November 25, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:03 PM; it being noted that Councillor D. Ferreira attended remotely after 4:20 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

At 1:07 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enters the meeting.

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Recognitions

None.

At 1:12 PM, Councillor D. Ferreira enters the meeting.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

4.1    Solicitor-Client Privilege  

     

A matter pertaining to advice on the Housing Collaboration Initiative that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/17/CPSC)

4.2    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. (6.1/17/ICSC)

4.3    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations    

   

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and direction to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.2/17/ICSC)

4.4    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

       

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to a claim for compensation following the expropriation of property located at 124-126 Wellington Road at the Ontario  Land Tribunal (“OLT”); and for the purpose of providing instruction and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.3/17/ICSC)

4.5    Land Acquisition/Disposition / Technical, Commercial or Financial Information Belonging to the City / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations  

     

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality, including discussion of financial and other information necessary for that purpose; and technical, 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. (6.4/17/ICSC)

4.6    Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual / Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice  

     

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality. (6.5/17/ICSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:19 PM to 1:38 PM.

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

5.1   17th Meeting held on November 4, 2025

2025-11-04 Council Minutes

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Minutes of the 17th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on November 4, 2025 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

6.1    Housing Collaborative Initiative - Updated Financials and Project Conclusion        

  1.    Councillor S. Stevenson        

  2.    (ADDED) Memo - Housing Collaborative Initiative Update Financials and Project Conclusion - Pre-Meeting Questions

6.2    Heritage Designation of the Property at 1269 Hyde Park Road        

  1.    J. Weeks        

  2.    J. Forsythe        

  3.    M. Serwatuk

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   17th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-11-10 - CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 17th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 6 (2.6), 8 (2.9), 9 (2.5), 10 (2.8), 11 (3.1) and 13 (4.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 7th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on October 23, 2025:

a) the attached, revised, report from the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC) Parks Working Group BE APPROVED and BE APPENDED to the ESACAC report; and,

b) 1.1 and 3.1 to 3.6 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Mental Health Supports for Public Safety Personnel Grant Program Transfer Payment Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 406)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 10, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to:

a) APPROVE the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Solicitor General, and The Corporation of the City of London for the Mental Health Supports for Public Safety Personnel Grant Program (“Agreement”) attached as Schedule “1”;

b) AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement; and,

c) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, to execute any reports required by the province under the Agreement.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) London’s Bicentennial 200th Anniversary Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report dated November 10, 2025, related to London’s Bicentennial 200th Anniversary Update, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) 2025 Annual Emergency Management Program Update (Relates to Bill No. 404)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 10, 2025, related to the 2025 Annual Emergency Management Program Update:

a) the by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend By-law A.7657-4 by repealing and replacing Schedule “A” of the by-law with the new City of London Emergency Response Plan as set out in Schedule “A”; and,

b) the balance of this report, including an update of the Emergency Management Program BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.7) Approval of Service Agreement with WLK Seniors Assistance Association Inc. (Relates to Bill No. 407) 

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 10, 2025, as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025 to:

a) APPROVE the Service Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and W.L.K. Seniors Assistance Association Inc. attached as Schedule “1” (the “Service Agreement”);

b) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth to approve amendments to the Service Agreement;

c) AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Service Agreement; and,

d) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve and execute any future amending agreements to the Service Agreement.

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (4.1) Councillor H. McAlister - Dumpsters in Residential Areas

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the Property Standards By-law- CP-24, as it pertains to residential dumpsters, and report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with potential recommendations to strengthen the by-law, with a particular focus on mitigating the risk rodent infestation.

Motion Passed

8.1.14   (4.3) Councillor H. McAlister - Veteran Public Art Display

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of Community and Protective Services Committee with options for Veteran supported or created public art displays; which would include potential locations, partnerships and may include complete or partial sponsorship by the City of London;

it being noted that key stakeholders, including but not limited to the Royal Canadian Legion, and other local veteran organizations would be engaged regarding the type of display and where they would be most appropriate;

it being further noted that Western University, Museum London, Wolseley Barracks, and Parkwood Hospital may be suitable partners and hosts for public art displays.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.6) City’s Response to MTO Annual Electric Kick-Scooter Pilot Extension (Relates to Bill No. 405)

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 November 10, 2025, related to the City’s response to the Ministry of Transportation Annual Electric Kick-Scooter Pilot Extension:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend By-law A.-8344-62, Electric Kick-Scooter and Cargo Power-assisted Bicycle By-law, to come into force and effect on November 26, 2025, for one year, to extend the pilot program for Electric Kick-Scooters to November 26, 2026, as the Province allows a pilot extension of up to five years; and,

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee and the Municipal Council in March 2026, on the electric kick-scooter data gathering, engagement, and enforcement work completed in 2025.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion be amended in part a) to read as follows:

a) the revised by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend By-law A.-8344-62, Electric Kick-Scooter and Cargo Power-assisted Bicycle By-law, to come into force and effect on November 26, 2025, for six months, to extend the pilot program for Electric Kick-Scooters to May 26, 2026, as the Province allows a pilot extension of up to five years; and,

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Item 6, clause 2.6, as amended, reads as follows:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 10, 2025, related to the City’s response to the Ministry of Transportation Annual Electric Kick-Scooter Pilot Extension:

a) the revised by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend By-law A.-8344-62, Electric Kick-Scooter and Cargo Power-assisted Bicycle By-law, to come into force and effect on November 26, 2025, for six months, to extend the pilot program for Electric Kick-Scooters to May 26, 2026, as the Province allows a pilot extension of up to five years;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee and the Municipal Council in March 2026, on the electric kick-scooter data gathering, engagement, and enforcement work completed in 2025.

At 2:31 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

8.1.8   (2.9) Approval of Service Agreement with Gilzean’s Creek Housing Co-operative Inc. (Relates to Bill No. 408) 

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 10, 2025, as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to:

a) APPROVE the Service Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Gilzean’s Creek Housing Co-operative Inc. attached as Schedule “1” (the “Service Agreement”);

b) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth to approve amendments to the Service Agreement;

c) AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Service Agreement; and,

d) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate to approve and execute any future amending agreements to the Service Agreement.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

At 2:34 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enters the meeting.

8.1.9   (2.5) Blue Box Transition Final Year - Part B Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to the Staff Report - Blue Box Transition Final Year - Part B Update:

a) the staff report dated November 10, 2025, related to this Part B Update of the Blue Box Transition Final Year BE RECEIVED;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate and report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on potential interim measures that would ameliorate the cost pressure on small businesses, places of worship and non-profits as “non-eligible sources” associated with changes to the Blue Box program, including cost information and options for funding;

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to request the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks amend the Blue Box Regulation (Reg 210/25) to include non-profit organizations, places of worship, and other small businesses in the definition of “eligible sources”; and,

d) the Mayor, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), BE REQUESTED to advocate the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks to amend the Blue Box Regulation (Reg 210/25) to include non-profit organizations, places of worship, and other small businesses in the definition of “eligible sources”.

At 2:32 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part a):

That the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to the Staff Report - Blue Box Transition Final Year - Part B Update:

a) the staff report dated November 10, 2025, related to this Part B Update of the Blue Box Transition Final Year BE RECEIVED;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part b):

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate and report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on potential interim measures that would ameliorate the cost pressure on small businesses, places of worship and non-profits as “non-eligible sources” associated with changes to the Blue Box program, including cost information and options for funding; and

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part c):

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to request the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks amend the Blue Box Regulation (Reg 210/25) to include non-profit organizations, places of worship, and other small businesses in the definition of “eligible sources”;

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part d):

d) the Mayor, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), BE REQUESTED to advocate the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks to amend the Blue Box Regulation (Reg 210/25) to include non-profit organizations, places of worship, and other small businesses in the definition of “eligible sources”.

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Item 9, clause 2.5, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to the Staff Report - Blue Box Transition Final Year - Part B Update:

a) the staff report dated November 10, 2025, related to this Part B Update of the Blue Box Transition Final Year BE RECEIVED;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate and report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on potential interim measures that would ameliorate the cost pressure on small businesses, places of worship and non-profits as “non-eligible sources” associated with changes to the Blue Box program, including cost information and options for funding; and

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to request the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks amend the Blue Box Regulation (Reg 210/25) to include non-profit organizations, places of worship, and other small businesses in the definition of “eligible sources”.

At 2:47 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.1.10   (2.8) Housing Collaborative Initiative - Updated Financials and Project Conclusion

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth the staff report dated November 10, 2025, related to the Housing Collaborative Initiative – Updated Financials and Project Conclusion BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion be amended by adding a new part to read as follows:

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee on any further costs paid with regards to the Housing Collaborative Initiative (HCI) project beyond what has been publicly reported to the date of the November 10, 2025 staff report.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Item 10, clause 2.8, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Housing Collaborative Initiative - Updated Financials and Project Conclusion:

a) on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth the staff report dated November 10, 2025, related to the Housing Collaborative Initiative – Updated Financials and Project Conclusion BE RECEIVED; and

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee on any further costs paid with regards to the Housing Collaborative Initiative (HCI) project beyond what has been publicly reported to the date of the November 10, 2025 staff report.

8.1.11   (3.1) Lambeth Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated November 10, 2025, related to the Lambeth Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan map, as appended as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED to inform the annual Renew London Construction Program and New Sidewalk Program;

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;

it being noted that the staff presentation related to this item, was received.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows:

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reassess the timing of the Marianna Drive sidewalk implementation in coordination with proposed residential development at 4402 Colonel Talbot Road;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 11, clause 3.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Lambeth Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan map:

a) on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated November 10, 2025, related to the Lambeth Neighbourhood Connectivity Plan map, as appended as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED to inform the annual Renew London Construction Program and New Sidewalk Program; and

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reassess the timing of the Marianna Drive sidewalk implementation in coordination with proposed residential development at 4402 Colonel Talbot Road;

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;

it being noted that the staff presentation related to this item, was received.

At 3:00 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

8.1.13   (4.2) Councillor H. McAlister - Garbage Along the Highbury Avenue South Corridor (Between Hamilton Road and Bradley Avenue)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the garbage along the Highbury Avenue South Corridor between Hamilton Road and Bradley Avenue:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, with potential options for two scheduled clean ups and enforcement options of garbage along Highbury Avenue South between Hamilton Road and Bradley Avenue, including the associated operational considerations, resource requirements, and estimated costs; and,

b) the Mayor BE REQUESTED to engage with the Mayor of St. Thomas and the Warden of Elgin County regarding a potential joint communications campaign, to remind residents and commercial operators to properly secure their loads while travelling on area roads, particularly along the Highbury Avenue South corridor.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part a):

That the following actions be taken with respect to the garbage along the Highbury Avenue South Corridor between Hamilton Road and Bradley Avenue:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, with potential options for two scheduled clean ups and enforcement options of garbage along Highbury Avenue South between Hamilton Road and Bradley Avenue, including the associated operational considerations, resource requirements, and estimated costs; and,

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part b):

b) the Mayor BE REQUESTED to engage with the Mayor of St. Thomas and the Warden of Elgin County regarding a potential joint communications campaign, to remind residents and commercial operators to properly secure their loads while travelling on area roads, particularly along the Highbury Avenue South corridor.

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Item 13, clause 4.2, as amended, reads as follows:

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, with potential options for two scheduled clean ups and enforcement options of garbage along Highbury Avenue South between Hamilton Road and Bradley Avenue, including the associated operational considerations, resource requirements, and estimated costs.

At 3:13PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.2   17th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2025-11-12 - PEC Report

At 3:16 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 3:18 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 17th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 5 (2.2), 8 (3.3), 9 (3.4) and 13 (3.8).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Building Services Report – Quarter 3 2025

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated November 12, 2025, related to Building Services Report – Quarter 3 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.3) Housing Accelerator Fund - 2025 Annual Update

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated November 12, 2025, related to the Housing Accelerator Fund – 2025 Annual Update BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.4) Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Program (Relates to Bill No. 416) 

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to amending the program guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Program:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix ‘A’, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1596-87, as amended, being a by-law to establish financial incentives for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area, by DELETING Schedule “1” and REPLACING with the appended to the above-noted staff report as Schedule “1” being a revised Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area Financial Incentive Program Guidelines;

i) subject to the approval of a) above, approve the revised Transit Oriented Development Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Agreement template;

ii) authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve, enter into and execute the above referenced agreement substantially in the form authorized and approved under clause (a) i) provided the terms of the agreement conform with the applicable Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area Financial Incentive Program Guidelines;

iii) authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve, enter into and execute amending agreements.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (3.1) 144 Baseline Road West - Z-25107 (Relates to Bill No. 423) 

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 9515-5222 Quebec Inc. (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.) relating to the property located at 144 Base Line Road West, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R1/Residential R5 Special Provision (R1-9/R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

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

  • G. Geroux;

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 Neighbourhoods Place Type 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

8.2.7   (3.2) 1453-1459 Oxford Street East & 648-658 Ayerswood Avenue - Z-25113 (Relates to Bill No. 424) 

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 Red Maple Properties Inc. (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design) relating to the property located at 1453-1459 Oxford Street East & 648-656 Ayreswood Avenue:

a) consistent with Policy 43_ of The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), for the subject lands representing 648-656 Ayreswood Avnuee, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type;

b) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone, a Residential R1/Holding Transit Station Area (R1-6/h-213TSA1) Zone, and a Residential R1/Office Conversion/Holding Transit Station Area (R1-6/OC4/h-213TSA1) Zone TO Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA1( )) Zone; and,

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

i) provide a variety of common outdoor amenity space (at-grade and on roof tops); and, ii) provide a Transportation Impact Study;

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

  • L. Sooley, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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), which encourages growth in settlements areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

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

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of development that is geared towards the intent, and growth, of the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type;

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

8.2.10   (3.5) 4402 Colonel Talbot Road - OZ-25101 (Relates to Bill No.’s 413 and 427) 

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 Lambeth Health Organization Inc. (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.) relating to the property located at 4402 Colonel Talbot Road:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Low Density Residential policies in the Lambeth Neighbourhood;

b) the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning on a portion of the subject property FROM a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(30)) Zone and Holding Urban Reserve (h-9UR1) Zone, TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-4(_)) Zone and to change the zoning on a portion of the subject property FROM a Holding Urban Reserve (h-9UR1) Zone to a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(30)) Zone; and,

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

i) installation of a board-on-board fence that exceeds the requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law;

ii) enhanced landscaping along all parcel boundaries that exceeds the minimum requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law; and,

iii) establishment of a servicing easement with the lands to the south;

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

  • J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design; 

  • J. Toogood;

  • M. Cole;

  • D. Mathews;

  • L. Mathews;

  • N. Howett;

  • L. Buck; and,

  • N. Rawls (Djukic);

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

  • the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages growth in settlement areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

  • the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood policies; and,

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (3.6) Amendments to Home Occupation - Z-25103

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated November 12, 2025, related to the application by the City of London relating to Amendments to Home Occupation, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (3.7) Amendments to City Building Policies (Street Classification Design Features - Table 6) - O-25092 (Relates to Bill No. 414) 

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by Amending Policies 221, 371. 372, 372A, 372B, 378, 380, 1717, 1738, 1739A, 1740, 1747, & 1748 by removing the Street Classification Design Features;

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

  • M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

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

  • the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024;

  • the recommended amendments conform to the general intent of The London Plan;

  • the recommended amendments will reduce redundancies and clarify contradictions between policies;

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

8.2.14   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the November Deferred Matters List, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.2) Heritage Designation of the Property at 1269 Hyde Park Road

Motion made by S. Lehman

Notwithstanding the recommendation from the Director, Planning and Development the heritage designation request related to the property at 1269 Hyde Park Road BE REFUSED.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

8.2.8   (3.3) 1447-1449 Dundas Street & 684-690 Hale Street - OZ-25110 (Relates to Bill No.’s 411 and 425)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1412651 Ontario Limited o/a Prospera Properties relating to the property located at 1447-1449 Dundas Street and 684-690 Hale Street:

a) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the designation of 684 Hale Street FROM a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO an Urban Corridors Place Type;

b) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Urban Corridors Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of The London Plan;

c) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA4/ASA5) Zone TO a holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-9*BDC(_)D400H60) Zone;

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

i) Orient primary residential lobby entrances and retail unit entrances of the buildings to the adjacent public street; and

ii) Screen all parking areas from the public roadway with enhanced all season landscaping, as well as from neighbouring properties to mitigate any noise or light pollution; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  • A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  • the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment; and,

  • the requested amendment facilitates the redevelopment of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP) with an amended scale and intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and will contribute to achieving an appropriate range and mix of land uses and housing options within the area;

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

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1412651 Ontario Limited o/a Prospera Properties relating to the property located at 1447-1449 Dundas Street and 684-690 Hale Street:

a) the revised by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on November 25, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the designation of 684 Hale Street FROM a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO an Urban Corridors Place Type;

b) the revised by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on November 25, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Urban Corridors Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

c) the revised by-law attached hereto as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA4/ASA5) Zone TO a holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-9*BDC(_)D400H61) Zone;

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

i) orient primary residential lobby entrances and retail unit entrances of the buildings to the adjacent public street; and

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

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

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

  • A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  • the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment; and,

