April 22, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Councillors J. Pribil and E. Peloza (at 3:08 PM) were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Mayor J. Morgan discloses a pecuniary interest in item 9, clause 6.2 of the 7th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee, having to do with execution of 2023 to 2026 Collective Agreement for Local Union No. 101 (Canadian Union of Public Employees) (“CUPE Local 101”).

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

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

       

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending lease of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/7/ICSC)

4.2    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice        

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions and advice which is subject to solicitor client privilege and communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.2/7/ICSC)

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

       

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/7/ICSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session from 1:17 PM to 1:25 PM.

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

5.1   6th Meeting held on April 1, 2025

2025-04-01 Council Minutes 6 - to print

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on April 1, 2025 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Stevenson

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

6.1    Review of Winter Maintenance Performance Regarding Snow and Ice Removal        

  1.    Councillor S. Trosow

       

6.2    801 Sarnia Road (OZ-25017)        

  1.    S. Sana        

  2.    F. Noory, CEO, Royal Premier Homes

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   7th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-04-09 ICSC Report 7

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 7th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 9 (2.1), and 10 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.2) Emergency Repair of Line Painting Truck

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the emergency repair of the City’s Line Painting Truck:

a)    the purchase order issued for the emergency repairs on the Line Painting Truck by Core Equipment Inc. under Section 14.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy at a total cost of $69,583.14 (HST excluded), BE CONFIRMED; and

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

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.3) 2025 Renew London Infrastructure Construction Program and 2024 Review

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a)   the staff report dated April 9, 2025 entitled “2025 Renew London Infrastructure Construction Program and 2024 Review” BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the 2025 Local Road Reconstruction Project, Nashua Avenue, BE EXEMPTED from the Active Mobility Policy 349 and constructed without a new sidewalk.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.4) Appointment of Consulting Engineer: RFP 2024-379 Grenfell Drive Bridge Rehabilitation Design

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consulting engineer for the detailed design and tendering of the Grenfell Drive Bridge rehabilitation:

a)    the proposal submitted by Dillon Consulting Limited BE ACCEPTED to provide consulting engineering services to undertake the detailed design and tendering for the rehabilitation of the Grenfell Drive Bridge at an upset amount of $275,957.37, excluding HST, as per Section 15.2 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this assignment BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2025 as Appendix “A”;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.5) Purchase of Replacement Ozone Based Odour Control Unit(s) - Irregular Result

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Supply of Odour Control Units for various sites within the wastewater treatment systems:

a)    the purchase of Replacement Ozone Based Odour Control Units BE AWARDED to Sublime Environmental for the total price of $163,476 excluding HST, in accordance with Section 19.4 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2025 as Appendix “A”;

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.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.6) Year 2025 Tax Policy (Relates to Bill No.’s 133 and 134)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to property taxation for 2025:

a)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’, being a by-law setting tax ratios for property classes in 2025, in accordance with Sub-sections 308(4) and 308.1(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, it being noted that the 2025 Municipal Tax Ratio By-Law has been prepared reflecting the equalization of the average property tax increase in residential and multi-residential classes with no change to other tax ratios; and

b)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2025 as Appendix ‘B’, being a by-law levying tax rates for property classes in 2025, in accordance with Sections 307 and 312 of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.7) Year 2025 Education Tax Rates (Relates to Bill No. 135)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2025 as Appendix “A”, being a by-law levying rates for 2025 for school purposes in the City of London BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.8) 2024 Compliance Report in Accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a)    the administrative contract awards for Professional Consulting Services with an aggregate total greater than $100,000, as per Section 15.1 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, decentralized from Purchasing and Supply that have been reported to the Senior Manager, Procurement and Supply and have been reviewed for compliance to the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE RECEIVED for information, as appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2025 as Appendix “A”;

b)    the list of administrative contract awards for Tenders with a value up to $6,000,000 that do not have an irregular result, as per Section 13.2 (c) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE RECEIVED for information, as appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2025 as Appendix “B”; and

c)    the City Treasurer, or delegate, BE DELEGATED authority to, at any time, refer questions concerning compliance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to the City’s internal auditor. The City Treasurer, or delegate, is hereby further authorized to ratify and confirm completed awards or purchases between $15,000 and $50,000 where the City Treasurer or delegate is of the opinion that the awards or purchases were in the best interests of the Corporation.

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (2.1) 2026 Municipal and School Board Elections Update (Relates to Bill No. 139)

Motion made by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2026 Municipal Election:

a)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to request local school boards to consider scheduling a Professional Activity Day (PA Day) on Voting Day, October 26, 2026, as elementary and secondary schools serve as voting locations for Municipal and School Board Elections;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025 to authorize the use of vote tabulators, voting by mail, and proxy voting for Municipal and School Board Elections;

c)    no further action BE TAKEN with respect to adopting a candidate contribution rebate by-law; and

d)    the staff report dated April 9, 2025 entitled “2026 Municipal Election Update” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion made by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2026 Municipal Election:

a)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to request local school boards to consider scheduling a Professional Activity Day (PA Day) on Voting Day, October 26, 2026, as elementary and secondary schools serve as voting locations for Municipal and School Board Elections;

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Motion made by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2026 Municipal Election:

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025 to authorize the use of vote tabulators, voting by mail, and proxy voting for Municipal and School Board Elections;

c)    no further action BE TAKEN with respect to adopting a candidate contribution rebate by-law; and

d)    the staff report dated April 9, 2025 entitled “2026 Municipal Election Update” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 9, clause 2.1, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2026 Municipal Election:

a)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to request local school boards to consider scheduling a Professional Activity Day (PA Day) on Voting Day, October 26, 2026, as elementary and secondary schools serve as voting locations for Municipal and School Board Elections;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025 to authorize the use of vote tabulators, voting by mail, and proxy voting for Municipal and School Board Elections;

c)    no further action BE TAKEN with respect to adopting a candidate contribution rebate by-law; and

d)    the staff report dated April 9, 2025 entitled “2026 Municipal Election Update” BE RECEIVED for information.

8.1.10   (4.1) Review of Winter Maintenance Performance Regarding Snow and Ice Removal - Councillors S. Franke and C. Rahman

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Review of Winter Maintenance Performance regarding Snow and Ice Removal:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee regarding amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (O.Reg. 239/02) and the impact of the amendments on City operations, along with any budget considerations; and

b)   the City’s 2024/2025 winter maintenance performance, challenges and opportunities for potential service improvements BE REVIEWED, including but not limited to:

i)    a performance assessment of contracted services providers;

ii)    an analysis by staff on possible costs associated to use machines that could clean windrows or ways to clear snow that would minimize the amount of snow at the edge of residents driveways;

iii)    investigating alternative options for snow and ice removals on roads and sidewalks; and

iv)   staff engage in discussion with school boards on walking path clearance concerns on City property;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated March 18, 2025 from Councillors S. Franke and C. Rahman with respect to this matter.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That part b) iii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:

b) iii)  investigating alternative options for snow and ice removals on roads, laneways, and sidewalks; and

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Review of Winter Maintenance Performance regarding Snow and Ice Removal:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee regarding amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (O.Reg. 239/02) and the impact of the amendments on City operations, along with any budget considerations;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated March 18, 2025 from Councillors S. Franke and C. Rahman with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Review of Winter Maintenance Performance regarding Snow and Ice Removal:

b)   the City’s 2024/2025 winter maintenance performance, challenges and opportunities for potential service improvements BE REVIEWED, including but not limited to:

i)    a performance assessment of contracted services providers;

ii)    an analysis by staff on possible costs associated to use machines that could clean windrows or ways to clear snow that would minimize the amount of snow at the edge of residents driveways;

iii)    investigating alternative options for snow and ice removals on roads, laneways, and sidewalks; and

iv)   staff engage in discussion with school boards on walking path clearance concerns on City property;

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Item 10, clause 4.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Review of Winter Maintenance Performance regarding Snow and Ice Removal:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee regarding amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (O.Reg. 239/02) and the impact of the amendments on City operations, along with any budget considerations; and

b)   the City’s 2024/2025 winter maintenance performance, challenges and opportunities for potential service improvements BE REVIEWED, including but not limited to:

i)    a performance assessment of contracted services providers;

ii)    an analysis by staff on possible costs associated to use machines that could clean windrows or ways to clear snow that would minimize the amount of snow at the edge of residents driveways;

iii)    investigating alternative options for snow and ice removals on roads, laneways, and sidewalks; and

iv)   staff engage in discussion with school boards on walking path clearance concerns on City property;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated March 18, 2025 from Councillors S. Franke and C. Rahman with respect to this matter.

8.2   7th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-04-07 CPSC Report

2025-04-07 Sub. Watson Park - H. McAlister

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 7th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 8 (2.7) and 9 (5.1).

Motion Passed (15 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) 1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on March 27, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) London’s Designation as a Welcoming Francophone Community

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated April 7, 2025, with respect to London’s Designation as a Welcoming Francophone Community, BE RECEIVED. (2025-R08)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Approval of Single Source SS-2025-093 Contract Extension Equipment Rental with Operators - W12A Landfill

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 7, 2025, related to the Approval of a Single Source Contract Extension for Equipment Rental with Operators for the W123A Landfill:

a)    a single source-SS-2025-093 extension of the contract summarized in Contract Record C20-072 with J.B.L. Construction for a period of one (1) year in accordance with Section 14.4(d) and (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy as outlined below, BE APPROVED:

i)    the existing Terms, Conditions and Specifications as outlined in Contract Record C20-072 will be in place through the one (1) year extension period commencing on August 1, 2025; and,

ii)    the contract extension will include a one-time payment not to exceed $200,000 to cover the cost to procure and install refurbished waste compactor wheels and crawler dozer tracks with undercarriage to ensure these pieces of equipment will continue to operate as specified for the duration of the contract extension period;

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

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, contract record and/or purchase order, whichever is determined appropriate; and,

d)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-E07/E07A)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) Request for Proposal 2025-389 - Consulting Services for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 7, 2025, related to Request for Proposal 2025-389 for Consulting Services for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update:

a)    the bid submitted by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, 302-219 Oxford Street West, London, Ontario N6H 1S5, for Consulting Services in accordance with RFP2025-389, at its bid price of $251,986.00 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source 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; and,

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-R04)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) SS-2025-072 - London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of Vehicle Tablet Mounts and Accessories

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated April 7, 2025, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of Vehicle Tablet Mounts and Accessories:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with  Commercial Truck Equipment Co., 1005 Pattullo Ave, RR8, Woodstock, ON, N4V 1C8, for pricing for a single source contract for one (1) year with three (3) option years for the provision of vehicle tablet mounts and accessories to the London Fire Department;

b)    the approval a) above, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a purchasing agreement with Commercial Truck Equipment Co. to provide vehicle tablet mounts and associated accessories to the London Fire Department;

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

d)    the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, as required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-V04)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) SS-2025-074 - London Fire Department Single Source Bunker Gear Renewal

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated April 7, 2025, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Bunker Gear Renewal:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with AJ Stone Company Ltd., 62 Bradwick Dr, Concord, ON L4K 1K8, for pricing for a single source contract for one (1) year with two (2) option years for the provision of bunker gear to the London Fire Department;

b)    the approval in a) above, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a contract with AJ Stone Company Ltd. to provide bunker gear to the London Fire Department;

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

d)    the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, as required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-A14)

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (2.7) Emergency Treatment Fund (ETF) Approval of Federal Contribution Agreement (Reducing Substance Use Harms Through Basic Needs and Healthcare at 602 Queens “The Commons”) (Relates to Bill No. 132)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 7, 2025, related to the Emergency Treatment Fund (ETF) Approval of Federal Contribution Agreement (Reducing Substance Use Harms Through Basic Needs and Healthcare at 602 Queens “The Commons”):

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to:

i)    severally delegated the authority to the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development to approve:

A)     amending agreements with Canada (Minister of Health) for the Substance Use and Addictions Program - Emergency Treatment Fund (“SUAP-ETF”) (Reducing Substance Use Harms Through Basic Needs and Healthcare at 602 Queens “The Commons”)Arrangement 2526-HQ-000038 (“Contribution Agreement”);

B)    further agreements with Canada that relate to the Contribution Agreement; and,

C)      agreements (including amending agreements) with third party services providers  that relate to the Contribution Agreement (“Service Provider Agreement”);

on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer or a written designate of the City Treasurer.

ii)  authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute agreements (including amending agreements) approved under subsection a) of this by-law;

iii)     severally delegated the authority to the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates to approve such further and other documents (not Agreements) that do not fall under section a) above, that may be required in furtherance of The Corporation of the City of London’s obligations under its Contribution Agreement with Canada, and Service Provider Agreements, on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer;

iv)     severally authorized the City Manager and Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, to execute the documents approved under subsection c) of this by-law.

v)    severally delegated the authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts, including signing authority regarding application forms for funding, budgets, cash flows, other financial reporting including financial claims, and directions, consents and other authorizations as may be required, provided that the monetary amounts do not exceed the maximum amount of Canada’s contribution specified in the Contribution Agreement (and any amendments) that are necessary in connection with the Contribution Agreement or Purchase of Service Agreement, as approved in section a) above.

vi)    ratify the Contribution Agreement, Arrangement 2526-HQ-000038, Substance Use and Addictions Program - Emergency Treatment Fund, (Reducing Substance Use Harms Through Basic Needs and Healthcare at 602 Queens “The Commons”) executed by the City Manager; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to present a report at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, providing the above noted executed contracts for information;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from M. McMahon, Thames Valley Family Health Team and M. Ritchie, Sisters of St. Joseph in Canada, with respect to this matter, was received. (2025-S14)

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.2.9   (5.1) Watson Park

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to Watson Park:

a)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to assist with the relocation of those living unhoused in Watson Park, and connect them with appropriate service supports, including possible shelter options;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to cease the operation of the Watson Park depot and move to the recently approved mobile service model as soon as possible and that, in the interim period, depot resources be reallocated to assist those living unhoused find shelter or relocate them to an alternate location; and,

c)    the attached letter from Councillor H. McAlister, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That part a) be amended to read as follows:

a)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to assist with the relocation of those living unhoused in Watson Park, to ensure that Watson Park is in compliance with established encampment protocols, and connect them with appropriate service supports, including possible shelter options;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion, as amended, be approved.

At 2:09 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

At 2:11 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enters the meeting.

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to Watson Park:

a)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to assist with the relocation of those living unhoused in Watson Park, to ensure that Watson Park is in compliance with established encampment protocols, and connect them with appropriate service supports, including possible shelter options;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to Watson Park:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to cease the operation of the Watson Park depot and move to the recently approved mobile service model as soon as possible and that, in the interim period, depot resources be reallocated to assist those living unhoused find shelter or relocate them to an alternate location; and,

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Council recess at this time, for 5 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 2:46 PM and reconvenes at 2:57 PM.

At 2:59 PM, Councillor S. Lehman leaves the meeting.

At 3:02 PM, Councillor S. Lehman enters the meeting.

At 3:05 PM, Councillor E. Peloza leaves the meeting.

At 3:08 PM, Councillor E. Peloza joins the meeting virtually.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Hillier

c) that the letter from Councillor H. McAlister, with respect to Watson Park, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 9, clause 5.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to Watson Park:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to assist with the relocation of those living unhoused in Watson Park, to ensure that Watson Park is in compliance with established encampment protocols, and connect them with appropriate service supports, including possible shelter options;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to cease the operation of the Watson Park depot and move to the recently approved mobile service model as soon as possible and that, in the interim period, depot resources be reallocated to assist those living unhoused find shelter or relocate them to an alternate location; and,

c)    the attached letter from Councillor H. McAlister, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED.

8.3   6th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2025-04-08 - PEC Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 6th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 4 (3.1), 6 (3.3), and 10 (3.7).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) The 4th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 4th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 20, 2025, BE RECEIVED; 

it being noted that the verbal delegation from S. Levin, Chair of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Amendments and Additions to the Downtown Community Improvement Plan Program Guidelines: Vacant Commercial Space Fit-Out Grant Program (Relates to Bill No. 138)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to the Municipal Council meeting on April 22, 2025, to amend By-law C.P.-1559-83, as amended, being A By-law to establish financial incentives for the Core Area Community Improvement Project Area, by adding Schedule 4 – Core Area Community Improvement Plan – Vacant Commercial Space Fit-Out Grant Program Guidelines;

it being noted that the written communication from W. Thomas and D. Brown, with respect to this matter was received; 

it being further noted that the delegation from K. Morrison, Old East Village BIA, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (3.2) 2826 Dundas Street (Z-25024) (Relates to Bill No. 147)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Dancor Construction Ltd. relating to the property located at 2826 Dundas Street:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, 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 Light Industrial (h-108LI1) Zone TO a Holding Light Industrial Special Provision (h-108h-9*LI1/LI6(_)) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider design issues through the site plan process that incorporates measures to relocate the building closer to the street with parking in the interior side and/or rear yard, and design the street facing façade to reduce large expanses of blank wall along Dundas Street; and,

c)    that pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice be given in respect of the proposed by-law as the key map provided in the Notice of Application and Public Meeting correctly depicted the subject lands, the change in address has no major impacts on the nature of the application, and no public concerns were received in response to the Notice of Application and Public Meeting;

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

  •      A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design Policies, and the Light Industrial Place Type policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of industrial lands with an appropriate use and form of development;

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

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (3.4) 8530 Longwoods Road (Z-25014) (Relates to Bill No. 149)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Rosella Merucci relating to the property located at 8530 Longwoods Road, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan of the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Agricultural (AG1) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-15) Zone;

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

  •      P. Saker;

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

 The recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit residential intensification that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (3.5) 1398 Wellington Road (Z-25015) (Relates to Bill No. 150)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1398 Wellington NDB Limited (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 1398 Wellington Road, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to amend the zoning of the subject property FROM a Restricted Service Commercial/Light Industrial (RSC2/LI1) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial/Light Industrial/Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (RSC2/LI1/ASA1(_)) Zone;

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

  •      A. Legrew; 

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate range of uses at an intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and is considered compatible within the surrounding context;

