September 24, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Present:

J. Morgan, H. McAlister, S. Lewis, P. Cuddy, S. Stevenson, J. Pribil, S. Trosow, C. Rahman, A. Hopkins, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, E. Peloza, D. Ferreira, S. Hillier

Absent:

S. Lehman

Also Present:

S. Datars Bere, A. Abraham, J. Adema, A. Barbon, M. Butlin, C. Cooper, S. Corman, K. Dickins, D. Escobar, S. Mathers, L. Marshall, H. McNeely, J. Paradis, T. Pollitt, K. Scherr, M. Schulthess, E. Skalski, C. Smith

Remote Attendance:

E. Bennett, I. Collins, J. Ford, E. Hunt, K. Murray

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Councillors S. Trosow, P. Van Meerbergen, E. Peloza (at 4:53 PM) and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor H. McAlister discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 6, item 2.3 of the 14th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, having to do with Downtown London Entertainment and Sports Centre Naming Rights by indicating that he is on leave from his employer, Canada Life.

2. Recognitions

His Worship the Mayor Recognizes City of London Employees who have achieved 25 years of service during 2024.

From Enterprise Supports: Steve Spring

From Environment and Infrastructure: Scott Adams, Tim Burden, Jaroslaw Czyz, Beatriz Campos, Terry Fleet, Clinton Kirkpatrick, Norbert Lerch, Bill Maessen (in memoriam), Roderick James Noiles, Joe Piotrowski, Dave Serraglio, Andrew Sharrard, Jason Turner, Mark Wachowiak, Matthew Wright

From Finance Supports: Cathy Dube, Barrie Galloway, Ian Harris, David Skinner

From Legal Services: Catherine Melissa Irene Becke

From Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services: Adam Brightling, Kelly Connolly, David Giovanniello, Daniel Glanville, Tim Gracey, Kelly Kimura, Gary Mosburger, Mark Radbourne, Corey Thompson, Marty Vandermeyden

From Planning and Economic Development: Susan Baratta, Barbara Mellen, Joanna Ziouvas

From Social and Health Development: Cyndy Ballantyne, Gwen Braxton, Madeleine Cochrane, Ana Silvia Coto, Victoria Cuarteros, Dzifa Dei, Madelyne Gonzalez, Tammy Graydon, Trudy Hughes, Kristine Lengyell, William J. Lewicki, Tina Lightfoot, Wendy Livingstone, Joanne McLean, Johanna P. Medina, Chris Mickle, Lidia Moniz, Brenda Northup, Lucia Raymond, Christina Rideout, Tracey Smith, Michelle Sterling, Bobbi-Lee Stewart, Kimberley Thompson, Eva Tomala, April Welbourne, Tammy White, Christine Elizabeth Williams

From London Police Services: Robert George Brown, Glenn Bullick, Chris Carne, Jacqueline Dodd, David Ellyatt, Heather Gillespie, Sean T. Harding, Christopher Jackson, Josh Kenny, Alex Krygsman, Barb Martin, Patricia McIntyre, Jon Orchard, Tania Paavola, Cami Pool, Mike Pottruff, Dave Roszell, Ryan Scrivens, Tia Sutherland, Rick Terrio, Sean Travis, Timothy Wright

3. Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4. Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Stevenson

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

4.1 Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose in relation to the Issuance of Proclamations Policy. (6.1/14/CSC)

4.2 Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, regarding the draft Rental Unit Repair Licence amendments to the Business Licensing By-law. (6.1/11/CPSC)

4.3 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. (6.1/14/SPPC)

4.4 Solicitor-Client Privilege /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 2598-2624 Woodhull Road at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/13/PEC)

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:23 PM to 1:36 PM.

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

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the Minutes of the 14th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on August 27th, 2024 BE APPROVED.

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6. Communications and Petitions

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

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

6.1 Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property – 1163 Richmond Street

K. Galil and K. Galil

6.2 2-4 Audrey Avenue and 186-188 Huron Street (Z9755)

(Refer to Item #5 (6.3) for the communication from K. Kinsella)

6.3 Heights Review/Transit Village/Major Shopping Area (OZ-9726, OZ-9727, O-9752 and O-9753)

R. Daneff and J. Unrau
R. Baker and R. Forrester-Jones
T. Albrecht and D. Albrecht
L. Jamieson, Intermediate Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.
K. Kinsella
(ADDED) N. Tangredi, P. Tangredi, and M. Dominguez
(ADDED) F. Fontaine and M. Fontaine
(ADDED) D. Minato
(ADDED) S. Bentley, Broughdale Community Association
(ADDED) L. Kaufman
(ADDED) P. Sullivan
(ADDED) L. Cardinal
(ADDED) L. Kelly and J. Kelly
(ADDED) J. Zaifman, London Home Builders’ Association
(ADDED) D. Cameron
(ADDED) S. Weir
(ADDED) R. Ashworth
(ADDED) J. Jacobson
(ADDED) C. Shewfelt
(ADDED) H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.
(ADDED) H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.
(ADDED) H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.
(ADDED) L. Schmidt
(ADDED) A. Scott
(ADDED) P. Sandor and S. Sandor
(ADDED) B. Plante
(ADDED) G. Miseria
(ADDED) L. Bentley
(ADDED) T. Sicular
(ADDED) J. Kasperski
(ADDED) I. Haldane
(ADDED) S. Roch
(ADDED) D. McKeown
(ADDED) J. Snyders
(ADDED) N. Hoevenaars
(ADDED) D. Galbraith, up consulting
(ADDED) L. Chaloner and B. Mertens
(ADDED) M. Vailer, Development Manager, SmartCentres
(ADDED) G. McCormack
(ADDED) J. Young
(ADDED) S. Hussey
(ADDED) A. Vogel, Professor, Western University
(ADDED) J. Ball
(ADDED) R. Morris
(ADDED) J. Edwards
(ADDED) G. Wild
(ADDED) K. Marshman
(ADDED) S. Levson
(ADDED) B. Hillis
(ADDED) T. Marcy
(ADDED) M. L. Hooey
(ADDED) S. Litke
(ADDED) D. Aldred and L. Turner
(ADDED) K. Kinsella
(ADDED) M. Horak
(ADDED) L. Bentley

6.4 Protected Major Transit Station Areas Zoning Review (OZ-9749)

Site-Specific TSA Zone Requests
C. O’Brien, Land Development Planner - Drewlo Holdings Inc.
C. Richards
The communication from L. Jamieson relating to these matters is appended to Agenda Item 6.3.
(ADDED) C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.

6.5 (ADDED) Renovictions - Amendments to the Business Licensing By-law to Introduce a Rental Unit Repair Licence

(ADDED) V. Flear, London ACORN
(ADDED) Councillor D. Ferreira

6.6 (ADDED) Municipal Accommodation Tax - Tourism London Annual Report

(ADDED) Y. Paravalos, Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association

6.7 (ADDED) 80 and 82 Base Line Road West (Z-9750) (Relates to Bill No. 330)

(ADDED) S. Rasanu, Strikm Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.

6.8 (ADDED) Introduction of OTR By-law for Council Consideration - Mayor J. Morgan

(Refer to the By-laws Stage for consideration with Bill No. 335)

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7. Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8. Reports

8.1 14th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-09-16 CSC Report 14

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 14th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 6 (2.3).

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED Councillor H. McAlister discloses a pecuniary interest in item 2.3 having to do with Downtown London Entertainment and Sports Centre Naming Rights by indicating that he is on leave from his employer, Canada Life.

Motion Passed

8.1.2 (2.1) Housekeeping By-law Amendments Resulting from Strong Mayors Powers (Relates to Bills No. 304, 305, 306, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317 and 318)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the by-laws as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A” to “I” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024 to reflect the changes resulting from the application of Strong Mayor legislation under the Municipal Act, 2001 to the City of London:

a) (Appendix A, as appended to the staff report) A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-154-406, as amended, being “Appointments Requiring Council Approval and/or Consultation” to amend section 4 to reflect powers under section 284.6 of the Municipal Act, 2001;

b) (Appendix B, as appended to the staff report) A by-law to amend By-law No. A-50 being “A by-law to provide for the Rules of Order and Procedure for the Council of The Corporation of the City of London, and to repeal By-law A-45” to amend relevant sections to reflect powers under section 284.8 of the Municipal Act, 2001;

c) (Appendix C, as appended to the staff report) A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-62-294, as amended, being “Establishment of Task Forces and Working Groups Policy” to amend section 4.2 and 4.3 to reflect powers under section 284.8 of the Municipal Act, 2001;

d) (Appendix D, as appended to the staff report) A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-45-241, as amended, being “Multi-Year Budget Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A” to reflect powers under section 284.16 of the Municipal Act, 2001;

e) (Appendix E, as appended to the staff report) A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.- 71-303, as amended, being “Appointment of Council Members to Standing Committees of Council and Various Civic Boards and Commissions Policy” to amend section 4 to reflect powers under section 284.8 of the Municipal Act, 2001;

f) (Appendix F, as appended to the staff report) A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-368-372, as amended, being “Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy”, by amending section 4.2 and 4.3 to reflect powers under section 284.16 of the Municipal Act, 2001;

g) (Appendix G, as appended to the staff report) A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001”, Schedule “B” - “Hiring of Employees Policy” to add a new part 4.5 to reflect the powers under section 284.8 of the Municipal Act, 2001;

h) (Appendix H, as appended to the staff report) A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-227-479 as amended, being “A by-law to revoke and repeal Council policy related to Travel & Business Expenses and replace it with a new Council policy entitled Travel & Business Expenses” to amend section 4.4 to reflect powers under section 284.16 of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

i) (Appendix I, as appended to the staff report) A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “C” — “Procurement of Goods and Services Policy” to reflect powers under section 284.16 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Motion Passed

8.1.3 (2.2) 2023 Annual Reporting of Lease Financing Agreements

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2023 Annual Reporting of Lease Financing Agreements report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.4 (2.4) Amendment to Banking Services Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 303)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated September 16, 2024 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024 to amend By-law A.-8047-15 “A by-law to approve an Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and The Corporation of the City of London” to approve a new Banking Resolution.

Motion Passed

8.1.5 (2.5) New Multi-Residential Subclass Reduction

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report on the optional new multi-residential subclass as described in Ontario Regulation 140/24 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.7 (2.6) Standing Committees and Forums - Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Councillor S. Trosow

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Standing Committee(s):

a) Councillor S. Trosow BE ENDORSED to serve on FCM Standing Committees and Forums for the 2024/2025 term; and

b) all associated costs to attend the Board of Directors meetings and AGM for the 2024/2025 BE INCURRED as part of the Councillor’s annual expense allocation; it being noted that the meeting dates include:

Board of Directors Meeting - September 18-19, 2024 - Virtually
Board of Directors Meeting - Week of November 2024 (TBD) - Virtually
Advocacy Days - December 2024 (TBD) - Ottawa, ON
Annual Conference & AGM - June 2025 - Ottawa, ON.

Motion Passed

8.1.8 (4.1) Issuance of Proclamations (Relates to Bill No. 302)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Issuance of Proclamations:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to cease the issuance of proclamations through a resolution and a rescission of the Issuance of Proclamations Policy; and

b) the report dated September 16, 2024 with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.6 (2.3) Downtown London Entertainment and Sports Centre Naming Rights

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the name change for the Downtown London Entertainment and Sports Centre BE APPROVED from Budweiser Gardens to Canada Life Place.

Vote:

Yeas: Recuse: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan H. McAlister S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2 11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-09-09 CPSC Report - Full

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 4 (2.2) and 5 (2.3)

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2 (2.1) 4th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 4th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on August 22, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3 (2.5) Housing Stability Services - Housing Access Centre - Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) Waitlist Placement Ratio

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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 September 9, 2024, related to Housing Stability Services Housing Access Centre Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) Waitlist Placement Ratio:

a) the ratio at which Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) Households are housed BE MAINTAINED at a rate of 20% Urgent Status households, to 80% chronological waitlist households;

b) the local rule for use of Urgent Homeless, Urgent Medical, and Urgent Social Status applications BE AMENDED to discontinue accepting Urgent Status applications as of September 25, 2024 and a new local rule for prioritization (Over-housed, Urgent, Chronological) BE IMPLEMENTED, and;

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the outcomes of the RGI Waitlist Ratio, Urgent Status, and new prioritization changes, by the end of March 2026. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

8.2.6 (2.4) Special Events Policy Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 9, 2024, related to the Special Events Policy:

a) the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to hold a public participation meeting at the November 11, 2024 Community and Protective Services Committee to receive input on the draft Special Events Policy; and,

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with a summary of community feedback and an amended Special Events Policy at a future Community and Protective Services Committee meeting; and,

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to hold a hybrid community meeting with residents and neighborhood associations near Victoria Park, Harris Park, and Dundas Place to address the impact of changes to the Special Events Policy on their neighborhoods;

it being noted that a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, and a verbal delegation from A.M. Valastro, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed

8.2.7 (3.1) Amendments to the Vehicle-for-Hire By-Law (L.-130-71) (Relates to Bill No. 319)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the attached revised by-law, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024, to amend By-law No. L.-130-71, being the Vehicle for Hire By-law, to amend Part 2 with the following changes to the by-law:

a) a two year extension for gas powered vehicles and 1 year extension for hybrid and EV with two annual safety inspections and two annual city inspections

b) the 120-day-on-the-road regulation for taxis be referred back to the Civic Administration for consultation with the industry;

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

F. Bander;
H. Savehilaghi; and,
R. Caranci. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

8.2.8 (4.1) Life*Spin - Property Standards and Tenant Support

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the request for delegation status from Life*Spin, as appended to the agenda, with respect to Property Standards and Tenant Support, BE APPROVED to be heard at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee. (2024-A20)

Motion Passed

8.2.4 (2.2) Renovictions - Amendments to the Business Licensing By-law to Introduce a Rental Unit Repair Licence (Relates to Bills No. 307, 308 and 320)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 9, 2024, related to Renovictions and Amendments to the Business Licensing By-law to Introduce a Rental Unit Repair Licence:

a) the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024, to amend By-law No. L.-131-16, being “A by-law to provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Various Businesses” to introduce Schedule 23 – Rental Unit Repair Licence and its associated regulations;

b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024, to amend By-law No. A-54, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to introduce penalty amounts for the proposed licensing schedule;

c) the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024, to amend By-law No. A-59, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges”; and,

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit a Multi-Year Budget update reflecting staffing needs for the Rental Unit Repair Licence program;

it being noted that verbal delegations from K. Andrews, C. Wittnebel, J.M. Smith, M. Jollymore, T. Jollymore, D. Millette and R. Slade, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-C01)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the proposed by-law to amend By-law A-54, as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2024, BE AMENDED to reflect the following changes in Schedule A-5 Penalty Schedule for Business Licensing By-law:

a) Item # 143 being Rental Unit Repair Licence – Fail to apply for Licence BE AMENDED to read “$2,000 per month – then doubled after 3 months in contravention to $4,000 per month” in Column 4 – Penalty Amount”;

b) Item # 146 being Rental Unit Repair Licence – Fail to Comply with Licence Conditions BE AMENDED to read “$1,000” in Column 4 – Penalty Amount”;

c) Item #147 being Rental Unit Repair Licence – Advertise or Occupy Unit to be Re-Occupied BE AMENDED to read “$5,000” in Column 4 – Penalty Amount”; and

d) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee after 12 months of RURL operation with an evaluation of effectiveness report in achieving renoviction prevention.

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 2:41 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

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

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the staff report related to Renovictions and Amendments to the Business Licensing By-law to Introduce a Rental Unit Repair Licence BE REFERRED to the next meeting of Community and Protective Services Committee to include temporary alternative accommodation for displaced tenants and short-term rental top ups as provided in the City of Hamilton By-law in Appendix “E” in the staff report dated September 9, 2024

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
A. Hopkins Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
H. McAlister S. Lewis
S. Trosow S. Hillier
S. Franke E. Peloza
C. Rahman P. Van Meerbergen
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
D. Ferreira

Yeas:	Nays:	Absent:
A. Hopkins	Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
H. McAlister	S. Lewis
S. Trosow	S. Hillier
S. Franke	E. Peloza
C. Rahman	P. Van Meerbergen
	P. Cuddy
	S. Stevenson
	J. Pribil
	D. Ferreira

Motion Failed (5 to 9)

Item 4, clause 2.2, as amended reads as follows:

b) the revised attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024, to amend By-law No. A-54, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to introduce penalty amounts for the proposed licensing schedule including:

i) Item # 143 being Rental Unit Repair Licence – Fail to apply for Licence - “$2,000 per month – then doubled after 3 months in contravention to $4,000 per month” in Column 4 – Penalty Amount”

ii) Item # 146 being Rental Unit Repair Licence – Fail to Comply with Licence Conditions - “$1,000” in Column 4 – Penalty Amount”;

iii) Item #147 being Rental Unit Repair Licence – Advertise or Occupy Unit to be Re-Occupied - “$5,000” in Column 4 – Penalty Amount”

d) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee after 12 months of Rental Unit Repair Licence operation with an evaluation of effectiveness report in achieving renoviction prevention; and

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit a Multi-Year Budget update reflecting staffing needs for the Rental Unit Repair Licence program;

it being noted that verbal delegations from K. Andrews, C. Wittnebel, J.M. Smith, M. Jollymore, T. Jollymore, D. Millette and R. Slade, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-C01)

8.2.5 (2.3) Regulating Maximum Temperature in Rental Units

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 9, 2024, related to Regulating Maximum Temperature in Rental Units:

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

b) a draft by-law BE PREPARED for a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, and the verbal delegations from K. Pagniello and A.M. Valastro, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-C01)

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lewis S. Lehman
A. Hopkins S. Hillier
E. Peloza P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister P. Cuddy
S. Trosow S. Stevenson
S. Franke J. Pribil
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Nays:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lewis	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins	S. Hillier
E. Peloza	P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister	P. Cuddy
S. Trosow	S. Stevenson
S. Franke	J. Pribil
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

It being noted that Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting at 2:45 PM

8.3 12th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-09-10 CWC Report

It being noted that Councillor P. Van Meerbergen re-enters the meeting at 2:49 PM

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 12th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2 (2.1) 9th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 9th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on August 21, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3 (2.2) Operations and Management of Three City of London EnviroDepots

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 September 10, 2024, related to the Operations and Management of Three City of London EnviroDepots:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to negotiate a single source agreement for the procurement of Oxford Street and Clarke Road EnviroDepots Operations and Management services as per Section 14.4(d) and (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy with Try Recycling Inc. for a term of one (1) and a one (1) year extension option at the sole discretion of the City starting January 1, 2025; it being noted that the award and final contract will be subject to approval by Council;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to negotiate a sole source agreement for the procurement of the continued use of the North end EnviroDepot located at Try Recycling, 21462 Clarke Rd. and for the Operations and Management services as per Section 14.3(c) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy with Try Recycling Inc. for a term of three years with two (2), one (1) year options at the sole discretion of the City starting January 1, 2025; it being noted that the award and the final contract will be subject to approval by Council; and,

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a Request for Proposal for the EnviroDepot Operations and Management Program (Oxford Street and Clarke Road) starting January 1, 2026 for four (4) years plus three (3), one (1) year option years at the sole discretion of the City. (2024-E07)

Motion Passed

8.3.4 (2.3) Emergency Repair of Centrifuges at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant

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 September 10, 2024, related to Emergency Repair of Centrifuges at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a) the purchase orders issued for emergency repairs to the centrifuges at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant under Section 14.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy at a total cost of $325,017.49 (HST excluded), BE CONFIRMED;

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

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

d) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2024-E03)

Motion Passed

8.3.5 (2.4) Single Source SS-2024-276 - Pottersburg Wastewater Treatment Plan UV Disinfection Equipment

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 September 10, 2024, related to Single Source SS-2024-276 for the Pottersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant UV Disinfection Equipment:

a) the contract for purchase of a UV disinfection system BE AWARDED to Trojan Technologies as a single source procurement for a total value of $998,720.00 plus HST in accordance with Sections 14.4 (d) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

e) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-E03)

Motion Passed

8.3.6 (2.5) Closing Phillip Street Road Allowance (Relates to Bill No. 322)

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 September 10, 2024, related to Closing Philip Street Road Allowance:

a) the closing of part of Phillip Street on Registered Plan 38 designated as Part 2 on Plan 33R-21948 BE APPROVED, and,

b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024 for the purpose of closing Phillip Street. (2024-T09)

Motion Passed

8.3.7 (2.6) Emergency Purchase of a Mack-Wittke Top Loading Garbage Packer

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 10, 2024, related to the Emergency Purchase of a Mack-Wittke Top Loading Garbage Picker:

a) the purchase order for the purchase of a 2024 Mack-Wittke Top Loader unit from Amtruck Limited, 1920 Yonge Street, Suite 200, Toronto, Ontario M4S 3E2 under Section 14.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy at a total price of $417,900 (HST excluded) BE CONFIRMED noting that part of the purchasing agreement requires the renting of the unit for four months at a fee of $43,200 (HST excluded); and,

b) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2024-E07)

Motion Passed

8.4 14th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-09-17 SPPC Report 14

It being noted that Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting at 2:57 PM

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 14th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 6 (2.2)

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins S. Trosow
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins	S. Trosow
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.4.1 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2 (2.3) Neighbourhood Parks Improvement Fund

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services and the Deputy City Manager of Environment and Infrastructure, the report dated September 17, 2024, regarding “Neighbourhood Parks Improvement Fund” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.3 (2.4) Confirmation of Appointment to the Argyle BIA

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Chuck Bergeron, owner of Home Hardware - Dundas East BE APPOINTED to the Argyle Business Improvement Association for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed

8.4.4 (2.5) 6th and 7th Reports of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 6th and 7th Reports of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from the meetings held on July 11, 2024 and August 8, 2024, respectively, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.5 (2.1) Mayoral Direction 2024-001, City-Owned Parking Lot Redevelopment

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to Mayoral Direction 2024-001, City-owned Parking Lot Redevelopment:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a procurement process to solicit development proposals from qualified firms that can redevelop City-owned parking lots for high-density housing, encouraging modular construction techniques, and public parking at the following locations:

i) 84 Horton Street; and

ii) 199 Ridout Street;

b) the city-owned parking lots located at 641 Queens Avenue, 434 Elizabeth Street and 824 Dundas Street BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration to consult with the Old East Village Business Improvement Area and community association and report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee; and

c) the financing for site investigations needed to support the procurement process BE APPROVED in accordance with the Source of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated September 17, 2024 as Appendix ‘A’.

Motion Passed

8.4.7 (4.3) 12th Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 12th Report of the Special Governance Working Group from its meeting held on August 15, 2024:

a) the Councillor Role Description, as amended and attached, BE APPROVED;

b) on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the Council Resourcing Review Task Force – Draft Terms of Reference:

i) the Draft Terms of Reference for a Council Resourcing Review Task Force, as amended and attached to the staff report dated August 15, 2024 BE APPROVED;

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to a future meeting of Council to create a Council Resourcing Review Task Force;

iii) upon creation of the Task Force, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the necessary actions to advertise for the Council Resourcing Review Task Force applications; and

iv) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to select the membership of the Council Resourcing Review Task Force and bring forward the successful names to a future meeting of City Council for ratification;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication regarding FCM, women’s representation in municipal elected positions from Councillor S. Franke.

Motion Passed

8.4.8 (4.1) 2nd Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED the 2nd Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group was considered at the Council meeting held on July 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

8.4.9 (4.2) 3rd Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group from its meeting held on September 4, 2024:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 4, 2024 regarding the London Police Service Reserve Fund By-law Review:

i) the report BE FORWARDED to the London Police Service Board Chair and the Chief of Police;

ii) the Budget Chair and Deputy Mayor BE REQUESTED to engage in discussions with the London Police Service Board regarding this report; and,

iii) the London Police Service Reserve Fund By-law Review report BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group received a communication dated August 30, 2024 from C. Butler with respect to this matter;

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

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with the service review training for agencies, boards and commissions at an estimated cost of $15,000 (excluding HST), it being noted that the cost will be funded from the City’s Efficiency, Effectiveness and Economy (EEE) Reserve; and,

ii) the staff report BE RECEIVED for information;

c) clauses 2.3 and 4.1 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication and verbal delegation from A. McGuigan with respect to the City of London Municipal Golf update.

Motion Passed

8.4.10 (5.1) Support for a Grant Application for the Growing Canada’s Community Canopies - Councillors S. Franke and C. Rahman

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the grant application for the Growing Canada’s Community Canopies to assist London in achieving our tree canopy target BE SUPPORTED by Municipal Council.

Motion Passed

8.4.6 (2.2) Municipal Accommodation Tax - Tourism London Annual Report

It being noted that Councillor S. Trosow re-enters the meeting at 2:59 PM

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Municipal Accommodation Tax:

a) on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, Tourism’s London annual report on the expenditures of Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT) revenues BE RECEIVED for information;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the process to increase the Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT) rate in the City of London from 4% to 5%, to take effect no later than January 1, 2026. The increase will follow the current Council approved policy outlining fifty percent of the net MAT revenues are allocated to Tourism London as the City’s “eligible tourism entity for the exclusive purpose of promoting tourism” in accordance with Ontario Regulation 435/17. The other fifty percent of the net MAT revenues remain with the City of London and are contributed to the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund (TIRF); and

c) the Civic Administration BE FURTHER DIRECTED, in consultation with Tourism London, to report back to the appropriate standing committee(s) with recommendations to Council for any updates to the TIRF allocation policy and strategic facility investments.

