June 25, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:03 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor P. Cuddy discloses a pecuniary interest in item 5, (2.1) of the 11th Report of the Corporate Services Committee having to do with Declaring Surplus, City-owned Property - Part of Pine Street, by indicating that he has previously leased land to Sofina Foods Inc.

That it BE NOTED that Councillor A. Hopkins discloses a pecuniary interest in item 4.2, (6.1) of the 11th Report of the Corporate Services Committee by indicating that her son is employed by The Corporation of the City of London and represented by CUPE 107.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

4.1 Solicitor-Client Privilege/Land Acquisition

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege and land acquisition, including communications necessary for that purpose with respect to the Master Accommodation Plan - Redevelopment of City Hall Campus and the communication dated June 14, 2024 from J. M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions regarding an unsolicited proposal for a city-owned City Hall facility on the Market Block in Downtown London. (6.1/11/SPPC)

4.2 Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and direction to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/11/CSC)

4.3 Solicitor-Client Privilege / Land Acquisition/Disposition / Confidential Information Supplied by Canada/Province/Territory/Crown Agency of Same / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction for Negotiation Purposes

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; including communications necessary for that purpose, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation, a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality, information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation pursuant to subsection 239(2)(h) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and is a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality pursuant to subsection 239(2)(k) of the Municipal Act (6.1/8/CPSC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:15 PM to 1:46 PM.

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

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Minutes of the 11th Meeting held on June 4, 2024, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

6.1    Master Accommodation Plan - Redevelopment of City Hall Campus

  1.    (ADDED) P. Norman, VP & Chief Economist - Altus Group        

  2.    (ADDED) P. Lombardi, Partner - Siskinds

6.2    Heritage Alteration Permit Application – 332 St. James Street – Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Conservation District (HAP23-107-L)

  1.    M. Whalley        

  2.    N. Tausky

6.3    367 Springbank Drive (Z-9722)

  1.    B. Castellani

6.4    735 Southdale Road West (OZ-9567)

  1.    (ADDED) K. Crowley, Senior Planner and H. Froussios, principal Planner - ZELINKA PRIAMO LTD.

6.5    323 Oxford St West, 92 and 825 Proudfoot Lane (Z-9416)

1.    A.M. Valastro        

  1.    A. Johnson        

3.   (ADDED) S. Aikman

6.6    Draft Land Needs Assessment of The London Plan (O-9595)

  1.    R. Zelinka, Principal Planner - ZELINKA PRIAMO LTD.        

  2.    F. Noory, CEO - Royal Premier Homes

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   9th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-06-11 CWC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 9th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

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

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on May 15, 2024:

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

i)    provision of transit services;

ii)    current Service Plan (Conventional and Special);

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

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

v)    zero emission bus fleet implementation and rollout plan;

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

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

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.3, 3.1 and 3.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Hyde Park Pumping Station Single Source Pump Purchase

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 June 11, 2024, related to the Hyde Park Pumping Station Single Source Pump Purchase:

a)    the price submitted by Directrik Inc. of $282,697.64 CAD (excluding HST) for the supply of one vertical turbine pump BE ACCEPTED;

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 purchase;

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-E03)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Mud Creek Phase 2B: RFT-2024-060 Construction Contract and Consultant Supervision Award and Project Budget Increase

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 June 11, 2024, related to Mud Creek Phase 2B: RFT-2024-060 – Construction Contract and Consultant Supervision Award and Project Budget Increase:

a)    the bid submitted by CH Excavating (2013) at its tendered price of $11,864,196.42 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by CH Excavating (2013) was the lowest of four (4) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)     AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the “Mud Creek Phase 2B RFT-2024-060 – Construction Contract” in accordance with the estimate on file, at the upset amount of $1,349,144.83 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the financing for these projects 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 these projects;

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-2024-060); 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-A05)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program: Round 2

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 June 11, 2024, related to the Appointment of Consultant Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program Round 2:

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

i)    GM BluePlan Engineering Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design and construction administration for sanitary sewer infrastructure upsizing on Second Street, from Oxford Street to Pottersburg Creek, in the total amount of $412,379.00, including contingency (excluding HST);

ii)    AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the Downtown Core Area Sanitary Infrastructure Assessment Study, in the total amount of $124,607.00, including contingency (excluding HST);

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

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-E01)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) RFT-2024 -084 Greenway Flood Protection Tender 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 June 11, 2024, related to RFT-2024-084 Greenway Flood Protection Tender Award:

a)    the bid submitted by Stone Town Construction Limited at its tendered price of $24,477,992.06 (excluding HST), for the construction of flood protection at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant BE ACCEPTED;

b)    the increase in fees for engineering services related to design and contract administration for the Greenway Flood Protection projects of $760,641.00, plus HST, BE APPROVED;

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; 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-E13)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) RFP-2024-078 Byron Bridge Rehabilitation Detailed Design and Construction Administration Appointment of Consulting Engineer

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 June 11, 2024, related to RFP-2024-078 Byron Bridge Rehabilitation Detailed Design and Construction Administration Appointment of Consulting Engineer:

a)    the proposal submitted by Dillon Consulting Limited BE ACCEPTED to provide consulting engineering services to complete the detailed design, tendering and construction administration services at an upset amount of $403,749.50 (excluding HST), as per Section 15.2 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this assignment 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 assignment;

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.7) Funding to Support the Continuation of UTRCA Monitoring Program for the Dingman Creek Subwatershed

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated June 11, 2024, related to Funding to Support the Continuation of the UTRCA Monitoring Program for the Dingman Creek Subwatershed:

a)    the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE APPOINTED to complete the 2024 Dingman Creek Surface Monitoring Program in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $161,550 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 14.4 (d), (e) and (h) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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-F11A)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (2.8) Temporary Recycling Residual Disposal Fee Adjustment for Existing Customers at W12A Landfill (Relates to Bill No. 208)

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 June 11, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024, to amend By-law A-59, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” to establish a new temporary fee for existing customers that can no longer haul recycling process residuals in walking floor transfer trailers to the W12A Landfill due to operational constraints. (2024-E07)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (2.9) Contract Price Increase: Dundas Street TVP Active Transportation Connection

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 June 11, 2024 related to a Contract Price Increase for the Dundas Street TVP Active Transportation Connection:

a)    Dundas TVP Active Transportation Connection (Tender RFT21-04) construction contract value with L-82 Construction Ltd. BE INCREASED by $170,000 to $2,535,763.20 (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-F18)

Motion Passed

8.2   11th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-06-18 SPPC Report 11-Complete

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 11th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 3 (2.2) and 7 (4.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Asset Management Plans for Agencies, Boards and Commissions

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the City related Agencies, Boards and Commissions’ Asset Management Plans:

a)    the report entitled “Asset Management Plans for Agencies, Boards and Commissions” BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the “Agencies, Boards and Commissions Asset Management Plans”, as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

it being noted that the London & Middlesex Community Housing Asset Management Plan dated November 2020 will be revised and be brought forward to Municipal Council for review and approval in 2025.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (3.1) London & Middlesex Community Housing - 2023 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions (Relates to Bill No. 212)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)  on the recommendation of the City Manager, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 18, 2024 as Appendix “A” entitled “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024;

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

c)  the 2023 Financial Statements BE RECEIVED; and 

d)  the 2023 Annual Report - Transformation Vision to Reality BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (3.2) Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) - 2023 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)   on the recommendation of the City Manager, the Independent Auditor’s Report of KPMG LLP for the Shareholder of Housing Development Corporation, London, dated December 31, 2023, BE RECEIVED;

b)  the 2023 Financial Statements BE RECEIVED; and

c)  the 2023 Year End Report to the Shareholder BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (3.3) 2025 Growth Management Implementation Strategy (GMIS) Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the 2025 Growth Management Implementation Strategy Update BE APPROVED as appended to the staff report in Appendix ‘B’; it being noted that:

i.     Sunningdale SWMF E1 will be rescheduled from 2024 to 2027;

ii.    Stoney Creek SWMF 7.1 will be rescheduled from 2025 to 2027;

iii.   Stoney Creek SWMF 8 will be rescheduled from 2025 to 2028;

iv.   North Lambeth SWMF P2 North will be rescheduled from 2025 to 2028;

v.    North Lambeth SWMF P2 South will be rescheduled from 2025 to 2026;

vi.   Pincombe Drain SWMF P3 West will be rescheduled from 2025 to 2026;

vii.  White Oaks SWMF 3 East will be rescheduled from 2025 to 2026;

viii. Wharncliffe Road South (Campbell St. to Bostwick Rd.) will be rescheduled from 2027 to 2028;

ix.   Kilally South, East Basin SWM 3 will be rescheduled from 2031 to 2027;

x.    North Lambeth SWMF P1 North will be rescheduled from 2033 to 2029;

xi.   North Lambeth SWMF P1 South will be rescheduled from 2033 to 2029; and

xii.  Kilally Road Two Lane Upgrade (Webster St to Clarke Rd) will be rescheduled from 2030 to 2025;

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

c)    the presentation on the added agenda BE RECEIVED;

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

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute

  •    C. Spina.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (4.2) Basic Needs Response 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 the attached revised June 18, 2024, The Basic Needs Response Plan report:

a)    a one-time funding allocation of up to $70,500 (excluding HST) BE APPROVED for payment of depot meal program and comfort stations for services delivered in May and June 2024;

b)    the funding reallocation request from Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley (CMHA) related to their identified Cold Weather Response surplus of up to $250,000 (excluding HST) BE APPROVED to maintain services at The Coffee House located at 371 Hamilton Road up to an additional 6 months; 

c)    the Encampment Response Option 2, to include year-round depot services and operating until March 31, 2026 to better align with other current services which were approved as part of the stability of the sector report in February 2024 BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to allow Civic Administration to provide a report on the City of London application for the $250M of Federal funding for encampments announced April 12, 2024 it being noted the report will provide an update on the status of the Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) funding, confirm the plans for a cold weather response for 2024 and if it will align with the Basic Needs plans, which is seeking funding into July 2025;

d)    the direction to find a source of funding including any unspent previously approved sources of funding, including previously allocated Operating Budget Contingency Reserve funds BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to allow the Civic Administration to provide a report on the City of London application for the $250M of Federal funding for encampments announced April 12, 2024;  

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

f)     the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services;

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on the existing public washroom facilities across the city, their hours of operation, their locations, their staffing requirements, and information about usage, to allow Council to determine if there is sufficient public washroom access and if the hours of operation align with community programming and our encampment/basic needs services; and

h)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue the depot meal program until the time of which the Basic Needs Response Plan is approved by Council and to find a source of funding including any unspent previously approved sources of funding, including previously allocated Operating Budget Contingency Reserve funds.

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (4.3) SS-2024-205 Single Source: Supportive Housing Model at 46 Elmwood Place (Relates to Bill No. 213)

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 a SS-2024-205 Single Source: Supportive Housing Model at 46 Elmwood Place:

a)    pursuant to the pre-qualification of Indwell Community Homes under RFPQ-2023-810 – Affordable Housing Development Partners, a single source procurement in accordance with s. 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy BE APPROVED to Indwell Community Homes to deliver a 50-unit Highly Supportive Housing project at 46 Elmwood Place that includes a one-time capital contribution up to a limit of $2,044,964 funded from the Housing Accelerator Fund;   

b)    funding for the initial one-time capital costs referenced in part a), above, BE APPROVED, as outlined in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated June 18, 2024 as Appendix “B”;

c)    an annual housing supplement budget BE APPROVED for up to $500,000 for the Highly Supportive Housing project at 46 Elmwood Place; 

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to request funding from the Fund for Change to be provided by the Fund for Change to Indwell Community Homes to fund the estimated one-time operating costs of Indwell Community Homes at an approximate cost of $1,700,000;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek funding from the Fund for Change to fund the capital request to Indwell Community Homes associated with the re-development of the property for a total estimated amount of up to $4,000,000;

f)    the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designate, CONTINUE TO refine the capital and operating budget estimates in (a), (c), (d) and (e) above;

g)    the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024 to: 

i)  authorize the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development to approve and execute agreement(s) between The Corporation of the City of London and Indwell Community Homes to address the capital funding and operational funding;

ii)  authorize the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development to approve and execute any amending agreements between The  Corporation of the City of London and Indwell Community Homes that do not require additional funding;

h)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all other administrative acts necessary in connection with this project;

it being noted that where delegated authority does not currently exist for agreements associated with the budget estimates noted in (f), the Civic Administration shall seek approval from Council prior to execution and or amendments.

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (4.4) Consideration of Appointment to RBC Place London Board of Directors

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Councillor J. Pribil BE APPOINTED to RBC Place London Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (5.1) Appointment of Consultant for RFP 2024-113 Community Improvement Plan to Encourage Residential Development Near Transit

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consultant for a Community Improvement Plan to Encourage Residential Development Near Transit:

a)    N. Barry Lyon Consulting, BE APPOINTED Consultant to undertake the said project, in the amount of $106,280.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 12.2 (b) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

c)    the approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work; and

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

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Master Accommodation Plan - Redevelopment of City Hall Campus

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports with the concurrence of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the Master Accommodation Plan:

a)    the report dated June 18, 2024, titled “Master Accommodation Plan – Redevelopment of City Hall Campus” BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a competitive procurement process to implement the Master Accommodation Plan guiding overall space needs and the redevelopment of the existing City Hall Campus site which will accommodate civic administration and governance functions in modernized facilities to support effective service delivery, sustainability, and alternative work strategies; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the relevant Agencies, Boards and Commissions with respect to participating in the range of uses in the redevelopment of the City Hall Campus;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated June 14, 2024 from C. Butler and a communication dated June 14, 2024 from J. M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions.

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated June 18, 2024, titled “Master Accommodation Plan - Redevelopment of City Hall Campus:

a)   items b) and c)  BE REFERRED to the September 17, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting for consideration;

    “b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a competitive procurement process to implement the Master Accommodation Plan guiding overall space needs and the redevelopment of the existing City Hall Campus site which will accommodate civic administration and governance functions in modernized facilities to support effective service delivery, sustainability, and alternative work strategies; and

    c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the relevant Agencies, Boards and Commissions with respect to participating in the range of uses in the redevelopment of the City Hall Campus;”

b)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

   a)    reach out to relevant agencies, boards and commissions to ascertain their desire to explore co-location in a future centralized City Hall facility;

   b)    that any further action relating to expanding the existing City Hall onto the adjacent campus lands BE DEFERRED until:

      i)    a review of the conversion of City Hall lands from commercial to residential related to proposed municipal space alternatives to the current City Hall campus has been completed;

      ii)    any unsolicited proposals that have been formally received by the City prior to this Council meeting of June 25, 2024 are evaluated in accordance with the City’s established unsolicited proposal process; and,

      iii)    the Civic Administration report back on those unsolicited proposals and compare the strengths and weaknesses of such proposals relative to the option of expanding on the City Hall campus, considering such matters as: cost, time requirement, suitability for accommodating a centralized City Hall facility, spin-off economic impact, contribution to downtown revitalization, creation of housing supply, downtown safety and security, and any additional considerations that staff believe are important to consider

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

(ADDED) Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose with respect to the Master Accommodation Plan - Redevelopment of City Hall Campus and the communication dated June 14, 2024 from J. M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions regarding an unsolicited proposal for a city-owned City Hall facility on the Market Block in Downtown London. (6.1/11/SPPC)

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Council convenes In Closed Session, from 2:22 PM to 3:24 PM

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated June 18, 2024, titled “Master Accommodation Plan – Redevelopment of City Hall Campus:

a)  items b) and c) BE REFERRED to the September 17, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting for consideration:

    “b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a competitive procurement process to implement the Master Accommodation Plan guiding overall space needs and the redevelopment of the existing City Hall Campus site which will accommodate civic administration and governance functions in modernized facilities to support effective service delivery, sustainability, and alternative work strategies; and

     c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the relevant Agencies, Boards and Commissions with respect to participating in the range of uses in the redevelopment of the City Hall Campus;”

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

    a)    reach out to relevant agencies, boards and commissions to ascertain their desire to explore co-location in a future centralized City Hall facility;

    b)    that any further action relating to expanding the existing City Hall onto the adjacent campus lands BE DEFERRED until:

       i)    a review of the conversion of City Hall lands from commercial to residential related to proposed municipal space alternatives to the current City Hall campus has been completed;

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to approve the following:

b)    that any further action relating to expanding the existing City Hall onto the adjacent campus lands BE DEFERRED until:

ii)    any unsolicited proposals that have been formally received by the City prior to this Council meeting of June 25, 2024 are evaluated in accordance with the City’s established unsolicited proposal process; and,

   iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on those unsolicited proposals and compare the strengths and weaknesses of such proposals relative to the option of expanding on the City Hall campus, considering such matters as: cost, time requirement, suitability for accommodating a centralized City Hall facility, spin-off economic impact, contribution to downtown revitalization, creation of housing supply, downtown safety and security, and any additional considerations that staff believe are important to consider

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

Item 3, clause 2.2, as approved, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports with the concurrence of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the Master Accommodation Plan:

a)    the report dated June 18, 2024, titled “Master Accommodation Plan – Redevelopment of City Hall Campus” BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a competitive procurement process to implement the Master Accommodation Plan guiding overall space needs and the redevelopment of the existing City Hall Campus site which will accommodate civic administration and governance functions in modernized facilities to support effective service delivery, sustainability, and alternative work strategies; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the relevant Agencies, Boards and Commissions with respect to participating in the range of uses in the redevelopment of the City Hall Campus;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated June 14, 2024 from C. Butler and a communication dated June 14, 2024 from J. M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions.

8.2.7   (4.1) London’s Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response - Proposed Community Encampment Response Plan

At 4:13 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair. 

At 4:18 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)   the “The Saving Lives, Alleviating Suffering, & Building a Healthy, Strong, & Safe Community for All” - London’s Health & Homelessness Response: Community Encampment Response Plan as appended to the staff report dated June 18, 2024 as Schedule 1 BE ENDORSED, with the following amended guidelines contained on page 36: 

  •    On or within 150 metres of an elementary school or children daycare centre;

  •    On or within 100 metres of a playground, pool, waterpark, or any spray pad; 

  •    Within 100 metres of any private residential property line with a habitable dwelling as per the Building Code; 

  •    On or within 100 metres of any sports fields, inclusive of but not limited to, skateboard parks, fitness amenities, golf courses, ball diamonds, soccer pitches, tennis courts, or any other sports or multi-use courts, as well as stadiums, dugouts, stages, and bleachers;

b)    the report BE RECEIVED for information; and

c)    the memo dated June 13, 2024 from the Deputy City Manager, Social Health Development regarding Community Encampment Response Plan: Community Feedback BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from C. McDonald, Director of Service, London Cares and G. Nash, Director, Complex Urban Health, London InterCommunity Health Centre with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.3   10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-06-11 PEC REPORT FULL

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 3 (2.2), 6 (2.4), 13 (3.7), 14 (3.8), and 15 (3.9).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Council recess at this time for 10 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 4:25 PM and reconvenes at 4:37 PM.

