March 3, 2026, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted that His Worship J. Morgan and Councillor S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

4.1    Security of the Property of the Municipality/ Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations        

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality at Oxford Street West; 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; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/4/PEC)

4.2    Information Supplied in Confidence to the Municipality by a Crown Agency of Canada / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality by a Crown Agency of Canada; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/4/SPPC)

4.3    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 with respect to a claim for compensation following the expropriation of property located at 835 Wellington Road at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”); and for the purpose of providing instruction and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/4/ICSC)

4.4    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation        

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation with respect to various personal injury and property damage claims against the City. (6.2/4/ICSC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:08 PM to 1:16 PM.

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

At 1:17 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan enters the meeting remotely.

5.1   3rd Meeting held on February 10, 2026

2026-02-10 Council minutes

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on February 10, 2026, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

6.2    550 Ridout Street North & 82-90 Kent Street - OZ-25152        

  1.    O. Juwah        

  2.    C. Fitchett        

  3.    N. Napolitano        

  4.    C. Hunter        

  5.    (ADDED) A. Soufan, President, York Developments        

  6.    (ADDED) A. Young        

  7.    (ADDED) D. Adams        

  8.    (ADDED) D. Morrice        

  9.    (ADDED) D. Robinson, North Talbot Community Resident        

  10.    (ADDED) L. English, Border Ladner Gervais LLP        

  11.    (ADDED) J. Jacobson        

  12.    (ADDED) L. White        

  13.    (ADDED) M. Rejak        

  14.    (ADDED) M.B. Rose        

  15.    (ADDED) R. Colenutt

6.3    Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillors P. Cuddy and C. Rahman - Zoning By-law Amendment - Parking Changes

  1.    A. Valastro        

  2.    (ADDED) M. Horak, Director, Centre for Urban Policy and Local Governance, Western University        

  3.    (ADDED) S. Bentley, President, Broughdale Community Association        

  4.    (ADDED) S. Levin, President, Orchard Park/Sherwood Forest Neighbourhood Association        

  5.    (ADDED) N. Pfaff

6.4    Residential Rental Unit Licensing (RRUL) License Display        

  1.    S. Alsalami, A. Bobbett, S. Little, J. Gareis, C. Mettler, A. Quick, H. Shepstone         

  2.    S. McFarlane, Leader, London ACORN-East of Adelaide Chapter        

  3.    (ADDED) S. Bentley, President, Broughdale Community Association

6.5    Request for Reimbursement for Private Property Cleaning and Graffiti Removal Services        

  1.    S. Molloy, Vice-Chair, Palace Theatre Arts Commons        

  2.    (ADDED) Councillor S. Stevenson        

  3.    (ADDED) B. Gloyd, General Manager, The Aeolian        

  4.    (ADDED) K. Morrison, Executive Director, Old East Village Business Improvement Area        

  5.    (ADDED) G. Maltman, Curator, Banting House National Historic Site

6.6    (ADDED) Additional Residential Unit Permissions - Z-25159        

  1.    J. Meader, TMA Law

6.7    (ADDED) London UNESCO City of Music Action Plan 2021-2025 Update        

  1.    D. Brown, W. Thomas, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization

6.8    (ADDED) Restricted Acts of Council after Nomination Day and Voting Day        

  1.    Councillor S. Stevenson

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.1   Integrity Commissioner Report on Code of Conduct Complaints 2025-04-A, B & C

Code of Conduct Complaint Report - Complaints 2025-04-A, B and C(67683646.1)(1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Integrity Commissioner Report on Code of Conduct Complaints 2025-04-A, B & C, dated February 24, 2026, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted Municipal Council heard a verbal presentation from Meghan A. Cowan, Aird & Berlis LLP and received a communication dated February 28, 2026 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

6.9   (ADDED) Councillor E. Peloza – Personal Update

Submission - Council CPSC Chair, Cllr E. Peloza

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lehman

That pursuant to section 20.1 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave be granted to allow Councillor E. Peloza to move a motion related to the communication dated March 2, 2026 from Councillor E. Peloza.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Councillor E. Peloza BE APPOINTED to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee for the term ending November 15, 2026;

it being noted the Municipal Council received a communication dated March 2, 2026 from Councillor E. Peloza with respect to this matter.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part that reads as follows:

it being further noted that Councillor E. Peloza will no longer remain appointed to the Community and Protective Services Committee.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That item 6.9, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 6.9, as amended, reads as follows:

That Councillor E. Peloza BE APPOINTED to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee for the term ending November 15, 2026.

it being noted the Municipal Council received a communication dated March 2, 2026 from Councillor E. Peloza with respect to this matter; and

it being further noted that Councillor E. Peloza will no longer remain appointed to the Community and Protective Services Committee.

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   4th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2026-02-18 - PEC Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 4th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 10 (3.5), 11 (3.6), and 13 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.2) 2025 Annual Development Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated February 18, 2026, related to the 2025 Annual Development Report, as appended as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.3) 2025 Annual Heritage Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated February 18, 2026, related to the 2025 Annual Heritage Report, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.4) Building Services Report - Quarter 4 2025

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development the staff report dated February 18, 2026, related to the Building Services Report– Quarter 4 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.5) Hyde Park BIA - Boundary Expansion; Request to Withdraw

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the letter dated January 21, 2026, from T. Delaney, Chair and D. Szpakowski, CEO & General Manager of the Hyde Park BIA related to the Hyde Park BIA Boundary Expansion; Request to Withdraw, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (3.1) Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review - Update Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, related to the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review – Update Report:

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

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to collaborate with UTRCA on the implementation of the key recommendations from the Service Level Review;

it being noted that the Presentation as appended to the added agenda from I. Shelley and J. Connolly, Black Line Consulting related to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (3.2) Supplementary Guidelines for Heritage Conservation Districts

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated February 18, 2026, related to the Supplementary Guidelines for Heritage Conservation Districts, BE RECEIVED;

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; and,

  • A.M. Valastro;

it being note that the above-noted report fulfills Council’s request and the direction for public input; therefore, the item may be removed from the Planning and Environment Committee’s Deferred Matters List;

it being further noted that the visual presentation as appended to the added agenda was received.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (3.3) 1225 Westdel Bourne - Z-25163 (Relates to Bill No. 121)

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 Cristina Ferro (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 1225 Westdel Bourne, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, 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 (R1-16) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-11) Zone and a Residential R1 (R1-14) Zone;

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

  • D. Sikelero-Elsenbruch, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  • J. Tysman;

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;

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

  • the recommended amendment will facilitate an appropriate form of rural residential infill development with consideration for the long-term protection of agricultural resources and land use compatibility;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (3.4) 746-774 Base Line Road East and 339-345 Westminster Avenue and 770 Base Line Road East - O-25156 and Z-25157 (Relates to Bill No. 104 and 122)