  • the requested amendment facilitates the redevelopment of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP) with an amended scale and intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and will contribute to achieving an appropriate range and mix of land uses and housing options within the area;

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

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That item 8, clause 3.3, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 8, clause 3.3, as amended, reads as follows:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1412651 Ontario Limited o/a Prospera Properties relating to the property located at 1447-1449 Dundas Street and 684-690 Hale Street:

a) the revised by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on November 25, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the designation of 684 Hale Street FROM a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO an Urban Corridors Place Type;

b) the revised by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on November 25, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Urban Corridors Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

c) the revised by-law attached hereto as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA4/ASA5) Zone TO a holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-9*BDC(_)D400H61) Zone;

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

i) orient primary residential lobby entrances and retail unit entrances of the buildings to the adjacent public street; and

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

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

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

  • A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  • the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment; and,

  • the requested amendment facilitates the redevelopment of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP) with an amended scale and intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and will contribute to achieving an appropriate range and mix of land uses and housing options within the area;

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

At 3:40 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 3:44 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.2.9   (3.4) 1269 Hyde Park Road - OZ-25105 (Relates to Bill No.’s 412 and 426) 

Motion made by S. Lehman

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1269 Hyde Park Rd Inc. relating to the property located at 1269 Hyde Park Road:

a) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Shopping Area Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of The London Plan;

b) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in part a) above, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial (h-108RSC1/RSC3/RSC5) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-108BDC1(_)D450H50) Zone;

c) the Site Plan Authority be requested to ensure the proposed documentation and commemoration of the existing building as proposed by the applicant be included in the Site Plan Approval process, and that the applicant be encouraged to consult with the City’s Heritage Planners on materials that may be salvaged and incorporated into the commemorative feature;

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

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

  • P. Weigle, North Development Corp.; and,

  • M. Moussa;

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

  • the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

  • the requested amendments are appropriate within the existing and planned context; and,

  • the requested amendment does satisfy the criteria for adoption of the Specific Area Policies;

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

Motion made by S. Lehman

Motion to approve part b):

b) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in part a) above, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial (h-108RSC1/RSC3/RSC5) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-108BDC1(_)D450H50) Zone;

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Motion to approve the balance:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1269 Hyde Park Rd Inc. relating to the property located at 1269 Hyde Park Road:

a) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Shopping Area Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of The London Plan;

c) the Site Plan Authority be requested to ensure the proposed documentation and commemoration of the existing building as proposed by the applicant be included in the Site Plan Approval process, and that the applicant be encouraged to consult with the City’s Heritage Planners on materials that may be salvaged and incorporated into the commemorative feature;

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

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

  • P. Weigle, North Development Corp.; and,

  • M. Moussa;

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

  • the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

  • the requested amendments are appropriate within the existing and planned context; and,

  • the requested amendment does satisfy the criteria for adoption of the Specific Area Policies;

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 (10 to 5)

8.2.13   (3.8) 3563 Bostwick Road - OZ-25078/ 39T-24502 (Relates to Bill No.’s 415 and 428) 

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 MHBC Planning Ltd. relating to the property located at 3563 Bostwick Road:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 12, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE APPROVED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to:

i) REVISE Map 1 – Place Types of The London Plan to change the place type on a portion of the subject lands FROM Neighbourhoods Place Type and Environmental Review Place Type TO Neighbourhoods Place Type and Green Space Place Type;

ii) REVISE Map 4 – Active Mobility Network of The London Plan to ADD a Cycling and Walking Route;

iii) ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type applicable to the subject lands, in relation to a Draft Plan of Subdivision (39T-24502), to permit a maximum building height of sixteen (16) storeys on the northern portions of Blocks 1 and 2, and eastern portion of Block 4; a maximum height of nine (9) storeys on southern portions of Blocks 1 and 2, and western portion of Block 4; a maximum height of six (6) storeys on Block 3 fronting on a Neighbourhood Street; and commercial uses within mixed use buildings on Block 1, 2 and 4 and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

iv) REVISE Schedules 4 and 9 of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan to redesignate the subject lands FROM Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Open Space and Environmental Review TO High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Open Space and Environmental Review to align with the block layout, and road configuration within the applicant’s proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision; and,

v) AMEND the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by ADDING a site specific policy to the Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood to permit the maximum heights and maximum densities and proposed uses;

b) the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in Part a) above, to change the zoning of the subjects property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone, and an Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8-R9-7()-H56-D250); a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8-R9-3()-H32-D120); a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8-R9-1(_)-H21-D75); an Open Space (OS1) Zone; and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

c) the Planning and Environment Committee REPORT TO the Approval Authority the issues, if any, raised through the application review process for the property located at 3563 Bostwick Road;

d) the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following issues through the draft plan of subdivision approval process:

i) require a clause in the subdivision agreement that details how sustainable design elements for the high density blocks adjacent to Pack Road and Bostwick Road will respect the context and interface of the existing and planned neighbourhood surrounding the development, as well as create a distinct pedestrian oriented community with a focus on amenity space and walkability. This subdivision agreement clause shall be included in development agreements for each block as it develops, underscoring the importance of appropriate and context sensitive site design;

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the existing Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP) policies for the area and consider a new comprehensive neighbourhood plan for the lands located along the Bostwick Road, Bradley Avenue, and Wonderland Road, as part of the SWAP policy or subsequent policy review;

f) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider the provision of enhanced transit service in this area as part of the next future update of the Master Mobility Plan; and,

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

  • wrap any structured/podium parking in active uses (e.g., residential units/lobbies/indoor amenity spaces etc.) along the public streets to create an active frontage and allow passive surveillance. (TLP 285, 286, 228);

  • avoid rear-lotting of cluster townhouses onto any public streets and side lotting along Bostwick Road and Pack Road. (TLP 229);

  • retaining walls will only be permitted along street frontages where it can be demonstrated that they will not have a negative impact on the public realm. (TLP 230);

  • orient front façades and entrance of buildings to the adjacent public street with direct pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks. (TLP 291);

  • incorporate a minimum step-back of 3-5m from the edge of the podium above the 3rd-5th storey of a proposed high-rise building along the public street/s to reduce the apparent height of the built forms, create a human-scale environment and minimize potential shadow impacts. (TLP 292);

  • incorporate a minimum separation distance of 25m between the towers (i.e.,portions of any high-rise building above 8 storeys in height);

  • provide a minimum setback of 12.5m for the tower portions of the buildings from the property line of an adjacent property. (TLP 298); and, - design the tower portion (above 8th storey) as a slender tower with a maximum floor plate size of up to 1000 square meters to reduce impact of the massing on neighbouring properties which will mitigate shadow impacts, and obstruction of sky views to be less imposing on the neighbouring properties and public spaces. (TLP 293);

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

  • S. Allen, MHBC Planning; and,

  • L. Jaimeson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  • the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 which directs municipalities to provide for a range and mix of housing options and densities, and promotes healthy, active and inclusive communities, fosters social interaction, and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity;

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 4:07 PM and reconvenes at 4:20 PM.

8.3   14th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2025-11-18 SPPC Report 14

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 14th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 2 (2.1), 5 (4.2), 7 (4.4) and 8 (4.5).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 4:25 PM, Councillor D. Ferreira leaves the meeting.

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 2025 Resident Satisfaction Survey

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the City Manager, report including the 2025 Resident Satisfaction Survey, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (4.1) Downtown Plan - Phase l Background Study

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the development of the Downtown Plan:

a)    the Downtown Plan: Phase 1 Background Study, including Appendix: B related to the Downtown Plan: Background Study BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE APPROVED to further explore the feasibility and implementation of additional quick start actions as identified in Appendix 8 of the Downtown Plan Background Study (Appendix B), and other actions included in section 2.4 of the report, within approved budgets and resources;

it being noted that the Civic Administration continues to review and implement actions within approved budgets associated with supporting the downtown area and development of the downtown plan;

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

  •    a communication dated November 13, 2025 from  G, Henderson, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce;

  •    a communication dated November 14, 2025 from V. Smith, Interim Executive Director, London Downtown Business Association (LDBA);

  •    a communication dated November 14, 2025 from B. Wludyka, Senior Property Manager, Citi Plaza London Inc.;

  •    a communication dated November 14, 2025 from H. D. Chapman, Member of the Advisory Committee, London Downtown Strategic Master Plan, Scty, London Downtown Condominium Advocacy Group; and

  •    a communication dated November 18, 2025 from D. Brown and W. Thomas, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization;

it being pointed out that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a presentation from J. Barrett, Project Manager, Canadian Urban Institute and delegations from G. Henderson, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce and  V. Smith, Interim Executive Director, London Downtown Business Association (LDBA).

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (4.3) London Convention Centre Corporation (RBC Place London) Appointments

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of London Convention Centre Corporation (RBC Place London) Board of Directors, the following actions be taken:

a)    the memo dated October 27, 2025, from Darrin Pollard, CEO, RBC Place London, appended to the report as Appendix ‘A’ with respect to the RBC Place London Board Appointment Recommendations and Appointments BE RECEIVED;

b)    the resignation of Linda Nicholls from RBC Place London BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated October 2, 2025, appended to the report as Appendix ‘B’, from Linda Nicholls with respect to this matter; and

c)    the following appointments to the Board of Directors BE CONFIRMED:

i)    Ryan Bennett (Finance) as a Class 3 Board member for the term ending November 30, 2028;

ii)    Eunju Yi (Arts & Culture) as a Class 2 Board member for the term ending November 30, 2027;

iii)    Kara Heddle (Communications) as a Class 2 Board member for the term ending November 30, 2027;

iv)    Ross de Gannes (Business/Finance) to Board Chair for the term ending November 30, 2027;

v)    Mary Lynn Stuckey (Health Care) to Board Vice-Chair for the term ending November 30, 2027;

vi)    Melissa Maloney (Business/Entrepreneur) as a Class 1 Board member for the term ending November 30, 2026; and

vii)    Candace Miller (Education) as a Class 1 Board member for the term ending November 30, 2026.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Strategic Plan Implementation Update: November 2025

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report regarding the Strategic Plan Implementation Update BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.3.5   (4.2) Consideration of Appointments to Western University Board of Governors

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Lori Higgs and Marlene McGrath BE APPOINTED to Western University’s Board of Governors for the term July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2030; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 7, 2025 from A. Bryson, University Secretary, Western with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

At 4:27 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 4:28 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.3.7   (4.4) Request for Support for Elect Respect Campaign and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s Healthy Democracy Project - Councillor A. Hopkins and Mayor J. Morgan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions BE ADOPTED with respect to the communication dated November 4, 2025 from Councillor A. Hopkins and Mayor J. Morgan regarding support for the Elected Respect Campaign and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s Healthy Democracy Project:

WHEREAS democracy is healthy when everyone is able to participate fully and safely and contribute to the well-being of their community;

AND WHEREAS we are witnessing the dissolution of democratic discourse and respectful debate across all levels of government and in neighbouring jurisdictions;

AND WHEREAS Ontario’s municipally elected officials are dealing with increasingly hostile, unsafe work environments facing threats and harassment;

AND WHEREAS social media platforms have exacerbated disrespectful dialogue, negative commentary, and toxic engagement which disincentivizes individuals, especially women and candidates from diverse backgrounds from running for office;

AND WHEREAS better decisions are made when democracy is respectful and constructive and the voices of diverse genders, identities, ethnicities, races, sexual orientation, ages and abilities are heard and represented around municipal council tables;

AND WHEREAS the Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s Healthy Democracy Project has identified concerning trends with fewer people voting in local elections and running for municipal office;

AND WHEREAS in 2024, female elected representatives from across Halton formed a group called H.E.R. (Halton Elected Representatives) which pledged to speak out against harassment and negativity in politics and call on elected officials to uphold the highest standards of conduct.

AND WHEREAS H.E.R. Halton has launched a campaign called Elect Respect to promote the importance of healthy democracy and safe, inclusive, respectful work environments for all elected officials that encourages individuals to participate in the political process.

AND WHEREAS on June 5, 2025, the Canadian Association of Feminist Parliamentarians launched a non-partisan “Parliamentary Civility Pledge” to encourage all parliamentarians to commit to end workplace harassment and increase civility on Parliament Hill, modelled after the pledge developed in Halton by representatives of H.E.R.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

THAT Council supports the Elect Respect pledge and commits to: 

  •    Treat others with respect in all spaces—public, private, and online,

  •    Reject and call out harassment, abuse, and personal attacks,

  •    Focus debate on ideas and policies, not personal attacks,

  •    Help build a supportive culture where people of all backgrounds feel safe to run for and hold office,

  •    Call on relevant authorities to ensure the protection of elected officials who face abuse or threats, and

  •    Model integrity and respect by holding one another to the highest standards of conduct.

AND THAT Council calls on elected officials, organizations and community members to support the Elect Respect campaign and sign the online pledge at www.electrespect.ca.

AND THAT a copy of this resolution be sent to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Ontario’s Big City Mayors, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Office of the Mayor of Burlington, relevant MPs and MPPs, Regional Police, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.3.8   (4.5) Request for Support for Membership in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative - Mayor J. Morgan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Mayor J. Morgan BE ENDORSED to seek membership on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative (GLSCLCI); it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 3, 2025 from Mayor J. Morgan with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.4   17th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-11-17 ICSC Report 17

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 17th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Limited Tendering and Cooperative Procurement - Sewer Operations Trucks LT-2025-260

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 procurement of Sewer Operations Trucks:

a)    approval BE GIVEN to exercise the Limited Tendering provisions and Cooperative Purchasing in accordance with section 13.3 iii (a) and (e), and 20.0 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)   limited Tendering negotiated price BE ACCEPTED to purchase three (3) Vacall AllCatch catch basin cleaning trucks for a total estimated price of $2,400,000 (excluding HST) from Amaco Construction Equipment Inc. in Mississauga Ontario;

c)    limited Tendering negotiated price BE ACCEPTED to purchase one (1) Vactor Truvac HXX Hydro Excavator for a total estimated price of $873,157 (excluding HST) from Joe Johnson Equipment Inc. in Innisfil Ontario;

d)    limited Tendering negotiated price BE ACCEPTED to purchase one (1) Vactor 2100i Combination Sewer Cleaning truck for a total estimated price of $894,000 (excluding HST) from Joe Johnson Equipment Inc in Innisfil Ontario;

e)   the financing for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated November 17, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’; and

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

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Closing Part of Ashland Avenue (Relates to Bill No. 420)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to closing part of Ashland Avenue:

a)    the closing of part of the southerly Ashland Avenue on Registered Plan 494 BE APPROVED; 

and

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated November 17, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, for the purpose of closing part of Ashland Avenue.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) 2025 Accessibility Compliance Report

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the 2025 Accessibility Compliance Report BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) 2026 Authorization for Temporary Borrowing (Relates to Bill No. 409)

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 November 17, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 25, 2025, to authorize the temporary borrowing of certain sums to meet current expenditures of The Corporation of the City of London for the year 2026.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.5) 2025 Miscellaneous Accounts Receivable Write-off

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2025 Miscellaneous Accounts Receivable Write-off BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.6) 2025 Provincial Offences Act Accounts Receivable Write-off

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to write-off cases, totaling $23,250 in Provincial Offences Act (POA) accounts receivable in accordance with the Ministry of the Attorney General (the “Ministry”) Write-off Directive and Council approved Accounts Receivable and Collections Policy.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 18th Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That clauses 1 to 2 of the 18th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1. Lease Extension and Amending Agreement – 785 Wonderland Road South – Social and Health Development – West Office

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the lease extension by way of Extension Letter, as attached in Appendix “A”, for a term beginning on November 1, 2026 and expiring on October 31, 2031, for office space located at 785 Wonderland Road South, known as Westmount Shopping Centre, the following action be taken:

a)    the extension of the City’s current Lease at 785 Wonderland Road for a further term of five (5) years beginning on November 1, 2026, and expiring on October 31, 2031, BE APPROVED in accordance with the Extension Letter attached in Appendix “A”;

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Extension Letter; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative steps necessary in connection with this lease extension.

  1. Unifor – Tentative Agreement

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the attached Memorandum of Agreement dated October 23, 2025, and Agreed to Items signed September 12, 2025, concerning the 2025-2028 Collective Agreement for Unifor Local 302 BE RATIFIED.  

That progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 as noted on the public agenda, (6.1/17CPSC) (6.3/17/ICSC) (6.4/17/ICSC) (6.5/17/ICSC).

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of revised Bill No. 405 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of revised Bill No. 405 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of revised Bill No. 405 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 408 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No. 408 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 408 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 412 and 426 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 412 and 426 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 412 and 426 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 415 and 428 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 415 and 428 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 415 and 428 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 403 to the Added Bill No. 429 and including revised Bill No.’s 411 and 425, with the exception of Bill No.’s 405, 408, 412, 415, 426 and 428 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 403 to the Added Bill No. 429 and including revised Bill No.’s 411 and 425, with the exception of Bill No.’s 405, 408, 412, 415, 426 and 428 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 403 to the Added Bill No. 429 and including revised Bill No.’s 411 and 425, with the exception of Bill No.’s 405, 408, 412, 415, 426 and 428 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:43 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, 0 minutes)

[ Inaudible Remark ] >> Recording in progress. >> Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, colleagues, welcome to the 18th meeting of municipal council. I’m going to start with the land acknowledgement.