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

8.3.9   (3.6) 825 Wharncliffe Road South (Z-25021) (Relates to Bill No. 151)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Hafiz Qaddafi c/o Creative Structures - Kenneth Gakuhi Ngacaku relating to the property located at 825 Wharncliffe Rd S, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Convenience Commercial Special Provision (CC4( )) Zone;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates adaptive reuse of existing building stock with a use that is compatible within the surrounding context without precluding future comprehensive redevelopment.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (3.8) Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Draft Industrial Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas) and Process Update (O-9595)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Section 26 Official Plan Review of The London Plan:

a)    that the Draft Industrial Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas)as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED for continued consultation with the community and development industry;

b)    that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to receive landowner requests for candidate industrial properties to be evaluated for potential inclusion within the urban area of the city as part of the Urban Growth Boundary Review, noting an expansion is warranted based on the findings of the draft Industrial Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas) contained in the above-noted Appendix “A”;

c)    that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of Ineligible and Unsuitable industrial lands, as identified through the Draft Industrial Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas), for possible land use redesignation; and, 

d)    that this report BE RECEIVED; 

it being noted that following consultations, the Industrial Land Needs Assessment for Employment Areas will be presented to future meetings of Council;

it being further noted that the findings of the Urban Growth Boundary Review, including evaluation of landowner requests and blocks identified for evaluation by Civic Administration, are to be brought forward to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee for Council adoption and circulation to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for Ministry Approval;

it being further noted that the development of lands within the Urban Growth Boundary Review expansion area will proceed as approved by the Municipal Council through future planning approvals and the annual Growth Management Implementation Strategy process;

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

  •      M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  •      S. Pratt; 

  •      S. Ford, Dancor Construction; and, 

  •     Serabethra;  

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

8.3.12   (4.1) Planning Fees and Review Recommendations

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the fee changes included in Schedule “A” as part of the 2026 Amendments to Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to phase-in the subdivision drawing review fee increase over two years, in addition to annual inflationary increases; and,

c)    the City of London’s Internal Auditor MNP BE REQUESTED to include a value for money audit of the Subdivision Review Process as part of Proposed Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan for 2026; and,

d)    the appended report dated April 8. 2025 as Schedule “B” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the second annual subdivision drawing review fee increase will proceed subject to the Subdivision Review Process audit recommendations;

it being further noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the April 2025, Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (3.1) 3095 Bostwick Road (Z-9791/O-25032) (Relates to Bill No.’s 136 and 146) 

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Southside Construction Management Ltd. relating to the property located at 3095 Bostwick Road:

a)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, for the City of London, 2026, to:

i)    change the designation of the subject lands on Map 1 of The London Plan FROM Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Type TO Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Type;

ii)    change the designation of the subject lands on Schedules 4 and 12 of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan FROM Open Space and Environmental Review, and Low Density Residential designations, TO Open Space and Environmental Review, and Low Density Residential designations;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan, from the City of London, 2016 as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO a Residential R2 (R2- 3(6)), Residential R4 (R4-4(2)), and an Open Space (OS5) Zone; and,

c)    the Planning and Environment Committee REPORT TO the Approval Authority the issues, if any, raised through the application review process for Talbot Village Phase 8 Subdivision located at 3095 Bostwick Road;

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

  •      C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo;

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

  •     the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

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

  •     the recommended amendment facilitates a range of housing options in a location considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

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

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

that part c) be amended to include i) to read as follows:

i)    The subdivision approval authority include a draft plan condition specific to natural heritage compensation for the 1.27 hectares of feature removal, consisting of 0.57 ha of wetlands and 0.70 ha of woodlands, to demonstrate no net loss to the natural heritage features and functions, to the satisfaction of the City. If the Owner is unable to compensate for the full 1.27 hectares on the subject lands, the balance is to be provided on non-City lands external to the subject lands.

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Southside Construction Management Ltd. relating to the property located at 3095 Bostwick Road:

a)     the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, for the City of London, 2026, to:

i)    change the designation of the subject lands on Map 1 of The London Plan FROM Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Type TO Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Type;

ii)    change the designation of the subject lands on Schedules 4 and 12 of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan FROM Open Space and Environmental Review, and Low Density Residential designations, TO Open Space and Environmental Review, and Low Density Residential designations;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan, from the City of London, 2016 as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO a Residential R2 (R2- 3(6)), Residential R4 (R4-4(2)), and an Open Space (OS5) Zone; and,

c)    the Planning and Environment Committee REPORT TO the Approval Authority the issues, if any, raised through the application review process for Talbot Village Phase 8 Subdivision located at 3095 Bostwick Road;

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

  •      C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo;

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

  •     the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

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

  •     the recommended amendment facilitates a range of housing options in a location considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

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

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.3.6   (3.3) 1622 Evans Boulevard (OZ-25010) (Relates to Bill No.’s 137 and 148) 

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Drewlo Holdings Inc. relating to the property located at 1620 Evans Boulevard (formerly 1622 Evans Boulevard):

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 8, 2025,  as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to amend the Zoning By-law No. Z.- 1 (in conformity with the Official Planfor the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R6/Residential R8 (h-100*R6-5/R8-4) Zone, TO a Residential R6/Residential R8 Special Provision (R6-5()/R8-4()) Zone;

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

i)    opportunities to reduce hard surface areas in favour of increased trees and landscaping; and, 

ii)    tree planting along the rear of the property to provide screening from Highbury Avenue South;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates a range of housing options in a location considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

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

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.3.10   (3.7) 801 Sarnia Road (OZ-25017)

At 3:45 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 3:46 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Royal Premier Homes (c/o Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc.) relating to the property located at 801 Sarnia Road:

a)    the request to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by adding a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and adding the lands to Map 7 – Specific Area Policies, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the requested amendment does not satisfy the criteria for adoption of Specific Area Policies; and;

ii)    the requested amendment does not facilitate an appropriate form of residential intensification that is sensitive to existing neighbourhoods and does not represent a good fit, as required by the intensity and residential intensification policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (h-8*R8- 4(74)*B-40)) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

ii)    the requested amendment is not in conformity with The London Plan, including but not limited to the Residential Intensification policies in the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

iii)    the proposed density cannot be appropriately accommodated on the subject lands and is not compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

iv)    the requested amendment would result in over-intensification of the site and no provision of affordable housing units;

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

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

  •      Emilina; 

  •      A. Johnson; 

  •      N. Sana

  •     S. Sana; and, 

  •     A. Babanski;

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

  •      a communication dated April 4, 2025 from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design; and, 

  •      a communication dated April 7, 2025 from A. Johnson;

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 Failed (5 to 10)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Royal Premiere Homes relating to the property located at 801 Sarnia Road:

a)    the proposed by-law (attached as Appendix A) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, by adding a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and adding the lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

b)   the proposed by-law (attached as Appendix B) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, as amended in part (a) above, to change the zoning of the subject property from a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (h-8*R8-4(74)*B-40)) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)) Zone;

c)   the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following through the Site Plan review:

i)    to ensure the functionality of the development, flexibility should be granted regarding the provision of landscaped islands within the rear parking area, in lieu of additional On-site parking stalls to meet the 0.5 stall per unit ratio;

ii)   work with the developer to enable an economical form of construction that Supports project feasibility by avoiding the requirement for “building step-backs”

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:

1)   the recommended amendment would permit residential intensification that is appropriate.

At 4:09 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 4:10 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

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

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lehman

that the motion be amended to add a new e) part that reads as follows:

e)   the applicant BE REQUESTED to meet with Municipal Housing and Industrial Development (MHID) to explore viable contributions Royal Premier Homes can make to affordable housing initiatives in the city.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 4:14 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enters the meeting.

At 4:15 PM, Councillor E. Peloza leaves the meeting

At 4:17 PM, Councillor E. Peloza enters the meeting

Item 10, clause 3.7, as amended, reads as follows:

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions, as amended, be taken with respect to the application of Royal Premiere Homes relating to the property located at 801 Sarnia Road:

a)    the proposed by-law (attached as Appendix A) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, by adding a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and adding the lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

b)   the proposed by-law (attached as Appendix B) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, as amended in part (a) above, to change the zoning of the subject property from a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (h-8*R8-4(74)*B-40)) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)) Zone;

c)   the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following through the Site Plan review:

i)    to ensure the functionality of the development, flexibility should be granted regarding the provision of landscaped islands within the rear parking area, in lieu of additional On-site parking stalls to meet the 0.5 stall per unit ratio;

ii)   work with the developer to enable an economical form of construction that Supports project feasibility by avoiding the requirement for “building step-backs”

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

e)   the applicant BE REQUESTED to meet with Municipal Housing and Industrial Development (MHID) to explore viable contributions Royal Premier Homes can make to affordable housing initiatives in the city.

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

  1.   the recommended amendment would permit residential intensification that is appropriate.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.4   5th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2025-04-10 SPPC Report 5

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 5th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 2 (2.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Communication from Councillor/Budget Chair E. Peloza and Councillor S. Lehman

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Submission – Economic Development Strategy:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the City of London’s contracted services with London Economic Development Corporation, TechAlliance and the Small Business Center to identify if any duplication in services exist and if any cost savings can be realized and report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review and report back on potential efficiency improvements in relation to economic development opportunities for agencies, boards, and commissions, including but not limited to the relationships between the Film and Music Offices, Tourism London and RBC Place;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated January 27, 2025 from Councillor/Budget Chair E. Peloza and Councillor S. Lehman with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Economic Development Strategy: Appointment of Consultant for RFP 2025-004

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consultant for the development of the Economic Development Strategy:

a)    Deloitte LLP BE APPOINTED as the Consultant to undertake the development of the Economic Development Strategy, for a total amount of $233,820.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with sections 15.3d and 12 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the funding for this assignment BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated April 10, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

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

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

9.   Added Reports

Motion made by S. Franke

That clause 1 of the 7th Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

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

Lease Agreement Renewals for Office Space – 520 Wellington Street – Centennial House

1.  That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Fleet & Facilities, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the lease of commercial office space located at 520 Wellington Street, (Centennial House), the Five (5) Agreement Amending Terms of Lease (the “Lease Renewal Agreements”) which are all attached as Appendix “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, and “E”,  between the City and Centennial House Limited (the “Landlord”), for office units totaling approximately 13,253 square feet of rentable space located at 520 Wellington Street (Centennial House) being Units 1-3, Unit 4, Units 7-8, Unit 10, and Units 11-12, for a term of Three Years and Six Months (for Units 1-3 & Unit 4); a term of Three Years and Four Months (for Units 7-8); for Three Years and One Month (for Unit 10); and Three Years and Three Months (for Units 11-12), and all Lease Renewal Agreements ending on December 31, 2028 with Two (2) further options to renew at Two (2) years each, BE APPROVED.

Motion made by S. Franke

At 4:35 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

That clause 2 of the 7th Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That clause 2 of the 7th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

Execution of 2023 to 2026 Collective Agreement for Local Union No. 101 (Canadian Union of Public Employees) (“CUPE Local 101”)

2.  That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the Mayor and the City Clerk to obtain the necessary authorization to execute the Collective Agreement for the years 2023 to 2026, appended as Appendix “C” to the staff report dated April 9, 2025, pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement dated June 28, 2023 (Appendix “A”) and the Agreed to Items dated February 6, 2023, and February 28, 2023 (Appendix “B”), between The Corporation of the City of London and Local Union No. 101 (Canadian Union of Public Employees) (“CUPE 101”).

That progress was made with respect to item 4.3 as noted on the public agenda, (6.3/7/ICSC).

At 4:36 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None

12.   Emergent Motions

None

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 131 to 151 and Added Bill No. 152, with the exception of Bill No.’s 132, 137 and 148, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 131 to 151 and Added Bill No. 152, with the exception of Bill No.’s 132, 137 and 148, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 131 to 151 and Added Bill No. 152, with the exception of Bill No.’s 132, 137 and 148, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 137 and 148 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 137 and 148 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 137 and 148 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 132  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Bill No.132 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 132 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No.’s 153 and 154 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Added Bill No.’s 153 and 154 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No.’s 153 and 154 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:47 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 5 minutes)

Okay, thank you, please be seated. Welcome to the seventh meeting of Municipal Council for this year. I’m gonna start with a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran peoples.

We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabek, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique cultures, languages, cultures, and customs. City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific for this meeting, you can contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. With that, I will introduce our national anthem performer today. John Felner is a born and raised Londoner. His music lends itself to folk, pop, and RMB, creating a sound that is both nostalgic and contemporary.

A four-time Juno-nominated producer for Canadian artists, John found a deeper personal residence when he began writing for himself. In 2023, he won both the Aolian Hall Songwriters Contest and the Slate Music’s It’s Your Shot. With his second single, Broke Skin, in rotation across Canada’s top 40 radio, John’s presence continues to grow. After being selected to represent London in Hanover, Germany, international opportunities continue to open up for him.

John will be traveling to the UK to represent London during the Sound of City Music Conference in Liverpool, England. Please rise and join me in welcoming John who will now perform the national anthem for us. ♪ Today, see what’s really strong ♪ ♪ And far, Canada ♪ ♪ Please stand on guard for life ♪ ♪ Please stand on guard for life ♪ I’ll now turn to disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, recognitions, I’m gonna start with Councillor Frank for the first recognition.

Thank you, and it is a pleasure to honor today Sandy Levin, whose dedication and perseverance has helped our environment and helped London’s planning policies for the last couple of decades. Unfortunately, he wasn’t able to be here today because he serves alongside a few of us at Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, and they have a financial committee meeting right now. So he will probably watch this later as he watches most of our meetings, and so I’ll say some nice things for him today. He has spent decades in service, both as a politician and as well as a community member on many different environmental committees and advisory committees.

And not in search for recognition or reward, but simply because he believes in protecting our environment and doing the right thing. And I really appreciate his mentorship. So getting started in London about 10 years ago, he was one of the people that everyone said, “Oh, you have to meet with Sandy. He’ll give you the coals notes on planning policies and development charges.” So without his help, I don’t even imagine I necessarily would have gotten involved in politics in London because he really helped me navigate and give me confidence that I could understand these really complex decisions that we make here.

So I really appreciate his mentorship. And he’s always available whenever I have an obscure question about environmental policy or planning policy from the ’90s. He seems to still have the paper copy of reports from then and is able to provide that information quite readily. So I appreciate that.

And on behalf of the community and myself, thank you, Sandy. Again, I know you’re not here, but I’m sure you’ll watch this later. And I’m really grateful for the work that you’ve done in our community. And I know we haven’t seen the last of you as he’ll be sitting on many committees still to come, but I wanted to mark the stage just because he did present his last ECAC report at PEC.

And so that final report is coming today at council. And it’s also Earth Day. So I thought it was just a great time to recognize his great work. Thank you.

Next I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship. So colleagues, I rise today and I’m wearing blue and white, not just because it’s the Leafs in the playoffs, but for a big Leafs fan who’s in the gallery today that I would like to recognize. Nine years ago, I took on the role of team manager for my nephew, Ethan’s minor PB hockey team.

We call him the U11s now. They’ve changed the names a couple times. And it was a new guy and non-parent in the head coach role by the name of Matt Karen. And Matt is here today because I want to take an opportunity to recognize his commitment to the game and to the community.

That was a heck of a first season with Matt. We finished first in the alliance with a championship that would be the first of many great seasons, not just for those players, but for a lot of players who have had the opportunity to play under Matt’s coaching leadership. Four seasons later, I’d rejoin Matt this time on the bench as his trainer for a junior Mustangs team with my younger nephew Dylan. And this year, he coached the U16 Purple Mustangs, the second year he’s had that group.

And while it wasn’t a winning season record this year, I know his team still had a lot of fun. And next season, he’s moving on to the U14 Purple Mustangs, try to start in just a couple of weeks. I know everybody says there’s two seasons in Canada, construction in hockey, but hockey overlaps with construction all the time. And we’re back at the rink in two weeks.

But before thinking about that next season, the reason I want to recognize Matt is this year, he surpassed 500 games coached as a head coach. Now, I want you to think about that for a minute. Factor in travel and pregame warm-ups and strategies with the kids ahead of time. Think about, for every game, you’re talking about an hour or two hours of practices during the week.

So I did some rough back of napkin math, and Matt’s contributed over 2,500 hours of his personal time as a non-parent coaching kids in our city and coaching them not just on how to be better players, but coaching them in life, coaching them to be better people. The thing that comes up about Matt again and again, and his brother-in-law who was on the bench with him, this season, Chad said to me, this and Chad, I know you’re here today too, it’s not just this season. This has come up again and again and again about Matt for years. It’s not just the focus on the ice, it’s not just the focus during the game, but it’s the focus that Matt continues to have with his players even after he’s done as a coach.

He’s there to provide support and guidance, volunteer opportunities as players get older, and he goes above and beyond to ensure that these hockey players are becoming mature responsible members of the community. I know personally from both of my nephews that they always say he was their favorite coach because it’s the attention that he pays to the players, not just on the ice, but away from the game as well. I wanna take an opportunity to especially thank Brianne and Charlie and Mackenzie for allowing Matt time away from home to coach and to be a part of hockey. I know that that is a sacrifice that you make and coaches only get to do the things that they do as volunteers in our community with the support of their friends and family.

So thank you to you and the rest of the extended family for letting Matt do what he loves at the rink. And I know whether it was for myself or Andrew and Nathan Angus or Matt Boss or any of the people that Matt has shared a bench with including Chad and Tyler and Rob this season or the players. And whether it’s Ethan or Dylan or Zach Zavruznik or some of the other young men that I know Matt has coached over the years, I think I can speak for all of them in saying Matt, we appreciate how you have touched so many lives in this community in a positive impactful way as a coach and as a mentor. And so congratulations on 500 games.

And when you hit 1,000, we’ll have you back for another celebration. Thank you, I’ll do the next recognition. So this is an individual that I know everybody in this room knows very well. Steve Court has decided to retire.

And he was first involved as the YOU volunteer in 1984 became the organization’s executive director in 1988. During that time, back in 1988, YOU had 10 staff providing employment programs and industry loans for first and last month’s rent. Under his leadership, the organization has grown to 120 people operating seven facilities with assets of over $50 million. Just a couple of months ago, YOU had its grand opening for Jones Place, a $30 million complex at the corner of Richmond and York that is already transforming lives.

This builds on the incredible work that’s already been done by YOU, including the opening of our first youth hub. Steve’s resignation takes effect on August 15th. And knowing Steve, he’ll probably have completed seven more projects between now and then. But I know each of us know him personally.

Each of us have seen lives impacted by his work in this community. I know each of us have probably already reached out to him to give that personal congratulations on what has been a life’s commitment to serving youth in this community. And we know that despite him being retired, he will still be incredibly involved shaping this community for years to come. So to Steve and everything that he has done for this community on behalf of council, I wanted to say thank you and congratulations on your retirement.