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan J. Pribil S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.5 13th Special Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-08-26 PEC Report - FULL

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 13th Special Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 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 (3.1) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Properties - 920-940 Dundas Street

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the requested demolition of the resources municipally addressed as 920 Dundas Street, 924 Dundas Street and 930 Dundas Street BE APPROVED;

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

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

Motion Passed

8.5.3 (3.2) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property – 243 Wellington Road

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the demolition request, the property located at 243 Wellington Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being noted that the salvage of the building’s date stone prior to demolition is encouraged;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in

conjunction with these matters:

A.M. Valastro;

Motion Passed

8.5.4 (3.3) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property – 1163 Richmond Street

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the demolition request, the property located at 1163 Richmond Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

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

a communication dated August 13, 2024 from S. Bentley;

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

A.M. Valastro;

Motion Passed

8.5.5 (3.4) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property – 3810-3814 Colonel Talbot Road

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the demolition request, the property located at 3810-3814 Colonel Talbot Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being noted that the property owner is encouraged to commemorate the historic contributions of the Bouge family in the settlement and development of Westminster Township in the future redevelopment of this property;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in

conjunction with these matters:

A.M. Valastro;

Motion Passed

8.5.6 (3.5) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property – 773 Dundas Street West

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the demolition request, the property located at 773 Dundas Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in

conjunction with these matters:

H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of London Cultural Centre;

Motion Passed

8.5.7 (3.6) 456 Sunningdale Road South (Relates to Bill No. 310 and 326)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Corlon Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 465 Sunningdale Road West:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 26, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 to:

i) REVISE Map 1 – Place Types - to redesignate portions of the subject lands FROM Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Types TO Neighbourhoods and Green Space Place Types;

ii) REVISE Map 3 – Street Classifications - to ADD Neighbourhood Connector Street Classifications;

iii) REVISE MAP 7 – Specific Policy Areas – to ADD a Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type to permit low-rise apartment buildings (4 storeys maximum) with frontage on a Neighbourhood Connector street classification;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 26, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 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 lands FROM an Open Space OS1 Zone, an Environmental Review ER Zone, and an Open Space OS5 Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-9()) Zone; a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-9(**)) Zone; a Residential R1 Special Provision/Neighbourhood Facility/Community Facility (R1-9()/NF/CF1)) Zone; a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-3( )) Zone; a Residential R5 Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (R5-4()/R9-4()) Zone; a Residential R5 Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (R5-4()/R9-4()) Zone; a Residential R5 Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (R5-6()/R9-4()) Zone; a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-6()) Zone; a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-6(***)) Zone; a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7( )) Zone; an Open Space OS1 Zone; and an Open Space OS5 Zone;

c) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application for Draft Approval of the Plan of Residential Subdivision relating to the property located at 465 Sunningdale Road West:

i) stating that stormwater drains carry polluted water away;

ii) stating that stormwater ponds are not wetlands as they carry toxic runoff from roads;

iii) enquiring if there is going to be surface parking or if the parking will be underground; noting that canopy trees need enough green space for their roots to support a fully grown tree;

iv) wondering if there is a Tree Preservation Plan for this subdivision;

v) stating that people living on busy roads have a higher risk of asthma and dementia due to traffic exhaust;

vi) expressing concern over the increase in the volume of large trucks along Wonderland Road North;

vii) advising that there is an infrastructure issue; providing the example that if you are on Sunningdale turning onto Richmond Street, there is a line up of approximately four lights before you can turn during peak traffic hours;

viii) asking for sensibility for infrastructure before more development occurs;

d) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, subject to draft plan conditions recommended by the Approval Authority, as submitted by Corlon Properties Inc., prepared by LDS (Drawing No. 00143-Draft_Plan (230306).dwg), certified by Jake Surgenor

O.L.S., dated March 6, 2023, as red-line amended, which shows 156 single detached residential lots, 1 future residential/public road access block, 1 school block, 6 multi-family residential blocks, 1 multi-family residential/mixed use block, 4 blocks for neighbourhood park and multi-use pathways, 1 open space block for the reconstructed Axford Drain corridor, 1 road widening block, 6 reserve blocks, served by 8 public roads (File No. 39T-23503);

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

D. Schmidt, Corlon Properties;
A.M. Valastro; and,
Diane;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the attached presentation from D. Schmidt, Corlon Properties, with respect to these matters;

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.5.8 (5.1) Deferred Matters List as of August 18, 2024

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the August 19, 2024, Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.9 (5.2) 8th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 8th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on August 14, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.6 14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-09-10 PEC REPORT - FULL

It being noted that Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting at 3:03 PM

It being noted that Councillor S. Trosow re-enters the meeting at 3:04 PM

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 4 (3.1) and 9 (3.6)

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins S. Trosow
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins	S. Trosow
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.6.1 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2 (2.1) Planning and Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated September 10, 2024 entitled “Planning and Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.6.3 (2.2) Adjustments to Appointment By-law for Deputy and Chief Building Officials (Relates to Bill No. 309)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 10, 2024 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024, to repeal and replace By-law No. B.-98-166, being “A by-law to appoint the Chief Building Official and Inspectors under the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.23, for the purposes of enforcement of the said Act”, and to repeal By-law No. A.-8114-165, being “A by-law to appoint Peter Kokkoros as the Chief Building Official.”

Motion Passed

8.6.5 (3.2) 1550 and 1602 Sunningdale Road West (Z-9764) (Relates to Bill No. 328)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Foxwood Development (London) Inc., relating to the properties located at 1550 and 1602 Sunningdale Road West:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 10, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R5 and R6 (hh-53h-54h-100h-144R5-6/R6-5) Zone, a Holding Residential R5 and R6 (hh-53h-54h-100R5-6/R6-5) Zone, a Holding Residential R5 and R6 (hh-53h-54h-100h-110R5-6/R6-5) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 (hh-100R1-13) Zone, and a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-110*R1-10(8)) Zone TO a Residential R5 and R6 Special Provision (R5-6()/R6-5()) Zone, a Residential R1 and R3 (R1-13/R3-1) Zone, and a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone;

b) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for the properties located at 1550 and 1602 Sunningdale Road West; and,

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

i) provision of short-term public bicycle parking in the development of each block through the site plan process;

ii) street oriented design and safe and accessible pedestrian connections;

iii) landscaping to include a minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

iv) no laneway or parking areas adjacent to any Civic Boulevards; and,

v) provide pedestrian connections from Capris Cres to Sunningdale Road West and from Ethan Circle to Hyde Park Road;

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

M. Paluch, Intermediate Planner, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

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

the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;
the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan; and,
the recommended amendments will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

Motion Passed

8.6.6 (3.3) 3975 Stewart Avenue (Z-9754) (Relates to Bill No. 329)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 3975 Stewart Avenue:

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

i) provision of short-term public bicycle parking in the development of each block through the site plan process;

ii) street oriented design and safe and accessible pedestrian connections;

iii) landscaping to include a minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

iv) investigate renewal 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; and,

vi) apply bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

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

D. Posthumus, Sifton Properties Limited;

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

the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;
the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan;
the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and,
the recommended amendment will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

Motion Passed

8.6.7 (3.4) 80 and 82 Base Line Road West (Z-9750) (Relates to Bill No. 330)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 13759741 Canada Inc. (c/o Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.), relating to the property located at 80-82 Base Line Road West:

a) the proposed revised, attached by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R9 (R9-7*H45) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H30) Zone;

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

i) the applicant shall provide a revised water servicing report through the Site Plan Approval process;

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

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

iv) investigate air source heat pump options;

v) apply bird friendly policies using the CSA standard; and,

vi) consultation with the Municipal Housing Development division for the provision of affordable housing units and entering into a Tenant Placement Agreement for existing tenants;

it being noted that the applicant has expressed interest in using mass timber construction, which is encouraged by Council in support of the Climate and Emergency Action Plan;

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

a communication dated September 6, 2024 from S. Rasanu, Planner and Project Lead, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;

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

S. Rasanu, Planner and Project Lead, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;
J. Chichendt; and,
C. Rorke;

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

the 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 amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, Neighbourhoods Place Type policies; and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact City; and,
the recommended amendment would facilitate the redevelopment of an underutilized parcel of land with a scale and intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding context;

Motion Passed

8.6.8 (3.5) 1338-1388 Sunningdale Road E (Z-9740) (Relates to Bill No. 331)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Auburn Homes Inc. (c/o Steve Stapleton), relating to the property located at 1338-1388 Sunningdale Road East:

a) the proposed revised by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 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 (R1-14) Zone, Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone, and a holding Urban Reserve (h-2UR3) Zone on a portion of the lands TO a holding compound Residential R5 Special Provision/ Residential R6 Special Provision/Residential R7 Special Provision (hR5-4( )/R6-5( )/ R7H22D100) Zone, Open Space Special Provision (OS5( )) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

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

i) provide a shared amenity space that is purposeful and large enough to support the number of residents anticipated at the development, a site layout that addresses the public realm; and built form that is located close to the public street;

ii) ensure the interior side yards adequately are buffered from the adjacent properties, and the principal entrances for units fronting Sunningdale Rd E are oriented towards the street with direct walkway access from individual units;

iii) ensure a network of pedestrian walkways are included throughout the site to provide connections between buildings, parking areas, amenity spaces and Sunningdale Road East and a site playout that maximizes the visual exposure of the open space to the rest of the development; and,

iv) ensure the pedestrian circulation on site allows for future connections to the future multi-use pathway to be accommodated within the ESA buffer;

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

a revised by-law; and,
a communication dated August 2, 2024, from J. Uribe and M. Alcocer;

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

A. Vandersluis, Development Manager, Auburn Developments;

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 Design and Building, Our Tools, Environmental policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;
the recommended amendment would apply zones that permit a range of residential uses with appropriate forms and intensities for the context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood; and,
the recommended amendment supports Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability;

Motion Passed

8.6.10 (3.7) Protected Major Transit Station Areas Zoning Review (OZ-9749) (Relates to Bills No. 312 and 333)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs):

a) the proposed revised by-law, attached as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by amending Policies 800_1, 802_1, 811_1, 813_1, 837_1, 839, 840_5, 840_6, and 847_ 2, adding Policies 798A, 802_4, 802_5, 809A, 813_4, 813_5, 829A, 840_3 and 840_4, and deleting Polices 803A, 803B, 803C, 803D, 803E, 803F, 814A, 814B, 814C, 815D, 815E, 815F, 860A, 860B, 860C, 860D, 860E and 860F relating to the Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs), and Map 10 – Protected Major Transit Station Areas, relating to the boundary of the Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs), and Map 3 – Street Classifications, relating to the locations of the Rapid Transit Stations, and the by-law BE FORWARDED to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval;

it being noted that in accordance with the Planning Act, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the approval authority for official plan amendments with respect to PMTSAs;

it being noted that the revised by-law includes the following changes:

i) remove Protected Major Transit Station Areas along Richmond Street from Kent Street to Epworth Avenue, and Western Road from Windermere Road to Sunnyside Drive on Map 10 – Protected Major Transit Station Areas;

ii) remove Protected Major Transit Station Areas from Richmond Street and Oxford Street East Transit Village on Map 10 – Protected Major Transit Station Areas;

iii) amend Policy 813 to permit a maximum of 35 storeys within the Transit Village Place Type and Transit Village Protected Major Transit Station Area;

iv) amend Policy 839 to remove references to Table 9 and permit a maximum height of 25 storeys within a Rapid Transit Corridor and 15 storeys within an Urban Corridor Place Type, and maintain the existing minimum height;

v) delete Policy 840.6 related to greater residential intensity may be permitted within the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type on sites that are located within 100 metres of a rapid transit station; and,

vi) delete Policy 840.7 related to clause iv, above;

b) the proposed revised, attached, by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024, and BE GIVEN two readings, 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), and subject to OZ-9726, OZ-9727 and O-9752 coming into force and effect, to add Section 52 Transit Station Area Zone and to change the zoning of the subject properties in the Protected Major Transit Station Area TO add a Holding Transit Station Area (h-213TSA1, h-213TSA2, h-213TSA3, h-213TSA4, h-213TSA5, and h-213TSA6) Zone;

it being noted that the third reading of the by-law would occur at such time as the Official Plan Amendment described in part a) above is approved and in-force;

it being noted that the revised by-law includes the following changes:

i) remove TSA zoning related to the Richmond Street and Western Road corridors;

ii) remove TSA zoning related to the Oxford and Richmond Transit Village;

iii) change the TSA4 Zone to permit a maximum height of 35 storeys;

iv) remove the TSA1 Zone and renumber the subsequent zones and amend mapping; and,

v) apply the TSA2 Zone to areas currently within the TSA1 Zone;

c) the zoning by-law amendment relating to Protected Major Transit Station Areas BE AMENDED by deleting Emergency Care Establishment from Section 52.2 – Permitted Uses in the following clauses:

i) clause b) of the TSA1 Zone;

ii) clause g) of the TSA1 Zone;

iii) clause a) of the TSA2 Zone;

iv) clause b) of the TSA2 Zone;

v) clause b) of the TSA3 Zone;

vi) clause g) of the TSA3 Zone;

vii) clause a) of the TSA4 Zone;

viii) clause b) of the TSA4 Zone;

ix) clause b) of the TSA5 Zone;

x) clause g) of the TSA5 Zone;

xi) clause a) of the TSA7 Zone; and,

xii) clause b) of the TSA7 Zone;

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

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

the amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which both require land use patterns within settlement areas to be based on densities and a mix of land uses that are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed;
the amendments conform to The London Plan including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact city; and,
the amendments will implement federal Housing Accelerator Fund initiatives through Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC);

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the required changes to Council to consider the following requests:

1164-1170 Richmond Street;
420 York Street;
TSA2, TSA4, TSA7, request to change to “optional” instead of “required”;
amend the wording to confirm permission for office/commercial on floors other than the first floor only;
allow the market to determine the mix in a mixed-use building;
743 Wellington Road did not contain proper base zoning;
south side of York Street in and around the Thames Street area;
100 Kellogg Lane;
335 Kellogg Lane;
1063 Dundas Street;
1097 Dundas Street;
1127 Dundas Street;
351 Eleanor Street;
1151 York Street;
1080 Dundas Street;
1100 Dundas Street;
1108 Dundas Street;
1453, 1455, 1457 and 1459 Oxford Street East and 648, 65, 654 and 656 Ayreswood Avenue;
standalone residential; and,
flooding on Moore Street and adjacent streets;

f) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the required by-law changes to Council to permit residential use on the ground floor within all TSA zones and the opportunity of other range of uses above the first floor;

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

the staff presentation;
a revised Map 12;
a revised recommendation from Mayor J. Morgan;
a communication from J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design;
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of Copp Realty Corp.;
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of Tricar Properties;
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of 100 Kellogg Lane;
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association;
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from C. Butler; and,
a communication dated September 8, 2024 from A.M. Valastro;

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

A. Kaplansky, KAP Holdings;
V. Campanale;
M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;
H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;
J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions;
J. Zaifman, London Home Builders Association;
J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design;
A. Vandersluis, Auburn Developments;
M. Moussa; and,
M. Legan;

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

the amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which both require land use patterns within settlement areas to be based on densities and a mix of land uses that are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed;
the amendments conform to The London Plan including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact city; and,
the amendments will implement federal Housing Accelerator Fund initiatives through Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC);

Motion Passed

8.6.4 (3.1) 2-4 Audrey Avenue and 186-188 Huron Street (Z-9755) (Relates to Bill No. 327)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by KAP Holdings Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the properties located at 2-4 Audrey Avenue and 186-188 Huron Street:

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

i) screen all parking areas from the public roadway with enhanced all season landscaping, as well as from neighbouring properties to mitigate any noise or light pollution;

ii) relocate the proposed bicycle parking to be separate from the proposed waste collection area;

iii) explore opportunities to incorporate additional short and long-term bicycle parking on site;

iv) provide a fully integrated pedestrian connection through the central parking area by shifting the southern spur sidewalk and providing an accessible pedestrian crossover;

v) provide a common outdoor amenity space on site; and,

vi) ensure units fronting the public streets are oriented to the street by including the principal unit entrance (front door) on the street-facing elevation;

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

a communication dated August 2, 2024 from S. Bentley, Interim President, Broughdale Community Association;
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from S.G.A. Pitel;
a communication dated September 8, 2024 from D. Bartlett, President, London Neighbhourhood Community Association, Inc.; and,
a communication dated August 17, 2024 from M. Ratcliffe and R. Millard, Professors Emeriti, Western University;

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

D.Sikelero Elsenbruch, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;
B. Lansink;
S. Pitel;
M. Blosh, Broughdale Community Association;
M. Wodchis-Johnson, Vice President, External Affairs, University Students Council, Western University;
S. Skape;
D. Bartlett, London Neighbourhood Association; and,
D. Fortney;

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, 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;

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.6.9 (3.6) Heights Review/Transit Village/Major Shopping Area (OZ-9726, OZ-9727, O-9752 and O-9753) (Relates to Bills No. 311 and 332)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to Phase 2 of the Section 26 Official Plan Review of The London Plan:

a) the proposed revised, attached, by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024, to adopt Phase 2 of the Section 26 Review of The London Plan, and BE FORWARDED to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval;

it being noted that the alternative by-law includes the following changes:

i) change the Place Type for the lands along Richmond Street from Kent Street to Epworth Avenue, and Western Road from Windermere Road to Sunnyside Drive, from Rapid Transit Corridor to Urban Corridor on Map 1 – Place Types;

ii) remove Transit Village at Richmond Street and Oxford Street East on Map 1 – Place Types;

iii) amend Figure 5 to remove the Transit Village at Richmond Street and Oxford Street East;

iv) amend Figure 14 to remove the Transit Village at Richmond Street and Oxford Street East;

v) reclassify the following portions of the Rapid Transit Boulevard from Rapid Transit Boulevard to Civic Boulevard and remove the Rapid Transit Stations on Map 3 – Street Classifications:

A) Richmond Street from Central Avenue to Epworth Avenue,

B) Western Road from Lambton Drive to Richmond Street,

C) Richmond Street from Western Road to Fanshawe Park Road,

vi) reclassify Clarence Street from Dundas Street to Central Avenue from Rapid Transit Boulevard to Neighbourhood Connector and remove the Rapid Transit Station on Map 3 – Street Classifications;

vii) amend the height of Transit Villages to 35 storeys;

viii) delete Table 9 and amend Table 8 to include a maximum height of 25 storeys within the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type;

ix) add a policy within the Rapid Transit and Urban Corridor Place Type chapter to permit a maximum height of 25 storeys in a Rapid Transit Corridor and 15 storeys within an Urban Corridor, and maintain the existing minimum height;

x) amend Neighbourhoods Place Type Table 10 to permit stacked townhouses along all Neighbourhood Connectors; and,

xi) amend Neighbourhoods Place Type Table 11 to permit a height of 10 storeys for development at the intersection of a Civic Boulevard or Urban Thoroughfare with another Civic Boulevard or Urban Thoroughfare;

b) the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing BE ADVISED that Municipal Council declares that Phase 2 of the Section 26 Review of The London Plan does not conflict with provincial plans, has regard to the matters of provincial interest, and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

c) the proposed revised, attached, by-law to BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 24, 2024 as Appendix “B”, and BE GIVEN two readings, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London as amended in part a) above), to amend Figure 4.19 Areas Exempt from Minimum Parking Standards; it being noted that the third reading of the by-law would occur at such time as the Official Plan Amendment described in part a) above is approved and in-force;

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

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to monitor implementation of this amendment and report back with possible further amendments after one year of the approved by-law, including Transit Villages;

it being noted that the Site Plan Control By-law and Zoning By-law will be included in a future review to implement this amendment and address the recommendations of the London Height Framework Review report (July 2024) prepared by SVN Architects and Planners;

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

a communication dated August 27, 2024 from A. Haasen, Project Manager, Planning and Development, Sifton Properties Limited;
the staff presentation;
a revised recommendation from Mayor J. Morgan;
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of Tricar Properties;
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from A. Vandersluis, Development Manager, Auburn Developments;
two communications dated September 6, 2024 from L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Wonderland Power Center Inc.;
a communication dated September 3, 2024 from J. Unrau and R. Daneff;
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from C. Kulchycki, Senior Associate, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of 785 Wonderland Road Inc.;
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of 100 Kellogg Lane;
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from Dr. R. Forrester-Jones, et. al.);
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association;
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from C. Butler; and,
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from P. King;

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

A. Kaplansky, KAP Holdings;
S. Elson, Member, First St. Andrew’s United Church;
C. Butler;
M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;
P. Mancini;
S. Levin;
J. Divincenzo;
T. Holness;
J. Farquar;
G. Hickling;
E. Gilckinson;
J. Unrau;
S. Brand;
K. Hall;
J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions;
J. Zaifman, London Home Builders Association;
M. Blosh, Broughdale Community Association;
C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;
R. Forrester-Jones;
A. Vandersluis, Auburn Developments;
S. Scape;
T. Jones;
M. Moussa; and,
R. Danuff;

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

the proposed amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as multiple policies within the PPS support intensification, including:
healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential types (including additional residential units) (1.1.1.b);
healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to meet current and projected needs (1.1.1.g);
appropriate development standards should be promoted which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety (1.1.3.4);
planning authorities are also required to “establish and implement minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas…” (1.1.3.5);
planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by permitting and facilitating all types of residential intensification, including additional residential units, and redevelopment in accordance with policy 1.1.3.3. (1.4.3b);
the proposed amendments are consistent with the proposed PPS 2024 coming into effect October 2024 including:
the addition of the Major Shopping Area Place Type will meet the intent of this proposed 2024 PPS policy section by ‘encouraging the repurposing, reformatting, infill and intensification of existing centres to take advantage of existing services, use land more efficiently, and reduce the need for outward expansion’ (876.4) and permitting a broad range of land uses (877.1); and,
complies and aligns with the PPS 2024 new component to Identify Strategic growth areas (SGA) within settlement areas, nodes, corridors, and other areas that have been identified by municipalities to be the focus for accommodating intensification and higher-density mixed uses in a more compact built form;

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be amended to include a new clause to read as follows:

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a report to a future meeting of Planning and Environment Committee providing a planning review of all of the Public Participation Meeting and September 24th Council Meeting owner submissions not addressed by City Council’s approval of Phase 2 of the Section 26 Review of The London Plan.

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

At 3:27 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair.

At 3:33 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion with respect to Phase 2 of the Section 26 Official Plan Review of The London Plan be amended as follows:

a) the Official Plan amendment is revised by removing changes to where stacked townhouses are permitted along Neighbourhood Connector street classifications, and maintaining the existing provisions of Table 10 in The London Plan to permit Stacked Townhouses on Neighbourhood Connectors only in Central London; and

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake public consultation on the London Plan policies regarding stacked townhouses in the Neighbourhoods Place Type and bring forward an Official Plan Amendment to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee:

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
A. Hopkins Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
E. Peloza S. Lewis
P. Van Meerbergen S. Hillier
S. Trosow H. McAlister
D. Ferreira P. Cuddy
C. Rahman S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke

Yeas:	Nays:	Absent:
A. Hopkins	Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
E. Peloza	S. Lewis
P. Van Meerbergen	S. Hillier
S. Trosow	H. McAlister
D. Ferreira	P. Cuddy
C. Rahman	S. Stevenson
	J. Pribil
	S. Franke

Motion Failed (6 to 8)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lewis S. Lehman
A. Hopkins P. Cuddy
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

The Council recesses at 4:40 PM and reconvenes at 4:52 PM.

At 4:52 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor H. McAlister in the Chair.