We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwok, and Adewandran peoples. We honor and respect the history and languages and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds, of the Haudenosaunee Nantfan Treaty of 1701, from Key Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, and the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabek, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum, the Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee. Pre-indigenous nations that are neighbors of the city of London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individually unique languages, cultures, and customs.

The city of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact Council Agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Next, I get to introduce our National Anthem singer and performer. Country singer/songwriter Amanda Keels is a Canadian artist from London, Ontario.

She is a two-time winner of the Canadian Open Singing Songwriting Contest. Her heartfelt lyrics and stage performances captured audiences throughout her musical journey. She has performed on countless stages across Canada from piano, lounges, festivals, and country bars. Please rise and join me in welcoming Amanda who will now perform the National Anthem for us.

♪ Canada, our native land ♪ ♪ Through pain, treadless, cayth glowing heart ♪ ♪ We see they rise ♪ ♪ True, no strong free ♪ ♪ From far wide ♪ ♪ Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard ♪ ♪ We can keep a land ♪ ♪ Blessed free ♪ ♪ Can we stand on guard ♪ ♪ For the stand on guard ♪ Now that moves us on to disclosures of pecuniary interest. I looked for colleagues who have any disclosures yesterday. Okay, seeing none, that brings us to recognitions. There are four, although one’s just a comment.

Today’s Councillor Ramen’s birthday. So happy birthday to Councillor Ramen. People always clap for your birthday, but you should actually be clapping for Councillor Ramen’s parents who basically determined that date for her. But I hope you have a great day.

Hopefully it’s a smooth and quick meeting for you. You can get out and do some fun things with the family. So everybody just keep a note that if you talk short and you’re quick to your points, that’s for Councillor Ramen today. I have recognitions for a couple of individuals.

I’m gonna start with Deputy Mayor Lewis, and then I’m gonna go to Councillor Trostow, and then I’m gonna do one. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues today, I’m rising and asking Council to pause to recognize the passing of Martin Withernshaw, a true community leader and a man who’s impact on London will be felt for many generations in our community. Martin was many things to many people, a successful small business owner, passionate advocate, creative force, and a fearless champion for inclusivity.

But above all, he was somebody who believed deeply in building a stronger, more welcoming London for everyone. When Martin arrived in our city more than 40 years ago, London was not the inclusive community we strive to be today, and he fought tirelessly to change that. Through his leadership with Pride London, where he eventually served as president, as a founding member of the Rainbow Optimus Club, the first LGBTQ+ Optimus Club in the world, he pushed boundaries and open doors that had long been closed to gay, lesbian, bi, and transgendered and two-spirited individuals. His appointment in 2019 as the Pride Festival’s Grand Marshal for the Parade was a moment of immense pride for him, but also a testament to how far our community has come.

Many knew Martin for his contributions to our local business community. Whether through his work in the restaurant industry or as the owner of Much Love with insha’s cheese shop, his entrepreneurial spirit and dedication to service earned him numerous accolades, including the Chamber of Commerce President Award and the Small Business Achievement Award, as well as the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal. Martin was colorful. He was bold.

He was unafraid to stand up for what he believed in. He was provocative, but with a purpose. And he was driven by a vision of belonging and love. And he showed us the one person with courage and conviction can make lasting change.

So on behalf of council, I want to extend our heartfelt condolences to his husband, Tom, to his family, and the many friends and community members, grieving his loss. London is a better and more compassionate city because of Martin. His legacy lives on in the communities he strengthened. The barriers to help dismantle and the countless lives he touched, including my own.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Trossa. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to present this recognition of Barry Allen Wells.

Barry Wells passed away on November 4th in the ICU at University Hospital. He was the son of Don and Darlene and is survived by his brother, Darryl, and son, Adam. Interment was at Mount Pleasant Seminary besides his mom, who, like Barry, was a longtime resident of the Cherry Hill apartment complex. Many of his friends are paying tribute to his contributions to London in the wake of his death at the age of 71.

Wells had written that he moved to London as a child in 1965, grew up in Old South, and that he attended Duartely Public School and graduated in 1972 from South Collegiate. He wrote for the scene magazine. I don’t know how many of you remember the scene magazine, but he was the editor for a while. And he also wrote under the pseudonym of Butch McClarty, how many of you remember Butch, who was rather a surrogate character, to say the least.

He was a friend, but also from time to time, a thorn in the side of some of the municipal politicians in his critiques, his biting and blazing critiques of City Hall. He was at the forefront of pushing for more open, transparent local government. But one role stands out for all the others. He was among the most passionate boosters of the city’s historic Leboc Park, where with his sunglasses, hat and mustache, he became part of the Bull Park’s well-recognized scenery.

He was an avid majors fan, and he researched the senior inter-county baseball league history for the London Majors Alumni Association. He co-founded Friends of Leboc Park and was successful in having the park declared a provincial heritage site and officially recognized as the oldest, oldest Bull Park in the world. In 2006, he was finally recognized on the Mayor’s Honors list for the heritage category. He worked diligently to have the park designated under the Heritage Act and get the city to place a plaque on the park.

He also worked tirelessly to get the Bull Park’s Ron McKay Clubhouse restored. Wells was recognized by his heritage efforts in 2006. More recently in 2023, the Friends of Leboc Park with tours of London were honored with a London heritage ward for Leboc Park tours that included documentation of Barry’s many contributions. His archival materials provided much of the context for the park storyboards.

So Barry knew how City Hall operated, and he was a constant presence here. He knew how to get his voice heard in standing committees and advisory committees and boards and commissions. He would constantly hold politicians’ feet to the fire. He was often sort of presented his critical work through the Now the Funk scene magazine and his own website all London.

He became known to many of you by a second name, which McClarty, an alter ego he created as a tongue-in-cheek blend of politician and critic, a persona that he used to speak out on issues. He ran a regular column, butch ran a regular column in the scene, which Wells helped edit. I remember in my early days in London, I took strong issue with something Butch had written. Could you imagine that?

So I complained to the editor about Butch. Barry’s response was Butch as an A-hole. And that had me fooled for many years. I was always looking forward to running into Butch, but I never did.

And at some point, somebody explained the joke to me. He always had a way of extending his personality through Butch and having lots of fun with it. He was also active in the taxi industry, and he worked on a unionization campaign to improve the working conditions for local drivers. He had briefly worked as a cab driver himself.

So finally, Barry Wells always liked to raise awareness of causes and things where he didn’t think people were being treated well. He had the unique ability to combine part-heading political commentary with humor, irony, and wit. He will be sorely missed. Thanks to you both.

And I will say, just from personally, I did know Marty, as I called him, and many called him. And Barry, I knew Butch as well. I liked him a little less than Barry. But great individuals in our city who accomplished a great deal.

And with that, I rise with a recognition as well. Because today, we also pause to honor the life and legacy of William Bill Brady, broadcaster, journalist, community leader, and one of the most recognizable voices in London. His passing on November 16, 2025, at the age of 94, marks the end of an era. Because for generations, he was a trusted companion at the breakfast table, a storyteller with unmatched wit, and a devoted advocate for the city he loved.

Bill’s contributions reached far beyond the airwaves. As chair of the University Hospital Board, a dedicated volunteer and champion for health care and charitable causes, he lived a life rooted in service. His leadership and community commitment were recognized with an honorary doctorate from Western University and his appointment as a member of the Order of Canada. 2024, Bill was recognized by the city of London for his contributions by being named to the mayor’s honors list.

On behalf of council, we extend our heartfelt condolences to the entire Brady family. London is better because of Bill Brady. He was part of it. His voice may be silent, but the impact of his kindness, humor, and dedication will continue to resonate throughout our community for generations to come.

Thank you. All right, any other recognitions? OK, seeing none, then we’re on to the Business of Council. Reviewing of confidential matters to be considered in public.

There are none. Council in closed session. We have six items for our closed session today. I’ll look for a motion to go into closed session.

Councillor Van Merebergen, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion on going into closed session? OK, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Charlton.

Councillor votes yes. Noted, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. OK, colleagues, we’ll be moving to Committee Room 5.

So I will see you there. And for the public, we’ll return as soon as we’re done our closed session business. Merebergen, seconded by Councillor Ferrera. Any discussion on the minutes?

OK, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to 0. OK, we have a couple of pieces of communication on the agenda and the added agenda. 6.16.2, those both relate to different components of the agenda before us today.

So I have a motion prepared to refer both of those items in the Committee Report. So I’ll look for a mover of that. Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion on referring those?

OK, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to 0. All right, no motions to which notice was given. We have none, which means we’re on to reports.

8.1 is the 17th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. And I’ll turn it over to the chair to present that report. Thank you, Mayor. Please, to present the 17th report of the Community Protective Services Committee.

I have some poll requests. I have item number 6. The city’s response to MTO, Annual Electric Scooter— our Kickstarter pilot extension, pulled by Councillor Ramen, I have item 8. That’s the approval of service agreement with the Gil Zians Creek Housing Cooperative Inc.

That’s pulled by Councillor Stevenson. I have item 10 pulled by Councillor Stevenson. That’s the Housing Collaborative Initiative, updated financials and project conclusion. And then I have item 11, the Lambeth Neighborhood Connectivity Plan.

My vice chair told me this one was pulled as well. I don’t know who exactly pulled that out. Councillor Hopkins, and those are the only poll requests I have. OK, you can add 9 and 13 for me.

And is there anybody who’d like anything else? Yeah, I’ll let you make a motion then. All right, I’ll move 1 through 5, 7 and 12 and 14. OK, that’s on the floor.

Any discussion on those items that are on the floor? 1 through 5, 7, 9— oh, sorry, 7, 12 and 14. Yeah, go ahead, Councillor McAllister. Thank you.

Through the Mayor, I’ll be quick on this. Just with relation to 12 and 14, I want to thank the Committee for their support on that. It’s particularly problematic summer in terms of rodents. I think this is something with residential dumpsters we’ve been looking to appreciate by-law’s willingness to review and see if there’s any updates we can make to that.

And with regards to item 14, again, appreciate the support on this. Already received feedback from the public, which is great. I know we’ll engage with local veterans organizations and veterans themselves. And I think having these veteran public art displays throughout the city is an excellent way to acknowledge their service.

And I think you’ll get a lot of input from the public about it. So thank you for the support on that. And I look forward, hopefully, for the support council as well. OK, and anybody else on all of these items?

All right, then we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Good, Chair.

Thank you, Mayor. I will put item 6. That’s the city’s response to the MTO annual electric kicks scooter pilot extension, as it relates to bill number 405. I’ll put that on the floor.

OK, that is on the floor. I look for speakers. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I won’t be supporting this. I think that there’s been more than enough time to gather some data, engage, and look at enforcement challenges. I think it’s time to the province if they want to recognize e-scooter as a mode of transportation. It’s time to start regulating.

I get a ton of complaints about these things. Lack of helmets, lack of respect for the people that they should be sharing the road with, the lack of insurance and licensing regime. And that’s not on us. It’s on the MTO.

So I’m not going to continue to tacitly endorse these modes of transportation without the province taking serious steps now on safety, insurance, and licensing. These need to be regulated. They’re a motorized vehicle, electric, though it may be. They need to be regulated.

And so frankly, I’m done with piloting. It’s time from my perspective for the province to step up and regulate. Mr. Ramen.

Thank you, and through you, so I share the same sentiment. I think that at this point, the onus is on residents to report a scooter that they saw flying by them, usually a high rate of speed, with no way to differentiate one from the other. And when residents in my ward have tried to complain about e-scooters, they were told to follow the e-scooter home to the residential address, try to figure out whose house it is in order to file the complaint. That is far too high of an onus.

And even when they were reported, the ability to— and the process by which to figure out how to get these delts with was cumbersome and difficult for them. So I do think that at this point, we’ve learned from this pilot. We know that these are not as effective as they can be and as beneficial. And perhaps I think part of the challenge is it’s the end user.

It’s the fact that in my ward, for instance, we’re seeing a lot of users that are under the age of 16. We’re seeing a lot of violations with helmets not being worn. And we’re seeing them mused on streets and classifications that they’re not supposed to be on. So all of those things, I appreciate the opportunity of how to discuss these issues with staff.

But I do believe that they’re overly burdensome on the system. And therefore, we should end our relationship and pilot with these right now. Thank you. I have Councillor Stephenson next.

Thank you. I agree with my colleagues. And I’m just wondering through you to staff what the implications are if we were to end the pilot now. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If the pilot were not extended, we would withdraw our participation from the provincial program. And these would become unusable on all city of London facility and streets for all ages.

Right now, this is the only way the personal ownership East Gooders are permitted on certain roads in the city. And if we no longer are part of the pilot, then there would be no legislation governing their use in London. They would simply be, as they were before, not permitted. Thank you very much, that’s all.

All right, I have Councillor Frank, and then Councillor Trossow. Yes, thank you. I have a couple of questions in regards to the motion. So given that the motion is dropped in this way, I’m just wondering if the cargo power assisted bikes get caught up in this as well.

Or if it’s just the east scooter pilot, I’m a little bit confused with the language. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Could you please provide clarification as to what you’re asking? Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Sure, yes. So are cargo power assisted bicycles going to get caught up in this?

If we vote no or yes on this, are they included in this motion? Or is this just e-bike, or I’m sorry, e-scooters? Go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. Yes, this would apply to both types of vehicles, unless it were split out and changed by amendment to the motion that’s here. Right now, the pilot encompasses both the cargo assisted, power assisted cargo bikes, as well as the e-scooters. Clearly, Council could pick different directions on those two vehicle types, should you choose.

Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. So I don’t want to support this at all. I think it’s a horrible direction that we’re heading in.

I think that there are many residents I have that use kick scooters and cargo power assisted bicycles, and I think banning them as of tonight and telling them they can’t use their forms of transportation that they’ve been using to get around the city is, frankly, like horrible when people spend thousands of dollars, especially on cargo power assisted bicycles, to be able to choose that as a method of transportation, and especially in regards to the kick scooters, understand folks don’t want people under 16 using them inappropriately, but I’m not going to tell a 25-year-old that’s following the rules of the road, they can’t use it, when a lot of people are actually using these to get to work into school. So I will not be supporting this. That being said, I would like to amend it, in case it does pass, to try and separate this, because I think that there are very different concerns. And I don’t want cargo power assisted bicycles to get caught up in this, as well.

So, Councillor, if you would like to amend it and pull them apart, the appropriate way to do that would be to refer it back to committee with the direction to separate the two, because there’s a by-law associated with it, that we cannot disentangle at council tonight. We wouldn’t have two alternate by-laws to vote on. So, if that’s your desire, your desire is not to just, I mean, you can vote against, yeah, if you want to do what you want to do, you got to refer it back. Let’s, with the direction to take those two pieces of art.

Thank you, then. I’d like to refer it back. I also think the community deserves an opportunity to provide input on this direction before we make any of these substantive and financially impactful decisions. So, I’d like to refer it back with that direction.

Point of order, I was under the impression that this was to extend the pilot for one year, not to get rid of it. So, if you’re voting against it, it would be to get rid of it, but this is what committee approved was to extend the pilot. Correct, what I’m hearing is a desire from council to extend part of it, but not the other piece. The only way for me to allow Councillors to make a decision on that is to recommend or refer it back, because we can’t tear it apart.

I certainly recognize what you’re saying. If you’re for, all of it, there’s a very easy path forward, but if your desire is to support part of it, but not the other piece, which I feel is in order for a councilor to wanna do, given the differences between the types of vehicles, the only path that I can offer is a referral back to committee to pull that apart. Even though the committee made an affirmative recommendation to continue the pilot, I’m gonna say that the referral is in order to allow colleagues to actually separate the two. Okay, go ahead.

Sorry, this is a point of order as well. And maybe address as part of councilor Frank’s desire to split them, but in the executive summary of the staff report, it actually says the draft demanding by-law will also remove reference to cargo power assisted bicycles on March 1st, 2026, provinces power cargo assisted bicycle pilot program ends on March 1st, 2026 to date no personal or commercial use cargo powered assisted bicycles are in use in London. So with that in the executive summary, I’m not sure why we need to split them apart. Okay, executive summary indicates that it’s just not part of it moving forward.

Got it, I hear you. So that’s a point of order on why. I have to go back to Ms. Sure, who’s I’m making the decision based on the response to the question she just gave about them being entangled together.

So I’ll go back and you understand where our dilemma is. So if you could clarify, is it actually tied up in this or not? The answer is your worship is yes, it is technically tied up in it. There are two categories of cargo bikes that are available for use in London.

One is under a certain weight and size and it is actually not applied, this doesn’t apply here. It’s exactly the same as it would be for any other ESS bike. There is a larger size that is part of this by-law that is ending that pilot for the province ends in March. Both of those, both vehicle types would cease to be legal to use in London should this not the committee’s recommendation not pass.

But as noted in the executive summary correctly, we are not aware of any personal or commercial use of the larger type of cargo bike that would be impacted. If anyone’s entertaining that larger type of ESS cargo bike, they would not be permitted. The smaller versions that people use as people movers or some small businesses are using remain legal as long as they’re under the size. And both types of vehicles would no longer be allowed for use in the city effective council’s decision.

Okay, so I think that addresses the point of order for me that there is a piece here that is tied in, maybe slightly different than the regular, just electric assisted bikes. There’s a larger piece that is tied in. I’m gonna go back to Councillor Frank, who was moving the amendment which I said was an order and is seconded by Councillor Ferra. Go ahead, Councillor Frank.

