okay. So now we’re on the as amended motion. Any speakers to that? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Close on the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Councillor Ploza. Thank you. I’m gonna put item 12 being 4.1, 20, 24, rock the park one time policy exemption on the floor.

I’ll note that committee, we did have a delegation who came to speak to us of a local resident and staff have confirmed that this policy will be back for updating over all. Later this year, that will help address that currently the contract reads that anything over four days has to come to council for consideration. This is multiple years in a row that did come asking for that fifth day at committee. The conversations involved also the third station that’s gonna come back in later in 2024 as well for events and a colleague asked, do you know what the performers are?

Sadly, it was confirmed that it will not be Taylor Swift as Councillor Ferra had hoped, but it will be a country day, would be the fifth day that they’re hoping to add on to round out their compliments of offerings for this rock the park. Both my 15 and 13 year old dollars would love council to direct me to lobby to try to get Taylor Swift to come to town, but I’m not sure that’s gonna happen. Okay, so that’s on the floor. I’ll look for any comments, questions, changes.

Councillor Troceau, go ahead. Thank you, through the chair. I voted against this at committee and I’m gonna vote it against, I’m gonna vote against it now. If this were a situation where they have a special opportunity, they have a very desirable headliner in that fifth day, maybe, but basically what I see is I see this entity coming to us time and time again for an extension.

There are reasons why we have these limitations in effect, and I would like to remind people, maybe the ward councilor can help me on this, there are people who live very close by and they understand that there’s gonna be rock the park. They understand that, but it’s like four days is enough. And if we’re going to make changes to the overall policies, I want to see some additional reforms, particularly about water service put into that contract. So I just think that this is not something I can support.

I hear too many complaints, I hear complaints in my own neighborhood, and five nights, people should not have to deal with that for five nights. And people are saying, we want a vibrant city, it’s a music city. Sure, of course, you’ve got a festival that’s going on for four days and nights, not five, not this year. Go ahead, Councillor Ferriero.

Thank you, Chair. Through you. I will also not be supporting this as I did not at committee, and I can speak to some of the residents who live near the area. There’s neighborhoods that flank this entire area.

Specifically, I went for a walk with some residents in Blackfriars about a week ago or two weeks ago, and they did express their concerns with the extra day. They did express their concerns with rock the park altogether, but I did say that we are a music city, and those four days I do feel is sufficient at this moment. However, that extra day I feel is just a little bit too much. So with express from what I’ve heard from residents, especially after we spoke to this, I cannot be supporting that extra day, especially if we don’t know specific acts that are going to be there.

I understand it will be the theme of country, and I did ask for, I guess, Taylor Swift to be at that concert, and I did say that would move me, because I do understand there would be a huge beneficial economic impact for the area. However, if we don’t know exactly who it’s going to be, that’s just not enough to move to sway me, to vote for that extra day, ‘cause I already have concerns with the four days as it is. So with respect to the residents who live in the areas around that area or around Harris Park, I cannot be supporting this extra day. Okay, I have myself and the speakers still turn the chair over to Councillor Ramen.

Thank you, I have the chair. Go ahead, Mayor Morgan. Thank you, so I’m going to support the extra day. I want to say, first off, I know that there’s certainly impacts on large-scale events downtown on the population there, but this is the 20th anniversary of Rock the Park.

Also happens to be the 30th anniversary of Sunfest. Like, this is going to be a big year for music, and although, yes, they have come back time and time again, and yes, we can change the rules, I don’t think this is the year to deny the exemption in a year where they’re celebrating a significant milestone in not only the fans that they attract to the downtown and the city, but also all of the economic injection that happens. I had the ability, a couple of years back, as Deputy Mayor, to introduce one of the acts, and when I went on stage, I said, “How many people are here from London?” People put up their hand, “How many people are here from out of town?” And literally 60% of people were from out of town. Well, guess what’s gonna happen?

60% of people come in from out of town. They’re in the downtown core. They’re going to restaurants. They’re going to bars.

They’re creating an economic injection downtown. Yes, there are consequences to that, but in a downtown that is struggling to recover, I think another day of an economic injection down there for the local businesses is something that is needed, as well as celebrating the 20th anniversary of this, very important and very exciting event that people look forward to in the city. And I’d say the same thing about Sunfest. I think there are these, the downtown, it’s hard to have it both ways, right?

You want an exciting vibrant downtown. People are going to come, play, shop, entertain, live, right? This is what’s gonna happen, right? There’s gonna be entertainment in the downtown core.

We’re gonna draw people in from outside the city. They’re gonna come here. They’re gonna spend money here. They’re gonna be entertained here.

They’re gonna leave with a good impression of our city. So can we make improvements in the future? Sure, can we should be be looking at the general exemptions in length of time in the by-law? Yeah, I just don’t think this is the year not to grant the exemption, given the significance of the 20th anniversary.

Thank you, returning the chair to you with Councilor Perbal on the list. Councilor Perbal. Thank you, I would like to make a comment and my decision is same as the committee. I’m very much in support of this extra day.

And I did mention it actually at the committee as well, that even though I have a business, my clientele, it’s actually, I have to say it’s not always productive or disfestival for me. The reason why is because my clientele, it’s not really my clientele. And my usual clientele actually says the parking lot beside you is full and we have to walk further. Having said that, I tremendously supported.

I think it’s a great festival. I don’t think the additional day is gonna be a game changer in terms of certain situations, what we’re stated here. And for the residents that are nearby and are listening or hear this music, I thank you all very much for understanding and making our downtown the opportunity to be vibrant. And I said it last time as well.

When I see the hundreds of people walking down with big smiles and enjoying themselves, I think that’s what London is about. That’s what downtown is about. And again, thank you, the residents for understanding the ones that are not potentially fully supportive of the five days. Thank you.

Any other speakers on this? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to two. Councilor Palosa.

Thank you, the last one I’ll put on the floor was we had additional business item come up, which was, I deemed it as chair to be emergent in nature. As it dealt with a request from Councillor Stevenson who was not a member of committee in regards to the Hong parking app incentives that were due to end at the end of March. This was the next council meeting to deal with those. The motion did fail at committee, but it did get it on the committee agenda for council had noticed that it was coming.

I will note that I believe there’s one or two different motions floating around out there for the chair to be aware of. Okay, so what we have actually from the committee is just an it being noted because there’s nothing in the past the committee, but there’s no take no action. So, you know, it’s an opportunity to pitch an alternative here at council. So I’ll go to council colleagues to see what they’re looking to do on this.

I see Councilor Ferra, go ahead. And then Councillor Stevenson, I have you next. And I’ll put you on the list. So I have an alternative to the motion and I did change it.

I did circulate a motion, but I have an alternative that I hope will work for everyone. And it does look for a source of funding. So I guess I’ll speak to this one first. So I have changed my position from what I voted on and what I spoke to at committee, simply because I’ve had a pretty good influx of communications coming in from merchants downtown that are looking to have some sort of free parking availability for their patrons coming to their location.

So I guess I would, should I, is this the time that I could put that motion? Yes, yes. And so we’re not gonna replace what’s there ‘cause it’s what’s there is true. The committee did have that discussion.

So you’re looking to amend to add a direction. I believe you circulated it, do me a favor. If you could read it or if you don’t have it, I know that you give it to the clerks. I could have the clerk read it.

And then I’ll look for a seconder and then you can provide your rationale. Yeah, I can do that. I’ll read it. I do have some questions for staff.

I’d like to ask for the timelines and everything. But the amendment is that civic administration be directed to report back to the next community and protective services committee meeting with a source of funding for issuing free one hour on street parking, along with special event exemptions in the core area for the 2024 calendar year. Okay, the seconder for that. Okay, Deputy Mayor Loose is willing to second, and I saw Council approval too, but I’ll go with the Deputy Mayor was first.

Okay, that’s on the floor. Now on the amendment, you can provide your rationale. If you have questions for staff, you can ask those too. But you’ll be on a timer for both, so go ahead.

Okay, so basically this amendment is looking for free on street parking in the core area. It doesn’t involve any of the municipal lots as my first motion had, it did have that, but I pulled those just because I understand the issues with just running that type of program. Basically, I’m looking for your support to approve this because there’s not too much choice for merchants downtown, especially considering the mobility share that we see with personal vehicles at the time, at this present moment. I do wanna see the city use other alternative ways to move around, and I’d like to, and basically what we saw in our mode share in our Mobility Master Plan discussion, I’d like to see that, but we’re not there right now.

So this is why I’m asking for this right now. I don’t see this as something that’s gonna go indefinitely. I see this as something that should be linked with the Mobility Master Plan or our mode shares, whatever it looks, as we start getting more development on what we see on our infrastructure, how it’s built and how people move around. I would like to see those two linked.

I would basically, I’m just asking right now, so I’m asking for council to support us to provide that free on street parking, so we can actually not have a new barrier that we’re raising for people to come to merchants downtown. So basically, that’s what I’m trying to move here. I also would say that the on street parking component for me is the most important, and I do also would like to also point out that the core area does touch into the old East Village area as well. So this would be a motion that would capture both, and I’m looking for your support.

Okay, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Thank you, worship, and I will preface my comments here by saying I’m also gonna be supportive of Councillor Stevenson’s look for support in old East Village for some parking as well, but I’ll keep my remarks to Councillor Ferreira’s amendment right now, I’m happy to second this. Councillor Ferreira and I had an opportunity to talk, and I think that this is a good way, a good interim step between having the two hour core code that we can use anywhere to starting to wean off of that, limiting it to one hour. It still accommodates those stop-in, pick up the thing that you ordered, or maybe browse a little bit in the aisles while you’re waiting for your order, kind of thing, and still keeping the turnover going, still opening up spots for others.

By taking out the Municipal Lots, that’s really important to me, because as we just spoke about in the last item, summer festivals draw a lot of people downtown, and I don’t wanna forgo the revenue of people parking six or eight hours in the Municipal Lot. That revenue was planned for, and I think we need to start collecting it again, but I think this is a reasonable interim step. I will say, and I know I’ve had this discussion with the OIV BIA as well, we do have to establish a plan where this just does not become a continual extension of free parking and perpetuity, but we are going from a very extensive program to what would right now be nothing. And I think that a middle step in between is reasonable.