At 4:57 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion, as amended, BE AMENDED, to include the following:

that it be noted that council discussion was not unanimous on the following provisions:

a) v) reclassify the following portions of the Rapid Transit Boulevard from Rapid Transit Boulevard to Civic Boulevard and remove the Rapid Transit Stations on Map 3 – Street Classifications:

A) Richmond Street from Central Avenue to Epworth Avenue,

B) Western Road from Lambton Drive to Richmond Street,

C) Richmond Street from Western Road to Fanshawe Park Road;

a) i) change the Place Type for the lands along Richmond Street from Kent Street to Epworth Avenue, and Western Road from Windermere Road to Sunnyside Drive, from Rapid Transit Corridor to Urban Corridor on Map 1 – Place Types; and

the issue of stacked townhouse neighborhood connectors as identified in a) x)

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Item 9, clause 3.6, as amended, reads as follows:

That, the following actions be taken with respect to Phase 2 of the Section 26 Official Plan Review of The London Plan:

it being noted that the alternative by-law includes the following changes:

ii) remove Transit Village at Richmond Street and Oxford Street East on Map 1 – Place Types;

iii) amend Figure 5 to remove the Transit Village at Richmond Street and Oxford Street East;

iv) amend Figure 14 to remove the Transit Village at Richmond Street and Oxford Street East;

v) reclassify the following portions of the Rapid Transit Boulevard from Rapid Transit Boulevard to Civic Boulevard and remove the Rapid Transit Stations on Map 3 – Street Classifications:

A) Richmond Street from Central Avenue to Epworth Avenue,

B) Western Road from Lambton Drive to Richmond Street,

C) Richmond Street from Western Road to Fanshawe Park Road,

vi) reclassify Clarence Street from Dundas Street to Central Avenue from Rapid Transit Boulevard to Neighbourhood Connector and remove the Rapid Transit Station on Map 3 – Street Classifications;

vii) amend the height of Transit Villages to 35 storeys;

viii) delete Table 9 and amend Table 8 to include a maximum height of 25 storeys within the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type;

x) amend Neighbourhoods Place Type Table 10 to permit stacked townhouses along all Neighbourhood Connectors; and,

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

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to monitor implementation of this amendment and report back with possible further amendments after one year of the approved by-law, including Transit Villages;

f) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a report to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee providing a planning review of all of the Public Participation Meeting and September 24th Council Meeting owner submissions not addressed by City Council’s approval of Phase 2 of the Section 26 Review of The London Plan.

it be further noted that council discussion was not unanimous on the following provisions:

1.) a) v) reclassify the following portions of the Rapid Transit Boulevard from Rapid Transit Boulevard to Civic Boulevard and remove the Rapid Transit Stations on Map 3 – Street Classifications:

A) Richmond Street from Central Avenue to Epworth Avenue,

B) Western Road from Lambton Drive to Richmond Street,

C) Richmond Street from Western Road to Fanshawe Park Road;

2.) a) i) change the Place Type for the lands along Richmond Street from Kent Street to Epworth Avenue, and Western Road from Windermere Road to Sunnyside Drive, from Rapid Transit Corridor to Urban Corridor on Map 1 – Place Types; and

3.) the issue of stacked townhouse neighborhood connectors as identified in a) x)

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

a communication dated August 27, 2024 from A. Haasen, Project Manager, Planning and Development, Sifton Properties Limited;
the staff presentation;
a revised recommendation from Mayor J. Morgan;
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of Tricar Properties;
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from A. Vandersluis, Development Manager, Auburn Developments;
two communications dated September 6, 2024 from L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Wonderland Power Center Inc.;
a communication dated September 3, 2024 from J. Unrau and R. Daneff;
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from C. Kulchycki, Senior Associate, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of 785 Wonderland Road Inc.;
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from J.M. Fleming, Principal, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of 100 Kellogg Lane;
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from Dr. R. Forrester-Jones, et. al.);
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association;
a communication dated September 5, 2024 from C. Butler; and,
a communication dated September 6, 2024 from P. King;

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

A. Kaplansky, KAP Holdings;
S. Elson, Member, First St. Andrew’s United Church;
C. Butler;
M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;
P. Mancini;
S. Levin;
J. Divincenzo;
T. Holness;
J. Farquar;
G. Hickling;
E. Gilckinson;
J. Unrau;
S. Brand;
K. Hall;
J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions;
J. Zaifman, London Home Builders Association;
M. Blosh, Broughdale Community Association;
C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;
R. Forrester-Jones;
A. Vandersluis, Auburn Developments;
S. Scape;
T. Jones;
M. Moussa; and,
R. Danuff;

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

the proposed amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as multiple policies within the PPS support intensification, including:
healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential types (including additional residential units) (1.1.1.b);
healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to meet current and projected needs (1.1.1.g);
appropriate development standards should be promoted which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety (1.1.3.4);
planning authorities are also required to “establish and implement minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas…” (1.1.3.5);
planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by permitting and facilitating all types of residential intensification, including additional residential units, and redevelopment in accordance with policy 1.1.3.3. (1.4.3b);
the proposed amendments are consistent with the proposed PPS 2024 coming into effect October 2024 including:
the addition of the Major Shopping Area Place Type will meet the intent of this proposed 2024 PPS policy section by ‘encouraging the repurposing, reformatting, infill and intensification of existing centres to take advantage of existing services, use land more efficiently, and reduce the need for outward expansion’ (876.4) and permitting a broad range of land uses (877.1); and,
complies and aligns with the PPS 2024 new component to Identify Strategic growth areas (SGA) within settlement areas, nodes, corridors, and other areas that have been identified by municipalities to be the focus for accommodating intensification and higher-density mixed uses in a more compact built form;

9. Added Reports

That it BE NOTED that Councillor C. Rahman presented the 15th Report of the Council in Closed Session, by noting progress was made with respect to the four items noted on the Agenda.

9.1 15th Report of Council in Closed Session

10. Deferred Matters

None.

11. Enquiries

Councillor S. Franke enquiries with respect to the feasibility of preventing agencies, boards and commissions from procuring a public relations firm. The City Manager responds regarding the applicability of corporate policies concerning the use of funds.

12. Emergent Motions

None.

13. By-laws

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 335 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Second Reading of Bill No. 335 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 335 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 332 and 333 BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No. 332 and 333 BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 311 BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Second Reading of Bill No. 311 BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 311 BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

It being noted that Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting at 5:11 PM

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 312 BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan P. Van Meerbergen S. Lehman
A. Hopkins S. Trosow
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Second Reading of Bill No. 312 BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan P. Van Meerbergen S. Lehman
A. Hopkins S. Trosow
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 312 BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan P. Van Meerbergen S. Lehman
A. Hopkins S. Trosow
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

It being noted that Councillor S. Trosow re-enters the meeting at 5:13 PM

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 327 BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No. 327 BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 327 BE APPROVED

Vote:

Yeas: Nays: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Trosow S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 301 to Added Bill No. 334 including revised Bill No. 307 and excluding Bill No.’s 311, 312, 327, 332, 333, and Added Bill No. 335 BE APPROVED.

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No. 301 to Added Bill No. 334 including revised Bill No. 307 and excluding Bill No.’s 311, 312, 327, 332, 333, and Added Bill No. 335 BE APPROVED.

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 301 to Added Bill No. 334 including revised Bill No. 307 and excluding Bill No.’s 311, 312, 327, 332, 333, and Added Bill No. 335 BE APPROVED.

Vote:

Yeas: Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Yeas:	Absent:
Mayor J. Morgan	S. Lehman
A. Hopkins
S. Lewis
S. Hillier
E. Peloza
P. Van Meerbergen
H. McAlister
P. Cuddy
S. Stevenson
J. Pribil
S. Trosow
S. Franke
D. Ferreira
C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

14. Adjournment

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:15 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

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

Bill No. 301

By-law No. A.-8535-216 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 24th day of September 2024. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 302

By-law No. A.-8536-217 - A by-law to repeal By-law No. CPOL.-397-19, being the “Issuance of Proclamations Policy”. (4.1/14/CSC)

Bill No. 303

By-law No. A.-8047(c)-218 - A by-law to amend By-law A.-8047-15 “A bylaw to approve an Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and The Corporation of the City of London” to approve a new Banking Resolution (2.4/14/CSC)

Bill No. 304

By-law No. A.-6151(ao)-219 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001”, Schedule “B” - “Hiring of Employees Policy” to add a new part 4.5 to reflect the powers under section 284.8 of the Municipal Act, 2001. (2.1g/14/CSC)

Bill No. 305

By-law No. A.-6151(ap)-220 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “C” - “Procurement of Goods and Services Policy” to reflect powers under section 284.16 of the Municipal Act, 2001. (2.1i/14/CSC)

Bill No. 306

By-law No. A-50-24012 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A-50 being “A by-law to provide for the Rules of Order and Procedure for the Council of The Corporation of the City of London, and to repeal By-law A-45” to amend relevant sections to reflect powers under section 284.8 of the Municipal Act, 2001. (2.1b/14/CSC)

Bill No. 307

By-law No. A-54-24018 - A by-law to amend the Administrative and Monetary Penalties By-law A-54, with respect to a Rental Unit Repair Licence. (2.2b/11/CPSC)

Bill No. 308

By-law No. A-59-24003 - A by-law to amend the Fees and Charges By-law A-59 with respect to the Rental Unit Repair Licence Fee. (2.2c/11/CPSC)

Bill No. 309

By-law No. B.-99-221 - A by-law repeal and replace By-law No. B.-98-166 entitled, “A by-law to appoint the Chief Building Official and Inspectors under the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.23, for the purposes of enforcement of the said Act”, and to repeal By-law No. A.-8114-165 entitled, “A by-law to appoint Peter Kokkoros as the Chief Building Official”. (2.2/14/PEC)

Bill No. 310

By-law No. C.P.-1512(dt)-222 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the City of London, 2016 relating to 465 Sunningdale Road West (3.6a/13/PEC)

Bill No. 311

By-law No. C.P.-1512(du)-223 - A by-law to adopt Phase 2 of the Official Plan Review of The London Plan, 2016. (3.6a/14/PEC)

Bill No. 312

By-law No. C.P.-1512(dv)-224 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs), the Downtown, Transit Village, and Rapid Transit Corridor Place Types, Map 3 – Street Classifications, and Map 10 – Protected Major Transit Station Areas (3.7a/14/PEC)

Bill No. 313

By-law No. CPOL.-154(d)-225 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-154-406, as amended, being “Appointments Requiring Council Approval and/or Consultation” to amend section 4 to reflect powers under section 284.6 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (2.1a/14/CSC)

Bill No. 314

By-law No. CPOL.-62(b)-226 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-62-294, as amended, being “Establishment of Task Forces and Working Groups Policy” to amend section 4.2 and 4.3 to reflect powers under section 284.8 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (2.1c/14/CSC)

Bill No. 315

By-law No. CPOL.-45(d)-227 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-45-241, as amended, being “Multi-Year Budget Policy”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.1d/14/CSC)

Bill No. 316

By-law No. CPOL.-71(d)-228 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-71-303, as amended, being “Appointment of Council Members to Standing Committees of Council and Various Civic Boards and Commissions Policy” to amend section 4 to reflect powers under section 284.8 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (2.1e/14/CSC)

Bill No. 317

By-law No. CPOL.-368(c)-229 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-368-372, as amended, being “Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy”, by amending section 4.2 and 4.3 to reflect powers under section 284.16 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (2.1f/14/CSC)

Bill No. 318

By-law No. CPOL.-227(c)-230 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-227-479 as amended, being “A by-law to revoke and repeal Council policy related to Travel & Business Expenses and replace it with a new Council policy entitled Travel & Business Expenses” to amend section 4.4 to reflect powers under section 284.16 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (2.1h/14/CSC)

Bill No. 319

By-law No. L.-130(f)-231 - A by-law to amend By-law No. L.-130-71, referred to as the Vehicle for Hire By-law, to amend Schedule 2. (3.1/11/CPSC)

Bill No. 320

By-law No. L.-131(l)-232 - A by-law to amend the Business Licensing By-law L.-131-16, with respect to a Rental Unit Repair Licence for Landlords performing renovations or repairs on rental housing units requiring vacant possession. (2.2a/11/CPSC)

Bill No. 321

By-law L.S.P.-3520-233 - A by-law to designate 1458 Huron Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest. (3.5b/11/PEC)

Bill No. 322

By-law No. S.-6351-234 - A by-law to stop up and close part of Phillip Street also known as McMillan Street. (2.5/12/CWC)

Bill No. 323

By-law No. S.-6352-235 - A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Innovation Park Subdivision Phase 4, Plan 33M-609) (Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure)

Bill No. 324

By-law No. S.-6353-236 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Highbury Avenue North and Fanshawe Park Road East) (City Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to file B.018/24)

Bill No. 325

By-law No. S.-6354-237 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Webster Street) (City Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to file B.025/23)

Bill No. 326

By-law No. Z.-1-243246 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 465 Sunningdale Road West. (3.6b/13/PEC)

Bill No. 327

By-law No. Z.-1-243247 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 2-4 Audrey Avenue & 186-188 Huron Street (3.1/14/PEC)

Bill No. 328

By-law No. Z.-1-243248 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1550 and 1602 Sunningdale Road West (3.2/14/PEC)

Bill No. 329

By-law No. Z.-1-243249 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 3975 Stewart Avenue (3.3/14/PEC)

Bill No. 330

By-law No. Z.-1-243250 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 80 & 82 Base Line Road West (3.4/14/PEC)

Bill No. 331

By-law No. Z.-1-243251 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1338-1388 Sunningdale Road East (3.5/14/PEC)

Bill No. 332

A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to exempt the Transit Village Place Types from Minimum Parking Standards (3.6c/14/PEC) (First and Second Reading Only)

Bill No. 333

A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to add a new Zone (TSA) and regulations and apply new zones to lands located within the Protected Major Transit Station Areas within the City of London (3.7b/14/PEC) (First and Second Reading Only)

Bill No. 334

By-law No. S.-6355-238 - A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Creekview Phase 3, Plan 33M-767 – Stage 2) (Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure)

Bill No. 335

By-law No. A.-8537-239 - A by-law to repeal C.P.-1584-80, as amended, being “A by-law to approve and authorize the use of the Office-to-Residential Conversion Loan Agreement template between The Corporation of the City of London (the “City”) and a Registered Owner (the “Borrower”) and to approve an Office-to Residential Conversion Loan Agreement template to encourage the conversion of vacant office space into residential units, and to delegate the authority to enter into such Agreements to the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development or their written designate” (Mayor)

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 29 minutes)

Okay, thank you, please be seated. And thank you colleagues. Welcome to the 15th meeting of City Council for this year. I’m gonna start with the land acknowledgement.

We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran peoples. We honor respect the history, languages, and culture, cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two rural Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee, Confederacy, Silver Covenant, and Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds, the Haudenosaunee Nanfand Treaty of 1701, and the Key Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs.

The City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings on request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact Council Agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. And with that, I’m delighted to let you know that Alexa Brown is a local musician and a recent graduate of Western’s Music Performance Program. She’s a versatile artist, allowing everything from jazz to classical to Latin and pop styles.

She loves sharing her passion for music wherever she goes. And today, she’s going to be performing O Canada for us. So if you could please rise and she’ll come up and do that. Thank you.

Next, we’ll do disclosures of pecuniary interest to look for disclosures from colleagues. Councillor McAllister. Yeah, I have a conflict. This is from the Corporate Services Committee 8.1 item six.

Okay, thank you for that. Any other disclosures? Okay, great, seeing none. We’re going to move on to recognitions.

I have a number of recognitions to do from the podium, but I have a couple of colleagues who have recognitions before that. I’m going to go to Councillor Palosa first. Thank you, Your Worship. Today, I stand and recognize Truth and Reconciliation Day, also be known as Orange Shirt Day, which began in 2013.

This is a day to recognize the deep injustices that were done to the Indigenous community throughout Canada and the removal of their children into residential schools. City Hall will be, for the first time, raising a survivors’ flag on September 27th, and City of London buildings will be lit orange September 30th, October 2nd. We encourage members of Council in the community to take this time to learn about the injustices that were done and continue to be done throughout our systems that were set on and off and how others are infected by them and the intergenerational trauma that it has caused. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, I rise today and a number of us are wearing the gold ribbons because September is recognized as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. And the ribbons were provided to us by ChildCan, an organization that since 1974 has been providing support and assistance to families and patients of childhood cancer. This organization first came to my attention through a constituent of mine, Stephanie Simmons.

And so I want to rise today to recognize her, in particular, for her courage and bravery in battling and surviving childhood cancer and for the energy that she has taken from that battle and put to use in helping other children who are now experiencing childhood cancer and helping them work through that very, very difficult time in their lives as well as their families. So to the survivors, we recognize very difficult battle that you have fought to those who have been lost in childhood cancer, which is the number one cause of childhood death in our country. We take a moment to pause and reflect and remember them. Colleagues would just rise for a moment of silence.

We’ll just observe a brief moment of silence for those who have lost their lives to childhood cancer. Thank you, colleagues. And Your Worship, I have one other recognition that I would like to take a moment today to offer. And I would like to take this opportunity to extend our thanks as a community to Jim Graham and John Winston and Holly Dottie and all of Board of Directors of Airshow London.

We had a fantastic show here at the London International Airport last weekend. It was fantastic, not just for the fact that the mayor and I got thrown out of planes at four kilometers above the city, to which I’m sure was a great delight to many constituents, but not so much our city manager. However, it was also a momentous tourism event for our city. The mayor and I were at Dr.

Ocker on Thursday for their 10th anniversary. And the delegation from the German headquarters of Dr. Ocker commented how they could not get a hotel booking in London. They had to stay in Woodstock because the hotels here were full of visitors to our community for Airshow London.

I also want to thank all the colleagues who were able to join us at the top of City Hall on Thursday evening for the welcome reception for our very special guests from the US Army, the Golden Knights Paratrooper Team, and for the British Red Arrows display team. The pin that I’m wearing today with the Canadian flag and the Union Jack was a gift from Commander Burchit who reportedly, or who reported to me, following landing back on the Earth at the airport and having a beverage with her afterwards that by one o’clock on Sunday, the Red Arrows had completely sold out of their merchandise at their Airshow tent and that had never happened to them at an Airshow before. They were delighted with the welcome that Londoners extended to them. They had a great visit here and they look forward to coming back given the work that Mr.

Graham and Mr. Winston and his Dottie and others have put into this Airshow. I am confident that for the fourth year running, the Airshow London event will be named the best Airshow in North America once again. And I want to thank all the volunteers who gave countless hours over the weekend to make it a great success.

Thank you. Thank you for those recognitions colleagues. I’m going to move to the podium for the next set of recognitions. Yes, good, all right, perfect.

So the next set of recognitions is annually when we recognize those city of London employees who have reached 25 years of service in the year 2024. We’ll go through each of the different divisions. I’ll announce the division. Now I’ll have the city manager come up and join me at the front.

The deputy city manager for the divisions would like to come up as well as we present the awards. We’ll do that. And if there’s friends and family in the audience, we need to pause for a photo for. We certainly do that as well.

But let me just say a couple words about the service of our employees. First off, I’ve had the privilege of serving on council now for almost 10 years. And I could tell you, in all the jobs I’ve had, the exceptionalism and professionalism of the people who work for the city of London, bar none tops any experience I’ve had. The way that they execute and support council’s direction and vision to serve the residents of London is top class.

And that is a function of not only their dedication to this organization, but to the friends and family who help them and care for them and allow them to do what they do here. So I know that there are many supporters in the audience today. We’re going to recognize some amazing city employees. But at the start, I wanted to say thank you for everything you do to support these amazing individuals in all the other aspects of their lives and allow them to serve the community in the way that they do, helping grow a city that is prosperous, vibrant, and welcoming for all.

So with that, we’re going to go through each of the various areas. And we’re going to start with enterprise supports. And then what’s going to happen is I’m going to say the area. Clerk’s going to read out the names.

Some names may just have one or two. And then we’ll pause after each area. Do a photo and I’ll hand out a recognition. So enterprise supports will be the first area.

Steve Spring. Saria’s environment and infrastructure. Yaroswafcich, Benton Perkpatrick. Next, we’ll do finance supports.

Barry Galloway. Legal services. Melissa Beck. Neighborhood and community-wide services.

Gary Mossberger. Mark Radborn. Social and health development. Jifa Day.

Tammy Graydon. Johanna Medina. Lydia Monas. And then Northup.

April Wellborn. Next, we have the London Police Service. Patrick. Thanks to everybody who, on their 25 years of service, we really appreciate coming out today.

Let’s give them one final round of applause for their service. And of course, you’re welcome to stay for the council meeting, if you like. But perhaps you have other things that you’d like to get done. We really appreciate all you do for our city.

And on behalf of all Londoners, again, thank you for the service that you provide. It’s exceptional and it’s phenomenal. And you do amazing work making our city a tremendous place to live. Thank you.

OK. On to the next agenda item. Review of Confidential Matters. We consider it in public there are none.

That brings us to the council closed session. There are four items on our agenda. I’ll look for a motion to move into closed session, moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. We will open that for voting in the system.

Professor Boats, yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. OK.

And we’ll be moving to Queenie River five colleagues. So I will see you over there. OK. Thank you.

Please be seated. OK. That concludes our council closed session components. We’re on to confirmation and signing of the minutes from previous meetings, excuse me, 14th meeting held on August 27th, 2024.

I look for a mover, a seconder for those minutes. Moved by Councillor Ferrer, seconded by Councillor McCallister. Any discussion on the minutes? OK.

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Professor Boats, yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

Next, we have communications and petitions of which there are a number of items. They all have various items scattered through the agenda. There’s a motion prepared to refer all of those pieces to all of those relevant items. Someone’s willing to move that as a block.

And always split it up if people want, but see interest in moving as a block. Councillor Cuddy moves. Seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Any discussion on that?

OK. We’ll open the vote on moving those referred items. Councillor Boats, yes. Closing the vote.

Motion carries 14 to 0. OK. We have no motions for which notice was given, which means we’re on to reports. And the first report that we’ll deal with is the Corporate Services Community Report.

I think Councillor McCallister will start off. And then we’ll maybe have whoever you want to go to for the item that I think you declared a conflict on. So we’ll start with you, Chair, though, to present the report. Thank you, through you.

Happy to do the 14th report for Corporate Services. Noting that item 6 will be pulled. So I’m happy to move 1 through 5 and then 7 and 8. OK.

I’ll just make sure— does anybody want anything else separate? 6 is going to be dealt with separate, but everything else can go on the floor. OK, that looks good. Chair?

OK. So I’ll move those items. OK. Those are moved.

Any discussion on those items? Seeing none, we’ll open those for voting. So votes, yes. Present vote.

Motion carries 14 to 0. Councillor Cady, you’ll be presenting then. Thank you, Your Worship. And I will present number 6, 2.3 downtown London Entertainment and Sports Center naming rights.

OK, let’s put it on the floor by Councillor Cady. Any discussion on that one? Go ahead, Councillor Ferrero. Thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to just give my remarks for Labat. I did get a call from the head of corporate and government relations, and he just wanted to let us know that Labat does still have a big stake for the pouring rights in the new— well, I guess still Budweiser guards at the moment, but they will still have a stake in that. They want to also make it known that they’ve been around for 176 years, and they’re going to be around for probably another 176 years or longer than that. And they’re just looking forward to the new partner in the naming rights.

OK, any other? Oh, go ahead, Councillor Cady. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, through you. Entertainment Center, which has a new name, is the gift that keeps giving.

Not only is it a jewel, and I refer to it as that at corporate services, but it just keeps producing for us. And I’m so grateful to former councils and former counselors and city leaders who had the foresight to build what a big deficit facility that we have. And I want to take this time to thank staff for putting together such a great deal, and you’ve really outdone yourself. Thank you very much, and we have a new— we have a facility with a new name, and it’s just going to continue producing for us for many generations.

Thank you, Your Worship. Right, anybody else? Seeing none, then that’s duly moved. We’ll open that for voting.

Trust the votes, yes. Those in the vote motion carries 13 to 0 with one recuse. All right, thank you both for their report. We’ll move on to the 11th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee.

I’ll go to Chair Ferra for presentation of that report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am pleased to put the 11th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee on the floor, noting I had no interests sent to me.

And I have two item requests for being pulled. Number four, that’s 2.2, and item five. And that’s 2 point— sorry, apologies— 2.3. So I’m looking forward to you.

I can put items 1 through 3 on the floor and 6 through 8 on the floor. OK, so the chair is willing to move 1 through 3 and 6 through 8, so 4 and 5 would be dealt with separately. Does anybody want anything else dealt with separately aside from 4 and 5? OK, seeing none, then you can make that motion.

I will put those items on the floor. OK, that’s duly moved. Any discussion? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I just wanted to make a few comments on number 3, 2.5, the rent geared to income, the RGI weightless placement ratio. Just wanted to say thank you to our housing stability services city staff and also to LMCH. It’s a challenging situation that we hear about in our social housing.

And so there’s thanks for addressing the problems that have been clearly stated and are still ongoing. It’s a challenging situation. And I am still really concerned about what are we and can we do for those who find themselves in an urgent situation and how can we best as a municipality help navigate a difficult time for them. And so I’ll be watching this closely.

I am— it’s difficult for all of us, I think, to get to meet people who are in such desperate situations and what is our responsibility and what is within our powers to do. So I understand this is a small change that it’s going to be ongoing changes. And I would just ask that we keep communicating with Council and have asked us for whatever is needed to help address the needs out there. Thank you.

All right, any other speakers? OK, sing none. So this is 1 through 3 and 6 through 8. We’ll open that for voting.

Council votes yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Go ahead, Chair.

Thank you, Mayor. I actually pulled item 4, 2.2 for the rent eviction. So I’m going to hand over the chair to the vice chair Councillor Plaza. OK, go ahead, Councillor Plaza.

Thank you, Your Worship. I am putting item 2.2 be in the rent evictions and members of the business licensing by a law to introduce the rental unit repair license on the floor, recognizing we also received seven delegates on this item during a PPM committee. OK, great. Look for speakers, Councillor Ferra.