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 the Corporation of the City of London relating to the properties located at 746-774 Base Line Road East and 339-345 Westminster Avenue and 770 Base Line Road East (O-25156) and Mark Semenowicz & Lidia Semenowicz (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.) relating to the property located at 770 Base Line Road East (Z-25157):

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by AMENDING policy 1101_ for Specific Policies in the Institutional Place Type for the Baseline Office Area;

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 March 3, 2026, 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 the above-noted part a), to change the zoning of 770 Base Line Road East FROM an Office (OF2) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision/Office Special Provision (R8-4()/OF2()) Zone; and,

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

i) orient the build forms to the public street with front façade and principle entrances fronting Base Line Road East;and,

ii) provide a high proportion of transparent glazing along the front façade to promote an active frontage and passive surveillance;

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

  • N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

  • D. D’Haene; and,

  • K. Card;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at a scale and intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding context;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (3.7) Amendments to The London Plan (Relates to Bill No. 106)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend The London Plan, to ensure alignment with the Provincial Planning Statement and recent legislative changes, including Bill 23, Bill 17, and Bill 185, resolve any inconsistencies with previous amendments, and mapping associated with these changes;

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; and,

  • M. Moussa;

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

  • to revise any policies which are impacted by changes to the Planning Act due to various Provincial legislation, including Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, the Green Energy Repeal Act, 2018, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 (Bill 185), Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 (Bill 17);

  • to make updates certain policies and maps of The London Plan to reflect Council’s decisions;

  • to update the title of Provincial Planning Statement from Provincial Policy Statement, as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has changed the title of this document;

  • to correct errors and omissions identified throughout The London Plan, including typographical, grammatical, formatting and mapping errors and old terminologies to reflect changes to federal and provincial documents and ministries; and,

  • to correct an inadvertent implication to the Notice Requirements official plan amendment (OPA 141). The recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.14   (4.2) Budget Chair E. Peloza - Notice Distribution - South of Highway 401

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to expand public notice circulation south of Highway 401, including but not limited to, construction notices, applications pursuant to the Planning Act, or studies pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act, to include the three residential hamlets, located at Avenue Road, Shaver Subdivision, and Glanworth;

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

  • a communication dated February 11, 2026, from C. Ivanitz.

Motion Passed

8.1.15   (2.1) Update on Implementation Potential for Servicing Improvements using Housing Accelerator Funding

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, related to the Update on Implementation Potential for Servicing Improvements using Housing Accelerated Funding:

a) the matter of the Pack Road Sewer Extension, as identified in the above-noted staff report, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to undertake further consultation with the affected landowner and their technical consultants and report back to the April 14, 2026, meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with the results of that consultation and appropriate next steps;

it being noted that the intent of the proposed project is to increase the existing supply of multi-unit housing;

b) the remainder of the above-noted staff report, BE RECEIVED;

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

  • a communication dated February 16, 2026, from C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.

Motion Passed

8.1.16   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Deferred Matters List, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (3.5) 550 Ridout Street North & 82-90 Kent Street - OZ-25152 (Relates to Bill No. 105 and 123)

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 Ridout and Kent Block Inc. relating to the property located at 550 Ridout Street North & 82-90 Kent Street:

a) the by-law, as appended to the Council Agenda BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, 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 Neighbourhoods Place Type, permitting a 30 storey apartment building, and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b) the by-law, as appended to the Council Agenda BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, 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 the above-noted part a), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R-10/Office Conversion (R10-3*H24/OC7) Zone TO a Residential R10 Special Provision (R10-5(_)D1350H100) Zone, permitting the development as proposed;

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:

  • J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture;

  • J. Tysman;

  • M. Blake Rose;

  • A.M. Valastro;

  • M.A. Hodge;

  • R. Summerville;

  • O. Juwah; and,

  • J. Gasior;

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

  • a communication dated February 7, 2026, from R. Keene;

  • a communication dated February 3, 2026, from S. Agranove;

  • a communication dated February 4, 2026, from B. Benedict;

  • a communication dated February 18, 2026, from A. Soufan, President, York Developments;

  • a communication dated February 13, 2026, from R. Sovorov;

  • a communication dated February 16, 2026, from H. Elmsie;

  • a communication dated February 13, 2026, from R. Hajimirzakhani;

  • a communication dated February 8, 2026, from S. Tyson; and,

  • a communication dated February 11, 2026, from The Woodfield Community Association Executive;

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

  • downtown revitalization depends on increasing residential and employment density to support economic vitality and municipal initiatives;

  • the site is within close proximity to existing 40- and 29-storey buildings, establishing an appropriate tall-building context;

  • Richmond Street (primary transit corridor) is approximately one block away; Dundas Street is approximately three blocks away;

  • downtown Height Guidelines permit significantly greater building heights on the opposite side of Kent Street, immediately adjacent to the subject lands; and,

  • the proposed 30-storey height is appropriate within the existing and planned context and supports downtown intensification, walkability, and access to services;

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. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE AMENDED to add new parts to read as follows:

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

i) provide a landscape design including a minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

ii) investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof of the building;

iii) investigate air source heat pump options; and

iv) utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

d) that the Applicant BE REQUESTED to prepare a tenant relocation plan specifically addressing matters set out in the communication on the Added Council Agenda, dated February 25, 2026, from A. Soufan, President, York Developments.

it being noted that the applicant has indicated in the communication on the Added Council Agenda, dated February 25, 2026, from A. Soufan, President, York Developments, that they are proposing a privately owned, public park at 565 Ridout Street North and at such time when the site plan is submitted for 550 Ridout Street North, the park at 565 Ridout Street North should be included as part of the site plan and part of the overall development agreement process.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part to read as follows:

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

i) provide a landscape design including a minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

ii) investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof of the building;

iii) investigate air source heat pump options; and

iv) utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the motion BE AMENDED to add new parts to read as follows:

d) that the Applicant BE REQUESTED to prepare a tenant relocation plan specifically addressing matters set out in the communication on the Added Council Agenda, dated February 25, 2026, from A. Soufan, President, York Developments.

it being noted that the applicant has indicated in the communication on the Added Council Agenda, dated February 25, 2026, from A. Soufan, President, York Developments, that they are proposing a privately owned, public park at 565 Ridout Street North and at such time when the site plan is submitted for 550 Ridout Street North, the park at 565 Ridout Street North should be included as part of the site plan and part of the overall development agreement process.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

At 2:56 PM, Chair Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, places Councillor H. McAlister in the Chair.