I support having staff come back to community protective services with a recommendation. I think the source of funding is important because we had planned for this funding in our budget, but perhaps the Economic Development Reserve Fund or another source of funding for the short term might be appropriate for this sort of stimulus to our downtown, but I’m gonna let Ms. Barbone’s finance team provide a recommendation on that rather than jumping to that conclusion myself. The other thing I will say is, this is gonna come back to committee, and there’ll be still an opportunity for us to tweak that.

We’re not committing to something completely right now, but I will say that moving forward, I would like to see the BIA is working with our civic administration to find a way to be partners in this. Maybe that’s some sort of free parking chip that they get with a purchase so that the next time they’re downtown, they get to park for free for an hour or something like that, where the BIA’s are collectively buying some time from us, but that’s a step further down the road. I want to give them that time to start thinking about how to be partners, because the BIA’s do have a levy, and if there’s a real value to the parking, then I think the BIA’s should contribute through their levy back to this, but that’s going to be something that’s gonna take some time to hammer out. It probably is going to need some work by our IT folks and our partners at HOMP to figure out how that can work with the software, but I think it’s a discussion worth having.

So for now, I’m gonna support sending this to committee. As it is, if we can find a reasonable source of funding, I’ll support doing that for this year. But to me, this is a step back from the overall program, and I want to continue to step back from it, because at some point, parking needs to pay for parking. Okay, thank you.

And Councillor Stevenson, I’m my apologies for skipping you, because we were on the amendment. I think you had another amendments, probably best if we just deal with this one first, then in the as amended motion, we could get your amendment in too, but so if you want to speak to the amendment, I see if you want to speak to the amendment you can, but I’m gonna give you the chance to make your amendment once we get this one dealt with. Is that okay? Okay, yeah, that sounds good.

And I’ll just echo my support for this new amendment. Great, okay, other speakers, Councillor Trostoff. Could I ask staff if they could reiterate what the cost and with regard to loss revenue will be under the amendment that the Councillor has put forward? Mr.

May, there’s a three-year worship. We don’t have calculations for this new amendment, but in that report we brought forward last June. The summary was approximately 2022, approximately 942,000. That’s what presented in that previous report.

That was for two-hour parking. That was for, sorry, just so people understand the context. That’s two hours, anywhere including city lots, which this one I believe is restricted to on street parking. Is that correct?

Three-year worship, yes, that was all the core area parking. Councillor Trostoff. I’m still grappling with how do we get people out of their cars if we continue and believe me, I’m very sympathetic to the ward, Councillor. I understand what he’s going through.

I just am having a difficult time squaring this request, not the first time tonight. So it’s probably not the most egregious one in my opinion. But I’m still having a hard time with this because every time we grant a temporary, a temporary extension, we’re making it less temporary. We just did the same thing with respect to the park.

We have to be more consistent. And I’m just very worried that we’re never really gonna get to the point where we encourage people to take other types of transportation to get downtown and take these events. And I know that there are people who are supporting this amendment in good faith are very sympathetic to what I’m saying. So this is a very difficult question for me.

And the same thing is gonna come up, same exact same thing is gonna come up in the next vote. But I’m not persuaded yet. And I know that that’s gonna make me very unpopular with certain people. Probably not as unpopular as other things that have happened tonight, but I know that people are gonna be annoyed with me if I vote no on this.

But I’m just, I need more, I’m not there yet. I mean, what can staff tell me in terms of how is this going to segue and not be just another temporary measure? How is this going to segue in being a more sustainable type of practice? And that’s an honest question.

I wanna hear that. I hate sitting down at council ‘cause that’s it. But I’m gonna sit down. All right, thank you.

I assumed the last question was rhetorical, so I’m not gonna get stopped yet. No, actually it was— No, actually it was helping me find a solution to this. Mr. May as you can give a shot if you want, but— Through your worship.

When this is brought forward, it was as part of the core action plan. So looking at trying to that COVID recovery and also trying to provide some benefits at the core and it was only intended to be a short time program. So any extension for council will be at your own purview and that would be the rationale for having to move forward. Okay, I have council ramen next.

Thank you and through you. I’m just wondering if someone can clarify for me, what does it mean with special event exemption in the core area for the 2024 calendar year? I’m gonna go to the mover on that first. Go ahead.

Thank you, I can answer that. There’s specific events downtown that I understand are large revenue generators for the municipal lots, like Sunfest, like Rock the Park and other events like that. So I stuck that in there. So staff would come up with that exemptions list where this would not, you would not see one hour free parking on those days on city streets in the core area.

Council ramen. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. I read that differently.

I read that to mean that you wanted special event exemptions. So I’m just hoping that we can clarify the language a little bit better because I think that it could be perceived another way, the way that it’s kind of written. But I hear what the mover and seconder are saying about an interim step. And it’s not that I don’t agree with you.

I’m just thinking that the two hour mark was one where people were meeting in need of not just stopping in, but actually spending a bit of time in the downtown. And I see that as productive and useful for the intention of driving business and engagement downtown. The one hour I actually see is more of a, hey, I’m stopping in to pick something up and leave the core. So I’m not sure if that was the intention, but I’m wondering if we see this as something where staff may come back and has some sort of an add on to this.

So if you’re using the app, you can pay for one hour or sorry, you get one hour free and pay for the additional hours, which you can right now with the, if it’s a build up versus a one hour free with the expectation that you’re just using that hour. Because I think that’s actually counterproductive for what we’re actually trying to accomplish, which is keeping people in the downtown for some time to enjoy the downtown and spend some money. I think that’s a comment, great. So all right, thank you.

I do hear your thoughts on the language. The councilor’s creating a thing and then creating an exemption to it, which is like back to the status quo. So we’ll see if we can wear that differently. I certainly know staff understands what we’re doing.

So in the report back, we’re not gonna get it wrong, but we’ll work on that momentarily and see if that can be a little bit cleaned up. I’ll just, I’ll take, I’ll take some leeway with that and see if there’s a way and I’ll let you know. But for now I’m gonna continue with the speaker’s list of Councilor Hopkins, Councilor Frank and then Councilor Plaza. Yeah, thank you.

You worship in, I’m glad. So the councilor made a few changes, but I too have a lot more questions with this direction coming to us. And one of the things that I’m okay with is a report back and I would like to see within this report back a little bit more information on how this is gonna be supporting businesses in our downtown core. I appreciate the intent and maybe, you know, the compromise, but I always get cautious.

When we start to compromise and try to do both sides and we end up getting ourselves into a situation where we’re taking away from supporting the downtown core. And I would have liked to see in the two hours and more information on the effects, the economic effects in fact of going from two hours to one hour, I can understand not doing anything with create another problem, but I’m okay right now supporting this with a report back. Councilor Frank. Thank you.

I’ll start off my remarks with despite my deep appreciation for the work that downtown London and all of our BAs do. I’m not supportive of this motion. I assume that comes at no surprise. To me, giving away taxpayer subsidized free parking feels a little bit like we’re social engineering people’s transportation choices by making driving the most convenient.

And I’d really hate for this council to be accused of doing any social engineering of people’s transportation choices. In my opinion, this is a free city that relies on a free market and free markets don’t really rely on government handouts to encourage parking. As well, I think we are being asked this year as a community or by the community and by the mayor actually to look for savings and make tough choices, including potentially looking at areas of savings. And to me, this is an area of savings.

In fact, it’s lost revenue that we could be using to offset other property tax increases in the future. So I don’t really feel comfortable adding expenses in a year in which we’re already loving an 8.7% increase. And in regards to the temporary nature of this, I’ve seen how temporary parking lots are downtown. So I’m not entirely confident that extending this will only occur one time.

And I could actually see it occurring many times because I’m sure that many people enjoy having taxpayer subsidized parking. So I won’t be supporting it for those decisions. But if there was a parking lot downtown, that was privately owned and perhaps wanted to offer its services to the city, that is something I’d be interested in, but I don’t really wanna allocate taxpayer money to do this. Thank you.

Councilor Palosa. Thank you. I have a few questions on this. And then I’ll make comments.

Thank you to Council Member for already clarifying the special events be exempted from the one hour parking promotion. I’m assuming the attention is to do this to the honk app that we already have in place. I see a nod from the mover. Looking to staff to see if we could still utilize the core code on certain, like core discount code on these city streets or if we’re gonna need a new code ‘cause I don’t like to build up a suspense.

‘Cause if not, or even if we do, my next question to you, you can answer at the same time is gonna be, how do we publicly get this information out? Is this not gonna involve a public campaign from the city? Letting everyone know that we do it. If it’s a different code, we have to re-stick or all the parking meters.

So just really looking for like maybe the unintentional hidden costs should be moved forward with this decision. Mr. Mathers, through your worship, we would be able to use that same code. We’d be just be looking at it subsidizing a different amount of time.

And we would use our normal processes. So we would reach out to the BIA’s, get that out to their members so that they can represent that on their webpage, change it on the city’s webpage and work with their communications folks. So don’t have a huge concern about getting the word out once that’s established. Thank you.

Could staff also confirm if the free code and the promotion used for the city bike lockers is also ending or has ended on March 31st as well. ‘Cause we did a promotion with that to recognize people to choose the motor transportation that they will. Mr. McRae.

Through your worship, we can get more information on that and coordinate the bike parking into this promo if that’s the desire. Thank you, recognizing those bike storage lockers are also downtown and people would be using those as well if that’s their chosen mode of transportation. I do appreciate that we went through a multi- or budget process, hard decisions were made. And we really did choose not to find the other things that we thought would have been of key value to the city serving many.

I have heard from a few residents who said that they didn’t want to pay for the parking after they already paid for a ticket downtown to see a lovely concert and a high priced dinner out. For those residents, I would say you certainly had the means to pay for the parking and it is a destination. There are wonderful things, absolutely downtown. Great residents and great entertainment options.

And there is a high cost of free parking. We are foregoing revenue and we are incentivizing certain modes of transportation over others. We have not supportive of this motion. Any other speakers to this?

Seeing none, I just want to check. We have some alternate wording that maybe we’ll clear this up. If you could just let me read it out. Okay, the civic administration be directed to report back to the next community and protective services committee meeting with a source of funding for issuing one hour free parking, sorry, one hour on street parking and the ability to suspend free one hour on street parking during special events in the core of the 2024 calendar year.

Is that way more clear? Okay, Councillor Ferri. The core area should probably be referenced in that motion because it’s within the core area. Yeah, and it’s the last thing special events in the core area for 2024 calendar year.

It’s in there, okay? So I don’t want to have to do a whole thing. So everybody was just for clarity. So the mover’s good with it.