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 6th Meeting of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 6th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 16, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Withdrawn - Appointment of Consultant for RFP 2024-113 Community Improvement Plan to Encourage Residential Development near Transit

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the item entitled “Appointment of Consultant for RFP 2024-113 Community Improvement Plan to Encourage Residential Development near Transit” BE WITHDRAWN.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.5) 2023 Annual Report on Building Permit Fees

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated June 11, 2024 entitled “Annual Report on Building Permit Fees” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-P10)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (3.1) Community Improvement Plans Review for Increasing Affordable Housing

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Improvement Plans Review for Increasing Affordable Housing:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan to:

i)    update the definitions of affordability (Consultant Recommendation #1); and,

ii)    review and update the CIP’s goals and objectives (Consultant Recommendation #2);

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the financial implications of amending the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan and its Financial Incentive Program Guidelines to:

i)    introduce the following new financial incentive programs (Consultant Recommendation #4):

A)    tax Increment Equivalent Grant Program (Consultant Recommendation #5);

B)    Capital Grant Program (Consultant Recommendation #6);

C)    Municipal Fee Exemption Program (Consultant Recommendation #9);

D)    Pre-Construction Grant Program (Consultant Recommendation #10);

ii)    amend the existing Additional Residential Unit (ARU) Loan Program to introduce a forgivable loan (Consultant Recommendation #7) and create an ARU grant pilot project (Consultant Recommendation #8); and,

iii)    introduce a Land Banking and Disposal Program (Consultant Recommendation #11);

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the following recommendations to support the Affordable Housing CIP’s implementation and the construction of affordable housing:

i)    review and report back on the coordination and program delivery of affordable housing programs across the Corporation of the City of London (Consultant Recommendation #12); and,

ii)    amend the Affordable Housing CIP to implement performance targets and monitor them (Consultant Recommendation #13);

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the following recommendation that falls outside of the legislated authority of a Community Improvement Plan:

i)    assign City staff as a concierge to act as consistent point of contact for affordable housing project proponents to help navigate City approval processes (Consultant Recommendation #18);

e)    the report titled “Community Improvement Plan Review for Increasing Affordable Housing Supply” from Tim Welch Consulting Inc. (Appendix “A”) BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that Consultant Recommendation:

  •    #3 requires no action from Civic Administration because the Affordable Housing community improvement project area is already the entire municipality; 

  •    #15 requires no action because introducing affordable housing minimums would have a negative impact on the existing housing-related financial incentive programs; and,

  •    #16 (investigate updating the Zoning-By-law to allow for affordable housing citywide without the need for a Zoning By-law Amendment) will be forwarded to the ReThink Zoning project;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a presentation by T. Welch, TWC, with respect to these matters;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (3.2) 1944 Bradley Avenue (Z-9724) (Relates to Bills No. 217 and 231)

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 Martin Quarcoopome c/o Weston Consulting, relating to the property located at 1944 Bradley Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024 to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, to AMEND Map 3 – Street Classifications to ADD a Neighbourhood Connector Street Classification;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 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 lands FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone and an Environmental Review ER Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-17-R1-3( )) Zone; a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (h-17-R4-6( )) Zone; a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-17-R6-5( )) Zone; an Open Space (OS1) Zone; and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised through the application review process for the property located at 1944 Bradley Avenue:

i)    the development be condensed to allow for more green space; and,

ii)    the noise and smell from nearby farm uses be taken into consideration;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision submitted by Martin Quarcoopome c/o Weston Consulting on behalf of Elite Bradley Developments Inc., consisting of 47 single detached residential lots; 20 street townhouse blocks; one (1) cluster townhouse block; one (1) park block; one (1) hydro corridor block; one (1) open space buffer block; one (1) open space block; four (4) 0.3 metre reserve blocks; served by four (4) new streets, subject to draft plan conditions as recommended by the Approval Authority (File No. 39T-23505);

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

  •    a presentation from Martin Quarcoopome, Weston Consulting;

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

  •    M. Quarcoopome; and,

  •    A.M. Valastro;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 which promote densities that efficiently use land, resources, and infrastructure, and neighbourhoods that foster social interaction, facilitate active transportation and community connectivity;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Environmental, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

the recommended amendments are appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

  •    the recommended zoning will support the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and facilitate an appropriate form, height, and mix of residential development in conformity with The London Plan, as amended;

 

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (3.3) 1806 Avalon Street (Z-8283) (Relates to Bill No. 232)

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 Darryl Neville, relating to the property located at 1806 Avalon Street, known legally as Concession 1, Part Lot 5 Registered Plan No. 33R6847 Parts 2 to 4:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 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 Special Provision Residential R2 (R2-1(9)) Zone and a Special Provision Residential R2 (R2-3(3)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-65*R6-5 (_)) Zone;

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

i)    provide pedestrian connectivity through the site from all units to the public street;

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

iii)    provide enhanced tree planting;

iv)    reduce oversupply of visitor parking to provide additional outdoor amenity areas;

v)    reduce driveway widths to provide additional landscaped open space;

vi)    require the completion of an updated Noise and Vibration Study to confirm the requirements to mitigate negative impacts from the rail line and ensure public safety;

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

  •    D. Murphy, Siv-ik Planning and Design; and,

  •    G. Horchover;

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-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (3.4) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property – 520 South Street

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the demolition request for the house on the heritage listed property at 520 South Street:

a)    the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the house on the property; and,

b)    the property located at 520 South Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

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

  •    S. Rasanu, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

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

8.3.11   (3.5) 367 Springbank Drive (Z-9722) (Relates to Bill No. 233)

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 Kanwal Dentistry Professional Corporation, relating to the property located at 367 Springbank Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 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 R2/Office Conversion (R2-2/OC4) Zone, TO an Arterial Commercial Special Provision (AC2(_)) Zone;

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

i)    as parking exceeds minimum requirements the applicant is encouraged to convert spaces for additional outdoor amenity space;

ii)    specify the location of the medical/dental waste; and,

iii)    relocate the proposed bicycle parking;

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

  •    D. French, Story Samways Planning 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 policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Urban Corridor Place Type; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the establishment of office and residential uses that are appropriate for the context of the site;

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-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (3.6) 1151 and 1163 Richmond Street (Z-9723)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the public comments BE RECEIVED;

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

  •    B. Samuels; and,

  •    K. Galil;

it being noted that a revised recommendation with respect to these matters was received;

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-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.16   (3.10) Amendments to Fees Under the Building Code Act, Building Permit Fees By-law B-7 Amendment (Relates to Bill No. 214)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to Amendments to Fees and Charges under the Building Code Act, Building Permit Fees By-law Amendment:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Schedule “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024, to amend Building Permit Fees By-Law B-7 by repealing and replacing Schedule “A”; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue annual inflationary increases for fees as outlined in Schedule “A”:

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to restructure and phase-in the following building permit fee increases annually, in addition to annual inflationary increases noted in b), starting in 2024:

i)    Townhouses - 2.1%;

ii)    Apartments - 5.0%;

iii)    Group A (Assembly) - 1.4%; and,

iv)    Group E (Mercantile) - 4.0% (finished) and 5.5% (shell);

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to increase all minimum fees by 21%; and,

e)    Schedule “B” of the staff report dated June 11, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information;

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

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

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-P10)

Motion Passed

8.3.17   (4.1) School Block Acquisitions

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide information and associated recommended actions on school block acquisitions and report back to the Planning and Environment Committee in Q4 of 2024, including, but not limited to:

a)    background on the acquisition of blocks for the purposes of a school in the context of Planning Act applications;

b)    a status update on all unacquired Blocks identified in approved Planning Act applications identified for possible School Blocks; and,

c)    provide options for Council’s consideration to provide the School Board(s) with additional flexibility in acquiring School blocks in future Planning Act applications;

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

  •    a communication dated June 6, 2024 from Councillor C. Rahman and Mayor J. Morgan; and,

  •    a communication dated June 4, 2024 from B. Mai, Chair of the Board, Thames Valley District School Board.

Motion Passed

8.3.18   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the June 3, 2024 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.  (2024-D19)

Motion Passed

8.3.19   (5.2) 6th Meeting of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on June 5, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Planning & Development and Building Monthly Housing Update – 2024 Year-To-Date

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated June 11, 2024 entitled “Planning and Development and Building Monthly Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.6   (2.4) Heritage Alteration Permit Application – 332 St. James Street – Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Conservation District (HAP23-107-L)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Heritage Alteration Permit application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act relating to the property located at 332 St. James Street BE APPROVED;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal delegation from G. Keene, with respect to these matters;

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

  •    a request for delegation status and communication dated June 6, 2024 from G. Keane;

  •    a communication dated June 6, 2024 from M. Ross;

  •    a communication dated June 6, 2024 from J. Brown; and,

  •    a communication dated June 8, 2024 from J. Byrne;

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 (12 to 2)

8.3.13   (3.7) 735 Southdale Road West (OZ-9567) (Relates to Bills No. 218 and 234)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Royal Premier Homes, relating to the property located at 735 Southdale Road West:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024,  to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan Policy 1565_5, List of Secondary Plans - Southwest Area Secondary Plan by adding a special policy to Section 4.1 iv) a) i) Residential Development Intensity Adjacent to Urban Thoroughfares, Civic Boulevards, Rapid Transit Boulevards, and Main Streets – Function and Purpose to permit a density of 231 units per hectare and a maximum height of 12 storeys (39 metres);

b)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 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 R5, R6, and R8 Zone (h-2h-30h-53h-75R5-2/R6-4/R8-4) Zone, TO a Holding Residential R5, R6, R8 (h-213*R5-2/R6-4/R8-4(_)) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone with the following special provisions:

i)    Front Yard Setback – 1 metre (Minimum);

ii)    Rear Yard Setback – 20 metres (Minimum) where lands abuts a Residential or Urban Reserve Zone;

iii)    Rear Yard Setback – 0 metres (Minimum) where lands abuts an Open Space (OS5) Zone, with a 30 metre buffer from the existing wetland feature;

iv)    Interior Side Yard Setback – 10 metres (Minimum);

v)    Lot Coverage – 27% (Minimum);

vi)    Height – 12 storeys or 38 metres, whichever is shorter (Maximum);

vii)    Density – 231 units per hectare (Maximum);

c)    pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  •    a communication dated June 5, 2024 from M. Frijia, Vice President, Southside Group; and,

  •    a communication dated June 6, 2024 from K. Crawley, Senior Planner and H. Froussios, Principal Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  •    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    A. Nelson; and,

  •    A.M. Valastro;

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

  •    the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020; and,

  •    the requested amendment would permit development that is not considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

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-D09)

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.3.14   (3.8) 323 Oxford St West, 92 and 825 Proudfoot Lane (Z-9416) (Relates to Bills No. 219 and 235)

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 Sam Katz Holdings Inc., relating to the properties located at 323 Oxford Street West, 92 and 825 Proudfoot Lane:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan to:

i)    REVISE the Specific Policy 864B_ in the Rapid Transit and Urban Corridor Place Types, located at 323 Oxford Street West to permit development with a maximum height of 18 storeys (60 metres);

ii)    REVISE the Specific Policy 1066_ in the Neighbourhoods Place Type, located at 323 Oxford Street West to permit development with a maximum height of 6 storeys (20 metres) and permit development with a maximum height of 13 storeys (40 metres) at 92 Proudfoot Lane and 825 Proudfoot Lane;

iii)    REVISE the Specific Policy 1067_ in the High-Density Residential Overlay (from 1989 Official Plan), located at 323 Oxford Street West to permit development with a maximum height of 14 storeys (46 metres) and permit a maximum height of 13 storeys (40 metres) at 92 Proudfoot Lanes; and,

iv)    REVISE the Specific Policy 1067A_ in the High-Density Residential Overlay (from 1989 Official Plan), to permit development with a maximum height of 16 storeys (51 metres) only on the portion of the site that is south of Westfield Drive and east of Beaverbrook Drive;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 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 R5/R6/R7/R8 (h-1-R5-3/R6-5/R7-D75-H13/R8-4), Residential R5/R6/R7/R8, Neighbourhood Facility (R5-3/R6-5/R7-D75-H13/R8-4/NF1), Holding Residential R8 (h-1-R8-4),  Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (h-1-R8-4(9)), Residential R9 (R9-7-H40), Residential R9 (R9-7-H46),  Holding Residential Special Provision R9 (h-1-R9-3(8)-H22), Open Space (OS1), and Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-80-h-100-R5-7()-D75-H13), Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Neighbourhood Shopping Area (h-80-h-100-R9-7()-D305-H60/NSA3), Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-80-h-100-R9-7()-D242-H46), Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-80-h-100-R9-7()-D230-H20), Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Neighbourhood Facility(h-18-R9-7()-D240-H40/NF), Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-18-h-80-h-100-R9-7()-D200), Open Space (OS1), and Open Space (OS5) Zone BE APPROVED;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting:

i)    there is no significant woodlot on the property;

ii)    people have lost their homes through expropriation to recreate Mud Creek;

iii)    construction of the stormwater drain has disrupted nesting activities of migratory birds, fish spawning habitat;

iv)    the clear cutting of trees has disrupted bat habitat, which are currently listed at risk in Ontario as well as white tailed deer;

v)    provide an annual report on monitoring the impact to wildlife that have been displaced;

vi)    believes the removal of the community garden in Block 1 is detrimental to the seniors living there;

vii)    increase in traffic, noise, speeding and accidents;

viii)    increase in GHG emissions that remove vegetation and increases car emissions;

ix)    flooding risks; and,

x)    protect and retain the farmland;

d)    the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following transportation and servicing matters:

i)    update the Transportation Impact Study and implement recommendations into future Site Plan Applications;

ii)    consider the review of a Traffic Impact Study that addresses the cumulative development impacts and potential cut through traffic; and,

iii)    ensure planned and future municipal infrastructure projects are coordinated with this development;

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

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

ii)    provide enhanced tree planting;

iii)    consider the provision of short-term bicycle parking; and,

iv)    consider providing an enhanced landscaped view corridor and amenity space south of Westfield Drive; and,

f)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by Sam Katz Holdings Inc., (File No. 39T-21505), updated February 13, 2024, which shows a draft plan of subdivision consisting of three (3) medium density residential blocks; four (4) high density blocks; four (4) one-foot reserve blocks; serviced by four (4) local streets (Streets A, B, Beaverbrook Avenue, and Westfield Drive);

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

  •    a communication dated May 24, 2024 from C. Kuijpers and B. Hannink;

  •    a communication dated June 5, 2024 from T. de Vries;

  •    a communication dated June 5, 2024 from Mr. and Mrs. G. Dyson;

  •    a communication dated June 4, 2024 from E. Prentice;

  •    a communication dated June 3, 2024 from S. Smith;

  •    a communication dated June 6, 2024 from M. Kuijpers;

  •    a communication dated May 24, 2024 from J. Cox;

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2024 from A. Johnson;

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2024 from A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    a communication dated June 10, 2024 from J. Woodyer, Campaigns Director, Zoocheck;

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

  •    J. Katz, Sam Katz Development;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    Resident;

  •    K. Kuijpers;

  •    A. Johnson; and,

  •    M. McClure;

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 (PPS), 2020, that encourages higher density residential development within transit supportive areas. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Green Space Place Type, Rapid Transit Corridor, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

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

  •    the recommended zoning amendments will support the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and facilitate an appropriate form and mix of medium and high-density residential development that conforms to The London Plan;

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-D09)

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

At 5:14 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair. 

At 5:18 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor S. Trosow BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 4 minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.15   (3.9) Draft Land Needs Assessment of The London Plan (O-9595) (Relates to Bill No. 220)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the Sections 17(22) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 and section 26 Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Land Needs Assessment, as amended:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Schedules 3 to 10, in Appendix “A” and related mapping in Appendix “F” to adopt the schedules as part of the Sections 17(22) and 26 Review, as amended, of The London Plan, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024 and BE FORWARDED to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval;

i)    Official Plan Amendment Schedule 7 of Appendix A, in clause a) be amended with the following Specific Area Policy, as follows:

(_) Southwest Hyde Park Road and Fanshawe Park Road

In the Neighbourhood Place Type at 1790, 1828 & 1848 Blue Heron Drive, 1510 & 1568 Woodcock Street, 1605 Woodcock Place and 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West, in addition to the standard range of permitted uses and intensities within this Place Type, the following may be permitted on any street classification: fourplexes and stacked townhomes up to four storeys and mid-rise apartment buildings of up to eight storeys. Mixed-use buildings will be permitted. The provision of necessary residential amenities to create a strong neighbourhood environment will be considered through all future planning processes. The range of Commercial Industrial Uses currently permitted on the lands at 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West will continue to be permitted until such time these lands are redeveloped for Neighbourhood Place Type uses at a future date.

(__) 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West

In the Neighbourhoods Place Type located at 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West a building supply outlet, building or contracting establishment, home improvement and furnishing store, warehouse establishment, and manufacturing and assembly industries with related sales may be permitted in addition to the use permitted in the Place Type.

 

Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas, to the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the City of London Planning Area is amended by adding a Specific Policy Area for the lands located at 1790, 1828 & 1848 Blue Heron Drive, 1510 & 1568 Woodcock Street, 1605 Woodcock Place and 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West in the City of London, as indicated on “Schedule 1” Appendix F.

b)    the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing BE ADVISED that Municipal Council declares that the schedules, above, under Sections 17(22) and 26 Review of The London Plan does not conflict with provincial plans, has regard to the matters of provincial interest, and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

c)    the draft Land Needs Assessment (Community Growth) appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE RECEIVED and that Civic Administration be directed to undertake further consultation with the community and development industry, and during future meetings of the Housing Supply Reference Group, and that the Vacant Lands Inventory analysis be reviewed with respect to unresolved flood plain mapping issues with UTRCA;

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

  •    a communication dated May 28, 2024 from J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions;

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a revised by-law for Appendix “F”;

  •    a communication from Deputy Mayor and Ward 2 Councillor S. Lewis and PEC Chair and Ward 8 Councillor S. Lehman;

  •    a communication dated June 5, 2024 from S. Stapleton, Vice President, Auburn Developments; and,

  •    a communication dated June 10, 2024 from P. Masschelein, Senior Vice President, Neighbourhood Developments, Sifton Properties Limited;

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

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

  •    S. Levin;

  •    R. Mino-Leahan, KLM Planning;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions;

  •    S. Stapleton, Auburn Developments;

  •    J. Kudelka, J2 Bouldering;

  •    P. Masschelein, Sifton Properties Limited;

  •    P. Norman, Altis Group; and,

  •    A. Shenouda, S.E.M. Construction;

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

  •    Municipal Council approval of Phase 1A of the Official Plan Review of The London Plan is consistent with the provisions of the Planning Act, section 26; and,

  •    the recommended changes 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.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion BE AMENDED to include reference to section 17(22) of the of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to approve the following:

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage a third -party economic consultant to undertake a housing supply marketplace analysis, including engagement with the Housing Supply Reference Group and a review of the Vacant Lands Inventory, and provide recommendations on the land supply required to meet Council’s provincial housing supply pledge;

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That pursuant to section 11.10 of the Council Procedure By-law, Council BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to approve the following:

d)    notwithstanding the Council-approved corporate growth projections for 2021-2051, the 2023 Ministry of Finance population projections BE ENDORSED for use as the basis for the Land Needs Assessment of The London Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Review, subject to further consultation with the Housing Supply Reference Group, the findings of the third-party economic consultant identified in clause e), below and review by Municipal Council at a future meeting of PEC; and,

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Item 15, clause 3.9, as approved, reads as follows:

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the Sections 17(22) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 and section 26 Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Land Needs Assessment, as amended:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Schedules 3 to 10, in Appendix “A” and related mapping in Appendix “F” to adopt the schedules as part of the Sections 17(22) and 26 Review, as amended, of The London Plan, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024 and BE FORWARDED to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval;

i)    Official Plan Amendment Schedule 7 of Appendix A, in clause a) be amended with the following Specific Area Policy, as follows:

(_) Southwest Hyde Park Road and Fanshawe Park Road

In the Neighbourhood Place Type at 1790, 1828 & 1848 Blue Heron Drive, 1510 & 1568 Woodcock Street, 1605 Woodcock Place and 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West, in addition to the standard range of permitted uses and intensities within this Place Type, the following may be permitted on any street classification: fourplexes and stacked townhomes up to four storeys and mid-rise apartment buildings of up to eight storeys. Mixed-use buildings will be permitted. The provision of necessary residential amenities to create a strong neighbourhood environment will be considered through all future planning processes. The range of Commercial Industrial Uses currently permitted on the lands at 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West will continue to be permitted until such time these lands are redeveloped for Neighbourhood Place Type uses at a future date.

(__) 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West

In the Neighbourhoods Place Type located at 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West a building supply outlet, building or contracting establishment, home improvement and furnishing store, warehouse establishment, and manufacturing and assembly industries with related sales may be permitted in addition to the use permitted in the Place Type.