At 3:00 PM, Chair Deputy Mayor S. Lewis resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Franke

That item 10, clause 3.5, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Item 10, clause 3.5, 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 Ridout and Kent Block Inc. relating to the property located at 550 Ridout Street North & 82-90 Kent Street:

a) the by-law, as appended to the Council Agenda BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, 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 Neighbourhoods Place Type, permitting a 30 storey apartment building, and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b) the by-law, as appended to the Council Agenda BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, 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 the above-noted part a), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R-10/Office Conversion (R10-3*H24/OC7) Zone TO a Residential R10 Special Provision (R10-5(_)D1350H100) Zone, permitting the development as proposed;

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

i) provide a landscape design including a minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

ii) investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof of the building;

iii) investigate air source heat pump options; 

iv) utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard; and

d) that the Applicant BE REQUESTED to prepare a tenant relocation plan specifically addressing matters set out in the communication on the Added Council Agenda, dated February 25, 2026, from A. Soufan, President, York Developments.

it being noted that the applicant has indicated in the communication on the Added Council Agenda, dated February 25, 2026, from A. Soufan, President, York Developments, that they are proposing a privately owned, public park at 565 Ridout Street North and at such time when the site plan is submitted for 550 Ridout Street North, the park at 565 Ridout Street North should be included as part of the site plan and part of the overall development agreement process.

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:

  • J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture;

  • J. Tysman;

  • M. Blake Rose;

  • A.M. Valastro;

  • M.A. Hodge;

  • R. Summerville;

  • O. Juwah; and,

  • J. Gasior;

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

  • a communication dated February 7, 2026, from R. Keene;

  • a communication dated February 3, 2026, from S. Agranove;

  • a communication dated February 4, 2026, from B. Benedict;

  • a communication dated February 18, 2026, from A. Soufan, President, York Developments;

  • a communication dated February 13, 2026, from R. Sovorov;

  • a communication dated February 16, 2026, from H. Elmsie;

  • a communication dated February 13, 2026, from R. Hajimirzakhani;

  • a communication dated February 8, 2026, from S. Tyson; and,

  • a communication dated February 11, 2026, from The Woodfield Community Association Executive;

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

  • downtown revitalization depends on increasing residential and employment density to support economic vitality and municipal initiatives;

  • the site is within close proximity to existing 40- and 29-storey buildings, establishing an appropriate tall-building context;

  • Richmond Street (primary transit corridor) is approximately one block away; Dundas Street is approximately three blocks away;

  • downtown Height Guidelines permit significantly greater building heights on the opposite side of Kent Street, immediately adjacent to the subject lands; and,

  • the proposed 30-storey height is appropriate within the existing and planned context and supports downtown intensification, walkability, and access to services;

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

8.1.11   (3.6) Additional Residential Unit Permissions - Z-25159 (Relates to Bill No. 124)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, further to the direction of the Municipal Council, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the City of London relating to additional residential unit permissions, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 18, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan) to:

a) limit additional residential unit(s) to a maximum of two (2) bedrooms;

b) limit the total number of bedrooms to a maximum of three (3) in all additional residential units located within or attached to the main building;

c) limit the total number of bedrooms to a maximum of three (3) in all additional residential units located within an accessory building; and,

d) limit any additional residential unit to not exceed 80% of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit, excluding common or shared utility areas;

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;

  • M. Moussa; and,

  • M.A. Hodge;

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

  • the recommended amendments would be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the general intent of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Policy 942; and,

  • the recommended amendment will allow for intensification in neighbourhoods, consistent with Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability;

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 3:38 PM, Councillor E. Peloza leaves the meeting.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, at the direction of the Municipal Council, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the City of London relating to additional residential unit permissions:

a) the proposed, attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on March 3, 2026 to amend By-law No. C.P.-1600-300 entitled “A by-law to establish interim control provisions for the City of London restricting additional residential units containing more than two bedrooms on all lands within the City boundary” to set the date of expiry to be March 3, 2026;

b) the revised, attached by-law, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on March 3, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan to: 

i) limit additional residential unit(s) to a maximum of two (2) bedrooms;

ii) limit the total number of bedrooms to a maximum of three (3) in all additional residential units located within or attached to the main building; 

iii) limit the total number of bedrooms to a maximum of three (3) in all additional residential units located within an accessory building; 

iv) limit any additional residential unit to not exceed 80% of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit, excluding common or shared utility areas; and

c) the staff report to the Planning and Environment Committee dated February 18, 2026 BE RECEIVED to fulfill Municipal Council’s direction on November 4, 2025 that a land use study be undertaken in regard to appropriate restrictions for the use of Additional Residential Units within the City of London in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning Act, 1990;

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:

  • M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  • M. Moussa; and,

  • M.A. Hodge;

it being noted that the Municipal Council approves the above noted amendments for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendments would be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the general intent of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Policy 942; and,

  • the recommended amendment will allow for intensification in neighbourhoods, consistent with Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability;

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 1)

8.1.13   (4.1) Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillors P. Cuddy and C. Rahman - Zoning By-law Amendment - Parking Changes

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a zoning by-law amendment that includes the following:

a) make all necessary zoning by-law changes to establish an updated minimum parking requirement for all residential developments to a minimum of 1 parking space for each residential unit, while providing exemptions for those developments that have an affordable housing agreement with the City of London, or those developments located in Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and recommendations for other potential exemptions;

b) amend section 4.19.6) h) I) to allow a maximum driveway width of 6m on lots with a lot width of up to 12m and to allow a maximum driveway width of 9m on lots greater than 12m;

c) amend section 4.19.4) c) to permit parking in the front or exterior side yard on a driveway that may not lead to another parking area within the R1, R2, R3, R4 and R11 Zones; and,

d) amend section 4.37.8 to remove the prohibition on a new additional driveway in association with an additional residential unit;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace and M.A. Hodge, with respect to this matter was received;

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

  • a communication dated February 15, 2026, from A.M. Valastro;

  • a communication dated February 13, 2026, from C. Butler;

  • a communication dated February 13, 2026, from D. Hyland; and,

  • a communication dated February 16, 2026, from M. Horak.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Lewis

That part b) and c) of the motion BE AMENDED to read as follows:

b) amend section 4.19.6) h) I) as it applies to lands outside of Western University Near Campus Neighbourhood to allow a maximum driveway width of 6m on lots with a lot width of up to 12m and to allow a maximum driveway width of 9m on lots greater than 12m;

c) amend section 4.19.4) c) as it applies to lands outside of the Western University Near Campus Neighbourhood to permit parking in the front or exterior side yard on a driveway that may not lead to another parking area within the R1, R2, R3, R4 and R11 Zones;

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

At 3:53 PM, Chair Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 4:00 PM, Chair Deputy Mayor S. Lewis resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion BE AMENDED by adding a new part e) and f) to read as follows:

e) to map the relative availability of on-street parking in different parts of the city and evaluate on street parking capacity to determine if on-street parking can be absorbed in areas;

f) to explore best practices for spatially differentiated policies, and report back about options (including but not limited to policies that can link any minimum parking requirements for larger, higher-density developments to site-specific characteristics such as the proximity of public transit, the zoning designation of the site, and the availability of on-street parking);

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

At 4:19 PM, Chair Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 4:24 PM, Chair Deputy Mayor S. Lewis resumes the Chair.