Second, is anybody object on council to change the language to that? Okay, nobody does. So that’s great. Councillor Stevenson, you have your hand up still.

Is that because, but you’ve provided some brief comments to this amendment already. So I’m going to vote on it. Okay, perfect. Okay, all good, everybody’s spoken.

We’re going to then open this better worded amendment or modified wording amendment for consideration. This is just an amendment to the staff report. And then I think Councillor Stevenson has a subsequent amendment if it should this one pass or fail she can make hers. Who’s in the vote, motion carries 10 to four.

Okay, I need a mover and a seconder for the as amended motion. Councillor Frayer, you’re willing to move the as amended motion. Okay, seconder, still willing to. Okay, Deputy Mayor is willing to second.

Okay, so now the as amended motion, new speakers list. Now I can go to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. And I’m not clear why the motion came as in it being noted instead of a failed motion when it was moved and seconded, but regardless what I would like to do is move that motion as a part B to this one.

Councillor, the reason why it came this way is just so I can explain something procedurally is there are many motions, a committee that fail and they’re in the committee’s report as additional votes. But the committee’s intention was to give a foothold at council for people who wanted to come forward with possible changes like Councillor Frayer and yourself wanted to do. In the absence of them forwarding the it being noted clause, there would be nothing that made it through committee. And so no ability to raise any changes here.

So I believe that was, the committee’s intent was to give you the option to do this here ‘cause in the absence of it being here, you wouldn’t have that option. So— No, I appreciate that option. Yeah, so you would be moving an additional amendment. So there’s the it being noted.

There’s now Councillor Frayer has a change in there and now you’re moving an additional amendment that you can articulate now. And then they all kind of go together. So I’ll let you make that pitch. If you could outline what your amendment is and then I’ll look for a seconder and then you can provide your rationale.

Yeah, my amendment is that civic administration be directed to implement a reduced parking incentive as a pilot project until the end of Q3 2024 for municipal lots one and two. Utilizing the existing honk mobile application. Okay, and I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for that Councillor Pribbles willing to second that. Okay, so that amendments on the floor, Councillor Stevenson, you can go ahead and provide your rationale for it.

Yeah, thank you. I did circulate a letter to Council and I hope everyone’s had the time to read it. My request here is for a unique and temporary solution to a problem that exists in those two lots. And it’s a problem we’re all aware of.

Action is currently being taken to address the issues. And I do see this as being a temporary thing in addition to what Councillor Frara has brought forward as a more long-term thing for the parking. So I just want to be clear that there was talk of potentially there being foregone revenue of 80 to 100,000 estimated by staff. But that would be foregone revenue.

I don’t see that this proposal or pilot project is going to cost almost anything at all. It’s been very clear from the communication from residents and visitors that they are unwilling to pay the full rate to park in those two lots given the current situation. So it really is a question not about revenue, but a question of will there be cars using those lots to shop, eat and be entertained during the critical six-month period where the business community and the neighborhood community and, you know, frankly, the city is committed to addressing the issues here and doing what is needed to ensure that this is a temporary request only and that this area is revitalized. It’s a unique situation.

This is a unique proposal and it’s the unique area. We’ve got the National Historic Site. We’ve got heritage buildings that need to be protected during this period of time. And having the activity in those parking lots is going to support and ensure the success of the $500,000 investment.

There’s a lot of events being supported there. We need the activity there to ensure the protection of those buildings. We’re having damage, significant damage to those heritage buildings. And it’s supported by staff.

It’s a short-term in nature. It has little to no real financial cost and it has huge potential benefits to the low-income residents we have in that area to the arts community and to tourism during the summer period. So I’m really asking for council support. This area has stepped up in terms of providing the 120-cold weather alert beds.

We’re really doing our part in terms of helping to address the needs of the homeless and the addiction crisis that we have. And this is a no-cost, low-cost, short-term support that would go a long way and mean a lot to what we all need and want in this area is to have another vibrant and unique community for Londoners and visitors who come to the city to come and find out how great the city and this area is. So I’m really looking for council support on this and I’ll be thankful and grateful in advance for that. Point of order, go ahead.

Thank you, I weighed to the councilor was done. The councilor said that this was supported by staff as there was no staff report that came and it was a councilor initiative ‘cause she just clarified what staff, if she’s talking like city and side staff or if this is like BIA staff, just we’re told it’s supported by staff and there’s no report. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I don’t think that’s a point of order but the councilor, I’ll let the councilor answer just ‘cause everybody’s probably wondering, so go ahead.

And I don’t want to put words in anybody’s mouth but I went to Mr. Koutolik around what could possibly be done to support during this time and this was the recommended wording and the recommended solution. I had brought a few others that those were discounted for whatever reason and this is what was recommended to me. It does not talk about the core area two hour free parking.

I’ve left that up to city staff to come up with whatever will work best for this pilot project and so it was in my opinion supported by city staff and that they recommended this be the wording of something that they felt would work and not be of concern financially and it of course is also supported by the BIA staff as well which I hope everyone saw the letter there from Mr. Morrison. Yes, so now I understand why the councilor has asked it, not technically a point of order but let me just say to you councilor Stevenson, I think we’ll just be cautious about saying staff is supportive of a proposal. I think they can be supportive of the council developing the right language and structure that is very implementable but I don’t want to, I don’t want to put our staff on the spot to say they’re specifically supportive of this councilor’s proposal going to council.

I mean, you’ll make your case, council will decide whether supportive staff will implement but I think Mr. Kottolik and what I hear has been very supportive of you in developing a functional proposal from staff’s perspective that could be implemented, so. Do we have staff’s comments then on that just to clarify? I see Mr.

Mather’s nodding, but he can comment, sure. Through your worship, we’re always very happy to help people, a councilor’s craft motion so that was what Mr. Kottolik was doing this situation. At this point, we have a resolution from council that said that this was going to be, that the temporary program was going to be concluding so that’s what we’ve been receding with.

If council wants to consider something differently, we’re going to be supportive and be able to provide you the wording that do that, do bring that forward without causing unintended consequences. So I just, councilor, I don’t want to drag this out but I just, why we’re being very clear about this is, staff have a council direction to end the, like the extension ends, so I’m not going to put, Mr. Kottolik on the record saying he’s supportive of something that’s counter to council’s direction. He’s helped you with this.

If council passes it, staff are going to be super supportive of implementing this in all the possible ways that they can, but that’s just the unique difference. Now the BIA can be as supportive as they like. If they’ve said they’re supportive, that’s great. They can make that decision, but staff essentially takes our direction as council.

And so I just, I think we get hung up in the language, but to me it sounds like you got a very functional proposal on the table, yeah. I hear you and what I’m saying is this is, this is a unique different pilot project. It is not a continuation of the core area thing that council said was going to end at the end of March. And my indication around city staff supporting it was in the budgeting of it, right?

That the 80 to 100,000 was low enough. This was a way to be able to make it work without needing specific funding arrangement. So that’s what I was talking about. Okay, I appreciate that context.

I have one question for you, Councilor, before others ask it. In your motion, it says a reduced parking incentive. Can you just explain to colleagues what that actually means so we can ensure that we’re all on the same page on what that is? So again, at the request of staff, it was left big for them to determine what might be the right way to do it.

It’s a pilot project for them to experiment with and I’m happy with whatever they come up with. Okay, that’s for colleagues to know why I was worded that way. So there you go. I’ll start the speakers list on this moved and seconded amendment now, Councilor Palosa.

Thank you, I have a few questions on this one. Seeing that it’s a project to be implemented with an end date of Q3 2024 through you to staff. How quickly could they implement this? Should it pass at Council this evening?

Through you, through your worship, we would first likely bring back a report to Council ‘cause we don’t have a source of financing for this. We’d likely want to integrate this into the other work that we’re continuing, but we’d take that direction from yourselves. But at this point, we don’t have a source of financing to support it, so we’d have to make sure we lock that down. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, there’s room. My next question of what’s the source of financing? So seeing as there’s no source of financing, I’m assuming in a nod for Mr. Mayor to be fine that they would need this parking lot, would it need an exemption code like we use for the core area versus just paint the sign of park here for free in the lot.

I’m just worried about people parking for longer durations as the motion doesn’t specify if it’s an hour or two free or enjoy overnight parking for free and just, which would not be the intention, I’m sure, if anyone trying to get more residents to shop through you to staff? Mr. Mayor’s, through your worship, we’d likely use a very similar code to the core code so that that could be used for this pilot project. Thank you.

I won’t be supportive of this one either. And I do appreciate the BIA reaching out in Mr. Morrison for being with us this evening and answer questions that I had along the way to him. I would suggest that this has similar language that it would come back with the report, identifying a source of financing at which point staff could have a code and tell us how it operate.

And I would also say in fairness, even though I’m not supportive of it, that the dates are real aligned, realizing staff would need time to get a code back and implementation that the work the council is trying to do, if personally just put, ended 2024 and aligning with the other one, which would also help cover off some of the shopping season along the holidays. So those are my, I’m so not supportive but I think there’s a better way to maybe help serve the community. I’ll leave my comments there. Councilor Hopkins.

Thank you, Worship. And I am, I wonder if the Councillor would be open to a friendly amendment to add that we direct civic administration with a report back and to find available or a source of funding for this pilot project. I’m not sure if it’s a friendly amendment but I would offer that. Just give me a second, Councillor.

First off, I’m not gonna, there’s no, there’s not gonna be friendly amendments to council but I’m just gonna make sure if you want to make that amendment that you could, I just have a question on the question. So, sorry, Councillor Stevenson. Well, I just have a point of order on this as well. Like I, it was left vague.

There’s no amount of reduction on the parking nor time limit. Staff, the way I was not asked to find funding for this. I was told that this as it was was workable within the current budget. So, that was the reason to leave it vague and to let staff do their bit.

It was a pilot project for them to experiment and see what could be done for that area. So, I’m not sure why now it’s coming up around the need for funding. So, okay. I’m gonna have people stop talking for a moment.

I don’t know what was said before but what on the council floor, Mr. Mathers has said is they would need to report back with a source of funding. So, if Councillor Hopkins wants to amend the motion to be specific that they would report back with that source of funding, they may even clarify what the reduced parking incentive is at the time. Like, that’s an amendment that we could take.

