August 27, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen, D. Ferreira and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

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

2.   Recognitions

His Worship the Mayor Recognizes the 2023 Queen Elizabeth Scholarship Recipients:

Chuying Huo, London Central Secondary School with a 99.00% average

Adrian Starzynski, Saint André Bessette Catholic Secondary School with a 99.00% average

His Worship the Mayor Recognizes the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission Community Recognition Program and Municipality Contribution Agreement

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

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

4.1    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation.

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation and litigation or potential litigation, with respect to appeals related to 247 Halls Mill at the Conservation Review Board (“CRB”) and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/12/PEC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/13/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/13/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/13/CSC)

4.5    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations, litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality, and advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, concerning the Corporation’s associations and bargaining units. (6.4/13/CSC)

4.6    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Land Acquisition/Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality concerning employee negotiations and labour relations, proposed acquisitions and dispositions of land, and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/13/SPPC)

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

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.2/13/SPPC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:23 PM to 1:49 PM.

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

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Minutes of the 13th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on July 23, 2024, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

6.1   Expropriation of Lands - East London Link Project - Phase 4 (As the “Approving Authority”)

RT - Expropriation East London Link Project - Phase 4 - Approval Report 2 of 3 _ Council_August 27, 2024

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Council convene as the Approving Authority pursuant to the provisions of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.26, as amended, for the purpose of considering Communication No. 1 from the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure with respect to the expropriation of the lands as may be required for the Project known as the East London Link Project – Phase 4.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as Approving Authority pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended, HEREBY APPROVES the proposed expropriation of lands, as described in Schedule “A” appended to staff report dated August 27, 2024, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, it being noted that the reasons for making this decision are as follows:

i)    the subject lands are required by The Corporation of the City of London for the East London Link Project; 

ii)    the design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along the corridor; and, 

iii)    the design is in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study recommendations for the East London Link Project approved by Municipal Council at the meeting held on May 21, 2019, and

b)    subject to the approval of (a) above, a certificate of approval BE ISSUED by the City Clerk on behalf of the Approving Authority in the prescribed form.

it being noted that two outstanding properties will be subject to a hearing of necessity and will be included in future reports.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting of the Approving Authority BE ADJOURNED and that Council reconvene in regular session.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.2   Expropriation of Lands - East London Link Project – Phase 4 (As the “Expropriating Authority”)

RT - Expropriation East London Link Project Phase 4- Approval Report 3 of 3 _ Council_August 27, 2024

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to staff report dated August 27, 2024 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, the East London Link Project: BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024;

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take all necessary steps to prepare a plan or plans showing the Expropriated Lands and to register such plan or plans in the appropriate registry or land titles office, pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, within three (3) months of the Approving Authority granting approval of the said expropriation;

c)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign on behalf of the Expropriating Authority, the plan or plans as signed by an Ontario Land Surveyor showing the Expropriated Lands; and

d)    the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED to execute and serve the notices of expropriation required by the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26 and such notices of possession that may be required to obtain possession of the Expropriated Lands.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

6.3   Expropriation of Lands - Wellington Gateway Project Clark’s Bridge Civil Works (As the “Approving Authority”)

RT - Expropriation Wellington Gateway Project Approval Report 2 of 3_Council_ August 27, 2024

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Franke

That Council convene as the Approving Authority pursuant to the provisions of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.26, as amended, for the purpose of considering Communication No. 3 from the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure with respect to the expropriation of the lands as may be required for the Project known as the Wellington Gateway Project Clark’s Bridge Civil Works.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as Wellington Gateway Project:

a)    the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as Approving Authority pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended, HEREBY APPROVES the proposed expropriation of lands, as described in Schedule “A” appended to staff report dated August 27, 2024, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, it being noted that the reasons for making this decision are as follows:

i)    the subject lands are required by The Corporation of the City of London for the Wellington Gateway Project; 

ii)    the design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along the corridor; and, 

ii)    the design is in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study recommendations for the Wellington Gateway Project approved by Municipal Council at the meeting held on May 21, 2019; and

b)    subject to the approval of a) above, a certificate of approval BE ISSUED by the City Clerk on behalf of the Approving Authority in the prescribed form.

it being noted that no requests for Hearing of Necessity were received.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting of the Approving Authority BE ADJOURNED and that Council reconvene in regular session.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

6.4   Expropriation of Lands - Wellington Gateway Project Clark’s Bridge Civil Works (As the “Expropriating Authority”)

RT - Expropriation Wellington Gateway Project Approval Report 3 of 3_Council_August 27, 2024

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as the Wellington Gateway Project:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to staff report dated August 27, 2024 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, the Wellington Gateway Project BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take all necessary steps to prepare a plan or plans showing the Expropriated Lands and to register such plan or plans in the appropriate registry or land titles office, pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, within three (3) months of the Approving Authority granting approval of the said expropriation;

c)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign on behalf of the Expropriating Authority, the plan or plans as signed by an Ontario Land Surveyor showing the Expropriated Lands; and,

d)    the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED to execute and serve the notices of expropriation required by the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26 and such notices of possession that may be required to obtain possession of the Expropriated Lands.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

6.5   455 Highbury Avenue North - (OZ-9739)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Franke

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

(ADDED) T. Whitney, Intermediate Planner - Zelinka Priamo LTD. - 455 Highbury Avenue North (OZ-9739)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.6   539 and 543 Topping Lane (OZ-9737)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Franke

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

K. Benke - 539 and 543 Topping Lane (OZ-9737)

Motion Passed

6.7   2060 Dundas Street (Z-9547)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Franke

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

S. Levin - 2060 Dundas Street (Z-9547)

Motion Passed

6.8   Court of Revision Vacancy Memo - S. Chambers, Division Manager, Stormwater Engineering

2024-08-27 - Submission (Council) - Court of Revision Vacancy Memo - S. Chambers, Division Manager, Stormwater Engineering

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Councillor S. Franke BE APPOINTED to the Court of Revision on a temporary basis until a member of the public is appointed by the Municipal Council; it being noted that the City Clerk’s Office will continue to advertise for the vacancy.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.9   Introduction of Office to Residential By-law for Council Consideration – Mayor J. Morgan

2024-08-27 - Submission (Council) - Introduction of OTR Bylaw for Council Consideration - J. Morgan

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

Introduction of Office to Residential By-law for Council Consideration – Mayor J. Morgan

Motion Passed

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-08-13 PEC Report 12 FULL

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee with the exception of items 4 (3.2), 5 (3.3), and 11 (3.9), BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Planning & Development and Building Housing Update – 2024 Year-To-Date

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated August 13, 2024 entitled “Planning & Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (3.1) 379 Southdale Road West (Z-9746) (Relates to Bill No. 287)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 1787377 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 379 Southdale Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA1/ASA3) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(_)/ASA3) Zone;

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

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment will permit an additional complementary use within existing building stock;

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.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (3.4) 4452 Wellington Road South (Z-9729) (Relates to Bill No. 289)

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 2858637 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 4452 Wellington Road South:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO a holding Light Industrial (h-17LI6) and holding Associated Shopping Area Commercial (h-17ASA1/ASA2/ASA6) Zone;

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

i) provide a high-quality gateway image along Highway 401 East and Wellington Road South and enhanced landscaping along the gateway corridor shall be required in conformity with the policy framework of The London Plan and Southwest Area Secondary Plan;

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

a communication dated August 12, 2024 from A. Johnson, Greenpeace Alliance;

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

S. Allen, MHBC Planning; and,

  • A. Johnson;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment facilitates a broader mix of uses on a serviced site with the urban growth boundary;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (3.5) 757 Southdale Road East (OZ-9742) (Relates to Bills No. 276 and 290)

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 Judy Kojlak, c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd. (c/o Matt Campbell) relating to the property located at 757 Southdale Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject properties FROM a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone TO a compound Holding Residential R1/Office Conversion Special Provision (h-18*R1-4/OC5(_)) Zone;

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

i)    closure of driveway nearest the intersection of Southdale Road East and Dearness Drive; and,

ii)    the owner enter into an Encroachment Agreement and Boulevard Parking Agreement with the City of London to permit the existing parking area, drive aisle, and proposed second access from Dearness Drive to encroach within the City’s right-of-way;

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

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

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate continuation of the existing standalone medical/dental office building on 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.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (3.6) 267 York Street (OZ-9736) (Relates to Bill No. 277 and 291)

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 Citi Plaza London Inc., (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 267 York Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Downtown Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject properties FROM a Holding Downtown Area (h-1h-3 DA2D350) Zone to a Holding Downtown Area Special Provision (h-17h-()*DA2()H150D2280) Zone;

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

i)    no windows to habitable rooms should be provided along the west façade of the proposed podium that abuts the adjacent property on York Street;

ii)    provide a minimum of 50% of transparent glazing on the buildings podium on the North (York Street) and East (Wellington Street) facades;

iii)    provide a high-quality gateway image of the south façade and design the top of the building to integrate mechanical and elevator penthouses into an architectural feature that will add to the visual interest of the skyline;

iv)    investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof and sides of the building, and geothermal for interior heating and cooling;

v)    investigate air source heat pump options;

vi)    include a minimum of 5% EV charging spots roughed in;

vii)    utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

viii)    a rail safety study be required to identify details of the mitigation measures (crash wall) and how it will be integrated into the design;

ix)    an encroachment agreement be entered into to permit the underground parking garage to encroach into the daylight triangle;

x)    details regarding garbage collection and storage be determined;

xi)    the recommendations of the Noise and Vibration Study be implemented; and,

xii)    the recommendations of the Wind Study be implemented;

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

  •    a communication dated August 11, 2024 from C. Butler; and,

  •    a communication dated August 12, 2024 from A. Johnson, Greenpeace Alliance;

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

  •    T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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 (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, promote transit-supportive development and support long-term economic prosperity. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future; 

  •    the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies and the Downtown Place Type policies, and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City; 

  •    the recommended amendments facilitate the development of a prominent site within the Downtown, Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area; and,

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (3.7) 1368 Oxford Street East (Z-9745) (Relates to Bill No. 292)

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 Ashishkumar Patel, Hetalben Sevantilal Patel, (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.), relating to the property located at 1368 Oxford Street East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix A BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 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 R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R1/Office Conversion Special Provision (R1-9/OC5(_)) Zone;

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

i)    provide enhanced salt resistant all-season landscaping to screen the parking from Roehampton Avenue & Oxford Street East; and,

ii)    four (4) short-term bicycle parking spaces are required for the proposed medical/dental office conversion;

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

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

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);

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit a new use that is appropriate within the surrounding context; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would provide access to medical/dental offices in a convenient and accessible location to meet the needs of neighbourhood residents;

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.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (3.8) 539 and 543 Topping Lane (OZ-9737) (Relates to Bill No. 278 and 293)

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 South London Investments Inc., (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.), relating to the property located at 539 & 543 Topping Lane:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    provide a dedicated paratransit layby;

ii)    consider revising the parking layout to ensure all parking spaces are more easily accessible;

iii)    ensure a high degree of transparent glazing is provided on the ground floor along both public street frontages;

iv)    enhanced tree planting, particularly along the western and northern property lines;

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

vi)    investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof and sides of the building, and geothermal for interior heating and cooling;

vii)    investigate air source heat pump options;

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

ix)    utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard; and,

x)    consultation with the Municipal Housing Developmet division for the provision of affordable units;

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

  •    a petition from K. Benke, with 63 signatures; and,

  •    the project summary from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

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

  •    K. Benke;

  •    A. Crawford;

  •    M. Pryciak;

  •    R. Scholtes;

  •    J. Bosdale; and,

  •    I. Driscoll;

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, Specific Policy Areas, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies; and,

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (4.1) Communication from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Board of Directors – Extension of Minister’s Direction for Conservation Authorities Regarding Fee Changes Associated with Planning, Development and Permitting Fees

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Mayor BE ASKED to write a letter requesting the decision of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry of Ontario, Graydon Smith, to reverse the decision to freeze the fees conservation authorities can charge in regard to planning, development, and permitting fees;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from B. Petrie, Chair, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Board of Directors, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (3.2) 553-557 Upper Queens Street (Z-9747) (Relates to Bill No. 288)

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 John MacArthur and Derek Sloan, (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the properties located at 553 and 557 Upper Queen Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 13, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 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 R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-5(_)) Zone; and,

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

i)    re-orientation of Units 9 and 10 to provide a minimum driveway length of 6.0 metres to avoid encroachments into the drive-aisle; and,

ii)    complete pedestrian connections through the site;

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

  •    a communication dated August 12, 2024 from A. Johnson, Greenpeace Alliance;

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

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Prfiamo Ltd.; 

  •    E. Vogel;

  •    A. Johnson; and,

  •    R. Orr;

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, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.1.5   (3.3) 455 Highbury Avenue North - (OZ-9739)

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 Highbury Self Storage Equities Limited, (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 455 Highbury Avenue North:

a) the request to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to AMEND the Brydges Street Area Specific Policy in the Light Industrial Place Type of the subject lands, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available; and,

ii) the proposed development does not conform to The London Plan (2016), including, but not limited to, the Key Directions, City Design, Intensity and Form policies of the Light Industrial Place Type, as well as the Brydges Street Area Specific Policy;

b) the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(22)) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(_)) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

ii) the proposed development does not conform to The London Plan (2016) as the requested Specific Policy is not recommended for approval; and,

iii) the proposed development and requested zoning represent a negative impact to the subject lands as a whole, as the area does not promote outdoor storage within a gateway to the City of London;

it being noted that should Council approve the proposed development, Staff recommend that a holding provision (h-18) that will ensure the development will not occur until such time as that archaeological matters will be addressed;

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

  • T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  • the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

  • the proposed development does not conform to The London Plan (2016) as the requested Specific Policy is not recommended for approval; and,

  • the proposed development and requested zoning represent a negative impact to the subject lands as a whole, as the area does not promote outdoor storage within a gateway to the City of London;

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.

Item 5, clause 3.3 reads as follows:

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the application by Highbury Self Storage Equities Limited, (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 455 Highbury Avenue North BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to work with the applicant to develop a plan for a reduction in expansion to facilitate an adequate tree replacement plan.

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

8.1.11   (3.9) 2060 Dundas Street (Z-9547) (Relates to Bill No. 294)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2783142 Ontario Inc., (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to a portion of the property located at 2060 Dundas Street:

a)    the proposed revised, attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 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 a portion of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial (LI1/LI7) Zone and Restricted Service Commercial (RSC2/RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-3(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone; and,

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

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment; and,

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

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

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion BE AMENDED to read as follows:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application 2783142 Ontario Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to a portion of the property located at 2060 Dundas Street:

a)    proposed by-law attached hereto BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of a portion of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial (LI1/LI7) Zone and Restricted Service Commercial (RSC2/RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-*R9-3()) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider compensation for woodland and wetland removal be secured through the site plan process;

it being noted that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons:

i)    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

ii)    the recommended amendment would permit a development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood.