Thank you again. So I’m bringing— I did circulate and a motion. It’s the same motion that I brought to committee. So I’m bringing the motion again as stated in the letter.

It’s based on creating a deterrence framework that I believe will prove to be extra effective. It looks to be in the form that would allow us to operate quite lean. And it looks within the ability under the municipality or the municipal act. And it’s something that would stand up to a challenging court.

But most of all, I feel it’s going to be quite effective, especially with the changes that I’m proposing to you. So much so that landlords who misuse or take advantage of— Plan of order. Yes. Just looking to see if there’s a seconder before you would start.

Yes, just give me a second. Councillor Ferra, I’m just checking on something too. OK, so Councillor Ferra, so the motion that you circulated was on the added. So that’s good.

You don’t have to read it out. It’s on the screen. Colleagues have had a chance to read it. You’ve expressed that you want to move it.

I’m going to look for a seconder, and then I’ll let you proceed with your discussion on it. So Councillor Ferra is moving. It’s on the screen. You can see it in eScribe.

It’s as was circulated on the added agenda as well. Look for anybody who’s willing to second that. Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second. So there’s a mover and a seconder for those pieces.

So I’ll go back to Councillor Ferra. If you want to have your speaking time now, you could provide your rationale for your motion. Thank you, Mayor. So like as I said at committee, it’s going to constrict the N-13 loophole with what we can actually do as a municipality.

For bad faith landlords, we’re going to start using— have been using the N-13 as a means to evict tenants, long-term tenants who are paying affordable rent. They’re not going to be able to use that means anymore. And I did say at committee, we’re going to have to start focusing on the other loopholes that exist. I was trying to make that case at committee.

So it’s the same case that I’m trying to make now. And I did say things along the lines that we’re trying to— I’m trying to add extra spikes in the loophole around the N-13, within the N-13, and big enough spikes that any bad faith landlord who is considering this option can see that and would be deterred by that. So specifically, I’m big on the failure to apply for a license portion. And that would be the initial fee of $2,000 a month for the first month, and then $2,000 a month a month thereafter, and then up to three months.

I believe that’s a more than sufficient time for all the permits to be pulled and all the work that has to be done to get that N-13. And then after the three months is when we would double the fee on that. So that would be the first level of deterrent. And most likely, that would be enough.

That would weed out all of the bad faith N-13s that we’ll start seeing, that we have seen. Since it applies per unit. And with the schedule, the reason I have that schedule is because you have the income coming in per month on the rent that any bad faith landlord would be seeking to bring in money when they evict their tenants. So I feel like it would be a good idea to also apply that per month.

So you can wipe out those extra profits that anyone would seek or are seeking to gain. And then it would, like I said, it would be doubling to 4,000 a month after that. I think those escalating levels of monetary penalties would be very effective. And I’m calling it progressive deterrents.

I feel like that would be a good way to work. And it works within what we can do again. So that’s what I’m putting on the floor, and I’m hoping for your support. Oh, sorry, there’s a second amendment.

I did add a second amendment to the first initial one that I added to committee. And that would be basically us to report back after 12 months of the rental unit repair license operation. And just to look at the effectiveness on how that is able to achieve the rent evictions prevention. So there’s two motions there.

Well, the good news is it’s all one motion now. And colleagues can read that in the e-scribe system. It’s moved and seconded. I’ll continue with the speaker’s list on the proposed amendment.

Go ahead, Deputy Ray Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. And apologies, it’s not my intent to cross debate with another member of council. But I want to ensure that Councilor Ferreira’s interpretation and that the staff’s interpretation is that the report back in 12 months is after we have 12 months or one year of data.

And so the report back may actually be 13 or 14 months, depending on how long it takes staff to put the numbers together and prepare the report for us. So I think if we can just get some clarification, your worship through staff first, that would satisfy my question there. Yes, I’ll go to Mr. Mathers.

Three year worship. So my interpretation of this would be exactly as Deputy Mayor suggested. It would be after 12 months of implementing the bylaw, which would likely be March of next year. So it would be March of 2026.

Okay, go ahead. Thank you for that. So happy to second this. I think that there are, to Councilor Ferreira’s point, an opportunity here to just strengthen this a little bit by putting a little bit more financial disincentive on bad faith run evictions here.

Particularly, I’m supportive of raising the penalty for the advertising the unit for rent before all of the steps have been taken. I think that’s the most egregious activity that a landlord can undertake in bad faith to start advertising a unit that’s not actually available, that the N13 has not been approved, that the licenses and permits have not been approved. And so I’m willing just to be supportive of this. And I also think it’s really important.

And I know that the Councilor and I will have spoken about this, that these penalties might also be stackable so that there could be penalties under multiple categories in this chart levied at the same time, which I think really starts to add up to some pretty significant financial disincentives. So I thank the Councilor for his work on this. I know that he wasn’t able to move a forward act committee, but I think he’s actually made some good points and I’m happy to support him on this. Okay, other speakers to this.

I had Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, your worship and through you. And as a said, Deputy Mayor said, he’s supporting it and I will support it also. And I want to thank my colleague, Councilor Ferra, for bringing this forward.

Councilor Ferra has spent a lot of time on this file with me and it all goes back to last May of 23 when he and I were together at Webster Street. Many of our visitors in the gallery will remember that. And this is the genesis of where it all began. But with reference, your worship to the increases that Councilor Ferra has suggested, I think they’re fine and they’re not punitive.

And really they only apply to the rogue landlords. And we don’t have many of those, there’s just a few. And our good landlords won’t be affected by this. And I think this is a very good policy and I appreciate the Councilor Ferra bring it forward and I will be fully supportive.

Thank you. Councilor Trossal. And I speak to just the amendment and reserve my ability to speak to the entire matter later, unless they do it all now. Yes, no, we’re on the amendment, so speak to the amendment, please.

Well, I’m gonna vote yes on the amendment. I don’t see why not, but I’m very skeptical. I’m very skeptical because this amendment, while it puts in, you know, better penalties, they’re only gonna be as good as the enforcement. And I’m skeptical and I have to be.

So I guess I want to ask staff to Mr. Matters, what are we going to do to proactively find these bad landlords that everybody’s talking about? So that’s my first question to the Chair. Mr.

Mayors. Through the Chair. So we do have the benefits that in our area, we have also the building division. So we’ll be able to track anything that’s coming in through that area.

If we feel like that might be a trigger for our licensing process is very similar to like a business license. If we see that there’s work that’s being undertaken for a business, we can also ensure that that’s covered off of the other licensing component. And as well, similar to many other bylaws, if there’s any concerns or issues that people have, that they do have our service London portal, the ability to flag that for us, if that’s something that they’ve seen that’s happening in the community and then we can investigate. Councillor Trostan.

Yes, through the Chair. I guess the building permit route works if they filed for a building permit, but I don’t think that that would be very effective if they just try to do the rental eviction without the building permit. After all, they’re not complying with the bylaw. So I can’t imagine they’re gonna run down to City Hall and say, well, we’re getting the building permit to do something that we, I don’t know.

I’m still very skeptical about this. I guess my other question is, I know service London is great. I’m always trying to promote service London. But could we do something else to be more proactive in terms of letting the tenant community know that this is something that they might wanna report along with some assurance that we’re gonna take this seriously?

‘Cause quite frankly, people don’t have a good feeling about the track record of the City getting back to them on a lot of these types of complaints. And I say that with all due respect and through the Chair. And I’m hoping I can get a response to that, that deals with something specific. What’s your specific question, Councillor Trostan?

My specific question is, are we gonna do anything else by way of education or outreach to tenants to let them know that there is someone in City Hall that wants to hear about this? And we’ll ask on it. Thank you, Mr. Mathers.

Three-year worship. So once this is brought forward and moving into the period when we’re actually gonna be able to be bringing this online, which would be March of next year, like any of our initiatives similar to developing new bylaws and enforcement, we wanna have that education piece. So we’ll have a communications plan and work with our communications group to be able to get the word out through our various methods, whether it’s our web or social media or our display boards and we’ll be able to get the community knowing. And also through any of our networks that we have that deal with landlords, we can also provide it through that network.

Councillor Trostan, go ahead. Yeah, through the Chair, in terms of the education pieces, there’s nothing in this amendment that speaks to that. Would should that be added to the Chair? Well, Councillor Trostan, Mr.

Mathers just said that that’s the approach that they take. So I think you can trust if they’re doing an education piece that that’s what they’re gonna do. You could always add an amendment if you like, but I think we all clearly heard Mr. Mathers talk about the approach they take when there’s new bylaws.

Well, then maybe then through the Chair, you could say what this education piece is gonna add to the education they’re already doing through the Chair. Mr. Mathers, I don’t know if you can answer that yet or maybe at a future committee, but if you could try to address the Councillor’s question, I’d appreciate it. Through the Chair, so how we usually share this information is that we would take a multifaceted approach.

We work with our communications team. They’re the experts in trying to communicate to the public and making sure we get that awareness out. Often we’re creating materials, so we have a web page to be able to direct people to. As well, we’d be able to provide that information to any of the Councillors for their ward meetings to be able to share it as well so that people know where to contact and then through any kind of social media presence we have.

And then this will definitely start to escalate as we get towards that specific date where we’re when the by-level come into effect and that will be starting this new program. So it definitely will be, you’ll see much more from us and we’ll ensure that Council’s aware of that and so that you can share it through your networks, but we can also share it through our corporate network. Councillor Trossa. Thank you.

And then I’m gonna wrap this up. Finally, I assume that it will be groups like Lifespin and Acorn are gonna be part of the dissemination of this education. But I think it might not be a bad idea. I don’t think an amendment is needed for the CAHPS Committee to take a look at this in a few months to see where the education piece is going.

So I do intend to bring this back to the CAHPS Committee for an informational update. And with that, I’ll say I’m skeptical, I’m reluctant, but I am gonna be supporting the amendment. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Councillor Palosa. Thank you. As a member of committee, I did not support this committee as there was actually no second direct committee. We received lots of information from staff.

Part of that was from Mr. Catolic. And he took us through the process of amps and legislation that pertains to it. And he was speaking to how they’re set up to be encouraging compliance that people just do the right thing to start with.

I know some of us questioned some people’s ability to do that versus punitive fines. So looking through you to staff to see if any staff could share any information today about how that’s set up for looking for compliance versus punitive. That was just one of my concerns why I didn’t support this at committee was staff made a recommendation. And are we getting to the punitive territory versus just looking for compliance and educational peace, realizing Kauai’s race rates in the future and realizing Mr.

Catolic did speak to the opportunity for progressive amps later. Mr. Bathers. Through your worship.

So at committee, we absolutely shared some of the process and some of the legislation, an admissible act, the administrative, monetary penalties, the goal is to not be punitive but to encourage enforcement. So we brought forward a series of recommended amounts and we feel that do meet that test. However, I’ll just note that there are very few comparators right now. So we only have Hamilton to compare against.

So that’s why it is difficult to come up with that value. But our intention was to review that after one year if to see how those, that’s encouragement we’re working. But as I mentioned, it is difficult to say what is punitive in this case, but we thought what we brought forward was absolutely in the line of encouraging enforcement. Good, okay.

Any other speakers? Go ahead, Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the mayor. Appreciate Councilor for bringing this forward.

I do think this is an important addition. I think increasing those penalties will be an important deterrent. In terms of Part D, I did just have a question to staff. In terms of the report back after one year, will this include data that’s not necessarily being collected by the city, but some of our, say for instance, like legal organizations?

I know there has at times been discrepancies in terms of N13s that are reported to us versus what we’re seeing in the community. Will there be included in that report a wider discussion in terms of, say, the tenancy advocacy groups in London to ensure that, you know, what they’re hearing in terms of issuance of N13s complies with what we’re seeing on our N, Mr. Mathers. Three or worship.

So the bulk of the report would be the data that we’ve collected. However, we do have a series of different groups that we work with that we can include within that some of our consultation about how that by-laws is working and functioning. So we’d be happy to include within that, some of that dialogue on what we’re hearing from folks. So we can’t, of course, require people to provide us information, but if we can do that as part of our process of our annual review of this program, then I think that would be beneficial.

We can bring that to council committee. Councilor McAllister. Thank you, Mr. Mathers and through the mayor.

Appreciate that. I do think it’s important as we come up to that year in review that we ensure that we get that feedback from the community to make sure that this is actually doing what we originally intended for it to do. Thank you. Other speakers on the amendment?

Seeing none, the amendments moved and seconded. You can see it before you. I’ll open that for voting. Trust votes, yes.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, so now I need a mover and a seconder for the as amended motion. Councilor Ferri still wanna move as amended. No.

Sorry, I’ll do it. I was just so excited to be. Sure. I’ll move it as amended.

You move the as amended, I need a seconder for that. Councilor Ferri, you could do that. Okay, all right. So as amended now, moved and seconded, going back to debate on now on the as amended motion and given it’s as amended, I’m just gonna start a new speaker’s list.

So who’d like to speak to the as amended motion? I don’t see anyone. So that means we can vote. Oh, Councilor Trossa, sorry, go ahead.

I’ll make this very brief and I’ll say this to the chair. And again, I’m saying this and I’ll do respect. I know that many members of staff really work very hard on this. And I know that all the members of the committee took this very seriously and we spent a lot of time deliberating on this.

I have to say how disappointed I am that we are passing this measure. And I am gonna support this because I think this measure as weak as it is is better than nothing. And I’m taking staff in good faith that we are going to try to step up our enforcement measures. However, I have to say this.

This by law is too weak. We had a better model that we could have implemented. Well, I’m not going to take the council’s time to put another amendment on the floor. It didn’t pass.

I mean, I can read the room. But I have to say and I’ll leave it at this through the chair how very disappointed I am that the city of London after all we’ve been through and after the compelling testimony that we’ve heard from person after person at public participation meetings that we couldn’t do better than this in terms of offering accommodation. And I do think that after we do the review and after we hear from some of our partner groups we are going to have to revisit this. It’s as much as I want this to work.

As much as I want this to work, I am still very skeptical and I’m still the close. I think that this could have been a much better by law simply using some of the language from Hamilton. But then again, I am going to vote for this but I want everybody to understand that I’m going to be watching this very carefully and I will bring this back. Thank you very much.

Okay, other speakers? This is the as amended motion. Okay, go ahead, Councillor ramen. Thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this item. I have to say I feel very similar to Councillor Trosto. I do think we had the opportunity, we had the opportunity through committee to strengthen this by-law to be able to provide additional protections. And for that reason, I would like to refer it back and I would like to look for a seconder.

Do you want to refer back the whole report and the three by-laws? Yes. Okay, so that’s a motion to refer back to community and protective services committee with what intention, ‘cause we refer back with the intention to do something. Sure, yep, with the intention.

So for the next cycle and with the intention to add to the by-law, the appendix E from Hamilton’s by-law, which was referred in our communication as well as to further explore rental top-ups. So there is some language prepared for that that has those details in it. I’m going to look for a seconder and Councillor Hopkins is willing to second and I’ll go back to Councillor ramen to provide some rationale that people like now. Thank you.

So I have to say I’m greatly appreciative of my colleagues and the committee for the work they’ve done thus far, but I believe the intention was to take this across the finish line to make sure that we have a by-law that has a strength to protect renters in our community. And for that reason, I think we have to go ahead with moving a stronger by-law and we have the time to do so. So I’ve heard that the concerns are that if we don’t meet our imposed timeline, that we won’t be able to get this funded through the multi-year budget in terms of the staffing needed to be able to move forward with this by-law. And I have to say, and I’m, if it’s okay, if I’m permitted to ask a question of staff on this, but my understanding is through the strong mayor’s powers that at any time the mayor can bring to council, the opportunity to create additional spending opportunity should they be needed.

And in this case, if we were to move forward with the by-law with adding in the top up at a later time, we wouldn’t miss, and I think even if we get it in this committee’s next committee cycle, we wouldn’t miss the mayoral budget, but if we did, we still have the opportunity to add it. As we’ve added other things in the past, either through strong mayors or through just the work of council and committee. I’m gonna go to, for some of the questions around, budget changes in a mid-cycle. Ms.

Barbong, I’m gonna come to you, so I know you’re conferring. I’m coming to you, so I just wanna head south. Any sort of thoughts for the councilor on changes to the budget mid-cycle after the budget’s been proved or debated, whether our traditional process has been and Ms. Paula, I don’t know if you wanna add anything that you’re aware of in the legislation, and maybe you don’t have to prepare today about the ability to bring forward an additional budget or change out of cycle under the legislation, which I’m not aware of ‘cause the timeframes are pretty prescriptive, but I think in the past, we’ve kinda one-time things until we’ve got to a budget cycle, so I’m gonna go to both staff members, and if you don’t have something for today, certainly we can follow up on that.

So Ms. Barbong. Thank you, through the chair. So to speak in generally with respect to a change mid-year, if it requires additional levy, that would be something based on the municipal act you’d have to send out this additional building to be able to add that if that would be the case.

I don’t believe it’s something we have ever done before at the city of London, because typically, we would, in many cases, have put forward a temporary source of financing, then pending council decision through the upcoming budget. Certainly since the start of the multi-year budget, it is not something that with the annual update process was something that allows the opportunity for changes to be done mid-cycle. So certainly my recommendation to mitigate the additional costs of doing that, and failing a budget process outside of the budget process, the best way would be to have an amendment or a temporary source of financing, and then have that go through the next annual update, which would be forthcoming, and certainly there is a window by the time we have to get our tax billings out, so after that period of time, if there was additional levy, it would have to be a separate mailing, a separate process to add on top of what was already there. So, and Ms.

Pollack may have something else to add from the legalities of it. Ms. Pollack. Thank you, and through you, the strong mirror provisions of the municipal act don’t specifically deal with this issue.

It may be something we could look into further, but on the face of it, it doesn’t speak to this issue. Councillor Ramen. Thank you. Just aligning with our next council cycle.

So if we push this to the next CAHPS meeting, would that give us time? I know you probably would have presented the strong mayor budget, but would this give us time to fit within the amendment window to still pass this before November 30th? We were to add it in the rental top up. So, does the next community cycle align with the potential amendment cycle for the table budget?

Thank you, through your worship. So I’m just looking at the calendar in terms of what the timelines are. So essentially, the budget will be tabled or released on at the end of October. So the 30 days will start the clock ticking as soon as the mayor’s budget is released.

So as long as the final council, and I’m just checking the dates here, so CAHPS is October 1st and then would go to the council, so it would fall just before the release of the budget. So from that perspective, there would be the information and the direction to move an amendment during the course of the budget deliberations through the budget committee in the month of November. So it would be one of those things that would be on the floor as part of the council’s discussion through the budget. Certainly from an amendment perspective, if there’s a business case of their council at any time can move an amendment through that process.

So it will fit, it will not have any additional information as part of a business case that has been included, but certainly that amendment will fit within the timeline. Go ahead, Councilor Rhonda. Thank you. So it’s my belief from what I’ve heard today that we have time on our side to be able to work through the rental top up and the opportunity to look at what was done in Hamilton’s most recent updated by-law in Appendix E before we make a final decision today.

So with time on our side, with the opportunity for further discussion, the opportunity to take this back into a committee cycle and to be able to have more discussion. I think it’s incumbent on us, even without further staff report, because I think we have all the information in front of us that we need to be able to have a fruitful discussion. If this is something we really wanna do to strengthen this by-law, to make it have the teeth it needs to present people from being put on the streets, we have the opportunity to do this today. And all we need to do is a simple referral.

Other speakers to the referral, Councillor Hopkins and then Councillor Frank. Yeah, you worship. I second this motion just to start that conversation. And what I’ve heard here loud and clear is that it does align with our budget.

We do have time for the next cycle. I wanna start off with thanking Councillor Ferreira and Councillor Cuddy and Deputy Mayor Lewis and all the work that they have done trying to strengthen this by-law. But sitting here, I am not convinced that it is strong enough. And can we do it better?

There’s an opportunity to do it better. Why wouldn’t we try? We’ve got the time, we can align with the budget. I think we need to do that.

And I would encourage us as a council to do the best that we can going forward. So I’ll definitely be supporting the referral. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’ll also be supporting their referral.

As it stands right now, I think that we need the top up and the alternative accommodation in this by-law to be actually useful. I’ll give an example from my ward. And if we just move forward with the by-laws that currently stands with administering the licensing, it actually won’t help a bunch of residents who are about to be run evicted in my ward. So even if we move forward with this, the landlord can get these licenses.

He’s planning on taking a 15 unit, five triplexes and turning them into 30 units. He would be able to secure these licenses because he will have to move walls and put in stairs and stuff. And all of these pieces or all these people will essentially be run evicted. And at the same time, he could actually just be shuffling people around his units as he renovates them, but he doesn’t want to because it’ll be faster and easier for him to have everybody out to do it all once.

And then if people are able to hang on for 18 months to 24 months to however long it takes for him to finish all the renovations, which I don’t think that anyone will really be able to find somewhere for a year to two years at a comparable rent and be able to afford it and then move back into these units, which will also be half the size that they were before. It just won’t help to have this licensing alone by itself because these people still end up being homeless or couch surfing when really what they need is either to be shuffled around those units as they’re being renovated, so alternative accommodation. Or if right now they’re paying $900 a month and then what they’re able to find is something like $1600 a month, they need a top up. And in my opinion, it actually incentivizes the landlord to complete the renovations faster because they don’t want to be paying for somebody to be living somewhere else for a year if they could finish the renovations in six months, wonderful, then they’d be able to get to the person back in the unit and they wouldn’t have to pay those top up.

So I think, again, for this by-law to be particularly useful and to actually make sure we have housing that is at a price point that people can afford, I think that we actually have to add the top up and the alternative accommodation. So I’ll be supporting this referral because we have the time as well as we can add this amendment into this multi-year budget process. So I appreciate the Councillor for bringing this referral forward. Thanks, and I’ll just ask people in the gallery, I don’t know where it is, but the Councillor has texted me, said they can’t hear their colleagues, they can hear, it kind of echoes, so you can actually hear a projection.

So if you guys could be quiet, then the Councillors can hear each other, make their debate, and I’ll go to definitely where I lose text. Thank you, Your Worship. So I will not be supporting the referral, and I’m gonna provide a couple of comments here on the, specifically around the referral. We’ve heard that the by-law isn’t strong enough, that it’s weak, but we’ve already heard Mr.

Mathers say, Hamilton’s really the only comparator so far in the provincial jurisdiction of Ontario. And with all due respect, we can’t compare ourselves to other provincial jurisdictions, Planning Acts and Residential Tenancies Acts and all of those things are different province to province. So Hamilton is our only comparator. We don’t have a by-law like this in another city that actually has any data to say that it’s weak.

We haven’t tried it. And to Councillor Ferra’s point about a report back in 12 months when we have that data, there may be some need to tweak this by-law to make some adjustments to make some changes. But what we do know about the Hamilton by-law already is that it is flawed to the point where the City of Hamilton has not only failed to fully implement it, but is actually scrambling to implement exemptions around the top-up and alternate accommodation pieces. Mr.

Catolic raised that at committee for those who attended or watched the live stream. Mr. Catolic also at committee advised, and through you chair, probably to Ms. Pollett, but if another member of staff needs to answer that, certainly, but Mr.

Catolic advised at the committee or caution that committee that should we add in the appendix E that it would be his advice to us that another round of public participation meetings would have to be held. So we’re not talking about one cycle now. We’re talking about multiple cycles because the by-law, as advertised on the public notice, did not actually include appendix E. So we’ve had advocates come to speak to what was advertised about why they think it should be stronger, but an equal opportunity has not been provided to the property management association and landlord, folks, to comment if E was actually in the by-law, to their understanding it wasn’t.

So we now haven’t provided them an opportunity to comment either. So through you chair, if staff can respond to whether or not in their legal opinion, another PPM would be advisable to uphold the by-law, should it be challenged and not having provided an additional PPM? I’d be looking for staff’s comment on that. Okay, I’ll go to Ms.

Pollett. Thank you and through your worship. Yes, the recommended approach would be to hold another PPM to allow for a fulsome public consultation. That’s the typical way we do things.

Thank you, appreciate that answer, because I think it’s important to recognize the process here. Once there’s a PPM, then additional direction to staff would be provided for finalizing a by-law to bring back for us in another committee cycle. So at minimum, we’re talking two more committee cycles. And we’ve already heard Mr.

Mathers earlier in this meeting reference that even if passed today, this by-law would not be implemented fully until March of 2025. So every delay that we wanna make today is going to mean more months in 2025 before protections are already in place. If we defeat this referral, which I’m encouraging you to do, and pass the by-law as is, in 12 months, we will have some data back. We will be able to evaluate that.

And we will be able to look at whether or not we need to make changes. But until then, we are basing our opinion on whether or not this by-law is strong enough on speculation and opinion, which is fine. We can have our opinions, but the results in Hamilton have not shown that their by-law is actually a good model to use because they are already scrambling to implement a new exemption regime exactly around the piece that the council is suggesting we need time to add in the appendix E portion around rental top-ups and alternative accommodations. So I will not be supporting the by-law.