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That parts b) and c), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That parts a) and d), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Item 13, clause 4.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a zoning by-law amendment that includes the following:

a) make all necessary zoning by-law changes to establish an updated minimum parking requirement for all residential developments to a minimum of 1 parking space for each residential unit, while providing exemptions for those developments that have an affordable housing agreement with the City of London, or those developments located in Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and recommendations for other potential exemptions;

b) amend section 4.19.6) h) I) as it applies to lands outside of Western University Near Campus Neighbourhood to allow a maximum driveway width of 6m on lots with a lot width of up to 12m and to allow a maximum driveway width of 9m on lots greater than 12m;

c) amend section 4.19.4) c) as it applies to lands outside of the Western University Near Campus Neighbourhood to permit parking in the front or exterior side yard on a driveway that may not lead to another parking area within the R1, R2, R3, R4 and R11 Zones; and

d) amend section 4.37.8 to remove the prohibition on a new additional driveway in association with an additional residential unit;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace and M.A. Hodge, with respect to this matter was received;

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

  • a communication dated February 15, 2026, from A.M. Valastro;

  • a communication dated February 13, 2026, from C. Butler;

  • a communication dated February 13, 2026, from D. Hyland; and,

  • a communication dated February 16, 2026, from M. Horak.

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Stevenson

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

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 4:30 PM and reconvenes at 4:45 PM.

His Worship, the Mayor J. Morgan leaves the meeting at 4:30 PM

8.2   3rd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2026-02-17 CPSC Report

Motion made by J. Pribil

That the 3rd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 4 (2.5), 5 (2.6), 8 (2.4) and 9 (4.1).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Pribil

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Pribil

That the 1st Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on January 22, 2026, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Municipal Alcohol Management Policy (Relates to Bill No. 109)

Motion made by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 17, 2026 related to the Municipal Alcohol Management Policy:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to adopt the Municipal Alcohol Management Policy as appended to the above-noted by-law; and,

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.7) Housing Stability Services - Built for Zero Data Sharing Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 96)

Motion made by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 17, 2026, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to:

a)    AUTHORIZE and APPROVE the Data Sharing Agreement between the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness (CAEH) and The Corporation of the City of London, as appended to the above-noted by-law;

b)    DELEGATE to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designate, authority to undertake all administrative acts necessary in connection with the Agreement approved under section a) above, including approving renewals and amendments, on the condition that:

  •    no additional funding is required or, if required, is provided for in the City’s current budget; and,

  •    there is no increase in indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London; and,

c)    AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement and amending agreements.

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.3) Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report

Motion made by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Managers of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services and Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated February 17, 2026, with respect to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the communication from B. Samuels, as appended to the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

That it BE NOTED, pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Council Agenda was approved through consensus, to provide for items 9 (4.1) and 8 (2.4) in the 3rd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, to be considered before items 5 (2.6) and 4 (2.5).

8.2.9   (4.1) Request for Reimbursement for Private Property Cleaning and Graffiti Removal Services

At 4:59 PM, Chair Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 5:01 PM, Chair Deputy Mayor S. Lewis resumes the Chair.

Motion made by J. Pribil

That the communication dated February 5, 2026, from K. Morrison, Old East Village Business Improvement Area, with respect to a Request for Reimbursement for Private Property Cleaning and Graffiti Removal Services BE REFERRED to the next Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee meeting for consideration;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from D. Brown and W. Thomas, Midtown Community Organization, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Failed (5 to 8)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to immediately reimburse the Old East Village BIA in the amount of $14,152.33 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for previously expended costs related to private property clean-ups, graffiti removal, and enhanced safety and security measures.

it being noted a communication from K. Morrison, Old East Village Business Improvement Area, with respect to a Request for Reimbursement for Private Property Cleaning and Graffiti Removal, was received.

it being further noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from D. Brown and W. Thomas, Midtown Community Organization, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

8.2.8   (2.4) Residential Rental Unit Licensing (RRUL) License Display

Motion made by J. Pribil

That pursuant to section 19.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Community and Protective Services Committee was unable to reach a majority decision on this matter, and it is being reported to the Council without a recommendation and shall be deemed to be in the possession of the Council for its disposition.

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the findings of Civic Administration regarding the advisability of amending the Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law CP-19, as requested by Council on August 26, 2025, BE RECEIVED for information, and that no further action BE TAKEN.

it being noted that communications from the following individuals, as appended to the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, were received:

  •    S. Mcfarlane;

  •    S. Cowan;

  •    C. Mettler;

  •    P. Cleary;

  •    K. Kaisar;

  •    E. Dell;

  •    H. Anser;

  •    B. Fraraccio;

  •    L. Wright;

  •    L. Huang;

  •    B. Couto

Motion Passed (7 to 6)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

8.2.5   (2.6) 2025 Ontario Works Participant and Service Delivery Profile

Motion made by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report dated February 17, 2026, with respect to the 2025 Ontario Works Participant and Service Delivery Profile, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

At 5:49 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

8.2.4   (2.5) Affordable and Community Housing Update

Motion made by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report, dated February 17, 2026, updating Municipal Council on affordable and community housing within the Service Manager area, including a progress update to the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

8.3   4th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2026-02-24 SPPC Report 4-Complete

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 4th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Corporate Asset Management Policy Review (Relates to Bill No. 107)

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a) the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 24, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend By-law No. CPOL.-389-123 being “A by-law to adopt a Council Policy entitled Corporate Asset Management Policy”, by deleting the current Schedule “A” and replacing it with a new Schedule “A”; and

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement the updated Corporate Asset Management Policy to ensure alignment with Ontario Regulation 588/17 (O. Reg. 588/17), Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure, as amended.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Amendment to Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law (Relates to Bill No. 103)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed amending by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 24, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026 to amend By-law A-62, being “2026-2027 Consolidated Fees and Charges” to establish an increase to user fees as outlined in the “Business Case P-19 – Recreation & Sport Additional User Fee Revenue Generation” included in the Mayor’s 2026 Budget.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) 2026 Assessment Growth Funding Allocation

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2026 Assessment Growth Funding Allocation Report BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications dated February 20, 2026 from C. Butler and February 19, 2026 from J. Bates, General Manager, London Region Manufacturing Council with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal delegation from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (4.1) London UNESCO City of Music Action Plan 2021-2025 Update

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to London UNESCO City of Music Action Plan 2021-2025 Update:

a)   the above noted report BE RECEIVED;

b)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to align future planning and implementation efforts under the new Economic Development Strategy and the new Downtown Plan to identify and advance opportunities for better leveraging London’s UNESCO City of Music designation as a catalyst for downtown vibrancy, creative sector growth, cultural tourism, talent attraction and diversification of the regional economy through strengthened partnerships and coordinated investment; and