Thank you. I still would like to refer it. I understand that now better. Thank you very much.

I appreciate that clarification makes me like 1% less worried. That being said, I don’t think the general public is aware that as of today we’re discussing them not using electric kick scooters in the city. And I don’t think that’s fair to people who are using them to get to work and to school, to just wake up tomorrow and now it be illegal. So I would like to refer this back so that we can actually have some community consultation.

So the community understands the impact of this decision if we are to approve this today. Just give me one second before I build the speakers. Okay, so we’re not gonna have any debate until I actually get the wording of the motion done because what you said before and what you’re saying now about a community consultation piece, we might wanna give a little bit of direction to civic administration on what that means. Unless your intent is for the committee to figure out what that means, you just wanna refer it back for the option to pull it apart and have the committee figure out what community consultation you wanna do.

Like there could be a discussion there or you’re gonna direct some type of community consultation now. So I just wanna get what you’re going for so we can make sure that the language is right ‘cause this is council. So it’ll be definitive once we pass it. Thank you.

I’m happy if staff have better language but I’d want at least a PPM in a survey. So I’m gonna read this in a sec but I’m gonna tell you what is the allowable motion and what is not. So the allowable motion is this is a referral back with direction. So we’re not gonna direct that a PPM actually happen.

We’re gonna refer it back so that staff can report to the committee on separating the different classifications of vehicles and a plan to community to engage with the public including but not limited to the two suggestions that you mentioned. That would be a referral motion that we could do but we can’t, we’re not gonna direct an actual PPM as part of a referral ‘cause it was referred back to make decisions on it. So I’m gonna read that out in one second. Okay, that the, oh, go ahead, Mr.

Chair. Sorry, if I may your worship out. I will also just add to the conversation that anytime that is taken to do this work, the bylaw that currently enables the use of these types of vehicles on our roads expires on November 27th, there would be a period in between the termination of the existing bylaw and the extension of the pilot program and a decision to either proceed with an extended pilot or not in the future where the use of these vehicles is technically not permitted on our roadways. Okay, I’m gonna need a second with that one.

Okay, I’m gonna read out the referral but just the information that was provided was basically there’ll be a policy gap because the bylaw expires. Go ahead, Mr. Chair. Your worship, that is correct.

If I may suggest, what you may wish to entertain if you do not wish to create a gap where these vehicles are not regulated because there’s no extension and we’re doing additional work, we’d be to extend it for a period of less than a year which would allow them to continue in their current form while we do that engagement consultation and then bring this back for further consideration by council at that time. So I would imagine to do this through the holidays, have those conversations early in the new year. We probably would need about four months. Six would be great but four would certainly be helpful and then all current rules would remain in place during that lesser extension.

We could report back with some of those options and the results of engagement at that time. Council could then decide if they wish to extend further or if they wish to end their participation in the pilot project. So colleagues, now I’m having the clerks review the by-law to see if the timeframe is within by-law because the direction for the timeframe is within the motion. It’s not in the by-law and it’s linked just to the motion.

What I’m gonna suggest is you could amend the motion rather than refer the whole thing but let me just double check to make sure it’s not in the by-law. Yes, sorry, trying to be helpful, might not be helpful. Realizing we’re meeting again tomorrow for a different council meeting, would referring this to council tomorrow give an opportunity to pull apart those by-laws on this one item. I know it’s supposed to just be budget but just trying to set it here.

So I can, it’s a special meeting and the agenda’s been posted. So I can add something unrelated to it. But we’re very close to having a very easy solution here so that people can make the decisions they wanna make whether they wanna extend it or not. So good news, there’s only one reference to the date in the entire by-law and there’s one reference of the date in the motion.

There is a referral that was put on the floor, a referral can stand. I haven’t actually finalized the language so I’m not saying that it’s on the floor yet ‘cause I haven’t got you to do that. So if you don’t wanna make the referral, which would guarantee a policy gap, you gotta amend the motion in part A to change the four one year and the November 26th, then basically the end of the pilot by November 26th, 2026. That would then cause us to change one line in the by-law, which is the by-law is hereby repealed on November 26th, 2026.

The new repeal date would be whatever date you put in the motion in A to basically make a different decision or repeal it. I just need to make sure with Ms. Schur and Ms. Pollard that I’m accurate on that.

Thank you Your Worship, yes, that is correct. So I assume you don’t wanna make a referral now. Okay, would you like to make an amendment? Yeah, I’d like to make the amendment that doesn’t result in a policy gap.

So I’m gonna say, unless someone wants to call a point of order, the referral’s not on the floor. I was still working on the language. The language is not done yet. So there’s not a referral yet.

There was an offer to second it. I was still working on language. We hadn’t had a debate yet. There’s no referral on the floor.

Councillor Frank has the floor. You can make an amendment if you’d like. Thank you, yes, I’d like to make that amendment that you referenced in regards to changing the dates and then the one year to in the language of less than one year and then the dates as well. And then including the public participation meeting and survey.

Okay, so the Councillor’s amendment is to amend 2.6a. What was that? You gotta give me a timeframe. So how many months?

Six. Six months. So instead of four one year, it’s six months. And then November 26th, 2026 will be whatever six months is someone’s gonna look that up.

And then the by-law will change to the by-law that will be introduced tonight will have that date. And everything else is the same in the by-law, okay? That’s your amendment, is there a seconder for that? Okay, we’re not having any debate till I get the wording for that this time.

Okay, so Councillor Frank is proposing the following amendment that the motion be amended in part A to read. A, the proposed by-laws amended, everything the same. Then it says enforcement effect on November 26th, 2025 for six months to extend the pilot program for electric kick scooters to May 26th, 2026th as the province allows a pilot extension of up to five years. So the two things that are changing are for six months and May 2026 they are bolded.

If you go on current items, you’ll see the two changes. The effect of this will change one date in the by-law from November 26th, 2026 to May 26th, 2026th which would align pieces, everything else in the motion stays the same. It’s just part A being amended. Good, okay, you can speak to it.

Thank you, yes, and appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. I just wanna share that many of my residents use electric kick scooters and many of them take it to their jobs and to school and to get around the city and to go to the grocery store. And I do not think that they would like to have that opportunity and that option taken away from them. It doesn’t align with our climate targets.

We are trying to provide more mobility options for people to leave their car at home. And I think that kick scooters are one of those options for people to use. So I don’t wanna wake up tomorrow and take that option away from people as a choice. I think as a council we should be giving people better options and I understand and recognize that there are concerns in regards to some issues that are coming alongside kick scooters.

But I would say that any mobility option does have issues. There’s collisions on bikes, there’s collisions in cars, there’s collisions in e-scooters. And I think that taking away one of the options that people are using to work into school does not help that. I think providing better regulations and looking at how can we do that in the next couple of months would be an opportunity for people to provide that input for us.

As well, we have a lot of concerns about traffic congestion. Again, people taking e-scooters to work into school reduce how many people are taking cars. People who use e-scooters spend more time in businesses. There’s research and reports showing that people will spend more time downtown in other areas, something we’ve talked about in the last two weeks.

And again, of course, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t consider the safety concerns. I just don’t think they should come at the expense of people being able to use their mobility option of choice. So I’d appreciate the support from council to extend this just for six months. So we can look at this a little bit more fulsomely and hear from our residents, especially the ones that are using it properly and who would like to continue to use it.

I think it would be really important for us to do that before we take it away without having any consultation with them on this matter. So I really hope that we can support this, because I just don’t want to see it gone as of tomorrow for those, especially who use it properly. Beakers to the amendment. That’s a choice out.

Thank you for the chair. I certainly appreciate the amendment, and I’ll be supporting it. However, question for Steph. With respect to the cargo powered, the larger cargo powered cycles.

Have we done any investigation as to how many small businesses might consider adopting this, but are not doing that now because of you uncertainty? ‘Cause this is a much larger investment than simply buying a electric cycle or a scooter. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship.

The short answer is no. We haven’t really been able to investigate who may wish to use it because it could be any business of any size anywhere in the city. So our staff in transportation demand management are certainly available to provide support if people have questions about those vehicle types, but we haven’t reached out broadly to say, this may be a good vehicle choice for you, because we don’t really know each business’s particular financial or operational needs. Thank you.

This doesn’t change my support for the amendment, but I’d like to amend the amendment to include the larger cargo powered bicycles in that same time referral and in that same timeframe. And the reason for that is I think that we should not preclude the opportunity for businesses to engage in the much longer term purchase planning of separating a gas powered vehicle with the cargo power assisted bicycles. And I think that we’re doing that by not including that in the amendment. This is not a casual purchase that you walk into a bicycle shop and just pay a few thousand dollars to get.

This is a much larger investment. We would certainly not be telling, well, I’ll stop that there, but we would certainly not be telling users of gas powered motor vehicles that they can’t buy them or certain types. So I think I wanna be consistent between the two types, at least until we get more information. I would be very interested in hearing small businesses come forward and tell us that they would, in the long run, would like to do this.

So I’d like to put that amendment on the table. I support the amendment otherwise. I’m inclined to vote against the main motion, but it certainly is a lot better with the amendment and it would be better with the amendment to the amendment. Okay, Councillor, I just wanna be clear.

What do you like, just articulate to me what you wanna try to amend? ‘Cause I need to figure out if this is in the by-law, in which case, we’re gonna be in the same situation where I gotta refer it if it’s complex. It was a date change that’s about as far as we can go without really messing with the by-law. So what is it that you wanna try to do?

Well, I would add the, I would add the— Just tell me what you wanna do. What I wanna do is I’d like to add the cargo power assisted bicycles to the amendment. There already 30 in there. Oh, the parts of it.

Already in the by-law. It says on the electric kick scooter, data gathering. So then, and cargo power assisted bicycles. So they’re in there.

Are you trying to take them out? No, I’d like them in there, and I’m reading this with, that there’s some ambiguity, but if you’re assuring me that it’s in there, I don’t wanna preclude people looking at this. Oh, are you looking at part B of the motion, Councillor? Because that’s the part where— I would just add 10s on March of 2026.

Yes, I would say, and cargo power assisted bicycles. Okay, if you wanna amend it, so that’s the report back and not the by-law. We’re actually on an amendment on A. If you wanna amend B, let’s get the amendment on A done, and then you can add an additional piece of the report back.

Okay, then in A, I’d like to include the word to extend the pilot program for electrical, for electric kick scooters and cargo power assisted bicycles. As I read it on the screen, that’s exactly what it says in the second line. You look on your system to amend by-law— I’m looking at item number one, A. Okay, you gotta look at vote number three, it’s what we’re on.

Okay, I don’t see that on my screen. Oh, sorry, vote two. Okay, vote three. Hold on one second, hold on.

Yeah, on vote three, it says— I count, just give me a second. Oh, yes, okay, so if you didn’t refresh, it’s actually, if you refresh, it’s vote two. If you didn’t refresh, it’s vote three. What we’re on is Councillor Frank’s and Councillor Ferrer’s amendment that basically takes both the electric kick scooter and the cargo power assisted by-law and extends it for six months.

That’s what we’re doing. That’s my intention to extend them both. It’s already in there. That’s exactly the amendment they’ve made.

Okay, thank you then. Unless I’m wrong, I look to staff. No, I’m right, okay, perfect. So you’re fine, it’s all in there.

Okay. Other speakers of the amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Roman. Thank you and through you.

Can I just clarify which pilot program ends on March 1st, 2026? Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. Under the provincial requirements, the large format E cargo assist ends March 1st, 2026.

I don’t know what will happen after that ends with the provincial legislation. So this would extend that pilot to that date when it ends in our ability to have any pilot for that particular vehicle type ends and it would extend the kick scooter to May 26th. We would endeavor, of course, to report back more quickly on the kick scooter so a decision can be made for folks as well. Councillor, I understand what you’re doing, but I got another Councillor as the floor.

So Councillor Roman, go ahead. Thank you and through you. I’m happy to go back to what Councillor Trussa was trying to bring forward and then I’ll speak after. So I think I understand where Councillor Trussa was coming from.

The reason why it says extend the electric kick scooter, even though it’s both bylaws, is there’s a provincial item that ends and in the bylaw, there’s a piece that says on March 1st, 2026, it’s amended to delete the phrase or cargo powered assisted bicycle because the provincial pilot program ends. So we can’t extend something that is provincial in nature. So the bylaw will still contain that ending. That being said, we can get information on it in the report back to staff, but we can’t extend a municipal pilot program that is accessing a probabilistic pilot program beyond the point when it ends, that piece of the pilot program.

So if you wanna amend that, Councillor, I’m gonna rule it out of order because you’d be contrary to a provincial legislation that is ending it on that date. So the motion is worded correctly. My apologies for the confusion before, I now understand what you’re saying, but your amendment would not be in order anyways because we can only extend it as far as the province allows us to extend it, which is March 1st, 2026 on that piece, okay? So we’re back to the amendment, any other speakers and Councillor Ramen, I’ll go back to you ‘cause you allowed me to clarify that, I appreciate that.

Thank you and I appreciate the clarification. So I personally don’t need until May 26th, 2026 to make this decision. I think that I could be amenable to waiting till we receive the report that provides the data that we’ve been waiting on to address the issue and then deal with it at that time. But to me, this seems like we’re advancing a decision longer than I need to.

So that’s just where I am with it. So I’m just sharing my thoughts at this time. Appreciate that. Any other Councillors on the amendment?

Okay, definitely Mayor Lewis. Listen, I will start by saying, I appreciate what Councillor Frank is trying to do with respect to the fact that there are people using these today, who are using them according to the rules that they’re supposed to follow. But I will say, I respectfully disagree that it’s just 16 and under who are disobeying the rules. And unlike motor vehicles, I don’t see cars veering into sidewalks and back into roadways and across the street in the same way that I see e-scooters where, which are just completely unregulated right now.

And Councillor Rahman referenced the enforcement piece. They’re unlicensed, they’re uninsured, and they’re unregulated. We’re getting a ton of complaints about the behaviors that are happening on them. And honestly, all we’re doing here, in my opinion, is providing some more cover to the province.

And I’m not sure where and when they’re gonna move something forward, but they’ve had time and they haven’t made it a priority to do it. So through you, Chair, I guess I’m asking staff, if you bring back a report beyond, well, I’m not even sure. I mean, when we’re telling people to follow an e-scooter back to their residence, what mechanisms do we even have if we wanna impose regulations of our own? To me, motor vehicle licensing is the purview of the province, requirement of insurance is a purview of the province.

I’m not sure that we can actually, as a municipality, even require that if we want it. So I’m looking through you, Chair, to staff, to provide any comment on if we chose to, is it even an option for us to license and require insurance for these? Or do we have to wait for the province to do that? Go ahead.

Thank you, and through you, we do not have the power to impose an insurance requirement. Currently, it’s dealt with us an AMPS issue within our by-law for using these things, but we are limited in the types of restrictions we can put on them. Go ahead. And with respect to requiring the owners to purchase a license so that they’re at least covering part of the enforcement costly, can we impose licensing?

We can’t impose insurance, but is there a licensing component? Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. Unfortunately, this work is not something that was on staff’s radar to do.

So we do not have the answers for what would come out of these reports. This is something we could include in the report back, including potential around age restrictions. We work with obviously our colleagues at LPS and with by-law enforcement, but no, we haven’t done the work that would be part of this report to come up with alternatives to the by-law that are permitted under the Provincial Pilot Program. Go ahead.

Yeah, so that’s my problem, is what we have, is without the province taking action, we have no ability to enforce safety in a practical way. AMPS are only valid if you’ve got a way to actually deliver them to the owner, whether by mail or by handing it to them. We know that we don’t have enough traffic enforcement as it is right now on regular vehicle traffic. And so I don’t know that failing to extend this changes the reality tomorrow.

Yes, they’re not permitted for use. People are going to continue to use them anyway, and we’re gonna continue to not enforce it ‘cause we have no mechanism to enforce it. So I’m frustrated that we’re, again, just being asked to just let it go for now and provide more data to the province. We’ve done nothing with the data that they’ve already been provided by multiple municipalities.

And the complaints continue to pile up in the neighborhoods. People continue to be frustrated about the way these are behaving. And listen, it’s not just these. I mean, I’ve got issues, in my word, that LPS is dealing with with trying to enforce people operating dirt bikes on the road illegally.

And they can’t do that either. So to me, all we’re doing here is kind of signaling that, well, maybe someday we, the province might put some rules in place if we keep collecting data for them to make a case. I don’t know how much data they need to make a case. They should have it by now.

And so I do appreciate where Councillor Frank is coming from in terms of there are people who are using them appropriately. I don’t dispute that for a moment, Councillor. You’re 100% right on that. But there are a lot of people who aren’t.

And they’re putting themselves and they’re putting others in danger. And that’s where I struggle with giving any further extension to this. Because to me, we’re endorsing this use to continue without any regulation when we have no idea when the province is gonna move. So I’m listening, but I haven’t heard on argument that’s persuading me to extend it.

On the amendment of changing dates. Any other speakers? Okay. Seeing none, we’re gonna open the amendment for voting, which changes it to six months in a end date of May 26th, 2026.

Open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries eight to seven. Okay, and now we need an as amended motion. Chair’s willing to move the as amended.