I, Councillor, I don’t know specifically the discussions that you’ve had but I have to deal with the information that comes on the council or the council’s floor and it sounds like people are trying to help get this to a spot where they can get the information to be supportive. So, we’re gonna proceed with the information we have on the council floor at the moment and I can certainly have staff answer more questions but Councillor Hopkins, if you wanted to make the amendment as you’re describing, I’m not gonna have it as friendly because we shouldn’t, I don’t wanna get in the habit of having friendly amendments to council that it’s just gonna go down a road that probably wastes more time than it solves. So, let’s just, if you wanna make an amendment, make an amendment to do that and then I can see if there’s a secondary, we can debate that. Thank you, Your Worship.

I would like to put forward then an amendment to that civic administration be directed to report back against to the next CPSC meeting with a source of funding and further information regarding the reduced parking incentive. The reason I’m putting that for amendment forward for me to make a decision on this, I would like more information and to hear back from staff and it will give us time to understand the implications as well to the community. Okay, that’s an amendment that Councillor Hopkins wants to make to the amendment and an amendment to the amendment is fine. Is there a seconder for that?

Yes, that’s a second? Through you, it is a second. I would say with the reduced parking incentive, that language is a little confusing to me, I would remove that and I would second that. And if you could harmonize the timelines with the other motion, I would second that.

Okay, I don’t want the cross debate, but Councillor, I’m happy to remove the, hold on, I gotta make sure I’m reading the right motion here. The implementation of the reduced parking incentive is a power project. Is that the piece that you wanna remove? Yeah, I’d be fine with that as well.

Listen, I understand what you’re saying. I’m gonna make, I don’t wanna have everybody amend the language. So I understand the intent, it sounds like you have a seconder, we’re gonna get the language, I’m gonna tell it to you, you’re gonna see if you want it, then we’re gonna proceed. Okay, so I’m gonna deem the amendment to be in order because it’s still an incentive on those lots.

It aligns with what staff said about the need to get some information back. And the wording that would make sense given what I’ve said, although the colleagues have to be comfortable putting this forward is, so this is all part of the motion to be further amended as follows. The civic administration be directed to report back in a future meeting of CPSC regarding a source of financing for the parking incentive in municipal lots one and two. I removed reduced parking incentive and incentive is a reduction in parking, so you don’t need to, saying both is actually a little bit, I just don’t think it’s necessary because an incentive is a subsidization of parking.

So is that okay with you, Councillor Hopkins and seconder for Eira? Okay, that’s— You worship, if I can interrupt, there was a source of funding in that. Yeah, it says that there. Like a request for a source of funding.

Yeah, we’re gonna put it up right now so you can see it. Okay, you can just refresh and you’ll be able to see it. And if the mover and seconder are good, I’m gonna start a speaker’s list for the amendment of the amendment. Okay, Councillor or Stevenson, I’ll get to you in a sec.

I’m just making sure there’s nods. Are you done making your case for the amendment, Councillor? ‘Cause you only get to speak once. I am looking for support on this amendment and I think it’s important that we try to support the businesses in the area as well.

I have Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor Ferrera and then Pribble. So go ahead Councillor Stevenson. I just had a question for staff regarding the need for funding. Is it not possible that there’d be a way to provide an incentive without needing a source of funding that it could be as a pilot project experimented with to see what could be done without needing a source of funding?

I’m gonna go to Ms. Remol, I think, to start. Thank you through the chairs. So given that our budget has just been passed for the next four years through the process that we just all went through, the funding for the parking revenue has already been identified for the various lots.

So any form of pilot program or reduction in revenue would create a shortfall in what is anticipated in the budget. Therefore, any pilot project that we anticipate that would create a reduction to what is in the budget from a revenue perspective would need to be filled. Otherwise, there would be a shortfall. So in those cases, particularly for any pilot projects, a temporary one-time source of revenue where it could be from a reserve fund or something that would be appropriate on one time would certainly be appropriate in this case, but certainly there would be a shortfall that we would need to make whole, given that there is a temporary loss of revenue or are projected to be declined.

Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thank you. I just wanna be really clear then and not put Mr. Catolic in any kind of position that I appreciate the support that I got from him regarding this proposal.

And I don’t want to in any way put words in his mouth around the funding that could have been my interpretation. Sorry, Councillor, I apologize. I actually missed what you said because I’m just preparing the motion for the extension of time past six. Did you ask a question or I just missed your last sentence?

No, I just didn’t. I wanted to just be really clear that I appreciated the support that I received from Mr. Catolic regarding this wording and the opportunity around possibilities for what could be done to alleviate the, to address the social disorder issues that we have in those two lots. Those two lots are very different than the rest of our municipal lots currently, ideally a short term.

And I just wanna be really clear that I appreciated his support. And if I made any conclusions around not needing funding that I just don’t want to have put any words in his mouth around that, I did appreciate the support and the ideas. And if funding is needed, then that was something that I should have looked into separately for this. And I do want my colleagues to understand the urgency in this area, we’ve got volunteers who are supporting the cold weather beds.

We’ve got a dire situation in those lots and those businesses that, like I said, is unique to the others. And so if there is some way to move forward faster than what is being presented, because we’re talking about the end of April, we’re into the end of May before anything happens and this area could really use the support right now. So I was happy with my original motion and I’ll leave it to my colleagues, but I would like there to be the urgent issue that we have there now to be addressed in addition to the entire core area strategy for parking, which I’m totally supportive as well. But there, I brought this as an emergent motion because it’s an emergent issue.

And now this amendment is making it not emergent. So I’ll leave it with my colleagues. Okay, thank you. I’m gonna look for a mover and a seconder for a motion to extend past 6 p.m.

Moved by Councillor Ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. That’ll be in the system. I assume there’s no debate. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Mr. Stevenson. So Stevenson votes yes. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to two.

Now have Councillor Ferreira. Thank you to you. So at this time, I will be supporting this motion just because I am looking for that report back. I always like more information.

Now I would also preface that with, I dropped all the municipal lots in my original motion because I do understand that there’s issues with using the core code and individuals using that extra money to kind of pay for an entire day on how the municipal parking lots are used. So that’s why I dropped that. And I would also say that the on-street parking for the core area does touch into the OUV within this area as well. But because it is a report back, just like the one that we have, that this is being attached to the original motion that I put on, I would be supportive of it because I do want to see what staff can bring back to us on that.

Okay, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, I’m supporting this initiative. Sorry, actually I’ll come back to it because now it’s the regarding the motion. I do have a question regarding fire finance team, through the chair, through the mayor.

Because if you have a shortfall, I take this as a revenue loss and if you have a shortfall, so let’s say my question is this, if you are predicting that certain parking lot is going to generate $100,000 and there’s going to be 5,000 cars parked there. Instead, if it’s going to be 2,000 and the generated revenue is going to be 6,500. So the shortfall of 3,500, we always find funding or sorts of financing. Don’t we just report it as a shortfall on the revenue?

Ms. Bergman. Thank you, Chair. So certainly that is one option that could be considered.

That is a possibility. Given this is termed as a pilot, there is a cost and given that the budgets were already done, it is prudent to be able to have a sense of how much it would cost and then you could monitor against that, to be able to make that up. Alternatively, council could choose not to put a financing source forward, but then it gets a little bit murky in terms of there is a cost to providing a reduced amount and that is typically what we did in the past. When it was originally approved, there was an amount in the multi-year budget from the last multi-year budget that did account for the cost of the loss and revenue for the parking on those as a result of that core code.

So given that that doesn’t exist anymore, that would certainly be the best way we would advocate for. However, council could choose to just have a shortfall and then that would be reported through surplus monitoring regularly throughout the year. Okay, thank you. Now I understand the difference in terms of the pilot project and the way you would wanna approach it.

Actually, through motion, I don’t have any more. To the amendment, I will speak to the main motion after. Thank you. Okay, any other speakers to the amendment?

Of the amendment? Yes, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you. Yeah, I will not be supporting this motion.

I appreciate that it was amended to not be an emergent motion, but I think it also muddies the water further by it not being emergent. I do see that the difference between this motion and the other, which I did not support as well, but I do think if we have two programs that would be running, that would be different for municipal lots, but only in one and two and also on street. I think we’re going to lead to further confusion and maybe not have the intended outcome. And I do think there are going to be costs to promote the fact that this is available, that we’re also not contemplating as well.

I understand the intent and again, supportive of the area of businesses and wanting to see some of those concerns addressed, but I will say that some of the concerns we’re talking about addressing, we have addressed in other areas of the budget. We just need to give those areas of the budget time to be able to see those realized costs, I guess. So I do think that this is an area where we’re trying to solve a problem in kind of a one-off solution and it would be something that we hadn’t budgeted for. It’s something that we hadn’t contemplated during the budgeting process.

And now we’re doing it without a revenue source by way of asking staff to report back and find us a revenue source. There may be other things come the next few months and into the future of which we have to do the same. And so we’re going to have to look at these from a prioritized perspective. And for me, right now, the parking is not that.

Thank you. Other speakers, that’s a throw sound. I’m sorry, through the chair. I should have asked this before.

How do you use the honk app if you don’t have a data plan much less than cell phone? Ed, Mr. Mathers. Through your worship.

The only way to be able to use this incentive is by having data plan and be able to use the honk. Do you have any estimate what percentage of Londoners have data plans through your worship? I do not know, I’m sorry. Nothing else.

Any other speakers to the amendment, to the amendment? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m going to be brief. I hear Councilor Raman’s point about this, and Councilor Stevenson’s point about this taking away from the emergent nature.

But I can support this because I think it makes sense to bring it back hopefully in one cycle with a report for a source of financing for both of these at the same time. I will say, I don’t share the concern about, for example, the data plans. I think if you’re driving a car and you’re paying for parking, you likely have a data plan on your phone at this point in time. And I think that when we look at both of these areas, the reason I’m supportive of the old East Village one is, I am very cognizant of the fact that this area of the city has some additional challenges beyond what we see in other BIA areas in part because of decisions that have been made by Councils.

And so I think that it behooves us to investigate a little bit of an extra lifeline for this period of time. You know, a year ago, we could have said the same thing about the downtown. Well, BRT construction in the downtown isn’t quite complete, but it’s starting to move off down to the Wellington gateway and into the old East Village area beyond the core. So it was valid as a source of relief for the businesses during that construction as well, noting that there’s still some social challenges in the core as well.