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee regarding the London UNESCO City of Music Action Plan and the preparation of the 2027 renewal submission, including the following questions and issues:

i) improving alignment between public perceptions and expectations and the purposes and objectives of the UNESCO City of Music program;

ii) developing a strategy to address the need for additional program space, particularly in light of high commercial vacancy rates in the downtown core;

iii) identifying potential sources of funding to support UNESCO City of Music program activities;

iv) providing further detail regarding the purpose, goals, structure, and implementation of Creative Sector Incubation Hubs;

v) strengthening strategies for public participation and engagement in the Action Plan and 2027 renewal process, including consideration of a dedicated “Get Involved” webpage, public participation meetings, community forums, and other outreach initiatives; and

vi) addressing ongoing governance and organizational matters related to the administration and leadership of the UNESCO City of Music program;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications dated February 20, 2026 from B. Samuels, February 21, 2026 from W. Thomas and D. Brown, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization and February 23, 2026 from Councillor S. Trosow  with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the attached presentation from the Director, London Music Office with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (4.2) Special Meeting of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. for Articles of Incorporation Update and CMHC Affordable Housing Fund Loan Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 101 and 102)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the Affordable Housing Fund Loan Agreement between London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. (“LMCH”) and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (“CMHC”):

a) the communication from London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc., as appended to the staff report dated February 24, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED for information;

b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report as Appendix “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to:

i)    ratify the special resolution of the sole shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. to authorize the amendment of the articles of incorporation;

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the special resolution of the shareholder;

c) the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report as Appendix “C”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to:

i) ratify the resolution of the sole shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. to approve LMCH taking on debt by entering into a loan agreement with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for $29,017,950;

ii) authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the resolution of the shareholder;

d) LMCH BE AUTHORIZED by the City, as Service Manager under the Housing Services Act, 2011, to mortgage its property at located 955 Southdale Road to secure the CMHC loan of $29,017,950;

e) the previously approved and forecasted municipal funding for capital project PH2640 – Regenerating Public Housing Plan BE MAINTAINED, it being noted that the municipal funding freed up through the approval of funding from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be utilized by London & Middlesex Community Housing to advance the next master regeneration plan project: and

f) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts, including but not limited to capital budget adjustments, required in connection with this approval,  it being noted that the City Treasurer has calculated an updated debt and financial obligation limit for The Corporation of the City of London in accordance with O. Reg 403/02, with respect to this loan agreement, and has determined that the estimated annual amount payable does not exceed the debt and financial obligation limit of the Corporation of the City of London.

Motion Passed

8.4   4th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2026-02-23 ICSC Report 4

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 4th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 7 (2.11), 10 (2.2), 11 (2.3), 13 (2.9), and 14 (2.10).

Motion Passed (12 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) LT-2026-037 Limited Tender Co-operative Purchase for Refrigeration Services Provider

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 a Refrigeration Service provider:

a) in accordance with Section 20 (Cooperative Purchasing) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to acquire refrigeration services through the Canoe Procurement Group of Canada (“Canoe”), which has conducted an open and competitive procurement process compliant with applicable Trade Agreements;

b) in accordance with Section 13.3(d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into a Limited Tendering Contract with CIMCO Refrigeration, at pricing and terms established under the Canoe Framework, for a one (1) year, with three (3) additional one (1) year options for renewal, as the supplier awarded under the Canoe framework, without conducting a secondary invitational procurement process; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.4) Traffic Signal Network-as-a-Service Contract Extension

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Limited Tendering (single-source) procurement of traffic signal Network-as-a-Service cellular communication services:

a)    the contract with Desklinx Inc. BE ACCEPTED for a one (1) year term ending April 30, 2027, at an estimated annual cost of $247,817.20 (excluding HST) in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 13.3 iii) (e);

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

c)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.5) 2025 Administrative Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No. 110)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026 for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (PS-114) with respect to the 2025 administrative amendments.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.6) Limited Tender Procurement – Consulting Engineering Assignment – Gordon Avenue Local Sewer Project

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consulting engineer for consulting services for the detailed design and contract administration for the Gordon Avenue Local Sewer project:

a) Archibald, Gray & McKay (AGM) Engineering Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers in the amount of $339,345.00, including contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 13.3 iii (a) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b) the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report”, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026, as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.7) By-law to Delegate Authority for Producer Responsibility Organization Agreements in Waste Management (Relates to Bill No. 99)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A”, being “A by-law to delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure or their designate to negotiate, execute and enter into any new service agreements or amending existing service agreements with any Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) administering Extended Producer Responsibility programs”; pursuant to the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 or any regulations under this Act BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.12) 2025 Drinking Water Annual Report and Summary Report for the City of London Drinking Water System

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Water & Wastewater, the 2025 Drinking Water Annual Report and Summary Report for the City of London Drinking Water System BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.14) Municipal Capital Facility Designation

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the necessary by-law(s) and associated agreement(s) to designate Unit L135 at 1680 Richmond Street as a Municipal Capital Facility for the term of the lease between the London Police Services Board, KS Masonville Inc. and CF/Realty Holdings Inc., by their authorized agent The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited, it being noted that a municipal facility related to policing is a prescribed class of municipal capital facilities under Ontario Regulation 603/06: Municipal and School Capital Facilities – Agreements and Tax Exemptions.

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (2.8) Restricted Acts of Council after Nomination Day and Voting Day

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the staff report dated February 23, 2026 to delegate certain authority, should Municipal Council’s actions be restricted after Nomination Day and/or Voting Day in 2026 BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee with definitions in section 2.3 of Schedule 2 for “short-term service” and “as needed”; and details of reporting as outlined in section 3.1, including rationale, contract details, and any other relevant information.

Motion Passed

8.4.15   (2.13) Update to Council Policy - Travel and Business Expenses (Relates to Bill No. 108)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 23, 2026:

a) the proposed by-law, appended as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend By-law No. CPOL.-227-479, being “A by-law to revoke and repeal Council policy related to Travel & Business Expenses and replace it with a new Council policy entitled Travel & Business Expenses,” to repeal and replace Schedule “A” to the by-law; and,

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare two separate policies: one governing Travel and Business Expenses for Civic Administration, and a second governing Travel and Business Expenses for Members of Council, and report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee with the proposed policies.

Motion Passed

8.4.16   (4.1) Traffic Calming - Councillor C. Rahman

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to petitions and requests for traffic calming measures on neighbourhood connectors and neighbourhood streets:

a)    review and report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on:

i)  a jurisdictional scan of peer municipalities’ processes for receiving traffic calming petitions and requests, including how those processes are communicated to residents;

ii) an assessment of how the City of London communicates with residents who submit traffic calming petitions or requests, with a view to improving clarity around the process and providing timely information updates;

iii) options to improve the quality and frequency of information reported to Council Members regarding traffic calming requests received, studies undertaken, and upcoming projects within their ward;

b)    provide updates to the Councillors and committee on approved traffic calming projects, the completion of a project, and any other pertinent information; and,

c)    report back on any recommendations for additional resources;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard a verbal delegation from Brendon Samuels; Dan Cameron, Advocates for Calmer Traffic in Old North (ACTION); and Carrie L. Mitchell, Associate Professor, School of Planning, University of Waterloo, Fellow, Balsillie School of International Affairs with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.11) Fiber Connect 3 (FC3) - Municipal Access Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 100)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Municipal Access Agreement with Fiber Connect 3 (FC3);