 

Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas, to the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the City of London Planning Area is amended by adding a Specific Policy Area for the lands located at 1790, 1828 & 1848 Blue Heron Drive, 1510 & 1568 Woodcock Street, 1605 Woodcock Place and 1640 Fanshawe Park Road West in the City of London, as indicated on “Schedule 1” Appendix F.

b)    the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing BE ADVISED that Municipal Council declares that the schedules, above, under Sections 17(22) and 26 Review of The London Plan does not conflict with provincial plans, has regard to the matters of provincial interest, and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

c)    the draft Land Needs Assessment (Community Growth) appended to the staff report dated June 11, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE RECEIVED and that Civic Administration be directed to undertake further consultation with the community and development industry, and during future meetings of the Housing Supply Reference Group, and that the Vacant Lands Inventory analysis be reviewed with respect to unresolved flood plain mapping issues with UTRCA;

d)    notwithstanding the Council-approved corporate growth projections for 2021-2051, the 2023 Ministry of Finance population projections BE ENDORSED for use as the basis for the Land Needs Assessment of The London Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Review, subject to further consultation with the Housing Supply Reference Group, the findings of the third-party economic consultant identified in clause e), below and review by Municipal Council at a future meeting of PEC; and,

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage a third -party economic consultant to undertake a housing supply marketplace analysis, including engagement with the Housing Supply Reference Group and a review of the Vacant Lands Inventory, and provide recommendations on the land supply required to meet Council’s provincial housing supply pledge;

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

  •    a communication dated May 28, 2024 from J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions;

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a revised by-law for Appendix “F”;

  •    a communication from Deputy Mayor and Ward 2 Councillor S. Lewis and PEC Chair and Ward 8 Councillor S. Lehman;

  •    a communication dated June 5, 2024 from S. Stapleton, Vice President, Auburn Developments; and,

  •    a communication dated June 10, 2024 from P. Masschelein, Senior Vice President, Neighbourhood Developments, Sifton Properties Limited;

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

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

  •    S. Levin;

  •    R. Mino-Leahan, KLM Planning;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions;

  •    S. Stapleton, Auburn Developments;

  •    J. Kudelka, J2 Bouldering;

  •    P. Masschelein, Sifton Properties Limited;

  •    P. Norman, Altis Group; and,

  •    A. Shenouda, S.E.M. Construction;

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

  •    Municipal Council approval of Phase 1A of the Official Plan Review of The London Plan is consistent with the provisions of the Planning Act, section 26; and,

  •    the recommended changes 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.

8.4   11th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-06-17 CSC Report 11-Complete

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 11th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 5 (2.1)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED Councillor P. Cuddy discloses a pecuniary interest in item 2.1 having to do with Declaring Surplus, City-owned Property - Part of Pine Street, by indicating that he has previously leased land to Sofina Foods Inc.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.2) Industrial Land Development Strategy Annual Monitoring and Pricing Report - City-Owned Industrial Land (Relates to Bill No. 209)

Motion made by H. McAlister

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

  

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 17, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024 to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under Section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001” by deleting Attachment “B” to Schedule “A” – Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy of the By-law and by replacing it with a new Attachment “B” to Schedule “A”  to amend the current pricing for City owned serviced industrial land as follows:

The current pricing levels of all City-owned industrial parks, established effective August 1, 2024, are as follows: 

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

  •    Lots up to 4.99 acres:  price change from $225,000 per acre to $325,000 per acre 

  •    5.00 acres and up:  price change from $200,000 per acre to $300,000 per acre 

Pricing for serviced industrial land in Trafalgar Industrial Park:

  •    All lot sizes:  price change from $200,000 per acre to $300,000 per acre

Pricing for serviced industrial land in Innovation Park Phase V:

  •    All lot sizes:  price change from $300,000 to $400,000.00 per acre

Surcharges are as follows: 

  •    Highway 401 Exposure – 15%

  •    Veteran’s Memorial Parkway Exposure – 5% 

b)    the staff report dated June 17, 2024, entitled “Industrial Land Development Strategy Annual Monitoring and Pricing Report – City-Owned Industrial Land”, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.4) SS-2024-199 - Provincial Offences Administration Virtual Courtroom Expansion

Motion made by H. McAlister

That on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the Provincial Offences Administration Virtual Courtroom Expansion for Courtrooms 102 and 103:

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

b)    the Single Source negotiated price BE ACCEPTED to secure the installation of audio and visual equipment required for the operation of virtual court as part of the Provincial Offences Administration virtual courtroom expansion for a total price of $141,393.48 (excluding HST) from Dynamix London Inc.;

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

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

e)    the funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set in the Sources of Financing Report appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.5) Appointment of Hearings Officers to Conduct Hearings Under Various City of London By-laws and to Serve on the Property Standards Committee (Relates to Bills No. 210 and 221)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of Hearings Officers to conduct Hearings under various City of London by-laws:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 17, 2024 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to approve the appointments of Hearings Officers in accordance with By-law A.-6653-121, as amended”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 17, 2024 as Appendix “B” to amend By-law No. CP-24 being “A by-law to provide standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property and to repeal By-law CP-16” to repeal Schedule “A” and amend s.7.2, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary for these appointments.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.3) Standing Committee Meetings and Annual Meeting Calendar

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the attached revised annual meeting calendar for the period January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025, as amended to provide for Corporate Services Committee meetings to be held on Mondays at 1:00 PM and Planning and Environment Committee to be held on Tuesdays at 1:00 PM, BE APPROVED; it being understood that adjustments to the calendar may be required from time to time in order to accommodate special/additional meetings or changes to governing legislation;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated June 13, 2024 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.1) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - Part of Pine Street

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property, the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject property being a portion of Pine Street, in the City of London, legally described as part of Pine Street on Registered 433 being Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 33R-21849, BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and

b)    the subject property (“Surplus Lands”) BE TRANSFERRED to the abutting property owner in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5   8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-06-10 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 5 (2.4)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 5:51 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair. 

At 5:52 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 2nd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on May 23, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Renovictions: Renovation License and Relocation By-law Changes

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development the proposed amendment to the Business Licensing by-law L.-131-16, as appended to the staff report dated June 10, 2024, for the purpose of requiring landlords to obtain a licence before requiring vacant possession to repair a under ss. 50(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a future public participation meeting will be held July 15, 2024, to receive comments regarding the proposed by-law;

it being further noted that a future by-law amendment will be brought forward to amend the Administrative Monetary Penalties By-law No. A-54 to introduce penalties and amounts to Schedule A-4 pertaining to the Business Licensing By-law L.-131-16 and this proposed new license category; and,

it being also noted that a future by-law amendment will be brought forward to amend the Fees and Charges By-law No. A-59 to introduce fees and charges associated with this proposed licence category. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) Project Clean Slate – Grant Agreement with Youth Opportunities Unlimited (Relates to Bill No. 211)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2024, to:

a)    approve the grant agreement between Youth Opportunities Unlimited and The Corporation of the City of London for the administration of Project Clean Slate (the “Agreement”); and,

b)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement. (2024-F11A)

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.1) Councillor C. Rahman and Councillor D. Ferreira - CPKC Train Fire

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the CPKC Train Fire:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with key learning from the Sunday April 21, 2024 CPKC train fire including any updates to the Emergency Management notification protocol to address how the Members of Council and the public should be notified when a significant event takes place within the City; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee meeting with respect to the invoices submitted for cost recovery (cost of trucks, staff time and fire suppression foam cost) related to the fire on Sunday April 21, 2024;

it being noted that CPKC has indicated to send the invoices for remittance;

it being further noted that the communication, dated June 2, 2024, from Councillors C. Rahman and D. Ferreira, with respect to this matter, was received. (2024-P16)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.4) Housing Stability for All Plan 2023 Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated June 10, 2024, related to the Housing Stability for All Plan 2023 Update:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit the Housing Stability for All Plan (HSAP) 2023 Update to the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as the annual update to the local homeless prevention and housing plan, in accordance with the Housing Services Act, 2011 (HSA); and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate this report to community and affected partners, agencies, and community groups including, but not limited to, Middlesex County, the London Homeless Coalition and on the City of London website. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.6   2nd Report of the Audit Committee

2024-06-19 Audit Report 2

Motion made by S. Stevenson

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

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (4.1) 2023 Financial Audit

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Financial Audit:

a) the 2023 Financial Report of The Corporation of the City of London BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Audit Committee received a presentation from the Director, Financial Services with respect to this matter; and

b) the Audit Findings Report as prepared by KPMG for the year ending December 31, 2023, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Audit Committee received a presentation from KPMG with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (4.2) Briefing Note from Internal Audit - MNP

Motion made by S. Stevenson

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

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (4.3) Emergency Management Program Review - MNP

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That the Internal Audit dated May 29, 2024 regarding the Emergency Management Program Review BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (4.4) Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard - MNP

Motion made by S. Stevenson

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

Motion Passed

At 6:00 PM Councillors A. Hopkins and S. Stevenson leave the meeting.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   12th Report of Council in Closed Session

At 6:02 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair. 

At 6:03 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 12th Report of Council in Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

That clause 1 of the 12th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

CUPE 107 – Tentative Agreement

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the attached Memorandum of Agreement dated May 7, 2024, and Agreed to Items dated February 5, March 1 and April 3, 2024 concerning the 2024-2027 Collective Agreement for London Civic Employees Local Union No. 107 (Chartered by the Canadian Union of Public Employees and affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress) (“CUPE Local 107”) BE RATIFIED.

That progress was made with respect to items 4.1 and 4.3 as noted on the public agenda, (6.1/11/SPPC) and (6.1/8/CPSC).

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 207 to Bill No. 233, including revised Bill No. 220 BE APPROVED and excluding Bill No.’s 219, 234, and 235

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No. 207 to Bill No. 233, including revised Bill No. 220 BE APPROVED and excluding Bill No.’s 219, 234, and 235

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 207 to Bill No. 233, including revised Bill No. 220 BE APPROVED and excluding Bill No.’s 219, 234, and 235

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 219, 234, and 235 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Franke

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 219, 234, and 235 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 219, 234, and 235 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

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

Bill No. 207

By-law No. A.-8512-155 – A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 25th day of June, 2024. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 208

By-law No. A-59-24002 – A by-law to amend By-law A-59 being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” to establish a new temporary fee for existing customers that can no longer haul recycling process residuals in walking floor transfer trailers to the W12A Landfill Site due to operational constraints. (2.8/9/CWC)

Bill No. 209

By-law No. A.-6151(an)-156 – A by-law to authorize and approve to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001” by deleting Attachment “B” to Schedule “A” – Sale and Other Disposition of land Policy of the By-law and by replacing it with a new Attachment “B” to Schedule “A” to amend the current pricing for all City owned industrial parks. (2.2/11/CSC)

Bill No. 210

By-law No. A.-8513-157 – A by-law to approve the appointments of Hearings Officers in accordance with By-law A.-6653-121, as amended, being “A by-law to establish the positions of Hearings Officer”. (2.5a/11/CSC)

Bill No. 211

By-law No. A.-8514-158 – A by-law to approve a grant agreement for the administration of Project Clean Slate between Youth Opportunities Unlimited and The Corporation of the City of London and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute same. (2.3/8/CPSC)

Bill No. 212

By-law No. A.-8515-159 – A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. (3.1/11/SPPC)

Bill No. 213

By-law No. A.-8516-160 – A by-law to delegate to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development the authority to approve and execute agreement(s) between The Corporation of the City of London and Indwell Community Homes for the provision of capital and operating funding. (4.3g/11/SPPC)

Bill No. 214

By-law No. B-7-24001 – A by-law to amend By-law No. B-7 being “A By-law to provide for construction, demolition, change of use, occupancy permits, transfer of permits and inspections” to repeal and replace Schedule “A”. (3.10/10/PEC)

Bill No. 215

By-law No. C.P.-1512(dh)-161 – A by-law to repeal by-law C.P.-1512(df)-138 (OPA 110), being a by-law to amend The Official Plan, The London Plan, for the City of London, 2016 relating to 530 Oxford Street West. (Director, Planning & Development)

Bill No. 216

By-law No. C.P.-1512(di)-162 – A by-law to amend The Official Plan, The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 530 Oxford Street West. (Director, Planning & Development)

Bill No. 217

By-law No. C.P.-1512(dj)-163 – A by-law to amend The Official Plan, The London Plan, for the City of London, 2016 relating to 1944 Bradley Avenue. (3.2a/10/PEC)

Bill No. 218

By-law No. C.P.-1512(dk)-164 – A by-law to amend The Official Plan, The London Plan for the City of London, relating to 735 Southdale Road West. (3.7a/10/PEC)

Bill No. 219

By-law No. C.P.-1512(dl)-165 – A by-law to amend The Official Plan, The London Plan for the City of London, relating to 323 Oxford Street West, 92 and 825 Proudfoot Lane. (3.8a/10/PEC)

Bill No. 220

By-law No. C.P.-1512(dm)-166 – A by-law to adopt Phase 1A of the Official Plan Review of The London Plan, consisting of Industrial Land Conversions to other non-Industrial Place Types of The Official Plan, The London Plan. (3.9/10/PEC)

Bill No. 221

By-law No. CP-24-24002 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CP-24, being “A by-law to provide standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property and to repeal By-law CP-16” to repeal Schedule “A” and amend s.7.2. (2.5b/11/CSC)

Bill No. 222

By-law No. S.-6336-167 – A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Hajjar Subdivision, Plan 33M-732)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure)

Bill No. 223

By-law No. S.-6337-168 – A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Wickerson Hills Subdivision – Phase 1 Stage 1, Plan 33M-713)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure)

Bill No. 224

By-law No. S.-6338-169 – A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Wickerson Hills Subdivision – Phase 2, Plan 33M-725)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure)

Bill No. 225

By-law No. W.-5702-170 – A by-law to authorize the Intersection – Hamilton – Gore (Roundabout)  (Project TS1331)  (2.3/8/CWC)

Bill No. 226

By-law No. W.-5664(a)-171 – A by-law to amend by-law No.W.-5664-113, entitled “A by-law to authorize the New Thames Valley Parkway (project PK212419)”  (2.4/8/CWC)

Bill No. 227

By-law No. W.-5671(b)-172 – A by-law to amend by-law No.W.-5671-65, as amended, entitled “A by-law to authorize the Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements (Roundabout). (Project No. TS1332)”  (2.4/8/CWC)

Bill No. 228

By-law No. W.-5703-173 – A by-law to authorize the Biosolids Processing Upgrades (project ES5022)  (2.5/8/CWC)

Bill No. 229

By-law No. W.-5704-174 – A by-law to authorize the Wetland Restoration and SWM Treatment Enhancement (project ES3220)  (2.7/8/CWC)

Bill No. 230

By-law No. W.-5705-175 – A by-law to authorize the Bradley Avenue Extension Jalna to Wharncliffe (project TS1523-2) (2.7/8/CWC)

Bill No. 231

By-law No. Z.-1-243222 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1944 Bradley Avenue. (3.2b/10/PEC)

Bill No. 232

By-law No. Z.-1-243223 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1806 Avalon Street. (3.3/10/PEC)

Bill No. 233

By-law No. Z.-1-243224 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 367 Springbank Drive. (3.5/10/PEC)

Bill No. 234

By-law No. Z.-1-243225 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 735 Southdale Road West (3.7b/10/PEC)

Bill No. 235

By-law No. Z.-1-243226 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 323 Oxford Street West, 92 and 825 Proudfoot Lane. (3.8b/10/PEC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 6:12 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (5 hours, 30 minutes)

Okay, thank you. Please be seated. Okay, welcome to the 12th meeting of City Council. Start with the land acknowledgement.

We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Leni Peiwak, and Adawandran peoples. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. The two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Silver Covenant chain.

The beaver hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nan Fan Treaty of 1701. The McKee Treaty of 1790. The London Township Treaty of 1796. The Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak.

And the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Pre-Indigenous nations that are neighbors to the City of London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations, each with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. Also, the City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternative formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425.

With that, it brings us to our national anthem singer. From cozy living room gigs to larger performances at local clubs, Ness is inspired to share her renditions of the classics and more. With every chord, she is stepping closer to fulfilling a musical journey. She’s excited to release more covers and original music in the near future, and she invites you to come along for the ride.

As a UNESCO City of Music, the City of London Music Office is excited to welcome Ness as one of the featured artists at the London Majors National Anthem Artist Development Program, and you can catch her singing in a ballgame this summer. I know I’ve heard her once there, and she’ll be back a number of other times. So please rise and join me in welcoming Ness, who will now sing the national anthem for us. Okay, we’re on to the regular meeting items now.

Disclosures of pecuniary interest. Thank you, worship, and through you. I have a pecuniary interest in 2.1 in corporate services. Let me just bear with me for a moment.

Dorian didn’t have this ready. Yeah, it looks like corporate services. Item 5, 2.1. Thank you, 2.1.

Thank you. And I’d like to recuse myself. Okay, thank you. Any other disclosures?

Thank you. We’re on to recognitions. Councillor Trostai, you have a recognition for us today. Yes, I did.

Thank you very much, Mayor. I would like to talk about a good friend of the heritage community and the science community in London, who passed away, and we just had an event for her. Her name is Janet Hutton, and she’s somebody who many of you would know because she was often up in the chambers, and she certainly came to a lot of planning committee meetings, and she certainly came to a lot of latch meetings. This past Sunday, I was lucky enough to listen to and speak with many of her friends, many of her colleagues, and many of her family members who came to London for the event.

Janet died on July 7th, 2023 at the age of 95, but for a variety of reasons that was decided to put off having a celebration, a very, very, very spirited celebration at one of my neighbor’s homes. Janet’s life went from university studies in physics and chemistry. Back in the day, when there were not a lot of women who were enrolling in programs in physics and chemistry, she was one of the first people to work on the Stratford Shakespearean festival. She was very interested in costumes, period costumes, heritage costumes, particularly scarves, and she had quite a collection of scarves.

Turning more to heritage, she became the curator of artifacts for the London Historical Museum, which was then part of London Libraries and is now Museum London. She became the first curator of the committee, which led to the Fugitive Slave Chapel, and she spent a lot of time working on that issue over the years. She was quite a researcher, she had a very strong background in academics and librarianship and archivism, archives. Her research interests came together volunteering with the architectural conservancy of Ontario, London Chapter, and served on various, variously named over the years advisory committees.

She always led people to inquiry and to find out more about what they knew, and she often had quite a bit to say about it. She was a very spirited person and I really enjoyed my time spent with her. She lived on Huron. She was a wonderful woman, she was always interesting, and she was always interested in whatever people wanted to talk about.

So thank you, and I know a lot of people here probably know her. Thank you, Councillor Trussaab. Any other recognitions? I’m not aware of any.

Oh, yes, Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, 55 years ago, this weekend, the Stonewall riots triggered what would become the modern start of the LGBTQ+ rights movement in North America and across the world. I think it’s important to recognize June as Pride Month here in London as we approach the end of the month, knowing that next month, our own main Pride Festival will be taking place across the street in Victoria Park.

At a time when members of the LGBTQ community and their supporters continue to face acts of intimidation and violence directed towards them, whether it’s the defacing of Pride crosswalks, confrontations at Pride events or events that we currently have under investigation in this city. We’ve come a long way in London. I was here with members of the Pride Board in 2006 when we delivered the first Pride flag that would be flown in Reg Cooper Square to then controller Gina Barber. I was there in 2010 when for the first time ever the city of London’s mayor and the city of London’s police chief, Joe Fontana and Brad Duncan at the time, marched in the Pride Parade.

And I’ve been there to see all of you colleagues at Pride festivals in our community last summer. And I know that I will see many of you there again this summer as your time allows. There’s lots of activities going on. So attend what you can, support the community.

I said this last year and I’ll say it again this year to the haters out there, to the people who think that it is okay to intimidate and bully and direct acts of violence towards the LGBTQ+ community. We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it. Thank you. We have a review of a combination of matters because they’re in public.