It’s not exclusive to the OIV BIA area, but certainly it’s more intense in the OIV BIA area. So, but I am mindful as well of what Councilor Ramen said. Other asks are going to be coming in the months ahead for other considerations that we do not have sources of financing for and we did not contemplate when we were in the multi-year budget process. So the one thing that I would say is when it comes to tapping on reserve funds, for example, as a potential source of financing, we may very quickly find to Councilor Ramen’s point that there isn’t money left for things we would prioritize even higher if we draw down on reserve funds too quickly and too easily.

So I will look to see what comes back in these recommendations. And hopefully by adding this to both amendments or that we will see a source of financing that can cover both. But I do think that while I understand the emergent nature, I think taking a little more time on this as Councilor Hopkins is suggesting is a reasonable step to do. Any other speakers on the amendment to the amendment?

Seeing none, we’re gonna hope in that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries eight to six. So, okay. So now that the amendment has changed, I need a mover and a seconder for the adjusted amendment.

It can be anybody. Councilor Ferra and Councilor Hopkins. Okay, now debate on this motion, which we just had to debate on. So hopefully it’s brief.

I’ll see if there’s any speakers on this piece. This is still an amendment to add it to the previous community direction and the amendment that Councilor Ferra made. So all we’re doing now is voting to add this amendment to that block. I don’t see any other speakers.

So we’re gonna, okay, we’re gonna vote on this now. So this says amendment has amended be approved. I know that can sound confusing, but it’s basically we amended the amendment. Now that amended amendment has to be attached to the main motion that already has some components to it.

Opposing the vote, motion carries 10 to four. Now I need a mover for the main motion, which has now been amended twice. Cutty and, sorry, Councilor Cutty and Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any discussion on this?

This is now everything altogether. The committee’s recommendation, Councilor Ferra’s amendment, the amended amendment that was Hopkins and Ferra, altogether final vote. Councilor Troso, go ahead. And then Councilor Stevenson.

Not to beat this today. Yes, Councilor Cutty, you have to stand, yes. Go ahead, Councilor Troso. Thank you, Mayor.

And to you, I don’t wanna belabor this point, but I think the response that I received before about the question of people’s access to broadband was a really unsatisfying question, because I see people lining up in the library all the time who don’t have access to broadband. And to think that if somebody’s gonna be downtown buying stuff, we should assume that they have access to these often premium services. I just think really misses the point of where we are with this city and this digital divide. Now, I know that this is not gonna be a concern that scuttles this traffic program, but I think we need to be a little bit more sensitive to it.

And in the future, if we’re gonna continue with these, I don’t know, temporary measures or pilot projects or whatever it is, we decide to call ‘em under the flavor of the day. We need to think of other ways that people who do not have access to premium broadband subscriptions can utilize this discount. And I just really wanted to make that point. Thank you.

Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, and I just wanted to make the point as well that I will support this because this is what the best that we have at the moment. But I’m really, I feel very unhappy if I’m honest about how this is gone, because I brought a motion for something specific to a committee meeting. I sent out a letter with the explanation and I’ve had no one reach out to me with their concerns that I could have addressed prior to it being on the floor of council.

And so I just, it’s a learning experience for me, but this is really a disservice to an area or like not a disservice. I’m just wildly disappointed with this. And I’m just saying that publicly. Thank you.

Any other speakers? Okay, so this is the final version of this. It’s the committee’s thing or the committee’s recommendation with Councilor Ferrer’s original core area motion. And then the Hopkins Ferrer adjustment to Councillor Stephen’s original amendment altogether for the final vote.

We’re opening that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 10 to four. Councilor Plaza, I think that’s it.

As he says with hesitation. Yes, that concludes the fifth before the community for the service committee. I would note that it was also an hour faster than we were at committee. And I’ll look to the mayor now to see if it’d be appropriate time to move.

I will break. Yes, and I wasn’t planning on it. Maybe I didn’t time the meeting well, but I did secure some actual food rather than just some snacks. So colleagues can access that.

And I think a motion for a break. So people who do that now is probably appropriate given I’ll remind people that that was committee report that we moved up to be the first report. So we still have all of the other ones. So for everybody who forgot we did that.

So I’ll look for a motion to have a break. Councillor Palosa. 15. 15, seconded by 15.

Okay, Palosa for a 15 minute break. That’s tight, but we’re gonna make it work. All those in favor, posed. That carries.

Thank you. Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, we’re in reports. We’ve completed one.

So now we go back to the top of the batting order and started with 8.1, which is the seventh report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. I’ll have Deputy Mayor Lewis present that report. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m not aware of any items that colleagues wish to be dealt with separately.

So if we can pull for that now, I am prepared to put the entirety of the report. On the floor, we had extensive debate about a number of these issues at committee, but I’m hoping that now that that has occurred, that we can put the whole report forward. Anybody like anything dealt with separately from the SPPC committee? You can put the whole thing on the floor.

Then I am prepared to put the entire report, SPPC on the floor. Okay, any comments on the entire report? Yes, go ahead, Councillor Troso. I wasn’t gonna pull it to the chair, but I did have a question.

I did have a question about superior drive, if I may ask that. I think that’s on the next, that’s on planning. We’re on SPPC currently. Nevermind.

Right, so everything’s all together, no speakers. All right, let’s open the entire committee report and vote it. Mr. Mayor?

Yes, yes, sorry, Councillor Van Merebergen. Sorry, I just got back. We’re on the SPPC report, which takes in the mobility master plan. Yes, you want that separate?

Call 4.4 separately, that’d be great. No problem. Deputy Mayor just articulated a different motion for me then. Yep, I will move one through six, as well as eight through 13 of the SPPC seven three port.

Okay, any speakers on that? No, still none. Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting. Closing the vote, marking Susan Stevenson absence.

Motion passes, 13 to zero. And I’m now prepared to put item seven 4.4 from the committee report, the master mobility plan 2050 mode show target on the floor. Okay, any comments on this one? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Yes, go ahead. I just want to indicate that I’ve given my vote at committee a lot of thought. And I went through all the materials and I went through all the roll calls and I listened to the very persuasive discussion that the mayor gave us at the end. And I would be prepared to change my vote on that and vote with you on that compromise.

And I’m not sure how I do that procedurally, but it’s not gonna make any difference. But I did hear what you were saying. And I noted how other councilors were voting and I wanna acknowledge that as far as I’m concerned, I did the best to get those numbers to go up and that’s what we did. So thank you.

Thank you for recognizing that. And you can show your support for the motion by voting for it today, if that’s your choice. No one’s bound by their committee vote. They’re allowed to change it accounts.

Okay, so that’s on the floor. I went by Councillor Trostaz-Donna. I don’t have anybody else on the speaker’s list. So we’ll open that for voting.

Indicating a vote of yes by Councillor Trosto closing the vote, motion carries 11 to two. And that your worship completes the 7-3 port of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. All right, thank you. We’re on to 8.2, which is the fifth report of the Planning Environment Committee.

I have Councillor Layman. Thank you, your worship. I would like to pull four, six, and 11. I have no other requests.

Okay, anything else to be pulled? Four, six, and 11 are now separate. Seeing none, you can make a motion, Councillor. I’d like to move.

I have this one, two, three, five, seven, eight, nine, 12, 13, and 14. And 10? And 10. Okay, any comments on those?

Right, Councillor Trostaz. Go ahead with your mic, Councillor. Yeah, okay, Mr. Mathers.

What is the standard or what is the cutoff point with respect to when planning staff will insist on having a second entrance to a development? We have a number of developments across the city where there is only one point of ingress or egress. And I just know this from watching the development discussions in my own ward. So could you clarify that for me, please?

Through your worship, that number’s 80 units that we require to have those two access points. Just so I’m clear, if it’s less than 80 units, not without regard to the number of bedrooms, but units, then it’s okay to just have that one entrance exit. And if it’s 81 or more, then it would need another way in and out. Through your worship, yes, that’s right.

It’s combined for the transit. And then also that’s required for looping for water. So that was the 80 value that we provided, yes. Thank you, that’s very helpful, that’s all.

All right, thanks. Any other comments on the motion that the chairs put together with all those items? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Troso indicating a vote of yes, closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

Thank you, I’d like to move on to item number four and just have a small housekeeping amendment. This is an amendment to the Industrial Lands Community Improvement Plan, 09647. The rationale is that previously considered by law inadvertently omitted reference to section 28 of the Planning Act RSO 1990 CP 13. So I’d like to look for a seconder for that amendment.

Okay, so it’s on the floor and you’re moving an amendment, I’ll look for a seconder for the technical amendment that’s being made. Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, we’ll open the amendment.

Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Now as amended. I’d like to move it as amended. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder ‘cause it’s an as amended motion.

Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds again. Any discussion on the as amended motion? Nope, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

Thank you. I’d like to go to item six. This is regarding 192, 196 central AV. I would like to add, make a small amendment to the motion moved by our committee.

So the chair puts it on the floor and then you’re also going to move an amendment. So articulate your amendment and then I’ll look for a seconder. Okay, the first, there’s two parts. One is regarding the setback.

This is the portion that moves back above the podium. The change needed, it’s in the motion passed at committee, referred to two meters and it needs to be changed to 1.7 meters to accommodate architectural engineering design of the building. And the second item, this is regarding the setback and the front yard needs to, in the report, it refers to three meters, this needs to be changed to 1.5 meters to reflect the new property line required by the city. So those are the two amendments.

Okay, I just want to check with Mr. Mathers. This is a by-law attached with it. I just want to make sure that can be accommodated before I look for comment tonight.

I don’t know if it impacts the by-law piece too or if it’s just the report. Through your worship, I’m just gonna have to check on that shortly, but I can get your response. You’re seconding or you’re looking to speak? Okay, go ahead.

So I can second your worship and I can, we did work with Britto Hagen in Mr. Mathers department to update, reflect the changes in the by-law. That was forwarded to clerks so they should have the by-law, the new by-law that would reflect the amendments. Okay, that sounds good and the clerk just confirmed and it’s just confirming that the numbers are in that by-law.

I just don’t like to make sure when there’s a by-law attached that can actually be done in the same day. So it sounds like that’s confirmed. All right, so moved and seconded. I guess I’m not gonna count that as speaking ‘cause you’re giving information there.

Do you want to make your case now for the changes ‘cause you’re moving the amendment? Yeah, these are small changes that just came to light after the planning committee meeting, the intention. I don’t think this materially affects the project. It just allows it to continue regarding accommodating architecture and engineering.

Small change from two to 1.7 and then the new property line that’s required by the city. So that impacts the sub-pack on the front yard. Okay, look for speakers on the amendment. Go ahead, Deputy Maryland.