And the final recognition, I will turn it over to councilor Cady to give that one. Thank you, Your Worship. As we all know, Pope Francis died yesterday at age 88. And in addition to being an incredibly generous man and great leader of the Catholic Church, I wanna tell you a little bit about Francis that you may not know, Pope Francis, you may not already know.

He was the first Latin American pope in 1300 years. He was the first Jesuit priest to ascend to the papacy in 1300 years. Pope Francis started out as a Jesuit priest on the streets of Buenos Aires, looking after the poor in the downtrodden. And that’s the way he lived his life, Your Worship.

He was humble and always giving to the community. Now, I became a Catholic 24 years ago this past weekend. Soon after that, I became a Eucharistic minister at St. Peter’s Basilica, where I still am today.

And Pope Francis gave me a great deal of pope. When my wife passed away in 2015, his words, his wisdom, I followed. But more important, more than that, Your Worship, Pope Francis was a man who was changing the Catholic Church and changing it for the better. And I wanna take a moment, the moment of silence isn’t necessary, but I wanna take a moment of reflection that we have just seen the passing, probably one of the greatest hopes, certainly in our lifetime and maybe for many generations to come.

And Your Worship, thank you for letting me recognize Pope Francis and for the great work that he’s done. Thank you, I’ll also note that the federal government has ordered lowering of the national flags to half mass for the period beginning today, April 22nd through the first day of the funeral Saturday, April 26th. And we recognize all federal flag lowering. So the flags at the city of London will also be lowered for that period as well.

Okay, that brings us through recognitions, review of confidential matters, because they’re in public, we have none. We have council and closed session. There are three items for our closed session today. So look for a motion to move into closed session.

Moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion on closed session? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Stevenson votes yes.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, and we’ll be moving to painting room five colleagues. So those in the gallery can stay. We’ll be back when we conclude our in-camera session.

Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, that concludes council and closed session. We have the confirmation and signing of the minutes from previous meetings. We have the sixth meeting, which was held on April 1st, 2025.

We’ll look for a move and a seconder for the minutes of those. Moved by Councillor Vermeer, seconded by Councillor Ferrera. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. That brings us to communications and petitions. There are a couple of items there. They can be referred to the various points in the agenda.

There’s a motion prepared for that for all those items. I’ll look for a mover to do that. Moved by Councillor Trostas, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Any discussion on those items?

Okay, they’ll be referred and we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, there are no motions to which notice was given, which brings us to reports. We have the seventh report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee.

I’ll turn it over to Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you, I would like to present the seventh report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. I’ll look to put items one through 10, excluding nine on the floor. Okay, would anybody like any else dealt with separately?

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Rose. Sorry, I’m wrong, one second. Sorry, I’m looking to put items one through eight and exclude nine and 10 and deal with those separately, sorry. Anything else besides nine and 10 dealt with separately?

Okay, go ahead. Thank you, yes. So I’d like to put one through eight on the floor. Okay, one through eight is on the floor.

Any discussion on one through eight? Go ahead, Councillor Palosa. Thank you, just a question through you to staff and I am 2.6 being the year 2025 tax policy. Just looking through the attached bylaws and the schedules as it relates to this, just wondering just a general overall comment to be made by staff of why the rate is so high for taxable municipal tax and education tax on the landfill.

On the landfill grounds, we’re looking at, we’ll just call it 3.6, are these rates just usually set by the government across the Ontario, especially for tax rates? Just realizing it’s municipally owned property and just wondering how those are set. I can’t give you a page member ‘cause it’s just buried in a bylaw, schedule A. And I’m fine if staff need time to come back to me.

Is that something you can answer today or get back to the Councilor? Go ahead. Thank you to the Chair. Mr.

McMillan, I believe is on line. So he may have that answer quicker than I can. Yes. Go ahead Mr.

McMillan. Thank you through the Mayor. Yes, there are no taxable landfill in the city of London itself. The province has set that rate for some of the other landfills in the province that do contribute to the tax base of certain municipalities.

So that is set each year, it changes. It’s not like some of the other classes where there’s a threshold set and a range of fairness. The province sets what the maximum rate is. And then the recommendation is always to set it at the maximum rate in the event that we do get a private landfill and we’re able to apply that rate to it.

Go ahead, Councilor Palosa. Thank you. Just looking for clarification that this rate is for set in the bylaw tax ratios, should it be a private landfill? Just like we don’t have a landfill and we do have W12A.

So just, is this rate for W12A or is this rate set and our documents should a private landfill wanna set up operation as set by the province? Go ahead, Ms. Brabant. Thank you through the chair.

That would be if there is an additional private landfill that would be open, there are no taxable properties under that class currently in the city of London. W12A does not fall into that category. Okay, any other questions on one through eight? All right, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, Councilor Frank will pronounce. We’ll do the next one.

Okay, Councilor Frank will present the next item. Go ahead. Thank you, yes, I’m happy to put on the floor of the 2026 municipal and school board elections update item. Okay, that’s on the floor.

I look for any discussion. Okay, Councilor Raman. Thank you, and I didn’t support the second committee. I won’t be supporting this here.

And my reason for that is I do not support the idea of asking our school boards for a P8A in order to hold an election. I do understand the importance of having election voting booths in schools. I think it’s an opportunity for conversations with the school about how to maybe do these differently. But I think asking the school board to allow for a P8A on election day doesn’t seem like an appropriate ask as education is our first priority.

Thank you. Okay, any other comments on this? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, thank you, Chair, and through you, I just want to share, I won’t be supporting this for the same reason.

It’s the P8A request that to me, I’m not actually convinced that a professional development day does anything to benefit actual voter turnout. Parents have to then deal with childcare arrangements, transportation. Teachers have professional development that they’re attending, so they’re not necessarily as easily able to vote. I think what we’re doing is asking the school board to take on a lot of logistics that I don’t feel are gonna have a significant impact.

I vote at a school location unless I do what I did in the federal election and voted the advance polls where I got to vote at East Lions. Normally, I voted at an elementary school in my ward too. It hasn’t been a problem in all the years I’ve been voting there, and I don’t think that we should be asking the school board to undertake additional logistic challenges for this, because I actually think we live in a society where people’s priorities are very different. Their schedules are different and a PD day is not necessarily going to make it easier for them to vote.

It may actually make it harder for some to vote. That’s why I’m not supporting this. Okay, other speakers. And I, oh sorry, go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.

I just wanted to say I’m not gonna be supporting this either, but I’m wondering if we can poll A? Yeah, that’s what I was just about to say. It sounds to me like B is supportive, it’s not contingent upon A, so we can vote on A and B separate. Councillor Cady, go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’m in unison, I won’t be supporting this either. I thank Councillor Roman for pulling it. Education is so important to us today.

We do have a lot of PD days now, but it’s so important that we make sure that we keep kids in classrooms and I think taking a day off for the election really isn’t solving any purpose, so thank you. Okay, anybody else on this? We’re gonna vote on A and the rest of it separately. Then we’ll put A on the floor first, which is the part directing our staff and directing our staff to engage with the school board, sorry.

Closing the vote motion carries eight to seven. Okay, and now the rest of the clauses. Closing the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Roman will continue presenting the rest of the report.

Thank you, and through you, I’ll look to put on the floor item 10, which is the review of the winter maintenance performance regarding snow and ice removal. And this is a letter presented by Councillor Frank and I’ll close with it. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for any discussion on this.

Councillor Troce, I’ll go ahead. Thank you very much to the chair. I’ve moved a slight amendment to this to add the word laneways. And that’s my amendment.

I think this is a very necessary thing. I really applaud the Councillors for bringing this out. Received a lot of complaints about it this year, more so than past years. I just think that in some neighborhoods where we’re still on a very tight sort of older grid, laneways are part of this infrastructure.

So I wanted to see that word added. And I hope that that will not be controversial. Thank you very much. Okay, and you’re doing that is what I believe is adding a C, is that correct?

No, how are we doing it? Are B, all right, that’s slightly different than your communication. So you’re doing that, so you want to move an amendment which we’re going to have to do that formally to add the word laneways in part B-I-I-I after roads and before sidewalks, okay? So that’s what you want to move.

Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Hopkins seconds, okay. So that amendment is on the floor. So we’re just debating the addition of the word laneways in B-I-I-I, that’ll get on the screen in a second.

Any discussion on that? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship and through you. I’m wondering if staff can share with us what they would define as laneways.

I mean, I know we have some laneways in the east end that are not maintained. They’re the responsibility of the property owner to maintain behind the houses. Some of them aren’t even fully passable because of encroachments of fences and things like that. So from an operations perspective, how would staff be interpreting laneways?

Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our intent would be to report back on the status of laneways that are under public maintenance.

So unassumed laneways and private laneways would be excluded from that envelope of infrastructure. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Okay, thank you for that. Then I will just say I’ll support the amendment.

I’ll actually be opposing the main motion but I think if we’re going to go forward, then we should include the laneways piece as well. So I’ll support that amendment. Okay, any other speakers to the amendment? All right, seeing none, we’re going to vote on just the amendment which is adding, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Council Member Wood, are you willing to move the as amended motion? I am, thank you.

Okay, I need a seconder for the as amended motion. Councillor Stevenson. All right, so the as amended motion is on the floor. I’ll look for a discussion on it.

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So this is where I’m going to say I won’t be supporting the whole thing. And for a few very good reasons.

First of all, in clause A, we talk about amendments to the minimum maintenance standards for municipal highways, Oreg 239/02. That’s a provincial regulation. And through you, Chair, I’d like to ask staff’s clarification. We are performing our road and sidewalk maintenance to the provincial Oreg minimum standards, correct?

Go ahead. Through you, Mr. Mayor, yes, we are, where we do not exceed it. So we are either at or above that standard.

Go ahead, thank you. So therein for me is the first issue. These are standards set by the province. We can’t get them to change those.

I mean, we can lobby, we can ask game mode to take a position, we can do those things. But it’s an Oreg. And I’m not supporting staff reporting back, taking the time and energy to do up a report on impacts to altering those regulations beyond what we’re already doing. Second, the challenge, winter maintenance performance, challenges and opportunities be reviewed.

I support always performing an asset of contracted service providers. But when we get into things like the cost of potential machines that could clean windrows or waste clear snow that would minimize the amount of snow at the edge of a residence driveway, that for me, I actually don’t need a staff report back on that. I know what it costs Toronto to do a small portion of their city. It’s $16 million annually.

I know that the windrow clears slow down operations because the vehicle has to be backed up. Then the windrow boot dropped and then that windrow cleared. So it’s not something with a zero impact at a time when we’re trying to bring the budget down. And when we’re meeting or exceeding the Oregs already, I’m not going to ask staff to spend time coming up with a report that quite honestly, I know personally, I’m not going to commit additional funding to because for me, bringing the budget and the tax increase down is the key focus for this year.

So I’m not looking for ways to spend new money by increasing snow plowing on sidewalks and on roadways. I also think that, for me, it’s from experience. We changed the sidewalk. We tried going with a different threshold.

It changed the complaints by nothing. People still complained, it still wasn’t good enough. And we significantly exceeded the provincial Oreg on that. We had a harsh winter.

We had some mother nature circumstances where we had freeze thaws that made a scene like even after we had been through six hours later, it seemed like we hadn’t because we had melt and then refreeze. Unfortunately, that’s weather in winter in Southwestern Ontario. It’s something we have always adapted to as residents of the city of London. And we’ll continue to do, but I don’t think putting more money into this is the solution at a time when we’re trying to bring taxes down.

And so I don’t support asking staff to do the work on something I’ll be saying no to in a budget case anyway. That’s a frank. - Thank you. And I’m just hoping to clarify some items through you to staff.

So for item A, it’s my understanding that the province is going to be updating the minimum maintenance standards. Oreg, 232, 239.02, potentially this year. And so the main, or the part of A that’s asking for a report back would be required either way because if they change and they amend the minimum maintenance standards, we might have to change our minimum maintenance standards. So that’s what at committee we discussed and having staff report back.

That was when it happened in my understanding anyway because there might be amendments that we’d have to do to meet the new provincial standards if they make amendments this year. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

The work that is happening with the province with respect to the minimum maintenance standards is somewhat behind schedule. We are not anticipating that that would be complete in time for a report back that would align with the schedule for this report. But yes, we would report back when that information is provided. We largely believe that those changes are focused on the maintenance of cycling facilities and not necessarily on the standards for the plowing your presidential roads, sidewalks, laneways or other paths.

Go ahead. Thank you. So that clarifies and again, it’s my understanding that if the province changes that regulation, then we also must follow suit as we are governed by the province. So regardless of whether or not A passes, I suppose we’ll hear back about that in due course.

And then in regards to items under B, there are various items there that of course would have possible costs. But for example, the discussion between school boards on walking past clearance, I don’t believe that that would necessarily result in increased costs, it might be discussion on who maintains it or when does it get maintained. So again, I don’t think every single item under part B would require more financial inputs. And therefore, we’re just hoping to have a discussion with various partners on that item.

Additionally, again, investing in alternatives to not necessarily require more costs, sometimes actually could find cost saving. So I will, of course, still be sporting this. And I don’t believe, again, it’s better for us to have information ahead of time. And if there are some cost savings, that might be a great opportunity for us to look for savings through this motion.

Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I wanna thank the two councilors for bringing this forward.

It is a report back. We know the provincial government is going to be reviewing our standards as it is. It’s just sort of understanding the process and the changes that we may be making. But for me, I do think it’s important that we have some information.

We hear from residents on a daily basis, especially throughout the winter, the concerns of snow removal. And I know as a councillor, I would like to be a little bit more informed, especially when it comes to the contracting out, we seem to do quite a bit more contracting out, but also how are we meeting the responsibilities of the subcontractor under our health and safety standards. It’s good information to have as a council that we’re up to date with everything. I also appreciate investigating alternative options for snow and ice removals.

And for me, this also means looking at how much salt we use, we’re starting to see a lot more salt use. It is becoming a bigger broader conversation out there in the community. So I’m just anticipating good information coming back to me. And thank you to the councillors for bringing it forward.

Go ahead, Councillor Trossa. Thank you very much. On the main motion through the chair, I’ve heard loud and clear from my constituents that they want these matters investigated. They want these matters investigated.

The current state of maintenance in the minds of many taxpayers is inadequate. And I’ve had so many people tell me they don’t mind paying for municipal services, but they wanna get value for their money. They wanna, they don’t wanna have to go out and redo their driveways ‘cause there’s been a huge dump. And I at least want to be able to tell people who are persistently complaining about that, that we’ve looked at the costs and we can’t or can’t do it.

And we can’t do it because of the budget. We need better information. And the reason we need better information is we’re getting these inquiries from our constituents. And I think we all owe our constituents our due diligence to at least look at these issues.

There’s a lot of really good ideas in this motion. And because some councillors have already decided before we even get to the Budget Committee on this, that they’re not gonna support any increases, I think that’s not a great way to be making proactive policy. So I really wanna urge my colleagues to support this motion. And once again, I wanna thank the councillors for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, and I will be supporting this motion as I was during the meeting. I do want this information to be able to make the best possible decision for half and land of Londoners. And there were, by the way, other initiatives or potential even savings that we were talking about during the meeting, so I will be supporting it.

Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’ll be supporting this motion. I thank to my colleagues for bringing it forward at committee. I know we had an unusual winter, but the complaints that I got from residents really didn’t happen till three days after the storm.

And particularly, BI, where it talks about a performance assessment of contracted service providers. I’d like to know, you know, if we, how much are we contracting out? If they miss a crescent or a court or certain streets, are there any consequences to that? How are we ensuring that we’re getting the contracted services that we expect?

And I also got a lot of, you know, very reasonable concerns, I think, about the condition of sidewalks near public elementary schools and on main streets like Oxford, where a lot of people rely on public transit and pedestrian walking to get around. So I think this is something that residents, as was stated earlier, garbage and snow removal. These are why people pay their taxes for the most part. And I think it’ll be great to have for the discussions on this.

Any other speakers? Yeah, go ahead, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you. So I just wanted to reiterate my position on this report that one, I think it’s very helpful and it’s where we should be having these discussions is at infrastructure and corporate services.

So reporting back to the committee to say how did the winter go and what was our service standard like and what were people experiencing and what were people calling about? And it shows our responsiveness as a government as well to people’s concerns. And in my ward, which has a lot of newer subdivisions, an ongoing concern was the performance assessment piece for contracted service providers. So getting a better understanding of what is the baseline service that is provided and being able to point to a report to say, here’s what you should be expecting when it comes to contracted service.

Here’s what you can expect for your newly assumed street, for instance. And then I will tell you, I probably had about 30 people share the windrow video with me and I’m sure other members of council did as well and staff and it’s not that this is something that we haven’t considered or looked at in the past but getting an updated idea of cost, I think would be helpful just in order for me to respond to my residents to say, yeah, I hear you that this would be a great service and here’s what it would cost and this is just information for I think for us to have but also for the public to have. With respect to the clearing of pathways, this is something I dealt with as a trustee and now as a counselor where there’s sometimes unclear lines of division between whether or not something is a responsibility of city staff or if it’s a school board, also where there are new routes where more students are walking around and through, whether or not there needs to be some evaluative criteria to say this would make sense to clear whether it’s city property or school board property. So always up for those kinds of discussions where we can collaborate more to get more students walking and cycling in the winter to school.

And lastly, just again, around looking at alternative options. So one of the things that I noted in my subdivisions, we had these yellow boxes at different spots in the community that were in areas where they’re typically slippery when you’re walking and residents didn’t know that they could take salt from those boxes and put them on the sidewalk in that area. And so I happened to start talking to staff about it. So, you know, alternates that are there, I think are helpful only also for the community to know that they exist.

So how we communicate those things effectively, I think can also be helpful. So I just wanna be clear that, again, more information is better. We’re supposed to be having these discussions at committee and so this is a way for us to do so. Okay, I have an ask to separate A and then everything else.

I just wanna check with our staff. Like A is not tied to anything in B, is that correct? A was the thing that you said you might report back on anyways if the province made changes, but B is kind of the assessment of our own standards. I just wanna confirm that I can do that without any consequences for the work that would be done.

My apologies, I was just pulling this up. I was like, I’ve had a computer reset. No, I don’t believe there’s any concern there. I’m gonna deal with A first and then everything else after that, there are no objections.