I am willing to consider changes after we’ve got a year’s worth of data, but I’m not willing to delay further and should the referral pass and changes be made, I probably won’t be in a position to support a by-law with those pieces in based on the experience in Hamilton so far. That’s a fair error. Thank you, Mayor. The deputy mayor pointed out the first point I was gonna make with respect to the public participation meeting.

I don’t like we are already really tight. Like, yes, there is time on the timelines, but I did hear that city treasurer said that we wouldn’t have any description for the business case itself. If that’s what she said, that’s correct, I believe. No, it’s not a question.

But basically, just going to the public participation meeting itself, we would have to have another PPM. We would have to have people come up and speak to the new by-law because this would be a very significant material change that we have to the by-laws we see right now. So I’m not gonna go too far into that point, but I will say, just kind of speaking to, I guess, some doubts from some counselors with how the by-law is written up right now and the licensing regime is written up right now. All of us, I know, have different opinions on how to bring this together and it was very difficult to kind of find something that works for everybody and that actually works.

I have faith in the licensing program that we have right now, especially with the amendments that we’ve seen. I have faith because the scope that we are trying to combat here is to go after bad faith landlords who are trying to misuse the N13 so they can have the bottom line of removing a long-term tenant that’s paying affordable rent so they can bring in another tenant so they can have increases per month on the unit that they have. We are trying to stop that alone. So when we, especially, I guess, with the fees that we have just amended, that will take away that ability.

That goes right to the bottom line of the whole reason that’s driving these bad faith landlords in the first place. They’re being driven by a pursuit of higher profits. With the amendments that we have, with the licensing regime that we have, those higher profits are not gonna be met. As a matter of fact, they’re probably gonna lose money and that is the deterrence that I’m trying to bring through.

That is the deterrence that we have voted on here at 14 to none. So I do have faith in this program but we can predict everything. We can only plan so far and the real world will tell us different things. That’s why we have also approved that 12, after 12 months of the program being in operation to have that review come back to see where we’re at, to just have a little check to see how it’s working.

At that point, we will have the data. We will see how this is working and we can bring other ideas. But right now I have very good faith on how this program is working. So I would just say, I appreciate the 14 to none vote to approve that and I have very good faith that you are gonna see no N13s that are being misused.

The N13 process will now just because we have that extra protection, that extra cover from the city perspective, N13s will be issued out the way they were supposed to, Councilor McAllister. Thank you through the mayor. Appreciate Councilor Ramin, Raines Ford, Councilor Hopkins’ seconding. This is what Councilor Troso and I were fighting at committee four, so I’m happy to see it come back.

And again, I’m gonna speak to a lot of the points I’ve already made, but I think they’re worth reiterating again. To me, the missing component of this bylaw is keeping people housed. And fundamentally, I think that’s something we need in there to strengthen it. I hear time and time again, and Councilor Frank hit it right on the head in terms of the shuffling that goes on and if people are displaced, people can’t wait.

We need to have these extra protections in place, so people are either able to find alternative accommodations or have those rental top-ups to stay housed. Because what I’m personally seeing is the affordability crisis on the ground. And what’s happening is when people are renovated, they cannot find other accommodation. And this is why I think we need to strengthen this now, because we want to fundamentally keep people housed.

But as I said, a committee, we spend a lot of time talking about homelessness. This is something that we can do to keep people housed. And I think it’s vitally important that we strengthen it. Yes, it’ll take a bit more time, but I think it’s worth the wait, and we should spend the time and do this right from the outset.

Councilor Cady. Thank you, Worship and through you. There’s an old saying that many of you may have heard, perfection is the enemy of done. You know, not everything’s perfect.

And we can keep tinkering and towing with things until we think we may have made it perfect. But clearly, the Hamilton By-law is not perfect. They can’t even enforce parts of it. Mr.

Kertolik spoke to Deputy Mayor Lewis when I wrote this multiple times about better ways to improve it. And we have made those improvements. If we keep playing with this, it will never get implemented. We will go through cycles.

Residents need this now, and we need to implement it now. I don’t understand why we have it. I don’t understand why colleagues don’t understand that Mr. Kertolik and his team can come back to us later.

With improvements, if he thinks or this council thinks we need them, this is something that can be changed as it goes. So we need to implement this now. We need to pass it today and move on. Because if we don’t, if we keep trying to make a perfect model, it may never come.

I’ll be voting against this, thank you. Okay, any others on the referral? Councilor Preble, go ahead. Thank you, Worship.

I will not be supporting this referraler either. And there are a few reasons. The first one is Hamilton. We are, I love to benchmark ourselves and do the comparative analysis with other municipalities that have something and it works.

I love to do that. Their by-law, their new regulation, it hasn’t even started yet. It’s starting January 25. Also, there is also, as was stated by Deputy Mayor, is the exemption.

And I really wanna see how City of Hamilton is gonna deal with this. Because the reason for this, if there are bad actors, and right away when you see, when they see an exemption, that I don’t believe that they would not try to take advantage of it. The third reason why I’m not gonna support it is, as was said already, I’ll repeat it though. This might not be perfect, but there is already a certain degree of protection for the ones who came to the gallery today and for all your friends and family.

And I think that that’s the priority. Let’s get it done. Look, let’s look at Hamilton. If there are some good things to learn from, they’ll be more than happy to.

But let’s move on and make sure that you, your friends, your family have some protection as of tomorrow. Thank you. Okay, any other speakers to the referral? Okay, so the referrals on the floor.

Oh yeah, Councillor Trostai, you haven’t spoken to the referral yet, so go ahead. I’ll keep this very brief because I spoke to this a little bit before, but I’ll be certainly supporting the referral. And I’m grateful to the Councillors for bringing it forward. This is not a question of perfect being, we’re nowhere near that.

This by-law is really too weak and it’s fundamentally flawed. I think the question of exemptions is a false flag because if there’s an alternative to the top up, which comes out of the landlord’s pocket, that takes care of that. I think what’s going on here is that there’s really sort of a double standard emerging about what we need a new public participation need. Let me just remind people that in the council packet and in the committee packet for the public participation meeting was information that I put in there about the Hamilton by-law.

So to suggest that nobody’s ever heard about the Hamilton top-ups or the other Hamilton measures is really false. This was dealt with at the last public participation meeting and it was dealt with very clearly. But let me ask through the chair a technical question. Is there a statutory requirement or can you point to the authority for a statutory requirement or another public participation meeting on this?

And I’ll direct that through the chair to whoever wants to answer it. A statutory requirement. Okay, thanks. I’ll go to Ms.

Ballot. Thank you and through your worship. There is no statutory requirement, but it is a procedural fairness matter. Okay, Councilor, go ahead.

Okay, well, I’ll get back to that when we get to the planning committee. But for now, I’m just gonna say, I think given the fact that many of the speakers at the public participation meeting spoke to this exact point. And the people who are in opposition to this by law had the opportunity to do so. Wasn’t a surprise.

This is not something that just came up a few days before the meeting. So I really worried that we’re developing, if we defeated on the grounds of another public participation meeting is necessary, I think that’s very weak. And if we defeated on the grounds that we don’t have time to implement it in the budget cycle, as we’ve heard, that’s very weak. And if we defeated on the grounds that, well, we’ll have to issue all these exemptions, that’s also very weak, ‘cause we could have the top up.

So I think for all the reasons that I’ve just stated, plus what other Councillors have said, it would really be good policy, and it would not violate any principle of fairness to proceed with this referral. And I’ll be voting yes, so we referral. Thank you. Okay, any other speakers to the referral?

Okay, seeing none. So this is on the referral, which you see before you, moved by Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, we’ll open that for voting. Trust votes yes. Those in the vote, motion fails, five to nine.

Okay, we’re back to the main as amended motion, which there’s been two speakers, Councillor Trostau and Councillor Ramen. Any other speakers on the main as amended motion? Go ahead, Councillor McAlister. Thank you, through the mayor, a bit of deja vu in terms of the conversation we’ve had here, very similar to what having a committee.

But as I said before, I think it really warrants that further discussion. I’m gonna support what we have, as that’s being said a lot today, it’s not perfect, but I will absolutely look to our 12 month review to ensure that this is doing what we wanted to do. So again, thank you for all the work that’s gone into this. I know it’s been a bit of a struggle to get here, but I do think having something on the books will provide some protection, which is absolutely necessary right now.

Thank you. Other speakers to the as amended motion. Go ahead, Councillor Frayer. Yeah, thank you.

So I guess I’ll just give some thoughts. I’m not gonna try to speak to all the points that were made, but you know, like this is a very, very, very tough decision. And I know that some people are not happy with the motion or the direction that we’re going, but I do have faith that this is gonna work. I’ve been really trying to explain, you know, just bringing in the scope and bringing in really what we’re trying to do to combat those bad faith landlords who are really just trying to increase their profit with the use of just evicting tenants.

I have heard that we’re trying to keep people in housing. That’s the whole point of the motion that I brought with the deterrence. That doesn’t even get to the point where the tenant would be removed in that situation, in that bad faith situation, I have to find other accommodations. This is so that bad faith landlord who’s looking to use that as a method to kick someone out won’t even use that.

Now I did point out that we are now, as we constrict this loophole, the other ones are still wide open and you’re gonna start seeing a flood of those being used. I said at committee, one of the few things brought me to council, but the real thing that kind of lit the fire behind me was an N13 that was served in bad faith to a family who lived right beside me. Very good friends of mine. That N12 was served to that family.

And that N12 cited that the son of the owner of that building was gonna move in. He didn’t move it. He didn’t move in for a year and a half. After I became counselor, he has moved in, which is interesting.

But I’m just saying this, we need to start focusing in that area. We need to focus on the other areas where these other loopholes are still wide open. I will be bringing that. I will be working with you on that in the future.

Speaking to the retroactivity, this, no matter what we do with this by-law, we are not gonna be able to help anybody on Webster because we can apply it retroactively. We’re not gonna be able to help anyone on Nelson ‘cause we’re not gonna be able to apply it retroactively. I want to be able to give the tool, this extra protection to the tenants of the future who come to me who say, I’ve just been served an N13. And I know that this is completely bogus.

We need to be able to give him that. That’s why I didn’t vote for that referral. And just speaking to the fact that I have faith, going back to the scope, we are trying to stop the bottom line. And the bottom line that bad faith landlords are using is to just increase their profits.

This schedule that we’ve just approved will wipe all those extra profits out. They’re not gonna use the N13 anymore. They’re gonna use something else. So we need to start focusing on the next item because this is gonna be closed off.

I have very good faith. And because, like I said, we don’t know everything, we have that review coming after 12 months, starting from the point that it gets implemented to 12 months after that. At that point, we’ll get some good data and we’ll see where it goes. We’ll clean some things up.

I have pretty good faith that we’re gonna see that the N13s that have came through admin are gonna be N13s that were not bad faith. We can’t stop them all because there is a reason that the N13 was created in the first place. We are just trying to stop that N13 being used in a way that it wasn’t meant to be. Being used in a way for some individual, some owner of some property who’s just trying to use that because they wanna just get rid of a low paying rent tenant.

So thank you for defeating the referral and thank you for approving the amendments that I had. I will continue to be working on this closely with colleagues that I’ve clearly disagreed with on the way we’re going about things, but that’s just the name of the game. So I guess I’m done. Thank you, I have myself next to the speakers list.

I’ll turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, I will take the chair and recognize Mayor Morgan. Thank you and through the presiding officer, I wanna say to Councillor Ferrera, it’s gonna happen a lot of council, people are not gonna be happy with every decision we make. It’s because people don’t all fundamentally agree across the city on what we should do on any given issue, how fast we should do it, what the parameters are that we should, but here’s what I see on this issue as it’s evolved.

I see council relatively unanimous in saying, yes, despite the decisions the provinces made, the municipality does have a role in trying to protect individuals against run evictions. I see council unanimously say, we saw the staff report and we think we should go further on fines. And what I see at disagreement on is when we should consider next steps on this, right? And I’m not even sure that it’s that far away on if, and I’m not even sure that as much as I heard colleagues talk about the public participation meeting, I’m not even sure that that’s, it’s certainly not a major factor for me on this, and it’s not something that I think is necessarily holding people back from the next step in the action.

I think there’s a number of things out there in play, whether you’re considering the vice of our staff, whether you’re considering any of the in-camera advice that we’ve received, or whether you just wanna see a little bit more information about how this plays out in other communities, I’m not even sure that we disagree that we’re willing to consider next steps. I think we have a slight disagreement on timing on that. And so I just wanna say to those who may not be happy with how far we’ve gone at this point, we have decided to take steps here. You may not be happy with how many we’ve taken, but we will continue to work with the community.

We will continue to monitor how this plays out in other communities. We have a review that will be conducted as part of this by-law. And I think we’re relatively unanimous as a council to say, we’ve gotta do something here. But at the same time, we have to also be involved in the advocacy to other levels of government to ensure that those level of governance ensure that there are proper protections for tenants as well.

And so yes, municipalities should take some actions on this within their sphere of jurisdiction, but so should other levels of government as well. And so we’ll continue that dialogue at the same time. And I wanted to say I appreciate the debate the colleagues had here today. I know we didn’t agree, but I felt it was respectful.

It was articulate and people got their points across, and we’ll make a decision on this next step together in a few minutes. And then we’ll consider what we do next as we get more information from our staff, as we bring this into fruition, as we fund it in the budget, and as we see how the procedure plays out and other municipalities, it can make those decisions together as a council. So I just wanted to say, I’ll certainly be supporting the as amended motion. I think we do need to take this step.

I think we do need to fund this step in the budget. We’ll have that discussion when the budget is tabled, but I appreciate the debate today, and I appreciate that although we have a disagreement, I think there’s a lot of things that we agree on in this space. Thank you, worship. I will return the chair to you with no one else on the speakers listed this time.

Thanks. Look for any other speakers on this who haven’t spoken to the as amended motion. Okay, seeing none, then we will open the vote on the as amended motion. Trust votes, yes.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Chair, you’re back to presenting now. You’ve got one item left, I think, on your— I am, I have one item left.

It was pulled full request for item 2.35 on the council agenda for regulating maximum temperature in rental units, so I’ll put that one on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I look for any speakers to that. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. I did ask Councilor Furrer to pull this. I don’t need to litigate this much. I don’t know whether any colleagues agree with me or not, but I did ask for it to be pulled because I’m not going to be supporting this, and I just want to briefly share why.

Under Oreg 517/06, the province under its vital services by law, or under its vital services legislation, regulates heating, and that runs from September 15th to June 1st. There is no such regulation on maximums, and while I recognize that this is a growing concern and issue, I believe that we are treading into provincial jurisdiction and territory here. I believe that a better approach would be for AMO and OBCM and others to lobby the province for some changes to its Residential Tenancies Act 2006, and look for amendments to that Oreg 517. I don’t think that individual cities going through a number of by-law iterations, testing out case law challenges and things like that, which will eventually come from this, is the way for us to go.

I do recognize it as an issue, but I don’t think that this is a space where we should be putting staff time and resources. I think this is a space where, if colleagues feel that this is truly an issue, that I’d certainly be supportive of a motion to come through a future caps that said, calling on the mayor or AMO to advocate for some changes to the provincial legislation, but I’m not supportive of undertaking new municipal by-law legislation, and I think we’re actually setting ourselves up to go through the same process that we’ve just gone through on the rent evictions, where there will be debates about, can we force landlords to retrofit? I will say in reviewing the Ontario legislation, it’s very clear landlords can pass along the electricity costs of air conditioners to their tenants. If they’re added, I think that there is a lot of perilous pitfalls to us exploring this on our own.

And so I really think that this is more of an advocacy piece for AMO and OBCM than for our staff to start creating draft by-laws, which I think in the end is going to ultimately satisfy no one because we’re going to have people saying, it doesn’t go far enough, we’re going to have others saying it’s going to go too far, and we’re going to spend a lot of staff time and energy on something that I truly believe is provincial jurisdiction. Our vital services by-law meaningfully aligns with the current provincial legislation, and I think we need to continue to follow a lining to that so that our by-laws do have the legal backing of the province to be upheld. Other speakers, Councilor Provost, go ahead. Thank you, I will be brief.

I did not support it at the committee meeting, I will not be supporting it today and just agreed what was exactly set by the European mayor. And I’m just going to add to it, it almost seems like the issue we just dealt with now and looking at this one almost really truly opposite and not helping the situation. Retrofitting AC units and especially when it comes to the central air, it’s very expensive, it’s time consuming, and there potentially could be with central air, additional renovations, and if not certainly the investment by the building owners, guess who would be, who would at the end be paying for it, the tenants. And that’s why, that’s the reason why I’m not supporting it in addition to what was just stated by the European mayor.

Thank you, Councilor Trossa. To the chair, I have to start, I have to start by saying that guess who game was just like, no, that’s not necessarily the case, because under the under-provincial law in order for the landlord to be able to get an additional rent increase, it has to go a certain amount. And we don’t know that’s the case. So just to sit there and say, guess who is going to pay for it, the tenant, that’s just, that’s speculative.

Point of order. Well, it’s not just— Sorry, point of personal privilege. Hold on, just give me one sec, before I address the point of personal privilege. Yeah, I’m going to be in a little bit of a disadvantage here because I was working out a problem with the clerk when I missed what was said.

So if you could be specific about what your point of personal privilege is so that I can hear what was, yeah, thank you, you worship. For the councilor to say that another member of council or any member of council is simply just sitting here and speculating. With all due respect, I’ve done my homework. I read the Ontario O-Rig specifically out.

I have had a couple of conversations with members of our staff team. I am not sitting here doing nothing and speculating. Okay, just give me one sec. So can I respond to that?

‘Cause I’m not— No, no, no, no, that’s not how it works. Give me a second. So here’s what’s going to happen. I’m going to say from what I heard about the point of personal privilege, if indeed it was said that way, I would ask that it be rephrased and we will make the assumption that our colleagues have indeed, when they stand up and debate, have done their own due diligence to the capacity that they feel is necessary to make decisions.

Given I was talking to the clerk and I did not hear specifically what you said, Councilor Troso, I also give some benefit of the doubt. And so what I would ask is if as you continue your dialogue, if you could just rephrase it in a way, should there have been a problem there, but I’m being a little bit cautious here because I actually didn’t hear exactly what you said. So I would just ask generally for colleagues to give some respect for each other in that space, not saying that you did something specifically as was described or not, because I’m not going to presume that something was one way or another without going back and listening to the video, which honestly trust me, you don’t want me to do, ‘cause I’m sure we want to continue with the meeting. So if you continue your dialogue in a way that is respectful of that piece, which I would ask of every member of council, that we’ve all done the work that we feel is necessary to make the debates that we feel we need to make and stick to the points of substance in the debating.

So continue with your comments. Well, sir, thank you. And I’m just going to get to the main point here then. And the main point here is I don’t dispute what’s in the ORIC and I don’t dispute the availability of an above-board rent increase for landlords.

I don’t dispute that. What I do dispute is whether or not that asks municipal jurisdiction over something as basic to health and safety and general welfare as proper temperature. The city has very broad police powers under the Municipal Act, section 10, subdivision two. I talk about that act a lot.

And there’s a section that talks about the city has powers regarding health, safety and welfare. And what we’re talking about doing here falls within that and it falls within the ORIC too. That doesn’t mean they’re in a conflict. So just because the city is getting into an area that the provinces talked about doesn’t mean it’s a conflict, you need a lot more than that.

I don’t want to go into closed session to debate that. Maybe someone else wants to, but we’ve got no information from staff that this by-law is in violation of provincial law. Okay, so I think what we have on the table right now is a question of whether we want to protect our residents with respect to these temperature issues. And I certainly hope that the majority of this council will do that because people have a right to live in units that are safe.

And I think that we’re getting very close to an unsafe situation here. And I guess the only other question I have to the staff or perhaps through a member of a board is has the medical officer of health or the health unit had anything to say about this. I’ll leave that to the chair and thank you. So I don’t know if we have the answer to that.

I don’t see any of our staff saying to have the answer to that right now. I don’t see any councilor saying that they have the answer to that. So I don’t think there’s an answer to your question here, but you can certainly reach out to the medical officer health at a future time, councilor. I’m sorry, we don’t have that answer for you.

And I appreciate it. Okay, so just in closing then, I don’t think there’s anything here that’s demonstrably hostile to the city taking this step. I haven’t heard it. And so I would urge people to vote for this motion.

Thank you very much. Okay, I’ll look for any other speakers on this. Councilor Frank, go ahead. Thank you.

And yes, I feel like I do start off a lot of my sentences this way, but in absence of provincial leadership on this file, I think it’s incumbent that the municipality does intervene. And I think that we have to start regulating maximum temperatures in rental units because people have died from heat stroke in apartments that don’t maintain the livable temperature. So in order to avoid people dying in apartments across the city because of overheat or heat stroke, I think that we should look forward to this by-law. And I think that, again, we can have a debate.

We can get information from landlords. We can discuss it with the health unit, but I am fully prepared to start moving forward on this to try and keep people safe and alive. Any of the speakers? Okay, so what we have before us is the committee’s recommendation moved by the chair.

I’ll open that for voting. Trust votes, yes. Brows in the vote, motion carries. Eight to six.

Okay, Councilor, I think that’s it, isn’t it? That’s right. That completes the 11th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. Next is Civic Works Committee.

I’ll look to Councilor Hopkins to present that one. Yeah, thank you. Worship, I’d like to put the 12th meeting of Civic Works Committee on the floor. I have had no one reach out to me to have anything pulled.

So I will put forward the six consent items. Sure, would anybody like anything dealt with separately? The chair’s willing to put that on the floor. Is there any discussion on any of these items by colleagues?

Go ahead. Yeah, if I could just thank the committee for their questions and to thank staff for their recommendations. It’s, if you ever wonder where we spend all our money, it’s on infrastructure. But I appreciate the work that the committee and staff have done.

Great, we’ll open that for voting then. Council votes, yes. Brows in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. All right, thank you.

On to 8.4, the 14th report of SPPC. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis for the number four. Thank you, Worship. I am pleased to stand and present the 14th report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

I’ve been asked by Councilor Cribble to pull item six so that he can vote separately on that. I’ve not been asked to pull any other items. So unless Council wants anything else dealt with separately, I am prepared to move one through 10, excluding six. Would anybody like anything else dealt with separately?

It looks like that motion can be made. So it’s moved by the chair. So that’s everything with the exception of six, any discussion on those items? Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open this for voting.

Mr. Trosso, second call, Councilor Trosso. Mr. Trosso, absent, closing the vote, motion carries, 13 to zero.

Annual Worship, I’m now prepared to put item six on the floor. This is the Tourism London Annual Report on the Municipal Accommodation Tax. That is on the floor. I look for any speakers.

Councilor Cribble, go ahead. Thank you, and I would like to take this opportunity to truly greatly thank the entire accommodation sector because since 2018, they have collected for us over $16 million and this amount was, or some of it has been very well spent for a lot of tourism initiatives, infrastructure, et cetera. My disappointment, and I’m gonna be as well as I was last time, I truly believe this was a great opportunity for us and we missed out on having a better deal for our community and for tourism and have this sector on the board with us. And that’s my disappointment because I don’t see this as a win-win, I see this as a lose-lose and we lost an opportunity to do better, as I said, for our city for the tourism and have the entire accommodation sector behind us.

Thank you. Any other speakers to this? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Trust votes, yes.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Okay, that concludes SPPC, but I believe you’re presenting the Planning Committee Report, 13 Special Report of Planning Committee on behalf of Chair Lehman. So go ahead. Yes, your worship as the Vice Chair with the Chair not able to join us today, I’m happy to present the 13th Special Report of the Planning and Environment Committee.

I know the colleagues have asked for a couple of items to be pulled from the 14th report, but this is the 13th report and I’ve not been made aware of anything to be dealt with separately here. So I’m prepared to put the entirety of the report on the floor. Okay, would anybody like anything dealt with separately from this report? Okay, seeing none, the whole thing is on the floor.

Any discussion on this, the items in this report? Okay, seeing none, we can open that for voting. So votes, yes. Present the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

And the 14th report of Planning and Environment Committee, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. So at this time, having had colleagues communicate with some requests to have items pulled, I am prepared to put items one through three, five, six, seven, eight and 10 on the floor with items that would be noting that items four and nine would be dealt with separately. Okay, so four and nine separate with anybody else like anything else separate.

Okay, so we can have a motion for everything with the exception of four and nine moved by the Vice Chair. Any discussion on any of these items? Go ahead, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you and just briefly, I just wanted to thank the applicant for the discussion on 80 to 82 baseline road west.

I understand, you know, at committee, I didn’t support it partially because of staff’s refusal on due to the parking situation on this particular property and in speaking with the applicant, I’ve had some opportunity to hear from him about, or hear from them, sorry about their thoughts on how they plan to address the parking shortage. And so I’m optimistic and hopeful and so I’ll support it. Thank you. Any other speakers on anything in that grouping?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Councillor Trussell, second call, Councillor Trussell. Marking Councillor Trussell is absent, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero.

Thank you, worship. I’m now prepared to put item four on the floor. This is two through four Audrey Av 186 through 188 here on streets as it relates to bill number 327 on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor.

I’ll look for any speakers. Councillor Rossell, yep, go ahead. Yeah, I’m sorry. I asked for this to be pulled.