I need a seconder, Councillor Frank. Debate on the as amended motion, which is now everything that came out of the committee with the new dates and the bylaws updated for the new date. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, Your Worship.

I just wanna make sure we are adding B as well with a report back in March. Yes, everything that is from the committee is contained within the as amended motion with the exception of the two changes we just made as part of the amendment. Look forward to that report. Thank you.

Any other speakers? Okay, we’ll open the as amended motion for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries eight to seven. Go ahead, Chair.

Thank you, Mayor. Okay, that leads us to the next item. That is item eight, the approval of service agreement with Gil Zane’s Creek Housing Cooperative Inc as it relates to the bill number 408. I’ll put that on with more.

Okay, that’s on the floor. Look for speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I just wanted to say I’ve had a couple of residents reach out to me with some concerns around co-ops and things that are happening there. So out of sort of an abundance of caution, I’m gonna vote no on this, but I will be working with staff and figuring out more so that I can support the next one that comes forward. I just wanna be clear that it has nothing to do with Gil Zane’s Creek Housing Cooperative specifically. It’s just my concerns about some of the finer details.

Okay, any other speakers to this? Okay, seeing them, we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Thank you, Mayor.

All right, next item on the list is item nine. That’s the blue box transition final year part. The update, I’ll put that on the floor. I’ll turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis ‘cause I asked for this one.

Okay, I will start counting in my head while I get my timer open and go to Mayor Morgan. I’m gonna ask staff some questions. They might want a timer so you can pause your information in your head. So on this one, given the direction that the province has gone, one of the pieces of this is a request for me and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to request some changes to the regulation.

My understanding through engagement of the provinces that they’ve made a firm decision on this and this has been talked about a few times. And so my hesitancy on this is I’m not really interested in writing a letter for something that they are absolutely definitive on given we have a number of other asks before the province. So I’m not particularly interested in doing the things that we know they’ve already made a decision on. Given that, is there what components of this?

There’s the civic administration be requested to direct the ministry. I just wanna get some information from the staff. What has been engaged on deeply already? And do you see, is there any components of this that we actually need given where the province has decided they’re gonna go on this?

Let’s ask Ms. Cher for that answer. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

With respect to engagement with the province, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario and the Municipal Waste Association have actively engaged both with circular materials and with the province. We have correspondence back from the province expressing regret with where CM has landed, circular materials has landed, but indicating that no program changes will be required of the producer groups. I don’t know that there would be much likelihood that that position would change given that municipalities are now moving forward with year-end termination of ICI of this non-eligible source blue box material. Every municipality who provided this service, it was an optional service.

In Ontario is in this situation now and many have also engaged individually. Mayor Morgan, yes, so given that, if I wanted to proceed with not engaging with the province on this further because they’re very definitive on this, would it be that I would ask C and D separated because that’s the direction for civic administration to request with the ministry and then the request of me and A Mo to basically do what’s already been done. But you could proceed with A and B if Council so wanted to get mitigated measures, I guess, on other things that we could do outside of provincial direction. Would that be the case?

It would be C and D that we would drop given the engagement that’s already been done. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Yes, if there’s no desire to further attempt to persuade the province or circular materials to include these non-eligible sources, then C and D would be defeated.

I will caution on B that we will need to be very cautious because the businesses who received this service are a very small component of the small businesses in the city of London. They have many direct competitors who have never received this service. And as we start designing programs to compensate ameliorator offset the loss of the previously free service for these 500 businesses, we must be very careful not to range into the area of bonusing where there’s a competitive disadvantage for directly comparable businesses that were never on the residential routes. My preference would be that we don’t tiptoe into those spaces, but certainly we can provide that advice back in a report in the future if that’s a desire of Council.

Mayor Morgan. Okay, so now I have an additional question. I just can either be to Misha or the solicitor. Given the structure of the program outside of a provincial program, is there a concern?

I know that I’m not asking for to give detailed legal advice, but would there be a concern about us moving into a provision of a bonusing specific organizations and others outside of, say, a structured provincial program like a CIP? Ms. Pollack. Thank you and through Mr.

Presiding Officer, we would have to be careful how it is structured because you don’t want to run afoul of the bonusing provisions of the Municipal Act. However, there is some flexibility in terms of how it’s structured, for example, as a grant under a CIP may be a way to do it and it’s something we could look at in the report back if a provision B passes from Council. Mayor Morgan. Okay, then it’s my desire, although I may not support any of it, I wanted to very least separate it into A, B and then C and D because I certainly don’t support C and D at this time.

I’ll listen to the colleagues on the other pieces. I appreciate the work the committee did, but I just don’t see the value of, for all the things that you asked me and Amo to engage the province on, engaging with them on something that there have been absolutely definitive on, that has had extensive lobbying on that they made a decision on. I’m just not sure that’s where we want to put our efforts, given the substantive asks we have them already. So that’s my request for the way the motion be divided.

Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Just for clarity’s sake and so the clerks can prepare ahead of time. I think I’m gonna ask that we just have A separate, B separate and C and D together. And now that I think will allow colleagues to express their individual opinions on the different clauses.

I have Councillor Frank, next Councillor Frank, and then Councillor Hopkins. Thank you and through the chair I just had a question to, oh, I guess I should wait to be recognized, sorry. Sorry, sorry, apologies. Just following up on that update from staff, I am wondering the concept of voting is saying, so existing 535 small businesses and nonprofits already received recycling, was that considered bonusing?

Ms. Chair or Ms. Pollett, whoever wants to start with that one. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. I’m certainly not a lawyer, but maybe in avoiding in-camera discussions because we can have a bit of a general conversation here. We were able to provide that service because we were there with a truck anyway. So in the case now that because we can’t co-mingle streams, we will have to create a brand new service that is all over the entire city, and it becomes more difficult to say that the geographic ability to collect that without incurring additional cost and complexity is still there.

That was always our differentiator. The truck is picking up the residents next door, so picking up this small business really did not incur a significant cost. As we knew we’d have to pay for that service, we brought that as a budget decision to council because we would have had to start covering the cost of processing and collecting those materials. We’ve since been told we cannot do either of those things in the short term.

So we would in this case need to design a citywide independent collection service and purchase processing capacity. I don’t know that I would have a reason to tell a small business, say, in an industrial park that I will not collect from them, but I will collect from a competitor business on a residential street because the argument that the truck was there anyway and it really was quite straightforward to do is no longer in place. So I think it’s just a little more complicated than it used to be. We certainly can report back on that and likely that would involve some in-camera advice from our friends in the legal office once we get there if that’s the desire of council.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, that does make sense to me. So then my understanding is if it’s on an existing route and we’re delivering the service already, then that’s where we’re not running the foul of the bonusing. So I appreciate that and stay tuned for future motions related to this tangently.

Councillor Hopkins, I have you next. Yeah, thank you and just following the mayor’s comments around the, in particular, I am a board member at AMO and I can say for many, many years, AMO has been advocating with the province on Blue Box and it, you know, there was a lot of work done there. I don’t see this being a conversation. So as much as I do like to advocate on behalf of the city, I don’t want to set up expectations as well here at council.

So I’m supportive of the mayor’s comments as well. But if anything does come forward, I’d be more than happy to share that with colleagues at AMO. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

I have Councillor for our next. Thank you, presiding officer. I did have some questions. They were answered with another question, just the way it worked.

So I guess just a request, can you split C and D as well? Yeah, we can certainly have the clerks split C and D. So we’ll vote on all four clauses separately. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I just had a question through you to staff regarding communication, ‘cause I’ve had a couple of messages from businesses saying is this true, is this happening? And I just wondered how this would be communicated to the businesses that will be impacted given that we’re talking about January 1st. Ms.

Chair. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Subject to the decision at council tonight, which will give us clarity as to what we’re communicating.

We will be directly providing this in writing to the businesses that are impacted. We have key messages available already and have been fielding number of calls as well. And certainly have also been providing them with contacts for those who wish to speak to the province about the changes in legislation. Councillor.

Thank you, that’s all my questions. And I understand the mayor’s stance and I’m happy to support that. Yeah, yeah. I have no other speakers.

Councillor Trussa. Thank you very much through the presiding officer or the mayor, this is the case maybe. Who’s chairing, you are okay. I stand by parts B, C and D and I will be supporting parts B, C and D.

And I drafted this motion to come to committee very carefully. And I think parts B, C and D are all warranted. We’ve heard from a lot of the affected organizations about the hardship that they’re going to suffer because of this regulation. Parts of which I think are just purely arbitrary and capricious.

Let me ask a question to Steph. Let’s take the example of a small business that gets a lot of things in boxes. Cardboard boxes. Every day, cardboard boxes.

No hazardous materials. Just run-of-the-mill cardboard boxes. Why would that require a separate stream? Ms.

Chair. Mr. Presiding Officer, I can’t answer the intent of the provincial legislation or the circular materials organization’s decisions other than there was a desire to protect the separateness of the residential stream that producers are required to fund and manage from any integration with non-residential waste. But those questions are not ones that staff at the municipalities in Ontario can answer.

Thank you. And through the chair, through the presiding officer, that’s exactly why I think this regulation is arbitrary and capricious and why we must continue pushing back on it. I mean, we’re talking about an optometrist, for example, who gets glasses and cardboard boxes. There is no reason based on science why we would need another stream.

This is an arbitrary capricious and I think quite weak regulation. And for us to say, well, we’ve already pushed on this, but we don’t want to push on this anymore. I think gives the concerns of our residents, including especially the affected small businesses, the churches and the other non-exempt organizations. We need to support them.

We need to support them. I’ve heard this from the museum. I’ve heard it from a church in my ward. I’ve heard it from us small independent merchants.

And yes, please support BC and D. We need all of them. Thank you. King further speakers.

Seeing none, I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote. We’ll start with A and we’ll just work through alphabetically A, B, C and D. Closing the vote motion carries 15 to zero. And now clause B.

Closing the vote motion carries 11 to four. And now clause C. Closing the vote motion carries eight to seven. And now clause D.

Closing the vote motion fails four to 11. And that concludes item nine. I will return the chair to Mayor Morgan. Great, and I’ll go back to the committee chair.

Yeah, next item is item 10. That’s the housing collaborative initiative, updated financials and project conclusion. I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor.

I’ll look to the speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I had circulated amendment on this.

So I’ll read it out now. It’s been shared with the clerk. Yeah, go ahead and read it out. The civic administration be directed to report back to a future meeting of the community and protective services committee on any further costs paid with regards to the housing collaborative initiative, HCI, project beyond what has been publicly reported to the date of the November 10th, 2025 staff report.

That’s seconded by Councillor Pribble. So that would be an addition to the pieces that are there, I believe, yeah, okay. So we’re gonna talk about the amendment then. I’ll start with you if you’d like.

Yeah, thank you. I’ll just keep it quick. This is just, there are some few loose ends. And so this is just to reassure the public that the full and complete costs will be shared that we’ll know the final cost and it’ll be reported publicly.

Other speakers to this? Councillor Trostoff. May I ask the staff to the chair, if there are additional costs, would there be any reason why you would not otherwise report that to us in the normal course of affairs such that this motion is needed? First off, let me say, my understanding of the committee’s report is that Council asked to be reported back from the point that we said stop to today, which is, I think, about a two-year period.

Mr. May, there’s certainly a report back on previous costs, but it wasn’t the scope of what was identified for this report. So it’s not that staff were not reporting on that. It’s that this report was kind of time-framed.

Councillor Stevenson’s looking for a more holistic picture to come back that maybe extends further back in time, but I’ll let Mr. May, there’s particularly anything further. Through you, worship. So currently, the report that we’ve flagged has about $10,864, which is what we feel is the appropriate amount of funding that hasn’t been that still would need to be used.

So if there is anything that’s beyond that value, if this motion passes, we’ll bring forward a report, it is likely we’d bring a report if we didn’t have any budget to be able to cover that difference, but if Council wants to have that confirmation, happy to bring a report back. Could you, if you’re repeating yourself, I’m sorry, say it again, but if you didn’t say this or if it was ambiguous, what’s the estimated amount that we’re discussing here? Mr. May, there’s.

Through your worship, absolutely. So the estimated amount is $10,864. So my understanding of the resolution here would be that if there’s any costs in excess of that value, then we would come back with a committee report. Through the chair, would Councillors be able to get that information through your office?

Mr. May, there’s. Through your worship, so that if it’s in excess of $10,000, be it, if that’s something that you want to provide as part of this resolution, happy to do that as well, we don’t usually provide that level of detail, but if that’s something Council wants to be able to be provided with a report or asking us to provide back that information to Council through some other means, it would be very much appropriate. Go ahead, Councilor Trossa.

And the Committee of Jurisdiction for this continues to be caps, and caps would be able to make that request if they thought it was necessary? Through the chair, absolutely. This would be a caps-related item. Thank you.

Okay, Heather speakers for this amendment. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, I’ll be brief. I’m just gonna say in this case, I’ll support this ‘cause I do think that well, perhaps disproportionate for the amount of money we’re talking about, the media attention to this story has garnered a lot of public concern.

And so I think that having any additional dollar amounts reported back in the interest of public interest is fair. As I said, I think the attention paid to this may be slightly exponentially above some of the attention that some other items may deserve, but that’s my opinion. So I’ll just leave it at that and say, I think just bringing back the numbers, whatever they are, if they exceed that would be helpful. Any other speakers on the amendment?

Go ahead, Councilor Pribble. Thank you, I’m supporting this as I want to have kind of a full picture, the entire amount, full closure, lessons learned and moved on. Thank you. Any other speakers on the amendment?

Okay. Seeing none, we’ll open just the amendment for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to three. Now an as amended motion, Councillor, are you willing to move the as amended?

Okay, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Any debate on the as amended motion? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. I just wanted to say that I’ve been looking into this quite a bit and I did do some submissions requesting a referral to governance working group.

I’ve chosen not to move forward with that because we’ve got a lot of things on governance working group. And instead I’m gonna work with some of my colleagues on policy updates to address some of the issues that arose during this project. As outlined by staff, there was steps to follow moving forward to ensure improved transparency to council in the future, like regular reporting for delegated or multi-year projects, disclosure of amended agreements, and consultant engagement reporting. And I think those things are critical that we get those policies in place so that they outlive us here in terms of making sure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again.

But I’m gonna work with my colleagues and bring those forward to the appropriate committee rather than my original request, which was to refer to governance working group. So I’m gonna support this and work behind the scenes on those policy updates. Any other speakers to the as amended motion? Go ahead, Councilor Raman.

Thank you, and through you, I’ll keep this brief, but yes, I appreciate the amendment that was proposed and the conversation that’s but had a committee. However, one of the things I struggle with is how we can effectively make changes to the way we do things in order to be able to not have these situations arise. So while I appreciate that we can try to explore options, I think one of the things we also have to take some time and think about is what happens during transition periods. And so that is something that now being on Council I’m more aware of after this incident and taking that and some of those key learning staff for as we move on, thank you.

I have no other speakers on the speakers list. So we’re gonna open the as amended motion for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to one.

Go ahead, Chair. Thank you. Next is item 11. That’s the Lambeth neighborhood connectivity plan.

I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, your worship.

This is an amendment that I’d like to bring forward. I would have liked to have done this at PAC. I was told that I’d have to bring it to Council. I have further investigated the amendment and was suggested that it would be part of the Lambeth neighborhood connectivity plan.

So to get the amendment, I will read it out. I am looking for a seconder and then I will proceed to explain the connecting the dots here. So the motion to be amended reads that civic administration be directed to reassess the timing of the Mariano Drive sidewalk implementation in coordination with proposed residential development at the 4402 Colonel Talbot Road. So that is my amendment and I see— And Councillor Close is willing to second it.

So you can go ahead and provide the rationale. Yeah, thank you, again, your worship. The Lambeth neighborhood connectivity plan. First of all, thanks to staff.

They did a lot of great work coming up with the plan and it was presented at CAPS. And this plan did not take into account sidewalks on Mariano Drive, it did take them into account from the five to 10 year plan, but not from the one to five year plan. Go back forward a couple days at planning. We received an application for an infill on Mariano Drive for 31 units.

One of the things we heard loud and clear from the public participation meeting and that I’ve heard throughout the application process is safety on the streets and how do we move around with the extra traffic. There is only access to the 31 units on Mariano Drive. There is no other opportunities for access. So therefore, Mariano Drive, not having sidewalks, should be looked at if this development proceeds.

We’re not sure when it’s gonna proceed, but if it does go forward in the next one to five years, I am asking with this amendment that we reassess sidewalks on Mariano Drive. So I’m looking for support here. It’s supposed to go into the Lambeth neighborhood connectivity plan. This is where the amendment will take place.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. Very, very happy to support Councillor Hopkins on this amendment. We talked about this after Peck.

I committed to her then that I would be fully supportive of this, some lines with what we heard from residents on Mariano at the planning committee meeting. And so I think we absolutely can take a look and perhaps move this one up the schedule a little bit. If it’s warranted, we have a package ended to get through yet, but presuming that things move that way. I think that one of the things we definitely heard from residents is they’d like a sidewalk here.

It’s kind of refreshing to have residents asking for a sidewalk rather than opposing a sidewalk. And so very supportive of this. And I did have a couple of Councillor Hopkins residents reach out after planning and say do please support our Councilor on bringing forward a sidewalk. And so I’m gonna fulfill that today and vote yes.