Thank you and this was a little bit of a musical chairs as I found out that I was gonna have to start in the chair today. So the Councilor Lehman and I both worked with Ms. McNeely and Ms. O’Hagan on this following a couple of what I would say was Ms.

details at-pack. The step back is not going away. It’s a 25 centimeter variance. And of course, when you think about architectural design and engineering design where elevator shafts, where stairwells and things are located can really be impacted by that foot or less than a foot of distance.

So in very, very minor in nature there, the step back will still exist. It will just be 1.7 instead of two meters. Same with the front yard setback, which is slightly different in terms of this is that the ground level and the back of the setback from the property line. Really what we’re dealing with here is the project was started under the old property line on the map.

It’s completed under where the city needs new property for potential road widening in the future. So that ultimate road allowance is being impacted. So the building isn’t actually moving forward 1.5 meters. It’s only reflective of where the law line is now being reflected on the city maps.

So very minor in terms of housekeeping changes to just address the plan as presented at PEC. Any other speakers to this? Okay, this is on the amendment. So we’ll open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you and I’ll move the motion as amended. Okay, seconder for the as amended motion and Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any discussion on the as amended motion?

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you, moving on to item number 11. As we are in the official plan review of the London plan and land needs assessment update.

I’ll move that and I understand Councilor Frank has an amendment. Yes, so we’ll put on the floor by the chair. Councilor Frank, would you like to speak now? Okay, go ahead.

Yes, thank you. I circulated an amendment with the help of the clerks Thursday evening of last week and I’m happy to speak to it but essentially adding additional direction to civic administration for three different purposes. So would you like me to read that now or? Yes, please then I’ll look for a seconder.

Okay, great. So it would be an amendment to direct civic administration on the following. One that a future growth management implementation strategy for the built area includes a higher intensification target to align with the 32.5 mode share target. Two review of sewer and water servicing capacity within the built area boundary to meet the 2028 D.C.

by a lot of deadlines. Three review of policy changes within the London plan that would be needed to support increased intensification opportunities within the urban growth boundaries. Okay, is there a seconder for that, Councilor Ferra? Okay, you can make your case now.

Wonderful, thank you. So we all start with items two and three. So both those pieces of work are already being undertaken by staff. We did hear a little bit about them last week as Councilor Layman had put them on the floor as part of a larger motion.

So seeing that the work’s being done and just making sure everyone is on the same page both within Council staff and then externally. I want to include these just so everyone knows that these things are occurring and the work is underway. And then for item one, so as we did have a bit of debate at the mode share target about intensification, this motion provides guidance to staff that in the future having them come back with a higher intensification target above our 45%, which would align with the 32.5 Mocha target. This allows us to continue looking at planning options to make sure that things like the 3,800 unit info project that we’ve heard about in the news on Oxford is well serviced with transit and cycling and pedestrian options given that it will likely add a variety of cars to the road.

So looking at this higher intensification target in the future, this is something where it’s not going to impact the foreseeable plans that staff have been undertaking, but it will provide the direction that in the future we will get information back about the ability to increase the target and what staff would recommend that aligns with the 32.5% Mocha target given that both of these plans are over a 25 year horizon. So I seek the support of Council to recognize the need for us to continue densifying our communities and to do it in a planned way. And this direction provides for that guidance to staff. This should be viewable and e-scrap now.

I just wanna make sure, if you could just take a read, well, other speakers are going to make sure that it’s as you articulated. Okay, I’ll look for other speakers on this. Go ahead, Councilor Trossa. I’m just curious through the chair to Steph.

If Steph is already doing this, at least in large part, is this matter necessary, but before Council right now? Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, the one piece here that would be that guidance that we’ll be taking as far as developing our intensification work would be that 32.5% mode share.

So that would be something that would likely be part of the work that we’re undertaking. But if you wanna ensure that that’s something that’s solidly built into our plans, then this would provide us with that specific direction. Okay, through the chair, my understanding was though that this is something that was gonna be undertaken as part of our decision on the master mobility plan. Mocha target.

Mr. Mathers. Through your worship. Until this, either the existing recommendation is approved or not approved, we will be undertaking work.

This is a little bit more specific to the growth management and location strategy piece of it as well. So we would of course be working as part of the master mobility plan to do some of this work, but this is building that into our GMIS process as well. Given through the chair that this is gonna be more specific, then why would transit concerns not be part of this motion as well? If that’s to the staff or to the maker, but I’m just curious.

I’d say that’s to the mover, go ahead. Through the chair, I don’t understand the question. Maybe you could just articulate it a little clearer. Well, you’re including a number of things in the motion.

Why is the transit capacity not part of what’s being included? Through the chair, it is. The 32.5% is a mode share target for transit. Why could that not be along the lines of the other answer that I just received made explicit?

And to be very clear about what my concern is, I want to make sure that when development applications come through in the future, that we are taking into account the current capacity for transit. And I just wanna make sure that we’re not, by being specific and perhaps a little redundant with some of the other indicia that we not skip one. So I’d feel more comfortable if that was either explicit in here. Yeah, more explicit in here.

Like Councillor Frank respond, but I think if a Councillor’s looking to change something they can, but language is obviously important in a motion too, but Councillor Frank, go ahead. Thank you, yes. If the Councillor could provide what kind of wording they would like to see, I don’t still fully understand what you’re asking for because I have included aligning intensification target to 32.5% motion target, which I actually feel like is quite specific. So if there’s other language you’d like to include, I would like to see it.

I would wanna say through the chairs where we’re talking right now, but I guess I wasn’t at your committee. So here we are, including specifically transit capacity. And I think I’ll add to that specific, including transit capacity, especially when it is along what is being referred to as a transit car. Councillor, I think that the mover was clear on the motion and what she feels is included in it.

If you’re looking to amend the motion, I think you just have to move to amend the motion in some way with specific language. And then we can debate that. There’s not gonna be a friendly amendment anyways. So if that’s where you’re looking to go, I think you got to pitch like an actual worded motion that we can consider.

Including transit targets. Where do you wanna put that? Where it mentions the other things you’re including, maybe Mr. Mutter could help me.

You need to refresh your screen so you can see it in eScribe. It’s council. So I just, you need to be clear on the amendment that you’re making. Yes, so I would say at the end of closing.

So the council wants to— Just to be, just to be abundantly clear. I understand the rationale. So you wanna add what to the end of clause A and then I’ll look for a seconder. Including transit considerations, including transit considerations, especially along the lines of what’s considered a transit corridor.

Okay, is there a seconder for that amendment? I don’t see a seconder. So there’s no seconder. So I have a speaker’s list.

No, Councilor Trossal, yes, okay. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Thank you, your worship and through you. I can certainly support the first clause given what we heard from Mr.

Mathers in terms of realigning to the 32.5 mode chair target, which was actually not a number that was on their radar before council changed it. So I can appreciate why that needs to be changed. I know that we heard about the sewer and water servicing capacity within the BAB through the delegation for Mr. Wallace.

And while I appreciate the importance of getting that forward, I’m also honestly hesitant to support something where staff are already doing it. I think just having motions where we’re with all due respect to the council, I don’t mean disrespect where it’s redundant to the work that’s already underway. I feel like that’s just taking time away from things that we should be spending on other things. But I can support the first one.

I will say with regard to the entire motion, but with regard to Jay specifically first, through you chair, I wonder if staff could comment with the water and sewer servicing capacity. Aside from the 2028 DC by-law deadlines, what work is happening right now, I know it’s a lot. So if it’s a brief piece, that’s fine. What work is happening right now to align some of the housing accelerator funding with regard to housing intensification targets and that sewer and water servicing capacity?

Like are we, it’s not all waiting for the DC by-law controls. Some of that is being done in advance through half. Am I correct? Go ahead, Mr.

Mathers. Through your worship, through the housing sector, also just looking at how we can provide additional housing supply in the way and align that with our intensification goals. We have been doing a lot of work, both in our planning and development area, but also in the engineering area, looking at how we can try to provide some of that key servicing. So that work is undergoing, is currently underway, and there is actually been some funding within the current development charges timeframe, but also we’re looking at using some of the housing accelerator funding to be able to support that and some of these new programs that are coming up as well.

So we won’t be just waiting until 2028 to do that. We’ll be doing some of that review. Of course, the most significant effort of getting those master plans done will be for that 2028 period. And so my other question, and I’m sorry if I’m lobbying the planning sort of landmine or hand grenade or something into the mix here, because it’s not my intent to prolong this debate too long.

But last year, we approved some growth targets for the city. And right now, from what I’m seeing through planning and through other data that’s coming forward, it seems like that middle road growth target may be understating our growth. And so given the number we’ve given you to work with, and I know that some of the work is already is well underway, how is that going to impact on any of these three clauses, but in particular on K with the review of policy changes in the London Plan to support increased intensification, if that number is low, is that gonna leave us with a London Plan policy review that is still going to leave us short of available land for the housing needs that we have? Or I know I’m kind of asking a very high level, hard to pin down question, but can you just give us a sense?

A three year worship, just as far as the order of operations here, these initiatives that are highlighted here are the work that we are doing. That’s gonna happen over the next coming years, not just within a very short timeframe. What we are doing in the short timeframe is taking the growth projection that has been approved by council, and doing that assessment as far as with the housing needs and with the additional lands may or may not be for required for the city. So we’re bringing that forward very much in the short term.

What’s outlined here will be some of those longer term initiatives in the policy review, but currently we’re looking at bringing forward some of those short term information in June of this year. So you’ll be able to see that and make some decisions very shortly. Great, I appreciate that. I know that you’ve advised us at PEC that some of these, some of those changes are coming forward and that we’re not gonna try and eat the elephant all in one bite on the London plan policies.

We’re gonna take it bite by bite and deal with the stuff that’s easiest to deal with first and then tackle the bigger challenges in the future. I know I’ve had many discussions with Ms. McNeely already about how I’d like to see some higher heights along Dundas East for some apartment proposals, and I know that that’s happening in other words as well. So I guess where I’m landing on this with those answers is that if staff are already doing J&K I don’t see the need to say that again.

I think that A, though, with the new mode share target is worth us putting into the recommendation here. Okay, other speakers, go ahead, Councilor Ramen. Thank you, and three. I’m just wondering if staff can confirm on I, if the 32.5% mode share target would put us in the 60 to 70% intensification range based on what, because we changed the numbers on you.