I asked for this to be pulled because I cannot support this. I talked about this in some detail at the planning committee and I’m not going to repeat everything I said. I’m not going to repeat what Professor Patel or other people from Roughdale have said. But I do want to stress one point.

We need to take a comprehensive approach to where we’re going to put density. And I’m going to talk about this in more detail. But for now, I just want to say, this is a one off spot zoning that is going to create inconsistencies in the area. The Roughdale Community Association gave this a lot of thought because we understand that there is a housing crisis.

They made that clear in their letter. But what they suggested I thought was very helpful. And I don’t think the planning committee gave their suggestion an ample hearing. So I just want to raise it again right now.

What they suggested was that not a full, not a full, full blown area study, but a minor little study in the area from Richmond over a few blocks up to Roughdale up to the campus be looked at for opportunities for intensification. I would like to know how much take up there has been on the up to four units on the property. And I’d also like to suggest, and I don’t want to get ahead of the situation tonight because we’re going to get to this next. But I think that there’s some areas that are not neighborhood connectors.

In that Roughdale community, that would be really good candidates for stacked townhouses, maybe even more than four stories. Because we’ve got a lot of dilapidated properties that are not being cared for well that have sort of public nuisance implications in that area. And I think it would make a lot of sense. I’d like to defer it, but I understand that we have Planning Act time limitations.

So I’m going to ask that we vote this down and think about how we’re going to increase the intensification in that neighborhood more broadly. And in a way that really looks at what’s going on in the ground and doesn’t just just doesn’t respond the way this application is. So I think that this is, I don’t think this isn’t keeping within your campus neighborhood plan. And I should point out that the entire property, the entire property is taken up by bulk, by building or by parking lot, that there’s no open space on this property, that there’s no mix on this property between places where people can go outside and have recreation opportunities and the built up area and the parking lot.

And the other thing I should point out is there’s only two, there’s only two bicycle parking spaces that are located here. So we’re saying that this is going to create like a tight urban environment. The only two parking spaces for bicycles really, I just think that’s inadequate. And finally, a lot was said at the planning committee about how this is going to create affordable housing opportunities.

And the only number that was thrown around was $950. The only number that was thrown around was $950. None is not $950 per unit. That was $950 for a bedroom.

I’m sorry, it might have been $900. But it was up in that range. That’s not affordable. It’s not affordable.

It’s not environmentally sensitive. It doesn’t keep in effect the balance that we want to see in new developments between built up area and open space. And it certainly doesn’t do anything in terms of bicycle parking. So for a number of reasons, I’m going to ask my colleagues to vote against this.

I know the planning committee voted for this anonymously. But I just think this is a bad development. It has not been thought out well. And I think in terms of planning for that entire Brookdale area, we can do a lot better.

So please vote no. OK, any other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Ferriero. Thank you, Mayor.

Just some questions on this one, with respect to the near campus neighborhoods. So the nearest campus neighborhoods, the changes there to ensure— near campus neighborhoods are to ensure intensity, density, and the lot size does not lead to undesirable changes. And they’re supposed to make sure that the intensification in these areas are, I guess, reasonable. I just wanted to know, just to confirm a staff, does this application find itself within the near campus neighborhood?

Is it in contravention or anything like that? Go ahead. Thank you. Through your worship, yes, that’s correct.

The planning report evaluated in the context of the near campus neighborhoods, and met all the tests in terms of the policy framework. And that’s why staff recommended approval. Go ahead. That’s all, thank you.

Any other speakers to this? OK, then the committee’s recommendation on the floor. We’ll open that for voting. Press the votes now.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 1. OK, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Your Worship.

I’m now prepared to put item 9 on the floor. This is the London Plan Heights review. I know there are some colleagues. Four counselors had wanted this pulled to vote on something separately to make some amendments or referrals or other things.

I did circulate as well through the clerks this morning, and with thanks to Mr. Mathers and his staff for helping with the language— housekeeping amendments that I’m hoping we can deal with first, because it’s relevant to the whole thing, whatever we do with it. And that language reads that civic administration bring forward a report to a future planning and environment committee, providing a planning review of all the September 10th public participation meeting, and September 24th council meeting, owner submissions not addressed by City Council’s approval of Phase 2 of the Section 26 review of the London Plan. I did provide the rationale to colleagues in the email.

I will speak to that in a moment once we have confirmed if there’s a seconder for that. Yeah, so what I prefer to do is have someone else just present the item. You can move your amendment. Then after, in the as amended, you go back to presenting on it, if you want.

So it would be my preference if there’s another committee member who’s willing. OK, well, I will see if Councilor— It’s OK. Because you can switch back to him after his amendments done. So Councilor Raman will present the item.

It’s going to get as amended anyways, assuming it passes. And if you don’t want to present it after that, we can switch someone up. But you’re moving an amendment. So Councilor Raman’s presenting the item.

The deputy mayor’s moving an amendment. Is there an seconder for the amendment that was described? Councilor Cady, OK. We’re going to have a debate about the amendment.

Do you want to provide the rationale? Certainly. So during the PPMs that were held on September 10th, and then a couple of follow up pieces of correspondence have come in from individual property owners who were very— looking for very site-specific considerations, particularly around some of the areas where we’re looking for intensification along urban corridors or primary transit areas where they were just on the other side of the line. And actually, your worship, you had asked a question of staff on the floor.

And there was a comment that we would— civic administration will report back at a future meeting on those specific sites. And then since that time, a couple of additional communications have come in. This just provides the direction from a housekeeping perspective for civic administration to connect with those individual site-specific requests. Follow up on them, bring back a report to us, whatever the outcome of that might be through their discussion with the property owners.

So I’m hoping colleagues can support that. It was nice to actually have a couple of property owners come forward and say, actually, I’d like to go even a little bit higher. I’m right next door to where you’re allowing 15 or where you’re allowing 25 stories, and I’d like to be considered to allow for that too. So since they’re looking for that opportunity to add some increased density along an area where we’re already doing that, I hope colleagues can support this housekeeping amendment.

OK. Any discussion on the amendment? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I just wanted to ask if that could also include anyone who made a presentation at that committee that maybe would have said something different had they known that an amendment was on the floor to see if there is a site-specific issue there to be addressed. So I can ask our staff that. I’m just reading the actual language of the amendment, and it’s providing a planning review of all the public participation— of the public participation meeting, Council’s submissions. So I’m not sure that that’s a scope.

I want to go to Mr. Mathers just to make sure. Through the chair, so how we would interpret this language would be that if you came forward, you gave a submission. You were outside of the scope of our review, but it’s related to either the heights for view, the transit village, or major shopping areas.

And you came to speak about those matters. Then we would— if they wanted to provide further information after the fact that we can accept that. But if it’s as long as it’s tied to these three matters, because there’s always the opportunity for anyone to bring forward as a by-law. So when an application, there’s just, of course, a cost associated that.

But if it’s related to these three matters, that’s what we’re thinking as far as the review, so we can do it in a comprehensive way. Any other speakers? OK, so this is the amendment. It’s moved and seconded.

We’ll open that for voting. Trust votes no. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 1.

OK, and now I think that we are moving. And as amended, motion— yes, with thanks to Councillor ramen for standing in for me there, I will now move the motion from committee as amended. OK, and I need a seconder for an as amended motion. Councillor Cudi.

OK, so now we’re debating the as amended full motion from committee with the change that was just approved. That’s on the floor. I’ll look for a speaker as Councillor ramen. Thank you, and through you.

I circulated an amendment that I’d like to read. It wasn’t on the added, but I did circulate it to Councillor. So what I would like, just because the public might not have seen is if you could read the amendment, and then I’ll look for a seconder, it would be perfect. OK, the motion with respect to phase two of the section 26 official plan review of the London Plan be amended as follows.

The official plan amendment is revised by removing changes to where stacked townhouses are permitted along neighborhood connector street classifications and maintaining the existing provision of table 10. And the London Plan to permit stacked townhouses on neighborhood connectors only in central London. B, the civic administration be directed to undertake public consultation on the London Plan policies regarding stacked townhouses in the neighborhood place type, and bring forward an official plan amendment to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, and pursuant to section 3417 of the Planning Act, no further notice, we get— I guess we can’t look further notice. I think was included from staff.

But I don’t know that it needs to be there, since we’re asking for a public participation when it relates to something else. So I think it’s an addition that perhaps doesn’t need a language wise there. I just asked her staff, is that necessary language? It would suggest, no, no, go ahead.

All right, we’re just taking it out. Sorry, yes, just A and B. OK, I’ll look for a seconder for that. Councillor Hopkins, OK, moved and seconded.

Councillor ramen, would you like to speak now? I’ll reserve my comments until the end. OK, go ahead. I mean, don’t go ahead.

I’ll look for other speakers. OK, so that’s moved and seconded. I’m just going to refresh these scribe here so I can see it too. And now I’ll look for speakers on this.

Sorry, I was just reading it, Councillor Ferri. Go ahead, go first. That’s OK. I’m sorry, I was just going through this.

I was a little confused on the first part, but I’m glad that we kind of cleaned it up and I have this easy amendment here to read. I’m looking at part B and I’m looking at part A. And it does seem like part B is kind of where I would like to go, just get some further public consultation. I would wonder, would we need part A if we were to vote up part B?

I feel like if we were to vote for part B, we don’t need part A because we’re doing that public engagement. So that’s just, I guess, a question maybe to staff or the mover or whoever could answer that question. So, Councillor, what would happen if you separated them is you would have the committee’s recommendation in, which would be permissive, and you’d be proceeding through the process of ministerial review. Then you’d go out and consult on London Plan policies, knowing that we’re already in the process of doing that.

So probably doesn’t make sense to separate them, because you’d be consulting on something that we’re already essentially proceeding with. I mean, I guess we could do that, but I’m not sure if that’s your intent, just so I hope that helps with your question. Well, my intent is just, I guess. All right, that’s fine.

I do support just the greater public consultation. I guess I got a lot of things to say. I learned a lot too. So lots of things have been changing, especially in the last four hours right before the meeting.

But I guess I’ll leave those remarks for after this vote. So I will support this because I do think we need some extra time to slow down and get some more public consultation at this time. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship.

So I will not be supporting this, and I’m gonna ask colleagues to not support it as well. And I’ll run down a few reasons here. But I’m gonna start with something that I want colleagues to frankly be aware of. And I’m not saying this as a scare tactic or a whole, you know, waving my hands around.

But about 45 minutes ago, I had a text from the Federal Housing Minister’s Office asking what time we expected to be dealing with this agenda item today because they’d be watching. I had a similar request yesterday from the provincial offices. So first of all, if we think that they’re not watching in terms of the infrastructure and the housing accelerator funding that we have working on now, they are. But I really want to boil this down to this motion is about the stacked townhouses.

I’ll talk to you the rest of the things later and on the main motion. But what we are really saying here is that this is coming down to a difference of one story in areas outside of central London because it’s already permissible in central London. That means outside of the limited opportunities to assemble some multiple properties for infill, we’re also prohibiting four story stacked townhouses in new subdivision developments, which are still occurring and moving through processes inside the urban growth boundary. So if we don’t allow these, then we are actually only going to add pressure to expand the urban growth boundary even further than we already have.

And I know the colleagues want to say this is about public consultation and taking our time. But you’ve all seen the correspondence. It is not about more public consultation. It is about residents who want this killed on their street.

And we’ve seen comments in some of the emails that have even has gone so far as to say that people who can’t afford a single family home shouldn’t be on their street. That has been part of the communications that we have received. Now, however you feel about that, I want to dispense with this notion that public consultation is done because it’s not done. And we don’t need to do anything about that because when we start looking into the London Plan policies, first of all, section 920-2, the policy says that this table will provide the broadest possible uses, but also make clear that the zoning may not allow all uses at the full range required and may require a ZBA to ensure a context-appropriate fit for the neighborhood.

That means if you’re in an R1 zone, you’re going to have to come in with a ZBA and it’s going to trigger all the normal planning application processes, notifications, a PPM at Planning Committee, and those sorts of things. And I’m going to pause there, and I’m going to ask you, Your Worship, if you can check with staff, to confirm that ZBA’s would still be required on these sites where necessary to fit with the area. I’ll go to whoever would like to answer that. Go ahead.

Thank you, Through Your Worship. The answer is yes, there’d still be, this is the policy framework at this point, and we will still require the zoning amendments either through site-specific, possibly through rethink zoning. There’s still public consultation as part of this process. Go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship. So the difference here is a difference between an official plan amendment and a ZBA or zoning bylaw amendment combined, or just the zoning bylaw amendment. The difference is a 30-day longer extension on approvals if they’re given. It’s also almost double.

It’s $12,000 more to do a combined ZBA and OPA than it is to just do a ZBA. So you’re adding costs to the price of housing. Then we have that in policy 1730, specific areas may be considered in limited circumstances, and then there’s five criteria in there, and I’ll let you read the criteria themselves, but what it boils down to is it would be very difficult to make the argument in a greenfield scenario to allow stacked townhouses, because they’re not permissive as a right in the policy framework, not the zoning, but the policy. A lot of people are getting ahead of this and assuming that zoning is going to be granted on every application, when in fact all we’re doing right now is an official plan amendment.

We can get into 1635 and 1637 policies on the zoning to the upper heights. This is where it talks about the applications being evaluated under policy 1778 for potential impacts on adjacent and nearby properties in the area, degree of which impacts can be managed, considering whether the built form, the shadowing, all of those things are relevant in terms of their impact on the community. So nothing has changed in the zoning process. That means the side yard and rear yard setbacks are all the same, that means the maximum lock coverage requirements still have to be met.

We are talking about three stories versus four stories on a neighborhood connector, thank you. And so I really encourage you to reject this amendment and support the four story stack towns, which we have heard time and again, are the most affordable form of new housing that the private sector can build. So if we truly care about affordable housing, defeat this and stay with the original recommendation. Thank you.

Councilor Frank, next. Thank you, yes. I was just hoping for a bit of clarity. So I noticed in this motion, this amendment that it references central London.

And I was just wanting to inquire perhaps through the chair to the mover. Feel free to roll me out of order if you don’t want me to. But I’m just wondering if they meant central London or the primary transit area? Sure, I can ask the chair what they meant.

Thank you. I was provided with the language of what it is in the London plan currently. The amended version, which I tried to amend to a committee was for the primary transit area, but I was told that I had to go to the original language that is included in the London plan. Councilor Frank, go ahead.

Thank you for that explanation, yes. Then I won’t be supporting this because I actually really desperately want intensification in the primary transit area and central London is a much smaller space than the primary transit area. So I won’t be supporting this. I’m gonna add myself to speakers list, which means given the chair and vice chair standing, I might have Councilor Plosa take the chair of this meeting and have myself in the speakers list.

It’s all I have so far, but others might wanna jump in. Thank you. I have the chair in recognizing Mayor Morgan as the next speaker. Okay, thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to share a few words on this. So I’m not gonna support the amendment for a few reasons. One, along the lines of what Councilor Frank said, not only do I support stack towns as was proposed when I moved to that committee, I certainly don’t want to go back to just the London plan provisions and not do what staff recommended in their report on stack towns along primary transit areas. I wanna talk about a little bit based on what the deputy mayor said and add some other context.

I wanna talk about, first off, central London. So this is an area bounded by Oxford Street, Adelaide Street, and then the river all the way around. So since this has proposed, I’ve gotten lots of letters from people in the Sovo area, in the Woodfield area, who are really worried about how this will change the impact of your neighborhood, their neighborhood. And the challenge I have with that is, they already have within the London plan permission for four story stack towns on neighborhood connectors in all those areas.

So that’s a bit of a problem because people are getting concerned about something that has been permitted for years, saying they’re worried about how it’s gonna change the context of their neighborhood when it’s already been there and in existence, enabled to be done. What I see in the public correspondence on this and what I see in the posters that are going up in different boards is a lot of information that is about anxiety and worry and not based on the facts and the economics of how these things would actually work across the city. And I said this at committee. We saw this with four units as of right in other cities.

Now this council had the foresight and I think the wisdom to approve four units as of right over a year ago, just about a year ago actually in September. And we’ve not seen the city taken over by four units as of right. Other cities, Windsor, Oakville, others, had huge panics on this from their public. This was going to change the character of neighborhoods.

This was going to fundamentally reshape their cities to the point where some of them actually forego for rent housing accelerated funds and monies or return to it because their council wouldn’t pass the provisions. So I’m really concerned that we have a situation here where people are speculating on what might happen and we’re not going back to the economics of what’s allowed, what’s realistic and what’s likely to happen in our city. If we want to talk about housing affordability, we have to be talking about stacked towns in this city. We have to be talking about other cities have them.

They’re a really affordable form of housing. They’re not going to be built on streets where you have to acquire three or $4 million properties to build units of stacked towns. They’re going to be done in economically viable areas where the land can be accommodated, where the land mass is proper and where it probably provides a level of rejuvenation with those neighborhoods. It’s not going to be everywhere.

Already in the London plan, the base in the London plan for what’s allowed across the city, not just on neighborhood connectors, but any street in our city is three story town houses. So stacked towns and one story higher, more people living in them, so two families, let’s say, and one story higher. That’s the difference that we’re talking about here and only on neighborhood connectors across the city, not on every single street. But even within the London plan provisions, we haven’t seen large amounts of neighborhood turned into three story townhouses based on the provisions that are already allowed in the London plan.

You know, what we’re voting on here is to provide people of all ages, especially first time home buyers, with lower incomes or young families, an opportunity to secure housing in our city. Now, we’re voting to help alleviate dangerous and overcrowded conditions in multiple neighborhoods throughout the city. We got too many people living in single detached residences. We need to provide more intense options across the city.

We need to provide options for people not to have to go out and have single family homes spread out in the suburbs are worse in Lucan, our Kilworth Quoke, or Elderton. We have to be the center of a level of intensification in our region if we’re going to actually take a housing crisis seriously. And I know that there are some colleagues who would like to do more public consultation on this. This is a very clear change.

And it is very difficult to have months of public consultation. When we’re calling this a housing crisis, we actually have to move forward in a meaningful way on a level of light density in residential neighborhoods. And I know not everybody in those neighborhoods is going to like that. But that is what we actually have to do if we’re going to move forward with a level of affordability in our city.

30 seconds. And so I would ask colleagues to defeat this motion, allow us to move forward with these provisions, allow the zoning consultations to happen when they come forward. And let’s move forward with more light density options across the city, even though it won’t happen on every street everywhere. Thank you.

I’ll return the chair to you realizing Councillor Hopkins would be next on the speakers list. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship. And thank you very much for your advocacy on housing in our city.

I am seconding this motion. And I am seconding it for the reasons I just heard from our worship about the concern in the community. It really starts from trying to understand exactly what we’re doing and how we’re moving forward with all these changes that are going on. Public consultation does not mean that the public is gonna come out and they’re going to kill whatever application is gonna go forward going through three to four stories.

We already have a process for that. This is an opportunity for the community to understand, even if they are on a neighborhood connector and exactly what the changes are being proposed, there has not been an opportunity to do this. I’m really glad that we’re not going to use scared tactics at all because my understanding is by not doing this right now does not prohibit applicants moving forward to take advantage of the Housing Accelerator Fund. So the more we have conversations and the more we understand exactly what is going on in our city gives us, it gives the public trust in what we’re doing and in understanding, even as me as a counselor, knowing what we are doing and with the changes that are going on, I don’t sit on the planning committee.

It’s complicated and it needs to have the conversation in the community when we make these changes. I wanna really speak again to the neighborhood. We all have neighborhood connectors in our community. I have residents reaching out, they wanna even know if they are on a neighborhood connector, just so they understand what we’re doing.

We need to give them time and we need to get that trust back because my concern is as we go forward with the many changes that are going on in our community, the public is going to resist and push back. That is why we need to do this. So I’m hoping it can support the process going forward. It’s not stopping, it’s not saying no to infill, it’s not saying no from three to four.

It’s that consultation that needs to be given. So I’ll leave it at that and I think we need to show the community that we do wanna have that conversation with them as we move forward. I’ll look for other speakers on. Go ahead, Councilor McAllister.

Thank you and through the mayor. Appreciate the debate on this. I’ve taken time, I’ve looked at it. I’m still not willing to support this motion because honestly, I think from my perspective, I’m trying to also offer some insight here as well.

And to the point that was made earlier about affordability, what I find tough is I agree with my colleagues that I think it’s appropriate to have those consultations with community, with developments. But what I think has happened with the housing crisis we’ve experienced, which I think illustrates how unfair it’s become, is the people I’m talking to a lot of the time are also my peers who have been completely shut out of a housing market, which is very unaffordable. And I think, again, to what’s being said, I think we need to put new options on the table. I have seen stacked townhouses and other communities, and I really want people to be able to enter the market.

And if this is an option, if this is something we can do to bring more people to London, ‘cause this is the thing, ‘cause we often hear in these discussions, it’s about the people currently who live in these neighborhoods. And I think they absolutely should voice their concerns, but I also wanna have the foresight to think of the future for this city. And I want people to view London as a place they can come to, they have housing options that can also be affordable, because unfortunately, I think too many people have been shut out of this market. So as loud of these voices are, and we’ve got a lot of messages from these Londoners, I also think I’m trying to speak for people who have yet to enter the market or are trying to enter the market, ‘cause I’ve seen this firsthand, and I feel that frustration, and it’s awful.

And honestly, I think we have to build a city for the future that has these options. I won’t be supporting this. I wanna see this move forward, and I wanna have more housing options available for Londoners now and into the future. Thank you.

Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Chair. And I do have sort of chair a few questions for the staff, and one of them, and I’m gonna actually read it, because I wanna make sure that I don’t miss anything on this, one of them was already answered, and I’m just gonna reiterate it, future zoning amendment application would be a public process. And I’m quite sure I heard the answer, yes, but if you can please confirm it for me.

Go ahead. Thank you, through your worship, yes, that’s correct, a public process for any zoning amendment application. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Through the chair again.

Would the neighbors be consulted and have the opportunity to comment on the possibility of a stock townhouses project in their neighborhoods? Go ahead. Through your worship, for site-specific amendments, yes, that’s correct, there would be public notice and neighbors would be notified within 120-meter radius of the subject site. Councillor Pribble.

Thank you, and to the chair again, can you confirm that this amendment would introduce stock townhouses as one possible use for properties along the neighborhood connectors? And as I saw the note on table 10, that not all identified uses would be permitted on all sites, does that mean that the applicants would require to submit further applications to facilitate the construction of the stock townhouses? Go ahead. Thank you through your worship, yes, as part of any requirements for complete application, we would need a planning and design report.

And through the staff review, we would follow the criteria, the planning evaluation and the learning plan and the art tools, part of the learning plan that work through for context fit any mitigation measures, things like that. Thank you, and the last one. We’ll be required to support a future zoning by law amendment application to demonstrate that stock townhouses are appropriate within the context of the neighborhood. Go ahead.

Through your worship again, the planning impact analysis or the evaluation criteria be used as part of the analysis in determining the appropriateness of the stock townhouse in the context of the community. Councillor Pribble. Thank you very much to those questions. And honestly, whatever, what is sorting or whatever?

What’s in front of us, I honestly believe that it’s an opportunity and it will be more, I think that the neighborhoods are most worried about the existing, the people in their existing neighborhoods. I think if I look at this, that the challenges for the developers into the existing neighborhoods are much higher, much more expensive and I do see opportunity, for example, for green fields within our urban growth boundary. If I look at currently, if I look at the pricing of regular townhouses there are about 600,000 or about 500, we are looking at three to four, four, fifty, four stock townhouses. What we are looking for is the middle that we are missing.

And I honestly believe that this could be the answer for us, the middle that we are missing. And there was all this stated here before. My issue was, in terms of the consultation with Londoners, but based on the answers, what I just received from the staff, I believe that each neighborhood will have the opportunity to stay their opinions and give their feedback to the staff, through the staff, to the developer. And based on what I heard from the staff and based around the proposal, I will not be supporting what’s on the table right now and I will be supporting the original.

Thank you. Okay, I have Councillor Close the next. Thank you, Your Worship. And a question through you to staff.

Maybe the meeting’s been long already, or the day’s been long in general. Just looking for clarification for the motion that’s on the floor for the amendment. Part B, would this, would this specific administration essentially be going back out for consultation on stacked homes, on neighborhood connectors? Just, I guess it’s the question of are we essentially just pulling it back and just taking that portion to go back from our public consultation versus approving it now?

Go ahead. Thank you, through your Worship. So it’d be a separate amendment that would be part of a separate consultation process. It wouldn’t be part of this motion or should all the, this amendment be carried forward today.

What’s being requested it’d be a separate amendment altogether and requiring a separate public consultation. It’d be a standalone official plan amendment. You can ask a follow up if you’re not quite sure. Yeah, one more time in different words.

I still, I’m, I’m sorry. So that was a yes, if something else is different is done that the wording need, sorry. I think, sorry, if I, - Please interpret for me. Maybe if I, I didn’t want to make sure I interpret right.