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026 for the purpose of approving the Municipal Access Agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and Fiber Connect 3 (FC3), substantially in the form, as appended to the staff report and satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Municipal Access Agreement on behalf of the municipality; and,

c)    the agreement BE ADOPTED as the City’s model Municipal Access Agreement for telecommunications carriers licensed under the Federal Telecommunications Act that operate within the City.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the motion BE AMENDED to read as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Municipal Access Agreement with Fiber Connect 3 (FC3);

a)    the revised by-law, as appended to the Council Agenda BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026 for the purpose of approving the Municipal Access Agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and Fiber Connect 3 (FC3), substantially in the form, as appended to the staff report and satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Municipal Access Agreement on behalf of the municipality; and,

c)    the agreement BE ADOPTED as the City’s model Municipal Access Agreement for telecommunications carriers licensed under the Federal Telecommunications Act that operate within the City.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by H. McAlister

That item 7, clause 2.11, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Item 7, clause 2.11, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Municipal Access Agreement with Fiber Connect 3 (FC3);

a)    the revised by-law, as appended to the Council Agenda BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026 for the purpose of approving the Municipal Access Agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and Fiber Connect 3 (FC3), substantially in the form, as appended to the staff report and satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Municipal Access Agreement on behalf of the municipality; and,

c)    the agreement BE ADOPTED as the City’s model Municipal Access Agreement for telecommunications carriers licensed under the Federal Telecommunications Act that operate within the City.

8.4.10   (2.2) Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Green Municipal Fund Agreement for Accelerating Community Energy Systems (Relates to Bill No. 97)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to:

a)    APPROVE the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement, CORE-25-0485, (“Agreement”) between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (“FCM”) and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding for studying the potential of net-zero community energy in London, Ontario, as appended to the staff report as Schedule “1”;

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

c)    AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, as the Duly Authorized Officer to approve and execute any forms or documents on the City’s behalf necessary to fulfill the City’s reporting obligations under the Agreement.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

8.4.11   (2.3) Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Green Municipal Fund Agreement for Municipal Fleet Decarbonization Feasibility Study (Relates to Bill No. 98)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to:

a)    APPROVE the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement, CORE-24-0309, (“Agreement”) between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (“FCM”) and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding for studying the feasibility of municipal fleet electrification in London, Ontario, as appended to the staff report as Schedule “1”;

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

c)    AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, as the Duly Authorized Officer to approve and execute any forms or documents on the City’s behalf necessary to fulfill the City’s reporting obligations under the Agreements.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

8.4.13   (2.9) Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2025-223 Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2A – Wilkins Street to Baseline Road

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contracts for Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2A – Wilkins Street to Baseline Road; it being noted that in accordance with Section 12.4.1 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Request for Tender (RFT) contract awards greater than $6,000,000 require approval of City Council:

a)    the bid submitted by J-AAR Civil Infrastructures Limited at its tendered price of $24,990,163.55 excluding HST, for the Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2A – Wilkins Street to Baseline Road project, BE ACCEPTED; it also being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Civil Infrastructures Limited was the lowest of three (3) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the construction inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $2,757,605.20 excluding HST, in accordance with Section 13.3 iii) (a) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the “Sources of Financing Report”, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026, as Appendix “A”;

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

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2A – Wilkins Street to Baseline Road contract;

f)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender RFT-2025-223); and,

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

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

8.4.14   (2.10) Limited Tendering and Cooperative Procurement - LTC Purchase of Nine New Buses

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to funding for the purchase of new London Transit Commission buses:

a)    approval BE GIVEN to finance the London Transit Commission purchase of nine 60-foot buses required for the East London Link corridor of the new Rapid Transit network, exercising the Limited Tendering provisions in accordance with section 13.3 iii (a) and (e), and 20.0 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, for a total estimated price of $14,349,600 (excluding HST);

b)    the financing for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026, as Appendix “A”;

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

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

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.5   5th Report of the Special Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2026-03-02 Special Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee Report

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 5th Report of the Special Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act Report for Calendar Year 2025

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act Report for Calendar Year 2025 BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

8.6   1st Report of the Audit Committee

2026-02-25 Audit Report 1

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That the 1st Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 6 (4.4).

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.6.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (1.2) Election of Vice Chair for the term ending November 15, 2026

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That Councillor S. Stevenson BE APPOINTED Vice Chair for the term ending November 15, 2026.

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (4.1) Request for Proposals for Internal Audit Services

Motion made by S. Stevenson

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

a)    the report dated February 25, 2026 titled “Request for Proposals for Internal Audit Services which outlines the scope of work including timelines and general parameters to be the basis of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for internal audit services BE RECEIVED;

b)    the scope of work, requirements and deliverables including expectations of the successful proponent and general parameters described in this report for inclusion in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for internal audit services BE ENDORSED; 

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with the development and issuance of an RFP for internal audit services based on the scope of work identified in part b) above; 

d)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to establish an additional meeting of the Audit Committee in May 2026 to complete the RFP Interviews with the short-listed proponents; and

e)    the striking of an Internal Audit Services Evaluation Committee BE APPROVED consisting of the following positions: Audit Committee Chair (or delegate); Audit Committee Vice Chair; a representative from the City Manager’s office and from the Finance Supports Service area; Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports; with support by appropriate members of the Civic Administration including Procurement and Supply.

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (4.2) Audit Planning Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2025

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Audit Planning Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2025 - KPMG:

a)  the KPMG Audit Planning Report, for the year ending December 31, 2025, BE APPROVED; and

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a briefing note including projected and actual fees and provide such information to a future meeting of the Audit Committee, and continue to do so on an annual basis.

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (4.3) London Downtown Closed Circuit Television Program for the Year Ending December 31, 2025

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That the KPMG Report on Specified Auditing Procedures for the London Downtown Closed-Circuit Television Program, for the year ending December 31, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.7   (4.5) Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard - MNP:

a)  the communication from MNP, with respect to the internal audit follow up activities update dashboard, BE RECEIVED; and

b)  MNP as the Internal Auditor BE DIRECTED to update the following in the Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard:

i) maintain the status of the London Housing Development Projects – Tenant Profile Considerations as “On Track to Completion” until the tenant transition plan is communicated to Council; and

ii) maintain the status of the Homelessness Value for Money Audit (Phases 1 and 2) as “On Track to Completion” until the tenant transition plan is communicated to Council.

Motion Passed

8.6.8   (4.6) City of London Internal Audit - Community Improvement Plans Audit

Motion made by S. Stevenson

The communication dated February 12, 2026 from MNP regarding the City of London Internal Audit - Community Improvement Plans Audit BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.9   (4.7) Housing and Homelessness Value-for-Money (VFM) Audit Supplemental Report

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That the communication dated February 25, 2026 from MNP with respect to the Housing and Homelessness Value for Money (VfM) Audit Supplemental Report Audit report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.6   (4.4) Summary Update from Internal Audit

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That the communication from MNP, with respect to the summary update from internal audit BE RECEIVED.