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held with respect to this application:

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo 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.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Council recess at this time, for 10 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 2:42 PM and reconvenes at 2:53 PM.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That item 11, clause 3.9, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice BE GIVEN.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 11, clause 3.9, as amended, reads as follows:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application 2783142 Ontario Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to a portion of the property located at 2060 Dundas Street:

a)    proposed by-law attached hereto BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of a portion of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial (LI1/LI7) Zone and Restricted Service Commercial (RSC2/RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-*R9-3()) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider compensation for woodland and wetland removal be secured through the site plan process;

it being noted that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons:

i)    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

ii)    the recommended amendment would permit a development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood.

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held with respect to this application:

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo 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.

8.2   13th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-08-14 CSC Report 13

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 13th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, with the exception of item 4 (4.2), BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) RFT-2023-177 - City Hall Front Entrance Canopy Repairs and Remediation - Contract Amendment and Update

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated August 14, 2024, “RFT-2023-177 - City Hall Front Entrance Canopy Repairs and Remediation - Contract Amendment”:

a)    the contract with Tradition Construction Inc. BE INCREASED by $75,000.00 to $413,700.00 (excluding HST) to complete the required unforeseen work associated with the Front Canopy Repairs, in accordance with Section 20.3 (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 staff report as Appendix “A”;

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (4.1) Property Tax Deferral Program

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee on the potential for, and considerations related to an updated Property Tax Deferral Program for low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities, including the following within the report:

a)    a review of provisions from the City of Ottawa’s Tax Deferral Program and other similar programs at other municipalities, including:

i)    initial and ongoing eligibility requirements;

ii)    repayment requirements; and

iii)   applicable interest rates and program rules; and

b)    an analysis of the financial implications of adopting a Property Tax Deferral Program for the City of London including deferred revenue and additional staffing costs;

it being noted that Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated August 2, 2024 from Councillor S. Trosow, and a communication dated August 8, 2024 from K. M. Pagniello, Executive Director and Lawyer and M. Laliberte, Staff Lawyer, Neighbourhood Legal Services with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.2) Single Source SS-2024-277 J Allyn Taylor Heating System 

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the procurement of a replacement heating system for the J Allyn Taylor building (Single Source # SS-2024-277):

a)    in accordance with Sections 14.4(d) and 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to engage CIMCO to design, supply and install a suitable heating system and related auxiliary equipment;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as outlined in the Source of Financing report, as appended to the staff report dated August 14, 2024 as Appendix “A”;

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

 

d)    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.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (5.1) Request for Funding - Grand Theatre

Motion made by H. McAlister

That notwithstanding previous Council direction restricting the use of the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund for investment in public owned facilities and resources, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $400,000 from the Municipal Accommodation Tax fund to the Grand Theatre for the specific purpose of addressing an emergency retrofit of its heating and climate control system, it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated August 8, 2024 and heard a verbal presentation from L. Hansen, Executive Director, Grand Theatre with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (4.2) Tax-Levy Reduction

Motion made by H. McAlister

That notwithstanding the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to transfer $3,000,000 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve (OBCR) to support a $1,000,000 tax-levy reduction in each of the 2025, 2026, 2027 Annual Budget Updates; and

b)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to include the $1,000,000 dollar annual decrease in his 2025, 2026 and 2027 Annual Budget Updates;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated August 2, 2024 from Councillors C. Rahman and J. Pribil and a communication dated August 12, 2024 from AM Valastro with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.3   10th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-08-12 CPSC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 10th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.2) Video Streaming in Select City of London Arenas for Alliance Hockey Members (Relates to Bill No. 271)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated August 12, 2024, related to Video Streaming in Select City of London Arenas for Alliance Hockey Members:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on August 27, 2024, to:

i)    approve the Video Streaming Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between the Greater London Hockey Association and The Corporation of the City of London;

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

iii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or written designate, to approve and execute any further amendments to the above-noted Agreement if the amendments are substantially in the form of the above-noted Agreement;

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2024-M16)

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.3) Amendment to Single Source Procurement SS-2024-189: Dearness Home PointClickCare.Com Master Service Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 272)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated August 12, 2024, related to an Amendment to the Single Source Procurement SS-2024-189 for the Dearness Home PointClickCare.Com Master Service Agreement:

a)    the amendment of the PointClickCare.com Master Service Agreement and Schedule of Exceptions to MSA (“MSA”), as appended to the above-noted staff report, as Schedule 1, Single Source contract file number SS-2024-189 with Pointclickcare Technologies Inc., BE APPROVED to include the PCC Nursing Advantage – Clinical Pathways module, and Dedicated Training Environment with the additional costs of $19,079.88 annually (total annual contract value of $65,269.62) plus a one time set up fee of $1,000;

b)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into formal contracts to include the Nursing Advantage – Clinical Pathways module as appended to the above-noted staff report as Schedule 2, Dedicated Training Environment as appended as Schedule 3, RNAO’s Clinical Pathway License Agreement as appended as Schedule 4 and Nquire Data System Usage Agreement for Non-BPSOS as attached as Schedule 5;

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting of August 27, 2024, to:

i)    approve the amendment of the PointClickCare.com Master Service Agreement and Schedule of Exceptions to MSA (“MSA”), Single Source contract file number SS-2024-189, between PointClickCare Technologies Inc. (PCC Technologies”) and The Corporation of the City of London, to include the PCC Nursing Advantage – Clinical Pathways module, Dedicated Training Environment and related services fees as appended to the above-noted by-law;

ii)    approve the RNAO Clinical Pathway License Agreement and Nquire Data System Usage Agreement for Non-BPSOS, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between RNAO, 4211 Yonge Street, North York, Ontario, M2P 2A9 and The Corporation of the City of London; 

iii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and/or the City Manager, to:

A)    represent the City (City Representative) with respect to the above-noted MSA and RNAO proprietary agreements;

B)    execute the above-noted agreement on behalf of the City of London;

C)    approve and execute the amending agreements, additional terms to the MSA and the RNAO proprietary agreements that are consistent with the requirements contained in the PointClickCare MSA and that do not require additional City of London funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget and do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of the City and in accordance with the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

iv)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and the Dearness Home Administrator to approve and execute other documents which are necessary in relation to the MSA, RNAO proprietary agreements and any future Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care projects that utilize the PCC software that are consistent with the requirements contained in the PointClickCare MSA and that do not require additional City of London funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget and do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of the City and in accordance with the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this contract and any future Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care projects that utilize the PCC software. (2024-A03)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.1) 8th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on August 1, 2024:

a)    the attached Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee Recommendations Related to Canada Geese document and Habitat Modification and Canada Geese Source Book BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for their consideration;

b)    subject to the approval of the Strategic Communications Division, the printing of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee Banner BE APPROVED;

c)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.4 and 5.5 BE APPROVED; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide the available information to the City Clerk’s Office for distribution with respect to complaints regarding Canadian Geese, including the location of complaints and the frequency of geese and human conflict.

Motion Passed

8.4   11th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-08-13 CWC Report (pdf)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 11th Report of the Civic Works Committee with the exception of item 9 (4.2), BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.3) Oxford Street West Improvements - Environmental Assessment Study, Notice of Completion

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 August 13, 2024, related to Oxford Street West Improvements Environmental Assessment Study Notice of Completion:

a)    the Environmental Study Report for the Oxford Street West Improvements BE ACCEPTED;

b)    a Notice of Study Completion for the Project BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,

c)    the Environmental Study Report BE PLACED on the public record for a 30-day review period. (2024-T06)

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.4) Traffic Management Initiatives

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated August 13, 2024, with respect to Traffic Management Initiatives BE RECEIVED. (2024-T08)

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.5) Stoney Creek Valley Pathway Connection to the Thames Valley Parkway - 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 August 13, 2024, related to the Stoney Creek Valley Pathway Connection to the Thames Valley Parkway:

a) Dillon Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the construction contract administration phase in the amount of $120,879.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

c) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this contract; 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-E02)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.6) Contract Award - Tender No. RFT-2024-120 East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3B - Highbury Avenue North CPKC Bridge (Relates to Bill No. 286)

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 August 13, 2024, related to the Contract Award for Tender No. RFT-2024-120 East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3B for the Highbury Avenue North CPKC Bridge:

a)    the bid submitted by GIP Construction and Materials Limited, at its tendered price of $24,961,879.38 (excluding HST), for the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3B Highbury Avenue North CPKC Bridge project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by GIP Construction and Materials Limited was the lowest of five (5) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the construction inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, at an upset amount of $2,684,689.98 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

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

g)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender RFT-2024-120); and,

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

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.2) Johnson-Gough Municipal Drain Extension - Meeting to Consider (Relates to Bill No. 297)

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 August 13, 2024, related to the Johnson-Gough Municipal Drain Extension:

a) the drainage report, as appended to the above-noted staff report, prepared by Spriet Associates London Ltd, Consulting Engineers for the construction of the Johnson-Gough Municipal Drain (2024) BE ADOPTED; it being noted the notice of the public meeting was provided in accordance with the provisions of section 41 of the Drainage Act; and,

b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED and BE GIVEN two readings at the August 27, 2024 Council Meeting to provide for Drainage Works in the City of London (Construction of the Johnson-Gough Municipal Drain); it being noted that the third reading of the by-law for enactment would occur at the Council meeting after holding of the Court of Revision in connection with the project;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter. (2024-E09)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.1) 8th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee from the meeting held on July 17, 2024:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Environment and Transit Sub-Committee item, as appended to the Agenda:

i) the London Transit Commission (LTC) BE REQUESTED to run a driver’s awareness campaign/education program related to the issue of lane jumping around city buses and to have an ongoing campaign on the LTC website; and,

ii) the London Police Services and the London Transit Commission BE REQUESTED to work together on enforcement to allow buses to merge back into traffic after a stop; and,

b) clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 4.2 to 4.4 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (4.1) Councillor S. Franke - Planned Green Municipal Fund Project Applications in the Next 12-24 Months Request

Motion made by A. Hopkins

The communication dated July 11, 2024, from Councillor S. Franke, with respect to a request for a report back to a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee regarding the Planned Green Municipal Fund Project Applications in the next 12-24 months BE REFERRED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to be brought forward with the future 2024 Climate Emergency Action Plan Update; it being noted that the communication, dated August 8, 2024, from C. Butler, with respect to this matter, was received. (2024-F11A)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (4.2) Councillor H. McAlister - Update to the Hamilton Road Streetscape Master Plan

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated August 1, 2024, from Councillor H. McAlister, related to an Update to the Hamilton Road Streetscape Master Plan:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include, as part of the Mobility Master Plan, identification of an update to the Hamilton Road Streetscape Master Plan from Adelaide St to Highbury Ave, which could include a three-lane reconfigured road layout with protected bike lanes, and accessible sidewalks; it being noted that any large-scale redesign recommendations would be considered through the next Multi-Year Budget cycle for 2028-2031; and,

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a budget amendment for the Hamilton Road Streetscape Master Plan for consideration in the earliest possible update after completion of the Mobility Master Plan; it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from C. Luistro, Hamilton Road BIA and V. Da Silva, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-T08)

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

At 3:22 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 3:27 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Item 9, clause 4.2, reads as follows:

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the communication from Councillor H. McAlister with regards to an Update to the Hamilton Road Streetscape Master Plan BE RECEIVED.

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from C. Luistro, Hamilton Road BIA and V. Da Silva, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-T08)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5   13th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-08-15 - SPPC Minutes

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 13th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with the exception of items 3 (2.2) and 5 (5.1), BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) City of London Community Grants Program Grassroots, Innovation and Capital Funding Allocations (2024)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the report dated August 15, 2024, titled “City of London Community Grants Program Grassroots, Innovation, and Capital Funding Allocations (2024)” and the revised Appendix “A”, as appended to the added agenda, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (4.1) 2023 Climate Emergency Action Plan Progress Report 

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken:

a)    the staff report dated August 15, 2024, providing a summary of progress and policy implications and opportunities pertaining to the Climate Emergency Action Plan as well as the appended 2023 Climate Emergency Action Plan Progress Report as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back as part of the Climate Emergency Action Plan Update Report in January 2025 on revised timelines and completion dates for the actions that have been delayed or are under review including the rationale and potential impacts;

c)    the provincially required 2024-2028 Corporate Energy Conservation and Demand Management (CDM) Plan, as appended to the staff report within Appendix “B”, BE APPROVED; and

d)  the Mayor BE REQUESTED to engage with the Minister of Energy to discuss London’s efforts on the Climate Emergency Action Plan and how provincial energy policies are impacting London’s ability to achieve our climate targets.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from the Director, Climate Change, Environment & Waste Management and received a communication dated August 12, 2024 from B. Samuels and a communication dated August 13, 2024 from M. A. Hodge, Climate Action London with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Program

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken:

a)    the report dated August 15, 2024, with respect to the Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Program BE RECEIVED; and

b)    the secondary school pilot project BE DEFERRED to school years beginning September 2025 and September 2026 to provide for the Civic Administration together with London Transit Commission (LTC) to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB), for the purpose of partnering to deliver a pilot project to provide annual transit passes to secondary school students at Clarke Road Secondary School for Grade 9 students in year one and Grade 9 and Grade 10 students in year two, with a report back to Council on the MOU, appropriate source of financing, and metrics as previously directed.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Trosow

That the motion BE AMENDED by deleting the words “at Clarke Road Secondary School” in paragraph b).

Motion made by S. Franke

That, pursuant to section 10.5 of the Council Procedure By-law with respect to the Chair’s ruling that the amendment to remove reference to Clarke Road Secondary School is not in order, shall the ruling of the Chair BE SUSTAINED?

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Program BE REFERRED back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to explore options that serve other school routes.

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Item 3, clause 2.2, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken:

a)    the report dated August 15, 2024, with respect to the Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Program BE RECEIVED; and

b)    the secondary school pilot project BE DEFERRED to school years beginning September 2025 and September 2026 to provide for the Civic Administration together with London Transit Commission (LTC) to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB), for the purpose of partnering to deliver a pilot project to provide annual transit passes to secondary school students at Clarke Road Secondary School for Grade 9 students in year one and Grade 9 and Grade 10 students in year two, with a report back to Council on the MOU, appropriate source of financing, and metrics as previously directed.

8.5.5   (5.1) Request for London Police Services Delegation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to invite London Police Chief T. Truong to appear before the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee as a delegation at the September 17, 2024 meeting, along with any staff he deems appropriate to accompany him; and

b)    pursuant to section 36.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, the delegate BE PERMITTED to speak an additional five (5) minutes with respect to this matter followed by a Question and Answer session;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated August 9, 2024 from Councillor E. Peloza with respect to this matter.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion BE AMENDED to read as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London Police Services delegation invite:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to invite London Police Chief T. Truong to appear before the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee as a delegation at the October 8, 2024 meeting, along with any staff he deems appropriate to accompany him;

b) London Police Chief T. Truong BE REQUESTED to submit any public reports that may be of reference for his presentation to be part of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee public agenda;

c) pursuant to section 36.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, the delegate BE PERMITTED to speak an additional five (5) minutes with respect to this matter followed by a Question and Answer session; and

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to invite the London Police Chief to appear before the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee as a delegation annually, along with any staff he deems appropriate to accompany him.