I think what the Councilor’s asking is, should the amendment pass and we’d like to proceed at some point after consultation with some intensification of stacked townhouses, what would that look like from a process perspective? Through your Worship’s. So when we go through our standard OP amendment process, so it would be a staff initiated a process and we’d have a, have a PPM and have a, have that discussion and bring it back to committee. Go ahead, Councilor.

Oh, Mr. Mayor, should my, thanks. Sorry, thank you for that. I am supportive of stacked townhomes.

I appreciate the intensification and the different entry point they can make into the market. Realizing we need housing across the entire continuum. I will be supporting this. For me, it’s fine the way to, yes, and I do would love to see stacked townhomes being allowed.

My concern is the rate at which we’ve done it or how we’ve done it and the public misinformation that’s out there, that this is a decision of Council and an extra cycle or two, whenever staff bring it, we’d be fine that the public has an opportunity to understand what neighborhood connectors are as they’re not, are connecting, but not at the collector streets. I know residents are having problems finding maps to understand what the parameters are through the city’s website of just a more wholesome conversation. I’m not, to be clear, supporting it. I live in a multi-unit dwelling.

So I did have some residents reach out of how would this change our neighborhood? What type of, we’re back to the what type of people. That’s not where I’m coming from. So just to be clear why I’m supporting is just for more community input and clarity from staff of what this means overall for London, not trying to take people out of the housing continuum.

Okay, other speakers on this. Go ahead, Councillor Ferrera, go ahead. Wait, you did go. I think, no, you can’t go again.

You went first. Sorry, you got, so you would have another chance after we get through the amendment because there’d be another as amended motion. So, but right now, no, I have Councillor Troso. Thank you.

Well, I found that there was so much confusion in the public. I actually did undertake to do quite a bit of outreach to folks in my ward. And people really weren’t clear what neighborhood connector streets were. No, it’s not Richmond.

It’s not Richmond, Natalie. It’s interior streets, switchwood. Councillor Raman mentioned a few in her ward. And this is throughout the entire city, at least in terms of what seems to be the case on the very, very hard to use and very, very confusing tables.

And I think that for a change of this magnitude, we owe it to the public to take another cycle and generate some more information that’s detailed ‘cause there are a lot of inconsistent things that are being said here right now. Now, there’s also an assumption. There’s also an assumption that stacked townhouses are gonna create affordable housing. I’ve had people respond to me saying stacked townhouses are gonna help us solve the homeless problem.

I’ve had people respond to me saying stacked townhouses are going to create this whole new range of affordable units. But it’s also quite possible. And this is why I want a staff report that goes into more detail about the nature of the stacked townhouses that we’re allowing. Because it could just as easily be the case that stacked househouses are gonna be very expensive and they’re gonna be investment opportunities.

I have a very sincere worry that many stacked townhouses are gonna be purchased by investors who are gonna turn them into short-term accommodations, B&Bs. And I think we really need to look at what the interaction is between our existing enforcement mechanism of that type of bylaw with what this is going to open up. I wanna make it very clear. I am not against stacked townhouses.

Stacked townhouses can be done very nicely, sometimes not so nicely. But stacked townhouses need to be considered in some greater detail. Yes, they cannot afford some options in some areas. But based on the fact that this particular provision was raised as an amendment at a public participation meeting, a day or two before the public participation meeting, I think that when we look at what our standard is for what requires a new public participation meeting, this most certainly satisfies that requirement.

And I think that once we get a more fulsome staff report on stacked townhouses and how other jurisdictions are dealing with this and the different types of ranges of what stacked townhouses look like. And by the way, it’s not necessarily the case that you’re gonna be limited to four units on a property ‘cause the property might be large enough to support eight. We don’t know that yet. We need more information before we proceed on this.

So in closing, I wanna say that I think the public, the public should be given better and more information about what this is really about, what this is really about, what some other options are and an ability to respond. There are streets that I know I have in my ward that are not connector streets. They might actually be good candidates for stacked townhouses. I talked about this a little bit before when I talked about my own Brookdale community.

I think in a sense, talking about stacked townhouses or all neighborhood connectors is over-inclusive. And in another sense, it may be under-inclusive. It is under-inclusive ‘cause it might be appropriate on other types of streets. We need to do more study.

So in closing, I’m going to say that I found it very illuminated and going around and talking to residents in my ward in terms of the disconnect, the fundamental disconnect that we have between the planning process and how people feel about it, how people understand it. We have the course correct. We need a course correct in order to bring people’s expectations and understanding in line of these very important policies. I know we’re under some constraint, but we cannot short-circuit a legitimate public participation process.

And I urge Councillors to support this amendment. And I thank Councillor Raman for bringing it forward. Thank you. I’m looking for other speakers who haven’t spoken yet.

Councillor Raman, go ahead. Thank you. So I wanna thank my colleagues on all sides of this matter for engaging in this discussion today. And I think it’s important that we’ve had the chance to discuss this.

I wanna start with, we all know that London is facing a housing and an affordability crisis. We’ve heard from the Home Builders Association and LDI that stacked townhouses are a good tool to advance our goals of increasing housing. And it is contained in our London Plan already. However, the amendment that was proposed to the staff recommendation to include stacked townhouses everywhere was done so with very little opportunity to consult with the public.

And that is the impetus for the amendment that’s in front of us. This isn’t a, hey, we don’t want stacked townhouses. It’s a civic administration be directed to undertake further consultation so that people can provide their thoughts and opinions on having these stacked townhouses along those neighborhood connectors everywhere. As I said during the planning meeting, I supported them in the primary transit area because to me, intensity and transit should go hand in glove.

I will say that using this blanket change that doesn’t respect the discussions, isn’t respecting the discussions that are happening in our neighborhoods. What I’ve heard is significant concern over the lack of consultation on suburban streets in my ward. The lack of transit to support adding growth on these connectors, which are already densely populated streets. A few of the large connectors in my ward to college trail, Eagle Trace Drive, don’t have transit on them.

Courier into college have two of the city’s most overcrowded schools, one Catholic elementary and one high school. Aldersbrook, Black Acres and Aldersbrook Gate have expressed grave concerns over the current traffic and density in their area. I ask colleagues to give the public the chance to participate in this discussion. We have time to have this discussion further.

This isn’t about putting this off for numerous cycles. This is about allowing this to go to planning for further discussion. This isn’t attached to the funding for our housing accelerator fund. This is a separate component, which allows for us to continue to have this conversation.

As we heard from others in this committee, what we heard from the mayor as well, is people are not jumping to build these in the areas that are already permitted. So why are we saying that we have to do this absolutely now if there isn’t people lining up to build them everywhere already? So I do think that there is an opportunity for us to have a conversation. And I want to just reiterate something that Councillor Hopkins said.

And Councillor Hopkins and I, our words have very similar make-ups with new development. And so I know what I’m hearing sometimes from her word is what I’m hearing in mine. I do think that we are running the risk of making moves without the community on-side with some of these big conversations. They know that we have a housing and affordability crisis.

They want an opportunity to also have a chance to say how they’d like to see things on their streets and in their neighborhoods. And we have to respect, even if we disagree with them on where they are on the matter, we have to respect the opportunity for consultation. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there any other speakers? I mean, there’s only four options left, so I don’t see any of them looking to speak. So okay, so this is on the amendment. Moved by Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

We’ll open that for voting. So votes yes. Opposed in the vote. Motion fails six to eight.

That returns us to the main motion as amended. Okay, so fresh speakers list because Councillor ramen was first to speak there and introduced an amendment. So I’m looking for the as amended main motion now comments. Your worship just in terms of presenting the report, I know Councillor Frank had suggested she might want to vote on a couple of items separately.

So I’m wondering if we can just ask before we get into debate about perhaps we could go to Councillor Frank ‘cause she had circulated something in advance as well. Sure, and I’m not, this doesn’t have to count as you’re speaking, I’m just, are you looking for something to be dealt with separately? And you can just articulate. Thank you, yes, I would like to vote on part V, reclassify the following portions of Rapid Transit Boulevard.

So it’s part V, ABC. I would like to separate that and vote against it and speak to it. I think if you look in the eScribe motion might be a slightly different lettering. Worship, I can perhaps help, can you just guide us ‘cause we’re gonna track that down.

So the Councillor is speaking to section A, part V, A, B, and C. I believe is what she’s speaking to. Okay, so colleagues see that if you go up, so I’ll just start to articulate for people reading this. In motion one, it’s got the full motion.

Now, there’s a slightly as amended version of that that we’re working on based on the amendment that approved, Councillor Ramen is not actually the mover of the as amended, even though it says it was moved, it’s actually Deputy Mayor Lewis with the seconder, I think, in Councillor Cuddy. But just so you know, the part that Councillor Frank is asking to vote on separately, it’s in part A, V, A, B, and C. I’m just gonna need a minute, colleagues. Just gonna articulate to colleagues why it’s taking me a minute.

If we were to vote on the part that you’d like separately and you were successful in having that defeated, we don’t actually have a version of the by-law tonight that has it done with those pieces out. So I’m just determining how I can let you articulate the vote you’d like without needing to ask you to just refer the whole thing back to have it removed, which I’m not sure is your intent. So think, Mr. May, there’s, I put you on the spot to say, what is the level of complexity should we actually remove those items, V, A, B, and C, with having the by-law adjusted ‘cause it refers to specific mappings.

So if it’s complex and requires you to go back and do this, it’s fine. I’m not sure how complicated this is, but if it’s striking a few lines, easy. If it’s like rewriting multiple sections in multiple components and it’s linked to the other item on the agenda, by the way we passed, then that’s a little more complex. For your worship, so it would require changes to the mapping as well.

So that would be a more complex change so we wouldn’t be able to turn that round. Just need a couple more minutes. Okay, so colleagues, here’s the dilemma that we face on this that is different from sometimes. Sometimes when we have things coming through committee, pretty easy to say, we’ll vote on these all the same directions separately.

In this case, by voting on them separately, if any of them passed, we would not have a by-law to proceed tonight with the committee’s intent to go through the process of passing the by-law, which would be problematic because it’s not, in some cases, a quick fix. And we certainly, with a by-law, would not want to have, we would not want to have staff take a 20-minute break and say rewrite the by-law. And this is why it’s important, as Councillor Ramen did, when she provided her direction, she asked staff to help bring an alternative by-law that actually had those pieces carved out so that we could do that. So in the absence of having that, the option that I had before you is we can’t separate it.

You can speak against that you pose certain sections of it, but we probably have to proceed with voting on the package as a whole, at some point, regardless of how you feel about each individual part and colleagues could certainly speak to the parts that they may or may not like and decide on the package of a whole, or the whole thing has to be referred back to be taken apart in the way that colleagues would like to be taken apart because alternative by-laws aren’t available for pieces of this. So I just don’t see how I can allow separate votes on components that actually change the by-law to a level that we can’t just tweak at a meeting. So that’s where we are. So that’s the thumbs up.

You understand the rationale, okay. So people can speak and say, I like this, I don’t like this, but maybe I’m, that means I’m not supporting the whole thing or that means despite that I’m supporting the whole thing. So that’s where we are. I know there’s a couple of requests, but I think that it is easier for us to look at this as a package and that allows the council to move forward with the by-law and you can point out the parts you like and don’t in the debate, which I think everybody has the opportunity to just go speak on and we’ll go through that.

Do you wanna, so this is here, do you wanna speak now or is it okay, great. Councilor Frank’s on the speaker’s list. Thank you, yes, and as always a good reminder for myself to submit things in advance as opposed to on the floor. So my apologies for that.

I will be supporting this whole thing ‘cause I like a bunch of it, but personally, I don’t really love the reclassifying, the following portions of the rapid transit boulevard. So essentially taking off the North leg of BRT, which I know isn’t funded, but I don’t like, and I think there’s a really good letter that was submitted. I don’t really like taking away the North rapid transit link without having any alternative option provided. It gives me some anxiety to think that the entire North end of the city will not have any rapid transit and we continue to intensify, which is the rest of this motion without adequate transit support.

And I just worry about all the cars that will be showing up in the North end and not enough bus spaces and rapid transit for people to actually get to work into school and all the congestion that causes. So I don’t love taking this away. I know it wasn’t funded, as I said before. I was not part of that council, so I’m not gonna kick the dead horse, but I just find that it gives me anxiety to have no rapid transit North leg.

So I don’t like this part, but since I didn’t get my stuff together in advance, I suppose I will be supporting it regardless. So thank you. Councilor Ferrer. Thank you, Mayor.

So I’m speaking to the change in the neighborhood place types, specifically in the neighborhood connectors. So, you know, I’m generally supportive of that. I see four storey stacked townhouses as a right on the neighborhood connector streets as a good thing. It’s the missing middle that we keep on talking about.

You know, we always are talking about density. Density is good. It leverages the existing infrastructure so faster development can be built. And it’s cheaper way to go in that aspect.

And, you know, from the communications that I also read, you know, it was pointed out, and I would like to point it out as well. It allows socially diverse, inclusive, sustainable and walkable communities to arise. And that’s exactly what we want. And it’s within the London strategic plan as well.

So I like that. And it’s, you know, as it was pointed out, it’s literally one unit stacked on top of another unit. And the same floor area for a single detached dwelling. So basically we’re using the vertical space, we’re using the space that exists.

So it works within the realm of physics, I guess. So that does make sense. And I did support the more of the community engagement part because it is a big change to the official plan. And, you know, and things are moving very fast, especially for me, I’m not on peck.

So I’m learning a lot all the time. And I went out and I was trying to really kind of get feedback from the community. And I did call Woodfield and I did call Soho. And I had conversations with them, and I’m going to have to call them back because I was unaware of the central area part, actually giving that as a right for the four story stack townhouses already.

So I will be making that. I appreciate the mayor pointing that out to me. So I guess I’m really kind of focused on the river to the east side of my ward because the west side of the ward, the entire east side of my ward from the river on already has that as a right. So it’s the river from the west side of the ward.

So that does point out Blackfriars. And it does look at Woodward. And Beaverbrook actually already has that as a right for stories stack townhouses. So that neighborhood connector doesn’t apply.

So I’m really kind of talking about Woodward and I’m talking about Blackfriars. So just I am generally supportive. I did want to see more public engagement. So my vote is really going to kind of be, how things apply, I guess, in Blackfriars specifically because I know there’s some people that are worried.

So specifically for the near campus neighborhoods policy, I guess we’re going to bring that up again. I wanted to know these changes. How would that get plugged into the near campus neighborhoods specifically with the stack townhouses and the four stories? I’m interested on how the floor area ratio regulations are applied with this change.

And I’m also interested on how with the graduated bedroom limit, how that is. Because there is that chart that we got on the last, I believe, PEC report early on this year. And it did show that chart. It did show different housing types, but it didn’t have the stack townhouse type.

So I just wanted to know how would that apply with that? Thank you. Through your worship, under the near campus neighborhood policies, it references the tables of the London Plan. So by having this amendment go through, then it would be recognized under those policies.

So it would be, it would adhere to the prescription of the near campus neighborhood, still, correct? Through your membership, yes, that’s correct. Okay, perfect. For the Heritage Conservation District of Blackfriars itself, I know we kind of spoke to this, but I just wanted to get a little bit of clarification.

So with the change to the official plan of the neighborhood place type, we are gonna have to come back for the zoning. And I know you spoke to it already, but I just wanted to clarify as well, are we going to be doing a blanket zoning with the rethink zoning work that we’re doing? So all the properties will be rezoned, or are we still going to the site-specific zoning so when an applicant comes in, they submit their zoning application, and it comes to PEC and it goes through that process. Through your worship, any applicant can make a site-specific application.

Specific to Blackfriars is quite a bit in terms of the floodplain. So again, based on the planning evaluation criteria that we’d be looking at, that would somewhat set that in terms of the analysis and dictate the recommendation forward on that. But certainly, as we did mention, that there could be consideration as part of the rethink London process. The policy framework’s there, so we’d wanna look at how that would align.

And again, it would be subject to a public process through the rethink zoning review. Thank you, thank you. Okay, so for the heritage, any type of heritage impact assessment that may come through, how would that get triggered? Does that, I just, I’m just trying to really kind of get right down to the details here, sorry.

For the heritage impact assessment. So if we have, if we do see rethink zoning, redo the zoning, so we can have the four story as of right, stacked townhouses. At what point would the heritage impact assessment get triggered? Like, would we have a heritage, would we?

Because I would assume if an applicant came in and that applicant was building within the confines of what they have as of right, it wouldn’t have to trigger to come to the committee. It would be administratively handled. So I wanted to know, would that heritage impact assessment, if it applies, come to council? I’m just wondering at what point does that come up?

Council, I’ll have the answer. You got 30 seconds left though, I’m just letting you know. Go ahead. Thank you through a worship.

If it was as of right zoning, and it could come through the building permit process, that would trigger the HIA that you’re talking about, inherited impact assessment. And that would go through the advisory committee process with a recommendation that would come through planning committee and council. So there would be opportunity to weigh in on that evaluation. I only got a few seconds left, so I guess I’m done.

So, so long as I guess the process, especially the protection that Black Forest has with respect to its heritage conservation district and with respect to the near campus neighborhoods, I’m not opposed. So I guess I will be supporting this motion. Okay, I’m done. Okay, thanks, Councillor.

I have Councillor Stevenson next. Thank you. I just wanted to say that I have seen some for as of right concerns and some of the neighborhoods in my ward begin to start to raise some concerns about the changes that are gonna be happening in our city. The stacked town homes on the connector, the neighborhood connectors, potentially has a big impact again in my ward and on the residents who live on those streets.

And despite that, I am supportive because we need more housing. We need more affordable options for people. I supported the 10-story building proposals along Oxford Street, even though there are no buildings of that size out there because change is coming, change is happening in our city. But what I’m a bit confused about is the changes that were made between the issuance of the recommendation from staff to the by-law or the motion that came forward that is reducing the density along Richmond and Western Road.

So regardless of where we’re gonna put rapid transit, Richmond is going to be a main transit corridor. There’s a lot of people there and I’m not understanding why we’re reducing density on Richmond and Western at a time when we know we need the housing, we know those are popular areas for that kind of housing. If I could have an explanation on that, I’d appreciate it. Yeah, I mean, I’m gonna take a go with that because I made the change, so you’re off the hook.

So one of the changes I made was given what we’re doing broad-based zoning, I thought it was important to align it as well as possible with the permissive framework that we have given the direction that we’ve gone on a number of the transit projects. And knowing that the mass mobility plan can then be decided and kind of upzone those places, that that could be triggered through the completion of the mass mobility plan, but that way, we’re probably in a more appropriate density piece. And then there’s site-specific projects along any of the routes that were changed. Those could still proceed as site-specific zoning projects that council could assess and decide whether it’s appropriate or not.

But the goal that I had was to try to align as close as possible the framework that we’re probably, hopefully probably likely headed towards based on the actual activity that has occurred, the significant activity along Oxford Street. I don’t know where future rapid transit lines would come out of the mass mobility plan going north. I’m certainly supportive of the recommendations of that plan and what it wants to contemplate. But taking out the piece to make it more in line with what the broad-based zoning should be was my intent, knowing that it could be site-specific, site-specific pieces could be dealt with, or upzoning could occur or downzoning across the city based on the mass mobility plan recommendations and where they go.

So might not be exactly what you wanna hear, but that was the intent when I made those adjustments. Thank you. Follow up, what’s the risk to leaving the high density in those areas until we do have the final decisions for the mass to mobility plan? You’re asking my opinion.

So this is not necessarily the opinion of everybody, but I think we could potentially over-densify an area of the city that does not have adequate supported transit along that line, and then we would be in a bit of an awkward situation of a lot of mixed density that might be along a court or that some consistency is probably ideal. So that’s the way that I contemplated it at the time. So that’s what I was going for. Thank you.

I would just say I would vote against this part of it, if I could, because those concerns are true across the city. And so to be moving in one direction and asking some areas of our city to embrace this and be willing to figure it out as we go along, now there’s certain particular areas where we’re saying, oh, not here. And I’m not understanding why there’s that justification. Also, when it originally came from staff, it said that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager planning and economic development, the following actions be taken.

And now the motion is that the following actions be taken. So we no longer have that recommendation from the planning department. And knowing that this is likely to be appealed, I’m just wondering where that leaves us in terms of this decision. When an appeal is filed, what’s the implications there?

Go ahead. Thank you, through your worship, because this is going through to the province for approval, there’s no appeal mechanism. So I guess the question, again, is we had a recommendation from our planning staff based on planning and policy decisions. And so I’m trying to understand why we’re going against that that reduces the density options.

Like it just seems contrary to the direction that the province is asking us to go, to the direction that all of these other amendments go to. And so I won’t ask it again, but I’m really asking that same thing. Like, what are we doing? And why are we not consistent?

And it’s really making me uncomfortable, honestly, in voting on all of this because of that one piece. It’s contrary to everything we’ve been saying. It’s contrary to everything that we’re telling residents who are gonna get to embrace change in their neighborhood. And like I said, regardless of what we do with rapid transit, we’ve got a main transit corridor there.

And to be limiting housing on this, is there a possibility that the province will decline some of these changes? Will they see the original and the change and be able to possibly revert back to the recommendations of our staff? My understanding is that province can pretty much do whatever they want, but I’ll go to our staff with that. ‘Cause people can petition to the province too, as well, when things go there.

Three worship. So we had been working very closely with the province, just to know that we’re not offside for any of the changes, especially the ones that are looking for additional heights. As noted, the province can make their own decision on whether they want to permit any of these uses. So there is a risk.

However, historically, the province is very interested in what city council is looking for, as well. Well, that being said, they don’t really get to see how city council feels about this particular aspect of it, because it’s all lumped together into one. So I don’t know if this particular one could be pulled out without, it has the same impact, right? We have the bylaws.

And you did say that we could ask staff, I don’t know, if it doesn’t only take 20 minutes to rewrite the bylaws, I personally would prefer to be able to vote separately on I and V and give staff the time to rewrite it, if it’s the will of council. ‘Cause otherwise we should be really clear on this. And I also just want to know in the motion, it specifically says what the alternate was to staff recommendation, but will that be clear when it goes to the province? Okay, you have 30 seconds left.

That’s a question for staff about what goes to the province. So I would assume it’s the bylaw, but I’ll go to staff. Through you, Worship, it’s the bylaw that is approved by council. We go to the province.

Let me make a point, Worship, I just, no, sorry, I was gonna call a point of order too, but okay. Well, Councilor Trossa, I made a point of order first. So go ahead, Councilor Trossa. I feel as if we’re getting very close to doing committee work on the council floor, which is all the more reason to defer this, but that’s beyond my point of order.

But we shouldn’t be doing it in the— Councilor, that’s not a point of order. We’re allowed to do exactly what we do at committee on the council floor. There’s just different procedural rules on how we can do it, which are a little more restrictive. So not a point of order, appreciate your feedback.

What’s your point of order, Deputy Mayor? So my point of order is the council just referred to if staff needs 20 minutes to rewrite a bylaw, but that it was not in fact what Mr. Mather said. He in fact said this was so complicated that they would not be able to do it today because they have to remap everything.

So I think it’s very important through you, your worship to confirm with staff, they can’t do this in 20 minutes. It was suggested that it was indicated 20 minutes and that’s not what was indicated by staff. No, I know, it’s a different change. I was gonna ask Mr.

Mathers on the complexity of that change, the other one involved mapping too. I’m unsure on that this one is any different. Through your worship, for really simple changes, we can do things in 20 minutes. This is a complex one and it applies mapping changes as well.

So we’d have to have the team engaged in that so that this isn’t a quick thing. Just to articulate, I understand the restrictions colleagues feel on this. And I want to ask Mr. Mathers’ question.

If we were to move a motion, given like there’s a whole lot of provisions here and colleagues may say, yeah, I’m good with the package as a whole, but I have concerns about these things, is if we were to have it being noted that said, council generally support, like basically there was discussion and some disagreement on AI and AV, ABC, and it just isn’t it being noted clause. Like, so colleagues know and the province knows that, hey, guess what? We had some discussion on this. Not everybody was on the same page, but ultimately the whole thing passed.

Is that something that would actually be passed onto the province? ‘Cause I want to give colleagues an outlet for what they’re trying to achieve with their discussions, but also recognize that we can’t just change a whole by-law tonight. Through your worship, my suggestion would be to develop a it being noted clause with that text, relevant text, and then we’d have a cover letter that we submit as part of, including the actual body of the by-law, and then we’d be able to see that context. Okay, so there’s, I think that might give colleagues an outlet, and it’s, again, we would be passing the whole thing through by-laws, but it would be when the province sees this, they would see, guess what?

On the ABC, there was discussion and disagreement on council, on AI, there was discussion and disagreement on council, would open up people who want to pitch something different to the provinces, they make their decisions to go and do that. It would still be voted on in its totality as a council, so I offer that as a possible solution. I think it would be very reflective and accurate of the debate we’re having here at Mr. May, that you do with that.

I quite like that, but I would also love to know what the vote is on INV to just know, is it one to 13, or have we got a closer vote here? I think that’s pertinent info. Well, I think you’re gonna have to have colleagues just weigh in in the debate to know what their opinions are on this, rather than actually pull apart and vote separately, because we’re not gonna have a separate vote on the clauses, which would be binding a council on the bylaws, referred to by all of these. We’re talking about clauses that then activate the decision on the bylaw that then we vote on.