And I hope we send this one forward 15 to nothing. Any of the speakers, Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, completely supportive of this. I appreciate the Councilor showed up to speak to us at Peck.

Precision was told it was in the right place ‘cause I tried to do it there. So happy to help here as it is needed and the residents were supportive. I’ll also note that the street has street lights. It was just missing sidewalks.

So that was just differentiated committee as well. Great, thank you. I have no other speakers on Councillor Hopkins’ amendment. So we’ll open her amendment for voting.

Closing the vote motion carries 15 to zero. And now as for the as amended motion, Councillor Frayer is willing to move. Councillor Hopkins, you’re willing to second the as amended. Any debate on the as amended motion?

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

Last item that was pulled, I’ll put on the floor. That’s item number 13, it’s a motion from Councillor McAllister regarding the garbage along the Highbury Avenue south corridor between Hamilton Road and Bradley. Avenue, I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, I’m gonna turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I ask for this one to be pulled. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. And anticipating this one, I got my timer ready. So go ahead.

This one will be a lot shorter. So I’m very supportive of what Councillor McAllister wanted to do in part A. And I think some additional cleanups are probably warranted along this stretch. What I’m not supportive of is the way that B is written.

It’s gonna sound like I’m against writing letters today, but I write a lot of letters. But I want you to know that the Mayor of St. Thomas, the Warden of Elgin County and the other regional mayors are currently talking from an advocacy position on Highbury Road, both within the city limits and south of the city limits, there is a need to widen that road in conjunction with support from the province. We are jointly advocating, talking to staff about aligning EAs and working together on this.

I’m certainly happy to raise during those discussions the concerns. I would imagine the concerns within the city limits are the same concerns outside the city limits of people dumping. I can tell you from talking to some regional mayors, there’s challenges with people in the city, driving out to the county and dumping off their stuff that they don’t want. So this is a challenge that is essentially bad behavior by a number of individuals.

But I don’t necessarily need a direction to work with them on a joint communications campaign and reminding residents. I think what I prefer to do is have the discussion with them as part of the ongoing discussions about that and continue to echo what I said on the radio on Monday. And there’s a really easy solution to this and that’s continued to just generally tell people, don’t throw your stuff on the side of the road, right? It costs all of us a lot of money to pick it up.

Looks bad. People need to take pride in their city. They need to not layer costs on all of us by potentially doing additional cleanups of these roads. And they should get rid of their waste or refuge through the appropriate channels, whether that’s calling for a pickup of large bulky items through our processes here in the city or it’s driving something to the landfill and dropping it off for a reasonable rate.

There’s solutions to this, but at this time, I’m just not supportive of investing a lot of effort into a general advocacy campaign with the other mayors. We want to focus our work on the work of improving that road, updating it. But again, I’m very supportive of Part A and Councillor McAllister’s request to get a little more information on how well we can do within the city limits to tie it up. I’ll let the other mayors know that should we proceed with that, that maybe they can align some of the work that they’re doing in the county as well.

So I’m gonna ask these to be separated, but I wanted to say that with the utmost respect to Councillor McAllister and with my support for Part A. Thank you, Mayor Morgan, Councillor McAllister. Thank you through the presiding officer. Recognize where the mayor is coming from.

I’ll just go ahead and go through each one. A, I think we can all generally agree. I’m kind of drafting some of my colleagues here, but I know 14, one, two, three, four, all of us that share a hybrid. At some point or another, we’re gonna get a complaint about the garbage.

It is a gateway to our city, and I consistently hear from residents that the fred up of it being a dumping ground. I’m gonna take this opportunity to remind residents of both London, Elkins, St. Thomas, and anyone that uses that road, please secure your loads. I cannot tell you the number of times I’ve driven behind people, and stuff comes flying off where people throw stuff out the windows.

And I think it’s very disrespectful to London, and it’s just disgusting, frankly. Understanding where the mayor is coming from with Part B, but I still think it warrants a discussion. I understand in terms of the conversations that have been happening with the province, but if anything further can be done, if even those conversations with the province, to push for them to have any sort of a campaign, to just remind people, sometimes you have to do a shame campaign to remind people to dump in your trash here. And I think that that still warrants the discussion.

I’m not sure if anything will come out of it, but I still think because of the volume we’ve seen, that there needs to be a coordinated effort, especially between the three that use it probably the most, and recognizing as this area becomes heavily developed, we’ve seen a lot of big developments along that stretch of hybrid. I’m sure we’ll see more heading through Elkin and St. Thomas. I think it’s good that we have a unified voice in terms of ensuring that that road is clean and safe for everyone that uses it.

So looking for your support, thank you. Thank you, Councilor McAllister. Just looking for any other speakers. I’ll go to Councilor Trussow and then Councilor Hillier, Councilor Trussow.

Thank you, through the chair. Those who listen to the proceedings at committee recall that I was a little skeptical about this at first, because there’s so many parts of the city where this is necessary. And the Councilor, the word Councilor very patiently and effectively explained to me why this is a special case, given some of the circumstances on Highbury, and I voted for it, and that stands. And it stands for all the parts of this.

I don’t think asking the mayors to just sort of engage in a joint communication, once something that should go without saying is a burden. I don’t think it’s really that much of a big undertaking. So I’ll be supporting both parts of this. I appreciate the mayor wanting to cut down on communication, but I think as long as we’re doing this, as long as we’re doing this, we should use all the tools at our disposal.

And I think we have two mayors who are very, very well known in the area. And I think this could be an effective communication. So I’ll be supporting both. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor, trust out Councillor Hill here. Yes, thank you. And I appreciate the council bringing this forward. As we know, Highbury does become quite of a problem, but I wish staff could remind us of, we’ve had this conversation many times in the last few years.

I know Councillor Lewis and myself have had this conversation. What is the problem with staffing and getting this done twice per year? Ms. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. As noted at committee, we are able to do this twice per year.

It’s really not so much about staffing as it is about it requiring a full closure for a full day, which as a major economic corridor creates challenges for the many businesses and commuters who rely on it. So we are looking at ways where we can do some more spot cleanup without a full closure. It is quite challenging and creates some danger, but we can move to twice a year. We will do one as early as we can in the season and we will continue to do another one as late as we can in the season to try to keep it in a bit better shape.

Most other streets, if you call, we’re able to respond in real time. This is one that requires a lot more planning. Councillor Hill here. Thank you.

I appreciate that. I’m just wondering ‘cause I know the citizens of London do not want their main street coming into London closed twice a year. So I would like staff to come back with something, another option that doesn’t involve closing the whole road. That’s all I’m looking forward to.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hill here. Looking for other speakers, Councillor Palosa. Thank you.

To start off, not sure if we can get an answer from staff on what a potential option might be, as I know, but you don’t like close it, just for employee safety as are on the sides of the road and the excessive speeds of that road. And then I have a question for a comment. Sure. I took Councillor Hill here’s comment as rhetorical, that he would appreciate if staff brought forward another option that he expected an answer today.

However, with your question, Councillor Palosa, I will go to Ms. Sherry to see if she has anything to offer off the top of her head on alternatives. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Certainly we’ll explore that as part of the report back. There is some ability potentially to do very quick pickups of large items, but where we have to do a lot of debris and litter cleanup, it does require the full closure. The challenge with this road is only that it’s very busy in high speed. There’s nowhere safe to park.

So we do have other busy high speed roads, but they have wider shoulders and we’re able to get out of the traveled way well enough that we can manage that safely. This is one that unfortunately, there just really isn’t a lot of safe space for our teams to work. And as much as the litter is problematic, it is much more problematic to be concerned about the safety of our staff. We’re performing the work.

Councillor Palosa. Thank you. Without making an amendment to anything, would it be possible for staff to consider as a revisiting Councillor Hillyer’s request of how else we could do this to come back with what a safe space might look like. It might be a simple lay-by that might serve as well.

As this road’s not going anywhere, I’m just going to get busy over years to help service in that area. Ms. Chair. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. I don’t want to rule out any potential options, but what is here is around operations and not around geometric changes. When we start changing a rural cross section like that, we would have to look at urbanizing the drainage, which is a fairly significant change in investment. So we would be more inclined to look at operational options that could do some spot cleanup a little bit more regularly without having to make a capital change to the design of the road.

Councillor Palosa. Thank you. I appreciate that driving that road on my way to Argyle for hockey purposes, well aware of what you see popping up, also aware of election signs that somehow those still manage to get up, even though there’s no safe place to park while doing it. Just want to comment that I know we have garbage in refuge in this area as well.

Happy to support B. As I know, I know we’re focusing mainly on what the Councillor had raised, but it’s in primary in those areas also. Wellington Road has the same type of areas. Different vehicles and individuals seek their way to W-12A as well in that landfill areas.

Some things magically come off as they weren’t secured properly in some things, I believe, are purposely discarded on the waste. So recognizing this is an opportunity to potentially joint comms advocacy, happy to support it. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. And I think Keith Mathison used to hang glide in to put those signs in.

Councillor Layman. Thank you. I’m just curious regarding the remarks that the Mayor made in relation to be some pushback on this request with good reason, in my opinion. When I’d like to go to the Mayor of this passes, how would you intend to go on it?

Mayor Morgan. Well, what I would do if this passes, first off, I would fully respect the will of council. I’m not gonna not do something that council asked me to do. So I would engage with the Mayor of St.

Thomas, the Warden of Elegant County. I would talk to them about my council’s desire to have a joint communications campaign to remind residents. And I think we would come back to the requisite councils with a plan and a request for a budget to do a communications campaign that would be widespread to the residents in the region. So I would be clear that we would take this very seriously.

But if you want us to remind the residents and commercial operators to properly secure their loads, we’re gonna need some resources to actually communicate that. I mean, I’ll do some social media with the Mayor, but if you wanna take it seriously, which I will, I’ll come back with a plan and a request for how we would do that properly with the requisite financial ask. Councillor Layman. Thank you.

Any further speakers? Seeing none, I will ask the clerks to open the votes. We will do clause A first and then clause B. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you, colleagues. I’ll ask the clerks now to open clause B. Closing the vote, motion fails five to 10. Thank you, colleagues.

That concludes item 13. I will return the chair to Mayor Morgan. Thank you, I’ll go back to the committee chair. Thank you, Mayor.

That concludes the 17th report of the Community Protective Services Committee. Excellent, thank you, Councillor. We’re on to item 8.2, which is the 17th report of the Planning and Environment Committee, and I’ll turn it over to Chair Layman to present the report. Thank you, Mayor.

I would like to pull the following items. Number five, number eight, number nine, and number 13. Okay, five, eight, nine, team. Anybody like anything else dealt with separately?

Did not say 10, so five, eight, nine, 13 separate. Okay, Councillor, you wanna make a motion then? Yeah, so I’ll move items one through four, six and seven, 10, 11, 12, and 14. So we need one second.

Okay, that motion’s on the floor. I’ll look for a discussion on those items. I was gonna say a few words, so maybe I’ll turn the chair over. Oh, Councillor Stephen, so you go first.

I just wanted to quickly point out for the public who might be watching that bylaws for 17 to 419 are the heritage designation for the 100 Kellogg Lane properties. Just in case, I don’t think people stick around to when we read the bylaws always, so I just wanted to make a point that that’s there. Okay, I’m gonna turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Go ahead Mayor Morgan.

So the reason why I paused is that I made some nice notes on this, that I don’t know where they are. I think I left them in the committee room, but I’ll just speak from my memory of a couple of items within this group. One is 2.1, the Building Services Report, and the other is 2.3, the Housing Accelerator Fund Report. I just wanted to emphasize that there are significant accomplishments that the municipality has made within both of these reports.

Not only have we surpassed a broken record on the value of construction that has come into the city, signaling continued confidence from the investment and development sector in the city of London, but also the number of permits that we’ve been able to turn out at a time when it’s been challenging across the province to move on permitting, as well as exceeding and meeting and exceeding our Housing Accelerator Fund targets in both consecutive years. I think that’s a testament to the work, first off, it’s a testament to the direction that Council has given and the work that we’ve done around this horseshoe, but more importantly, the work of our staff to ensure that they’re executing Council’s vision to create as much housing as possible, to create the conditions for proper investment, to speed up the permitting process and process those permits in an effective way and the engagement with the industry that’s required to continue to make improvements to processes along the way, which is an ongoing, continuous improvement exercise. I also want to thank the investment community, the development and investment community for their confidence in our city. Continuing to break construction records in our city means that there are dollars flowing to the city to help us build the housing that we need.

People are investing their hard-earned dollars here. People have confidence in our city. People have confidence in the downtown of our city where we’ve seen an exceptional amount of high-density residential development. And I just want to emphasize that I’m both on behalf of Council appreciative of that investment and know that this is how we actually tackle housing challenges is collectively through good planning, good decision-making by Council, excellent execution by staff and ongoing discussions and engagement with those who are actually putting dollars in the ground in our city to ensure that we continue improving processes.

So not from my notes, but from the top of my head chair, I’m very happy to see these items on the agenda. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I will return the chair to you. Great, any other speakers on the items before us?

Okay, then we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Layman. Thank you, I’d like to put number five on the floor.

This is regarding the heritage designation of the property at 1269 High Park Road. Okay, this is on the floor. I’ll look for speakers to this one. Okay, Councillor Chaucer, go ahead.

Thank you. Through you, Mayor, I have a question for staff. Should the amendment from the committee go forward, what would be the remedy for those who wish to support the staff report? Would they be able to file any type of appeal or would this be the end of it?

Yep, I’ll go to our staff. We’ll find you the answer, Councillor. Yep, go ahead. Thank you through your worship.

I may, I’ll start off and maybe legal would like to weigh in, but once council makes a decision, it becomes final. Councillor. And on the other hand, if we make a decision wherein the property owner is aggrieved, they can appeal, correct? Or is that also final?

I should ask. I think the Councillor’s asking if the staff recommendation that went to committee was passed, what would the remedies be in that situation for, say, the land owner? Through your worship, that would refer to the Planning Act application versus the Heritage Act application. The applicant could appeal the Planning Act application.

Okay, well, thank you. That’s very helpful. I’m really troubled by the recent, which is nothing we can do anything about, but I’m really troubled by the declining ability of citizens to be able to access these appeals. Let me speak to the merits, though, of the heritage designation.

And please correct me if I’m wrong through the mayor. Two of the nine heritage aspects need to be approved. And in this case, three have been approved. What is the basis, in fact?

What is the basis in the evidence for the nighness, notwithstanding the report from staff? Go to members of the Planning Committee who move the motion if you want. ‘Cause our staff obviously wrote a different report, so Councillor Trostoff, they don’t have to answer, but I’m happy to engage with, okay, go to the chair. Well, basically, as chair of planning, this is the recommendation coming from planning to council, so it ends there.

Well, your response is this is our recommendation. I’m trying to understand why, since three of the nine were sustained. I think you’ll have to wait for the debate from other colleagues, Councillor, because I know I have others on the list who were at that meeting, but I don’t want to get into a question and answer of different colleagues. I know the chair was willing to answer, but if you’re looking for questions on why the Planning Committee members made the vote that they did, I think they can stand up and justify that in their comments and debates.

It’s very difficult to go to staff, except on the original report, which is not the direction the committee went. Well, in that case, I guess if I sit down, I’m done on this, and I’ll come back to this with the planning application, but I really think there were three criteria that were met, and I think that this creates sort of almost a presumption of not a very high expectation that heritage designation, which in my opinion is very warranted, in my opinion is very badly needed, and in my opinion is one of the few protections that the community has from the loss of these historic and irreplaceable heritage aspects. So I’ll certainly be asking people to vote no on the staff recommendation and go back to the recommendation of staff, which I thought was very well thought out and very well supported. Thank you.

Thank you, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m gonna strongly encourage colleagues to uphold the committee recommendation, and I’m gonna address a couple of the questions I just heard. The part four heritage designation under the Planning Act and Provincial Legislation says a property can be considered for heritage designation if it meets two of the nine criteria.

Doesn’t say it has to be, it’s actually Council’s decision. The planning, the application, the applicant’s consultant identified two of nine are staff identified three of nine, whichever way you slice it, it failed on six and potentially seven of nine categories. And these evaluations are very subjective. They’re not based in measurements.

They’re based in subjective opinion. For example, the requirement that is tied to the area’s cultural history and heritage. We tried to tie it to the old Hyde Park Corner, which on the aerial map provided in our planning report wasn’t even visible when looking at the subject lands. That’s how distant it is.

Try to identify it as a landmark. Again, what is a landmark is subjective. For me, you need to be able to see a landmark from some recognizable distance. We’ve got a railway berm on one side.

We’ve got a commercial plaza on the other side. This is right in the middle of a lot. It’s not a geographic landmark, that’s for sure. To me, it actually only meant one of the nine criteria.

That’s why, and further to that, our advisory committee, our own community advisory committee did not recommend this for heritage designation. It was a split vote, but our advisory committee did not recommend this for heritage designation. I think that speaks volumes to whether or not it meets the criteria. Just because something needs a couple of criteria does not mean that it has to be designated as a part four heritage property.

I’ve heard and I’ve seen a few comments from people make them keep it, develop around it, move it, but keep it on the property. It’s easy for somebody who doesn’t have skin in the game to say absorb the cost of moving it, but when we talk about housing affordability, and I’m gonna tell you, this is a really ballpark, and I did not get this number from the applicant. I got this number from another developer in the city to just give me an unbiased opinion. What in a high level estimate would it cost to move this?