 

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated August 9, 2024 from Councillor E. Peloza with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That item 5, clause 5.1, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 5, clause 5.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London Police Services delegation invite:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to invite London Police Chief T. Truong to appear before the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee as a delegation at the October 8, 2024 meeting, along with any staff he deems appropriate to accompany him;

b) London Police Chief T. Truong BE REQUESTED to submit any public reports that may be of reference for his presentation to be part of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee public agenda;

c) pursuant to section 36.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, the delegate BE PERMITTED to speak an additional five (5) minutes with respect to this matter followed by a Question and Answer session; and

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to invite the London Police Chief to appear before the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee as a delegation annually, along with any staff he deems appropriate to accompany him.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated August 9, 2024 from Councillor E. Peloza with respect to this matter.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   14th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 14th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Clauses 1 to 3 of the 14th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, reads as follows:

  1. Offer to Purchase Industrial Lands – 2086192 Ontario Ltd. – Huron Industrial Park

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Huron Industrial Park C3, being composed of being Part of Lots 2 & 3, Concession 2, and to be further described with a new reference plan, which is part of PIN 08151-0155, located in the City of London, County of Middlesex, as outlined in red on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by 2086192 Ontario Ltd. (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 14.01 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $2,942,100.00, reflecting a sale price of $210,000.00 per acre BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement.

  1. Offer to Purchase Industrial Lands – 1127030 BC Ltd. – 2865 Innovation Drive – Innovation Park Phase l

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Innovation Park Phase I, Part of Block 7, 33M-544, designated as Part of Part 2, Part of Part 3 and Part 4, Plan 33R-17213, save and except Parts 1 and 2, Plan 33R-19042 and being part of PIN 08197-0263 and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited in City of London, County of Middlesex, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by 1127030 BC Ltd. (the Purchaser), to purchase approximately 9.7 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $2,037,000.00, reflecting a sale price of $210,000.00 per acre BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement.

  1. Offer to Purchase Industrial Lands – Maple Armor Group Corporation – Innovation Park Phase IV

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Innovation Park Phase IV, being composed of Part of Blocks 4 and 5 and Part of Boyd Court (Closed by By-Law S.-5300-275, Registered as Inst. No. ER742388), (designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Deposited Plan 33R-17815) all on Registered Plan 33M-609, in the City of London, County of Middlesex and subject to final reference plan, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Maple Armor Group Corporation (the Purchaser) to purchase 14 acres more or less of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $2,940,000.00, reflecting a sale price of $210,000.00 per acre BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement.

That progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 as noted on the public agenda, (6.1/12/PEC), (6.4/13/CSC), (6.1/13/SPPC), and (6.2/13/SPPC).

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 270 to revised Bill No. 294, with the exclusion of Bill No.’s 275 and 286, and including Bill No. 297, and Added Bill No.’s 298, 299 and 300, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 270 to revised Bill No. 294, with the exclusion of Bill No.’s 275 and 286, and including Bill No. 297, and Added Bill No.’s 298, 299 and 300, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 270 to revised Bill No. 294, with the exclusion of Bill No.’s 275 and 286, and including Added Bill No.’s 298, 299 and 300, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 275, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No. 275, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

At 4:22 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 4:23 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 275, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 286, 295, and 296, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 286, 295, and 296, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 286, 295, and 296, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:26 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 37 minutes)

Good, good. Thank you, please be seated. Sorry, you can do the mace, go ahead. Very anxious to get rolling, because I know we’ve got lots to do, and I know it’s also near the end of the summer, so we’ll see how efficient we can be today, but colleagues, thanks, and welcome to the 14th meeting of City Council.

I’m going to start with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adewan drawn peoples. We honor respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area.

The two-row Wampum Bell Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Civil Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee, Nann Van Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, United Nation of the Thames, the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, customs, and cultures. Also add that the city of London is committed to making every efforts to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

Next, we have our O Canada singer, a national anthem singer. We have with us D’Agra Kombamba. She was born in Quebec and raised in Trafalgar Heights. She is a bilingual multidisciplinary artist and theatre arts educator from London’s very own Francophone community.

With a background in musical theatre and creative writing, this Western University alumni offers French language theatre education workshops to children throughout the city. She’s also the co-founder of Four Quarters, Culture Pronounce Quarters. It’s got a four in it, so if you read it, that makes sense. Anyways, Quarters Culture, which is an up-and-coming London-based music and cultural hub, which seeks to create spaces for underserved communities in our local creative scenes.

Please join me in welcoming D’Agra, who will now sing the national anthem, and please rise. Thank you. (singing in foreign language) Thank you, and thanks for indulging my Ron Burgundy moment where I actually read what my staff said in the background where it says, “This is how it’s pronounced.” I read Pronounce Quarters. I will literally read whatever’s on that page.

All right, disclosures of pecuniary interest. How looked at colleagues for disclosures of pecuniary interest? Okay, seeing none. Then we have a couple of recognitions to do.

I’m gonna do all of them from the podium. Just give me one second. Okay, colleagues, make sure it’s perfect. You’ll recall at a previous meeting, we approved the 2023 Queen Elizabeth scholarship recipients and we said we would recognize them in a future council meeting.

So this is that council meeting and we have both here today, one joining virtually and one in person. So I’m going to recognize them both separately. The Queen Elizabeth scholarships are scholarships that the city of London hands out to exceptional students across the school systems here in the city of London who have exceptionally high averages and in both cases they were both 99.00% which is amazing. And so first we want to recognize Chuyang Ho, who is here from London and will be attending university, Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Pursue a double major in computer science and public policy, the dream of pursuing a dream of becoming either a professor or a patent lawyer, shared a little bit of hobbies in the application, enjoying skiing, ice skating and violin and had other recognitions to which has been recognized for in an incredible way. Was named Teen Titan by Forbes Magazine on a list of the top 13 social activists for 2024, received a national silver medal from Scholastic Arts and Writing Awards and was shortlisted for the top 25 immigrant awards. And so those are quite the accomplishments Chuyang. I know you’re joining us digitally.

I don’t know if you want to turn on your camera and say hello. And if you want, you’re welcome to say a few words if you want to turn on your microphone and say that. But well, let me say on behalf of council and the city of London, congratulations on the accomplishments. We’re sorry you couldn’t be here today, but we’re certainly very proud of you.

Yeah, I just want to thank you so much the city of London for this opportunity. I’m currently at Duke University right now, which is why I was unfortunately not able to do it. But I really appreciate all the support that I’m seeing, my school, my counselors, the teachers have seen me and this would not be possible without. Thank you so much.

We really appreciate it and congratulations again. Right, next we have Adrian who’s joined us. You want to come up, come on up. So let me say first on behalf of city council, congratulations on your accomplishments.

We know you’re headed off to Western University right here for engineering your favorite subjects. I know you said we’re math and computer science, so no surprise that engineering made it your way. And I guess your future ambitions are to be a software engineer and other accomplishments and awards completed a Royal Conservatory Music Level 10 piano exam, which I know is quite the accomplishment as well. And of course, significant scholarships from the University of Western Ontario, actually one of the top 250 students with the highest admitted average to the University of Western Ontario this year.

So another amazing accomplishment and we’re very proud of you. Would you like to say a few words? And congratulations. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m very grateful for this recognition from the city of London. For recognizing all of the hard work I put in at school.

This is the city I have grew up in my whole life. And this award inspires me to continue pushing forward the boundaries of my potential as I continue my journey in academics and start studying engineering this fall. I am excited for the future. And once again, thank you to the city of London for this special award.

Thank you. Okay, next we have what is an exciting annual event. We have a number of guests with us today. I might have you come up in just a second.

I’m gonna read a little bit about this. This is the OLG Municipal Contribution Agreement Council recognition. I’m pleased that everybody could join us today. City Council to acknowledge the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation for its continued investment in London, Ontario, and its important partnership with the city of London through the Municipal Contribution Agreement.

In 1999, the city of London entered into a Municipal Contribution Agreement with OLG. Under this agreement, OLG provides an annual share of the gaming revenues generated from gateway casinos to the city of London. These funds are then earmarked for projects that positively impact residents in all corners of our vibrant community. From April 1st, 2023, to March 31st, 2024, we received over $5 million from OLG through the revenue generated at Gateway Casino’s London.

This revenue has played a critical role in supporting several essential community initiatives, including funding not-for-profit organizations throughout the city of London’s community grants program. Specifically, 59,500 was allocated to the Glenn Caron Community Resource Center to fund programs for children, youth, and families and older adults in the Glenn Caron-Pon Mills area, including basic need support programs in community development and youth leadership. 42,500 was allocated to the London Environmental Network to support the environmental incubator, which provides coaching and supports organizations looking to improve their environmental outcomes related to waste reduction, recycling, protecting enhancing waterways, wetlands, natural areas, energy reduction, and conservation. Today, we are honored to be joined by representatives from the Glenn Caron Community Resource Center and the London Environmental Network to organizations that have greatly benefited from these funds through the partnership with OLG.

These organizations have played a pivotal role in our community’s well-being, and we are also grateful and to recognize their outstanding contributions today. The remaining funds received from April 1st, 2023, till March 31st, 2024, through the contribution agreement, were used for a range of projects, including a large portion of the cost of purchasing green bins, both for the seven-liter kitchen type and the 45-liter roadside ones for London’s new green bin program, which started in January 2024 for an estimated 121,000 households in London. There was support for the purchase of vehicles for the London Fire Department, one-inch fire engine, and two articulating aerial platform vehicles, expanding the parking lot at Deerness Home, the city’s only long-term care facility, continuing to support other community organizations in our city, the London Boys and Girls Club, operating funding to support seniors programming, children and youth recreation support, nutrition programs, education and leadership initiatives, and the London and Middlesex Heritage Museum, operating funding to support Fanshawe Pioneer Village, delivering programs, events, education activities, and exhibitions, and to preserve its collection of 33 original and replica buildings, and more than 40,000 artifacts. In total, the city has received more than $99 million in non-tax gaming revenue for hosting a gaming facility in the city of London since the inception of this agreement.

These revenues are the cornerstone of supporting local programs and essential infrastructure, making a substantial, tangible difference in the lives of the people of London, Ontario. I also like to recognize Gateway Casino’s London as a key employer in the old East Village community. Currently, the casino employs 244 people, but this number will increase by 100 once the $50 million renovations are completed in 2025. Thank you for your continued partnership and investments in London and OLG.

I’d now like to invite all the members of OLG up, including Kathleen Devine, who is a Senior Municipal Relations Manager for OLG who will provide some remarks as well. And you can bring up whoever else you want from your team. Thank you very much, Mayor. And thank you to the City of London and City Councilors, city staff, for every year, inviting OLG and Gateway to come here to present to you.

It’s always a ton of fun coming here. And this year, it’s exciting because, you know, as you mentioned, we’ve been here for 25 years this year. And instead of saying almost just over 99 million, it’s almost $100 million that the city has received through the MCA that you were speaking about. And, you know, you spoke of some of these incredible positive impacts, right?

This money makes to this city. My colleague, Karen and I today have the honor of earlier today meeting with the folks from Glen Cairn Community Resource Center. And we did a bit of a tour with the folks there. Thank you for being here.

And this afternoon, we get to join Leah and Mackenzie to head out and look at firsthand what the environmental, London Environmental Network does. So that’s a really great part of our job that we get to see firsthand the positive impact of these funds in the community. And then we can take these stories back to our fellow OLGers and let them know the great work that is being done all across the province. It really is all about making life better for people.

That’s what resonates with OLG, 100% of our profits go back into the province of Ontario every year. And it’s something that we’ve been able to do for almost 50 years now. So again, thank you for inviting us here. I think we might now have a big check presentation.

Yes, fantastic. So these funds that are written on the check represent fiscal 24s amount received by the city of London through OLG. And as Mayor noted, the amount is 5,122,116 dollars. Perfect, come on up, yes, thank you.

Come around, yeah. Thank you very much. That concludes the recognitions I have. I’ll return to my seat and see if councillors have any other recognitions, thank you.

Are there any other recognitions the colleagues might have? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll be really brief, but I wanted to take this opportunity to rise and recognize and congratulate Councillor Hopkins on her re-election to the Board of Directors for the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

We all just returned from a fantastic conference. We had lots of great delegations with the province. We had opportunities to speak to mayors and councillors from around this province, all 444 municipalities in the province of Ontario with the exception of one big one who’s not an amo member. We’re participating in this conference.

It was a great one. And Councillor Hopkins, I know that you’re looking forward to the work that will continue with the new Board that was elected. I know you’ve got a great team there and I know you’ll continue to be London’s voice for our needs on that Board. So I just wanted to take the opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. And again, congratulations, Councillor Hopkins. Any other recognitions? Okay, seeing none, a review of confidential matters.

We consider it in public. We have none, so we have our council will close session items. There are seven of them on the agenda. I’m gonna look for a motion to move into closed session for those moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank.

Any discussion? We’ll open that with a voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, we’re moving to committee room five colleagues. So we’ll head over there now. Okay, thank you, please be seated. All right, we’re back in public session.

We’re on item five, which is the confirmation and signing of the previous minutes. We have the 13th meeting held July 23rd, 2024. I need to move on a seconder for that. Moved by Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Cutty.

Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, item six is communications and petitions. We have to deal with 6.1 and 6.2, then 6.3 and 6.4. Then we can make a motion to refer all the rest of them to the various parts of the agenda. So I’m gonna start with the first two items.

And if colleagues will recall, this is where Council will move to sit as the approving authority. Then as we sit as the approving authority, we’ll make recommendations to the expropriating authority. Municipal Council is the expropriating authority. And so we actually make the motion twice because sitting as the approval authority, we make a recommendation to Council as the expropriating authority and then Council makes the decision.

So I will say there’s two expropriations on the agenda. We can’t do them both while sitting as the authority. We have to move in and out each time. I’ll say the clerk is looking into whether or not we can streamline that.

It requires a little bit of research and legislation, but given it’s an expropriation and we definitely don’t want to have made a misstep, we’ll do it in and out and then in and out and do these very cleanly until we can find a better way to do it. But if you bear with me, I will go through the motions with you. So the first motion that we have to move is for Council to convene as the approving authority. So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that.

Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Lehman. So this is to convene as the approving authority. Is there any discussion on that? We’ll open that for voting.

Wasn’t the vote? Motion carries 14 to one. Okay, step two is to consider and approve the expropriation as the approving authority, which we’re now sitting as. I have to actually read the motion out.