We have none. We’re on to council in closed session of which there are a number of items on your regular agenda. I believe three of them. I’ll look for a motion to move into confidential session.

Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion? We’ll open that vote in the system. For those leaving the gallery, you don’t have to go anywhere.

We’re actually the ones who kick ourselves out on this one. So we’re moving to committee room five. So you guys can stay if you’d like. Councillor Trozzo, Councillor Ben Mirbergen.

Trust the votes, yes. noted, thank you. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

Okay, and as I just mentioned, colleagues, we’ll be in committee room five. Thank you. Please be seated. That concludes the in-camera portion of the meeting.

We’re on to confirmation and signing of the minutes of previous meetings. We have the 11th meeting held on June 4th. I look for a move and a seconder of those minutes moved by Councillor Ferra, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion on the minutes?

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay, next we have a series of communications both on the regular and added agenda.

There’s a motion prepared to refer all of those. All of them are related to things in our agenda already. There’s a motion to refer all of those to the relevant sections of the agenda to be dealt with as part of those committee recommendations and reports. I look for a mover to do all of that together.

Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion on moving all of those? We’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay, we’re on to motion to which notice is given. There is none. That brings us to reports.

I have the civics works committee as the first set of reports. I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m pleased to put forward the ninth meeting of the civic works committee. I’ve had no one asked to have anything pulled. Anybody looking to have something dealt with separately? Okay.

Yeah, just to say that we received the ITCAC report. There’s a number of consent items. As you can see, a good news story is the infrastructure renewal program. Part 2, which is the sanitary sewers for 2nd Street and of course the downtown core.

So with that, it’s my report. Great. Any colleagues have any comments or discussion on these items that are before us? Councillor Troz, I’ll go ahead.

Yes, I would like to just raise a very, very brief question regarding 8.1, number 4, which was 2.3. The mud creek construction contract. And I just wanted to clarify again, I did ask this question in the committee, but I think it’s important. This work will all have to be done before the matter that’s on the planning committee agenda regarding 323 Oxford would be able to proceed with construction.

Is that correct? Thank you, Your Worship, yes, that is correct. This work is a prerequisite for the development to proceed. And is there any time estimate as to when this work may be likely completed?

Go ahead. My apologies, Your Worship. I don’t have that with me right now, but I can certainly provide that to the Councillor offline. Councillor Troz?

Okay, well, thank you very much. I just wondered it on the record that there are holding provisions that would have to be removed based on this work that’s on the civic works agenda. Thank you very much. Okay, great.

Thank you. Anyone else on any of the items in the civic works committee agenda report before us? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. The motion carries 14 to 0.

Okay, we’re on to SPPC. I’ll go to the deputy mayor to present that report. Thank you, Your Worship, with respect to the 11th report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. I have been asked to pull item 7, London’s Health and Homelessness Hall of Community Response to be detailed with separately.

I’ve not been asked to have any other items pulled, so I’ll see if there’s any more now. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I’d like to pull three master accommodation plan.

Okay, so so far, three and seven are separate, anything else? Looks like that’s it. I’ll let you craft a motion. Then I’m prepared to move items one, two, four through six, eight through 11, inclusive, and we’ll deal with the remainder separately.

Okay, that’s moved by the chair and on the floor. Any discussion on any of those items? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open those ones for voting. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to 0. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m now prepared to put item three.

That’s the master accommodation plan. Redevelop city hall campus on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. As recommended by Committee moved by the chair, I’ll look for comments and discussion on this.

Head Councillor Cudi. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. I apologize. I’m going to, I’m going to just sit from up.

Anyone else? No one? Okay. Thank you.

We’re getting my apologies. We have a motion we’d like to put on the floor. Okay, great. I appreciate you trying to give people a chance to dialogue first, but it sounds like people are just waiting to see what your motion is.

So if you want to put a motion, now’s the time on the floor, please. Sorry. Thank you. The clerk has the motion.

I think it’s been circulated. I don’t think it’s been circulated, so it’d be ideal if you could read it to everybody. At least I didn’t read it ahead of time. Thank you.

Once you read it, then I’ll look for a seconder. I have a seconder. Thank you. I have a seconder.

I have a seconder. Then since you have a seconder for ease, it seems like you’re pulling it up. I’m going to ask the clerk with the mover. The seconder is Councillor Stevenson.

Okay. I’ll ask the clerk put that in East grad. That way you can read it and colleagues can see it and so can the public. But we have to put that on it like some people have not seen it.

So we’re going to have to read it out so people know what you’re considering. Your worship, would you like me to read it now? I would. Yes.

Thank you. The master combination plan be redevelopment of City Hall be referred to a strategic priorities and policy committee meeting in September 2024. That civic administration be directed to reach out to relevant agencies, boards, and commissions to ascertain their desire to explore co-location in a future centralized City Hall facility. That any further action relating to expanding the existing City Hall onto the adjacent campus lands be deferred until a review of the conversion of City Hall lands from commercial to residential related to proposed municipal space alternatives to the current City Hall campus has been completed.

Any unsolicited proposals that have been formally received to the City by the City prior to the council meeting June 25th 2024 are evaluated in accordance with the City’s established unsolicited proposal process and that the staff report back on those unsolicited proposals and compare the strengths and weaknesses of such proposals relative to the option of expanding on the City Hall campus considering such matters as cost, time requirement, suitability for accommodating a centralized City Hall facility, spin-off economic impact, contribution to downtown revitalization, creation of housing, supply, downtown safety, and security, and any additional considerations that staff are believed important to consider. Thank you. Okay. So that’s moved and seconded.

Now’s the time since the move and seconded, you could speak to the merits of your proposal and I’ll just remind everybody this is council so you can speak once for five minutes. Go ahead. Thank you, Worship and through you. I believe this is such this is too important a project for us to to brush over so quickly and unfortunately at SPPC it came up at the end of the evening at a time when I think we retire.

Well, that’s no excuse. It is the fact that it was a long meeting and we didn’t give this. I don’t think we gave this proper consideration and the time that it deserved. You know, there’s a number of reasons why and we don’t need to go to this at this point, Your Worship, but there’s I think there’s a number of reasons why we need to consider relocation, at least consider the options that are available to us.

And my colleague, Councillor Stevenson said it so well at SPPC, you know, we had Western University and Fanshawe College make great investments in downtown. We have the Budweiser Gardens. We have the market. We have a lot of things happening in our core and this may be an opportunity for us to continue the revitalization of the downtown core area.

And by moving our our City Hall and our City Hall campus, this will give us the opportunity to continue to develop and to continue to make the downtown thrive as it as it is prospering now. We also have to consider the value of the land that we currently sit on. It’s probably one of the most valuable pieces of land in the City today, if not the most. And we have to consider that this could this eventually will be a residential area, Your Worship, and that we want to maximize the value of it, the value of it for the City of London, but also for the residents.

And I do believe that this is an opportunity for us to take a moment to allow staff to reevaluate all of the proposals that would be forthcoming and to give us an opportunity to really get a better handle on where we need to go with our City Hall campus. Again, I think while we have a great facility here, it is an old building. We all agreed with that. I think at SPPC, it’s an old building with old problems.

And I think that moving into new facility with in the downtown core area would give us greater opportunities and also free up some opportunities for us to build housing on this property. Thank you, Worship. Okay, I’m going to pause and just deal with a couple of technical things. So I appreciate you reading up the motion.

I probably should have paused before you spoke, but that’s fine. Technically, so you can do this motion, but it’s got to change a little bit, right? Because what we have on the floor is the committee’s recommendation, not the master combination plan. So you can still stand your motions here.

So essentially, what you want to do, if I read your motion compared with the motion that’s on the floor is you don’t want to, you’re not actually changing from the committee’s recommendation A to be received. You are referring B, which is the direction to initiate the competitive procurement process to a date later. You’re still doing C, which was consult with the relevant boards and commissions. And then you’re adding the conditions under which we kind of come back to be.

So your motion is actually a referral of part B of this, right? The other pieces stand. And then the addition of the other clauses. So we’re going to reword that.

And I’m just going to, I’m going to strongly suggest to counselors that they work with the clerk leading up to this so that we can get, especially a counselor, it perfect and right and functional so that we can go that way. Okay. Councilor Ramin, you have a point of order? Technical, go ahead.

Thank you. And through you, just a technical question. So I read C and I as different, or sorry, C and C. The other one is different.

Sorry. One to me says explore co-location in a future centralized city hall facility. And the other says C is at the city hall campus. So you’re right.

It’s kind of a referral of B and C because the C direction is specific to the city hall campuses are being referred with B, right? So it’s so counselor, I can’t have contradictory motions. So if I just want to understand your intent. So if your intent is to consult with boards and commissions on partnering with city hall more generally, no matter where we might be, that’s how you’ve written it in your motion.

It means we actually do have to refer the C part about consulting on a specific location like the city hall campus, which of course could be considered in your version of C. I think B and C have to be referred together. Your new C can replace it. If your intent is to engage with boards and commissions to get some feedback during kind of the pause till I think September you suggested.

If that’s the intent, then that’s how it’s going to do. We’re going to refer those two pieces together and you’re going to add your version of the consultation into the piece too so that it’s a wider consultation no matter what the result might be. All right, that’s his intent. So I’m not going to have any more debate till we get the actual motion the way it should be worded on the floor.

I know that might take a couple minutes, but that’s the consequence of kind of doing this on the fly council is it takes time. So I want people to see what’s there. I want to make sure it matches your intent. It’ll be legislatively functional from the clerk’s perspective and then we will continue to debate.

So colleagues do not side talk but just take a pause for a seat. Your worship, I do want to apologize to council before creating this motion late. Thank you. Okay, I don’t want colleagues to look at motion three ignore motion to motion three.

Here’s what it here’s what it’s doing. So from the original committee recommendation, a, which is received the report and be the being noted that we got correspondence. They’re still there. We got to deal with that after, right?

They’re not referred. So we’ll deal with that after whatever occurs with this happens. Councilor Cuddy’s doing is he’s referring B and C from the original report from SPPC and then he’s further directing staff to do two things, which he outlined in his comments, right? He’s going to reach out to relevant agencies in a different way for a centralized city health facility not restricted to this site.

And then kind of the other three components of conditions under which, you know, the deferral of the expansion would would come back or would it would happen before that that comes back. So this can be voted on. And this can be separated too. All these want to deal with parts of it separate.

When this, if this is defeated, then the items are not referred. And there’s no other conditions. We’re back to the full and complete committee recommendation. If it passes, we still have to deal with a, the it being noted, and an additional it being noted recognizing the additional correspondence that came on the added agenda.

We deal with that after. So that makes sense to everybody. Can you just read this to make sure it aligns with your intentions? And then we will proceed with the debate of which you’ve already spoken.

Thank you, worship. That’s a much better, much better rendition of what I proposed. Thank you. No problem.

I’m available before the meetings. If you want to help with something. Sorry, that was a little over the top. But, but I, you know, with all due respect, I appreciate you apologizing for bringing it last minute.

It does, it does cause a little bit of slowdown during the meetings. And so we’ve got it now, though, we can proceed with the discussion. You’ve spoken, Councilor, and you’ve moved it. You’ve got a seconder in Councilor Stevenson.

We’ll just update that on, on the, in the agenda. And I’ll proceed with the speakers list on this now. And we can speak to any parts of this. But again, if colleagues want them kind of pulled out and voted on separately, any pieces of this, we can, we can certainly do that.

Okay. So I’ll look to speakers on this motion that Councilor cutting and Councilor Stevenson put forward. Go ahead, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you.

It’s sort of an interesting time as we’ve got this huge decision to make in terms of our city hall. And it’s going to have a long and lasting impact on our city. And we also have an unsolicited proposal policy, which says it will consider proposals that one, satisfy a city of, the city of London need or problem. Two are innovative or unique opportunities to improve service.

Three, demonstrate significant value or savings or mitigate risks. Four, have significant revenue generation or economic development potential. And I don’t know how often this happens that a city gets an unsolicited proposal of this magnitude. But I do know that it came and it was received.

And then we had this staff motion just days later. And we’re in this position of how do we, as a Council representing London and Londoners and, and the future of the downtown and where city hall goes, how do we best navigate the situation that we’re in? And if I understand, if we do not refer this and give time for staff to look at this unsolicited proposal, that we would, in effect, be quashing that. And there wouldn’t be due consideration of that.

And how, how do we do that? If we’ve been given something that meets those criteria and has been received as an unsolicited proposal, how do we make that decision to deny that opportunity for Londoners without an economic impact analysis without looking at the options of where is the best place for residential conversion? Where is the best place for the city hall? What is the impact on what is a 28% vacancy rate downtown that we didn’t anticipate years ago when we talked about staying here?

We’ve got some people have the perception of our downtown’s in a death spiral. And what are we going to do about that? And could our decisions here possibly have a positive impact in that? It would be good for me to know.

We’ve got commercial tenancy that is hard to get, new residential tenancy is difficult. Covenant Mark Garden Market downtown, we’ve got Fanshawe, Western Richmond Road, Dundas Place, a huge investment. What are the impacts of our decision here tonight? And is it worthy of some time to reflect on that and allow at least us to be able to save the Londoners, we allowed that process to go through.

And I think we need an economic impact analysis to make a decision of this magnitude. I think it’s, and I’d love a warning when I get to 30 seconds, the due diligence that we have to have the data to support our investment and decisions at this time. I know that we’ve been talking about this for a long, long time, previous to me being in council. But this is a, we’re at a specific point in time where we get to make that decision.

And we have been given an opportunity that we didn’t know about. Do we owe it to Londoners and ourselves to get the data to make the decision that is best. And to even have the perception that we allowed that proposal to work its way through the process, and that we allowed ourselves to have all of the information to make this really important decision. I would like to request that we go into closed session for legal advice.

Do I save for what? Councillor, is it related to this specific motion on the floor that you need to go into camera? Okay. Can you outline generally the reasons so that we can put the right reasons together?

Is it solicitor advice, directions to staff, land acquisition, like just give me the general ballpark of reasons you need to go into camera for? It’s regarding being open and transparent with our legal advice. More of a solicitor client privilege advice question. Like…

My request, I guess, is for solicitor client privilege. Yes. So if it’s, if you’re asking about advice that was given under solicitor client privilege, and you want to ask questions about that, then that’s the reason to go in. It’s under solicitor client privilege, right?

So assuming that’s where you’re headed, then… It’s regarding what I inquired about earlier. That’s solicitor client privilege. That’s what I’d like now.

Okay. I need a seconder to move into camera for these reasons. Councillor Cutty is seconded. So Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cutty, wants to move into camera under solicitor client privilege related to the motion, the generally topical discussion before us.

I want to open that vote for for colleagues. Okay. All right. Okay.

Councillor very near Bergen closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to 4. We’re going to return to committee room 5. We need a few minutes to set it up again.

For colleagues who are participating remotely, just walks. We’re going to committee room 5. Don’t talk about anything. Thank you.

Please be seated. Okay. So we’ll report out on closed session later when we do the other closed session stuff. We had a motion on the floor, moved by Councillor Cutty, seconded by Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Cutty had spoken, Councillor Stevenson had spoken for about four minutes, then asked to go in camera.

We’ve done that. We’re back to Councillor Stevenson with about a minute left of time. Okay. Thank you very much.

I just want to state clearly my request for this referral is to or my support for this referral is to allow there to be time to have all of the information that we could possibly need before we make the commitment. And there’s the need to take the time to do that due diligence. There’s also that perception of having allowed all of the pieces to move along and go through their pathway. And I feel confident that by the time September comes along, we will be able to confidently and move forward because we’ll have had this opportunity to really look into this big decision that we get to make.

And so I’m looking for council support on this to allow those of us that need the extra time to have that extra time to be certain on this decision. Okay. I’ll look for other speakers on the motion that’s before us. We’re on the motion that includes a referral of two parts, the additional direction to staff, the one in these scribe identified as motion number three.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, your next on the list. Do you want on the list? Sorry? Okay.

And then Councillor Trocette. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, first a question to our staff with regard to what’s been laid out here, a September timeline is suggested for you to return. There are quite a bit of things to evaluate in clause two bracket three.

I’m wondering if with all of those components, if you can meet that deadline or what you would anticipate the deadline to be? Go ahead. And thank you, Your Worship, three-year members of council. It’s a significant amount of work that you’re asking for us to do in the timeframe, which is albeit appropriate, very shortened.

I would say that we would need more time than September to respond back to you into the fall would be more appropriate. Thank you. I appreciate hearing that. I’m just going to share some comments with colleagues.

I think that when we’re looking at the amendment, obviously, as we did a committee reaching out to the relevant boards agencies and commissions to ascertain co-location opportunities, still something I’m very supportive of. I know this question was asked by a counselor at committee, but in to the review of conversion to city halllands from commercial to residential opportunity, I wouldn’t be opposed to hearing that. Where I’m not comfortable supporting is an unsolicited proposal continuing to be evaluated along at the same time, and that we’re asking civic administration to report back on a number of these things. And when we look at, you know, something like spin-off economic impact, I’m going to go back to what I said at committee.

Richmond Row is part of the downtown, too. So an economic impact study would have to not only consider what the economic impact of moving to a different site would be. It would also have to consider what the negative economic impact is of leaving this site, because it would have a negative economic impact on the merchants on Richmond Row, I think. Now, really, what we’re talking about with regard to the location in the unsolicited proposal is four blocks from here.

So I’m not sure that the economic impact is that significant either way, that the people aren’t still going to walk a distance on a lunch break or pop out after the workday for a patio or something like that. So I don’t think the economic impact piece is, and the contribution to downtown revitalization actually is all that relevant, because I think that there is an economic impact and a component of the vitality of downtown to being here or there or anyplace in the core area. So I cannot support to II and to II. I would be interested in the report back on the viability of a conversion, office to residential conversion, having heard a committee that we haven’t actually done an analysis of this, but I wonder through you, Chair, back to the question I asked the staff about the original piece, what kind of timeline for a high-level review of an office to residential conversion for this current building, how much time would something like that require?

Go ahead, Mr. Mathers. Through your through your worship, I would suggest that would be a fairly lengthy activity because we’d want to be getting some external partners to be able to provide that consulting advice to us on that matter. So likely to be like the four to six month range.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate hearing that too. I guess that creates a little bit of a conundrum for me because I’d like to know what that looks like, but at the same time, I’m aware that there are expenses at this site just in terms of maintaining its viability that we would have to be considering between now and then in terms of some rather substantive repairs that are needed on this property if we’re going to continue to operate here. So I do think that I’m going to listen to what other colleagues have to say.

As I said, I can support the co-location opportunities being looked at. I would love to know what the office to residential conversion is here, but four to six months is a pretty lengthy process, so I’m not sure where I land on that based on the answer staff’s given. I may ask for that to be called separately when the time comes to vote, but I’m going to listen to what colleagues have to say on these items first. Councillor Trossal, you’re next.

Through the chair on the amendment, I’m not going to support the amendment. I found that the initial staff report was thorough, and it satisfied my desire to have fundamentally a fair and thorough procedure for moving forward, and I’m just hearing proposals for delay after delay, and I was almost going to push the button on personal privilege before when the word due diligence was used. This would give us time to do due diligence. I think those of us who read the original report did our due diligence, and I think the staff has done its due diligence, and quite frankly, if I have heard anything coming across this table that sort of scuttled my confidence in that due diligence, I’d be the first to state it, but I am not going to support this referral, and I think based on what’s before us, I know it’s a very difficult question, but the fact that it was late and the fact that we were tired doesn’t mean we made the wrong decision.

So often it’s going to be late soon here too, we’re going to get to something important. We’re going to do that over again, because it’s late. We spend a lot of time. Okay, yes.

I would draw that. That’s okay. We got to know what we have to deal with the point of order. What’s your point of order, Councillor Cady?