But first, is there any more debate on any of it? Go ahead, Councillor Vamey Bergen. Thank you, Mayor. One of the chief complaints I received this past winter was the state of icy sidewalks, hugely dangerous.

Quite often they’re just very sleet, very slippery. And I’m being asked by constituents, why can’t the city use more salt to melt this? Salt is cheap, it’s plentiful. Let’s not be afraid of salt.

Let’s use more of it. It’s a heck of a lot better than having Londoners break bones or worse. And I think when we get this report back, it should focus, particularly on the sidewalks, how we can use something like salt, which is very efficient at keeping the sidewalks safer. Okay, any other discussion?

Okay, so what we’re gonna do first is the A and the A being noted together, and then we’ll do the rest of it after. So I’ll open A and the A being noted for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 10, five. Okay, and now everything else, including all of B.

And then we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to three. Go ahead. Thank you, that concludes my report.

Okay, thank you. That is on to Community and Protective Services Committee. Turn it over to Chair Ferra to present the report. Thank you, Mayor.

Please present the seventh report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I got a pull request for item eight, that’s 2.7, the emergency treatment fund ETF approval, the federal contribution agreement, reducing substances use harms through basic needs and healthcare at 602 Queens the Commons. And another pull request, actually my own, for item nine, 5.1 Watson Park. So if there is no other pull requests, I’d be pleased to put one through seven on the floor.

Okay, so one through seven, would anybody like any of those dealt with separately? You can move those together. I’ll move those. Okay, that’s moved by discussion on items one through seven.

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, Mayor.

I can put item eight to the 2.7, the emergency treatment fund approvals, the federal contribution with the 602 Queens the Commons on the floor. That’s on the floor. I’ll look for any speakers on that one. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. As at Committee, I won’t be supporting this. Of the 444,000, we’ve got 217,000 for staff wages. And 92,000 for phones, iPads, computers, and a program van.

So I hear from residents all the time, so much money is going to wages and computers and rent and that kind of thing. And at the end of the 12 months, we have a program that doesn’t want to be shut down, that doesn’t have funding anymore. And how has it really helped? How many people have had someplace indoors to sleep at night?

How many have hope that there’ll be more housing for them at the end of the 12 months? So I understand that it’s not municipal tax dollars, but I think we need to start expecting outcomes for the people who need it most who are living unsheltered right now? Sorry, I know some people are probably new here. So the decorum in the audience isn’t, there’s no clapping, there’s also no booing.

You might like what some people say, you might dislike what others say. There’s people in the gallery who may feel differently, and we want everybody to feel comfortable here. So although I’m sure those who you support are appreciative of that support, it’s not something that we do during a council meeting. So I’ll just provide that as a general overview.

I should have outlined that at the start of the meeting. I’ll look for other speakers on this item. Okay, go ahead, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you Mayor, so I will be supporting the committee recommendation because we need a continuation of services.

These services provide wraparound supports. They provide early interventions and yes, we need housing and we need to bring people in, but if we don’t have that initial contact with individuals to bring people into housing, then we’re kind of reducing our capacity to do that. It’s not just about housing, it’s also about making those connections and bringing people indoors. Without those connections, we can have the indoors, but how are we supposed to make the connection between the two?

So we also also, we talk about getting federal support or provincial support or any type of funding from another level of government. We have that here. This is not going to be put on the property tax base, and this is something that we should use. We should use those dollars that have been handed down to us because this is what we’re calling for all the time.

So with that, I would also point out that there’s many services that are going to this location. We have the Thames Valley Health Team is there. Sisters of St. Joseph’s works there.

London Cares, Ontario work staff is also there. This is critical care that we need to bring for individuals. So we need to ensure that we have those connections. So we need, we need this money.

We need to ensure that this is a continued service because without the continued service, we’ll lose that connection. And I am not here to dismantle any more of our capacity. We need to ensure that we have that capacity. So I’m going to be supporting the committee recommendation.

Thank you, Councillor, other speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, hoping to just ask a quick question through you to staff. I am just wondering, given the funding, what the plan is and the metrics are for how many people would be assisted.

I heard some questions regarding, you know, if we’re giving this money, how many people will be assisted. So I’m just wondering if there’s any numbers like daily or weekly, how many people who are living unsheltered would receive assistance through this funding? Go ahead, Mr. Dickens.

Thank you and through you, your worship. In the application, it states an estimated 1,000 individuals will be assisted through this service. The learning care space typically operates around three cohorts of 30 individuals a day. So roughly 90 to 100 people per day, five days a week is about 500 individuals a week that would access this service.

Again, noting they’re able to bring in additional services that leverage this funding, such as the Ten Valley Family Health team who have access to clinical practitioners as well. The space at 602 Queens Ave is also operating a narcotics anonymous program, which helps people get access to some social supports, some pathways and referrals to recovery programs. And from that space, as we do with London Cares and other avenues, assist outreach workers to help people find housing, either be it through the House of Hope or other housing placements or at the city. Go ahead, Councilor.

Thank you. Given that information, that does sound like really good ROI to me, especially if it’s federal funding. So I’ll be supporting this. Okay, other speakers to this.

All right, seeing none, we’ll open this for morning. Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, Mayor, for the last item.

I was on the opposing vote for a portion of that for the seizing of operations for Watson Park. That was a three to two vote. So I’d like to hand it over to my vice chair to bring that recommendation from committee. I’ll turn it over to the vice chair to present item nine.

Okay, I’m putting forward item nine, which is 5.1 Watson Park on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for speakers for that. And Councilor McAllister, go ahead.

Thank you, just one moment. I did write down my thoughts for this. I will start with comment. Then I have a question for staff and then based on that, if I need to make any further amendments to clarify it well.

So thank you and through the mayor. First, I want to begin by clarifying what my intentions are for this motion. I fully recognize that we have encampments throughout the city and their ongoing capacity issues with our shelter system. With that in mind, I explicitly asked staff to check with service providers to see if there are currently any shelter spaces available, noting that 18 spaces were just recently freed up at the center of hope.

If shelter is not available, I still requested those living unsheltered be engaged to see if there are service supports that they may require. Where I think the confusion has arisen is around the distinction between the depot and the encampment. The depot provided static services, which has operated for approximately two years and was slated to close by the end of the month regardless of what decision we make today. I’m asking for that closure to be moved up by a week to allow any remaining resources to be reallocated to assist those living unhoused to find shelter or help with relocation as we transition to the new service model.

When I am talking explicitly about relocation, it is in the context of the encampment itself, which is the tents and the structures that have been erected in the park, which is adjacent to the service depot. I’m asking that the encampment protocols that we as a council have already passed be enforced. There have been clear violations of those protocols and we need to bring Watson Park back into compliance in the interests of public safety. There has been a proliferation of tents and structures well in excess of what we currently allow.

And the recent fires raised serious questions about the level of fire safety being exercised in the encampment itself. The explosion of the propane tank at the encampment a few weeks ago was a serious incident and we cannot ignore it. I’m asking for your support to seize the operation of the depot immediately, move to the mobile model as quickly as possible, connect with those living on-house with shelter services and bring Watson Park back into compliance with our encampment protocols. With all that said, so my question to staff is, is that clear or would you like me to make changes to clarify the position?

I would imagine if any clarification in terms of the compliance issues that B would probably be appropriate for changes, but looking to staff to see if they understand my intention. Yeah, so this happens from time to time. The councilors moved a motion through committee. The committee supported it.

I think there’s some confusion in the way that it’s been reported in the media and to the public about what is actually gonna be operationalized with the current wording of the motion. So the councilors given some of his intent and I guess I’ll go to staff to find out what are you, how is this actually operationalized? Is it as the councilor kind of described and intended there, which would not be like a complete closure of the encampment there, but an enforcement of the current encampment protocols, including size and safety and other procedures. So if our staff could articulate that, so we know if we pass this, what you would actually be doing, I think that would help clarify if any adjustments seem to be made to the motion.

Through you, Your Worship, thank you. This does provide some clarity in terms of the intent. I think we will still encounter some ambiguity in the operations. The team has been out doing cleanups in Watson Park.

We have been as part of the cleanup from the incident uncovering propane tanks that were hidden inside tents. And so council’s clear on this. We do not send city staff inside people’s tents to inspect for belongings. We did uncover some of that as part of the cleanup efforts.

Those propane tanks and other items have been removed. Where there is some greater fortification happening, outreach teams have been working with those individuals. Some areas of the park have already been cleared out as a result of the fire that was referenced. The team is working on those compliance matters where identified.

It is a very large space where, although there are a number of encampments, we’re not seeing six tents per encampment, we’re seeing them spaced out. So for clarity’s sake, we would be moving to end the physical depot site that is there. If it were to be a week early, we’ll move as fast as we can. The mobile efforts though that were approved by council are for outreach teams to go out to where people are at.

So if we’re removing some individuals from Watson, but not all individuals from Watson and others are remaining, outreach workers will know that they’re there and they will go out to engage with them as they do now to check on their wellbeing to support them, to also provide some, perhaps, meals and water and then try to work with them on other options. Yes, we’ve engaged shelter providers to try to find additional space and accommodations. The 18 rooms that were approved by council were for females at Salvation Army. They’ve worked to start to maximize and fill up all of those rooms as well.

So from a clarity perspective and in theory, make sense, try to store some manner of order or control in that space, perhaps reduce the size. We do know though, if it’s not a restricted space that other people will eventually migrate there and we’ll address that problem as need be. Councilor McAllister. Thank you.

So just to ensure there is no ambiguity, so I will amend B to end with it saying to ensure that Watson Park is in compliance with cantman protocols. Okay, just give me a second here. Councilor, I know you suggest a B. The kind of the thought is given the ambiguity kind of lands in A about the relocation and what that means for the actual space is that maybe at the end of A to add the following.

So it would read now, civic administration should be directed to assist with the relocation of those living on Watson Park to ensure that Watson Park is in compliance with the established and cantman protocols and connect them with appropriate service supports including hospital shelter options. So it would recognize that it would be the in-camera protocols that would be enforced as connected with any sort of relocation of individuals. I don’t know if that makes sense to our staff, given the intent, but if it makes sense that the council makes sense of the staff might make more sense in A in that way to achieve what you’re trying to do. Mr.

Dickens, is that it? Yeah, okay. So you’re good with that? Okay, so there’s their seconder for that then.

Councillor Ferreira. Okay, so we’re now just going to be on the amendment. It’s, you’re gonna see maybe amended to read that. We’re only debating the amendment, which is adding that clarification about the cantman protocols.

If you got some general comments on the whole thing, I’d suggest you can deal with that after the amendment is over. Go ahead, Councillor McAllister, on the amendment. Thank you and through the mayor. I do feel it’s appropriate to add this clarity.

I’ll be honest that we need to enforce the rules around the books. The number one complaint I hear all the time is, you know, we have to have rules in place. And we do have rules in place. And so what I am asking essentially is that we stick to the cantman protocols that we have already agreed upon.

I would say from what I have witnessed, the structures being erected and some of the activities, we need to keep eyes on Watson Park. We need to ensure that the rules are being followed. Just because you are living on public land does not mean that it’s free rein. We have got to ensure that there are rules in place for not only those living in the cantman, but those adjacent to it.

We owe it to all the citizens of London to ensure that the rules are followed. Thank you. Okay, other speakers to this? It’s like an on the amendment, Councillor Trostam.

Thank you, Chair. I thought we did a good job at committee fixing up part A, which I think as it was originally submitted, had a lot of problems with it. I don’t think it was compliant with our Waterloo obligations. When we say things like ensure that we’re in compliance, well, we have to be in compliance.

We don’t just pick and choose which parts of the law we want to be. We don’t just pick and choose which parts of the law we want to be in compliance with. We have to be in compliance with all of the parts of the law. That includes applicable case law, which has been circulated to this council on many occasions, including in the June 24th report.

We have to be in compliance with our human rights obligations, which, by the way, exists as a matter of federal and international law, and are not within the ability of this council to change, because it’s not convenient. We have to comply with all of the law. And I guess my question is, if we just focus on the encampment protocols, and it results in people being moved, and staff can answer this or the proponent can answer this, where do they go? Mr.

Yes, it is. Mr. Dickens, when the encampment protocols are enforced, can you describe what happens from where people go, where people go perspective? Through you, your worship, it varies depending on the space in which they’re being relocated from.

Sometimes people will move to a thin close proximity of where they were previously located, perhaps to a higher ground, or to a space that is maybe not involved in a construction area. Sometimes outreach workers are quite successful in getting people indoors, even if it’s temporarily. So one night or a week at a time, staying in shelter. We work with folks all the time to try to get them ready for housing and try to match people to housing.

In fact, we do have people move straight from encampments, into housing and often housing with supports. That’s not always the case when you have nearly a 0% vacancy rate, and rising costs of affordable housing. In most cases, people are just moved and they need to relocate elsewhere. Often that means they move further away from where services might be, or they move to more remote locations where perhaps there’s a perception that they’ll be left alone if it’s harder to find them.

Councilor Trossa. Thank you, that’s very helpful. And as I understand the answer is, we’re not really sure it could come out a couple of different ways, but they’re gonna have to move, and hopefully it’ll turn out well. And I think the problem with that approach, unless we’re really sure what we’re doing, we might be making a bad problem worse.

We might be putting people who are in danger, in greater danger. We may be subjecting more of our adjacent neighborhoods to the types of complaints that I’m sure we all get, in terms of people prowling around and looking for things. So I think this is a bad idea. I’m gonna be voting against the amendment to Part A.

I’m gonna vote against B if it’s still there on the table as I did at committee. We have to comply with all of our obligations. We cannot pick them and choose them. And I think the main rule that we should be following, just from a common sense point of view, is let’s not do more harm.

Nobody is in favor of retaining these encampments. And we are not going to eradicate the problem that encampments create, simply by moving them around like it’s a game of whack the mole. So I am voting no on this. My position is exactly the same as it was at committee.

And I think that’s what I have to say. So thank you very much. Okay, so as I described before, there’s no clapping or any negative sounds as well. Everybody will have a chance to speak.

Yes, so you don’t, so, listen, you don’t get to speak during the meeting. And if you don’t follow the rules of the quorum, I will end up having to have you removed from the council chambers, which I absolutely do not want to do. And if I’m forced to clear the chambers, you will not be allowed back again. So what we would like to do is have you sit down, let us continue the meeting and you’ll continue to be able to listen if that would be preferred, that’s okay.

We’re not gonna have people though speak out anymore. I’m gonna consider that a warning, no one else, don’t speak out ‘cause I want you to be able to stay and listen to the meeting. So we are fine here, people can stay and people will be quiet and listen to the debate. Yes, you’re not allowed to say anything.

It’s not a public participation meeting. If you disrupt the meeting for anybody in the gallery or anybody doing the work down here, I have to have you removed from the chambers and I do not want to have to do that. So don’t make me move down that path of the procedure by a lot, please. Okay, we’re gonna continue with the debate.

I’m gonna ask the gallery to be quiet, thank you. Next speaker, oh, I don’t have a next speaker. I’m looking for speakers. Councilor Ferrer, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor, just some points of clarification. So I hear what the last two speakers said. I agree on most of the points that I heard. Our, this is just an amendment to item A.

We’re still having item B come as well, like just to clarify, we’re still having the full motion, just as this is the only amendment for item A. We’re on just the amendment, just the amendment, that’s it. Okay, so I seconded this motion because I do see that the established encampment protocols are for safety, for community safety within the encampment and surrounding the encampment. So that’s why I’d be supportive of this.

Like I said, item B is what I’m not supportive of. So, so long as we can break out the votes, I guess, I’ll be in support of this. And then I’d like to break out the votes for item B to be separate. How do, sorry, Councilor, how do you want that divided up?

We’re just, I’d like item B voted on separately. I’m okay with item A. Okay, so that’s now what we’re on now. You can make that request when we get through the amendment.

The amendment is just amending A with some additional language. The amendment that you seconded, okay. I can do that, thank you. All right, perfect.

I wanted to separate it, we’ll do the debate first and then we’ll separate them at the other speakers. Go ahead, Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. I do have some questions.

I’m not sure if these are questions that can be answered and pertaining to the direction that’s here, but my council colleague just referenced the legal precedence from that was shared with us when we were determining the intent on protocols last year. My understanding is that there’s been a subsequent ruling since that time, I believe December 23rd to 2024, a decision by Justice Ramsey on the same issue. And basically my understanding of the interpretation of that is that the city of Hamilton at the time, which was part of the original case law, was then in this decision, it was seen as though the city acted and should be able to act without interference. And so I’m wondering how that then impacts our decision making.

I’m kind of wondering this out loud, not really directing it to staff at this point, but how that impacts our decisions around and can protocols. My understanding of what the councilors put forward is around safety measurements. And that we did say, look, we have an obligation, it is to uphold human rights, yes, but it’s also to ensure that we are enacting in reasonably a method to move forward with an area that is also to be considered from health and safety perspective part of our obligation as well. My understanding of reading our parks bylaws as well, which although we have encampment safety protocols, I’m not sure which one trumps which at this point, but I personally believe that we have a responsibility when it comes to health and safety.

And so we have to manage that obligation with our obligation to be able to provide supports where possible. And for that reason, I’ll support the amendment that’s brought forward by the councilor. I know that it was well thought through. I know that it is in consultation with those impacted in the area, as well as those impacted by the amount of tents that are there right now.

This is an unfortunate situation. It’s one where we have an obligation as a council to consider what are the best practices and policies as we move forward. And these are difficult decisions to make. I wanna thank staff because I know that the fire and the incident that took place, there was a lot of responsibilities for staff to be involved as well.

And I know that they acted our firefighters. I wanna thank them, our first responders for their work as well. We don’t wanna put anyone in harm’s way. And so until we have adequate shelter, we have to find a way forward.

And it’s not in opposition to the community. We wanna be supportive of the community with the limited resources that we have. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor.

Other speakers to the amendment. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I’m just wondering if I can ask through you to staff what the value is in this amendment as far as they’re concerned.

Does it give the clarity that we were looking for? Because this motion has brought a lot of angst. And so I’m just wondering when we say to ensure that Watson Park is in compliance with the established encampment protocols, I’m assuming the established encampment protocols are always being sought to being followed. So I’m just wondering what this is gonna do.