At 6:18 PM, Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part to read as follows:

MNP BE DIRECTED to change the submission date for the Privacy Audit from December 9, 2026 to October 7, 2026 and the submission date for the Continuous Improvement Audit from October 7, 2026 to December 9, 2026.

Motion Passed (8 to 3)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That item 6, clause 4.4, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Item 6, clause 4.4, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Summary Update from Internal Audit – MNP:

a) the communication from MNP, with respect to the summary update from internal audit BE RECEIVED; and

b) MNP BE DIRECTED to change the submission date for the Privacy Audit from December 9, 2026 to October 7, 2026 and the submission date for the Continuous Improvement Audit from October 7, 2026 to December 9, 2026.

9.   Added Reports

That it BE NOTED progress was made with respect to the 4th Report of the Council, In Closed with items 4.1 (6.1/4/PEC), 4.2 (6.1/4/SPPC), 4.3 (6.1/4/ICSC), 4.4 (6.2/4/ICSC) as noted on the public agenda.

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 97 and 98, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 97 and 98, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 97 and 98, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 105 and 123, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 105 and 123, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 105 and 123, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.108, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Bill No. 108, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 108, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.109, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Bill No. 109, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 109, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Revised Bill No.124 and Added Bill No. 125, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Revised Bill No.124 and Added Bill No. 125, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Revised Bill No.124 and Added Bill No. 125, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 95 to Bill No. 122, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s 97, 98, 105, 108, and 109.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 95 to Bill No. 122, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s 97, 98, 105, 108, and 109.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 95 to Bill No. 122, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s 97, 98, 105, 108, and 109.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 6:35 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 (5 hours, 43 minutes)

Welcome colleagues, I’m gonna call the fourth council meeting to order and begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, the Haudenosaunee, the Linne Paiwak, and the Adawanda in peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and Silver Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee, Nan Fan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the here on track treaty of 1827, with the Anish inaabic, and the dish with one spoon covenant wampum of the Anishinaabic and the Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are in neighbors to London are the Chippewa of the Thames First Nation, the Oneida First Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, all who continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures and customs.

The City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. And to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at london.ca or phone 519-661-2489 extension 2425. Colleagues, before we begin our formal part of the meeting, it is my pleasure to welcome today our anthem singer. Jeg Kooligan is a Bahamian-born and now London-based recording artist who’s made an explosive impact in the Canadian music scene.

He has crossed several genres with hip hop, utilizing reggae and R&B influences. And since making his way to Canada, he has accomplished many accolades, such as the Sony ATV Songwriter Award in 2016, publications in several local newspapers and radio station interviews, and the passionate hip hop artist plans to bring his message and creativity on tour to further spread his positive message through his music. Please rise and join me in welcoming Jag, who will now perform our national anthem. ♪ A native land with blood in all of us command ♪ ♪ With glow we’ve seen thee rise ♪ ♪ The true north strong and free ♪ ♪ From far and wide ♪ Canada, we stand on guard for thee, by last and free.

Canada, we stand on guard. Canada, we stand on guard. Colleagues, I’m just going to begin by stating the obvious. I am not Mayor Morgan.

I am acting Mayor today as the Mayor is in St. John’s Newfoundland for the FCM Board of Directors. However, I did hear from him an hour ago. He is planning to join us by Zoom.

It’s been an hour so he should have had time to get screeched in because it is after noon in Newfoundland. So we’ll look forward to him joining us online as soon as he’s able to do that. I’m going to begin by looking for any disclosures of pecanary interest. Seeing none, then we will move on to item three.

That’s review confidential matters to be considered in public. There are none. Item four. Oh, sorry, I did miss one item.

Number two is recognitions and I believe Councillor Pribble has a recognition to share with us today. I certainly do thank you Chair and it is truly my great honour to stand in front of you and from my colleagues and to all the Londoners to recognize a great Londoner. Sheldon Aaron, a businessman, a philanthropist and a universal respected Londoner passed away on February 20th of this year. Many Londoners knew Sheldon Aaron as the long-time owner of the lamplighter in a premium meeting hotel and banquet facilities in our city.

Others knew him as a residential real estate developer. Mr. Aaron’s most profound and lasting impact in our city, however, was as a philanthropist and a charitable volunteer. Almost every charity in the city is better off for, if not indebted to Mr.

Aaron for his support. From here on University College, the the London Y and YWCA, LHC, the Alzheimer’s Society, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, the London Property Managers Association, the Museum of Ontario Archaeology, the London Jewish Federation, and too many more benevolent and charitable organizations to mention. Sheldon Aaron made the lasting and profound contribution.

His legacy of leadership, entrepreneurship, and philanthropy has simply made London a much better place. I would like to extend thanks and sincere condolences from our city council on behalf of all Londoners to the Eren family on the loss of Sheldon Eren, a man who has truly left a wonderful legacy in our city of London. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pribble.

Not aware of any other recognitions, so we are going to move on to our next item, which is Council in closed session. We do have some items that we need to move in camera in closed session for. We will leave for members of the public who aren’t regulars at our council meeting. We will leave, deal with these in another committee room.

You’re welcome to stay in the gallery. We’ll return when those matters have been disp ensed with. So I’m gonna look for a motion to go in closed session and Councilor Van Mirberg and Hopkins have moved and seconded that. And I will ask clerk to open the vote.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. The reasons are as indicated on the public agenda . Thank you colleagues.

We will move to committee room five for closed session. Please be seated. Okay, all right, we’ll just let everyone know that Mayor Morgan has been able to join us now by Zoom from the East Coast. So welcome Mayor Morgan to the meeting.

Our next item is confirmation and signing of the minutes of the previous meetings, looking for a mover and a seconder. Councilor Van Mirbergen, Councilor Cuddy, any discussion? Seeing none, then we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, that brings us to communications and petitions. As colleagues, colleagues, we’re gonna deal with this in three parts. So first I’m gonna look for a mover and a second er to refer 6.2 through 6.8 all of the communications with the exception of the integrity commissioner report and Councilor Palozas added item. So we’ll look to refer those all to the appropriate items in the agenda.

Do we have a mover and a seconder for that? Councilor Hopkins and Councilor Ferreira, thank you. We’ll look to open the vote on that. Patressant, thank you, closing the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. We will deal with item six. This is the communication from the integrity commissioner report on code of conduct complaints 2025, 04 A, B, and C, and our Ms. Cowan from our integrity commissioner’s offices with us .

So I am going to go to you to provide a verbal presentation to us on this matter. Thank you very much. And good afternoon mayor, deputy mayor, and members of council. My name is Megan Cowan.

I’m a partner at Ayrton Burles LLP. Ayrton Burles is the interim integrity commissioner the City of London, as appointed by Council. As such, we have jurisdiction to review complaints against members of Council made pursuant to the Code of Conduct. As integrity commissioner, we act as an impartial, neutral, and objective investigator.