I take personal Umbrage chair and do your worship for Councillor, their Councillor suggesting that I suggested that we are all tired. It was just late into the evening. I wasn’t suggesting, and I don’t believe I said that we were exhausted at the point that we could make a good decision. So I take that very personally, sir, that you would make that decision.

Okay, no, through the chair. So I appreciate the point of order. I agree that that language should have been used differently. I hear the Councillor already before we even got to the point of order willing to attract it.

And so if you could just confirm that you’re willing to retract that piece, do that, and then we can continue with your comments. Is that Councillor? I guess if we were in court, I could say read back to transcripts so we could hear exactly what he said, but we don’t have that benefit right now without spending a lot of time. So I’ll just retract it so we can move on.

Thank you. I appreciate that. You can continue on with your comments. I’m the point of order has been dealt with.

I took that agenda item very seriously. And I just want to leave it at that. And I’ve heard nothing. I’ve heard nothing that has changed my mind on this.

And believe me, I’m listening very careful because I understand that this is one of the most important decisions that this Council is going to make. And we have to get it right. And I am particularly impressed with the two stage process that Steph has laid out for us that we’re going to go through, which by the way, it’s open to anybody. It’s about this particular property, but it’s open to anybody.

And it’s fundamentally fair. And it moves us forward. And everything I’ve heard in terms of the referral is taking me out into another period of time. And I have to balance the opportunity cost of the delay with the additional information that I think it’s reasonable to get and making that making that balance.

I do not think that it’s worth it. So I am going to stick to this stuff report. So that’s why I’m going to be voting against this this amendment. Thank you.

Yes, it’s sorry. Councilor Roman, you’re next. Thank you and through you. I’m just wondering if I can get further clarification for part three of this motion.

It refers to unsolicited proposals and plural. One, and two, I’m wondering if that advice would the strengths and weaknesses of such proposals would be coming back to us as an in-camera item or would be a public item. Thank you, Worship. And through you, the members of Council, just to provide clarity on my first comments on this, having not had the chance to look at item I until a second ago, having read the resolution, I want to be clear that this is going to take significant time to do this work.

I’ll start with that. The second thing is, there are elements of this that would be coming back to you in-camera and there would be elements that could come, I suppose, open depending upon the nature of all the work that’s being asked. But generally, this is a matter that would be resolved or discussed in-camera. Councilor Roman.

Thank you. And just for clarity, again, around the motion, what’s the difference between I and II as it relates to creation of housing supply versus the conversion of citylands for commercial to residential? That’s more to the mover of the motion, I think, than staff. You want on the list?

Go ahead. The difference, sorry. Could the question be repeated again, I thought it was going to staff? Yeah, for sure.

Go ahead. Sure. In part three, the motion is a suitability for a comment. Sorry.

It says it talks about residential creation of housing supply, so I’m just wondering if that is discussion point for this location and then what’s the difference between that and I? I’m looking at through each year, through your worship. Upon second glance of this, there’s probably not a great difference. And I would guess I would ask the Councilor that if it made a difference in her support of this motion, whether or not they were combined or one was reduced, because they are pretty much close comparison.

Go ahead, Councilor Raman. Thank you, and through you, I want to line my support based on what’s in the motion, but I will say that that clarity is needed. I’m also not understanding what downtown safety and security it refers to in this motion. Any further clarification you can give on that, Councilor Cuddy?

No, but again, your worship, if Councilor Raman had an interest in us amending this part of the motion, we probably do that. Let’s go ahead, Councilor Raman. Okay, so to me, these items are unclear, and it’s important that we provide clarity and direction if we’re asking for an alternative motion to be considered here. I don’t have alternative language at this point because I hadn’t contemplated looking at this differently.

Although there are some aspects that I personally am curious about, I don’t think that the wording here is clear enough to provide ample direction at this time. So I personally, I’m not going to debate the merits of other parts of things that should have been in front of us, but with this particular motion right now, I’m struggling with the vagueness of what’s in front of us and the lack of clarity as well as the duplication in effort, and I worry that that would extend the time even further because of the lack of understanding. I also don’t, I’m not aware of more than one unsolicited proposal that’s been shared publicly. So I’m just wondering why this is now, in my opinion, leading to the idea that we’re looking to engage in other unsolicited proposals on this matter.

And I wonder what that then opens us up to. And so I’m unclear at this point what I would be supporting, if I were to support this, I won’t be supporting it. Okay, I have Councilor Freire next. Thank you, Your Worship.

So yeah, like to the comments already kind of made, you know, my position as it’s known, like, this is a, we have a well thought out embedded plan already before us. And really what we’re going to is we’re still going through a process that is, that is the procurement process. It’s open, it’s fair. We’re asking for, we’re basically saying we have a plan and we’re requesting people to come in and tell us, you know, what they can bring to the table and to help us, you know, do this work and then we’re going to pick from there.

So we’re still, we have a very good process going on right now, which is exactly how we’re supposed to be doing it. So we can be fair and true on how we do things. A lot of our resources that we’ve already put into the master accommodation plan, those that’s been spent, that’s been paid for. And that’s taxpayer dollars too.

I don’t see the costs renovate the market tower, resulting in a lower cost. And I am very firmly a believer that it’s going to be higher, much higher. And we don’t have the information on the state of those buildings. We don’t have that true information.

So we just, we just don’t know. And yet we still have this vetted plan where we do know. So without that information and the delaying that we’ve already heard, that’s going to ultimately increase our costs. Even if we don’t know the state of the building, we know we delay this, we are going to increase our costs.

We’re going to increase our costs with more life cycle renewal stuff that we have to do to the building. We’re going to increase our costs with more rent. We’re going to increase our costs, you know, with more resources that are going to go into the master accommodation plan, when we find out that this is the best better way to go. And again, that’s taxpayer money.

So we’re trying to not have an impact on the taxpayer. So delaying it right now will make that impact on the taxpayer. You know, and the unsolicited proposal is review, it’s a high level review. And the communications state, they’re high level reviews.

And what is a high level review? Well, from how I understand it, that’s a review of the information that was submitted by the applicant by the unsolicited proposal. And that high level review basically means, you know, what was available to them. And I know that that information is not granular enough.

It doesn’t give us the details that we need. It’s just way too little information for me. And it’s not vetted. It’s not vetted comparatively speaking to the master accommodation plan.

And again, that goes back on the taxpayer. Are we willing to delay our master accommodation plan and flip the bill on the taxpayer for that any further? I’m not. I think the staff report is really well laid out.

We’ve received actually a whole file share of support or of documents. And they were numerous in the past work that we’ve done on this. And those those details are there. So I am just, you know, I’m not going to be supporting the referral.

I want to move forward with the plan that we have. I don’t want to put that extra burden on the taxpayer. And I don’t want to delay like has, as has been said on this council, probably the biggest one of the biggest votes, the biggest projects we’re going to see on this council. I’d also say that, you know, this very room’s seen a lot of history.

The queen has walked in here. Lady Jane was in this room. We all started our political careers in this room, I believe. So best history of London, in my opinion, is in this building.

So I think it’s very well suited. Other speakers to the, um, for all and direction to staff. Councilor Pribble, go ahead. Thank you.

And I believe that we have info of us that opportunity that should be fully evaluated. And I’m going to say what I said at the, at our committee, at SPPC last week, I do think being the proper due diligence of all the facts that are info of us now, even though we did get it at very late stage. There is a need for the economic impact. And there has to be consideration, like, for added value and positive, uh, what I call positive domino effect.

I will be supporting it. I do, I do see the concerns, you know, in terms of, let’s say, the plural. But on the other hand, we do have the date before June 25th. So bottom line is if there is someone that would like to change it, potentially, that there’s a minor change that they would support, I encourage my colleagues to do that to come ahead with it.

But I do believe that there is an opportunity in front of us that needs to be fully evaluated. Yes, maybe, and then we can make the best, best possible decision when we have all the facts and all the circumstances in front of us. I will be supporting it. Thank you.

Other speakers. Seeing none, right now, this is all together. I did hear some colleagues talk at some points about parts they might like parts they don’t. I don’t know if there’s any requests to divide it.

It doesn’t have to be divided, but it could be. But I’ll look to see if there’s any interest in that before I all the vote. I don’t see anybody. Yes.

Okay, go ahead. Your worship, I would like to have, under the clause CE, further directed. So we’ve got, it’s not even listed. It’s a further direction.

Sorry, further direct that the civic administration. And then we’ve got clause one and clause two with three sub clauses to two. I’d like to I dealt with separately, sorry, to II and to II, which I don’t support. So to II and to II, we can deal with separately.

Is there anybody who wants it further divided apart? Yeah, would go ahead. Thank you. I’m just wondering if you vote this entirely down.

Since there’s some duplicate stuff to the staff recommendation, if we vote it all down, could we still go back to the original committee recommendation, even though there’s some duplication? Correct. Yes. And your worship, just as a point of clarification on my request to pull separately, I would like to deal with two II and two II first, because if those in fact pass and are included in the main motion, then that changes my support to impose on that.

So if we can deal with those first, and then if they’re included, that changes how I vote on the other motion. Yes, that’s exactly what the clerk and I were just talking about about the order that the votes have to make logical sense in. Okay, so the clerk and I generally agree on that two II and II should be dealt with first, because if they fail, the rest can kind of proceed. Kind of a tricky one, because he could go several ways on this, so we just have to pick a direction to go.

But I think given those are the two pieces that are specifically asked to deal with separately, we can deal with those. I think we can deal with those first. So unless there’s objections, we’ll deal with two II and II is the first vote. Yeah, I don’t see anybody objecting to that.

Okay, then if there’s no further debate, we’re ready to vote on those two pieces. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion fails four to ten. So now what’s left is the referral and two II.

So the referral of the two pieces of the original staff recommendation, and then the replacement, the number one and number two, just part I. What he’s good with that doesn’t need to be divided further. What’s left is the top part, so the referrals, so we’re referring two parts of the original staff recommendation. Remember, we still have to deal with A and being noted later.

B and C of the staff recommendation are referred, and then civic administration be directed to do number one, and then number two I, which is the go out to boards from a broader perspective, and that the action relating to expanding the existing city hall on the adjacent campus science be deferred until, and then I, which is a review of the conversion from commercial residential workers. That’s what’s left, right? So we’re going to, yeah, so we’re going to do all of that together, the referral and the directions to staff that remain. Okay, all right, I see nods.

Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Lewis, Councillor Trosto, closing the vote, motion fails on a tie, 7 to 7. Okay, so that puts us back to the original committee recommendation in its entirety. Nothing referred, nothing added to it.

So that’s actually the main motion. I’ll ask if there’s any speakers who haven’t spoken to the main piece yet. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. I’m just going to say I’m not going to be supporting this.

Other speakers to the main, go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I just want a little bit of clarity. We’re back to the main motion from the committee, you know. Thank you.

You know, other speakers on the main committee recommendation? Then we’ll open the main committee recommendation. Closing the vote, motion carries, 9 to 5. Okay, that was that item from the committee now dealt with.

Deputy Mayor, I’ll go back to you for remainder of the committee report. Thank you, worship. That leaves item 7, London’s Health and Homelessness Hall of Community Response to still be dispensed with. So I’ll put that on the floor now.

Okay, so that’s on the floor. As per the committee’s recommendation, I’ll look for speakers on this one. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I will not be supporting this the same as I voted against at committee and I won’t repeat those arguments. I do want to say I do support the continuation of the no encampments not being permitted in municipal lots one and two in the old East Village area and on the streets and sidewalks. I am interested to see what happens with the new proactive enforcement and the rapid, I can’t remember what the name of it is, but the rapid protocol. And I really am hoping that as council endorses this and the whole community has brought it forward committing to those 15 areas that there that that Londoners can really count on that.

Obviously, it won’t be perfect all the time, but that we will see a consistency amongst those 15 places. It will look like it is a place where encampments aren’t allowed and that there’ll be some problem solving done as to why we’ve got situations that are recurring so that we are helping everybody because right now we’re moving people who are unsheltered and living in tents in our municipal lots and we’re moving them throughout the day every day and that has to be really difficult for them. We’re putting our city staff in a confrontational position in those lots where they’re having to be that one saying move along, move along every day and we’re truly not helping the businesses and the neighborhood because the encampments are there all the time even though they might be moved slightly or they’ll be different. We’ve had some conversations recently around, you know, are they the same people?

Why are they there? How can we provide them the services that they need elsewhere so that we’re not in this sort of lose, lose, lose situation where we’re spinning our wheels and really to the detriment of all and and our finances. So I’d love to be a part of that. I’d love to, I’m anxious to see what what is going to happen there.

I’m hopeful the oldest village BIA general manager is going to be really watching that and and playing an active role and there is an expectation that this business district is going to see something different given this new policy that’s been put forward by the whole community system response and likely to be endorsed by council today. So I won’t be supporting it and I am hopeful that it will make a difference in the areas where we are making a declaration here because I’m also concerned that we’re expanding the rules and the expectations about areas that, you know, in the encampments to say this list of rules that we’re somehow going to be able to provide that service when literally it’s not happening on the main streets of our downtown or in the municipal lot. So I’m uncomfortable with it. Obviously I support whatever council does here and I think my position is clear in most cases.

Other speakers. Go ahead, Councilor Preble. Thank you. I will be supporting it and I do in a situation and there’s another point that will be coming up with it.

I’m going to talk more in detail, which is going to be more accurate towards the point. But one thing I want to say is my concern same as last week, you know, the enforcement and communications, I think they will be tremendously important and I still think that there is a certainly room for improvement and we really have to make sure that when we do the enforcement and there’s the communication for the individuals, so there were where the possibilities for them and where they could be. I believe we need to be more clear, no doubt. One of the things that I did want to ask the staff though, if there are any impact of the recommendation on the decrease, because the original proposal was 50 meters.

Now we are 100 meters from the property line and I believe that the 50 meters was potentially not from the property line but from actually the building. So if the staff could answer to me any in terms of implications of the decrease of this distance, thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Diggins.

Okay, perfect. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, staff have been able to just do a preliminary review of the distance measurements and these amenities and these indicators that we’re measuring against. At first blush, it looks like there will be some significant impacts in terms of restricting where encampments could possibly be located.

Again, we preface that with there’s a lot of nuance and discretion that goes into this work. So on both sides of the equation, if an encampment is in a area that we would deem to be permitted but there’s activities or there’s unsafe conditions presenting themselves, then we would have to relocate that encampment. And likewise, if they’re in a location that’s deemed not to be permitted but there is a low risk, it would take us quite some time to be able to get out there to enforce it or remove it given the prioritization needs. At first glance, it looks like the council parameters that have been recommended would essentially render between 80 and 85 percent of park space as unusable for potential encampments or no-fly zones.

So there is a bit of an impact there that we would have to work through with the folks in the community that operationalize this type of support and with our CIR folks that would be tasked with upholding council’s recommendations. Thank you for the response. Based on your response. And by the way, I just want to reiterate and again that everyone around the horseshoe in this room, we know the encampments are not the long-term solution.

No one is happy about them. But there are certain circumstances that you’re in a situation that you look at the best possible solutions at the specific moment. But based on the response that I received, I have one more question for the staff. Based on what you said, would you recommend the change from the proper line to the building or going to the proper line and changing it to 50 meters as originally any suggestions from the staff?

Because we are actually, the reason why I’m saying it is, yes, we do want to make it safe for our citizens. But on the other hand, because of these restrictions, are we going to move these encampments people to actually hire potential issues with the residents? That’s the reason why I’m asking this. And I would like us to make the best possible decision.

Thank you. So I’m going to go to the city manager. But I’m just going to preface this with staff did give a recommendation in the original report that came before us. And we changed it.

So I don’t think staff can say, what do you recommend based on what we did? They could probably talk about the impacts, as Mr. Dickens has, about what we’ve done. But we had what was staff’s suggested starting point for our discussion and their recommendation.

And we moved to a different spot. So I don’t know if Ms. Dader is there. Thank you, Your Worship to the members of Council.

That’s exactly my response. Probably could have just let you do it. Sorry. Okay.

Council approval. No, do you? I don’t have any questions right now. Thank you.

Other speakers? Oh, I have Councillor McAllister. Sorry, you’re on the list. Thank you.

And through the chair, I did just want to take this opportunity to actually start off by thanking staff, specifically our CIR team. I know this is very difficult work. As a city, as a province, as a country, I mean, encampments is unfortunately just reality that we’re experiencing right now. I’ve really taken the opportunity lately to engage more on this issue.

I know it’s an issue I hear a lot about. And I really do feel the frustration from the community. And I just want to kind of express to my colleagues that I do think as a city, we are doing our part. I really do.

And I fundamentally believe that. And where I see a lot of the failures is we call this the health and homeless whole community response. I cannot stress enough the health component and that we need to really keep pushing on that front. We talk about the revolving door.

I’ve heard a few of my colleagues say, you know, we’re just shuffling people. And I hear that. I feel that my community members, my businesses, they all echo that to me as well. But when you don’t have places for people to go, that is a fundamental issue.

And whenever we deal with these topics, we have to keep in mind, part of this is building up capacity, not just for our agencies, for city, but it’s building the capacity on the hospitals. Mental health facilities, especially rehabilitation facilities, that’s another one. But the housing spectrum, which was given to us as part of this plan, can’t be forgotten either. We’re trying to go from a situation where people are living in encampments, which we all agree is not what we want.

And I don’t think as a society we should ever accept that. But we need to put the resources into the other parts of the housing spectrum to alleviate what people are experiencing. So again, I just want to say, I thank staff for the work on this. I know it’s difficult work.

I appreciate our community partners working with us on this. We are looking for solutions. And with AMO coming up, I would please say this is something we really need to be advocating for at the provincial level. We need these resources.

Some of them have been forthcoming. I’ve seen some very inspiring projects come up. We discussed one of them earlier in terms of what we saw at 46 Elmwood, which is great partnership. So please, let’s keep working towards that.

I know this is either difficult conversations to have, but I don’t want to lose hope. I want to keep people at the forefront of this and get them the help they need. Thank you. Other speakers, Councillor Trossaab.

I’ll be exceptionally brief through the chair because I’ve spoken to this on a couple of occasions. While I did not support some of the amendments at the committee, I’m not going to make an attempt to open these up again. We voted the way we did, and certain representations were made to us by the staff in terms of the flexibility that will be written into this. So I’m going to support this as is.

And I also, I want to join in thanking the staff. Our staff has been national leaders on this file. Let’s never forget that. When we go to conferences, this is what we hear.

And I also very much want to thank Greg and Chantal for the excellent work that they did on this. And let’s refer back to the wonderful report that they wrote. Because they wrote a pretty long report, and we spent all of our time at the SPPC on one page dealing with numbers. And there wasn’t a whole lot of attention given to the underlying policy framework and human rights framework and an environmental scan of what other jurisdictions are doing when we had that discussion.

So I just want to remind people that what we passed, we made changes to one page. But what we passed was a foundational document. And it had a lot of really good information in it that’s going to be of use to other jurisdictions. So we should hold that report up high, and we should be very proud of it.

And by the way, that report also referred to other documents. That report was very well referenced. And that report spoke about the work of the Federal Housing Advocate, which was incorporated into this report. And I urge when you have some free time to do some additional reading, perhaps a week where we don’t have a thousand pages right before our meeting, go back and look at some of those documents that were cited in the underlying park.

It’s a really worth reading. And when people raise with us, when they say, why do you have to have encampments? I think that these foundational documents explain it very well. And there were exhibits that were attached that talked about some of the case law.

And there was ample resident. There was ample reference. And I love references. There was ample reference to other literature and other reports that we are very consistent with.

So I’m happy to support this now. And if it turns out that there is an issue with the enforcement because of the numbers, that can come back to us. But I’m just, I’m just a hard yes on this right now. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I have myself next on this. I’ll hand the chair to Councilor Roman. Thank you.

I have the chair recognizing Mayor Morgan. Thank you. I’ll say just a few things about this, although it might be a couple of minutes. So I want to add my word of thanks to all those who worked on the document.