And also it might sound picky, but there’s a comma between Watson Park and to ensure, which makes it sound like it’s to assist with the relocation of those living on House and Watson Park, comma, to ensure that the Watson Park is in compliance. And I’m wondering if we took the comma out, are we only assisting with relocation to ensure compliance? Or are they a series of things that we’re looking for relocation and compliance? So, Councilor, pause your time.

‘Cause this comes up in council from time to time. We will get into some wordsmithing or even commas or certain words because we’re trying to be clear about our intent. What absolutely matters is how staff is interpreting the operationalization of the motion on the floor. So I think your inquiry is good.

So I think Mr. Dickens and his team clearly heard what the Council was trying to achieve with the intent. And that was not to relocate all of the individuals in Watson Park, but to ensure that the in-camera protocol is followed, which can, under those protocols, lead to people having to be moved, people having to find other spaces, whether that’s for safety or size of the encampment or proximity to housing as per the in-camera protocol. So I understand your concern about the way that it reads.

What I wanna do is go to Mr. Dickens to ensure that we are absolutely clear on how this would be operationalized so that there is no misinterpretation about Council’s intent here. And if we need to adjust the motion, I would ask Mr. Dickens to let us know because you can put on public record what your operationalization is.

I know you said there was some discretion in this, but from your understanding of the motion, I want to hear how you’d operationalize it so that the Councilor has clarity and all of Council and those who are listening in the gallery do too. Through you, Your Worship. This does give us more clarity. As mentioned, teams are constantly trying to assist with the relocation of those living on shelter.

So that goes without saying. Specific to Watson Park, we will continue to try to assist those that are in that space to relocate to some form of indoor shelter, be it housing or shelter or other types of accommodations. We take this direction as it’s all encompassing. So some, the priority will be to ensure that we are compliant with our established encampment protocols, which include everything from open fires, human trafficking, violence through to distances and the proximities that Council has set.

We understand 100 meters from a private property line would be required to be enforced. So what this motion does is it takes away the discretion that the teams have been using up until this point. And we would strictly stick to the encampment protocols, which include the proximity and distances, as well as some of the health and safety measures. And we would use that consistently at Watson Park.

As people relocate or move out of Watson Park, either in violation of the safety protocols or proximity measures, we understand they may relocate back to Watson Park, at which point we would continue to do our work in a different way. Councillor Stevenson. It’s a difficult spot we find ourselves in, ‘cause we have just funded three million dollars in outreach to encampments. And we didn’t specify where, you know, clear is kind.

I think people knowing and understanding what the rules are and where they’re allowed to be is compassionate as well, right? So I struggle with these. I also struggle with the fact that the establishing encampment protocols are difficult to find. I was just doing up an email, but maybe through you to staff.

On the London website, the link to the encampment plan is broken, and on the get involved, it only talks about hubs and highly supportive housing. The encampment section is gone. So as we fund three million dollars in outreach, and we have so many people living unhoused, having that handy and easy to find on our website would be great, is a motion required, or is that something that can just be done? No, if there’s a broken link, our staff will attempt to fix the link on.

The broken link I get, but there’s also on the get involved site, that entire section on encampments is gone. It only talks about— Okay, that doesn’t have much to do with the amendment here, so. Well, it does when we talk about establishing encampment protocols, but the public can’t see them. Right.

Public unhoused or house. Okay, so you said the link was broken to the camera protocols, we can fix that. That one’s easy, but the get involved site, it has hubs and highly supportive housing, and there’s nothing around our encampments. So you’d like to add a different section to get involved for encampments?

Yeah, I just wondered whether we need a motion or whether that’s something that’s being worked on already. I don’t know if that’s being worked on. I don’t know if that motion as part of this is, I mean, we can fix the link, but I’ll ask Mr. Dickens if there’s any updates to.

Through you, your worship, we can work with the ITS and with our communications department and have the encampment plan added. There was a council endorsed version, so we’ll make sure we’re consistent with posting any council endorsed documents. Yeah, I mean, I do understand the confusion. We approved part of it, and then we kept deferring another part of it.

So, but it used to be there and now there’s nothing. And as I said, we just massively funded it, and we’ve got a motion before us like this, so I appreciate it. Okay, other speakers, just the amendment. Just Councillor McAllish’s amendment to add some clarity, part A.

Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting. So, I’m gonna ask the gallery just to not interject, but I will say when the votes are complete, they go up on the screen, so people will be able to see the votes on the screen. Yes, Councillor Flosa. Just procedurally amended, we will have the chance to vote on A as amended, and then B as well, that we don’t accidentally finalize A of this passes.

We’ll separate them at the end. Okay, thank you. Right, this is the amendment to A, but we can vote on the final version of A, the final version of B, we can divide it up. It was in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

Okay, so as you’re willing to have the as amended motion, Councillor McAllister, I need a seconder for the as amended motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second. Okay, so this is debate on the as amended motion. I’ll look for speakers on the as amended motion.

This is everything with the adjustment that was made by the amendment. All right, Councillor Troso, I’ll go ahead. Well, the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’m just gonna be very, very brief, and say I will not be supporting this. Actually, I think what came out of the committee was had more clarity than this.

I don’t think this clarified anything. Now we have some confusion raised on the floor about what the relationship between the Hamilton and the Waterloo decision is. Part of me wants to ask to go into closed session to get that clarified, but I guess it’s a question of interpretation. My understanding of the situation is the Waterloo case is still good in operative law, and the Hamilton case can most certainly be distinguished on its facts, and you don’t have one superseding the other, also the Hamilton case is under appeal.

And if I’m wrong about anything, I can be corrected. But let’s not create this element, confusion, in terms of continued validity and vitality of the Waterloo decision, because that decision came down. And the city in its wisdom, the region, decided not to appeal it. They decided to comply with it.

We have a very, very different situation in Hamilton. So I think what we’re doing today undoes some of the useful work that we did at committee. I’ll be voting no on the entire motion. And I guess, before I sit down, I would like to make a point of personal privilege, if I may, and that is— Okay, so you’re speaking, but you’re making a point of personal privilege in the middle of your speech counselor?

Yes, because it’s something that happened outside of chambers. Let me just say what it is, and you can decide if it’s okay. Otherwise, I’ll just use the rest of my time. Yes, counselor, so a point of personal privilege is part of the procedure by-law, which is the governance of the meeting.

So something can happen outside of council chambers. It didn’t happen here. So I’m gonna suggest that that’s probably, there’s probably other avenues to address that. Okay, so my avenue, how much time do I have left?

You’ve used about 130 so far. Okay, so look, folks, it’s real clear that this council is not unanimous on these matters. And I think that’s okay, because I think it’s often the case when we have vibrant debates, we move closer to not a consensus, ‘cause I don’t think we’re gonna have a consensus, but I think we move closer to usable set of policies. And when things clear, the decision at the committee was not unanimous.

It was a very clear three to two vote on that. So I was a little surprised and quite disturbed when I saw a representation made by a councilor on social media that the matter was unanimous. ‘Cause it wasn’t unanimous. We’re not unanimous on this, folks.

So in closing, I really hope that people don’t use their social media accounts to promote misinformation. Okay, and I’m just gonna caution you, Councilor, like I think reflecting the committee voted that it came through, committee is fine. We’re not going to assume that someone is trying to create misinformation. They must, people can post things that maybe aren’t accurate or maybe they got it wrong, but we’re not gonna assume malintent.

Fair enough, and I didn’t really go to intent. I went to the effect of a statement that was made online saying this was unanimous when it clearly wasn’t. And by the way, if people have difficulty reading the reports, it’s always okay to go to the city clerk and ask for some assistance in terms of what a report meant. So in closing, I’m gonna vote no on this as a whole.

I’ll encourage everybody to vote against it. I want to be clear that my vote against this is not. It is most certainly not. An endorsement of the continuation of the status quo, which I think we can all agree is not good.

And it’s not an endorsement of the idea of having encampments as a viable solution to our honest problem. It’s not. And I know, well, I shouldn’t suppose what people are gonna say, but I just hope that my words are not taken out of context. I hope that what people take away from this meeting today is that there are a lot of different thoughtful positions on this council.

I think most of the people on council want to grapple with this difficult issue and good faith, but I think we have to be careful not to get too far ahead of ourselves and to start having contradictory statements where one piece of the law is not in compliance with another piece. And I think that we don’t really have the information at the table today that I would have liked to have had to have that clearer. So again, I’ll be voting no. And I will hope that my colleagues will join me in voting no on this.

Thank you very much. Councilor Palosa, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

You can ask a couple of things. One, that the current wording that we’re discussing could be put on the screen for our guests in the gallery could see it and those online realizing it’s been amended to that when we get to voting that we call the parts separate as well. Thirdly, a question, a couple of questions through you to staff. First question is that we have a Watson Park depot and it’s looking at transitioning to mobile service options.

Looking to see if either of these options include any access to washroom facilities in the area as the city’s website job does not list Watson Park at any point in it of having city available facilities. Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Sorry.

Thank you through your worship. Currently the depot provides access to a portable washroom when that depot service ends, the washroom will be removed. It’s a basic human, right? Okay, so I unfortunately I was just interested in this.

Listen, I’m gonna ask you to stop crying. Just listen, I’m gonna be clear. When we are, okay, I’m gonna have to ask if you leave the council chambers. If you listen to me, so you know, I’m gonna have to ask you to leave the council chambers.

If you don’t, stop now, okay, stop now. Okay, you’re gonna have to, I’m gonna have to ask you to— Why don’t we have Mr. Mayor? Yes.

Just to our friends in the gallery, I don’t want you to have to leave for the conversation and that’s what’s gonna happen. So we just need you to stay tight if we can work our way through this. Thank you, Councilor, for your point of order. Listen, I want nobody to speak for a minute.

I’m gonna be very clear. Under our procedure by-law, you’re not allowed to have an outburst. If you do, I’m required to ask the people who do repeat it outburst to leave the council chambers. If you force me because you disrupt so long that I have to clear the council chambers, you will not be allowed to come back for a period of time.

And I do not, nor does any number of council, want that to happen. So when I ask you to not talk, it is because we are trying to allow you to listen to the meeting, whether you agree or disagree with what’s being said. It is our desire to do that. So no more outbursts.

I, you’re, listen, you’re not listening. Unfortunately, I’m gonna have to ask you to leave, okay? I’m sorry, you need to leave the council chambers. I’ve asked you multiple times and I’m gonna have to ask our staff to escort you out.

I’m sorry, but you’ve had repeated warnings. I’ll tell you the reason why I’m not clearing the council chambers ‘cause of disruption is she will not be allowed back for a period of time. So I’m asking you kindly to leave for a period of time because I want you to be able to come back at a future discussion or debate and listen. I’m asking you kindly, please listen to the ruling so that we don’t have to bar you from council chambers for a period of time after this.

And for anybody else talking, I would really like you to be able to stay under our procedure by-law. So please, no more outbursts or I will have to ask other people to leave. We are in the middle of a debate. You’re disrupting that debate.

You don’t get to be part of the debate. You don’t, you don’t get to be part of the debate. I’m very close to clearing the council chambers and I don’t wanna do that ‘cause you will not be allowed come back because I need, I’ve asked you multiple times to not speak and you’ve broken the procedure by-law unfortunately and I have to enforce the procedure by-law which is the rules to which this democratic institution governs and all counselors have agreed to. If that includes counselors who speak on the side, they have to respect the procedure by-law as well.

My job is chairs to enforce them. I’ve asked you to leave for a period of time. You will be welcome back at future meetings. If you leave now, if you don’t, there will be further consequences and I don’t want to have to do that.

You will not be allowed back into chambers for a period of time for not complying with the direction to leave. Okay, you don’t get to stay. You will, no, then I’m gonna ask for a recess. Yes, Councilor, personal privilege, Councilor Palosa.

Sorry, Mr. Mayor, recognizing the guests who have come with us today are not used to city hall or our procedures, hoping that maybe the, I don’t know, I hate to call it mercy or an exception, but that they could be explained that it’s not public participation meeting, it’s observing only, realizing we would like the majority of the gallery to stay put as long as possible. I’m sorry. I tried Councilor and we passed that point.

I tried very, very hard to give people an opportunity. I’m going to look for a five minute recess at least and then we’ll, Councilor for a five minute recess, Councilor Hillier. All those in favor of a five minute recess, opposed? Motion carries.

Can’t even follow. There you go. (indistinct chatter) Yeah, I know. (indistinct chatter) (indistinct chatter) Okay, please be seated, thank you.

Okay, I’m going to make some comments. I’m going to go back to Councilor Plaza, who I don’t think you got about four minutes and 10 seconds left, Councilor. So I appreciate the recess. I just want to let you know, I went inside and I spoke to the group who, the one woman who I asked to be removed, I spoke with her directly in the other group, explained to them the rules of decorum.

I’ve indicated that she is not allowed back, she’s accepting of that. She understands that she did not comply and everyone else is allowed to return and they have a clear understanding about the rules of engagement and the decorum within the council chambers and they’re welcome to return if they want. So I ended in a hug, so it was kind of a nice thing, but we will continue to enforce the rules here and I will try to be as clear as possible with people about the rules. Okay, so return to Councilor Plaza’s comments and you got about four minutes left.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, it’s going to highlight too that, I guess part of the question is how we got here realizing this was an emergent motion at committee so they didn’t have opportunities to comment at committee and the regular council agenda was issued in due to the holiday season that there was no opportunity for anyone to submit comments ‘cause the added deadline was on the same day that the council agenda came out. That’s a procedural issue on our side that we’ll have to clean up in order to make sure that there’s a clear line of communication to help address some of the concerns which also tie into the washroom questions I was currently in just looking to Mr. Dickens or his team on that question of if there’ll be no washrooms available in the mobile service model versus the depot service of just where the closest washrooms are for residents to access.

Mr. Dickens or Mr. Cooper, go ahead. Sorry, that’s me again, hogging the mic.

Thank you through your worship. Just a quick search of the city’s website. It appears that there’s a washroom available at Meredith Park, just north of the river. Appreciating that I don’t believe these are open until May 1st, we’d have to confirm with parks and rec.

And then to the east, there’s a washroom available at Vauxhall Park and to the west at Thames Park. Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, realizing the whole motion is on the floor. Just looking that we don’t end the services earlier than anticipated, realizing the city park washrooms aren’t open yet.

So there actually wouldn’t be those hours and staff in place to offer alternates, realizing we would like to ensure that people have an opportunity to use the facilities and not defecate on city property and parks. So not able to support that. And I believe that staff and fire were already enforcing some degree of safety measures in the parks. And even if we passed this, you staff still would not be entering people’s tents to search them, just looking for clarification.

Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, that is correct. We would not be entering into people’s locations.

We would certainly through the assistance of outreach, organizations, a lot of observations are made on a daily basis. We’d be looking for items that might indicate it’s an unsafe situation or keep an eye for those things. And as for the washrooms, we do have a previous council approval from a basic outdoor needs provision report where we identified that we would be placing some portable washrooms throughout the city to not concentrate them in one fixed location for long periods of time. The number of those portable washrooms during the months in which the parks and forestry teams have the city owned washrooms open would be few.

And as the winter months come, we would add more portable washrooms. But again, decentralized and not concentrated in one area for too long. Good, thank you. And my last question three to staff is, should we make the decision to stop the service depot model preemptively and then switch to mobile?

Is there any contracts that would be issued to service providers that would still be financially paying for if we stopped the depot locations early? Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you, through you, your worship.

No signed contracts with outreach agencies would be impacted with that change. It is really more the focus on meal provision and the comfort stations or the washrooms that would likely be removed. And the meal is not provided on site for eight, nine days or so. Thank you.

And just for the clerk and for colleagues, I will be still with you. I just need to go to a child’s urgent medical appointment, but still with you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Other speakers to this? Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Like I said earlier and on social media, to which there was a five to zero vote on part A and a three, two on part B.

So I was only speaking to part A, which was unanimous. There’s no, there’s Councillors not you, Councillor Stevenson. But I gotta call out the side conversations and Councillors. When a Councillor is speaking, we do not make side conversations to disrupt the flow of that Councillor’s points, whether you agree with them or not.

Because every Councillor gets to stand up and speak, I’ve already had a discussion with those in our gallery. The same rules apply for us here around the horseshoe. So if a Councillor is speaking, do not make side conversation, do not make comments based on what the Councillor is saying, allow them to speak, listen. If you have other points you’d like to make, you can do those during your turn to talk in the debate.

Sorry for the disruption, continue on Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I appreciate that. And like I said, my social media post was about the relocating and it was a five zero vote at committee. So the struggle that I have with all of this is, like I said, clear is kind.

And I don’t think it’s clear. People don’t know where to go and it matters. I had people reaching out to me after committee, very concerned about the media saying that they were gonna be clearing that encampment. And I was at that committee meeting.

It’s not what I understood. I reassured them that it was gonna be fine. Then I sought clarity and I found out, no, it was going to be cleared if we passed this. I sought more clarity and then found out, no, it wasn’t the intention.

This happens, I get it. And I’m glad we’re seeking clarity now and the Councillor’s done that and we’re gonna support it. But the truth is, it’s still not clear. We found out there’s the wash and it’s gonna be removed that no meals for the next eight, nine days, these things matter to the people who are living there.

And I just feel like so many of these things that we’re doing, we’re unfortunately setting everybody. We’ve got the people living in the encampments that are unhappy with the decisions that are being made. We’ve got people that are living in those neighborhoods that are not gonna be happy necessarily. And then there’s the rest of the Londoners that just care about this issue and keep hearing about all the problems and want us to do something about it.

So I’m hoping that as we go forward, we can start talking about some course corrections to this whole community system response. What is working? What isn’t? And what can we do to make a real difference where we start looking after all of the people so that we can start taking care of the people who need shelter and we can take care of neighborhoods and restore safety to the people who live right next to these parks or need to get out for some fresh air with their families this summer for a little mental health break.

Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yes, Your Worship, I did support A and the amendment. I wanna thank the Councillor for bringing it forward. To me, it made it a little bit more clear as it relates to the compliance of establishing the protocol for the encampment.

I will not be supporting B. I agree with Councillor Stevenson, it’s not clear. I also believe that this is very complicated. And I, you know, if I’m not clear on something and if I’m not sure on something, I’m not gonna support it.

So if you could break out A, B, not sure if you wanna break out C as well, but I’ll not be supporting B. Okay, yeah, we’re gonna do them all separate, A, B and C. Other speakers, go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I will be supporting the motion fully. What has become very clear to me, and folks can have different interpretations of clarity and language, and that’s true. And Councillor Truss, I agree with you, we’re not unanimous on things, and we’re allowed to have different opinions, that’s fine. But for me, from my position, what has become clear is what’s happened in Watson Park, was a public safety hazard that is putting individuals at risk, including those homeowners in the immediate vicinity, including our own park asset for property damage, and including some of the individuals who are staying there.