So it wasn’t as straight forward as in the report. So I just wanted to double check. Through your worship, we’ll be providing, going through that analysis. Even the 60 to 70% value that was provided previously was a very ballpark estimate.

In doing some of our GMIS work, we’ll be able to tighten those values up. So we don’t, it would likely be less than that, ‘cause this value is a bit less, but we’ll be able to provide you in a more wholesome response once we have done all that analysis. Okay, thanks. And again, from an order of operation perspective, my understanding is we had to do some MMP analysis first before we did the intensification target to get the fulsome number and to get a truer picture that we had to finish some more analysis.

And I don’t know if, again, that analysis was initially built on model two or three, and now we’ve created a new hybrid, let’s call it, and the hybrid hasn’t been fully scoped yet. And now we’re asking you to create another set of work. And I’m just trying to, again, understand the order of operations and how we’re doing this collaboratively so that we get the best result that we need keeps us on pace with the work, because the way I saw this was the official plan review of the London plan and the land needs assessment was a big chunk of work to begin with. And now we’re adding on to that based on the mode share target, but I don’t know how far out we’re going to see that because I thought it was based on the MMP additional analysis as well.

That made sense. Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, I’ll begin.

And then if Mr. McCrae has anything to add, I’ll definitely rely on him for any of the specifics of the MMP pieces. So what we are doing as part of our land needs analysis very much is intertwined with the MMP. Like if we want to know how one is going to go and how we’re going to be able to accommodate this intensification and ensure that there’s the transits that supporting it, we need to be like lock in step.

In the very short term, we have an official plan that has an intensification target in it. And we want to ensure that we can move that piece forward. And the plan that is being completed for the MMP is for many years beyond just this, the 20 year period that we’re looking at right now. So I’ll let Mr.

McCrae comment on that, but we very well are working together on this. And the pieces that we’re progressing can be done so in a way that’s not going to cause any issues with ensuring that our plans are emerging combined at the very end. Go ahead, Mr. McCrae.

If it helps, I can just add through your worship. The relationship between land use density and mode share is fluid. And there’s a whole number of other parameters and characteristics of the city that influence mode share. So while the land needs assessment, the MMP work is happening in lock step, there are also a variety of factors, transit service levels, parking policies, transit demand management programs and projects like that that also influence the mode share.

So we’ll be sort of considering it as part of the package and the intensification target at the end of the day will be reviewed and the council has directed the MMP work to be reviewed every four years with respect to mode share. So it’ll be an iterative process that’s moving forward. Point of order. Yeah, the council directed at least every four years, not every four years, please, to the chair.

So it’s not really a point of order. That’s, so it’s not a point of order. If you can’t call a point of order on staff, I mean, you can ask the question later. I’m already spoken, but it’s just a clarification of language and we can sort that out later.

But it’s not a point of order on staff. That’s not a thing, so. Okay, thank you. Don’t wait, go ahead, Councilwoman.

Thank you, okay. So if I were trying to explain this, let’s say to the average Londoner, I’m just trying to, again, from a clarity perspective, our intensification target from now until the next two to two years or so is set for 45%. We’ve set a longer-term goal for 32.5% for our mode share, which will drive a higher intensification target. And we will be working towards that future goal of the higher intensification target from the two-year scope onwards, okay.

So from a funding perspective, for our funders, do they see that as, or will they, my concern, sorry, I won’t put this to staff, it’s my comment and my concern, is that clear enough? And I think that I agree with Councillor Frank, she’s trying to add that clarity because now we’ve set a target. But I struggle with how we are messaging all of this. And I think that that is based on our direction.

So if this gets us to a place where we can get a community to understand where we’re trying to look future forward, then yes. But I struggle with how we message that in the short term a little. All right, thanks. I just want to clarify because, I just want to clarify point of order ‘cause it happens every once in a while.

So in the procedure by a lot of point of order, she’ll mean a question by a member with respect to any rules or practices. That’s why I said that’s not a point of order. Points of order are specifically about the operating rules and the way that we’re governing. Sometimes people will say something.

Honestly, sometimes people don’t get the language quite right. There’s no way to just stand up and say, I want that corrected. You can ask it for the question, the debate or clarify after the meeting. So I just wanted colleagues to know I wasn’t trying to be over the top there.

I’m just trying to run the meeting efficiently. The next person on the speakers, this is Councillor Lehman. Thank you. So I’ll kind of follow up on Councillor Ramen what’s going and the Deputy Mayor.

I see as London’s changed dramatically and comments have been made to this effect before. How quickly the London plan is becoming out of date. And my concern is that we’re trying to modify on the run the official plan, which I can sympathize because the rate of growth is so fast here that there is that need maybe or temptation to do that. But at the end of the day for Mr.

Mathers and his team and Mr. McCrae and our engineering people, they use the official plan for the reason it’s official. It’s because it was a comprehensive plan and how our city is going to grow with input from a tremendous amount of people and various interest groups, developers, community engagement, et cetera, et cetera. And now we’re getting into the weeds here.

I mean, the intensive education targets, I think are explicit in the official plan. And now we’re arbitrarily changing those because of mass mobility plan and other issues have come up. I think I’m disconcerting that we’re getting on a process here. So I guess it’s a question through you, Chair, to staff, is when is the official plan up for review?

Go ahead, Mr. Mather. Through you, through the Chair. So with opening, with this report, we’re opening that process up.

We are phasing it and we’ll be starting if that land needs peace, but that review will be ongoing over the next year and approximately one year, I’ll say at this point. Thank you. You know, and Councilor Frank did reference a motion that I made that failed that had some of these aspects to it, but it was a referral back to more fulsome investigation into the impact of changing some of these things. I think where I am at now, I’m at that point now where I’m very cautious, about making substantial changes to things that are already in the official plan.

I would feel more comfortable if these things, it’s only a couple of years down the road. These are 25 years out, 50 years out. We’re talking a long term, and I think it would provide a better framework for our city staff to properly plan things out and also give general feedback from, you know, Londoners, from communities, developers, et cetera, et cetera that we’ve mentioned. So I’m not gonna support this.

And for future things that come forward to this nature, I don’t think I’ll be supporting those because of those reasons, David. Thank you. Other speakers, Councilor Hopkins. Yes, Your Worship.

I do have a question. I’m just trying to understand this motion. And maybe it’s not a question to staff. Maybe it’s me thinking this through.

I understand that this motion is about the GMIS, not the London plan. Maybe that’s a question that I need a little bit of clarity to whoever wants to give it to me to understand what exactly we are doing with this motion. Mr. Mathers.

Through Your Worship. So those of course are also interrelated because we wanna ensure that if we have implementation strategy that that’s backed up by our official plan. So this work is really gonna set us up to be able to provide council with the information you need to make any kind of decision on intensification moving forward, whether that’s a got a phasing approach to allow servicing and construction of new housing within intensification areas, or whether that’s any kind of changes to how we wanna fund this work moving forward. So they are very much intertwined.

But the work that would start would be looking at how would we have a growth plan for intensification. That’s what we wanna be able to show you. Show you what intensification that you can get with that plan and then the costs associated with that type of intensification. Thank you for that.

It is intertwined, we start with the GMIS, any information that can inform the GMIS as we go through that consultation process. I don’t see there is anything interfering. In fact, it’s adding more information into that process as we go to officially to the London plan. But I’ll be supporting the motion.

Other speakers. Right now, these are all together. I heard, I think the deputy mayor wanted to vote on things differently, or are you asking to divide them, or are they all together okay? Yes, if we can call I separate from J&K, please.

Right now, in E-Scribe, they’re A, B, and C, I know they’ll become I, J, and K. Okay, sorry, I have to refresh. I’m the one who’s wrong there. Excellent, I, J&K, C1, I separate from J&K, correct?

Okay, is that divided enough for everybody? So we’re gonna vote on I first, and then we’ll do J&K afterwards. So I will be on the floor, and we’re gonna open that for voting. Councillor Close, it votes yes.

Those in the vote, motion carries nine to four. And now, J&K together. So we will put that on the floor, and open that for voting. Councillor Close, it votes yes.

Those in the vote, motion fails, six to seven. Okay, so part I makes it in. I need a mover for the as amended motion. Okay, move the as amended motion.

That means you get to stand up. Four Councillor Close, that makes me ask you. I need a seconder for the as amended motion. Councillor Hopkins.

Okay, on the as amended motion, any speakers? Okay, seeing none, let’s open the as amended motion for voting. Councillor Ploza, calling second time. Councillor Ploza, response marking Ploza as absent, closing the vote, motion carries nine to three.

Councillor Lehman, I think that completes your report. Thank you, that completes my report, and I apologize for sitting down. I was getting, I got confused. No problem, it’s been a lengthy meeting, that’s okay.

We’re gonna go to the sixth report of Corporate Services Committee. Now I believe that the committee public agenda was about seven minutes, so Councillor Cuddy, you get to present it, ideally it won’t take longer than the committee meeting did, but go ahead and present the report. Thank you, worship, it’s actually four minutes, and I am very pleased to present the sixth report of the Corporate Services Committee. I have not been, it’s not been indicated that anybody, anyone wants to pull any of the items, so I would like to present it this time.

Items one through 13, and that’s 2.1 to 4.7 collectively. Okay, anybody want anything dealt with separately on this? Okay, seeing none, then that’s moved by the vice chair. We will open that for voting.

Oh, sorry, is there any comments on anything there? Sorry, I should ask that. No, okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.

Thank you, worship, I believe that’s a new record. Thank you. It might not be, but it’s probably pretty close. Staff have better things to do than to look that up in the archive.

8.4, we already did that, 8.5, ‘cause we did 8.4, we pulled it to the top of the agenda, so 8.5 is the report of the Civic Works Committee. Councillor Hopkins, I’ll turn it over to you. Yes, your worship, I’d like to put the fifth meeting of the Civic Works Committee meeting on the floor. I have been asked to pull number 12 to point 12.

Okay, so 12’s being dealt with separately. Would anybody like anything else dealt with separately? No, I’ll let you make a motion then, Councillor. I’d like to put all the other items on the floor if I can have a brief comment.

Sure, brief comment, sure. Go ahead and do a brief one. I’ll be very brief, number of highlights. We received the 2024 Renew London Infrastructure cost program.

We approved a number of contract awards. We received the amendments to the traffic parking by-law. We received three delegations, two from advisory groups, and the third one from AM Velastro on the Harris Park, a short line reconstruction. Okay, any comments on this committee’s report, everything with the exception of 12?