So my apologies for that but that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Environment and Infrastructure with the Concurrence of the Director of Construction and Infrastructure Services on the advice of the Director of Realty Services with respect to the expropriation of lands that may be required for a project known as the East London Link Project, following actions we take in A, the Council of the Corporation of City of London as the approving authority pursuant to the expropriations act, I can carry on. As amended here by approves, the proposed expropriation of lands is described as Schedule A. Appended the staff report dated August 27th, 2024 in the City of London County of Middlesex. It being noted that the reasons for making the decisions are as follows.

One, the subject lands are required by the Corporation of the City of London for the East London Link Project. Two, the design of the project will address the current and future transformation demands along the corridor. Three, the design is in accordance with the municipal class environmental assessment study recommendations for the East London Link Project, approved by municipal council at the meeting held May 21st, 2019, and B, subject to the approval of A, the certificate of approval be issued by the city clerk on behalf of the approving authority in the prescribed form. It being noted that two outstanding properties will be subject to a hearing of necessity and will be included in future reports.

Any, I need to move on a seconder for that. Councillor Trostau, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Those in the vote motion carries 13 to two. I need to move on a seconder to adjourn the sitting of the approval authority. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any discussion, we’ll open that for voting.

And carries 15 to zero. Now, based on the recommendation from the approval authority, council sitting as the expropriation authority can move the same motion that I just read out. I need to move on a seconder for that. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor McAllister.

Any discussion on that? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Lewis, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to two.

Okay, now that that matter’s addressed, we’re going to convene as the approving authority again. So I need a motion to convene as the approving authority. Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Frank. Any discussion, we’ll open that for voting.

Councillor Cuddy, Councillor Trostau. Yes. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to two.

Okay, now I’ll read out the following motion and then ask for a mover and a seconder. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager and environment and infrastructure with the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services on the advice of the director of realty services, the following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of lands that may be required for the project known as the Wellington Gateway Project. A, the Council of the Corporation of the City of London is the approving authority pursuant to the expropriations act. RSO 1990C, E26 be amended, hereby approves.

The proposed expropriation of land is described as schedule a appended staff report dated August 27th, 2024 in the city of London, the county of Middlesex, yet being noted that the reasons for making this decision are as follows. One, subject lands are required by the Corporation of the City of London for the Wellington Gateway Project. Two, the design of the project will address the current and future transportation needs along the corridor. Three, the design is in accordance with the municipal class environmental assessment study recommendations for the Wellington Gateway Project approved by municipal council at the meeting on held on May 21st, 2019, and B, subject the approval of A, above a certificate of approval be issued by the city clerk on behalf of the approving authority in its prescribed form, it being noted that no requests for hearing a necessity were received.

Any discussion? Oh, mover and a seconder first. Councillor Frank moves. Councillor Cuddy seconds.

Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to two. I now need a motion to adjourn as the approving authority moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank.

Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, and now we are sitting as municipal council, which is the expropriation authority.

So I need to move on a seconder for the same motion that I read out that was recommended by the approval authority. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any discussion on this? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Next, I can take a motion for items 6.5 through 6.9 to refer those to the indicated portions. So I can do everything except 6.8 referred to the items indicated in the brackets behind those. So it’ll be 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, and 6.9.

Councillor Troceau, seconded by Councillor Layman. Any discussion on those? Okay, that referral motion, it will open for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, the next item that we have to deal with is the court of revision vacancy memo. If you see the memo before you, there’s a vacancy, yet there’s a matter to be dealt with. I know that there’s a member of council willing to serve to allow the matter to be dealt with. Well, we continue to advertise for the vacancy.

So we have, we can make a motion to appoint a councillor to have this dealt with. And so I would look to see if someone’s willing to move a motion to that, I have a wording, I don’t know if anybody else is interested, but Councillor Frank expressed an interest in doing this, so someone’s willing to move a motion to appoint Councillor Frank, or we could all battle over the opportunity. Councillor Plosie willing to move that motion? Councillor, obviously— Yes, I’m happy to put forward the motion to appoint Councillor Frank, and thank her.

Perfect, ‘cause the public can’t see it, I’ll just read the motion. The councillor, as Frank, be appointed to the court of revision on a temporary basis until a member of the public is appointed by the municipal council, it being noted that the city clerk’s office will continue to advertise for this vacancy. So that is moved and seconded. Any discussion on that?

Seeing none, we can open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion is zero. Questions, thank you for your service. Councillor Frank, item seven, motion is to which notice was given, there were none.

We’re now on to reports. We have the 12th report of the planning and environment committee, which is not the one from today, but the one from before we all left for, for those of us who went to AMO, before we left for AMO. So I’ll turn it over to Chair Layman to present that. Thank you, Your Worship, and please put the 12th report of the planning and environment committee on the floor.

I’ve been asked for your information to pull the following items. Councillor Palazzo requested number four, item number four to be pulled. Councillor Stevenson requested item five to be pulled and Deputy Mayor Lewis requested number 11 to be pulled. Does anybody want anything else separate other than those items?

Okay, I’ll let you make a motion, Chair. Well, I’ll move items one through three and six through 10 and number 12. We’ve got those items on the floor, moved by the chairs or any members of council have any discussion on those items, the chair. Thank you.

  • Okay. Okay, that’s all good then. So we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carried.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, and I’ll item number four in the floor. Okay, item number four is on the floor by the chair, any discussion on that? Councillor Palazzo, go ahead.

Thank you, as the word councilor for this area did appear at committee and spoke to some current concerns about this. I know it is staff recommended a pass from committee, just this area in the last rainfall event did have significant water issues throughout it. I know that staff are gonna work and help mitigate issues as we can, realizing there’s other overland water issues in the area and this proposed development would see two single homes come down in 28 towns go up and just reassure residents as we build out the city and do its intensification that the staff will revisit traffic calming in the areas as we need to, realizing there’s another development project with somewhat the same timelines coming up just within the same city block of this one. So just flagging my main concerns where the current residents are already flooding adding 28 more to potentially be welcomed to the neighborhood with flooding and sewage issues.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Seeing none, this is moved by the chair. We’ll open this for voting.

Motion to vote, motion carries 14 to one. Thank you, I’d like to put item number five on the floor. Okay, item number five is on the floor by the chair. I’ll look to any comments.

Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I’d like to move a referral. I’ve sent the wording to the clerks. Okay, they do have the language of your, that you sent, now they just made some modifications just to fit it in.

I’m just gonna read it out so everybody can hear it and then I’ll ask for a seconder for your referral. That the application by library, self-storage, equities limited related to the property located at 455 Highbury Avenue North be referred to civic administration to work with the applicant to develop a plan for a reduction in expansion to facilitate an adequate tree replacement plan. That’s the referral and the reason for it that the Councillors asking for is there a seconder for that, Councillor Cuddy. Okay, given there’s a mover and a seconder, Councillor Stevenson if you wanted to provide your rationale.

Thank you, yes I would. And I apologize I wasn’t at planning to speak on this at that time. But this investor has done a lot of work in that building on that lot and it’s been very much appreciated by the neighborhood and the neighbors. They did have problems with the woodlot.

It was causing, there was a lot of criminal activity happening there, they’ve got it all on videos, they almost lost the investors for the initial project. So this is why they’ve sort of come back with another extension to this project now that the woodlot has come down all per and completely in accordance with the permit and the authorization granted by the city. They would really like to work with city staff on finding an agreed upon solution here that can work. So I wanted to confirm with staff that there’s no concern about refund of fees with this deferral.

I’ll go to our staff on with the referral, lead into any sort of refunding of fees or anything. Two people looking at their microphones, go ahead. Through your worship, based on the recent changes to the legislation, there’s no longer refunds on fees. So it’s an 120 day timeline which expires on September 6th.

However, there’s always a risk of an appeal. So no refund of fees, risk of appeal if the applicant wanted to for, that’s for non-decision, right? Within 120 days? Okay, go ahead, Councilor.

Okay, thank you. I’ve had really good communication with this developer over the last year. They really are excited about being a positive impact on this neighborhood. There were no concerns or complaints, none at all raised by the neighbors during this process.

They estimate, at least I didn’t confirm with staff, that they estimate a potential additional tax revenue to the city of $175,000 a year in recurring tax revenue. Something maybe that we don’t talk about when we look at saying no to some of these developments, but yes, when we talk about budget increases and the need for funds, a simple yes to allow this development could give us that 175,000 in recurring annual tax revenue. We said yes to the zoning change in April of 2023, and it was just for the building, but this is very similar. And according to their planner, the letter that was submitted to Council and is attached to the agenda, they said that in their professional opinion, the proposed development meets the general intent of the policies of both the light industrial place type and the bridges street special policy area.

So again, if we’re gonna say no to people investing in our city and additional tax revenue, I just, I think I’d prefer to err on the side of yes, at least in this case for a referral to continue to allow staff to talk. There was no negative commentary on the tree preservation plan. They are more than happy to plant extra trees. They are willing to take on the maintenance of the city space along hybrid to make sure that it’s kept to high standards.

I know there’s been some complaints about it recently. So they’re willing to take on that maintenance. They’re willing to work with staff. They’re willing to plant extra trees.

This is a good thing for the neighborhood. It’s a good thing for that area to have that space be empty. Just, you know, we get to recognize as well some of the social disorder issues that we have that are facing the area. And this is not, although it’s on the gateway, it’s not that visible from hybrid.

They’re willing to plant trees along the way. It backs on to the railroad tracks. So they are willing to take the responsibility for maintaining the hybrid side. They said that simply restoring the wooded area would be unfortunate as it may lead to renewed illicit activity, would not contribute to an increased tax base for the city and would halt their efforts to clean up the environmental contaminants currently affecting the parcel.

These contaminants appear to have originated from the city owned property at 450 hybrid ag. So I received this email from them and I would really ask for council support in this referral to give staff and this developer the chance to find something that really works for the trees, for the environment and for our tax revenue. So I’m asking for your support. It is in my ward and I do believe it is a real benefit to my ward and to the city.

Other speakers, Councillor Troso. Through the chair, just a quick question. You indicated that there is a risk of appeal and if you could reiterate why, have we received something binding and writing from the applicant saying that there would not be an appeal? Go ahead, go ahead.

Thank you through your worship. The risk of appeal is for non-decision because we’re beyond, if we go to the next council meeting or referral back, we’re beyond the 120 day timeline. And go ahead, Councillor. What, through the chair, would some type of a letter from the applicant saying they’re not going to do that, be binding or is that just moot because we don’t have that?

Go ahead. Through your worship. In terms of that, to some extent that would be binding, it would be without prejudice, that still would want to have that opportunity for that conversation and to follow through the planning process and the legislative requirements. But just to be clear, we have not received something that would meet that criteria, is that correct?

Through your worship, that’s correct. Okay, I’m Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I supported the staff refusal at planning committee.

However, I’m willing to support the referral here. It’s the applicant has certainly been clear in communications that I’ve been copied on that there will be an appeal if it’s a refusal and it will go to the OLT. So that’s been communicated clearly, at least to myself and I believe to the word Councillor. So this, I think, is an opportunity, although I would appreciate it as well if we had it in writing, that we don’t, I think is an indication that they probably will not appeal if we’re willing to keep working with them for a little while.

My primary concern with the proposal that staff recommended refusal on was with regard to an overall building coverage of 52%, only 19% landscaped open space on the property. There were 12 trees, and if I’m reading the report wrong, I will ask staff to correct me, but there were 12 trees that were identified in the original proposal that had to be retained. This new expansion would remove a number of those. I think if the applicant is willing to work with our staff and come back, right now they’re proposing five new exterior buildings.

The building at the rear or the south side of the lot, I should say, in particular, would require the removal of several of those trees that have been maintained at this point. If they came back with a reduced proposal that did not suggest removing those trees and removed one of those buildings or two of those buildings at the south property line, that may be something that I could get to supporting. Right now, they’re proposing an expansion of 66 units. If the removal of that building and somewhere, I don’t know what number it would fall in, obviously they’d have to redesign the site plan, but they came in at like 40 or 50, but it preserved those trees at the south lot line and provided more space for an adequate tree replacement program, then I could consider whether or not I would support this.

I think what we’ve got here is an adaptive reuse of an existing building, which we approved not withstanding our London plan policies because it was an adaptive reuse. And so it was consistent with the provincial policy statement. Now we’re into an expansion of a use, which is not consistent with the London plan, but is also not really consistent with the provincial policy statement, although it is consistent with the use in the neighborhood for light industrial that’s already pre-existing. So I’m willing to support time for more discussion back and forth.

I’m taking the applicant on good faith that they won’t appeal for a non-decision because they actually requested the deferral rather than appealing to OLT. So I believe that they are generally going to try and work with our staff. Whether we get to a resolution that is supported by either side, that remains to be seen, but I think since they’ve indicated a willingness to continue the discussion and given the nature of the referral that is specific to develop a plan for a reduction in the expansion and ensure that it facilitates a proper tree replacement program, I think I can entertain at least continuing those discussions for now. So I’ll support this, but I’m seeing that with an asterisk because what comes back may still not get my support in the end.

Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you to staff. I’m just wondering if you can outline if no agreement comes out of those discussions, what would happen next? Through your worship, thank you for the question.

With that, we think this motion would be giving us direction. So it’s still be notwithstanding the staff recommendation, but we would be following the direction based on this motion. Having said that these lands are in a tree protection area. So that was a big strong basis for the recommendation for refusal.

So we’d have to work within that with my colleagues in environmental infrastructure. So with the forestry team and then dealing with that compensation. Thank you. Okay, so pursuant to the discussion taking place and let’s say your recommendation is still retained as your refusal recommendation.

What happens in terms of we ran the clock of the 120 days, we’ve not made a decision as a council, you’re still recommending potentially in that case a refusal, then I don’t understand, I’m just trying to understand the process at that point as to what happens. Does it just come back for another planning cycle as the same staff recommendation? What are the implications of that for us? Just in terms of the non-decision piece.

Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. I may have misunderstood the direction. We were giving the direction here to come back with a plan for a reduction and an expansion to accommodate for a tree replacement plan.

So that would still be notwithstanding the staff recommendation, but it would be a direction to bring forward so that then a by-law would have to be prepared that then could be voted on by council. Thank you. Okay, so to clarify, sorry, this seems like a little bit of a new nuance discussion. So we’re basically saying that we’re taking the refusal, notwithstanding that refusal, we are going in the direction of approval, even without that negotiated piece, we’re working towards the negotiated piece.

This is where I’m a little lost because I feel like we’re jumping the gun on a decision and asking staff to arrive at a decision without further information on how we get there. And that’s where I’m a little stuck on this. I can understand asking you to go back and asking staff to go back and have a discussion. I can’t support some of the language on directing how that discussion then plays out.

That’s where I’m a bit confused. I’m wondering if maybe staff need clarification on that as well. And if that needs to be straighten out in the language. Those are just my comments.

Thanks, go ahead. Through you, Your Worship. And we made this comment at planning committee. Staff would not be supportive of a referred change to the plan, it would still be a refusal.

So in that case, the conversation would still be something that would be put forward. However, it won’t be with favorable staff recommendation. Other speakers? Oh, I have Councillor Cudi, actually.