The camp has been allowed to become too big. It is out of compliance, regardless of some separations from tents. When I see postings about wedding tents being erected there, Mr. Dickens called them fortifications, one that looks like a carport.

That is not anywhere close to what we would consider as within compliance, where we would not sanction a location, but we would not disrupt it either. However, we’re at a point where, for me, there needs to be a disruption of this site because it is creating a public safety hazard. And I don’t need to weigh the Waterloo’s or the Hamilton’s. Actually, I think there’s some relevance to both, but I think that we are in a very precarious climate in terms of what’s changing.

In fact, next week, we’re gonna have a new federal government. Regardless of who wins, we’re gonna have a new federal government who’s gonna set a whole bunch of new policies and procedures on things, including how this is dealt with. You know, the previous item we were dealing with federal funding that was going to 602 Queens. And the federal government has a role to play here, but we have a role to play to.

And I am not going to pretend by any stretch of the imagination that my award is nearly as impacted as Councillor Ferreras or Councillor Stevenson’s or Councillor McAllister’s, but it is impacted. And for those Councillors who aren’t impacted by encampments in their wards, I understand that you’re taking a different lens and a different approach to this, but for those of us who have to deal with the realities of this and how the residents are feeling, residents who are feeling unsafe in their own homes, there has to be a change in what we’re doing here. And I think that this is a responsible first step towards that. You know, we’re moving away from the static depot anyway.

So why would we continue services there for one more week at a location that’s proving to be very problematic to the point where fire had to respond to a very serious situation for hours on end? So for me, I know we’re going to continue to have this conversation. I know we’re going to continue to agree on some things and disagree on some other things. And that’s okay.

We’re allowed to have differences of opinion, but I am not okay with leaving things, the status quo that we have at Watson Park right now. So I’m going to fully support the Councillor because I know from my own, it’s a much smaller experience, but nonetheless, from my own experience with residents nearby and how they’re feeling about these situations. And I know Councillor Stevenson hears it all the time. And I know Councillor Ferrer hears it all the time.

Those voices have to be factored into this decision too. They matter, they do. And so I’m going to be supporting this 100%. Councillor Pribble.

Thank you. I will be supporting all that’s in front of us as well. My first concern was if you were proclaimed this park as a 100% no-go zone, that would be an issue for me. That’s not the case.

It is more clear for me now because it does say that it will be according to the encampment protocols. And we are the ones who set them. I don’t know what was the vote. But bottom line is it has passed.

If these protocols potentially were followed, maybe this wouldn’t have happened. So we are getting back on track. Encabements is not the best solution. We all know that we all agree with that.

I do believe that this is another sign that we have to start looking in between on one side extremely encampments on the other ones via the hops. And you have to start really thinking outside the box and exploring other opportunities. Going back to the motion in front of us, I will be supporting all as it is in front of us. Thank you.

Councillor Perai. Thank you Mayor. So we did have a lengthy debate in the committee and we did do some amendments at committee and I thought they were good. I do like the clarity that we have here.

For the comments that I’ve been hearing, I agree with a lot of the things that I say. Status quo is not working. And we need to break from that. But I would also remind us that some of that status quo is built upon by us and this council.

We have our restrictions, setbacks that we have allowed and have not allowed people in encampments to be as far as from parks or schools or daycares or houses. We had that conversation on how that could lead to the potential concentration of where people are allowed to be because it takes out a lot of the geographical space in the city. We do find ourselves at this council chambers with respect shutting down some of our capabilities, some of our capacity with respect to no municipal funding on a BIA boundary. I understand the intention for that.

I just feel like we should have the next step in line before we make a move like that. And because of that, we have lost resting spaces. We’ve lost the indoor capacity. We’ve lost other spaces for other agencies, like safe spaces as well.

And if we are going to be really talking about the situation that we have in encampment and we don’t want encampments and I don’t want to see any encampments, we need to also know that we need to build on the other end of that capacity. If we want people in housing, we need to start opening up doors for people to get into housing. It can’t be closing doors. And that’s really what I’m saying.

So when it comes to that, the status quo idea is something that I would like to depart from, but I would also say that we have a state, we have control on creating what that status is for the status quo. I really like the comments that the deputy mayor made. I don’t come to the same conclusions as the deputy mayor. But the comments basically was saying that we need to have a citywide lens as we work on our homelessness response.

We can’t have a ward specific lens because if we get into the lenses of our wards specifically, we find ourselves in the battle of the wards. We find ourselves in not moving business according to what our objectives are. And that is to bring people indoors, to bring people into housing, supportive housing, wraparound supportive housing, indoors, not in encampments. So I would say as the downtown counselor, this might be something that is easier for me to say because yes, I and my ward is very heavily impacted as well as ward one and ward four.

The citywide lens is really kind of what I have been bringing and not kind of is what I have been bringing every single time we speak to this matter. And I would say to all of you, we should bring that citywide approach as well because it’s a citywide issue. And it comes right back down to, if we were to seize operations at Watson Park, the question is where do people go? Where do people go?

And that’s really what was spoke about at the committee. Where do people go? And this comes down to the fact that maybe not in Watson Park, but where else in the city? So taking a citywide approach, a citywide lens as we make choices and decisions, we need to ensure that it’s the whole city that we need to look at.

And we need to ensure that regardless of the ward that we’re in or regardless of just kind of what our direction is for our ward specific items, we need to know and we need to make sure that we incorporate the entire city. And that’s really kind of what I wanna say is like, it boils down to the citywide approach and if we really wanna beat this status quo, we need to start kind of wearing our full city of London hats. With that, it’s a matter of, I don’t want to see the status quo that we have. I’m not happy with it, I don’t like it, but we need to start building more capacity.

We need to start opening doors. There should be no more closing doors. There should be no more shutting down and dismantling our capacity done at this council because this Watson Park item that we’re speaking to right now would not be. 30 seconds.

Would not be to the extreme extent that it is. If we didn’t do some of the things in the past that we’ve done, the whole of community responses not in full within operation. We have not completely opened up the whole of community responses that originally came to us from staff. So if we did, we would be in a separate, we would be in a entirely different situation.

So basically what I’m saying is we need to start opening up more doors. That question of where do people go is why I wouldn’t be supportive of item A, I’m supportive of, but I’ll leave it there, but it’s really, where do people go? Thank you, Councilor. Any other speakers who haven’t spoken yet?

Okay, we’re gonna divide this into A, B, and C separately. A is the amended A that based on Councilor McCallister’s amendment, B is the direction about the ending of depot operations, C is basically receiving the letter from Councilor McCallister at the committee. So we’ll start with A, we’ll open up for voting. Council, close the vote, yes.

Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, now we’ll move to B, which is the ceasing of operations of the service depot there. We’ll open up for voting. So close the votes now.

Close in the vote, motion carries nine to six. And C is the receiving of Councilor McCallister’s communication, we’ll open up for voting. So close the votes, yes. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Councilor McCallister. That concludes the community and effective services committee report. Okay, we’re moving on to the next Councilor report. It’s the report of the Planning and Environment Committee.

I’ll turn it over to Chair Layman to present that report. Thank you, and please put the sixth report of the Planning and Environment Committee on the floor. I’m gonna be pulling four, six, and 10. All right, Councilor Layman.

Thank you, Mayor. As I was saying, I’ve heard from folks who pull four, six, and 10, and I have no other requests. Anything else to be dealt with separately from the Planning and Environment Committee report? Okay, go ahead, you can make a motion, Councilor.

Thank you, so I’d like to move all items from one through 13, excluding four, six, and 10. Okay, those are on the floor by the chair. Any discussion on those items? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

So close the votes, yes. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, Councilor Layman. Thank you, so I’ll put number four on the floor.

This is regarding 3095 Boswick Road. That’s on the floor, I’ll look for speakers. Go ahead, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship.

And I’d like to, first of all, start with thanking the committee members for bringing forward an amendment that I brought forward for Boswick Road at PEC. And it did fail three to two, and I am bringing it forward here, looking for Council support. So I would like to bring forward the amendment before I speak to it, or should I speak to it first, and then bring the amendment forward, Your Worship. First, if you could just read the amendment, and then I will look for a seconder, and then you can speak to it then, or you can speak to it later, your choice.

Yes, and it’s the same amendment. It’s part C, be amended to include I to read as follows. By the subdivision approval authority included draft plan condition specific to natural heritage compensation for the 1.27 hectares of features removal, consisting of 0.57 hectares of wetlands and 0.70 hectares of woodlands to demonstrate no net loss to the natural heritage features and functions to the satisfaction of the city. If the owner is unable to compensate for the full 1.27 hectares on the subject lands, the balance is to be provided on non-city lands external to the subject lands.

That’s the amendment. Okay, is there a seconder for that amendment? So Your Worship, on a point of order. Okay.

Just wanna check procedurally. This was defeated at committee. So would this be contrary to the recommendation that the committee forwarded? Because the committee did forward a recommendation after specifically voting this out.

So it didn’t make it through committee. It failed the committee. The councilor has the right to bring it up again. It does not change the by lots of site plan piece.

So it could be dealt with today. So I’m ruling it to be in order to have the amendment on the floor. Okay. And it is seconded by Councilor Ferra.

Okay. So now on the amendment, Councilor Hopkins, would you like to speak to the amendment now? Yes, I think I can speak to it. Thank you very much.

And I wanna just, Deputy Mayor, I appreciate his question, this is a site plan process that it would follow. And it is important to, first of all, understand that we do have to demonstrate no net loss when it comes to a natural environment. And this application consists of 113 new residential homes. There’s three wetlands and there’s part of the environmentally sensitive woodlot that is being developed as well.

So those natural features, which are very important to residents in the area, and I think to us as a city, we need to demonstrate that we’re not gonna lose that part of the environment part. And so if these wetlands and woodlands cannot be accommodated on this development, we can find other areas in the city. And to me, it’s really just following up that we follow those policies and processes in place. And I’m looking for your support.

Okay, I’m looking for other speakers on this item. The amendment only. Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Chair.

So I didn’t support this at committee and I’m not gonna support it here either. But through you, I would like to ask a question of our planning staff, which is, if this is written in as direction to staff through site plan, which is what’s being proposed, does that have the effect of then tying your hands in terms of what compensation you may deem adequate, which right now is a bit of a delegated authority thing. So for example, I need to preface this a little bit so that I can clearly articulate the question. Language speaks to the compensation may not be on city lands.

And so therefore in the site plan approval, if there was a proposal for some compensation that was on a piece of city land, even a remnant piece or a cash in lieu. And I understand that we have some policies that aren’t fully developed. We don’t have mechanisms for necessarily all of these yet. But as those are being developed, they may actually come online before building permits are approved and site plans are finalized and those sorts of things.

So does this have the impact of tying your hands in terms of you can only seek compensation on the developers, privately held lands here or on other sites versus the flexibility that you would have with negotiating some compensation by leaving this out? Go ahead. Through your worship, what it’s trying to say is, looking at alternative lands for compensation. And as you’ve mentioned, there are policies and procedures that are under review currently.

However, the intent is the developer would find on lands or reciprocal lands of other development. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you. So if that wasn’t clear, I’ll let other colleagues ask that question again in a different way if they want.

But for me, it is pretty clear is that we would actually be limiting the ability to negotiate compensation that we feel is adequate for what’s happening here, which includes the council referenced wetlands that are on site approval for relocation of portion of those wetlands to another location on site has already been approved. So there’s a reason for, to me, that this was not in the staff recommendation. And I’ve dealt with compensation pieces in my own ward and on other planning files as well. And I think it’s best that we allow the flexibility for our staff through site plan approval and the applicant to find ways to create the compensation without saying it can only be within these existing lands or reciprocal lands that you have.

We’re not gonna take it as a city benefit on city lands. We’re not gonna take it in other places right now with reciprocal lands and ask staff one other question if you’ll allow your worship. Have we had compensation provided currently through site plan agreements like this where the compensation on reciprocal lands has actually happened outside the municipality of the city of London? Go ahead.

Through your worship, my understanding that some receiving lands are in Haldeman Township. Thank you. So there’s another concern to me. I don’t feel like providing compensation on reciprocal lands in Haldeman Township is actually of any net benefit to the city of London.

And so when we start talking about these reciprocal lands, it’s a careful what you wish for. If we’re not gonna let it happen on city property, we might be sending it to another municipality. And so for me, that’s why I won’t support this. I encourage colleagues to support the committee recommendation.

Other speakers on the amendment? Okay. Seeing none, we’re gonna open the amendment for voting. Supposed to vote, yes.

Supposed to vote, motion fails, five to 10. Okay, so now just the committee recommendation is on the floor. Any debate or discussion on that? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that.

Supposed to vote, yes. Supposed to vote, motion carries 14 to one. That’s a layman. Okay, I’d like to put number six on the floor.

It’s regarding 1622 Evans Boulevard. Okay, that’s on the floor. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting.

Councillor Plaza, that’s yes. Supposed to vote, motion carries 14 to one. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you.

I’d like to put 8-0-1, certainly a road on the floor. All right, you don’t want to sign your orders on the floor. I’ll look to speakers, including, I think, Councillor Ramen, you circulated an amendment, or no? Okay, go ahead.

Thank you and through you. So my understanding is that what’s on the floor has to be defeated in order for me to introduce another motion. So I’m just wanting clarification. Yeah, sorry, my mistake, I said amendment, but you’re correct, you’d have to defeat it.

So if you could speak to it now and figure out how to convince everybody to defeat it, then you could move a motion afterwards. Okay, thank you and through you. So I did circulate some language for a potential motion. It should this fail to pass.

So this is regarding what I saw, take place at committee around 8-0-1, starting your road. We had the applicant put forward an application for 10 stories and the site specific policies says that there can be, we’re starting now, it’s not a site specific, but that area policy is that there can be six stories in this area. I’m very familiar with this part of town. I represent the other side of the tracks in this part of town.

And so when I looked at this from the lens of Sarnia Road, I feel that the intensification at eight stories isn’t overly intense for this area and the type of development that’s being put forward. We’re talking about growing inward and upward. We’re talking about where to do that. I also represent Gainesboro Road, which is not far from this area.

And if we can do 17 stories on Gainesboro, why would we not be able to do eight stories on Sarnia? And that’s, I think, one of the challenges we have here, one of the issues I heard was, well, this is a tight confined space. Yeah, we’re going to run into these situations because we’re looking to infill. And so we’re not going to have these perfect parcels in order to do our infill development.

We’re going to have to consider, well, what does the entire area look like? And so I’ve walked it, I’ve driven in the area, I recently did a walk-a-thon in the area, and I can tell you that where it’s located in respect to the retirement home, the frontage of this property doesn’t actually interfere with the retirement home across the street for those residential developments beside. I don’t see it as overly intrusive. I know there were some concerns around parking and things like that.

And I think that can be addressed through the amendment that’s that, or sorry, through the additional motion that I put forward. We have to think of this parcel instead of thinking of it as three separate parcels that were too already developed. We have to think about it in conjunction to what’s surrounding it and what has been developed. So I do think there is a way to look at this at an appropriate height of what I see as eight stories.

And in my opinion, it would be a good use to provide units in this oddly shaped parcel to support infill and to support development on Sarnia Road. Others, because of this. Deputy Mayor Lewis, thank you. So in the interest of brevity, I’m gonna say, first of all, I agree with everything Council Raman just said, and she spends more area time there than I do.

So I’m not gonna dispute that. I think she’s bang on, you know, I was actually willing to support 10 at this location. The one neighbor is a railway, and shadows are gonna fall on the rail line, not on residential homes. The other neighbor, to the west, is a parcel of property owned by the same applicant.

So they’re gonna be their own neighbor. We’ve got a 36 meter wide roadway between the residents on the south and the site, which is pretty significant distance apart, considering where we normally see some setbacks on properties that are right adjacent to each other. So I definitely think that this area can take in eight stories here. I think this is a reasonable compromise.

I think that we heard a lot of concerns raised in the PPM on this that were frankly, the result of Council Trust, I’ll be happy to know it wasn’t a counselor, but a result of misinformation online, talking about rail safety. Well, CP rail has no concerns about this, talking about lack of parking. This actually meets our parking minimums. We said, when we set parking minimums at half a space per unit, that we recognize not all apartment tenants are gonna have cars, they’re not gonna walk cars, and this building is proposing to do exactly that.

Follow that half a spot per unit standard. We’re talking about something that is serviceable by LTC to Western. We saw in the applicant’s proposal that they plan on running a shuttle service between the building and the university, and Masonville Mall for their tenants. So there’s a benefit.

We heard concerns about some degree about it being confined and constrained to a small parcel. But it’s really important to note that the applicant has conveyed to the city land to the north between their property and the railway for multi-use pathway. And I don’t know the exact meters, and I’m not gonna ask staff to pull it up, ‘cause I think it’s 10 or 12 meters or something like that of land being conveyed, but don’t quote me on that number, ‘cause it might be wrong. But one of the reasons the parcel is smaller now is because the applicant freely gave us some land to create a connection to a pathway that the neighborhood is using anyway, except now we’ll have an actual official pathway that can be connected and provide that transportation connectivity.

So I think there’s been a lot done here. As I said, I was willing to go to 10, but I think it’s a fine compromise. So I’m gonna be voting against the committee recommendation, and I will speak to any recommendation that Councillor ramen might put on the floor after, if this is defeated, because I’ll be supporting that. Councillor Layman.

Thank you, yeah, I supported the staff recommendation, in this case, I’m not going to 10 stories. I’m gonna repeat, I apologize what has been said prior to just kind of make sure everyone understands this parcel of land, it’s a triangle, essentially, with the railway coming up from the east up across the north side. So to the east, there’s railway bridge overpass. So there’s no, there’s not any neighbors on that side.

To the north, as Councillor ramen said, is the railway lines. To the west, there is a bid density of two and a half story and three and a half story walkups. And on the cross the street, there is a substantial seniors, four stories of substantial seniors residents. This is far as community’s feedback is concerned.

The applicant held a public meeting for neighbors in the area back in October, it was a Zoom meeting, it was attended by six people, with no significant pushback at that time. And this was on the 10 story. There was more questions being asked. At PAC, where we had public participation meeting, we had four people in the gallery, three were neighbors that didn’t wanna see any development going forward.