It said probably between two and a half and three million dollars added to the cost of the project to move it onto another location of the property. So when we talk about housing affordability, we can’t say we want more housing affordability. We can’t say we don’t want to add to the urban growth boundary when we’re going to say we have to designate this old building in the middle of a lot that can’t be moved in an economically viable situation and kept on the property to allow development to happen here. I’ll talk to the merits of the development application later in the agenda, but when it comes to the heritage designation, this does not meet the task for a part four designation.

And when people look at even the use, the use of the building has changed over time from residential to commercial establishment. There have been modifications made already over the years, and so I cannot encourage colleagues strongly enough to support the committee recommendation. This is an old building, but it is not a part four heritage designation level building to qualify. And if we are going to infill and build up and have affordability, we cannot save every building on the basis that it is old.

We need to look at what are the key priorities. We asked our committee, our advisory committee on planning and heritage, and they identified 13 really high priority properties out of the cultural heritage list that they thought we should really have staff look at closely. And they had another half a dozen that they said these would sort of be the next year. So even in the top 20, this didn’t make it in the top 20 on a cultural heritage list where we know the clock is actually ticking down from the provincial government in terms of the deadline they’ve set up January 1 of 2027 when all the remaining items will come off the cultural heritage list if they haven’t been reviewed and evaluated by staff and designated as such.

So to me, this is one that’s a very clear subjective and staff have to bring forward the recommendation when there’s two because that’s the threshold at which they’re able to bring forward the recommendation to say council can now consider this. They only have that option. So this isn’t that staff are just bringing forward their opinion based on they want to save it. This is the threshold for them, but it is not the threshold for us.

And for me, I’m going to be very consistent. I’ve never supported anything that hasn’t met half the heritage criteria. This one meets two or three, depending on which consultants or staff opinion you want to take on this, it’s divided. So there’s not even agreement between the two sides as to how many boxes this checks.

So I can’t support a heritage designation on this building. I have Councilor Hopkins and then Councilor Frank next. Yeah, thank you, your worship. And I want to thank the deputy mayor.

I always appreciate hearing his perspective. I may not agree with it, but I do appreciate the reasoning behind why the committee would refuse the heritage designation. I won’t be supporting this. I do support staff’s recommendation, which is to keep it a heritage building that does not mean we stop development, that does not mean development can’t occur.

What it does mean is that we support heritage in our city. And I look at staff. I look at them as being the experts. I appreciate other consultants.

I appreciate the work the advisory group does. But I do look at the reports from staff to help me understand the designation. But to me, what’s more important is what Londoners think of this building. And I do know Londoners do appreciate it.

And so I will not be supporting the committee’s recommendation. Go ahead, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. I just want to reiterate some of the concerns I shared at Peck.

Mostly regarding a reminder that nothing in the city has all nine boxes checked and that our most valuable heritage assets at most have six of nine. Oh, seven, I was correct at seven. So I just wanted to flag that for folks. If that’s influencing your decision at all, most things have three or four.

And then the only other thing I want to say is I’m delighted with how much we value the advisory committee’s advice. And I think hopefully that applies to all advisory committees. Thanks. Councilor Lehman.

Thank you. Just wanted to follow up on the Deputy Mayor’s comments there and what’s been commented since. Not voting for this designation. Doesn’t mean that people aren’t in favor of heritage.

It’s just a different opinion of where that bar is met. It was mentioned two of nine or three of nine. The advisory committee not recommending this. It’s interesting.

The Councilor was at Peck and asked staff what how many of nine did we need in the ones that we have done. And recently it’s been seven or so as was stated. But I think it’s important. I just emphasize what Deputy Mayor said.

The advisory committee at Heritage was tasked this year with looking at 2,000 of these properties that are listed as potential heritage properties. And they spent about nine months doing a deep dive on all these properties. And when they came back to us a few months ago, this property was not on the list. I believe it was 12 or 13 that they suggested that we should really look at consider hard at looking at heritage designation, which I intend to do.

So for me, that’s almost two strikes from the advisory committee. One, they looked at it during that process. And then they looked at it again as a result of this particular application. And they were consistent in what they have been advising us.

So yeah, it’s a call. But I have to, for me personally, in my opinion, it didn’t meet the bar that I have used in the past for actually designating heritage properties. Other speakers to this item? Okay, oh, Councillor ramen, go ahead.

Thank you and through you. So I did speak to this at committee and I just shared my thoughts on the building itself and definitely the feelings of residents and my award that have been shared with me. So far, so I know that this building has a lot of significance for the area and that whether the heritage report does confirm that. So does the staff, or sorry, the report provided by the developer, just with respect to how it fits into Hyde Park.

However, I understand the perspectives of the committee as well that this is only three of nine of the criteria and that therefore it’s not that strong of recommendation. I did meet with the developer just to get a sense of what they had planned for this building. And I asked whether or not there was more that could be done because I’m of both minds on this. I could see the purpose of keeping retaining the building.

I understand the cost and complexity associated with doing that. I do think though, as suggested by our staff in the report, even a partial rear demolition only would allow for some of that heritage to be kept for that iconic landscape portion of the building to be kept or that look. I understand why it can’t be retained on site if this plan goes forward. So I’m not gonna support the heritage designation at this time.

I will continue to discuss with the developer ways that this can be, can be commemorated in an effective way. We did talk about a number of strategies yesterday for that. And I think that that’s a way forward. And I appreciate the work that Councilor Layman’s done on this because I know he has had those similar discussions.

My plan to work with him on that going forward. That exhausts my speaker’s list on this particular item. This is on the heritage designation. We’ll open this for a vote.

So the committee’s recommendation was not to designate for voting on the committee’s recommendation. So we’ll open that for voting. This is, if you vote yes, you support what the committee decided, if you vote. Yeah, and if you think you got it wrong, the vote still opens so you can switch your vote.

If I want what staff wanted, that’s the no. That’s correct. Those in the vote, motion carries 10 to five. Go ahead, committee chair.

Thank you, moving on to number eight. This is regarding 1447, 1449 Dundas Street. Mayor Stoffin for me, there is a small housekeeping amendment that needs to be made. The clerk has the wording.

So that’s why I pulled this. Okay, so you put the original committee recommendation on the floor and you’re willing to put the administrative changes to the by-law. Correct. Yeah, so I would like to make that amendment.

And Councilor Close is willing to second that. Any discussion on what happens from time to time to some small cleanup of the by-law? All right, so this is just on the amended piece. We’re gonna open that for voting.

Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, now we need an as amended. I would like to move as amended. Okay, and seconded still by Councilor Flosa.

Yep, okay. All right, the as amended debate, go ahead. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship.

Very excited to be supporting this. Thanks, staff, for the work on catching a technical amendment to and for the work that they did to help with the motion to get this approved. This is a great infill project in Ward two. It’s gonna create lots of units of new housing.

It is within a, I might not be able to. If you’re maybe Vladiguro, Jr., you could hit a baseball from here onto the psychiatric hospital lands where we have massive redevelopment happening over the next 15 to 20 years. And so, to me, this is an appropriate use. Steps have been taken to address the, to enter into agreement by the applicant with CNCP Rail with the rail lines being there, which moved quicker than often some of the railway challenges can, so very happy to see that’s already been put in place there.

Just very happy to do this. The developer posted a public meeting. There was no community opposition to this. The Argyle BIA, it is in their BIA corridor.

There’s ground floor, commercial opportunities being provided on site. They are very happy and supportive of it. So just in general, this has my support and lots of support from the Ward. So happy to have this on the floor and ask Council to support it.

Okay, anyone else on the as amended motion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero.

Go ahead, Chair. Thank you. Mayor, I’d like to put number nine. This is regarding 1269 Hyde Park.

And this is for his zoning application on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’m gonna put myself in the speakers list. I’ll just go first.

So I’ll put Deputy Mayor Lewis in the chair. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. I have the chair and recognize Mayor Morgan. Thank you.

It probably comes with no surprise that I make some comments on this having been the Ward Council up in the area. I’m in a relatively similar position as Councillor ramen. Certainly understand the desire for development in this area. Certainly know the character and history of the development, although may not be part four heritage designation has some meaningful sentiment with the community up there.

And I wanna thank the committee who made the recommendation for adding and putting in the clause C that the site plan authority be requested to ensure proposed documentation and commemoration of the existing building is proposed by the applicant, the site plan process and the applicant be encouraged to consult with the city’s heritage planners on materials that may be salvaged and incorporated into commemorated features. I’m very happy to see that. I have my question through the presiding officer to our staff is what kind of things were in the proposed documentation and commemoration? Thank you through the presiding officer.

They’ve identified the stand tech consulting that identified along the North Waldo garage, some commemorative features identifying because it’s near the multi-path system that people could observe. They’ve also identified some brick and cornices to be retained and that could be integrated somehow into that commemoration or as part of any of the development. It’s very open ended at this point. There’s flexibility and that is working with staff to come up with something that’s good for the community at the end of the day.

Mayor Morgan. Thank you. Then let me add my voice to what Councillor Ramen said and I know Councillor Layman to the applicant in this file. Like I strongly encourage you to work with our staff, work with the ward councilors who know the community well, to find elements of this building that you can preserve and incorporate into the new building.

I think you will do yourself a great service by doing that because people will appreciate the new development even more. Especially if that new development contains commercial type features like a renewed, say crossings restaurant in some way, whether or not they want to stay there or whether it’s a different restaurant. I think having the same feeling character within that, we’ve seen this been proposed a number of times in our city where there might have been an old pub. It could be, elements could be preserved and incorporate it into it.

I think is a respectful way to capture some of the history and meaning of a site into a new development in a way that draws the public in and makes them a part of it. I certainly wish them luck with the infill in this area. I think if you can achieve an infill project between train tracks and a car dealership, which is going to have some lights at night, more power to you because if you can put housing there to get people to purchase it, I think that’s a great and ambitious project to try to proceed with. If you want to draw the public in though, it’s my strong encouragement that you work with our staff to incorporate some of these features and preserve a lot of some of the components of the building that I think you make very unique and interesting features within a new build on the site.

The reason why I support the new building this way is a number of years back, we directed and I think rightly so, the preservation of a heritage house at North Rutledge and Hyde Park Road. Same sort of situation where we were requesting it to be moved at a short amount of time, the costs were prohibitive. What you see now is a severed lot with half of a high density residential building built and the other half not proceeding yet, years later. I’d rather find a pathway here to proceed with both retaining the elements within that building in some way and proceed with the housing so that we’re not in a similar situation as we are something north of there where you’ve got what was half of a proposed development where people are moved in and living there and having housing and another half that has yet to proceed with development because they’re still working at the details and the cost of preserving.

Again, I voted for that designation, but there are consequences to that and that is in part why that development hasn’t proceeded on the north half of that site on that iconic corner. So I will work diligently with the Councillors should they want my support to engage with the development proponent and our staff to encourage their retention of features here. I look forward to more housing up in that area and so I’ll be supporting any recommendations but only because they included that direction of the site plan. Okay, I will return the chair to you, Mayor Morgan and Councillor Layman had indicated he’d like to be on the speaker’s list.

Councillor Layman, go ahead. Thank you for those comments, Mayor. I just want you to, if you can, put that heritage, we’ve made that decision on that. So let’s talk about addressing our housing shortage.

We hear about the housing shortage daily impact. We hear it when delegations address us when there’s intensity and infill being done in the neighborhoods, even though they might not support it, but they always start up with it. I agree there’s a need for housing and then we hear their concerns. We hear it all year long about the effects of urban sprawl as we’ve spoken about urban growth boundary.

How do we mitigate that? Well, with density and infill. Challenge has been, in my opinion, when we have done infill, it’s a neighborhood around the development, proposed development lot. Rightly so, it changes the nature of the neighborhoods in many cases.

In this particular one, there’s no concerns in that front. As the Mayor said, it’s surrounded by a cardio ship, a railway track, the concern is, and I’ve heard from folks in the area beside the heritage, there was concern about heritage, but the traffic. And I just wanna address the traffic in this particular case. There are 35,000 cars that use the high park daily.

This will provide housing for 500 people. Assuming they use their car every day, which I’m hoping they don’t, because literally on the other side of the dealership is a commercial plaza with a grocery store, Tim Werns, et cetera. And they are within a walk to the High Park Village. I think this is an opportunity for us to provide a good infill project, provide 500 folks with much needed housing that they wouldn’t have before this is built.

And I’ll close with my remarks on heritage. I did speak with a developer, and I’m glad Councilor Robbins spoke with them as well. And we expressed the concerns of heritage. And not only were they accepting the need for that, they were quite frankly embracing that.

I think they wanna make an exciting project with a great reference to the existing building and the surrounding area, and providing information on why those things are important as well, which people might not know, just traveling past as I do daily. So I hope you support this. It’s an opportunity for us to get much needed housing in an infill area that is really appropriate. Other speakers, Councilor Trostav, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor, and through you. Not surprisingly, I’m going to not support this application. Do we have any, from the staff, do we have any indication that it’s the intention of the developer to put in any type or form of lower income or affordable housing? Go ahead.

Through your worship, there’s no indication about any kind of affordable housing, other type of low rent housing. Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, I didn’t think so, but I needed to get that on the table. ‘Cause I have heard the word affordability thrown out throughout these discussions.

Creating more units that are high-end, luxury, above market or at market, doesn’t really address the need for affordable housing. And every time we approve such an infill project, without some type of device, and they’re hard to come by these days thanks to the province, there’s an opportunity cost. The opportunity cost is there’s just so much land. There’s just so much land we can build on.

And the opportunity cost here is once they put in this high-end luxury market rate, whatever you want to call it, housing. What’s the point of, is it water or personal privilege? I’ll make pick one, ‘cause I want to rule on it. You just, no, Councilor Trostav, colleagues can call the point of order, okay?

I’ll listen to the point of order. I need the mic, Councilor Trostav. Go ahead. The Councilor made a point to ask staff about, is there a mention of affordable housing?

But he’s making these claims that this is going to be high-end rent. There’s no, I think that’s a basis. So, I’m going to stop you. I’ve said this before at Council.

There’s no mechanism in their procedure by-law. A Councilor can say something, whether you think it’s factual or not. That’s what the debate is for. I’m not the arbiter nor as the procedure by-law, nor whether or not a Councilor statements are accurate and to what degree they are.

But in the debate, someone can stand up and refute what a Councilor is saying. Like, that’s the function of the debate. But if I were to be the arbiter of what is factual or not and interject on that, we would be having very long meetings and I would be, I would not be able to talk because I’d be jumping in more often than I like. So, Councilor is making some points.

If someone disagrees with that, I would encourage them to stand up and refute the Councilor’s points in a respectful and articulate debate. So, I’ll say that isn’t a point of order and the Councilor can proceed with his comments. My other objection to this is that we can look in isolation and I’ve raised this before with respect to many other applications that I’ve opposed. We are not doing a cumulative area-wide traffic study.

And please correct me if I’m wrong. But what we’re doing is we’re looking at this particular building and we’re saying, oh, it’s only gonna be 500 units and that’s not going to appreciably change the traffic flow. What we’re not doing is looking at our current capacity, our current LTC capacity, our current capacity for people to enjoy other aspects of the Mess and Mobility Plan as it’s shifting. It’s just this particular building.

We do that every time. Finally, I just wanna say that I don’t think, and I wanna use the precise words here, so I’m gonna look at my notes. I don’t think this requested amendment is appropriate within the existing planning context. I don’t think the requested amendment satisfies the criteria for adoption.

I think this is yet another example of let’s build as many units as we can ‘cause let’s face it. We have a provincial policy target and we wanna make that. But at the same time, every time, every time, we approve building something without some affordability component. And again, if I’m wrong, please correct me.

But I have, there is no evidence in this record that indicates there is going to be any aspect of affordability at all. So let me just ask one final question if I have time. Should we pass this tonight? And should the laws on affordability change?

Or should the laws on bonuses change? The saying, you can bring back bonuses or you can have some requirement of a set aside. Those laws change. Can we then change the parameters of this project?

Or are we locked into what we passed tonight? So I’ll let staff answer that. Through your worship, it very much depend on the laws that are changed and any kind of programs that might be available. But like with any of our rezoning, like you need to take it very seriously, that you’re providing for approvals to allow housing to move forward in this area.

So we’ll be very conscious of that. And if there’s other programs that come available that allow for funding or being able to provide those opportunities, that could come out in the future. But today you’re really making those decisions on the number of units and where you want to have on happen on this site. Councilor.

  • Thank you. Is there any requirement that should this be approved? The applicant would be required to perfect what needs to be done on the land and building permits within any period of time. Go ahead Mr.

Withers. Through your worship, no, there isn’t any mandated time that they’d have to come back in for building permits. It would be up to the applicant to bring that forward. Councilor.

  • So am I correct? Thank you, through the chair. Am I correct in saying that if the applicant’s so choose, chose, they can sit on this indefinitely? Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair, yes, that’s correct. There’s no way to require them to come in in a certain time period. Okay, Councilor, you have about 30 seconds left.

And finally, and finally, is there any mechanism to ensure that the conditions be complied with and meaningful heritage protections be given after this is approved? Or is it something we’re just going to ask? And they can say yes or they could say no. Mr.