Go ahead, Councillor Cudi. Thank you, thank you, Your Worship, and through you. And as a seconder of this motion, I will be supporting the motion. And I just want to reference Councillor Stevenson’s comments.

We need more investment in East End of London, not less. This is an opportunity for us to have that. Yes, there’s been some good faith issues that we’ve experienced. But I think it seems right now that these investors want to show some good faith.

And I think that we should extend that courtesy to them. I’ll also mention the fact that this is an area, as Councillor Stevenson alluded to, that has long required some development and some work. It’s an area that’s had some real issues. And Ward 4 needs some help from us.

And I certainly be happy to give it to them. And I encourage all my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship, and appreciate the questions. I will not be supporting the referral back. If it is the wording, if it sort of ended with a referral back to work with staff, I’m happy to do that. But I think this is a little bit too explicit for my support.

Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, and through you to staff, I did have a quick question regarding this motion in regards to the tree replacements. My understanding is they already have to do tree replacement. So I guess I’m confused as to why we would be asking them to additionally do it.

Like at this point, my understanding is they already have to have a plan given that they’ve cut down those trees. So I’m just hoping you could maybe explain that a little bit ‘cause this seems a bit redundant since they have to do that. Go ahead, through your worship, that’s correct. There would be a tree replacement plan working with the forestry team.

However, as part of any site plan, we would also look at the compensation of the tree removal. However, it’s certainly not at the same rate as the amount of trees that were removed on the site. But having said that, regardless, any development would require a tree replacement. Thank you, and maybe to clarify.

So whether or not, like my understanding is, even if we don’t approve anything on this property moving forward, they would still be required to replace trees at a ratio that we determined to be appropriate. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship, yes, that is correct. There is a requirement for tree replacement on this site based on the permit that was issued previously to this latest application for expansion.

Go ahead. Yes, so given that, I’m not supportive of this motion. My understanding of staff refused it more for reasons towards the London plan and trying to abide by place types. And we originally approved the redevelopment of this and we’re allowing for it to be used as storage facility.

I did not imagine that they would come forward and then ask for a storage facility external because that was really not the purpose of this application. So I won’t be supporting it at this time and I’d encourage any future applicants that if they’re struggling with their properties with social issues, I encourage them to try and properly secure it with fencing as opposed to cutting down trees and natural vegetation. Any other speakers? Seeing none, so the motion before us is on the referral, which you can see moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cudi.

So I’m going to open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries, eight to seven. Okay, so that item is completed.

I’ll go back to the chair. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll put item number 11 on the floor. I’ll look for speakers.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So colleagues, this past at planning committee, I’ve only asked for it to be pulled because I circulated in advance a small amendment. It’s a condition on site plan that requires the applicant and the city to enter into agreement through the site plan process for compensation for any natural heritage feature relocation or removal.

That was part of the issue that was expressed and concerned is that it was missed when the alternate motion was put forward. It was always intended. The applicant has no problem providing compensation. However, when we were moving from the refusal to an approval motion and changing some things around, that piece was missed.

There is an OS5 zone included in the zoning here, so there is open space. There is an opportunity to do compensation on site. If that’s not attainable, there are opportunities to do compensation on the adjacent site where certainly through conversations that have been expressed by the adjacent site owner or true holdings that they would welcome the opportunity for some compensation on their site. There’s also city-owned lands that could potentially be available for compensation.

So this just codifies in the site plan that an agreement for compensation has to be made before everything is finalized. I really, really am encouraging colleagues to support this. I know that the applicant had submitted and I will say this is my fault ‘cause I gave them the wrong email address. They had submitted correspondence from the Argyle seniors task force and the chairwoman there, Joyce Larsh, who has been working on this project with them for a long time.

We had a public meeting on this application. Well, it’s a couple of years ago now. It was the first time I’ve ever been to a public meeting on a development where there was no objections whatsoever. And in fact, the applicant left with a list of people who wanted to be on the waiting list to get one of these units when the building eventually opened.

I think the waiting list now is something like 300 people who’ve expressed an interest in a unit here. This is meant to be a 55 plus year to seniors living building. We’ve had numerous challenges with this and I’m not gonna re-litigate all the challenges we had with regard to upper Thames and a man-made drainage ditch, although I found it fascinating yesterday that we heard at a PEC meeting that a proposed new wetland feature in a new development where something deal golf courses shouldn’t be called a wetland even though they were engineering a new wetland for us. And yet at the same time we’re calling a man-made drainage ditch along Dundas a water course.

Now upper Thames has since back from that position, there will still be a requirement for a section 28 permit through this process. They are not meeting the current EMGs, but again, the EMGs are a guideline. They’re not a regulatory requirement. And so I’m really, really encouraging people.

This has unanimous support in the neighborhood. There’s no objections from residents. And I know very rarely can any of us as award counselors say that. There’s always a couple of residents who are opposed, but in this case there is not.

These are experienced individuals who build quality product in other parts of the city. I know they build quality product here. We will be on an urban corridor, a place type, more intensification is coming here. I know that the London Plan Heights review is going on, but the applicant is already, or the applicant’s neighbor is already working on another application for some high density residential next door.

This is a great infill project. It’s got the support of the Anglican Diocese who has severed as much land as they possibly can to allow for this development to move forward. And so I’m really, really as the award counselors encouraging colleagues to please support this. I know that staff was not able to provide their recommendation in support, but they did work with me on making sure that the conditions in the alternate motion and the by-law attained as many of the pieces as possible, that they had expressed concern over.

Yes, there are still a couple of issues, but from the whole, this is a net benefit to the neighborhood, to the ward to an Argyle area, and to creating more seniors, year to seniors housing in the city of London. So I cannot strongly enough as the word counselor encourage you to please support this. I’m just gonna pause the debate for a sec. We just have to work something out of the language that was submitted.

So, Deputy Mayor, just what you said, what was in the committee, and just the information we got as an alternative language, it’s just parts of it don’t quite line up. The committee’s piece needs to be structured as an amendment because there’s an alternative by-law, so we just need to adjust that to make it line up, which is why I’m just pausing the debate to work that out. I might have a question for you in a minute. Okay colleagues, so let me explain what I’m doing, and then I might just suggest, I’m gonna give you the option of taking a recess, or you can wait until I finish this.

So given the proposed suggestion, first officer or seconder for what’s being suggested. Yes, okay, so given that the proposed suggestion has the support to be moved and seconded, and does change a by-law, we actually have to circulate the by-law to members of council, even though it’s not a significant change quickly, because council has to decide on whether or not when we change a by-law, whether or not further notice needs to be given, as we have to have that vote, then we can consider the change. That’s gonna require a little bit of setup, so my preference is I would rather just take a 10 minute recess and get that all done, or you guys can sit here and wait until I do that. Wanna do a 10 minute recess?

Okay, move a motion for a 10 minute recess, and no one should be talking about this, by the way. I’ve just, this is for me to have time with the clerks to sort this out. Moved by councilor Frank, seconded by councilor Hopkins. Do that by hand, all those in favor?

Any opposed? No motion carried. Okay, 10 minutes. Okay, thanks, please be seated.

Okay, appreciate the time on that, so I’m just gonna explain, and then I’ll have debate on it. The language is slightly different, so just to make this easy, although it’s very similar, but just with a little bit of reorganization, the motion is going to be basically to amend the committee’s recommendation to read as follows, and then it’ll be the full motion so people can see it all together rather than in pieces. Should that pass, then there would be, as we usually do when we amend something, as amended, be approved. Should it be approved because there was a public participation meeting held with this, that we’d then have a motion to decide whether or not notice needs to be given from that point on, so if notice doesn’t need to be given, we’d pass the alternate by-law today.

If notice need to be given, we’d go through another committee cycle for notice. So that’s what we’re gonna do, but right now we’re on the debate of the amendment, which has been moved and seconded, and I can go back, I know you had made some remarks, but giving you know what I’m doing now, I’ll let you if you need to finish up or touch on anything before I go to other speakers, go ahead. Thank you, worship, so I’ll be really brief. I appreciate you pulling this part.

It goes to show what wonderful procedural, and I don’t mean this in a bad way, ‘cause I’d self-described myself as a nerd too, but it’s what a wonderfully procedurally nerdy clerks department we have, who knows the ins and outs, and dotting all the eyes and crossing all the teas, making sure that everything has it needs to be. So I appreciate that, I will just say with respect to, when we get to the point of no further notice to be given, that’s a pretty standard thing when we make a change at planning committee or at council on something where it’s very minor in terms of, we’re not changing anything that was advertised to the public, in terms of the building’s layout, the physical plant, the only thing that we’re actually changing is putting in a new site plan condition around compensation for natural features, which I cannot imagine any member of the public objects to getting compensation for natural feature alterations, so I hope colleagues can support all of that. And that’s all I have to say on that, if we’re ready to proceed, other than the fact that, we definitely want to get this done today, ‘cause I got a message from Joyce Larsh, the, from the chair of the Argyel Senior’s Task Force, and it says, simply, don’t make me come down there. Okay, thanks, I can concur, the no notice being given is, we’ve done that many times, Councillor Cady, go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, and I’m grateful to be the seconder on this motion. Not to repaint anything that Deputy Mayor Lewis said, this is a great project, I happen to be at Peck when this was discussed, another exciting project for the East End, badly needed. I know the applicant has worked diligently with staff for a number of years on this, looking forward to this coming to fruition, it is badly needed in the East End, Your Worship, and it’s close to my ward, and I’m grateful for it. Thank you.

Great, any other speakers on the amendment? Yeah, there’ll be an as amended motion then. So this is just on the amendment. Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, now I’m moving to the seconder for the as amended Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconder by Councillor Cuddy. Okay, debate on the as amended motion. Look for, go ahead Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, I just wanted to quickly say that I fully support this motion. I’ve had communication from residents over the last year and a half excited and eager and wanting to know how this could be moved forward. So thank you to everybody who’s had a hand in this, who’s put the work in to get this to this place. In canvassing and talking with residents, people love the East End.

They love the area. They do see a time when they’ll be out of their homes, but they want to retire and downsize in that area. They don’t wanna leave it. And so this is much needed housing that is gonna facilitate and make a lot of people happy.

So just huge thanks to everyone and I couldn’t be more pleased than to support this. Okay, anyone else on the as amended motion? Nope, okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

Okay, and now a motion just to determine that given this actually has a small change to the by-law that was circulated in all of your inboxes, we just have to pass a motion. If we wanna actually do this tonight as the alternate by-law that no notice be given under section 34, 17 of the Planning Act. So I’ll look for a mover on that. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cady.

Any discussion on that? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, so that’ll show up as an alternate by-law when we do the by-laws.

Back to you, Chair. Thank you Mayor. That concludes the 12th Report of the Planning Environment. Excellent, thanks.

I’ll go to the 13th Report of Corporate Services Committee and Councillor McAllister. Go ahead. Thank you, happy to present the 13th Report of Corporate Service Committee. I have been given advance notice to poll number four.

So that one will be taken out, going to put items one through three and four and five on the floor. Okay, that’s one through three and four and five, sorry, one through three and five and six, right? Does anybody want any of those dealt with separately or looks like we can do those all together? So the chair is willing to move them all.

Any discussion on that? Chair, you’re okay? Good, okay. Then we’re going to open that for voting.

This is one, two, three, five and six. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, go ahead Chair. Okay, I’ll put item four, which was the tax labor reduction on the floor.

Okay, that’s on the floor. Look for any discussion. That’s a true sound. Through the chair, I just pulled this because I’d like to register a no vote.

I’m not going to get into a long debate about why I think I should do that just to— Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two.

Okay, that concludes my report. Yeah, thanks, Councilor McCous for really appreciate that. We’re on to 8.3, which is the 10th report of the CUNY and Protective Services Committee. I know Councilor Ferrer chaired that, however, is doing us, doing digital today and has asked Vice Chair Palosa to present the report.

So I’ll turn it over to Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, before providing overarching comments on the committee. I have not been given those to pull anything.

Wondering if colleagues had anything. Yes, anything anybody would like to be pulled. So you’re willing to move the whole piece. I’ll look for comments from colleagues first, and then I’ll come to you for any sort of highlights you want to give.

If you want. So any comments, questions? Okay, Councilor, anything you want to highlight? Thank you, so happy to put the entire 10th report of the Committee of Strategic Services on the floor.

Item is one through four, pretty concise meeting. The highlights focused around item two being the live streaming from key arenas and infrastructure for that. And I believe Deputy Mayor Lewis will make some comments on that. So overall, a great committee meeting.

And I know Councilor Ferrer is at a home not feeling well, so we wish him well too. I had to ask for speakers, but no one put their hand up. Now you want to speak? Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, just very briefly and through you and through Ms. Smith, I just want to thank Mr. McGonagall for the work that he’s done to get things where they are on the live barn streaming. This has been, we’re one of the last cities to join this program, but it’ll be welcome, certainly.

And I know Councilor Palosa expressed at committee her gratitude as a hockey mom and somebody who’s heading back to a bench next week, actually looking forward to being in the rank and being able to have parents and grandparents who can’t be there, connect because of this. So I just want to ask you through the chair to Ms. Smith, please extend our thanks to Mr. McGonagall.

I know there was a lot of back and forth and some details that had to be figured out on this. So I appreciate his perseverance. Thank you very much. That’s a true sound.

To the chair, I would just like to indicate that I did have some concerns about this. I raised them at committee regarding, regarding the photographing of people in the arena and whether consent was given. All of my concerns were dealt with so I’ll be supporting this. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Then we’ll open the entire committee report for voting.

Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, thank you, Councilor Palosa. I’ll go on to the 11th report of the Civic Works Committee. Councilor Hopkins, go ahead.

Yes, thank you. Worship, I’d like to put the 11th report of the Civic Works Committee on the floor. I have been asked to pull nine by Deputy Mayor Lewis, which is 4.2. Okay, so does anybody else want anything else pulled?

Then I’m gonna ask any Councilor for any discussion they might have on the items in the report. Pacing none, then I’ll go back to Councilor Hopkins for anything you wanna add. Yeah, thank you. Your worship, as you can see, there’s a number of consent items.

We did hold a public participation meeting for the drain and supported a revised motion from Councilor Frank. Great, thanks for that. So we’ll open the vote for those items. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Councilor Hopkins. I’d like to put nine, 4.2, which is Councilor McAllister’s motion to update the Hamilton Road streetscape master plan on the floor. Okay, moved by the chair.

Any discussion? Go ahead, Councilor McAllister. Sorry, I’m just getting my computer ready one moment. Through the mayor, I first wanna start off by thanking staff for working with me on this motion and for the Civic Works Committee for the suggestion and for amending the motion to ensure that we got a more thorough examination of as many options as possible to improve this important east-west corridor.

You may be wondering why I’m dressed so formally today. I’m actually wearing black out of respect for those who have been injured or died in the traffic collision’s long Hamilton Road. As I said at the Civic Works Committee, it is hard not to take any loss of life personally, especially when it happens in your ward. We need to take seriously what more could be done to make this road safer.