And one was a neighbor who lived next door that actually spoke out in favor for the reason that we all are talking about infill. She is renting and she wants to see more supply on the market. As far as amenities are concerned, yeah, I think as that pathway mentioned by the deputy mayor, it’s quite important. There’s gonna be a pathway extension all the way down behind this particular development, all the way down the art developments to connect up to Sarnia and Hyde Park, where there’s a commercial plaza there, which I just have found out that there’s gonna be a grocery store opening there.

So that pathway is gonna be used not only by the residents, but it’s gonna be used by the folks across the street from Sarnia, Beaver Brook and whatnot, allow them to either walk or take their bike to do some shopping, which I think is terrific. There’s good transit on there. We’re always hoping for more. I understand there’s transportation concerns we’re pushing for a light up Beaver Brook and Sarnia, I think the next traffic study, hopefully we’ll support that.

So I think this is a good compromise. And the last point I want to make is this. I was kind of looking for a compromise in my mind. I thought 10 was too high, it was probably right, but I didn’t want to get into that on the floor of planning.

I thought that this is the reason we have space between committee and council, and I want to thank council Raman for doing the work with the applicant to kind up with a possible compromise here that can be presented should this motion fail. So I will not be supporting the packet recommendation. Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, worship through you.

I did not support this at committee, but I will be supporting it today. And I want to thank the applicant for making the accommodations to bring it from 10 to eight stories. I think that’s more amenable to council. Deputy Mayor Lewis already addressed some of the mobility issues and I’d just like to hit a few that he didn’t hit.

Keep in mind that Sarnia Road is a dedicated bicycle lane. So there’s lots of room for cycle transit, as well as LTC operates two stops in the vicinity of the site route 30 with a link to Western and route 21 with access to downtown. Deputy Mayor Lewis also addressed the issues of parking. We meet the standards.

And we’ll add that the applicant has been great to work with and making these accommodations. So I’ll be happy to support this, thank you. Okay, and I’ll just outline that, although you’re articulated that you’re happy to support this, what’s on the floor, is the committee’s recommendation to refuse. So everybody who spoke so far is basically asking you to defeat the committee’s recommendation.

Oh, that’s right. Sorry, I should be addressing this to Councilor Robbins amendment and I do that. So I’m a little early on that one. No, I’m not sending you a counselor.

I think a few people are speaking that way. I just want to be clear for people before they vote that. So I’ll be defeating the motion, but supporting Council Robbins amendment motion. Thank you.

Perfect. Okay, I am myself that I’m gonna speak briefly to this and I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. I will take the chair and recognize Mayor Morgan. So I’ll speak very briefly.

I think this is one where a whole bunch of people could want to jump in on and provide a bunch of comments. I was kind of mixed coming into this, but what I hear is the Board Councilor on one side of the road saying that this makes sense for the community. The Board Councilor who’s worded is saying this makes sense for the community a little more intense than what are a little less intense than what our staff refused, a little more than what’s there. Seems like a good compromise.

I will be voting against the community recommendation and supporting something at eight stories. Thank you, Your Worship. I will return the chair to you noting Councilor Ploza had her hand up on Zoom. Okay, I’ve got Councilor Ploza, Stevenson and Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just wanted to highlight on this one, as I was also a no wet pack, that as we hear colleagues say, you know, in Phil get something built there. Just highlighting through the report and as it was a larger report that originally it was approved for five stories and was approved, then it came back for six stories, which was approved.

And that approval, it actually came with four one-bedroom affordable units that be part of the city’s affordable housing stock. Staff, do you note within the report that if the applicant wished that those four units could be removed as bonus thing is no longer a tool in our toolbox, realizing that the 10 stories is a lot more. I know that we’re always trying to find the middle ground. Should this application, the no vote passed here at committee?

I will speak to the eight as my concern still follows with different rounds of approval when we’re trying to get shovels in the ground and housing built and we just keep doing more intensification and we’d actually be losing more affordable housing. Thank you. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you.

I’m just going to say I was disappointed to see it fail at committee. I too would have supported the 10 stories. I think, and I supported 10 stories out in Oxford, at Oxford and Clemens and Oxford at Stewart, even though there are no 10 stories out there and there are single family homes right beside it because housing was a number one priority and it makes sense on the main street, which was Oxford. And I think I went back and I watched the planning committee meeting.

And I think nobody wants years of construction right beside them. I mean, I think that’s a given, but we get to look at the future and where we’re going. And if we don’t want to be out in the middle of nowhere building, then it’s going to be an inconvenience in the short term. I appreciate the work that was done to bring forward something.

I’m going to be defeating this. I’m going to be supporting the new motion. And I just think it’s important that we do find ways to say yes. Yes to housing, yes to the development charges, yes to the ongoing property tax revenue.

These are great locations and I’ll be happy to support the next motion. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship. And I really appreciate some of the comments that I’ve heard here this afternoon on this application, but I am going to be supporting the committee’s recommendation to support staff.

And I appreciate the Ward Councillor. It’s important that we hear from the Ward Councillor. She’s trying to make that compromise, but I have a ward, it’s all about development. And we’re going to see and we’ve seen in the past, there are some applications that we’re approving here tonight on applications that have come forward based on other decisions that we’ve made, not understanding the consequences of those decisions.

And yet we find ourselves sometimes in this compromising situation. So to start off with, I support infill. That’s going to happen. It’s the conversation I have with my residents all the time.

When I’m not sure what to do, I rely on our policies. Maximum is six stories. It’s not near a primary transit route. We just changed our policies a number of months ago.

And we’re going to see more applications coming forward to us to approve. And I want to understand the reasons why we are supporting more than what our policies allow. And as much as I agree, we need to compromise. I really am not sure if we understand the consequences to some of the decisions.

And that’s why I’m supporting the committee’s recommendation as well as the staff’s recommendation. Councilor Troso. Thank you, and through the chair, I think what Councilor Hopkins just said is very sensible. And I’m going to agree with that approach.

I would like to ask staff, however, how did we land at six? How did we land at the decision that this is not a primary transit area? How did we land at a decision where 10 would have been not keeping with the requirements, nor would eight be keeping with the requirements? In short, how did we land at the decision that this should be no more than six?

If you could articulate some of the reasons you wrote in the report there, or beyond that, you could go ahead. Thank you through the chair. Yes, the justification for the primary transit area was established through the London Plan. And that would allow the stories as of right through the recent Council review back in the last fall.

And six stories was outside of the PTA, and Councilor Upton not to make those changes at that time. Go ahead. Well, that’s helpful. I don’t see any, why do we have these rules for not going to fall?

Why do we go through the process of crafting these rules very carefully? I suspect we landed at these roles with some very diligent staff work. I haven’t had the opportunity to serve on the FEC this term, but it just seems to me we have developed a set of criteria to govern the size of these buildings. And it just because somebody said 10 and oh, it will be a great, this is not a game of cards.

This is not a game of cards. This is a game of balancing the environment and our existing plans against this mindset that just get as much as you can. So I’m going to be supporting the staff report. And I’d really, I’d really like to hear a good reason why that all the work that went into that staff report was not valid because then maybe I could move a little bit.

But other than the fact that, well, they said 10 and now they’re saying eight and eight is a nice compromise and both the ward councilors are in favor of it and et cetera, I don’t understand why we have these rules if we don’t follow them. So let’s follow the rules today and I will be supporting the staff report. Thank you. Any other speakers who aren’t spoken yet?

So it’s the staff recommendation that’s on the floor from committee, which was the refusal, 10. That’s what’s on the floor, okay? We’ll open that for voting. Councillor Palazzo votes yes.

It was in the vote, motion fails, five to 10. That failed, Councillor Romney had an alternate motion that you wanted to put on the floor. Thank you and through you, I’ve submitted an alternate motion and I’m not sure if it can be pulled up on the screen. I’d like to see if there’s, I’m sure there’s a seconder based on the debate but Councillor Stevenson’s willing to second.

So we will get that on the screen. And just refresh and give me one second. I’m happy to read it if you’d like. Okay, given it wasn’t on the added agenda, I do want you to actually read it.

Thank you. So notwithstanding the recommendation of the director of planning and development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application for a Royal Premier Homes, related to the property located at eight on one start on your road, a) the proposed by-law attached to the appendix, a) be introduced at the municipal council meeting on April 22nd, 2025 to amend the official plan, the London plan by adding a new policy to the specific policies for the neighborhood place type and adding the lands to map seven specific policy areas, b) the proposed by-law attached to the appendix, b) be introduced to the municipal council meeting on April 22nd, 2025 to amend zoning by-law number Z1 in conformity with the official plan. The London plan is amended in part A above to change the zoning of the subject property from a holding residential R8 special provision bonus, and then H8, R8, R4, 74, B40, zoned to a residential R9 special provision, R9, seven zone. C, the site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following through the site plan reviewed.

I, to ensure the functionality of the development, flexibility should be granted regarding the provision of landscaped islands within the rear parking area in lieu of additional onsite parking stalls to meet the 0.5 stall per unit ratio to work with the developer to ensure an economical form of construction that supports project feasibility by avoiding the requirement for building setbacks. D, pursuant to subsection 3417 of the planning act, no further notice be given. And it being noted that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons. One, the recommended amendment would permit residential intensification that is appropriate.

Okay, so that’s moved and seconded. I’d like to see if you wanna speak to it, go ahead. Thank you, and again, I won’t reiterate all my points, but I wanna first say, thanks for the discussion here. I think it’s really important to be able to reflect on the decisions that we’re making and to entertain other opportunities and conversations in between.

Again, I hear what my colleague also mentioned about affordable housing and the consideration for that in the original application. And noting that we do not no longer, sorry, we no longer have that bonus requirement associated. It’s difficult for us to say what makes sense for the applicant to do when it comes to looking for additional support for the community. However, I’m confident that there’s an opportunity to continue to discussions with the developer to see where appropriate there might be opportunities to support some of the strategic priorities of the city further.

That’s what good relationship building is about. We have the opportunity to have discussions about what is in the interest of the community around here. So I’ll say this, this area as we continue to build, as we continue to intensify this area. In my opinion, is missing a lot of neighborhood amenities, is missing opportunities within our close and nearby parks.

If you go to Maple Grove Park, which is kind of across the railway tracks, which will have a really beautiful linkage through the neighborhood and you go to Maple Grove Park on a busy weekend day night, this park is packed. It is filled with residents of the neighborhood. It is filled with seniors and children. There’s nowhere to sit, there’s very little amenities, and there’s very little things to do to activate this space.

And so what I’m hoping is, is we continue to build out and develop. We think about what are the amenities that our neighborhoods need? What kind of park facilities do we have? You know, what kind of thinking are we putting into, even the school buses that will be coming to pick up kids in these areas?

There’s a lot of considerations that need to be made. I agree with my colleagues that as we continue to intensify, we need to be having those kinds of conversations. So I look forward those continued discussions. I know it would be very beneficial for my residents, and I’m hoping that the Ward Councillor can continue those discussions as well for these residents.

Okay, other speakers. Oh, sorry Councillor Stevenson, I had John, let’s go ahead. No, that’s good, thanks. I just want to address the concerns that were expressed around why would we go different than the six stories when that was the policy.

And when we establish policies, we don’t have the foresight of what’s happening in the world. And I don’t think we can deny that the world has changed. And there’s an economic reality here that doesn’t have anything to do with the greed of a developer. And so I did hear that comment at the planning committee when I listened to the recording.

And I just want to say we so often, when we talk to lenders, they want more housing, we need more housing. And then when developers bring forward bold plans with lots of housing, we somehow make derogatory comments about how they’re just in it for the money. So I just want to say thank you. Thank you for being willing to invest in our city.

Thank you for being willing to turn on a dime here and come forward with something that we can act on today and not have to wait because people do need housing. And we need housing of all different forms. And I also heard when I was listening to the planning meeting that this is part of a larger project and that we could have had all apartment buildings at a lower level. And that would have been according to the plan, but that’s not what lenders want.

We want the townhouses and the apartment buildings. And so to see it as one big project, I think is helpful. And I guess that’s just my point, is if it was all about policy and sticking to past policies, none of us would need to be here ‘cause the decisions would already be made. And that’s why we are here is to be able to have input and respond to the moment in time and the needs of our community.

Thanks, I’ll look for other speakers. Oh, Councilor Trossa. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, my hand’s up online too.

Oh, I can’t see it, sorry. Oh, you know why? ‘Cause if the camera’s on, I can’t actually see the hand, but I think you, Councilor Trossa just put up his hand, so I’ll go to you first. So go ahead, Councilor Ploza, ‘cause you had your hand up first.

Sorry, thank you. Just your assistant. Can you hear me okay? I can now.

Perfect. I sent wording to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, I’m looking to make an amendment, just hoping they can pull it up. I emailed it. I’ll read it out as we go.

Sure, good. That the applicant be re-trafficed. Fuck’s sake, sorry, this crazy thing. Sorry, I’m getting out of, it’s joy of remote.

That the applicant be requested to meet with municipal housing and industrial development to explore viable contributions where all premier homes can make to affordable housing initiatives in the city. Looking for a seconder and then I’ll speak to it. Okay, just in case you broke up a little bit there for part of it, I will read what you said. So the motion be amended to add a new part E that reads as follows E.

The applicant be requested to meet with municipal housing and industrial development to explore viable contributions Royal Premier Homes can make to affordable housing initiatives in the city. Is that correct, Councilor? Yes, and it’s been Clerk and the applicants aware of it. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder for that.

Councilor Layman, okay, Councilor Layman is willing to second that. So we’re now on the amendment. Would you like to speak to the amendment, Councilor Palosa? Yes, please.

Just wanted to thank the applicant. We had discussions like this as it went through the 10 stories. Now it’s at eight. Realizing this is that the requested two, there’s nothing legally binding on it.

It may or may not be on this property and other property or what units they might be able to do. Just realizing that we do need housing and it’s housing for everyone and just if we’re gonna be losing those affordable units but giving more height, hoping that there’s an opportunity to still move housing stock forward in the city. And as I said, it’s been in Clerk and the applicant is aware of this. Thank you.

And thank you to them for the conversation through text. Okay, thank you. So that’s moved in seconds. And now we’re just on this amendment, which is on the screens and he’s scribed for you now.

Any discussion on this? Councilor McAllister, go ahead. Thank you and through the mayor, I just wanna say, I appreciate the developer putting this forward. I’ve had past experiences and working for the premier homes and I appreciate them working with the city in terms of finding whether it be housing, community improvements.

They’ve shown a willingness to work with us and I appreciate that. Be supportive of the amendment but I just wanna acknowledge that we can work with developers to find a way forward and I’ll support this in the main motion. Thank you. Thank you, anyone else?

Go ahead on the amendment, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I’ll support it because there’s no requirement to do it. I don’t think we need affordable housing in everything that we do.

If there’s some open discussion about it and it can possibly work fine, but there’s all kinds of opportunities. When we add to housing stock, people might have the opportunity to upgrade, which will free up housing that’s available to other people. So just having movement is good, but I’m not opposed to any discussion around it as long as there’s no requirement. Yeah, it’s a be requested, just so everybody’s clear.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. And similar to Councilor Stevenson, it’s a discussion. Let’s find, we can have the discussion with the developer.

But I will say I get a little bit concerned about these things in terms of discussions because I also actually heard very clearly what Councilor Raman was saying and the need for amenity space and park investments and things like that. And the struggle I have is, yes, we have a big need for housing of all types, including affordable housing. But when we start to look at housing development only through the lens of, well, we’re not gonna do it unless you provide affordable. I think we actually miss out on other opportunities that are equally valuable to our municipal budget in terms of investments that might be made in our park spaces.

I talked earlier about the land conveyance that’s happened so that we can create this beautiful trail system that’s gonna connect people on the south side of tracks to Maple Grove Park. When we look at the London plan, and even though it is out of date and we have some changes that are in and we have some other changes coming, there’s a whole list of community benefits that could be considered and used to be under-bonicing could be considered. It wasn’t just affordable housing. There was a whole list of things.

And please check out the London plan and give that some thought moving forward. As I said, I’ll support the amendment here because it’s a request for a discussion that may or may not lead anywhere, but what I’d like us to take into consideration moving forward is what other community benefits do we need? There is more than just housing. Yes, housing is at the top of the list, but it’s not going to work and it’s not gonna be a financially viable model for some developers.

And ultimately, when we get to the point of, we could lose four affordable units on this property. Well, actually, we could lose the numbers changed ‘cause we lost two floors. But we could lose over 100 units of new housing period if we don’t support something going forward. And so not only do we lose the four affordable units, we lose all the units.

So that’s something that we have to keep in mind. And I know I’ve shared this with colleagues before. There are vacant lots in the city right now that have been zoned and that have affordable units counted in them that do not exist. So it’s, you know, what we can get today, the bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush.

And I think that this is offering us a bird in hand where we can create some housing today. So I’ll support the discussion, but I’m hesitant to continue to support these requests for discussion when we actually, to me, it feels a little bit like an exercise that we’re just gonna go through to check a box because we don’t have the bonusing tools to require these things anymore. I have Councillor Troso, myself and Councillor Pribble. I’ll reserve my comments through the chair and why I cannot support this overall to when we get to the main motion.

For now, I’ll say as to Councillor Palose’s amendment. Yeah, sure, I’ll vote for that. I’m not thrilled about it because I don’t think there’s any teeth to it. Yeah, we’ll do this.

And for the same reason that some of my colleagues have said they can support it. I’m not that excited about it, but sure, let’s talk to them about the opportunity of doing this. But we need more specific policies that are gonna lead us to affordable housing. And I don’t think it’s fair to say, if we don’t do this, we lose all eight stories.

If we don’t do this, I don’t know if a developer is gonna come back with something. I don’t know if a developer is gonna come back with six or something with more affordable units or some other form. I don’t know that. So I think I’m starting to get into the main motion here and I’ll stop myself and just say, yeah, sure, I’ll support this amendment, but it doesn’t move the needle for me on the big question here today.

Thank you. I’ll turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Myself is on, I’m on the list. And I’ve got my timer open, so I’ll take the chair and recognize Mayor Morgan.

Good, I’ll be brief. I’ll support the amendment. I also wanna thank the Councillor for recognizing that the request is the appropriate pattern here. I wanna say on affordable units.