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. All right, Councillor Hopkins. I’d like to put number 12, 2.12, the vendor of record contract award rapid transit shelters, amenities, requests for proposal, submissions.

There are a number of RFP approved recommendations from the committee on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting, too.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries. I believe that was 12 to zero. Yes, 12 to zero. That is my report.

I think that concludes the regular reports that we have. We have added reports. We have seventh report of council and closed session. I will say there’s one item to report out on.

I need to volunteer to read it. Councillor Ferrer, you made eye contact, so you get to do it. Good chair. So reporting out on the seventh report of the council and closed session.

Your council and closed session report, number one, grant of easement and temporary easement agreements, part of 1035, sorry on your road, Hyde Park Stormwater Infrastructure Project. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports with the concurrence of the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure. On the advice of the director of Realty Services, with respect to a permanent and temporary easement agreement over the property owned by the Greek Canadian community of London City and vicinity. Legally described as part six, plan three three R dash two, one, five, one, seven, permanent easement and parts one, two, three, four and five, plan three three R dash two, one, five, one, seven, temporary easement in the city of London known, municipality, municipally as 1035, sorry on your road, the following actions be taken.

A, the grant of easement agreement between the city and the Greek Canadian community of London City and vicinity, granting the city a permanent multipurpose, municipal easement be approved, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix C for the sum of $267,300. B, the temporary easement agreement between the city and the Greek Canadian community of city of London and vicinity, granting the city a temporary access easement be approved subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix D for the sum of $127,700 and the financing for the easement acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report attached here to as Appendix A that progress was made with respect to items 4.2 and 4.3 as noted on the public agenda, 6.2 slash six slash corporate services community and 6.1 slash five slash community and protective services committee. Okay, that’s a report is presented by Councillor Ferreira. He’s moved that item.

Is there any, you have to stand up ‘cause you’re moving the motion? Any questions or comments on that? Go ahead, Councillor Troceau. This is 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.

Just one of those items and there’s a general progress for being reported on the other items for which we were in camera. I would like to have these called separately if those are all together. But this is just 4.1. So there’s the grantees meant that Councillor Ferreira just talked about.

And then there’s a piece at the end that is just a statement of progress with respect items 4.2 and 4.3 as noted on the public agenda and 4.4, yeah. We vote on these as a group. Yeah, usually they’re all together. May I ask it to be separated?

You can separate them, but we don’t actually vote on the progress piece. It’s the statement of progress. So if you want one separate from the statement of progress, we can do that. There’s no, there’s no vote on the second piece.

It’s just a statement that we make from closed session. Yes, I would still like these separate. Okay, so Councillor Ferreira’s just got one, the stuff that you read out with the exception of the progress on the other matters. Councillor Ferreira, after we did this vote, you just got to read that last line, the statement of progress again.

And then there’s no vote, you just, you can sit down after that. So, but let’s do the vote on item one first. Any discussion on item one? No, you can sit down, you’re good.

Okay, so we’re going to open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to 0. Councillor Ferreira. Thank you, Chair, through you.

That progress was made with respect to items 4.2 and 4.3 as noted on the public agenda, 6.2/6/CSC and 6.1/5/CPSC. And 4.4, yeah, and 4.4. That’s not on there, but it’s in the agenda. All right, that statement’s made, you’re good.

You get to sit down now. Thank you, thank you for presenting that, I appreciate it. The deferred matters, there are none, inquiries. Are there any inquiries?

Emergent motions, there are none. Bylaws, we’re on to bylaws. Is anybody asking any bylaws to beat out with separately? Go ahead, Councillor Ferreira.

Thank you, Chair, through you. Bylaws 13.6 and 13.7 with respect to the fireworks. I believe those are the only two, I’d like those to be pulled separately. Okay, Councillor, there’s four bylaws related to fireworks.

I just want to make sure that we’ve got the right ones. It’s 102, I need the bill numbers, it would be helpful. 102, 103, 107, and 122. I mean, and they mean different things.

There’s one about administrative monetary penalties, there’s others about rules, so do you want them all separate or just certain ones? Thank you, Chair, I’ll take them all separately, please. Is there Troso? Could you just, before we do each one, just remind yourselves.

I’m gonna tell you the numbers, and then you can look at them. 102, 103, 107, and 122, the bylaws. Now, they’re all gonna be dealt with separately, so we’ll do everything else first, so you have a chance to kind of just take a quick peek at those while we’re working through the other stock. Anything else separate besides those?

Yes, Councillor Ferra? Sorry, Chair, through you. Those four can be, for my purposes, can be voted on together. Well, see if anybody else wants to separate later, but we’re gonna do those after.

So those are out. Anything else that people want to have. Then, everything else is in. So that’s everything plus the added bill 121, which is related to the item number one from closed session.

Yeah, I think they’re both separately all right. What number is that, please? 6. 106, can you eat a minute?

Is there anything else separate, colleagues, before we put all this together? No. Okay, so what we’ve got is all of the bylaws, no fireworks, no rock the park, and the added piece coming from closed session about the easement agreement. Who wants to move that?

I’ll look for a mover. Councillor, our Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Prill. There’s no debate on first reading, so we’ll open that set of bylaws for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.

Okay, a mover for second reading of that. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Frank. Any debate on second reading for those items? Seeing none, we’re gonna open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. Okay, third reading includes all of those items, plus bill 74 from a previous reading. Our previous council meeting, if you remember, we did drainage bylaws where we do first reading, second reading, but not third reading. This is the third reading of one of those drainage bylaws.

Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. There’s no debate on third reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. Next, we’re gonna do fireworks, so all four of those bills are together unless everybody would like them separate.

No, okay, yes, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, I got 102, 103, 107, and I missed the last number. 122, it’s an added one. And that was the amendment that we just made here today at council, so I just like— 122 is the actual fireworks bylaw, like the— So that’s the one that I would like to vote on separate.

Oh, so the other ones you’re okay with? Okay, so Councillor Hopkins would like 122 separate from the other three. So we’ll do the first three, not 122, not the actual fireworks bylaw, but the other pieces related to fireworks first. So 102, 103, and 107.

Mover for that, 102, 103, 107. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor ramen. We’ll open that for voting as soon as it’s ready. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 10 to two.

Second reading by Councillor ramen, seconded by Sir Pribble, we got that one. Any debate on second reading, Councillor Troso. I’m not gonna spend five minutes on each of these, so don’t worry, I’ll make this real quick. One of the reasons why I felt inclined to not support this committee is I viewed this as an entire package, an entire package, even though they were presented as different items.

I felt that the entire package was flawed, and you really can’t separate out administrative penalties from licensing, from enforcement, from the days that you’re going to, allow the fireworks to be exploded. I think that all in all, my view is that the entire package was flawed. And that’s why I voted, that’s why I’m voting against all of them, because while some of them go specifically to the days, and I’ll address that in more, in more detail, that’s not what the one we’re on now, but I do feel as if I need to reiterate my strong opposition to the entirety of the package that we enacted, because I do not think it’s in the public interest, and I certainly do not think it’s in keeping with the commitments that we have made regarding a climate emergency. And I’ll reserve my further comments for the next one.

Thank you. Okay, any other speakers on second reading? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Alkins?

No, yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 10 to 2. Okay, 122, sorry, third reading. Third reading of those, Councillor Raman, seconded by Councillor Cuddy, we’ll open third reading for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 10 to 2. Okay, Bill 122, moved by Councillor Raman, seconded by me, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, nine to three. Okay, second reading, moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Cuddy.

Any discussion on second reading? Councillor Trostab. To my mic to address my sincerest opposition to this bylaw, which I think is unfortunate. What we have to remember is fireworks, whether they’re backyard fireworks or whether they’re display fireworks.

They go up, they also come down. And if we are going to be serious about our commitment to climate change, we have to consider where they come down and why are these fireworks colorful in the first place? What kind of chemicals have been added to these fireworks such that they’re so pretty? And what kind of gunpowder is in these fireworks that makes them explode?

And when they come down, where do they go? They don’t anticipate, they go into the ground. They go into the ground, or they go into the water. And if they go into the water, or if they go into the ground and later seep into the water, they’re eventually going downstream.

And I think that this council has been remiss in not taking that into account. And I understand, I understand the exceptional pressures that we were under to adopt option A. And I should also mention that I think that we had other ways of doing this. For example, opening up the definition section of the bylaw, is there something specific that the community is saying they need?

‘Cause what I was hearing was sparklers, which aren’t even covered by the bylaw. And the other thing I was hearing was pinwheels. And I think that rather than just lump everything in the definition together, it might’ve been a good idea to spend a little bit more time thinking about all of those different products. ‘Cause we’ve been told by staff that there will be a pre, there will be a pre opening inspection of all of these pop-up sites.

We were also told by staff that the fee will be on a per, will be on a per basis. Not for the entire portfolio that a vendor has to hold. I think we could’ve done a much better job looking into some of the details. Not just in terms of what products are being regulated, but how we go about inviting the out of town vendors to come in, the vendors I should say, to come in and open up their stance.

Because one of the problems that I think we really needed to address that we did not address was the supply problem. And I think to the extent that a lot of these purchases, a lot of these purchases are impulse purchases at the last minute, we could have done a lot better in terms of cutting them down. Now the final thing that I don’t think was addressed, which is going to have to be addressed, because the complaints are not gonna stop, is the enforcement, is the way that we take in and monitor complaints. So all in all, I think that this was a setback for our environmental goals.

And I just hope that in the future, this will be looked again, and maybe with a fresher eye, towards protecting the environment. Thank you very much. Any other speakers on the second reading? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote motion carries nine to three. Third reading. Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. We will open third reading for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries nine to three. All right, and the final by-law we have is 106, which is related to Rock the Park. So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

We’ll open first reading for voting. So for our closing the vote, motion carries 10 to two. All right, second reading of Bill 106. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Frank.

Any discussion on second reading? Okay, seeing none, I will open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to one. And third and final reading of Bill 106.

Moved by Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank. I will open third reading for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to two. Okay, that brings us to the end of by-laws.

That means all we have left is a motion to adjourn. Everybody wants to do that, but I will say Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Ferrera can move and second that. All those in favor of the motion to adjourn? Motion carries.

Wait, any opposed? Deputy Mayor didn’t vote. Is it okay? It still carries.

Okay, all right, we’re adjourned. Thank you.