And I want to acknowledge what Councilor Troz has said about the debate we had and having a discussion and trying to find something that there’s a wider support for Council on. And I recognize that there is some flexibility around the distances. But given what Mr. Dickon says, there may be some challenges too with implementation.

And as we’ve said with these projects all along, you know, if there are things that are not working, that we as a Council are willing to revisit them. So I think we can move forward with this. We’ll see how it goes. We’ll look at the operational challenges that may occur.

And we can make adjustments if necessary down the road to certain components of it. And that goes for all parts of this plan, including the previous strategies that we developed. And this is really the third piece of, you know, the three strategies that make up the overall architecture of the health and homelessness response, the Hubs implementation plan, the highly supportive housing plan, and now this plan on encampments, which is really about the contacts with individuals to find them pathways to housing. One of the most important parts of that document that I was drawn to that was not debated a lot, was really how we take the interactions with individuals, how they’re fed into, you know, what is a triage system, and then how we find the right types of housing for them.

Up to this point, we’ve talked a lot about just highly supportive housing and high acuity. But really the engagements on the front lines of encampments are about connecting people with the right types of housing, including all of the work that we’re doing on the road map to 3000, the work in London homelessness community housing, our, our GRI units, all of those pieces play into this strategy because every contact that outreach workers have is an intentional interaction to find people the right type of housing. It may not always be available, but we’re putting them on that path and preparing them for it. And this is really critical work because ultimately we don’t want any encampments in our city.

I mean, it’s a lofty goal given the constraints that exist within the resources that are available to us. The struggles that other cities are having that are very similar, but it still should be our goal, everything geared towards getting people properly housed. And so these three strategies can work in partnership now. And I agree with what Councilor McAllister said, this whole of community response does require a whole of government support, right?

And we’ve seen the way that we’re deploying different monies that other levels of government have, but we know that there’s a need for more. And I can tell you from the conversations we’ve had at Ontario, big city marriage, Justin Shatham, Kent recently, we recognize that and our advocacy efforts on this are renewed. We see the money that the federal government has put forward for dealing with in-campus strategies. And we know that that money needs to come faster, right?

Reviewing it by Treasury Board potentially, as Mr. Dickens said, he had heard in September, leads to a challenge getting that money flowing before winter comes. And so there are important conversations to have with the federal government about a very wise investment and how quickly it can actually flow into the hands of those who can deploy it very effectively. There’s also the external partners who lead into this strategy as well and the work that was mentioned about the other components of the community stepping up and supporting with innovative projects like that on Elmwood, like these are the types of things that allow us to come together.

But ultimately, the big advantage that I see as having in all of this work over other municipalities when I engage with them is we’re developing protocols that everybody involved in implementing them, including the city, including law enforcement where necessary and by law, including outreach workers, have agreed on a common set of approaches here that we all pull in the same direction. You know, other communities don’t have that. There’s very much a patchwork of support happening across the system that is often uncoordinated and sometimes can work against an overall strategic goal. So having these pieces in place and having everybody kind of agree, even if you don’t like every single part of it, to pull in the same direction is an incredibly powerful advantage that we have in meeting the challenges that all of these issues kind of combine to create for municipality like London.

So with that, I’m very supportive of this. I think this is kind of the final piece in and over our strategy. We’ve got lots of work to do, but we’ve got those base pieces in place that we can all agree on as a community to pull in the same direction on. Thank you, returning the chair to you, Deputy Mayor, on the list.

Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. I would have gone before you, but put yourself on the list before you saw my hand up. So now I’m going to have to go after you.

I will say I appreciate the spirit that I’m hearing of colleagues and particularly given the time we spent at SPPC on this, where I didn’t have to stand, I appreciate Councillor Trussa on not wanting to go through everything again. I will say, I also agree with Councillor McAllister in terms of there are some partners who aren’t as fully at the table as they need to be. And I would say that’s not just the province. I would say that’s the federal government too.

To some degree, I appreciate some of the funding that has started to flow, but it’s not fast enough. And some of the strings attached are cumbersome for municipalities. I would say that applies beyond the government too. I think that applies to the opposition parties who are quick to criticize, but aren’t really fleshing out any great plans of their own.

And again, that is at both provincial and federal levels. I think we hear a lot of criticism, but what else is our options here? And so I will reiterate, I think that London as a community, our staff, for sure, but also some of our community partners are punching above their weight here. I think we are actually already doing more than what is, you know, possibly in our jurisdiction.

I think we’ve started to wander into some of the provincial jurisdiction, federal jurisdiction on some things, but we’re responding as best we can with the resources we have at hand. And I think where we landed at committee was a place where maybe none of us are completely happy with everything, but we can all live with what we’ve found a consensus agreement on. So very supportive of sticking with the recommendations that are coming out of committee. I know that that will have some challenges as well in terms of implementation.

I promise Mr. Dickens, I’m not going to take my old school meter stick out to a park and lay that down because you do need some flexibility and some discretion on that. And I hope the colleagues will be understanding as those protocols on how we enforce this stand up, there will have to be prioritization. So I just want to say I recognize that as well.

And I’ll just end my comments there with the, I am very supportive of what we came out of committee with. It is not exactly where I would have liked to land either, but I think it’s a good middle ground compromise on things. Any other speakers? Seeing none, then we’re going to open what is the committee recommendation for approval?

Motion carries 13 to 1. And three hours later, you worship that concludes the 11th report of the strategic priorities and policy committee. Great. Thanks for setting the bar for Councillor Layman.

Hopefully come in under that. And we’ll go to planning and environment committee. Thank you. We will do our best.

I’m pleased to put the 10th report of the planning and environment committee on the floor. And so lengthy agenda. We’ll have been asked to pull item 6, 13, 14, and 15. If you want something else, Paul, just speak out.

Go ahead. We’d like to ask the chair to pull out also three, which is 2.2. Thank you. Anything else?

Can I let you put together a motion? Thank you. I’ll move items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 19. Okay.

Everybody’s okay with that grouping? Okay. Those are on the floor moved by the chair then. Any discussion on those items?

Go ahead. Thank you, worship. I’ll just be brief. Thanks, staff.

And the applicant for the work that they did on item 9, which is 1806 Avalon, a little bit of infill happening in ward 2 that I’m really happy to see. And so I’m going to say this now. I’m supporting infill in my own ward and I’m going to be supporting all the infill in the other wards from this planning committee agenda too. Okay.

Anybody else on the general grouping? Okay. Then we’ll open these ones for voting. Just be a minute to prepare that vote.

Okay. That should be open now. Those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0. I just I’m just going to pause, Councillor.

There’s a number of items that were pulled from your agenda. I wasn’t necessarily anticipating that. It’s been three and a half hours. We want to take a short break.

We could do that before we get into what our colleagues have pulled potentially for debate and discussion. Probably better to do that before rather than see how long these items go. So if you’re looking for and this is just a break right now in 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 10 minute break. Everybody’s okay.

So someone move that then. Councillor Cudi moves. Councillor Stevenson seconds. All those in favor for a 10 minute break.

Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Okay.

Thank you. Please be seated. Councillor Layman, we’re in your committee report here. So we’ll go back to where we left off as you bring the items forward.

Thank you, Chair. And I will put item number 32.2 on the planning development and building monthly housing update for 2024 year to date on the floor. All right. This is on the floor.

Move by the chair. Any discussion? Go ahead, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, to the staff. We had some discussions about this monthly update. And I was very happy to hear that we are working our staff is working on an improved reporting system, which is great. I just wanted to reiterate again that there was some fantastic data collected over the years.

And I hope that we are going to keep this important data so we can really do the comparison, study comparison analysis based on year on year. So there was the, there was the comment I wanted to reiterate from the last meeting. I don’t know if the staff has any comment to my request. I would appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Go ahead, Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, yes.

We will be maintaining all that building data that we’ve always had. What we’re going to be moving to is a more prompt monthly report, which is condensed amount of information. And then four times a year, we’ll have that more detailed information available and eventually be moving so that that will actually be all available on the website. So it’ll be able to be provided even more quickly to council and to the public.

Thank you very much. I have no more questions. Thank you. All right.

Thank you. Any other questions on this one? Seeing none, we can open this item for voting. President Vogue, motion carries 14 to 0.

Go ahead, Chair. Thank you. And we’ll put number six, which is 2.4 regarding the heritage alteration permit application for 332 St. James Street on the floor.

Okay, that’s on the floor. I look for any comments. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, Your Worship, I ask for this one to be pulled.

I do, I will not be supporting the recommendation to allow for, I guess, the vinyl material on this application for a heritage alteration permit. It is a conservation district. I’m starting to see more and more of these one offs to allow for the vinyl to be used. And I really strongly feel that if we want to support this direction, that we should start to change our policy.

I don’t think it’s fair to the other residents in the area that adhere to the heritage alteration permit in that process and our policy. So I will not be supporting this. Okay. Any other speakers?

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So first, I think it’s very, very important for council to acknowledge and recognize we’ve already provided direction to our staff to come back with a new policy allowing for composite and modern materials to be used for heritage restoration. We heard very clearly at committee that the owner of this property has already had to replace this front porch material three times because the quality of material today is not the quality of material that it was 40, 60, 80, 100 years ago.

So if we want to avoid demolition by neglect on heritage properties, we need to recognize that we need to allow homeowners more flexibility in how they maintain these properties. It is about the character, not about the materials at the end of the day. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, the restrictions that we’ve put on property owners because of heritage conservation districts has convinced me that I will never support the approval of another heritage conservation district in this city for as long as I’m on council because we are preventing under our current policies property owners from making the necessary repairs in an affordable way in some cases to maintain what is called a character. Not that buildings themselves necessarily have the designation, but just to retain the character of a neighborhood and I’m not going to impose that kind of financial penalty on homeowners.

This was recommended by committee and until the policy comes back, that is absolutely the reason council has to recognize that we’ve already got the policy in redevelopment. We cannot hold up homeowners unfairly when we’ve heard from staff that this may be eight months, 12 months, even two years to get back because of other priorities we’ve put on them with regard to our housing goals and those sorts of things. So I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important it is. The council exercised its ability to notwithstanding the staff recommendation approve this in recognition of the fact that we are already updating these policies because your other option is to encourage further demolition by neglect on heritage properties.

That is the bottom line and so I encourage all colleagues to support this. That’s a true sound. Thank you very much. If I may through the chair ask the staff to reiterate their recommendation and what the reasoning was for it and how that fits with this change that Deputy Mayor was speaking about.

Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. The staff recommendation was for refusal given that the type of material wasn’t necessarily in character with the heritage requirements. Having said that, we are reviewing the policies in terms of what the nature of the vinyl material or other alternative material and it’s on our work program for Q2 2025.

Thank you. Could someone either run your heritage staff or yourself explain how something like the type of material rises to the level of being a heritage issue? Thank you through your worship. These are identified features as part of specific requirements under the heritage conservation district.

It would be necessary to amend. It would be necessary to go back and amend that to change the operative rules on this. Is that right? Go ahead.

Thank you through your worship. Yes, that would be the case. However, may need some legal advice here. We’ve had some requests for possible changes to heritage conservation district and that would open up the whole document and there’s case law related to that.

So there’s elements that we need to be mindful of and as these are through the Ontario Heritage Act. Right. And that’s full review would go through a process and would come to council and we would be reviewing other elements of this particular heritage district. And that’s through the chair.

Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. Yes, that’s correct. And there’d be an amendment to the bylaw.

Well, thank you. That exhausts my questions. And for those reasons, I’m going to be joining Councillor Hopkins. I thought the letters that we received from Miss Welly and Miss Toskey were very persuasive.

And for that reason and for the reasons that Councillor Hopkins put forward, this is the framework that we’re operating under now. And I think it’s only fair that we stick to it. And if this council is going to get to the point where we stop stop having new heritage districts or we amend the ones we have, then we’ll deal with that when that comes to the table. But for today, I’m going to be voting no on this.

Thank you. Thank you. I have no other speakers this matter. And seeing none, we’re going to open it for voting.

Please, I vote motion carries 12 to 2. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. Moving on to number 13.

This is regarding 735 Southdale Road West. I’ll put that in the floor. Yeah, thank you. That’s on the floor by the chair.

I’ll look for any comments. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. Your worship.

This is a development in my ward and I will not be supporting the committee’s recommendation. And I’ll give you a number of reasons why I would encourage you not to support the committee’s recommendation, but to support staff’s recommendation. And I’m going to start off with the recommendation that we have now is to allow for a 12-story building 231 units per hectare. And I’m going to come out and say right off the bat, I am not opposed to intensification.

We do have policies in this area that allow for a six-story. The recommendation from staff is to go back, have the conversations around up to nine stories with 120 units per hectare. I think that’s fair. And I’m going to start off with four reasons why we should support staff’s recommendation.

The first reason we should do that is when it comes to the rezoning of the wetlands and the natural heritage system in this area. Staff were present at planning to answer any questions that the committee had. And there are three wetlands. One is being moved to another location to allow for a future road in this area.

There are two other wetlands in this area. And our policies, when assessed, when we assess the wetlands, do say that we need to gain here when we do these things. And it is really, really important that we understand that process, we do that process before we put in such an intense development. If the wetlands are not to be removed, we do need that 30 meter buffering, not the 20 meter.

So moving on to the setbacks. And it was suggested and a committee member spoke about the setbacks that were, I think, around 48. I’m not sure that 48 meters of that number to the north. But that was substantial enough of a setback.

But what I think is really more important that the committee did not speak about was the shadow study that was presented. And the shadowing on the residential properties to the north in the winter months are there. I think it’s very, very important that when you are living in shade, shade just doesn’t appear one month. It’s a gradual increase and then a decline.

The next reason I want to talk about, so that’s the setback to the north. I want to speak to the setback to the south. You have residential properties. The request is around 20 meters.

Is that sufficient for a 12-story apartment building? That is going to create a bit of intensity for those residential properties to the south. The other third point is around the servicing. So there is no municipal sanitary sewers in this area adjacent to this land.

And what is allocated is not sufficient. There is a holding provision. But is that enough for the development to the south, those residential properties along old garrison that may be affected by alternative alternatives to accommodate this development when it comes to the sanitary sewers? I think that’s a big unknown question how that is going to work.

And the fourth reason, and to me it’s the most important reason why we should support staff’s recommendation, is that the public is unaware of the major changes in this zoning application. As you can see from the letters, they may not like increased heights and intensity, but they trust us to represent our policies and our long-term planning for this area. So I would encourage this council to support staff’s recommendation. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m rising to speak to this, because I think it’s important that a council actually get some clarification of what was just said. First of all, on the 20-meter setback, that’s not 20 meters from the wetland, the wetland setback is in fact 30-meter buffer as required by our policies, not 20.

And that is right there in black and white in the recommendation. And when we talk about residential lands to the south, there are no residential properties occupied to the south. Right now it is a vacant field that is zoned for future residential development. Any homeowner buying a property in that residential area would already know if we approve the zoning today what is coming to the north of them.

So let us please not talk about properties that don’t exist in terms of the impact we’re going to have on them. That zoning is there is one thing, that people are actually living there, occupying built dwellings is another, and that is not the case with regard to this application. It’s also, and through you, Chair, I want to ask a very clear, succinct question with staff, because we heard the public doesn’t know what’s happening there. Through you, to our staff, was the applicant’s 12-story proposal what was circulated on the public notice?

Go ahead. Thank you through the your worship. Yes, that’s correct. The public notification included tall stories.

So to say that the public doesn’t know what’s happening, that is actually the information that they got delivered to them in the notification that the applicant was proposing 12 stories. The only place that nine stories was proposed was by our staff as an alternative to the 12. That was not circulated to the public until it appeared as a recommendation on the public agenda. It was not in the public notice that went to people’s homes.

We also heard very clearly from the applicant that, like we have done with other projects in the past, and I’m not talking about this Council, I’m talking about successive Councils before, if we restrict it to nine, then what will happen is nothing will be built here, and it will remain a vacant piece of land on South Dale Road, primary arterial corridor in our city. So for those reasons, the fact that the public is fully aware that the 20 meter setback on the rear yard is not actually abutting existing residential properties in that the 30 meter buffer from the wetland, which is actually on another proponents property to the South are all respected in terms of the regulations in this bylaws. So I really encourage you to support this. It is an arterial road.

It is more infill, and the objections that were raised actually are not accurate in terms of what is existing on the site today. Yes, there are holding provisions on the sanitary sewer service, which is what we have on any number of applications. We impose H provisions because you cannot get the holding provision lifted until you can provide proof that the sanitary service exists to meet your needs. So it is enough.

Holding provision is a legal tool to prevent over capacity in the sanitary sewer system. So that again is not a reason to say no to this. In fact, it’s a reason to say yes, because we have the proper checks and balances in place. Thank you, Your Worship.

Other speakers, Dr. Trossa. I wasn’t going to speak to this, but it did peak my curiosity a little bit. So either the question I want to ask specifically is this argument that if we just go by the staff report, which is what they’re entitled to, they’re not going to build.

Therefore, we should give them what they want because we want them to build. Is that a valid policy argument? I’m trying to sort out how that fits in with how this council is supposed to be evaluating staff reports. I don’t know if I want to put, I’m not the counselor.

That’s a very awkward thing to ask. The staff gave a recommendation. Council is allowed to make a different recommendation. So like we know what staff recommendation is on the file.

Like we don’t have to drag them back into what is a decision that we can make on this. Everybody can read the staff report. So if you got a question that isn’t the way you frame the question sounds like you want them to try to argue against another member of council who’s making a case, we can all argue, we can debate each other. The staff recommendation is very clear in the report.

The committee took a different direction. We don’t have to support the committee’s direction. We can vote that down and go to the staff direction. We have all the options before us and we have the items that we can weigh in our decisions.

So I don’t mind asking the question to staff. I don’t want you to be cautious about trying to drag them into a discussion that we can have on a difference of opinion on how to move forward. Their recommendation is very clear. I don’t expect them to make anything different than what they’ve already said.

But I hope you respect them just trying to not to let you drag them in. In that case, I think I’m just going to leave it at this. I’m going to support the staff report. And once again, I’ll be joining Councillor Hopkins in voting no on this application.

Okay. Other speakers? Councillor Layman, go ahead. I just wanted to further put into context committee’s information following up on the Vice Chair of Planning Committee and also on Deputy Mayor.

There were concerns by the property or into the south of this development because they were planning at the time for single-family low-density homes and they had concerns over the infrastructure beneath the ground. But since then, we were advised that the property or to the south has now changed to looking at medium density. And there has been discussions with both property owners on house sewage and water mains can be achieved. And he no longer has any concerns with this particular application or the changes to it.

Any other speakers? Councillor Layman. Councillor Layman, let’s address some of it. A little bit concerned when it appears that there was only 735 Southdale West was only allocated 75 units per hectare as this area developed.

And now they’re looking at 230 or so units per hectare using the same prunk sewer. Maybe I could just ask staff. Is this an area of concern? Is this or is this something that can be worked out?

Councillor interjecting. I think that’s a fair question on the servicing capacity piece. So I’ll go to staff. Thank you, Your Worship.

There are some concerns related to the ability of the downstream infrastructure to accommodate this density even with upgrades to the parcels immediately to the south. The holding provision would be in place until the applicant demonstrates to our satisfaction that servicing can be accommodated. Go ahead, Councillor Vermeer Bergen. Okay.

So there’ll be a holding in place. All right. Okay. Thanks very much.

Any other speakers to this? Okay. So what’s on the floor is the committee’s recommendation. So we’ll open that for voting.

Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to 2. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you. I’d like to put 14 3.8 regarding 323 Oxford Street West, 92 and 825, Propped with Lane on the floor.

Okay. I’ll look for speakers on this one. Go ahead, Councillor Trossa. Thank you very much.

And through the chair, I do want to ask a few questions about this. And I won’t repeat all the questions that I asked at the planning committee. Some of them were answered. But the overriding question that I that I want to get a better sense of, there are six different holding provisions here if I understand it.