With that being said, I do wanna acknowledge the good work that has occurred today along Hamilton Road. The addition of the red light camera, the increased illumination of street lights and the improved road markings are all welcome additions. I wanna personally thank Council for endorsing the expansion of the red light cameras across our city and for setting aside the 200,000 for improved road markings that are a multi-year budget. These are good mediation initiatives, but they unfortunately do not address the concerns that I repeatedly hear regarding the design of the road itself.

I get frequent complaints from area residents, commuters, who say that on-street parking and the lack of a left lane, left turning lane, make Hamilton Road, and I quote, “a wild ride in the white knuckle racetrack.” When the LPS did a sept head along Hamilton Road, they offered suggestions to assist with traffic violations, admitted that the road design and the streets that feed into the road itself present unique challenges. On that note, I wanna call out Eggerton, Trafalgar and Hamilton Road intersection as the only intersection with such a unique layout in the city. I know some of you have your reservations about requesting the staff specifically look at this road in the manner and timeline laid out in this motion, and the mayor and deputy mayor have both expressed concerns to me. However, I disagree, and in consultation with staff, this motion is being put forward now, because for any redesign, it would need to be identified as part of the larger mass mobility plan that is going on and the streetscape plan, which would feed into that, also noting that Hamilton and Highbury is slated for redevelopment in 2029.

A road corridor study would need to be recommended and done properly to evaluate these options. On that note, I also further wanna clarify that the language of the motion was changed to allow for a variety of road designs to be explored. It is not as some have characterized it, solely as a three lane road. I want a number of options brought forward so all underneurs can review them and weigh in on this vitally important east-west corridor.

I am sounding the alarm on this road, because if we don’t put a plan in the future now, we are going to see more tragedies occur along this corridor, especially in light of the unprecedented growth we are experiencing. Please support this motion so that we can have a future informed discussion on the design options to improve traffic safety along Hamilton Road. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, I have done my job as a counselor and brought forward a motion to address very serious concerns that I hear about frequently. We as counselors cannot be everywhere and it does fall on each one of us to be the eyes and ears of our respective wards.

Let’s make Hamilton Road safer and I do truly wish you support this motion. Thank you. Other speakers, go ahead, Deputy Wireless. Thank you, Your Worship.

So as Councillor McKelister has indicated, I’ve reached out to him. I’ve shared that I will not be supporting this and I’m gonna take the opportunity to now speak to a few of the reasons why. And well, I recognize that there have been injuries and fatalities along Hamilton Road. Unfortunately, the reality is that accidents do happen.

That is just a fact of life and it happens on all of our roads. And well, we should take appropriate measures to mitigate and I appreciate the Councilor highlighting some of the steps that have been taken to mitigate some of the concerns along Hamilton Road. I think that we will always have a challenge in balancing out those things. And at the end of the day, Hamilton is an arterial road.

It is a road meant to carry high volumes of traffic efficiently and at relative to other streets, high speeds. It is not a neighborhood-level street. It is not even a collector, it’s an arterial. I noted that the Hamilton Road BIA sent a letter of support for this but I recall multiple occasions in my time here at Council where the Hamilton Road BIA appeared before the previous Council and insisted that they could never give up the on-street parking spaces that they have, that it would be devastating to their business.

And yet, the majority of feedback I’ve heard is the biggest problem on Hamilton Road is the on-street parking, forcing people to veer in and out of the right lane into the left lane and back and forth. So that’s part of it. And the reason I’ve heard from the Hamilton Road BIA on this in the time that I’ve been at Council is because we just finished redoing the majority of the road identified in this motion. From Egerton through past the home hardware, that road has all been redone, new PXOs were installed, paving has been installed, bike lane markings, the whole deal that we have just redone that.

We have about 4,000 kilometers of road in our city, give or take. Quite a number of those roads have not seen work in 2030, sometimes 40 years. Hamilton Road has had its turn in this stretch of road, and we must move on to other projects, especially when we consider that not only is the redesign of the Hamilton and Highbury intersection coming forward in 2029, but even before that, we will have Hamilton and Gore converted into a roundabout design. And I believe that that is scheduled to start in 2026.

We have Hamilton and Commissioners and Old Victoria Road, which lead out to our industrial area along Veterans Memorial Parkway that also has to be redesigned and re-engineered to accommodate for the growth of traffic, both on Hamilton Road east of Clark Road, where significant new residential infill has happened, as well as on Commissioners Road, where significant new residential infill has happened. I’m not gonna say that, you know, I’m not gonna criticize the Council for doing his job, ‘cause he’s doing what he can for his residents, and I appreciate that. However, at the end of the day, Hamilton Road in this section has had its turn. We’ve just completed work there.

There are other areas of investment along Hamilton Road that are already in design process or in development that we’ll be getting upgrades as well. And so I have to balance out the fact that including Dundas East in my ward, we have arterial roads that are in desperate need of upgrade and repair, and those have to come first and to presume or to make the case that this needs to be considered in the multi-year budget for 2028 to 2030. That is something I can’t support. I don’t think that this needs to be revisited, you know, for longer than that period of time, when we have other projects that are needed in terms of funding.

I heard a considerable amount of opposition to the three lane suggestion from residents who reached out to me, and I think that that comes back to the point of this as an arterial road. If we do this, or if we were to pursue this option, I think all you’re doing is forcing more traffic cut through into neighborhood streets to either get into the Trafalgar neighborhood or to stay on Highbury and then cut across on Dundas or Florence in York. And so you’re not fixing the problem, you’re only moving the problem to somebody else’s street when we do this on an arterial road. So for those reasons, I won’t be supporting this, but I also am not supporting it because at the end of the day, if this is the way that we’re going to start prioritizing road redesign, then I’ve got six or seven that I can bring forward to future committee meetings, and I’m sure that every other member of council has the same.

We’ve tasked staff with undertaking the MMP and to bring forward the priorities that they’ve identified, and I think we need to let them finish that work. Every time we add to the MMP, we’re actually delaying them getting back to us with their recommendations to move forward. And so I think it’s time to shelve this one, let them finish their work, and let the prioritization continue as it should be. Other speakers?

I’d Councillor Ramen. Thank you, and I’ll keep my remarks brief. And while I do appreciate the council bringing these items forward and the concerns that he’s raised around the fatalities that have occurred in this corridor, I have to agree with Deputy Mayor Lewis that we create hostilities in our own decision making and our ability to move forward with the master mobility plan as we parse out different segments of roadways. And I know I was received emails from residents asking me now to do the exact same thing, to now move to motions to CWC to prioritize roadways.

And what I said is that, well, the plan is that staff come back with the master mobility plan so that we can have those discussions. I know we’ve got a lot of work to do on Oxford Street and Warren Cliff, for instance. And I know that we’ve had those discussions here as to how we prioritize that corridor. But I want to mention again that, you know, that’s because of some of the previous decisions that council has made around where we’re focusing our bus rapid transit right now.

So I hear where the councilor’s coming from. I can’t support it just because I do first see that we’ll have that challenge, especially when we’re asking for re-prioritization of budgets and timelines that we’ve already considered for other capital projects. So I am at this point not supportive. Any other speakers?

Go ahead, Councilor Troso. Thank you very much. And through the chair, I want to start by thanking the ward councilor for bringing this forward. First and foremost, he has a responsibility to look out for the wellbeing of people in his ward.

And he’s done that very well. And I commend him for taking the time to do this. However, beyond being a ward councilor, we represent the entire city. We represent the entire interests of the city, not just people in our ward.

I was reminded of that many times over the years as being one of the proponents for the smaller wards back in 2005. So I understand that. And yes, there are a lot of improvements I would like to see in the expert corridor on Richmond Street. I’ll have a lot more to say about Richmond and Oxford and Richmond and Warren Cliff.

But I wanna go back to the underlying premise, vision zero. And I want the underlying vision zero right now. And I’m gonna be supporting what the councilor is putting forward here. I wanna reject the notion that this neighborhood has had its turn.

This is not a board game where we need to get to come up and have our turn and roll the dice and take a spin and sit down and wait for it to be our turn again. We have to look at this organic situation as it’s developing. This is a dangerous street. And it’s largely a dangerous street because of the configuration is designed that way.

And when I hear people say we need to move on to other projects, yes, we do. But I think that we can do a lot of these at the same time. Now to cut the cut-throughs, there are ways of creatively dealing with cut-throughs, which I don’t think we’ve explored all of them. But I have spent a lot of time at the City Works Committee talking about the notion of filtered permeability.

And I think that if we do get into a situation where there is a potential risk of cut-throughs, this is something that we’d be able to look at in terms of creating disincentives for people cutting through. So I think filtered permeability is gonna mitigate this. Stressing again, that we represent the entire city. Hamilton is a particular problem.

And this is not a zero-sum game. I don’t like putting different neighborhoods and different streets at odds with each other. That’s why Hamilton gets moved ahead of something else that needs to be done. We have to balance that because of the deaths and injuries that have been caused.

So in the interest of looking at the public policymaking as a member of the Civic Works Committee, I give this a lot of thought. I want to support the Councillor. Finally, I do wanna add that the Civic Works Committee did very carefully look at the original proposal. And by adding the language, which could include, to substitute out for something more mandatory, I think we’re creating maximum flexibility here.

So I’m going to be supporting this. And I know that there are some concerns about this, but I think we all have to sort of pull together in the case of holding the principal’s division zero. Thank you. Other speakers, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And just following up on Councillor Tresault’s comments about the committee work that was done, we did make that change in the motion, which could include other things such as three lane configuration and road layout and sidewalks, which would normally be done. So I wanna go back to, when I first read this motion, I wanted to make sure that we were not presupposing the master mobility plan. And I am convinced that we are not doing that.

We are doing a study within the Hamilton Road streetscape master plan. It’s all we’re doing. So given the concerns, and I wanna thank the Councillor for his advocacy in the ward, we’re not delaying the mobility master plan. I have not heard that.

That is not a concern to me. And the fact that the Councillor is advocating on behalf of his ward, I would encourage that and support that, given the challenges that are experienced along Hamilton Road. So I would encourage us to support this motion going forward. It is something that these studies have a process.

It’s not unusual. It’s not out of the ordinary. And I do not believe that we are delaying anything by supporting this motion. There’s speakers.

I’m gonna turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor. I’ll speak briefly on this. Thank you, Your Worship. I will take the chair and I will ask you to hold just one moment.

And now that I have a timer ready, if you’d like to begin. It’s because I said briefly and I never do that. So first, I actually also wanna commend the ward Councillor for advocating for his ward. And I spoke at committee about this issue.

And I’ve been a ward Councillor. And I’d probably be either contemplating or doing the exact same thing the ward Councillor was doing. In fact, I’ve probably done it a few times. Whether that be bringing motions directly to Civic Works Committee or suggesting improvements through processes or even trying to prioritize things in my own ward, which I was happy to do as a ward Councillor, I saw it as my role to do that.

I sit with a different hat now. And I tend to think about the larger picture in the processes that we’ve structured in place to follow. And although I do not deny that there are significant issues with safety on a number of the roadways in our city and I think the Councillor rightly identifies concerns that he’s seen, I think there are other parts of the city that have significant concerns as well. And I also think we can do more than one thing at a time.

But what we’re actually doing here is stepping ahead of a process where even in the question and answer a committee staff indicated that there would be corridor studies that are done as part of the mass mobility planning process. And there probably won’t be corridor studies done for every part of the city. And I think it would suggest that although nothing was definalized or determined that this was one that would certainly be considered for one of the corridor studies. And I don’t know if that’ll come to fruition or not, I would expect perhaps it would or maybe it won’t.

But the point is staff are doing a technical analysis for the mass mobility plan for the city as a whole to outline how we deal with transportation in the city for the next 25 years. And I think we have to be careful. And if I sit and represent the whole city, I want to be careful about not making decisions that I think are passionate. And they’re certainly very clear examples of why there is a need on one specific road in the city.

I also see that there may or there is needs in other parts of the city as well. And I prefer to let our staff determine this. And it may come that if this motion doesn’t pass, exactly what the council is asking for comes to fruition through the mass mobility plan and a recommendation of our staff in a corridor study that determines solutions. I just can’t vote today to get ahead of that process because I’m not sure where all of the highest priorities are in the city.

And I’ll be honest with that. I don’t know where we should prioritize the investments yet. That’s why we trust our staff and we do the analysis and we set forth the process. And when that analysis comes forward, we can make some different decisions that’s what’s recommended from staff.

We have the ability to do that. But I would prefer to see that first and then make the direction next, rather than integrate pieces into the process at this stage, when if I were to vote for this, it would be very difficult for me not to support every ward council who came for with the same sort of recommendation. So from my position and wanting to be consistent with supporting the path that we’ve decided to carve out, with absolute and clear recognition of the concerns that the council is raising and the deaths that have occurred in his community that are tragic, I still want to be consistent with the process and let that. And if the process determines that for some reason, this is not a quarter that we’re analyzing, I would be happy to have the discussion at that point when we see the whole picture of what the master mobility plan is doing the process and recommending at the end and moving forward.

We do $200 million of infrastructure spending in the city every year, right? We do a lot of projects. We do a lot of things. We have billions of dollars of infrastructure that we have to invest in over the next 25 years from a transportation perspective.

There will be prioritization that we will make and I will say today, I don’t know what the right answer to those prioritizations are, but I think we’ve set forward a direction and a path and a process that will give us information to help make those decisions. And so I will say no to the council’s request today. I’ve certainly listened to the concerns and I will be very mindful of them through the entire master mobility plan process, but I will wait to see the results of what the early phases and subsequent recommendations are that comes from that process based on staff’s work and staff’s technical analysis. Thank you, Your Worship.

And I will return the chair to you. I have no other speakers on the list at this time. Okay, anyone else like to speak to this? Seeing none, then we’ll open this.

This is the committee recommendation for voting. Councillor Van Meerbergen, I can call. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion fails, five to 10.

And that is my report. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Okay, just given Councillor Hopkins, I know he said your report was done, but given that no action was taken, the Councillor did write, and there were a number of communications associated with that, we should actually pass a motion to receive and note those communications as well. So I’d look to see if you’d be willing to move that.

I’ll move that motion. Seconder for that, Councillor Stevenson. Any discussion on that? We’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. And that is my report. Okay, next is SBBC, the 13th report. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’ve been asked to pull item three. I am prepared to move one, two, four, and five. Oh, sorry, I also have Councillor, close a needing to pull item five.

So I am prepared to move one, two, and four at this time, unless someone wishes any of those to be dealt with separately. Can anybody like one, two, or four dealt with separately? ‘Cause seeing none, then I’ll deem that to be moved by the chair. I look for any comments from council members on that.

Any word from the chair? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, Your Worship.

Councillor Truss, I was asked for item three to be dealt with separately, and I’m prepared to put item three on the floor now. Item three is on the floor. I look for speakers. Councillor Trostac, go ahead.

Thank you very much to the chair. I would like to make an amendment to delete in paragraph B, the words at Clark Road Secondary School, and leave the rest of the motion intact. And if I have a seconder, I will say a little bit more. Just give me one second, I just wanna find it in the motion.