So I would say the if being noted is good, if you wanna know how colleagues feel, I’d encourage colleagues to share their opinions during the debate on different clauses, like Council Frank and yourself have. Is it possible to have something at the bottom that says this doesn’t affect the above, but we’re reflecting our agreement on this part, AI, just so that there was a recorded vote on it? Yeah, there’s no, in the procedure by law, straw votes or anything like that, that we would include. It would, the best we could do is in it being noted that recognized that there was discussion and it wasn’t unanimous on that piece.

Okay, I’ll take that. Okay, so here’s what’s gonna happen. I don’t wanna do that now, because other colleagues might have opinions. I’m willing to speak at the end, and move in it being noted that recognizes that myself.

So I won’t speak, and I’ll do that at the end. So to give colleagues that outlet, but I wanna proceed with the speakers list now, so that everybody can do their thing. So I have Deborah Marlous and then Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I wanna speak very specifically, because we’ve had two Councillors talk about the removal of the rapid transit corridor place type along Richmond, and it would be replaced with a civic boulevard designation. And the question was asked, why would we not leave it in? It’s important to note that we are actually raising the rapid transit corridor place type allowable heights with this motion. So they’re going from 12 and 16 under the old London plan to 25.

So you’re not talking about just leaving the density that was there before. You’re talking about the density that was there in the old place type, plus up to another 10 stories. So with there being no funding, the physical changes to the North leg BRT that have not changed since Council voted it down, the problems with Western. I think we’ve all heard very recently with the QP situation, imagine how much more challenging the traffic issues would be if rapid transit was running through Western.

And that was slowing things down as well. So Western remains a barrier. The CP tracks remain a barrier. And depending on where in the place type, particular property falls now along the civic boulevard designation, we are still allowing up to 10 stories at civic boulevard at an intersection and eight in a PTA.

So we’re really talking about the difference between 12 stories and 10 stories by changing the place type. But the flip side is we’re allowing, we would be allowing 25 stories in an old place type that only allowed for 12 or 16 because it was designated as a rapid transit corridor. But we have no rapid transit service there. And as Councilor Frank mentioned, there’s no funding.

Hopefully there will be some federal funding. Hopefully there’s an option to investigate Warren Cliff in Western Road coming out of the master mobility plan. But with this particular removal, we are actually preventing upzoning. We’re not downzoning.

We’re preventing further upzoning along that corridor. So there’s still opportunity. And as we heard staff say site specific applications could still come in beyond those heights. But having said that and addressed that rapid transit piece, I want to be really clear.

I support this package as a whole as a whole. And we’re doing some really important things here. And when we think about density targets in the built area boundary, we’re allowing 45 stories now in the downtown on our transit village place types, 35 stories. Those are all within the built area boundary.

So the intensification targets in terms of building in and up are there. The ability to add some gentler density as infill and in green spaces with stacked towns are there. There’s some really good things here. And yes, there are some folks who maybe aren’t understanding what’s happening.

They find it complex. Listen, there are points reviewing this planning committee report the first time that I had to go back and reread them a couple times. And I’ve been on planning committee for a while and it still was making my eyes cross. But we do need to move forward with these.

And so on the whole, this package is really moving things forward in a positive way that opens up opportunity for all built forms of housing, high density, high rise apartments, medium density stuff along our civic boulevards and our interior roads further out from the core, but still density inside the built area boundary and inside the urban growth boundary. So those are good things to take away. If we really care about the environment, that is a piece that, and I know Councilor Frank does, but I think that that’s a piece that matters. We’re pushing that, we’re trying to keep as much density within the UGB and within the built area boundary as we can.

So I think that there’s some really, really good things happening here. And yes, I know people have concerns about transportation and water servicing. Every planning committee report has holding provisions where water and wastewater need to be still reviewed for further approvals. Same with transportation.

And this is one of those and both moments. We are moving forward with an and increase to heights and density in some of our place types through the London plan. By the way, we haven’t even looked at whether any density changes need to be done in a second neighborhood place type level, which is a discussion for a future after the, but at the same time, Ms. Share’s department is leading the MMP and the transportation piece is being looked at.

And Mr. Dickens’ team and Mr. Felberg’s team are looking at the affordability piece. So we are and both things, several things at once here, but we need to move this piece forward onto the puzzle so that we can put the other puzzle pieces together to complete the picture so that we can meet our housing needs 47,000 units by 2031 in the city of London.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, you worship. And again, I wanna thank you and the deputy mayor for the work that you’re doing on the housing starts in our city. I am a little bit frustrated here though.

And my frustration is really coming from, if you do not support these amendments as a whole, you’re stuck. I represent a community and it’s all about development. And there is nowhere now that I’m able to have my comments on the record where I’m not supporting things. So it’s either support everything on the whole or I don’t have a choice.

So that to me is a little frustrated. I’m an elected official representing my community, trying to represent them, trying to do my work here on council, and I feel like I’m stuck. And I’m not sure whose fault it is, but I know when I went to PEC, and I know when I do my homework, and when I see recommendations, and by the way, thanks to staff for the work that you’ve done, I know you had timelines, constraints to get this going, very much appreciated with that and the recommendations, but now the problem begins with the amendments and how I either support the whole or not. So I’m now stuck with, okay, I can just speak to what I don’t support, not that it really matters right now, and it’s great.

The mayor, I hope you are able to do something with being no to clause, but I just find that lack of ability for me, as a counselor to speak and to be able to vote on something that I do not agree with or that I have concerns with, so whatever. So I’m gonna speak, I’ve got three on the amended list, and the first one is the, and I’m not sure what letter that it is, AII, or it is out of the five amendments, it is number two, and it is regarding the change of the rapid transit corridor classification. I’ve been around a long time on this council. I have learned and understand that as we go forward with the master plan, that there will be considerations of designating different streets through that mobility master plan process.

We already had a conversation a month or two ago with a counselor wanting to come in and was not supported on having a study done because we didn’t wanna influence the master mobility plan. I see this as sort of along those same conversations, but I know by not supporting this, that that is gonna happen through the master mobility plan that we are going to look at redesignations and intensification and all those good things that we all want. I was not supportive of number three, the Stacktown House, I appreciate Council Roman with her motion, and again, that consultation that is, is information that the community understands as we go forward with the changes in our policies, it’s all we want, it’s the community to have a better understanding what’s going on. And the third one, which is the deletion of the staff recommendation, number D in the recommendation.

To me, this is important. If we read the recommendation, we know it’s just a consideration of looking at these items as we go through the site plan process. We’re not, we’re taking that away. We’re taking out a consideration to be looked at away in the amendment.

So those are my thoughts. I’m just not feeling comfortable because I’m going to want to support this by, well, at the end, but I’ll just leave it at that. Thank you. So I don’t have any other speakers, but I can speak and try to craft something together, but I don’t want to get ahead of anybody who might still want to provide some articulation.

Oh, go ahead, Council Roman then first. Sorry, Worship, I’m not looking to speak to this item at this time. I just want to make note of the fact that we’re at four hours and 40 minutes and we haven’t taken a break. And so I’d like to move a break.

I’m looking around and I’m seeing, sorry, three hours and 40 minutes. I’m jumping ahead an hour, okay, great for it, I guess. But I’m just wondering if we move a 10 minute break. Yes, I have see a seconder.

I just say to colleagues like, we’re in the middle of the discussion, so don’t talk about it. Come back and just do what you need to do for 10 minutes and come back here, so do this by hand. Okay, I’m doing it in the system. Prayer is the seconder.

Okay, this is going to just open in the system. Professor votes yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to two. Okay, thank you, please be seated.

Okay, thank you, Council Roman, for that suggestion. It was good. Are there any other speakers of the main motion before I together and it being noted? So let me first say, actually, if I’m making a motion, I’m going to hand over the chair to Council Roman.

No, okay, you what? Councilor, I’ll take it. All right, you’re chairing. Okay, so I’m going to move, and it being noted, but first I just want to say, this is not something that I recommend we normally do.

The only reason I’m suggesting we do this is because I remember this discussion and Councilor Hopkins would remember it when we did the official plan and we had to pass a whole official plan. There were colleagues who said, I don’t like these six or seven provisions in it, but I generally support the whole thing. So this is an official plan amendment. It’s one of the few things that goes to another body to decide.

And so I think in this rare circumstance, it can be appropriate for us to add and it being noted, identifying things that were not necessarily unanimous. And so that’s what I’ve crafted together. But what I’m saying is, if colleagues think we’re going to do this at every meeting, I’m going to start, I’m not going to rule that in order. This is a very specific process that lands at the province.

So the motion that I want to, so what we crafted together is that the motion as amended be amended to include the following, that it being noted that Council discussion was not unanimous on the following provisions, A, V, and then all the components of it that Councilor Frank mentioned, A, I, and the components of it that Councilor Stevenson mentioned. And then I also added the issue of Stacktown has his own neighborhood connectors, just as a general issue, ‘cause we had a discussion. There’s actually a vote on that, but I thought to be inclusive, I put that in. That’s what I have so far.

So I’m willing to put that on the floor, and I’ll move that now. Okay, thank you. Looking for speakers. Second.

The great thing is you don’t have to stand up to chair, you get sit down and you get— Oh, that’s a great privilege, yeah. Okay, Councilor Stevenson seconds, looking for speakers on that. I don’t need to speak on it, even though I presented it, because I think we all know what I was trying to do. Go ahead, Councilor Ben, maybe we’re gonna— All right, I just wanted to confirm that I guess it’s AX, a small Roman numeral 10, is actually gonna be delineated in the It being noted, about the Stacktown homes, anywhere and everywhere, along these connector streets.

So perhaps the American can confirm that, that will be part of it, the It being noted. Go ahead, Mayor. Yes, I added it as a general piece on Stacktown, as is given the discussion we had. I would also identify that there’s also an actual voting record on that piece, given we had an actual motion, alternate by-law proposed by colleagues.

So Stacktown houses can appear in several sections. I didn’t delineate the actual clause. I noted it as a general disagreement that we had. Is it possible to delineate that, to actually specify small Roman numeral 10?

Okay, the Mayor is indicating yes, so thank you. Thank you, appreciate it. Okay, any other speakers? Okay, go ahead, Councilor Stevens.

I know I seconded this, but as I reflect on it, should it also say that it will be noted in the correspondence to the province? ‘Cause to just have it in the motion, it’s not really gonna do anything. I’ll go to staff, but I believe they already mentioned that they were gonna put a cover letter, including details, but go ahead. Through your worship, so we would do that, we’d include in the cover letter of the resolution, but if you wanted to be more clear, that can be also be added.

Okay, Councilor Stevenson, do you want more clarity on that? No, I think if the cover letter includes the resolution, then I guess that’s, I mean, they read all the way through it though. Could it be highlighted the disagreement portion then? Go ahead, sir.

Through your worship, what we’ll do is we’ll include the entire resolution, and then in the body of the cover letter, we’ll highlight that portion of the resolution, so that is, it’s very clear. Councilor Stevenson, it’s good. Any other speakers to this item? Okay, Councilor Johnson, go ahead.

Thank you very much to the presiding officer, and I don’t wanna repeat any of the points that I made before. You know, everybody knows where I stand on the points that I spoke to. I wanna speak to the bigger issue here, and I think, and I’m not sure what the technical word for this is. So Councilor, just a reminder, so we are just on the it being noted in addition.

Yeah, but it’s the it being noted clause that purports to save the rest of it. Okay, would you prefer that I just like defer that now and just come back and discuss the main motion? And yes, I’ll do that. Thank you.

Yeah, unless you had any other further additions you wanted added, then it may be safe. Well, I think we’re creating a mess here that is not gonna put us in great standing with the province, but I really would prefer to see us spend some more time on this, but that’s already been litigated and lost, so I’ll wait for the main motion to state that again. I think we’re going into a very bad area here. Okay, thank you.

Any other comments on the it being noted? Okay, I have not seen any, so if we could open that for voting. Councilor Peruzza votes yes. Trustor Trosto votes no.

Peruzza and the vote motion carries 13 to 1. Okay, I will pass the chair back over to Mayor Morgan. Okay, now I need another mover for the as amended motion. The deputy mayor is still standing.

You may as well keep standing, you can move it. I need a seconder. Councilor Cuddy’s willing to second. So back to the main piece.

So Councilor Trosto, yes, you’re next. Okay, I’ll make this very short. I think that this is too complex to do without breaking down. I’m not going to make a point of order because you’ve already spent time thinking about how procedurally we’re going to do this.

Personally, I think it would make more sense to be able to sort of go through this item by item. I think different councilors want to vote different ways. I think at whatever we’re doing right now, it ultimately is going to undermine our credibility with senior levels of government that we’re proceeding this way. And I think the way out of this problem is to put this off and have another discussion.

I’ve already lost that on the main thing. I wanted to talk about tonight. It’s not going to turn out differently. I just want to say I’m going to vote against this because I just think we’re creating a mess and we could be doing a coherent policy in a much more rational way.

Thank you. Okay, any of the speakers? Okay, so now we have the as amended main motion. We’re open that for voting.

I so votes no. Councilor Palosa votes yes. Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to one. So you go ahead, back to you because that completes the 14th report of the planning and environment committee.

Okay, we’re done the committee reports. We have the added reports 15th report of council and closed session. I’ll have councilor Raman present that. Thank you 14th report of the council and closed session.

Your council and closed session report that progress is made with respect to items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 as noted on public agenda, 6.1, 14 CSC, 6.1, 11 CSC, 6.1, 14 SBPC and 6.1, 13 PEC. Yeah, that’s good. Thank you, progress reported. Okay, that’s it for added reports, deferred matters.

There are none, increase. Councilor Frank. Thank you, and this is my first time doing it. So I know I just can ask one question.

So given we’re heading into the budget season and the timeliness of the subject, I was wondering and want to ask staff about the viability of preventing agencies, boards and commissions from hiring PR consultants to lobby council and budget items, or could council pass a resolution that would ask them in good faith to avoid the use of public funds in this purpose? City manager, go ahead. Thank you, Worship and thank you for the question. Clearly, as council knows, the city has policies as it relates to the use of our funds and those policies apply to your budget and the way that we as your staff implement those things.

Other organizations have their own policies and while the city cannot prohibit them or has no control over their policies, so we want to be clear that you understand that reality. We are certainly open to council giving direction if you want us to give advice or provide and even to the councilor, I suppose, to bring forward a recommendation for consideration. We’re open to that, but we just want to be clear that our rules apply to the city. Other rules apply to other organizations and you can certainly ask those organizations about their rules, but clearly, we are not implementing our rules with other organizations.

So for clarity, we’re happy to take any of the direction that council might want to give us in that regard. Thank you, perfect. Okay, any other increase? Emergency motions, there are none, by-laws.

By-laws, I know it feels like we’re close to done, but by-laws have got to be done and there’s a few ways we’ve got to do the by-laws here. First, we’re going to deal with the updates to the Office of Residential Conversion Program that I brought forward, which is hand-vote. Yeah, so that one’s a hand-vote, we’ll do that first. Then we’re going to do the two readings, just two readings of bill 332 and 333, which are the Heights Review and ZBA.

The reason why we’re doing two readings is because those are related to the components that we cannot bring into effect until the minister signs off on it. So we do two readings, we wait for the minister’s approval and then we might make any changes that come when the minister does that. So we do two readings of those by-laws. The next vote will be on the Official Plan Amendment for the Heights Review.

So the stuff that we do need to approve so that we can pass it on to the minister. Then we’ll do the things that we can approve that we don’t have to hold back on the OPA for the PTM TSA pieces. So that’s the rapid transit piece that Councillor Van Merebergen asked to be a separate vote. So the same as the one above, but just with the rapid transit piece pulled out of it.

The then we’ll do bill 327, which is the one that Councillor Trossau wanted separately on the Huron Street property and then all the remainder of the by-laws. So does anybody need to divide differently than that or does that cover everybody? And if I could ask maybe to speed things up, we do three readings of most of these, we do two readings of the others. When I ask for a mover and a seconder, those mover and seconders are good for all three readings.

We’re just gonna load that into the system, speed it up a little bit, I won’t have to ask each time. I see lots of nods, we’re gonna do that. Yeah, okay. So the first we’re gonna do is the by-law to update the office residential conversion program with the provisions as outlined in the letter that I added to the council agenda.

For that, this is a hand vote and I will do the first reading and then we can have any discussion or questions at the second reading. So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder of that. Moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor McAllister. All those in favor of first reading?

Close the vote, yes. Any opposed? Motion to turn it. Okay, same mover and seconder for second reading.

Any discussion on second reading? Okay, all those in favor? Close as yes. Any opposed?

That motion to turn it. Okay, and third reading, same mover and seconder. I see nods. All those in favor of third reading?

Close the yes. Any opposed? That motion to turn it. All right, the next is we’re gonna do two readings, just two readings of bills, 332 and 333.

The ZBA from 3.6 of PEC, which is the heights review, and the ZBA piece from 3.7, the PMTSA pieces. We just need to do two readings of this because after those two readings, we’ll pause until we receive word back from the province on their approval. So mover and seconder for those. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cuddy.

First reading, there’s no debate, so this one will be in the system, so we’ll open that for voting. Close as yes. So votes no. Councillor Van Merebergen.

Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to 1. Okay, second reading, same mover and seconder. I see any discussion on second reading.

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. So votes no. Close the votes yes. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to 1.

Okay, so we pause, we don’t do third reading yet. We’ll do third reading at a future council meeting once we have the ministry’s response. The next vote is bill 311, which is the OPA from item 3.6 of the 14th report of PEC. It’s the Heights Review piece.

We’ll do first reading for that. I look for mover and a seconder. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Raman. We’ll open first reading for voting.

Close the votes no. Close the votes yes. Close the vote motion carries 13 to 1. Second reading, same mover and seconder.

Yes, good. Okay, any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close the votes no.

Close the votes yes. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to 1. Okay, third reading, same mover and seconder. We’ll open third reading for voting.

Close the votes no. Close the votes yes. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to 1. Okay, the next one, Councillor Van Mireberg and ask to be separately, this is bill 312, which is the OPA for item for 3.7 on the 14th report of PEC that the primary transit, major transit, whatever the acronym stands for, PT, MTSA.

We’ll look for a mover and a seconder for first reading. Councillor Cutty, seconded by Councillor McAllister. We’ll open first reading for voting. Close the votes yes.

Seconded by Councillor Trosto. Seconded by Councillor Trosto. Marking Councillor Trosto absent, closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 1.

Okay, second reading of the same bill, same mover and seconder, any discussion of second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close the votes yes. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to 1.

And third reading of the same bill, same mover and seconder, and we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to 1. Okay, despite the fact that Councillor Trosto was in here, we had one separated for him. It’s actually more work to put it all back together.

We can do it faster just by doing it separately. This is the Huron Street item. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder on that. It’s bill 327.

Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. A will open first voting. Close the votes yes. Close the votes no, I’m sorry.

Marking Councillor Trosto as present. Voting no, closing the vote, motion carries 13 to 1. Okay, second reading, same mover and seconder, any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting.

Close the votes no. Close the votes yes. Close the vote, motion carries 13 to 1. And third and final reading, same mover and seconder.

We’ll open that. Close the votes yes. When are we on? The one that you asked be separate.

Oh, I’m sorry, I’ll vote no. Thank you, trust the votes no. Close the vote, motion carries 13 to 1. Okay, then what we have left is everything else.

So I look for mover and seconder of that. Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Caddy. We’ll open first reading of all of those. Close the votes yes.

Close the vote yes. Close the vote, motion carries 14 to 1. Same mover and seconder. All of those, you wanna say that again?

Sorry, 14 to 0. I was gonna say someone showed it. Councillor Layman showed up, no. No, there’s only 14 members here.

Second reading, same mover and seconder, any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close the vote yes. Close the vote yes.

Close the vote 14 to 0. I feel like the clerk was testing me on that at the end of the meeting. Third reading, same mover and seconder will open third reading for voting. Close the vote yes.

Close the vote yes. Close the vote, motion carries 14 to 0. Okay, that’s it for, say I look for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Ferris, seconder by Councillor Hopkins.

We’re gonna do that by hand. All those in favor of adjournment. Close the vote yes. The motion carries.

All right, thank you, we’re adjourned.

Table of Contents

15th Meeting of City Council

1. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

2. Recognitions

3. Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

4. Council, In Closed Session

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

6. Communications and Petitions

7. Motions of Which Notice is Given

8. Reports

8.1 14th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

8.1.1 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

8.1.2 (2.1) Housekeeping By-law Amendments Resulting from Strong Mayors Powers (Relates to Bills No. 304, 305, 306, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317 and 318)

8.1.3 (2.2) 2023 Annual Reporting of Lease Financing Agreements

8.1.4 (2.4) Amendment to Banking Services Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 303)

8.1.5 (2.5) New Multi-Residential Subclass Reduction

8.1.7 (2.6) Standing Committees and Forums - Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Councillor S. Trosow

8.1.8 (4.1) Issuance of Proclamations (Relates to Bill No. 302)

8.1.6 (2.3) Downtown London Entertainment and Sports Centre Naming Rights

8.2 11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

8.2.1 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

8.2.2 (2.1) 4th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

8.2.3 (2.5) Housing Stability Services - Housing Access Centre - Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) Waitlist Placement Ratio

8.2.6 (2.4) Special Events Policy Update

8.2.7 (3.1) Amendments to the Vehicle-for-Hire By-Law (L.-130-71) (Relates to Bill No. 319)

8.2.8 (4.1) Life*Spin - Property Standards and Tenant Support

8.2.4 (2.2) Renovictions - Amendments to the Business Licensing By-law to Introduce a Rental Unit Repair Licence (Relates to Bills No. 307, 308 and 320)

8.2.5 (2.3) Regulating Maximum Temperature in Rental Units

8.3 12th Report of the Civic Works Committee

8.3.1 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

8.3.2 (2.1) 9th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

8.3.3 (2.2) Operations and Management of Three City of London EnviroDepots

8.3.4 (2.3) Emergency Repair of Centrifuges at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant

8.3.5 (2.4) Single Source SS-2024-276 - Pottersburg Wastewater Treatment Plan UV Disinfection Equipment

8.3.6 (2.5) Closing Phillip Street Road Allowance (Relates to Bill No. 322)

8.3.7 (2.6) Emergency Purchase of a Mack-Wittke Top Loading Garbage Packer

8.4 14th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

8.4.1 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

8.4.2 (2.3) Neighbourhood Parks Improvement Fund

8.4.3 (2.4) Confirmation of Appointment to the Argyle BIA

8.4.4 (2.5) 6th and 7th Reports of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

8.4.5 (2.1) Mayoral Direction 2024-001, City-Owned Parking Lot Redevelopment

8.4.7 (4.3) 12th Report of the Governance Working Group

8.4.8 (4.1) 2nd Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group

8.4.9 (4.2) 3rd Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group

8.4.10 (5.1) Support for a Grant Application for the Growing Canada’s Community Canopies - Councillors S. Franke and C. Rahman

8.4.6 (2.2) Municipal Accommodation Tax - Tourism London Annual Report

8.5 13th Special Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

8.5.1 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

8.5.2 (3.1) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Properties - 920-940 Dundas Street

8.5.3 (3.2) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property – 243 Wellington Road

8.5.4 (3.3) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property – 1163 Richmond Street

8.5.5 (3.4) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property – 3810-3814 Colonel Talbot Road

8.5.6 (3.5) Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property – 773 Dundas Street West

8.5.7 (3.6) 456 Sunningdale Road South (Relates to Bill No. 310 and 326)

8.5.8 (5.1) Deferred Matters List as of August 18, 2024

8.5.9 (5.2) 8th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

8.6 14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

8.6.1 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

8.6.2 (2.1) Planning and Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date

8.6.3 (2.2) Adjustments to Appointment By-law for Deputy and Chief Building Officials (Relates to Bill No. 309)

8.6.5 (3.2) 1550 and 1602 Sunningdale Road West (Z-9764) (Relates to Bill No. 328)

8.6.6 (3.3) 3975 Stewart Avenue (Z-9754) (Relates to Bill No. 329)

8.6.7 (3.4) 80 and 82 Base Line Road West (Z-9750) (Relates to Bill No. 330)

8.6.8 (3.5) 1338-1388 Sunningdale Road E (Z-9740) (Relates to Bill No. 331)

8.6.10 (3.7) Protected Major Transit Station Areas Zoning Review (OZ-9749) (Relates to Bills No. 312 and 333)

8.6.4 (3.1) 2-4 Audrey Avenue and 186-188 Huron Street (Z-9755) (Relates to Bill No. 327)

8.6.9 (3.6) Heights Review/Transit Village/Major Shopping Area (OZ-9726, OZ-9727, O-9752 and O-9753) (Relates to Bills No. 311 and 332)

9. Added Reports

9.1 15th Report of Council in Closed Session

10. Deferred Matters

11. Enquiries

12. Emergent Motions

13. By-laws

14. Adjournment

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

Explorer