Can you give me and I ask this question a lot? Can you give me an estimate, a reasonable estimate as to at what point in time do you think these holding provisions will be satisfied? What is the general timeframe we’re looking at here for the removal of the holding provisions? Go ahead.

Thank you. Through you, Your Worship, with holding provisions, it allows for development to proceed as applicants can demonstrate servicing or other attributes that are needed for the development. It could be it could be as soon as a year. It could be longer depending on the applicant’s motivation.

And we know a chair through through a question that I asked earlier this evening with respect to the Civic Works Committee that there that there is one that this is this is tied in with a successful completion of the Mud Creek project project. And that is that is one of them. And I asked the question before about how long that was going to take. And I guess that was a technical question that couldn’t be answered.

But oh, just ask that with your microphone. Is there anything else there that you can add to that now? Thank you, Your Worship. Yes, I did have time to confirm with my team about the schedule for the Mud Creek Works.

The Public Works will be done at the end of next construction season, fall 2025. We have not yet seen a schedule for the developer led works north of Oxford Street. Those would be coming at some point after that. Go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you. So it’s fair to say that even if this is approved tonight, there’s not going to be any construction. There’s not going to be any building. There’s not going to be any issuance of building permits at least until that time.

Is that fair? Go ahead. Through you, Your Worship. Yes, that’s a fair statement.

However, the planning work can still continue. We can still work through those processes, plans of subdivision, establishing conditions of draft approval, all those that work, and possibly site plan. Okay, thank you very much. So where I am with this as the Ward Councillor, and this has been the big development in my ward that has really taken a lot of my time, not just in consultation with my residents in Cherry Hill, but throughout the area.

And I’m not going to repeat all the arguments I made at the planning committee, and I’m certainly not going to repeat all the arguments that I made with respect to other developments in the area where I’ve spoken about my concern about how opening up Westfield and opening up Beaverbrook is going to create a cumulative traffic situation for the 735 Wonderland, and also for the 530 Oxford. Those aren’t on the table yet. Those aren’t on the table today. They have already been decided matters of Council.

But what I want to point out is that when you add the 3817, almost over 3800 units in this development over a period of time, which is going to be 6000 people, some good number of them presumably having cars. When you add that to the same situation that’s going on with these other developments in the area, I just feel as if the transit and the transportation infrastructure is not keeping up with this level of development. And I understand that there’s an argument that says if you give the approvals for these, it’s going to induce demand for more transit. And I understand that.

And I hope that’s right, because I know how this is going to turn out today. I would have liked to have been in a position where I could support this development. Because quite frankly, this development has some things about it that I like. A lot more so than the other developments I’ve been speaking to lately, which I have criticized more and more absolutely.

However, I’m not there yet. I’m troubled by the fact that regardless of some of the language that’s been put in the requests to the approval authority, I would like to see, I really would like to see more specificity. And due to the fact that this application preceded the date on which we came under much more strict time guidelines, and due to the fact that in no event is there going to be actual building or permit pulled, or permit pulled in the next year, I would really like to see more attention given to these issues. Now, I am not going to put a motion to refer on the table, because I know it’s going to lose, and I’m not going to take people’s time with a motion to refer where we go around the table and talk about that again.

I’m not going to do it. And I will ask, as the Board Councilor then, for another five minutes, if I could, if I could have that, four. Okay. Someone has to move that.

Someone wanted to give an extension, four minutes, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’m going to do this by hand to save time. All those in favor of a four minute extension for Councillor Troso. I’m just going to call a post, just a post.

Okay, four more minutes. Thank you. I should get credit for time saved by not trying to do another motion here, but in any event, maybe that should be a world. So I’m going to be voting against this.

And I’m voting against this very reluctantly, because of the applications that I’ve looked at in my word, this is the better one. There is merit. There is merit to this, but I think there’s still a lot that needs to be worked out. And I don’t think we’re looking at a situation where we’re going to be building in the next year, or frankly, two from the sounds of it.

Now, the fact that we’ve got 38, 17 units going in, we’ve got another 600, 700 in the other ones, in the transit village area. And exactly zero of those are have anything to do with affordable housing. It bothers me. Now, I can’t base my opposition just on that, because I realize that the city does not have the legal tools that it would need to require that.

But what happens if there’s a changing policy while those holding provisions are still in effect, would we be able to say, well, now we’re going to go back and talk about the new, the new affordable housing rules? Or would it, would it refer back to the day of this approval? And I think the answer to that would be it would refer back to the data, this approval is it, as I think that’s when it would, would best. And that bothers me a little bit.

And if I’m wrong about that, maybe I should ask if I’m, if I have that right. Go ahead. If you, you got the question, do you know the question? Yeah.

Oh, yeah, you can go ahead. Thank you through your leadership. Any, any decision made today would continue. It wouldn’t be retroactive.

Yeah. So, so, thank, thank you. The other thing that bothers me about this is I don’t yet feel comfortable with the view corridor. I know that there, I know that there is an instruction in a request, not an instruction.

And I, I appreciate that that’s there. I appreciate that the committee put that in there. I would like to see some more substance to that. And the other thing I’d really like to see is more substance with respect to the cumulative traffic study, which is something that I think would come forward as a result of the Civic Works Committee resolution.

I’m not at the point where I, where I can, where I can support this. And I, I don’t think, I don’t think we would be in any serious jeopardy if we, if we put this off, especially given the intensity of the holding provisions. So, basically, I think I’m just going to wrap this up by saying this is, this is a very, very significant project for people who don’t, who, who live in the outside of this project, particularly people who live in, in Cherry Hill, and particularly people who live on the other side and Beaver Brook. The long term implications of, of the through traffic, I think this is going to create challenges for traffic, which I think I’m going to be advocating for.

And I see the direction this is going in, but I just, I just want to let people know that I, as the Ward Councillor, cannot in good conscience support this at this point. And it looks like my time is up. So thank you very much. Thank you.

I have Councillor Cudi next and then myself. Thank you. Thank you, Your Worship and through you. I had a good fortune, Your Worship, to attend the PEC meeting where this, this development was discussed.

And I had a chance to speak at it as well. I, I, I’m so grateful that we have developers like the Katz family and the Katz group that are building projects like this, that are environmentally sensitive, that provide green space for citizens and for constituents, that provides pedestrian paths and cycle ways. And this, this development, Your Worship has it all. And, you know, we have, we don’t have to go outside of our city to find good developers to do the workforce.

But don’t forget a Toronto, or are there, are there areas of the province? We have them here in the city and they want to spend money. They want to develop and they want to build and they want to grow for us. And the Katz family is, is clear illustration of that, the people that, you know, they want to do good things for the city.

And this development has it all. And, you know, I want to harken back to what Deputy Mayor said, the Deputy Mayor said at, at the PEC meeting. He said, you know, this does protect green space, sorry, it protects farmland and it retains farmland. And that’s something that we have to consider Your Worship as we go forward, because if we don’t, if we don’t take advantage of areas that are available to us to build on, we are going to be encouraging on farmland.

And it is, it is a premium at this point. And we also, as a, also as the Deputy Mayor said during the same time at the meeting, you know, we, we don’t want people leaving our community to go to other communities to, and then come back in during the day to work and to use our services. That’s what it’s all about. Also Your Worship, we need to hit our targets, our housing targets.

And this is really a good way to do it. I won’t ask for another four minutes in the two years that I’ve been here. I’ve never asked for a time extension and I never will in the next two years. I’ll wrap it up there.

Thank you. I’ll make a note of that. Thank you very much. I, I have myself on the list next.

So I’ll turn the chair over to Council Ramy. Thank you. I have the chair recognizing Mayor Morgan. Thank you.

I want to say a few words of this. I won’t repeat some of the other comments. First, I want to say I respect the Ward Council’s advocacy for his ward. I think whenever you’re in the perspective of being a Ward Councilor, you’ve got a different lens of pressure from residents in the neighboring communities who, who have, you know, expectations and apprehensions about, you know, change in their neighborhoods.

And I think the, the work that he’s done on flagging some future concerns with, with traffic is, is good. And the motion through Civic Works Committee can, can, can take a look at that as well. That being said, you know, once upon a time, Cherry Hill wasn’t there. And that’s a wonderful community, right?

And the Cat’s family has a history of building wonderful neighborhoods that, you know, allow people to experience life in a great way surrounded by Cherry Hill Mall and the activities and the programming there. It’s, it’s been a wonderful part of the city for many people for, for a long time. And I, I don’t think this development is going to be any different, you know, they may be different partners, it may be faced a different way. But the vision that they have for building a relatively complete community in this part of the city, on land that they’ve owned for some years, I think fits with the vision that the family has already had about being a local family developer who cares about our community.

I also want to say it’s kind of exciting when we have an opportunity to approve a development that represents about 8% of our commitment to the province of Ontario and our housing target. Now, not all of that may be built under the time frame of our commitment, but to actually be able to have a city where we have the opportunities to take intense residential development, which represents, you know, not a whole bunch of urban sprawl, but to get over 3,800 units of relatively intensified development in a part of our city that can handle it. You know, that’s a pretty good opportunity for London to seize. And as was said, the ward council has his concerns, but you know, I know that a number of members of council have, have spoken in support of this, and I think we can mitigate some of those over time.

But this is a great opportunity for us to move forward with yet another significant development that helps us get towards that goal. And on the idea of the parts that are affordable, right, I have been very clear that I thought section 37 of the old planning act was a great tool for municipalities to use to try to create bonus situations to get community benefits. And there was a position that we carved out to say, could you please keep that? Now, the province didn’t do that.

I don’t know if we’ll ever return one day. But in the meantime, I can tell you what doesn’t help the housing situation in London is saying no to intensified development, like saying, let’s not build any units because we can’t make every single one of them affordable. And that’s not what colleagues are suggesting, but we have to take the opportunities we can. We’ve got CIP incentive programs that we can look into to try to incentivize through mechanisms that aren’t available to us to the provincial level, affordable developments.

We continue to partner with not-for-profits and others to build discounted housing. We continue to expand the work at LMCH to build net new units of RGI housing. So there is work we’re doing on the affordability side. And although I wish we had some other tools at our disposal, we don’t.

And this is a great development irrespective of that, because adding to the housing supply certainly, you know, starts to alleviate the challenge of the number of people who are coming here who are looking for housing. That being said, I hope colleagues can support this development. And I look forward, although it will be a long time coming, I look forward to the phases of development and the ongoing discussions about the opportunities and challenges in that part of the city, particularly with respect to the development of the Mass Mobility Plan and addressing the transit issues that have been raised through this consideration as well. I think there are opportunities for us to, I think the opportunities are already embedded within the Mass Mobility Plan to address the number of these issues.

And we’ll have that discussion when that plan is completed and what options are on the table for us to consider. So thank you very much. Thank you, returning the chair to you with the Councillor Stevenson and the list. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I just wanted to say a quick thank you to Sam Cat’s developments for Londoners wanting to see more housing in this city. This is a very exciting plan to see. I will be happy to support any solutions to traffic congestion.

But in the meantime, you know, this has been a 30-year project, 3,800 residential units with 51% of the 70 acres dedicated to urban green space. And it says the development will generate approximately 76 million in development charges and over 15 million in yearly property tax revenue. So this is very exciting. We are very blessed in this city with some of the amazing developers and the families that we have that are committed to the city.

And this is a very, very exciting announcement. I’ll be happy to support. Any other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Lehman.

Thank you. These are the challenges we face as we look to achieve our housing targets through many facets, but obviously a big reliance on infill to mitigate urban sprawl. How we get around this city, you know, is a very challenging thing as we go through not just this infill development, but others that have come through to pack. Councillor Trasau has every right to be concerned.

I’ve spoken already many times about the traffic concerns that I have on Wonderland Road from Spring Bank to Sarnia Road, of which part Beaver Brook in Wonderland has been a bottleneck for quite some time now. That’s why I made a motion that was approved by Council to specifically address this area in the master mobility plan. I’m looking forward to the solutions that are forthcoming. So I also was concerned that Oxford and Warren Cliff intersection money was removed to account for the rapid transit overruns that we’ve experienced in the lakes that have been voted through.

When I looked at this development, I agree with Councillor Cottie, it’s a great, it’s a really a really good example of good infill. Terrific green spaces, well thought out, you know, plans with wetlands and bike paths, etc. There’s access points called for specifically to the west and to the south, so the west on to Wonderland or Beaver Brook and on to the south, on to Oxford. I did consult with staff to make sure and the developer to keep the path forward that we do have an opportunity down the road at some point to an access point to the east on the western road, because that could be a potential for, well, transit was mentioned, who knows what happens down the road.

So that’s important that we keep our options open to deal with the traffic issues that, as was pointed out, not going to rise tomorrow. This is a 20-year project, so this is going to be gradually built up, but they’re coming. So this Council and future councils will deal with the transportation implications that come from it. That being said, a terrific example of infill, well, welcome addition to our movement towards our target from 47,000 homes, so I will definitely support this.

Any other speakers? Seeing none, we’re going to open this for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to 1.

Thank you. It takes us down to 15, 3.9 draft leads, draft land needs assessment of the London Plan, Chair, I’ve got a small amendment, a housekeeping amendment that has been circulated to Council. So I want to know if you want me to make that amendment at this point or wait for a discussion. Yes, so because this is Council, we can’t just modify the recommendation, so you put the original on the floor, and then you can move the amendment.

Okay, so I’ll move the amendment that has been passed. I’ll just highlight the rationale that the previously considered by-law inadvertently omitted reference to Section 17, BROCA 22 of the Planning Act, RSO 1990 CP 13. Okay, so maybe I’ll look for a seconder for the amendment, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. We can deal with the amendment first, and then on the as amended motion, if colleagues want to weigh in on this, that’s probably we could do it there.

So just on the amendment to clean up the by-law with that reference, is there any discussion? Okay, we’ll open just the amendment for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

So mover for the as amended motion. I’ll move as I need a second for the as amended motion. Councillor Hopkins. Okay, debate on the as amended motion now.

Councillor Frank, go ahead. Thank you. Yes, I’d like to start off with a couple questions for you to staff. So just to start off, what is the process involved for the land needs assessment moving forward?

Go ahead, Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so making the assumption that this resolution moves forward. The next, there’s a few different steps.

So I’ll just go through a little more detail. First step is that there’s a number of items here that will require permission from the province. So we would be forwarding that to the province. So that piece would go forward.

We then begin the engagement, including with the our housing supply reference group, just getting commentary and thoughts on our draft land study. Once that is established, we will bring and as well as included in this resolution is the hiring of an economic consultant. So we’d be looking at providing that hiring that consultant, working with the land, the housing supply reference group with them and then bringing back to council that the recommendations from that consultant. At that same time that we bring forward, we go through that process, have that consultation, we would bring back to council final recommendation as far as what the land needs would be and that would be a specific value or number that we’d be looking at bringing back that draft value is 450 hectares, but that that would be subject to the consultation that occurs.

And we’d also bring back that report from the consultant and also the evaluation criteria for deciding on how we would select lands moving forward to be as part of that urban growth boundary expansion. Once that’s accepted by council, that asks that would then go back to the province for approval as well. And then then we’d start the process of actually looking at the urban growth boundary and making recommend and then where the actual expansions would occur. That’s not a consultative process, that’s a process that’s that we’d be doing as part of our planning review.

We’d then bring that back to a PPM and official plan amendments and that would be then it would begin an opportunity for the community to be able to come and speak to it and also for council to make decisions of where those lands would be, whether they’d be included in an expansion or not as a part of an expansion, then that would for the most part finalize that the process from there. Councillor Frank. Thank you. I appreciate that.

I’m also wondering how much would the economic consulting cost ballpark and from where is that funding coming from? Go ahead, Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, through the through your worship.

At this point, we an estimate at being under $100,000 for that analysis. We’ll be working with with our friends in finance to be able to determine like a source for that amount. Go ahead. Thank you.

So it sounds like we have no current location from where the funding is coming from. Yeah. Okay. And then I’m just wondering in staff’s opinion, does this economic consultant replicate any process that council has our staff have already undertaken?

Mr. Mathers. Through your worship. So we’ll be very much looking to try to ensure that there isn’t a lot of overlap of the work that the staff has been done in the past.

They should be providing some external experiences that they’ve had in other municipalities. We’re really looking at them to provide an analysis that’s beyond what we typically look at as part of the land needs assessment. So they of course, there’s a couple of components that are included in this resolution that speak to reviewing land needs, the vacant land inventory, and then as well also reviewing the actual projections that we use. So we’ll be asking them to do that.

But we’re really trying to keep the scope very tight to be able to attend the meetings, really listen to what we’re hearing from comments and then provide that validation of what we’re hearing and then provide a recommendation back to council. Thank you. Those are all my questions and I appreciate that from staff. I want to make a couple comments and then I’m actually going to ask to have item E pulled to vote separately from the direction from committee.

Again, I’m fine with the housing supply working group reviewing the information. But I want to remind folks that of course staff and council get feedback from the housing reference group. We don’t get direction from it. And I do think some of the comments we heard at Peck indicated differently.

And I don’t want to be in a situation. I’m glad that staff were able to walk us through that. All of the applications will be coming through, we’ll be using staff’s evaluation and metrics and that will be coming to council because I don’t think that we want to be going through a process where developers are lobbying for specific parcels of land because it needs to be very clear to the public what criteria we’re using to evaluate and bring them in from the outside the urban growth boundary. I personally agree and trust with staff’s numbers within the vacant lands inventory and I actually would prefer no new land be added to the urban growth boundary.

But understanding that staff have clearly transparently and effectively already outlined how they arrived at 450 hectares of land, which is also by the way essentially the size of Byron. They’ve already made those analysis and provided us with a number that I feel very confident in. And they won’t be including any natural heritage lands in that 450 hectares. So that would be straight, developable land and meeting the 25 year horizon.

So I’m going to vote against section E. I think like I said staff have already done a thorough job. Of course some of the rationale for having another review of this is essentially my opinion way for developers to lobby for more land to be brought into the urban growth boundary. Essentially because it would increase the value of their property.

Of course the development community would like to see more land open up for the urban growth boundary because of the benefits economically. But to put simply staff are using density numbers that are higher than developers would like. Developers are asking for lower units per hectare than what our staff are using in both the blanket vacant lands inventory and in the lands needs assessment. But our staff are using numbers based on recent historical trends including the facts that are actually highlighted in the letter that was submitted by Councillors that townhouses are more prevalently going to be the new starter home and that we’re seeing more and more medium and high density building and that staff are future planning to align with our intensification targets.

And based on letters and communication from developers they disagree and therefore want to have lower units per hectare which requires more land and therefore a larger amount of land to be brought into the urban growth boundary. And in my opinion that’s a clear pecuniary interest. I know developers are doing good work building homes for future Londoners and I appreciate that work but I think as always council needs to find the balance here. I’ll add that the target for 47,000 new homes as foisted on London by the province is a lofty target that looks really good for voters.

But that actually is not based on what a community’s ability to build is. And in my opinion we can’t use it as an excuse to sprawl because people want to have more low density homes. I was really happy actually just that that previous conversation where the mayor and some members of councils talked about the negative impacts of urban sprawl which is why they’re supportive of the e-sam development. We know that low density in our communities is actually not ideal the lower the tax income the harder it is financially for the city to service those areas the harder it is for us to pay for things like roads police schools and libraries and more if we have a lower tax base and we already struggle in my opinion to service all our new neighborhoods and subdivisions effectively.