There are a number of affordable units across the city, as the Deputy Mayor mentioned, that were tied into zoning through either section 37 or other provisions from years ago when the housing market was very different. To Councillor Trostha’s point, I’ve sat down with multiple developers in this city to understand the economics and the performance of development because it is important to understand that if things make a development not economically viable, it won’t get built. If things make a development not as advantageous as deploying the capital in another city somewhere else, it won’t get built here. So it is not always about the affordable units.

I think we are very committed to building affordable units in the city. And we do so through other mechanisms that the municipality has at its disposal, the road map to 3000, the work we’re doing with London Middlesex Community Housing. We have policy tools and avenues to create affordable housing. We have to be very cautious to ensure that we recognize that capital, we’re in a competition for the capital of developers, like full stop.

And we need to ensure that those units get built in our city. The conversation is important because I think Royal Premier Holmes is a great partner who is always willing to have a conversation about what our needs are as a city and do their best to try to accommodate those within the economics of their projects. And they’ve been a great builder here in London. But just, I want colleagues to recognize that this is a good conversation to have, but it’s probably not the last time.

We’re gonna have to have a conversation about existing zoning, whether or not it’s viable in the city and what we can get now and how we can leverage our road map to 3000 to try to secure those affordability pieces. Because this is a conversation we’re likely to have multiple times in the future. So happy to support the amendment, happy to support the main motion on the floor. And I’ll look forward to the votes.

Thank you, Your Worship. I will return the chair to you. I’ve Councillor Pribble. Thank you.

I will be supporting the motion and I will be supporting the entire proposal that’s in front of us. I do want to say that for me, the community benefits, parks and spaces is actually more valuable. I’m a true believer in supply and demand and additional two floors of the additional units will again increase the supply. And I truly believe that supply and demand is going to get us there.

And I really think that we should look at the other opportunities. And if I remember correctly, this developer a couple of few months ago in Ward 1 actually proposed with his development such community initiatives benefits, which is going to be much more beneficial to our community. Thank you. Okay, that exhaust the speakers list on Councillor Plo’s amendment.

So we’re going to open voting on just the amendment. As opposed to votes, yes. Opposed in the vote, marking Councillor Van Mereberg and absence. It carries 14 to zero.

Okay, I’ll go to Councillor Roman. Are you willing to remove the as amended motion? Yes, Councillor, oh, Councillor Stevenson, you were the seconder still willing. Okay, great.

So the as amended motion is on the floor now. Take any speakers to the as amended motion. Councillor Layman, go ahead. Thank you.

I just want to point out one thing I neglected to point out when I spoke earlier about public engagement. There was a gentleman who was online at PEC and he also was president of the public participation meeting that the developer had back in October. The gist of his speaking was an online petition that he had to believe at that time that a hundred people signed up. But the substance of that petition or survey you already want to call it was against a development of any kind.

There were suggestions that we should expropriate that property for a city park which would being beside the railway and being in regular shape and hardly accessible would not be considered for sure. I want to remind the community that there’s already zoning allowed for a six story building. So we’re not going to have, there’s going to be a building there whether it’s six story or eight story. You know, why are we going to eight?

Well, 10 I thought was too high. But, you know, why do we do this in film? Like we do have because of a couple things. One is let’s talk about affordability.

Affordability is pricing. When demand, no strip supply prices go up. Affordability, in a case of this, six going to eight spreads out the fixed costs such as elevators, heating, parking, other amenities over more units. So that brings the rental rate down.

And also going higher speaks to our alternatives which is urban sprawl or it’s going to outside the city boundaries. And the final remark I’d like to make is what Councillor Stevenson touched on regarding policy versus guidelines. Our staff follow the London plan and various amendments that we make to that plan. But those are guidelines presented to us as a council.

If they weren’t, as I believe Councillor Stevenson mentioned, there’d be no need of us. They would just make the choice whether we do it or not, whether it’s the following guidelines or policies. And then we proved or wouldn’t be approved. But the fact that’s brought to us in itself suggests nuance.

So, you know, we look at what the local Councillor sees that he understands, he understands the neighborhood, feedback he gets. What’s the setting on it? Like for example, this particular setting for me, I said 10 was too high ‘cause of keeping with the neighbors to the west of it. However, given the fact of the railway and the separation and the retirement home across the street, I didn’t see any problem with hate.

So that nuance, I believe, is allowed. And I, myself, I’ll speak for myself. I always look at the Ontario plan and what staff says as a guidelines to help me make a decision within the debate and discussion we have a council. I think this is an appropriate height.

I think it will add to our housing stock in an area of town that is good for Enville. And I would remind that six stories has already been approved for this site. Okay, thank you, Councillor Lehman. Other speakers?

Councillor Troso. Thank you, thank you, your worship. I’ll keep this very brief ‘cause I think I’ve made my point. What I’m hearing here today, we don’t have to worry about affordable housing.

But what I’m hearing today is somehow benefits of this market rate or luxury or somewhere in between housing is going to trickle down. And somehow it’s gonna trickle down and benefit people of limited needs who are really in dire need of housing. And I just think before we bet the farm on trickle down, we should understand that every time we approve one of these projects, especially if it’s above and beyond what’s in our plan and what’s recommended by staff, there’s an opportunity cost. We can only absorb so much capacity.

We can only absorb so much traffic. We can talk about the fact that it would be great if there were better parks here. We could talk about the fact of we’re working towards excellent transit. But we’re dealing with the city’s infrastructure the way it is today.

And I think that we need to tell the developer, yes, go ahead and build six, or come back with something else. But I wanna say no to this project because I think we’re making a massive policy mistake. If we think that we can overlook the dire and pressing need that we need in this community for some level of affordability. Now affordability comes in a lot of different varieties.

It comes in a very mild variety where it’s maybe 80% of market. It comes in a much stricter variety. But we’re talking about rent-care to income. But to have nothing to strip this out, it’s unifiable.

We are going to have to explain to residents why we are not meeting our affordability guarantees. And we’re also going to have to explain to residents why as a matter of, I think, policy, the free and unfettered market is not repeat, is not taking care of people’s needs in this city. Now we can overlook it because, oh, it’s just two stories and it’s a great part of town. And this developer is wonderful.

And a number of counselors have talked about how wonderful it is to work with the developer. And I’m sure it’s all true. But this is not moving the needle on what we need. So I’m going to be voting no on this.

And I’ll urge other counselors to do that. And thank you very much. I think I’ve repeated myself quite a bit. So I’ll just stop.

Thank you. Okay, I have Councilor Cuddy next. Thank you, worshiping through you. I take some Umbridge with the counselor suggesting, and this isn’t cross debate.

If I take some Umbridge with the counselor suggesting that this council doesn’t want or doesn’t, it doesn’t encourage or advocate for affordable housing because your worship just two weeks ago, you and Deputy Mayor and a number of other counselors, including the counselor that just spoke, was just at. Councilor Cuddy, I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but I need you to keep it on the— I will keep it on track. Thank you. But I would just want to suggest your worship that we do care for affordable housing.

And we’re working towards that goal. So we can’t always find these projects. I find them in my ward, which I’m very fortunate for. And we will find them in other words as well.

But we do need to encourage housing and development wherever we can in the city, because we have a shortage. And we do need, as I think Councilor Lehman referred to, we do have a shortage and we have a supply issue. So thank you, and then I’ll sit. Thank you.

That, oh, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, just a quick comment and a reminder that this is private property. And the investment is private dollars. Hold on, Councillor Stevenson.

I need the Councillor Van Mereberg and an op-kins. Like you’re talking loud enough that I can hear and I’m trying to listen to the council. So, okay, go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I just quickly wanted to remind the public, if they’re listening, that this is privately owned land and private dollars being invested. So this isn’t city money. It’s not our project. You know, there’s that old saying you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

And we have a lot of developments that are sitting on, they’re not moving forward. And is it maybe because we whittled away at the original plan to the point where now it just doesn’t make any sense for somebody to invest their private dollars into it? And I hope we haven’t done that in this case. I hope that this moves forward with the eight stories.

I’m very excited to support this. It’s great when the local Councillors support it and that we get to allow private citizen to invest their money in our city and provide very much needed housing. There’s a lot of people, whether it’s people who are living in homes now who might like to downsize into an apartment, somebody who just wants to live in that great area and have a great apartment. And I think our city’s better for it.

That exhausts my speaker’s list. On the as amended motion, Councillor Ramen, go ahead. Thank you and through you on the as amended motion. First, I’d like to say I do not believe this was a debate on, a wider debate on trickle down economics.

I believe that we were dealing with the substance of the motion that was in front of us, which is the eight stories instead of a refusal of a six story or 10 story story at that point. The end of the day, I agree with my colleagues, affordability is an issue. How we get there is, I would say, something that we’re working on on many different levels and in our advocacy every day that we do. Regarding infrastructure, as mentioned, there is pressure on some of our local resources, but in terms of capacity, in terms of roadway capacity, in terms of sewer capacity, in terms of those things, there is sufficient and we’re also undergoing some upgrades in the area already to support the development that is there.

Again, I think that sometimes when we have these conversations, they become more philosophical than they are related to the actual motion that’s on the floor. And the importance here is for the public to understand that there is a developer coming forward with an application and that the developer through ongoing conversations with staff and with members of council has arrived on a position that they can support. And I think that that’s important again, as we talk about why is it essential for private partnerships to be part of the discussion that we’re going through is that we have to be able to find a way forward so that things get built so that housing is available, so that there are units available for people in our community. Again, I agree with those that are saying, well, it’s a supply and demand issue, it absolutely is, but we also have to consider when we’re having these discussions that the developer ultimately is in a position that they have to be able to build the product that they are building.

And so six may not have been developable with enough of a return on investment. My hope is that it is. Okay, that exhausts my speaker’s list on the as amended motion. Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting.

Councilor Palazzo votes, yes. Palazzo and the vote motion carries 13-2. Thank you, Councillor. It’s a six report of the planning environment.

Okay, we’re on to the fifth report of the SPPC, it’s a three item meeting. I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that report. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ve been asked to deal with item two, the economic development strategy appointment of consultant separately.

So I am prepared to put items one and three on the floor now. Okay, anybody want any of those separately? Beyond, was mentioned? Okay, I’ll put you, let you put that motion on the floor.

So moved, one and three. Okay, one and three is on the floor, any discussion on one and three? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. I’ll suppose the vote, yes.

The vote motion carries 15-0. And I’m now prepared to put item two, the economic development strategy appointment of consultant on the floor. And I’ll just advise the chair, if you want to go to her first, the Councillor Stevenson asked to have this one dealt with separately. Sure, on the floor, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead.

Thank you, I had an amendment that I circulated to the clerk and they circulated to Councillors just while we were having this meeting. I’ll read it out that part E, that civic administration be directed to provide the financial statements for the London Economic Development Corporation, LEDC for 2022 and 2023 at the next meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee in closed session. Boarder. My point of order is that this is not integrately related to this motion and it would be more appropriate as a standalone motion at a separate time, but should not be added to this as an amendment because it’s not closely enough related.

That’s a point of order, so just give me a moment. Okay, Councillor Trossal issued a point of order. I hadn’t even got to a seconder yet, but you’re jumped in with the point of order. So I’m gonna actually agree with you, Councillor Trossal, about the point of order, about this probably has a particular amendment, has a better path forward through a committee structure.

The item before us relates to the appointment of the consultant to develop an economic development strategy, the source of financing for that, the authorizations to move forward with signing the contracts and the agreement. It doesn’t have to do with the LEDC specifically. It’s the overarching strategy. So I think if the Council would like to seek some motion related to the LEDC or any other economic development corporation that through the committee cycle would be the most appropriate way.

So I agree with the Councilor’s point of order. And so I would say that’s not an appropriate amendment for this particular item that is on the floor before us today. Okay, I hear you on that. I realized as we were voting on one in three that I picked the wrong one, it should have been a part of the communication from the Councillors.

That’s okay, I’ll bring it forward to another committee. I really appreciate that, Councillor. So what we have is just number two on the floor as it was through committee, any other discussion on that? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Councillor, close the votes, yes. Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to two. And that completes the fifth report of the strategic priorities and policy committee. Okay, Councillor Frank’s gonna present the added reports of which we have one from Council on closed session.

You can read the whole thing. We’re gonna vote on them as two separate pieces though. So go ahead. Thank you.

So your Council on closed session report, edit one, lease agreement renewals for office space, 520 Wellington Street Centennial House. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director of fleet and facilities on the advice of the director of really services. With respect to the lease of commercial office space located at 520 Wellington Street Centennial House, the five agreement amending terms of lease, the lease of renewal agreements, which are as appendix A, B, C, D and E. Between the city and Centennial House limited, the landlord for office units totaling approximately 13,253 square feet of rentable space located at 520 Wellington Street Centennial House being units one to three, unit four, unit seven, eight, unit 10 and units 11 to 12 for a term of three years and six months for units one to three and unit four.

A term of three years and four months for units seven to eight for three years and one month for unit 10 and three years and three months for units 11 and 12. And all lease renewal agreements ending on December 31st, 2028 with two further options to renew at two years each be approved. And item two execution of 2023 to 2026 collective agreement for local union 101, Canadian union of public employees, QP local 101, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager enterprise supports and civic administration be that civic administration be directed to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the mayor and the city clerk to obtain the necessary authorization to execute the collective agreement for years 2023 to 2026, appended as a appendix C to the staff report dated April 9th, 2025, pursuant to the memorandum of agreement dated June 28th, 2023, appendix A and the agreed to items dated February 6th, 2023 and February 28th, 2023, appendix B between the corporation of city of London and local union number 101, Canadian union of public employees, QP 101, that progress is made with respect to item 4.3 as noted on the public agenda. Okay, and on clause two, I’m gonna make a conflict declaration on that because I have a personal and direct interest in that report will not be participating in the discussion on that matter.

I’ll note that the declaration language was provided to me as part of confidential advice I received from the integrity commissioner. So for that piece, I’ll have the deputy mayor chair in the meeting, but we’ll deal with clause one first. And so clause one is on the floor from Councillor Frank. Any discussion on clause one of the report from Councillor Close’s session?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Mr. Close, the vote to yes. Close in the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, I’ll hand the chair to the deputy mayor. Thank you, I will take the chair, noting the mayor has declared a conflict and go to Councillor Frank to put clause two on the floor. Thank you, I put clause two on the floor. Looking for any discussion?

Seeing none, then I’ll ask clerk to open the vote. Councillor, close the votes yes. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recusal. And I will return the chair to Mayor Morgan.

Thank you, and I’ll thank Councillor Frank for the report, that ends added reports, deferred matters. There are none, inquiries, any inquiries. There are none, emergent motions, there were none submitted. We’re on to bylaws.

Give me one second, I’m gonna tell you how we’re doing the bylaw. Okay, so no one indicated that they wanted anything pulled in advance of the meeting. So right now we have all of them together. So unless someone has a problem with that, that’s how we’re gonna proceed.

Okay, Councillor Hopkins. I just wanna confirm, are we doing the San Diego Road bylaw? Yeah, we’re doing all of them. If you can put one indicated in advance to the clerks that we wanted to do that, but you could do it now, it’ll just take a little longer to reword all the motions.

So if you want something separate, we could do that. Yeah, I’d like that one separate. Next time I’ll, I’ll note a. Sure, yeah.

Councillor Hillier, go ahead. Yeah, so like Bill’s 137 and 148, both relating to mine. Thank you. Sure, yeah, we can do that.

Just give us a few minutes. Oh, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Sorry to add one, but I’d like to pull, well, 132. 132, okay.

We’ll just be a few minutes to organize that. Okay, we can do this in 12 separate votes, so great news. So what we’re gonna do is everything, except the items that were pulled, which is 132 for Councillor Stevenson, 137, 138. 137 and 148 for Councillor Hillier.

And then the added ones related to Sarnia Road, the Councillor Hopkins, and maybe some others wanted. So those are all out. Everything else is in on the first vote, okay? So I’ll need to move her in a seconder for that.

Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hillier. We’re gonna use both of you for all three readings. So we’re on first reading of everything, except the stuff that was pulled, and we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Palazzo votes yes.

Those in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. All right, same mover in a seconder. And this is second reading of all of those items. There’s not any discussion on any of those items.

Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Yes, by Councillor Palazzo. Those in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. And same mover in a seconder for third reading, and we’ll open third reading as soon as it’s written.

Councillor Palazzo. Yes. Those in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. The next two we’re gonna do are 137 and 148 at Councillor Hillier’s request.

So I’ll need to mover in a seconder for those two items. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Van Mirbergen. We’ll use you for all three iterations of this, and we will open first reading for voting as soon as— Just clarify which one this is again. This is the ones that Councillor Hillier asked for separately, 137, okay.

Present vote motion carries 14 to one. All right, second reading of those same items, any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Yes.

Those in the vote motion carries 14 to one. Third reading, same mover in a seconder. We will open that for voting as soon as it’s ready. Yes, by Councillor Palazzo.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Next, we’re gonna deal with 132, which is the one that Councillor Stevenson you asked for separately. I’ll look for a mover in a seconder for 132. I have Councillor Hopkins and Hillier on that.

I’ll just be a minute to load those three votes in, and then we will open first reading as soon as they are ready. It’s open, Councillor Palazzo. Councillor Palazzo. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two.

Okay, second reading, same mover and seconder. I’ll look for any discussion on this. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting. Councillor Kosea votes yes.

Councillor Layton votes yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Right, third and final reading of bill 132. I’ll use the same mover and seconder, and we’ll open third reading for voting.

Councillor votes yes. The vote, motion carries 13 to two. Okay, the next set of bills we’ll deal with are the added ones related to the Sarnier Road development. So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for those.

Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Cuddy. It will be the movers and seconders for all three readings. Just be a minute to load those three readings in, and then I will open the first reading as soon as they’re all in. I’ll let you know when we’re ready, Councillor Palazzo.

It’s open now, Councillor Palazzo. Councillor Palazzo. Councillor Palazzo. The vote, motion carries 13 to two.

Okay, and second reading on this, same mover and seconder. Any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open second. The supposed votes yes.

Motion carries 13 to two. Right, third and final reading of this one. Same mover and seconder, we’ll open. Councillor Palazzo votes yes.

Motion carries 13 to two. That concludes by-laws. That means I’m just looking for a motion to adjourn, which we can do by hand, moved by Councillor Vamereberg and seconded by Councillor Frank. All those in favour of adjournment?

Motion carries. That carries, we’re adjourned.