Councillor, and I’m gonna make a call here, and then, of course, if council disagrees with me, they can challenge the decision. When stuff comes out of the committee, I have to determine when amendments come forward, whether they’re within the scope, or if it’s a fundamental change. And my understanding of the intent of the committee, as well as the scope of the project, was that if we deleted that piece, it would move from a scope of one school to, I guess, potentially the entire city. Like, I’m not sure what the scope would be.

So, I’m not sure I’m gonna call an order like a change that would completely unscope the project from the size that it is into, I’m not actually sure what. So, I’m gonna determine that you can vote against the whole thing, you refer it back, but I don’t think you can pull out that piece, ‘cause I think it probably, well, I do believe it fundamentally changes the entire scoping of the project. So, I mean, if people disagree with me on that, they can challenge the chair, they can make a decision as a council, but that’s fine, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’d challenge the chair, because I think it’s still leaving grade nine and 10, which would not include the entire city, as well as, I think, again, it would be scoping it, so staff would be able to take direction with the scope that is existing, and still pick one school, one high school.

So, I disagree with your ruling. Yeah, and that’s no problem. That’s why we have a procedure violin, a decision-making mechanism. So, let me spool up the old challenge of the chair stuff.

Okay, so, the motion then that will be before us, moved by Councillor Frank, is shall the ruling of the chair be sustained? There’s no debate on this, the results is final, and it will make a decision on whether or not we proceed. So, because the wording is shall the ruling of the chair be sustained, a vote yes means you agree with my ruling, a vote no means you disagree with it, and agree with Councillor Frank, and so we’ll put that to a vote immediately. So, again, the question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

And my ruling was that Councillor Troso’s amendment was out of scope with the original motion, and I wasn’t allowing it. Those in the vote, the ruling of the chair is sustained with a vote of nine yay, six against. Okay, so, that’s not a motion that’s in order, but if you want to continue to speak to a Councillor or a referred or something else, I’d allow you to do that given the direction you’re going. So, if you want to continue, you can.

Which means I’m speaking to the main motion. Okay, I will be speaking against the main motion then. It was my intention to just sort of try to reach some compromise here. I can’t support this targeted to one school.

I would have preferred to have given the staff in consultation with the LTC maximum amount of flexibility in crafting this project. I tried to do that, I lost that vote. That’s fine. I was not in favor of this in the previous iteration at the SPPC.

I was skeptical about whether or not the important conditions, particularly the funding and the statement of purpose objectives would be able to be satisfied so I voted no. So, I will be voting no on this. I do appreciate the work that’s been put into this so far, especially by the proponents and those in LTC who have looked at this. But I think at this point, it’s time for me to say we’ve put enough staff resources into this and it’s going to sound like an echo of what was just said a few minutes ago, but we need to move on to something else.

And I don’t think this is a viable project as it is. So, I’ll be voting no and thank you very much. Okay, I have the speakers to the main motion. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. Worship and I’m not sure if it’s a point of order, but I do have a question on a comment made about referring it back. And I would like to understand the procedure if we were going to refer this back. I understand there’s usually, has to be a reason why we refer something back and I wonder if I can get some clarification.

So, Councillor, you’re right. I did say you can refer it back as you can with many emotions that we have. And you’re right, you usually provide a reason on why you’re referring it back and what you’d like to do differently. So, that would be, need to be articulated to convince your colleagues to support the referral back.

Referral backs would usually have something attached to suggest some sort of change. I’m not suggesting, I was adjusting Councillor Trosthaus change, but we’re always open to having things referred back. My ruling was specific to this being able to be decided at council given the debate that we had in committee and the scope that I determined. But that doesn’t mean it can’t go back to committee with the referral with other directions for the committee to consider.

If a majority of colleagues feel that way, but it should have something suggested in the referral motion to say what we’re referring it back to do. I would like to make that motion to refer back then to look at other options. And I wanna start off, I think, by referring it back, I first of all, just wanna thank you. Give me one second, I just wanna do that and then get a second.

Councillor, so I’m happy to do that. Referring it back for more options, you might just wanna add some parameters so that your colleagues know what the debate would be scoped around, like would it be to think about more grades, different schools. Some of the parameters would be, I think, helpful. Also, the way the motions are articulated now, it’s just gonna, wouldn’t really land back at committee in any different way than it came from committee.

So just a little bit more context, I think it might help us understand why we’re all referring it back to, ‘cause then if we all know what that is, then we’ve agreed and it passes by a majority, then we’ve agreed that we’re gonna have a discussion on that. So if you wanna provide a little more context, I think that would help with me seeking a seconder. I’ll try, since I’m doing this right off the cuff here, but the referral back would really look at other opportunities for different routes, flexibility in those routes, I think, the grades and that, and it’s not excluding Clark Road. Okay, so different flexibility, so different routes and different, yeah, different routes, basically, what you’re suggesting, right?

And if I can explain why? Yeah, we just wanna get wording, and then I’m gonna tell you what it is, and then I’m gonna ask for a seconder, ‘cause we’re at council. So let me just read something back to you. You’re worshiping if I could just help maybe different school routes, maybe just to make it a little bit tighter.

And you said grades? Do you want different grades considered too, and that or no? No. Okay, so the secondary school transit pass pilot program where you referred back to SPPC to explore options considering other school or London transit, this says London transit routes serving other schools, currently, but if you want that a little bit different, it’s not up yet, I’m just reading it.

Do you wanna say school routes or London transit routes? Okay, school routes, okay, so that’s what it says. Is there a seconder for that? Councilor Trossa, okay.

Now we’re gonna load that in these scribes if you can see it. It’s referral, move in seconded, Councilor Hopkins. Now you can provide your debate on the referral. Yeah, first of all, I wanna thank Deputy Mayor Lewis for his work in advocacy on this and the work that he’s done with the school board as well.

And I think what we can do speaking with the success of the program in Kingston, for instance, they were able to look at different routes and then decide, I think it does create a little bit of flexibility, it gives staff a little bit more opportunity to look at routes and then bring that forward. I think that is the way I’d like to proceed. Oh, Deputy Mayor Lewis, I had you before the referral. You wanna go on the referral now?

I’ll look for other speakers on the referral after you too. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll come back to the motion, the main motion later on the referral. I’m not even sure what different school routes is actually referring to and I won’t be supporting the referral.

We’re not gonna start changing London transit routes to serve different schools. Like I’m really not sure what this is even asking for, but what I will say is that work has gone into this both at the school board level and with our staff already and with London Transit now and we’ve got that report back. To now start saying, we’re gonna look at all I can read with different school routes is that we’re gonna start looking at different schools. And it was the school board that identified this is the school that they wanna try the pilot at.

And again, it’s a pilot. So I would say to colleagues, if you don’t wanna support the pilot, then just don’t support the pilot. But to refer this back to look at other routes, like I’m really not sure what we’re going to accomplish there other than all the work that’s already gone into by the Thames Valley District School Board and the work that our staff have put in already to get us to where we are and the work that London Transit has done to provide us data on the routes that serve Clark Road. We’re going to just go back to square one and ask them to start over again.

So, and again, I wanna come back to you. I didn’t pick Clark Road. Councilor Cuddy didn’t pick Clark Road. This is the school that the school board recommended for attendance reasons, for academic performance reasons, for economic reasons, including the number of bus tickets that the principal has to hand out on a regular basis to students, there were a number of reasons that went into getting to this point before it came to us.

And more work has been done since then. I also will say that continues with Councilor Pribble talking to me about LTC things. We need to make a decision whether we wanna try this pilot or not. And we heard from our staff in this report and through them LTC saying we couldn’t start it this year because they didn’t have enough time.

They needed to get through some logistic pieces. They’re gonna come back to us with another report in terms of how they can operationalize this. And maybe some factors that they’re gonna recommend around it’s only valid during the school week or it’s only valid during the school year. It’s not 365 or it’s not in the summer.

And those are all options that we can use to modify the pilot project to something that’s maybe scoped a little tighter than what it is now. But we either need to move forward and try this and let staff come back and get something in place so that in 2025 we can try this or we don’t. So I don’t see the value in a referral. I don’t know what school routes actually mean.

And in fact, I would even take have some questions for LTC with regard to the routes that they identified in their feedback to us because I don’t think you’re gonna see many high school students on the express routes that they identified are serving the school. I think they’re more on the neighborhood routes. I would like to at some point see this expand to other schools too, but first we have to A, prove it works and B, see if there’s a source of funding. Kingston has had some success, absolutely.

They’ve gone a little bit different path. They had some other help, but we’ve got what we’ve got. So I’m encouraging colleagues to not support the referral. Let staff continue the work with the school board and the London Transit Commission, see what they bring back to us and then make a decision whether or not to go ahead.

Just a question, sorry. Okay, good. Then go to the next speaker. It’s not going to be a committee report.

That’s why you’re still standing. Any other speakers on this? Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, and I do have some questions for staff in a little bit of commentary.

So I originally supported this all the way up until now because at the beginning it was kind of framed as it was very time sensitive and we had to move forward if we were gonna make this this September, which I can appreciate. And of course, I would love to give free transit to as many people as possible. So I was very excited at that concept. But now that we have an entire year between now and when this is supposed to be implemented, I actually don’t feel that time pressure right now.

And therefore, I’m actually interested in exploring what is the best school for the most success. And I don’t necessarily know that it’s gonna be Clark Road because we haven’t been given a lot of data and we haven’t heard from all parties invested in this initiative that that would be the best. In fact, I’m pretty sure we heard from LTC that this might not be the best school. And so if we’re gonna be spending, it looks like over $900,000 in subsidies for this program, I actually wanna start off by choosing the best school.

So through the chair to staff, I was wondering if we’ve moved forward so far that we wouldn’t actually be able to modify anything in this given that some of the commentary is suggesting if we directed staff to look at other options that would wear too far down the pipeline. So I just would like some commentary from staff regarding that. Go ahead. Thank you and through your worship.

If this program is to start in September 2025, we would need direction now on what the potential option would look like. This would then allow us to bring a report back in Q1 2025 to lay out the options, lay out the MOU so that it can be implemented by September 2025. We’re happy to go away and explore options, bring those options back in Q1 2025, and council would have to decide on that option. It could take us then a while to do all that work to determine what is the option and how to implement that option.

Councillor Frank. Thank you. I can appreciate that. It would take a little bit of work.

And I’m just wondering through you to staff if they’re, or I guess to the mover of the original motion for this occasion, if they could explain a little bit more about how Clark Road was selected? So I’m happy to have the mover articulate the original motion, if they’re willing to. Yeah, okay, go ahead. Yep, I’ll do my best to respond to that, your worship, and through you to Councillor Frank, Clark Road was chosen by the school board.

And they had discussions with actually the states back to the previous term of council. When Councillor Squire was still on council and then COVID came along and things ground to a halt. But the discussion started with, we would be interested in trying a pilot at a school to see what the results would be for secondary students taking the bus. And whether it would be something that we should look at as a different subsidy program than some of our other subsidy programs, or as a compliment to that.

And if we were going to do that, we would need to try it at one school first. So you’re the school board. You tell us what school would make the most sense for you. The school board re-engaged with Councillor Cudi and I after the 2022 election.

We discussed the interest in continuing to explore the possibility of a pilot here, including some long range goals that we have that we’ve shared with them. And obviously in a pilot, they’re not prepared to do that. But in the long run, we’re hoping that we can reduce and eliminate some of the need for yellow buses, that we can get some Ministry of Education, funding to help support those kind of things. So then we asked them to come back to us, talk amongst themselves, talk with their administration and come back to us and recommend what school they’d like to try it at.

And that’s what they did. And then approximately, now I’m gonna forget the timeline. So forgive me the date. I’m gonna say early this year, or early last year, losing track of the dates now, ‘cause it’s been a long time on this project.

They came back to us and said we’ve done an analysis. We look at where students use the transit. We looked at where we think access to transportation would benefit our students academically, attendance wise. And we also looked at what schools have routes from one in transit that serve the majority of our students.

And we’ve chosen Clark Road. I can share that other schools were considered. I know that the second, I don’t know if I wanna say highest prioritization, but the sort of second school that they suggested a little bit further down in terms of the benefit would likely be Montkon. And they had come to us with multiple schools, but they said by far and away, we think Clark is the best school to try this at.

And so that’s why we brought the motion forward as it was based on, and we took a look ourselves at the London Transit routes that served Clark Road, as well as Montkon. And I believe Laurier was the other school that we looked at, but could be wrong. So don’t quote me on that, ‘cause memory’s a little hazy. And it was Clark Road that also had the highest number of routes feeding into the school catchment zone that would actually drop students off at the school without having to change any existing LTC routing.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, I appreciate that background. I think at this point, I would still support referral, ‘cause I would like to hear options from staff. At the same time, if the referral fails, I’ll probably still support the other one, because I want as many people to enjoy transit as easily as possible.

I do think we heard kind of a bit in the previous debate about Hamilton Road trusting our staff to do the analysis and having staff figuring out best areas to put forward. And I feel that applies to this as well. And so as much as I appreciate the background work that Councillors and the trustees have done, I do think that it would be nice to see some grading options, both from LTC and from our staff. But at this point, again, I’ll support the referral and then probably support the other thing if that fails.

Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. And just to add to the summary, that Deputy Mayor Lewis made absentee rates at Clark Road High School or some of the highest in the city. And as Deputy Mayor Lewis has indicated in past SPPC and council agendas that when kids at Clark Road missed the ride to school, they do not get to school.

And the Thames Valley District School Board was well aware of that. And that was one of the criteria that they came to us with. Other speakers. Okay, no other speakers on the referral.

So I’m gonna open the vote on the referral, which is moved by Councillor Hopkins. Councillor Cuddy noted closing the vote. Motion fails, five to 10. Okay, so we’re back to the main motion then.

And Deputy Mayor Lewis next and no other speakers so far on the main motion. Thank you, Your Worship. I said a lot on the referral, so I’ll be brief. I just think that this is one where we’re either gonna try a pilot and see how it goes or we’re not.

And if we’re not, okay, if we are great. Like Councillor Frank, I would like to see more people, especially young people, because I think once driving habits are ingrained, and that was one of the reasons why grade nine’s and 10’s were looked at specifically, before they have their driver’s license, before they can start borrowing Mom and Dad’s car to drive themselves or purchase their own car. If we can get their habits and get them comfortable using transit, it becomes a more viable option for them in the long run. And I’m not gonna speak to the realities at other schools.

But I know in ward two, and the majority of the students at Clark Road, and I shouldn’t say the majority, but the students that I know at Clark Road, and I would say the students I know at John Paul too, as well in the Catholic system, the reality is when they hit high school, they’re saving for that car. And it might be the $1,000 beater that they cobble together with hope and a prayer off a used car lot, and then make regular visits to the junkyard for spare parts to keep them running. But that’s what they’re doing. And if we want to give them a different option, I think we get them started by showing them the transit is a better, or is a viable option for them, because right now, they don’t see that with the prices we have in place for student passes, the economic realities that their parents face, what they see is by the time they hit grade 10, get a part time job, start putting money in the bank, and start saving for that first car, which is not ideal.