Mathers. Through your worship, so the way the language is phrased just speaks to the site plan authority. So this is something that very commonly is added to be able to allow some authority for the site plan approval to be able to have that discussion in the back and forth with the owner. We understand that the owner is willing to do some of this work.

And that’s why, from my understanding as well, by that this was brought forward at committee. So there’s no necessary way to mandate it if it’s not something that is a requirement, but it very commonly, we will have some good conversations and that will be included in the site plan. But as mentioned, it’s not a requirement, but for Accomulate, we are able to come up with an agreement with the owner. Well, thank you.

That covers many of my objections and I’m out of time. And I thank you for the discussion we’ve had on this. So again, I can’t support this. Okay, thank you.

I have Councilor Pripple next. Thank you, I just like to make a comment that I will be supporting this. And I know that we’re during the last few years, we’ve been hearing, you know, how many affordable, deeply affordable units. And some of them, just like this developer, there’s no specific number.

But I’m a true believer in the supply and demand economic model. And we already see what we have done as a council, for example, in the era of downtown. And the supply and demand, the supply has caught up. And we already see the increases in the rents that are currently happening.

Is it at the level that we would still want it? Or is it really kind of affordable for everyone? No, it’s not. But there are already, we already see downtown 10, some of them up to 20% decrease.

And why? It’s not because of the developers committed, deeply affordable affordable units. It’s because of supply and demand. And this project, that’s it for us in my eyes, belongs to this era of supply and demand.

Thank you. Okay, that is all the speakers I have on the speakers list, except for Councilor Raman, go ahead. Thank you and through you. So I just wanted to ask staff a question based on some of the language that they put in the report around the alternatives that they tried to carve out for a path to approval on page 339.

They state that given the context and location of the subject land staffer of the opinion that an alternative development with a max height of eight stories could be supported through a zoning bylaw amendment. In that they also provide some thoughts around the setback from the abutting automobile body shop. And I just want to know if what they’re saying is at the eight stories that it’s viable to do so with the setback, but at the 15 is not. Go ahead.

Thank you through your worship. In terms of what staff had recommended, we were looking at it purposely for, in terms of lighting and whatnot. However, it would apply for both. Thank you and through you.

No, I appreciate that context. So I’ve looked at this application in many different ways and looking at as a viable application for the area. I’m prepared to support A and C, but not prepared to support B at this time, which is the zoning change. And my reason for doing so is I do think that had the amendment included less height, had it not had as much impact on the local area, it would have been more supportive.

But at this time, I think that for me, I can’t get behind all aspects of the application. I appreciate the conversations I’ve had with the developer, but knowing this area, having walked this area and having been in the surrounding area, they’ve been looking at the traffic study. I have concerns around the amount and the intensification story in this area and the amount of housing that we’re adding. I appreciate that the developers thinking outside the box, and I appreciate that they brought forth the idea of live work units as well.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around what a live work unit looks like. They gave me some ideas of where to look at to get a better sense of what those may be like. But I can tell you, there are businesses that surround this area that create added complexities. There is the railway tracks.

There is the automobile shop. There is the hardware building supply story stores across the road. And then there’s just contending with the traffic on Hyde Park. And all of those things create a lot of challenges.

And I’m sure that the developer can reassure us that there is a way around those. But for that reason, I wanna express, I would have supported less height here, but I won’t support it as this is laid out. However, I do appreciate the constructive conversation I’ve had with the developer. I plan to continue to work to support the community’s desire if this were to move forward, to see more heritage recognition in this area.

I don’t think that the Stantec report and what was provided in it goes far enough for recognition. So I do hope that the developer continues other ways to recognize the significance of this building on this particular piece of land. Okay, other speakers. We’ll separate B for Council Raman and we’ll do B first.

So then we can do everything else all together. Okay, if there’s no other speakers, then what I’m gonna do is I’m gonna proceed with part B first and then that’ll be followed by all the remaining items. So we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to four.

Okay, and now all the remaining clauses. We’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to five. Go ahead, Chair.

Thank you. The last item is 13. Councilor Hopkins has requested this to be pulled. It is dealing with 35, 63 bust with word.

Okay, that’s put on the floor by the chair. How Councilor Hopkins, did you wanna speak to it? Yes, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship.

First of all, I wanna start off with thanking staff and the applicant. There have been many, many revisions in this application. And I know a lot of thought and a lot of work went into this application, but I would like to be consistent with some of my voting on applications in this area that we have seen intensification, the amount of units increasing, it’s become a snowball effect. And my concerns continue to be, how is this all going to work?

How are we creating a community where we want people to live in? I am not convinced that we’re there and we’re gonna see more applications coming forward. So my concerns will still remain. How do we even try to move around?

Right now, we just have concepts of how it’s this application and other applications are going to be, but we really don’t understand how everything is going to be integrated and work together. The other concern that continues to come up with these applications is the natural heritage. And how do we deal with it? Yes, it will be looked at through the side plan, but this is a very naturally enriched area.

And I think it’s really important when we just approve these applications that we really try to understand the green space, the community space, the amenity space. Not only with this application, but with other applications that we have approved past number of years and that we will continue to see applications coming forward. So I would like to be on record as not supporting this application. Okay, any other speakers to this one?

Seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13-2. Thank you Mayor.

That concludes the 73th report of the Planning Environment Committee. Councillor Plaza. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I’d like to move a 10 minute bio break. Councillor Plaza wants to move a 10 minute break. Is there a seconder for that? Seconded by Councillor Pera.

Okay, we’re gonna do this by hand. Just keep them up. All those in favor? Those opposed?

Motion carries. Okay, 10 minutes. All right, we’ll see you back in 10 minutes. Okay, please be seated.

We’re gonna proceed with the next committee report. That’s SPPC. I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present the report. Thank you, Your Worship.

I have been asked to poll 2.1, the Stratplain implementation, five, the consideration appointment to Western Board of Governors, and seven, the electric respect campaign, and sorry, end eight, the membership in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence City’s initiative. So those requests are the ones I’ve received. I’m not sure if anyone wants anything else to deal with separately.

Anybody else want anything to deal with separately? Seeing none, then go ahead. Okay, so I will move one, three, four, six. That was the consent.

One, three, four, and six. That’s on the floor by the chair. Any discussion on those? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. I will now put item two on the floor. This is 2.1, the Strategic Plan Implementation Update.

Councillor Stevenson requested this to be pulled so she could be consistent with her votes. I’m not sure if there’s anything else that anyone wants to speak to on that, but I’ll turn it over to you, Chair. Okay, yeah, that’s separate. I’ll look to see if there’s any speakers.

Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Yes, I did pull it to be consistent with my vote and vote against it. I just did wanna highlight like one of the issues that I have is how we set out our strategies and then staff come up with how those are actioned and we never have any input into that, nor do we approve them.

It’s we handed off at that point. So for instance, 4.3 was increased commercial occupancy in the core area. We came up with four strategies, finalize and implement core area vacancy reduction strategy, promote the current supply of available space in the core area to track new businesses, increase awareness of the city’s core area, community improvement plan incentives, and explore and implement strategies to support the retention of existing businesses. And all of those are complete with the downtown master plan, which we’re not gonna see until next year.

So I just feel like it would have been going forward. I hope as we implement changes, the council has some input into how the strategies are accurate. Okay, any other speakers? Seeing no, go ahead, Councillor Preble.

Thanks, I just wanna add, I would be certainly voting yes to accept it. There’s no doubt that there’s a room for improvement. We did talk about it during standing committee meeting and during our audit committee meeting. And I do believe that there’s an understanding, there’s an understanding on improved certain areas, but I do believe we are on the right track and we are gonna get there.

I mean, just have to make sure we get there, rather sooner than later. Thank you. Okay, any other speakers? We’ll open that for voting.

Mr. Ferra, second call, Councillor Ferra. Okay, and Councillor Absen, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to one.

And Chair, I will now put item five. This is 4.2 from the committee agenda of the consideration of appointments to the Western University Board of Governors on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I look for any speakers.

Go ahead, Councillor Troz. Thank you, thank you, Mayor. I’ll be exceptionally brief since I’ve already spoken to my objections to this. On a few occasions, it’s not about the two people.

I think they’re both very qualified to be on the board. My objection is not giving the community the opportunity to submit applications for these positions. You know, we don’t really get a lot of opportunity to have any input into the operation of the Board of Governors. It’s a black box.

Having served on that board for four years, I can tell you that most of what they do is in closed session. The information function of being able to get reports is very important. And I know I’m gonna lose this vote. My prediction, if I had to make a prediction, would be a little bit 14 to one.

And I know that. But I’m rising to talk about this again, ‘cause we need a better mechanism to be able to bring the concerns of the London community to this board. And we don’t do that. I would call on the Mayor in all due respect who sits on the board as an ex officio member to maybe once in a while bring more information back if not to the whole council, to those segments of council who are very interested in it.

I can tell you it was the Ward 6 counselor, which is the area that surrounds the university. My ward has some very, very specific and local concerns about some of the activities of the university. And I find it is very difficult to get into that black box. So in closing, I just wanna say, I understand these are two very qualified representatives.

I should say that the university has extra seats. They have four extra seats. Each year they appoint another person. They well could have appointed one of the two this year and they well could have appointed the next one next year.

But no, they’re gonna hold on to their appointments. And we’re gonna say, no thanks, we don’t need it, we’re good. And for me, that’s not okay. And it’s a question of public accountability and it’s a question of public trance.

So I’ll be voting no, but I understand what my motivations are for voting no. Thank you very much. Well, I’m gonna hand the chair over to Councillor Raman and I’ll put myself on the list. Thank you, I have the chair, I’ll go to the mayor.

So I’m gonna support the recommendation on the councilor’s desire to call on me to provide a report on behalf of Western University. I’m not gonna do that. I’m not the spokesperson for the board. Many of us serve on boards and we’re not the spokesperson for them from time to time.

I may have information that I can share, but I think as many boards can. I’m certainly happy to pass along the desire for municipal council to perhaps have a visit from Western University to have a discussion and it would be up to their board and leadership to do that. But I’m not gonna suggest that I’m gonna put myself in a position to speak on behalf of a board that I am not the spokesperson for. So I’ll support the motion before us.

I just wanted to rise for a moment. We’ll respond to the council. Thank you, returning the chair to you. No one on the speaker’s list.

Councilor Pervo. Thank you. I will be supporting what’s in front of us as well. Having said that, what was mentioned here by Council Trusso, I do think he has some valid points.

And again, having said that these two are city’s reappointments and I did have a chance to talk to the chair of the board of governors from Western and they certainly both and it was already stated here as well that both are stellar candidates. And I just don’t wanna send a signal if these are city reappointments that we would be changing our mind. And I do believe if they have been appointed, it should be directly associated with their performance, which again, we are hearing it stellar. And but on the other hand, if they weren’t reappointments, if it was the first one, I do think that there are certainly some valid points that were mentioned to be considered.

But based on the current circumstances, I will very much support the motion that’s in front of us. Thank you. Okay, that’s all the speakers I have on this. So with that, I’m gonna open the recommendation for voting.

Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Go ahead. Thank you, worship. I will now put item seven, 4.4 from your committee agenda.

The request for support for elect respect campaign from AMO, brought forward by Councillor Hopkins and yourself. I voted contrary, I wasn’t gonna pull this, but another member of council has indicated they’re interested in changing their vote. So it’s been pulled. Okay, you’re still willing to put it on the floor, even though you’re gonna be okay, great.

All right, so is there any speakers to this then? No? Okay, then we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to two.

And I will put item eight. This is 4.4 from your committee agenda, request for support for membership in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence City’s initiative brought forward by Mayor Morgan. Okay, that’s on the floor.

I look to see if there’s any discussion. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Petty votes, yes. Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to one.

And that completes the 14th report of SPPC. Great, thank you very much. We’ll go to the 17th report of Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. I’ll go to Chair Raman.

Thank you. I would like to move items one through. Oh, sorry, I’m first speaking about the 17th report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. I have not been asked to pull any items at this time, but I’ll look to see if there’s any.

All right, anybody like anything dealt separately? Okay. Okay, seeing none, I will look to put items one through seven on the floor. Excellent, those are on the floor, moved by the chair, any discussion on them?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. That completes my report. That means we’re on to added reports.

There is an added report from closed session, which Councilor Raman will also present, so I’ll let you present that report. Thank you, your Council in closed session report includes item one, lease, extension, and amending agreement 785, Wonderland Road South, that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Finance supports with the concerns of the Deputy City Manager’s social and health development and the advice of the Director of Realty Services, with respect to the least extension by way of extension letter is attached in Appendix A, for a term beginning November 1st, 2026, expiring on October 31st, 2031. For the office space located at 785, Wonderland Road South, known as West Mount Shopping Center, the following actions be taken A, the extension of the city’s currently set 785, Wonderland Road for a further term of five years, beginning on November 1st, 2026, expiring on October 31st, 2031, be approved in accordance with the extension letter attached in Appendix A, B, the mayor and city clerk be authorized to extend, sorry, to execute the extension letter and C, the civic administration be authorized to undertake all administrative steps necessary in connection with this lease agreement extension, sorry, two, uniform tentative agreement that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager enterprise supports with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager Finance support and the Deputy City Manager’s social and health development, the attached memorandum of agreement dated October 23rd, 2025 and agreed to items signed September 12th, 2025, concurring the 2025 to 2028 collective agreement for the Unifor Local 302B ratified. And lastly, that progress is made with respect to items 4.14.4, 4.5, 4.6, as noted on the public agenda.

Okay, those are presented by Councilor Raman. Any discussion on those? Yes, Councilor Vamevera, we’re gonna go ahead. Oh, could you just speak and rise to the Council?

Is it possible to call 4.4 on the Council agenda separately at this point? There’s no vote on 4.4, it’s just indication of progress. We’re just voting, so at this point, we’re just voting to receive? No, we’re voting on the two items that have been pulled out of camera.

One is the extension of the lease at West Mount Wall for the city’s base there. And the other is the ratification of the Unifor agreement. Those are the two things we’re voting on. 4.4 is not on the floor.

It’s not, it’s just an indication that we’ve made progress on that. Thank you. Okay, so we’ll do those both together then, and we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 14-0.

Thank you, Councilor Raman. Furred matters, there are none, inquiries. They’re gonna be indicated they had an inquiry. Okay, seeing none, emergent motions, there are none.

So we’re on to bylaws. All right, here’s how we’re gonna do these. First, we’re gonna do 405, which is the electric scooters and cargo power bikes, which is the one with the new date in it. Then we’re gonna do 408, which is the Gleason’s Creek Housing Cooperative Item.

Then we’re gonna do 412 and 426, which is 1269 Hyde Park Road. Then we’re gonna do 415 and 428, which is the Boston items, and then we’ll do everything else. If that sounds good for everyone. Okay, yeah, great, okay.

So we’ll start with, first I’ll ask, is there anybody who kind of agreed with all of those things? Okay, Councilor McAllister and Councilor Cutty willing to do it all. All right, you’ll be the mover and seconder for all of them. We’re gonna start with Bill 405 and first reading.

Moved by Councilor McAllister, seconded by Councilor Cutty. We’ll open that for voting. Or you worship just before the clerk changes the vote. I just need to change mine.

Okay, we’ll just hold off. This is electric kick scooters and cargo bikes, cargo powered bicycles. These, yeah, it looks like everybody’s going. Councilor Van Nierberg closing the vote.

Motion carries nine to five. Okay, second reading, same mover and seconder. Any debate on second reading? I see none.

Okay, we’ll open second reading for voting. Motion carries nine to five. And third and final reading, same mover and seconder. We’ll open that for voting.

Motion carries nine to five. Okay, on to Bill 408, which is Gleason’s Creek Housing Cooperative. We’ll use the same mover and seconder, Councilor McAllister and Councilor Cutty. We’ll open first reading for voting.

Motion carries 13 to one. All right, second reading, any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting. Motion carries 13 to one.

Okay, third and final reading, same mover and seconder. We’ll open third reading for voting. Motion carries 13 to one. We’re on to Bill 412 and 426.

This is 1269 Hyde Park Road. We’ll use the same mover and seconder. We’re gonna open that for voting for first reading. Motion carries 10 to four.

And second reading of this, same mover and seconder. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 10 to four.

And third and final reading, same mover and seconder. We’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 10 to four. Okay, now Bill’s 415 and 428.

These are the boss book ones. So first reading is gonna be open for voting, same mover and seconder. We’ll open it now. Motion carries 12 to two.

And second reading of these two bills, any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 12 to two. And third and final reading of these with the same mover and seconder, we’ll open third reading for voting.

Motion carries 12 to two. Okay, now all the remaining bills all together. We have Councilor McAllister moving and Councilor Cuddy seconding it. We’ll open first reading of the remaining bills for voting.

Motion carries 14-0. Okay, and second reading of the remaining bills, same mover and seconder. We’ll open, any discussion? Seeing none, second reading, we’ll open for voting.

It carries 14-0. Okay, third and final reading of this set of bills, same mover and seconder. We’ll open third reading for voting. Motion carries 14-0.

All right, that’s it for bylaws. So we just need a motion to adjourn. Councilor Van Mereberg and seconder by Councilor Hopkins. We’ll do this by hand.

All those in favor of adjournment. Motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you very much.

stopped.