So I don’t really need this review because I think staff already have the correct number. And finally staff are busy enough we always say this but I don’t think they need another report to work on and bring back to council especially one that in my opinion staff have already done the work we already have the answer we have the analysis and I think we need to move forward in this area so I don’t really want to waste time and taxpayer money on these kinds of reports. Thanks. Thank you Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you Your Worship. So while I agree with some of what Councillor Frank said I disagree with what some of Councillor Frank said as well but I’m rising actually to start by taking this opportunity to share that on Friday while I was acting mayor while you were away I had the opportunity to attend the upper Thames River Conservation Authority’s lands need strategy engagement session out at the upper Thames River Conservation Authority and so I want to use this opportunity to share with Mr. Mathers and Miss McNeely and the rest of our team that Miss Annette at upper Thames actually had noticed this motion and actually would very much like to be part of the housing supply reference table meeting talking about the vacant land strategy or the vacant land inventory as well because there was some acknowledgement that some of the lands that we might be counting for development may actually be subject to some upper Thames River floodplain restrictions that would actually prevent development on some of those lands so they’d like to be part of that conversation so that they can be helpful in identifying where we may have actually counted land that is not going to be available for development anytime soon so I think that I was helpful and I wanted to use this opportunity to pass along that message I know you don’t need further direction to include them but if we can extend the invitation to upper Thames that I think would be valuable in terms of the vacant land inventory because where I disagree most with Councillor Frank is that I think that we have not counted the vacant land quite as as accurately and I don’t mean that as a strike against staff in any way shape or form but I think that there is a lot of land that is just not viable I’ve had the industry tell me as much as 7,000 units is being counted that might not be able to be built whether that is an accurate number or not it’s a big number so even if it’s 3,000 that can’t be built that’s a big variance from what we’re counting right now so I think we do need to take a look at that and I do think that we do need the economic analysis piece from the third party consultant because that’s the one piece that when our staff are looking at these numbers is not within their wheelhouse to consider is how the economics of these things and the performers on builds and things like that play out and where if we get an economic opinion then we can get a better sense of how accurate the vacant land inventory numbers may be as well you know the I’m rarely on it anymore but most of the time I go on Twitter it’s to see what Mike Moffitt is saying about housing because he’s actually a very very interesting person to follow there and I see some of the conversations that he has online about it having land in your inventory is one thing but if it’s not planned that’s readily available for development and can’t be unlocked easily that it perhaps is creating a false impression that land is available and in fact it’s not so in some of those aspects where I think we can have and of course Mr Moffitt isn’t an economist from the Ivy School of Business so that kind of thing carries some some weight with me in terms of how we take a look at these realities so while we’re looking at things from a planning perspective I think there is a fiscal financial impact in the industry that needs to be balanced as well in terms of the kind of lands we’re identifying not just for residential because ultimately a nervering growth boundary expansion is going to look at industrial land commercial land inventory although based on the commercial vacancies we have downtown I don’t think we need any more of that right now but I do think that we’ll be probably looking at some industrial land to be added to so I would encourage colleagues to support this and look forward to what comes back in reviewing this from both the planning perspective and the economic impact analysis on that. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah you worship. I’m first of all I’m going to start off with a question with the recommendation coming from the committee. Can we pull certain I’m looking at D if we can pull that and I’d like to speak to that as I do not want to be supporting that not sure how that falls in line with procedure going forward but maybe that’s my first question. So I know Councillor Frank wanted E separate so I don’t see any objections with that so you want D separate?

Yes and if I can speak to it. Yeah let me just let me just have a quick look at D first before you speak. Okay I’m going to ask Mr. May there’s or his team if D which could be voted on separately we’re defeated is there something else that needs to go in there is is it kind of a standalone piece it would revert back to something that we would use anyways right if you could just answer on the microphone then I can make the decision.

Through your worship if that was defeated separately it would necessarily be a problem because we’re going to likely because we know that the new provincial policy statement is that the draft has this language of using this we’ll be running that scenario anyways but for the purposes of this it was just to get that opinion from the economic consultant so if this was defeated we could still move forward. Yeah so the answer is yes. We’ll figure out a way to separate it then. Thank you go ahead and speak to it now.

Thank you and the reason I won’t be supporting D if he does go forward I won’t be supporting D definitely not and I don’t want to separate D I have I understand that the 2023 Ministry of Finance population projections basically will be the standards going forward I understand that piece that isn’t my concern my concern is that if we are going to go through a consultation review that and spend the money I don’t see why we need to really report back to the housing supply reference group I’m a little bit concerned about that if we’re duplicating if we are creating more work I do think we need to move forward with this draft plan so I would like to pull D thank you. Okay I’ll figure out how to do that I look for other speakers though first just give me a second to organize the votes I think what we’re going to do is we’re going to do E first then we’re going to D then we’re going to do everything else for the voting but we’re not going to debate them again so last chance to kind of debate generally we’re just going to do votes at this point. Okay okay so first up so I’m going to use the same mover and seconder for everybody so okay with that maybe let me just see who it is. Okay yes Councillor Lehman and Councillor Stevenson you’re good with kind of moving and seconding all the pieces okay so we use you throughout and we’ll go with just E first and we’ll open that for voting.

It carries nine to five okay and now we’ll prepare D we’re going to do D next everybody looks ready so we’ll open D. Was in the vote motion carries 12 to 2. Now we’ll move to the entire remainder of the clause okay we’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote motion carries 13 to 1.

Although it pains me to say it I need a motion to extend past six o’clock we’ve got enough agenda left but we have to do that Deputy Mayor Lewis um Councillor Cuddy um I need to debate on that no okay we’re gonna we’re gonna open that for voting in the system. Councillor Hilliard you’re muted Councillor Hilliard sorry it said draft needs assessment it didn’t set extension it’s it’s just attached to that item so if you open it’s just the extension it just has to be attached to something in the agenda. Opposed in the vote motion carries 14 to 0. Okay Councillor Lehman and that concludes the 10th report planning.

All right 11th report of corporate services committee Councillor McAllister go ahead. Thank you and through the chair please to present the 11th report of the corporate services committee hopefully it’s a short one. I have not been advised of anything to be pulled but I’ll look to council if anyone does want anything pulled. Just number five because Councillor Cuddy declared an interest on that at the start so we’ll do that separate okay number five okay is anybody else want anything else they’re separate okay I’ll let you make a motion then.

Okay I’ll move items 1 through 4 and 6 excluding 5. All right any discussion on those items seeing none we’ll open those for vote. Councillor Cuddy this does not include 5 to 0.1. Oh yes thank you closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0.

Go ahead Councillor McAllister. Okay I’ll put item 5 on the floor. Item 5 is on the floor any discussion on item 5. Okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 with one recuse. Councillor McAllister. That concludes my report. Thank you.

Great everybody take notes from Councillor McAllister and have to do that. Eighth report of the Computing and Protective Services Committee. Councillor Ferrera your turn. Thank you Chair and through you I’m pleased to present the eighth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee noting I have not received any declarations of interest and I have received one co-request from council approval item 5 2.4 housing stability for all plan 2023 updates so I would be willing to move items 1 through 4 and 6 excluding 5.

Okay is anybody want anything else there dealt with separately. So you’re going to move 1 through 4 and item 6 together. Yes through you 1 through 4 and item 6. Okay any discussion go ahead Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you worship I just want to take a moment to recognize the great work that youth opportunities unlimited does in our community. We’re looking at a new project clean slate agreement with them here. While they’re doing a great job in the downtown I wanted to share that we’ve been impressed with the work that they’re doing through this program with the city that the Argal BIA is actually pursuing an agreement to have a satellite version of this program in our BIA to employ a couple more at risk youth and give them some on the job experience and some work opportunities there based on what I was able to share about this program from council to the BIA. So this is an example of a program that’s worked really well where it’s been used and we’re going to take it and micro size it for Argal and put it to you so there too.

Thank you your worship. I’d like to make some comments too on item 3 2.2 renovations renovation license in the relocation. Yep go ahead. So I’m sorry so you know I just wanted to look to staff and say thanks again for the great work that you do and turning that around so fast and you know just some information just for me and my conversations from my constituency I have had many conversations I should say just with people with respect to exactly this their fear of losing their housing for various reasons I’ve had conversations with people literally crying on the phone with kids worried and just going back to them and just speaking with them when we had this this motion and this work at CAPS I saw a lot of relief and a lot of people are very happy with this we’ve had a couple of one big item today that we spoke to this is another very huge huge item it’s very strategic it’s right on the line between housing and homelessness and it also pulls those strings with affordability too so from my constituency and I can speak just from the people that I spoke to and from what I know very grateful to see something like that and to see this and this is I’m myself I’m very happy to see it so this is a good day thank you inspired others to speak Councilor Cuddy and then Councilor McAllister and then I’m going to speak thank you your worship and through you and I just want to thank Councilor for his comments and I want to remind everyone around this horseshoe that it was only a year ago in May that this renovation issue began in my ward in ward three and on Webster Street and and the the work the tireless work that Mr.

Kultolik and his staff have done is admirable and I want to thank everyone for all of the work they’ve done and how quickly as Councilor first said how quickly this has come to fruition and I look forward to the final passing of this later this year thank you. Councilor McAllister thank you and interest time I’ll be very brief I just want to echo sentiments of my colleagues big thanks all around staff and colleagues for supporting the renovations it’s definitely an issue I hear a lot about and I’m happy to see that move forward and I also want to acknowledge in terms of Councillor ramen, Councillor Ferri or your letter in terms of the CPKC flame and train as I like to call it I was happy that I believe there was conversations that happened at FCM as well so I’m happy that those conversations have been had and that we will get an update in terms of our emergency management and shout out to our fire department in terms of a quick response so thank you. Turn the chair over to Deputy Marlous thank you I have the chair and I recognize Mayor Morgan. Yes I’m just going to make a brief comment on the last item the Councilor McAllister touched on I’m going to thank Councillor ramen for her work in Calgary where she arranged a meeting for myself and representatives from CPKC where the we met as a group to discuss some of the concerns that we had as well as the further request for reimbursement to which immediate communication with our staff occurred and I just wanted to recognize the productive conversation that we had with CPKC I appreciate their openness and engagement on this issue and in willingness to engage on the cost recovery nature of it too and again thank you to Councillor ramen for initiating and setting up that meeting I was happy to be a part of it and I appreciate her advocacy on this.

Thank you Mayor Morgan and I will return the chair to you with no one else on the speakers list at this time okay then we’ll open these items for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 and thank you chair through you I will now put item 5 to 0.4 housing stability for all plan 2023 update on the floor that’s on the floor from the chair look for speakers that’s a privilege thank you and I just want to state we all know that this is an incredibly challenging portfolio we all know that the decisions or they will not happen and results will not happen overnight but I want to really stress this report we have here over 100 initiatives over last four years there’s been some great work information and data provided and I do want to thank the staff for not just completing this but honestly some of these numbers are very positive and what I like about it is when I look at the 2023 2027 implementation plan it that it’s transformed into the next four years it makes sense and I really want to I really want to thank you for that because again I believe you are truly on the right track I also want to thank you for the updated spectrum of the housing which I think again makes sense and it’s tailored to our needs the triaging and I do besides this I do have a couple of specific questions and for the first one is in the implementation plan for 2025 by the way I said 23 I’m in 24 to 27 but the targets for 2025 some of them are to TBA to be announced to be decided do you have right now any timeline when do you think you’ll be providing to us the targets for 2025 go ahead mr Dickens thank you your worship and through you the update to the next multi-year housing school the action plan has actually been put on a bit of hold by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing while we await further direction they’ve asked us to sort of sit tight and wait so we expect that once we get an indication of where they want to see the next multi-year strategy go we’ll have a better understanding of whether they’re prescribing certain metrics and targets or whether they just they map out for us a timeline that timeline will then trigger for us to do some community engagements some sector consultation and then formulate that plan which will include those targets and metrics so to answer your question we’re unsure yet we’re still waiting for direction from the province on the next iteration of the housing stability action plan okay thank you for that but if I mentioned it but thank you for including the status and the updated column in this report I have last question and there one is on page 63 and it’s actually initiative 4.2 and I was just curious when we look at the actions and the percentiles increasing in this level what do you believe or what is the kind of the work behind it that these both cases and percentiles are on such a rise 4.2 use that after drive decision-making to respond in real time to the housing stability needs of individuals and families which is actually positive I was just curious thank you Mr Dickens thank you worship through you part of the data driven metrics and that ability to use data to make decisions and drive some of the work is through the continuous onboarding of more organizations through hyphes and actually creating more reliable data in hyphes so the more people to use it the more often it’s updated the the more we’re able to generate new custom reports allows us to be more specific in the data driven decision-making the other component of that is our CRM system here at the city which allows us to collect even more data sets and more data points which then formulate some of the some of the planning work that happens so we will continue to prioritize the access to data as we move forward so thank you for that I have no more questions but again what I started with there is a lot of great data information and work behind it I do know that it’s a it’s not a sprint there’s going to be a marathon run but as I said I really believe you on the right track and thank you thank you any of the speakers seeing none of them will open this one for voting. Mr Trussell indicating a vote of yes closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0. Good Councillor Ferra all done that completes the eighth report of the community and protect the services committee thank you. Great second report of the audit committee I think Councillor Stevenson you’re presenting this yes thank you I’m happy to present the second report of the audit committee I haven’t been asked to pull anything so unless one of my colleagues would like something pulled I am happy to put the whole report forward.

Anybody want to pull anything from the audit agenda no go ahead and make a motion. All right so I’d like to move the entire report then one through five and I’d also like to say thanks to staff because that’s an incredible amount of work and a long process and so thank you for all of that and managing all of the parts and pieces that are involved there. Great any comments on the audit committee report okay we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0.

Concludes the second report of the audit committee. My apologies for the timing but I am going to ask for an early departure as I have a community meeting to go to. Perfect thanks for informing me appreciate it. I was informed you sent an email Councillor Stevenson I know you have to go.

Yes okay so thank you for letting me know. Okay not too many more people can go we need a quorum. We’re on to but we’re very close so we’re on to added reports now. Added reports will include both the 12th report of council and closed session which Councillor McAllister is going to present.

Councillor McAllister I’ll ask that you present it and a report progress on the additional matter for which we matters for which we went to camera for that don’t have a report out. So if you want to read the in-camera report and report progress that would be great. Okay happy to do the 12th report on the council and closed session. This is for item one which was a QP 107 tentative agreement that as procedural matter pursuant to section 239, subsection six of the NISPAL Act 2001 the following recommendation be forwarded to council and closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to council for deliberation and vote in public session.

That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager enterprise support with concurrence of the deputy city manager finance support the memorandum of agreement dated May 7th 2024 and agreed to items dated February 5th March 1st and April 3rd 2024 considering the 2024-2027 or sorry 2024-2027 collective agreement for civic employees local union number 107 chartered by the Canadian union of public employees and affiliated with the Canadian Labor Congress QP local 107 that it be ratified and also to note the progress was made with respect to items 4.1 4.3 as noted on the public agenda which were 6.1 11 SPPC and 6.1 8 CPSC and the additional time that we went into camera. Yes and the additional time we went into camera. Excellent so that’s moved by Councillor McAllister your move in motion so you get to stand. I’m going to turn the chair to Councillor ramen I’m going to speak to this matter.

Thank you I have the chair recognizing Mayor Morgan. Yes I’m just going to speak briefly to the vote before us to ratify the QP 107 tentative agreement. I just want to take a moment to thank our staff and our negotiating team for the work that they’ve done in working with with our partners in 107 to come to a freely negotiated collective agreement that provides wages and benefits that respect the high quality and incredible work that they do for us and to do so quickly expeditiously and bring it forward in a collaborative manner I think it’s great to be able to celebrate those things as they come forward we see not everybody has the the great fortune of landing in that spot and we are lucky to have a phenomenal relationship with our great partners who work for the City of London including a QP 107 thanks to the members for their ratification vote of this as well. I obviously am looking for Council’s full support in our approval of this too and and continue on behalf of the City of London and Londoners across the City want to formally thank 107 and all the workers for the incredible work they do on behalf of Londoners each and every day.

We’re turning the chair to you with no one on the speaker’s list. Anybody else want to speak? Okay then we’ll open this item for voting. Closing the vote motion carries 12 to 0.

That concludes my report. Thank you. I have no deferred matters and increase. Seeing none there’s no emergent motions so we’re on to bylaws.

Okay I’m gonna just right now all the bylaws are together because the individual of the conflict left who wants does anybody want something separated I need to know the numbers with your microphone please Councillor. 1329 and there were no votes on 1328 and there was a no vote on there were no votes on St. James, but I don’t see the number. So you you want those separate?

Yeah it doesn’t matter if there were no votes it’s what you want separated so other Councillors can speak for themselves. Yes there is also something for St. James, but I don’t see I don’t see the number I’m sorry under planning. So I’ll just reference for colleagues.

When we go through the actual voting items in the committee reports it will always indicate what bill it relates to in those committee reports. So if as we go through colleagues have the opportunity to note those and then be prepared at the end to just list the bylaws you want separate like that’s that’s where you can find them if you can’t reference something is through the committee reports when you see an item it will always say what bill it relates to. So we’ll pull those ones I’m unsure of the other one but I’ll make sure that I think it’s I think it’s 234 and 235 that you’re looking at additionally Councillor Troceau. I am looking at 234 and 235 but I see that there’s another one for 323 Oxford which is in a very different place in this list um 1313 13.13.

Okay 219 as well I’m just going by the bill numbers you’re right it’s 1313 on the agenda but bill 219. So we’re going to do 219 234 235 separate for you Councillor Troceau related to Oxford Street and ones related to Southdale Road. We also just note that bill 220 was revised we asked a revised amendment so you’re reading the bill it’s just that slight language difference that we we passed no need to do that separate um so anybody else want anything else separate okay so the way we’re going to proceed then if there’s nothing else pulled we’ll deal with everything except 219 234 and 235 which were the ones that Councillor Troceau indicated he’s looking for them to be devoted on separately. While we’re waiting for just the um motions to come up I’m going to suggest to colleagues just as a future process improvement since usually when we’re at bylaws everybody’s ready to go if as we go through the agenda you just want to make note of the bills that you might want presented separately and you just pass those along um to the clerk these motions can just kind of be drafted up throughout the meeting as as we’re working through it and then this park go a little smoother there might be something you might want to add later but the more we have prepared ahead of time the quicker it goes so I think that that might be something if we can all commit to as we work through the committee agenda so just note those bills that you might want pulled separately and you know put your name on it and pass it along to the clerk and we’ll we’ll try to we’ll try to craft something a little more efficiently at the end of the meeting for you.

Okay I need a mover and seconder for first reading of everything except the ones that we said would be excluded uh Councillor Cuddy seconded by Councillor van Merberg and there’s no debate on first reading so we’re going to open the voting. Was in the vote motion carries 12 to 0. Mover and seconder for second reading. Councillor Layton seconded by Councillor Ferrera.

Any discussion on second reading? Yes Councillor McAllister. Thank you. I just didn’t want to have this passed by without being able to say something to it so this is bill number 225.

I do just want to thank staff. I was able to go to the public engagement for the intersection at Hamilton and Gore for the roundabout. I’m very much looking forward to that. I just wanted to pass along my thanks and I know the committee’s very excited to see that redevelopment of that intersection.

Thank you. Thanks Councillor. Any other speakers? Okay I will open second reading for voting.

Closing the vote motion carries 12 to 0. Third reading. Mover and seconder. Moved by Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor Ferrera.

We’ll open third reading for voting as soon as it’s ready. Closing the vote motion carries 12 to 0. Councillor Fauci you pulled three can we do them all together? Yes please.

Okay. Yes please. Will someone object to that? Yeah you’re good but doing it all together?

Okay great. Mover and seconder then for that. Council approval, Councillor Cuddy. I will open first reading of those uh those three bills for voting.

Vote motion carries 11 to 1. And second reading. Mover and seconder. Moved by Councillor Cuddy.

Seconded by Councillor Frank. Any discussion? Seeing none we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote motion carries 11 to 1.

Third reading. Moved seconder. Moved by Councillor Lehman. I’m looking to you online.

I’m not ignoring you. So Councillor for Hillier you haven’t done one yet. So Councillor Hillier is the seconder. Okay third reading will open for voting.

Closing the vote motion carries 11 to 1. Okay that brings the conclusion of the meeting. Looking for a motion to adjourn. Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor Frank.

All those in favor of adjournment? Motion carries. All right we’re adjourned thank you.