And especially if you’re 16, 17 years old, then you’ve got to manage to pay for the gas and spare parts, the insurance, and everything else that comes with that. So I think that there’s an opportunity here for us to try something and see how our students do on the uptake. And maybe that won’t change. Maybe they will still continue to save for that car much to Councillor Frank’s dismay.

But maybe they will start taking the bus. And maybe they’ll start feeling like, now I can take the bus, not just to school, but I can take the bus up to Masonville to catch a movie on a Friday night. Or I can take a bus to my friend’s house to hang out and play video games or whatever they’re going to do on a Saturday night. I know they do other things that they shouldn’t be doing at that age, but at least if we give them transit, that’s an option for them to do some more positive things.

So we have seen other municipalities undertake this. We see some success in Halifax. Particularly we see some success out on the prairies. And certainly Kingston’s had an interesting model.

I know that they’ve had some problems with it as well. And I know that that was indicated by LTC, but I think that there are opportunities here. And I think particularly now is the time as we start thinking about federal commitment in 2026 to roll out a more stable longer term transit funding. That maybe this is the pilot that then shows us we’ve got a working model to expand this to other schools and other students across the city.

So I’m asking for your support in this. I don’t, I’m not going to presuppose the outcome. It may or may not work, but I think it’s worth a try. Any other speakers to the main motion?

Councillor ramen, go ahead. Thank you and through you. So I’m being consistent on my vote on this item. And that is that I will support it until we receive more information on the source of financing as well as the MOU.

And if I’m comfortable with where we’re going with those pieces, then I’ll support it moving forward. But I do have concerns that we are adding costs through a pilot project of which the other funders that are in discussion through the MOU are not contributing or considering contributing in a substantive way. And at this point, that leads me to believe that they have very little investment and their foreskin in the game on something like this. So if we want it to be positive and we want to see impact, we have to see all partners come to the table.

Equal partners would be great, but knowing the situation at the school board right now, I understand that that might not be possible. However, I do think we have opportunity to engage with the province. They’ve opened up some funding avenues for the school boards to be able to engage further on transportation funding and looking at alternatives. I do also think that the discussion around the roots is an interesting one.

I do know that we’ve heard some conflicting opinions from LTC and from Thames Valley District School Board when it comes to which schools to prioritize and why. I agree with my council colleagues. I appreciate the work they’re doing on this. I agree that it would be great to see more students in classrooms because they’re able to get there.

I think that we all fundamentally want kids to be attending school and we want to see that enrollment go up. However, I do know that that’s the role of a school board and less so the role of city council. In our case, we want to see more ridership. And so for me, I need to know that there’s going to be data and metrics associated with this memorandum of understanding that is going to fulfill that obligation to show that we were tracking metrics and that we were using this to spur further discussion about ridership.

But I want to point out that there are some really critical, low hanging fruit that one, we can all be a part of and two that LTC, TVDSB and city council should all be promoting within our schools right now. We should be trying to get more students to take transportation, to take LTC for school field trips. It’s an easy low hanging option since we’ve given passes to our elementary schools already. We have class sets of fobs at every school in Thames Valley right now.

Low hanging fruit and opportunity, especially if they do it outside of the 9 a.m. to 9.30 window and they do it somewhere later on in that day where we know that volumes on the buses will be less impacted if they take a bus. I’ve been part of that at Masonville Public School. It’s been quite successful.

They’ve actually brought grades seven and eight students out with kindergartners to be able to go on a field trip on the bus. Second, we can all engage when we go into schools and into classrooms, talk about ridership, talk about getting on the bus to students when we make those presentations in grade five classes. We can also go out and do a better job promoting the fact that we already have a program that’s in place to allow for ridership for free for those under 12. Although I will say there’s some hurdles for people to even get into that program.

So I do think we have some opportunities for low hanging fruit. If this is the point of the pilot, then I do believe that we have some ability to move those targets already. And then further to that, this is an opportunity for us to add to it, but I would like to see our partners more involved. Financially, thank you.

I have Councillor Kiley next. Thank you, your worship and through you. Deputy Mayor Lewis and I have to describe this as a life-changing experience for kids because it gives them an opportunity after school to have a job, to find their path and to find their way forward. And a lot of the kids out in the East End don’t have that opportunity.

And I think we all know that. I can’t tell you how excited Deputy Mayor Lewis and I are about this. We want to see it go forward. We all want it to be successful.

TVDSP wants it to be successful. LTC and certainly the council. The only way we’re gonna do this is give it a chance. Thank you.

Okay, that’s all the speakers I have. Oh, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, I’ll just say quickly, I too am gonna be consistent with my vote and I won’t be supporting this.

I do really support having getting more students on the buses, getting them using it. I think there’s other ways that we can do that though. And I think that selling them and their parents on the value of a bus pass and getting used to paying for that service I think is good. I like the ideas of using it as a field trip.

I think there’s lots of ways and I’d fully get behind getting more kids on the buses. But I don’t see this as a municipal council issue and I don’t see it as a priority for us to be spending funds in this way right now. Okay, that’s all the speakers I have. So with that, we’ll open the main motion for voting.

Councillor McAllister closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to two. Thank you, Your Worship. And now I will put item five on the floor.

Councillor Palosa asked to have this poll that she needs to make an amendment. Okay, I’ll go to Councillor Palosa. Thank you for colleagues. This was circulated at 110, apologize for the short notice.

So looking to put this on the floor and I’ll be needing a seconder, Chief Thrawn had reached out over the weekend and said he needs, he’s happy to still come. Just he needs to update his board first, procedurally, that’s how they work. And wouldn’t be able to do that prior to our meeting date. So our next SPPC date following September is October 8th.

So it’s requesting that he be invited to come on October 8th and seeing as his board would have had a report, the police chief be requested to submit any public reports that may be of reference for his presentation to be part of our SPPC committee agenda. If that be available, it remains that he be granted an extension to the normal five minutes, giving him 10. And procedurally, I was just tying up that part D is that civic administration be directed to invite the London police chief to appear for the SPPC committee as a delegation annually, along with any other staff he deems appropriate to accompany him, just for we don’t need to do this. Administrative task every year, if we would like him to come and just update us.

So I’m moving parts A through D on the floor. They’re in E-Scribe if you want to refresh and looking for a seconder. Okay, so it’s an amendment to just have the whole thing read as that. So it is an amendment.

So although you’ll see it in there as the whole motion read and then Councilor Omen was willing to second and then we’ll do the amendment and then we’ll do the just as amended motion. So the amendments on the floor, I’ll look to any further speakers. Okay, seeing none, we can vote on the amendment. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Then I move in a seconder for the as amended motion, Councilor Palosa, Councilor Hopkins. Any discussion on the as amended motion? Seeing none, then we’ll open that for vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Deputy Mayor, I think that concludes the 13th report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. Okay, we got added reports, which is the 14th report of Council in closed session. Councilor Layman will present that report for us. Thank you, Mayor.

I’ll present the 14th report of the Council in closed session. One, offer to purchase industrial lands 2086192 Ontario Limited here on Industrial Park. And on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance supports on the advice of the Director of Realty Services with respect to the City-owned industrial land located here on Industrial Park C3, being composed of part of lots two and three concession two. And to be further described with a new reference plan, which is part of pin 081-0155 located in the City of London County of Middlesex, as outlined in red on the sketch here too, is Appendix A, agreement of purchase on sale, the agreement is Appendix B submitted by 2086192 Ontario Limited, the purchaser.

To purchase 14.01 acres of subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $2942,100 reflecting a sale price of $210,000 per acre be accepted, subject to the conditions and terms, as set out in the agreement. Two, offer to purchase Industrial Lands 1127030 BC Limited at 2865 Innovation Drive Innovation Park phase one. And on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance supports on the advice of the Director Realty Services with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Innovation Park phase one, part of block 733M-544, designate as part of part two, part of part three and part four, plan 33R-17213, save and accept parts one and two, plan 33R-19042 and being part of PIN081970263, and to be further described in a reference plan to be deposited in City of London County of Middlesex as outlined on the sketch. Here too, as Appendix A, the agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement, as Appendix B submitted by 1127030 BC Limited, the purchaser.

To purchase approximately 9.7 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $2,000,000 reflecting a sale price of $210,000 per acre, be accepted subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the agreement. Number three, offer to purchase and Dutch for the land’s Maple Armor Group Corporation Innovation Park phase four, that on the recommendation of the City, Deputy City Manager, Finance supports on the advice of the Director Realty Services with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Innovation Park phase four, being composed of part of blocks four and five and part of Voigt Court, closed by Bylaw S-5300-275, registered as institution number ER742388, designated as parts one and two, on the positive plan 33R-17815, all in the registered plan 33M-609 in the City of London County of Middlesex, and subject to final reference plan, as outlined on the sketch here too, as Appendix A, the agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement of Appendix B, submitted by Maple Armor Group Corporation, the purchaser to purchase 14 acres, more or less of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $2,940,000, reflecting a sale price of $210,000 per acre, be accepted subject to the conditions and terms, as set out in the agreement. Finally, that progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7, as noted on the public agenda, 6.1, 12 pack, 6.4, 1.3 of CSC, 6.1, 1.3 of SPPC, and 6.2, 1.3 of SPPC. Thank you.

Okay, that’s, oh, you’re presenting the report, Councillor, so you get two. So we have those items before us. Does anybody want any of them dealt with separately? These are our items from in-camera.

No, okay, so that’s presented by Councillor Layman. There’s no debate that anybody wants to participate in, so we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. All right, that’s added reports.

We have deferred matters, none, inquiries. Don’t see any. There’s no emergent motions, by-laws. So we’re on to by-laws.

So the way we will do by-laws is we’re going to do everything, including the reworded by-law that we talked about earlier, that we did the whole notice thing for, with the exception of 275, which is the by-law I brought before council, and the ones related to rapid, well, the one related to the East London Link stops for rapid transit, which is bill 286, the 296, which is related to the Wellington Gateway Project, will be separate, and 295, which is related to the East London Link, will be separate, so yeah, that’s how we’ll do it. So we’ll do everything except the one I brought, and then we’ll do the rapid transit one separately, but as amended, the alternative by-law that was presented and approved by council today will be in the larger group. So for the, yes, Councillor Stevenson. Just procedurally, so the only opportunity we have to talk about the office conversion by-law is at by-law time.

So we could have talked about it when we referred the communication to that section. We could also talk about it in second reading of the by-law, ‘cause the second reading has to date. Move for it in a seconder for all the items with the exception of the ones we’re excluding, Councillor Layman, Councillor Hopkins. So we’ll open that for voting, this is first reading.

Oh, and this includes three added by-laws from closed session, sorry. Three added ones that Councillor Layman just presented to have by-laws associated with them. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. All these.

Councillor Kiley, seconded by Councillor Pribble. Any debate at second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

This one is the same set, excluding 297, ‘cause 297 is a drainage by-law, and we only do first and second reading at one council. We do third reading at a future council. So this is everything we just did with the exception of 297. We’ll look for a mover and a seconder.

Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. We’ll open third reading for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, we’ll do bill 275, excuse me, 275 next, which is the by-law to establish financial incentives for the downtown meeting improvement projects areas related to the office to residential conversion piece with a number of updates that council had previously directed.

This one, because it has a slightly different voting structure, requires a hand vote, and we could do a recorded vote if someone asks for it, but it’ll be a hand vote on all three readings. So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder of first reading, that by-law. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. So we’ll do the vote by hand then.

All those in favor of first reading? Any opposed? We had 14 in favor and not opposed. That’s, Councillor Hopkins, were you in favor?

Can we just see the in-favors again? Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, a second reading a mover and a seconder. Councillor Pribble, seconded by Councillor Ferrera.

Yes, sorry, this is second reading so we can have debate, so it’s moved and seconded. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I did just have a couple of questions. On page 305, step five of the construction phase, it says with respect to the OTR conversion grant program, the construction phase does not apply as the forgivable loan is provided when the building permit is issued.

And then I noticed that in the metrics, it talks about the number of grant defaults and the cost value of grant defaults. And I guess I was just wondering why the grant is being given at, when the building permit is being issued, rather than at the completion of it. And I just, in an era of difficulty with financing and insurance and contract supplies and everything else, sometimes it’s hundreds of thousands of dollars that we’d be advancing upfront and then potentially running into problems. So I was just looking for some information there.

Mr. Mathers, go ahead. Through you, worship, also for the same reasons is the reasons why it’s important for this program to provide some of that funding. It allows them to be able to get some of their financing in order and provides them the ability to point to that financing with their lending.

So that is the rationale for providing that upfront. We are insured and we work very closely with our legal team to ensure that we do have that protection with having that lean that’s on title as well to be able to ensure that we can get that funding back if we need to, but it allows them to be able to move forward with these projects more effectively. Thank you, I appreciate that. Okay, other speakers to this?

I’ll just provide a few brief comments. I’ll have Deputy Mayor Lewis take the chair. Thank you, Your Worship, I’ll take the chair and I recognize you. Sure, I just wanted to thank Council for their support on first reading.

I appreciate that I don’t usually bring bylaws directly to Council, but by doing so on something that Council has already provided a direction on. We’ve skipped an entire committee cycle on Council approved program that had a Council approved update to it with people waiting in the queue to access the updated financial structure that Council’s approved. So by doing this and with your support today, I appreciate that we can get this program up and running about a month sooner than we otherwise could or updated about a month sooner. And certainly we don’t want to have anybody sitting around waiting to access the program for a month simply because it just takes a little longer for something that we were unanimous on through the committee process.

So I appreciate your support today. Thank you, Your Worship. And I will return the chair to you noting no other speakers on the list. Okay, if there’s no other speakers, we will vote on second reading by hand.

So all those in favor, any opposed? Close in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, and I’ll look for a move and a seconder for third reading of this.

Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. We will open third while I’m gonna have a hand vote by third reading. So all those in favor by hand and any opposed? Motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, that concludes that item. The next two, the next batch is three bylaws related to the different rapid transit projects across the city. So we’ll do those as a group, unless anybody wants them separate. No, okay, they’ll be done as a group.

So I’ll look for a move and a seconder for those three bylaws. Councilor Trossa, seconded by Councilor Cuddy. We’ll open first reading for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to two. And a move and a seconder for second reading of this set of bylaws. Premier Lewis, seconded by Councilor Lehman. Any debate on second reading?

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to two. Okay, and third reading of these bylaws.

I’ll look for a move and a seconder. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Pribble. We’ll open third reading for voting. Mr.

Stevenson, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to two. Okay, that concludes bylaws, which means all we have left is a motion to adjourn. I’ll look for a mover of adjournment.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councilor Cuddy, seconds. All those, we do that in the system. No, we’re doing it by hand. I’m just making the call.

All those in favor of adjournment. And motion carries. All right, thank you. We’re adjourned.