We neither seek to shelter members from culpability from wrongdoing nor attempt to punishment them when the objective facts do not support a finding of a contravention. We do not work for the municipality. We are an independent statutory officer pursuant to section 223.371 of the Municipal Act, and we report directly to Council. It is in that capacity that we appear before you this afternoon to present our investigative report on the complaints filed against Councillor Susan Stevenson under the City’s Code of Conduct.

I will provide a detailed presentation with respect to the investigative report thereafter. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that members of Council may have as to our procedure. I’ll begin by providing an overview of our investigation. Our investigation was conducted in accordance with our authority as integrity commissioner under the Municipal Act, the city’s code of conduct, and the process and procedures outlined therein.

Three formal complaints were filed with our office in accordance with the requirements set out in the complaint protocol to the code. Those complaints variously allege that the counselor contravened a number of rules of the code in relation to her conduct at the town hall meeting for her Ward 4 constituents held on September 10th 2025 at the Boyle Memorial Community Center and by virtue of comments made to the media with respect to the town hall meeting. Specifically, the complaints alleged that the counselor had moved and touched camera equipment belonging to a member of the audience and asked that individual to stop recording the town hall meeting and had requested that city security staff speak to the same individual to ask them to stop recording or leave the town hall meeting. Now, the individual in question, Mr.

Ben Durham, posted an online video on YouTube titled, “I was forced to stop filming a public meeting, legal or not,” about the town hall meeting. I’ll refer to this as the online meeting commentary, a short from as I’ve done so in the report. The online meeting commentary appears to have been viewed more than 2,000 times on YouTube and garnered a reportedly over more than 1.5 million views on TikTok. It also generated substantial public interest in the town hall meeting.

In the online meeting commentary, Mr. Durham shares a video that he recorded at the town hall meeting and describes his interaction with the counselor. This includes a video of the counselor asking him to stop recording and we did not exceed to the request stopping and moving Mr. Durham’s tripod mounted camera while he continued to film and comment on the interaction on the cell phone camera during the meeting.

The online meeting commentary also contains video captured by Mr. Durham on his cell phone, in which a member of the public advised him that people did not want to be filmed. And finally also captures conversations with an individual identifying himself as a member of city security staff, asking Mr. Durham to stop recording the meeting.

The online meeting commentary received a lot of media attention. In our report at page two, we cite some of the articles that we were made aware of, which reported on the townhome meeting. I’ll now turn to the investigative process itself . Our office received a large number of communications about the town hall meeting in September and October, given the online meeting commentary and the news articles that we cited in our report .

Now, a number of the communications purported to be formal complaints, but did not actually comprise of proper complaints pursuant to the code’s complaint protocol. We believe it’s important to offer those individuals wishing to file a formal complaint an opportunity to do so. Accordingly, we held our initial inquiry in abey ance, so as to allow and address any complaints that would be received in a collective manner. As we set out in our report, this is not an uncommon practice.

Many integrity commissioners utilize such an approach when there are multiple complaints received on the same incident or similar factual circumstances. In order to ensure that the inquiry and investigation proceeds both effectively and efficiently. We ultimately received three formal complaints, which were validly filed pursuant to the code’s complaint protocol. Given the similar subject matter of the complaints, we elected to investigate them collectively to ensure that they proceeded efficiently, while at the same time ensuring that the counselor was afforded due procedural fairness.

As I will describe in further detail shortly, this resulted in us holding the complaints in advance until November when we formally issued a notice of the complaints to the counselor. Now, I’ve set out in my report, I’m gonna briefly touch on some of the summary dismissals that we made early on in our investigative process. Our report provides a detailed overview of our decisions at page four. Briefly, we dismissed complaint A and full as no response to our request for particulars was provided despite repeated requests.

With respect to complaint B, certain allegations were summarily dismissed as they alleged that the counselor had infringed on an individual’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . As we set out in our report, we determined that we did not have jurisdiction to inquire into those allegations as we are not a court of competent jurisdiction. Finally, with respect to complaint C, we summarily dismissed certain allegations, alleging that the counselor had made comments to the media that constituted harassment and created a discriminatory environment for a citizen journalist. I set out our report at page four.

We were determined that the counselor’s comments did not rise to such a level as an necessitated investigation, nor did they contravene rule 7.1 of the code. In particular, we’ve viewed the councilor’s comments as containing her opinion, which we could not validate as either being true or false. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Canada. As such, the code must be interpreted in a manner consistent with this right and in a way that provides as broad interpretation as possible.

Now, members can still be exercising their right to freedom of expression and yet be subject to reasonable limits as that may be set out in law, such as a municipal code of conduct. However, in this instance, we did not view the councilors’ comments as rising as to such a level that would constitute a breach. We therefore duly provided notice of the summary dismissals to all three complain ants. And we also provided notice to the counselor of the complaints and of the summary dismissals.

In our notice to the counselor, we advised her that we would be proceeding with an investigation with respect to her conduct the town hall and whether that conduct contravene rules 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 4.1, 5.2, A, G and 7.1 of the code. And we invited the counselor to make submissions. The counselor wrote to us and requested a very brief extension to provide her submissions, which we duly provided. The counselor ultimately provided submissions to our office that set out in part.

She had made arrangements to record the meeting for her own accurate record of events. She was not aware of any policies that pertain to this matter. She referenced the integrity commissioner’s previous report of December 8th, 2023, by which the city’s former integrity commissioner had set out that posting photos of recognizable individuals on social media fell below the standard expected members of council. Now, in referencing this former integrity commissioner’s public findings on her posting, she noted that once she realized the discomfort of some attendees, quote, “I approached Mr.

Durham and spoke softly and respectfully. I made requests not demands,” end quote. The counselor asserted that she asked Mr. Durham to turn his camera off and he replied okay, but then did not do so.

She stated that it was only after this that she walked over to turn the camera forward the wall as a compromise to allow audio to be recorded. However, Mr. Durham followed her in front of the room while recording her and narrating his actions. As a result, the counselor submitted that she requested Mr.

Durham leave the meeting, quote, in response to the escalation of what I believe to be, quote, a behavior of defiance. In her submissions, the Council are also advised us that she received a number of hateful messages as a result of the online meeting commentary, including a threat against the member of her family. And as a result of the media scrutiny over this matter, she advised that she make necessary arrangements for future meetings. These submissions, in turn, were provided to all the complainant.

One complainant filed apply submissions and one complainant did not. In conducting our investigation, we duly considered all submissions and documentation provided by the complainants and the submissions of the counselor in accordance with the city’s complaint protocol. This included the complaints, all supporting evidence, including review of the online meeting commentary and correspondence with city security staff and news articles, the counselor sworn submissions, one complainant’s reply submissions, correspondence with staff about city’s protocols and processes with respect to town hall meetings and various case law of other integrity commissioners as relevant to the complaint. Given that we held the complaints in abeyance and provided notice to the counselor in November, we duly advise the counselor and the complainants that we anticipated that our investigation would take longer than 90 days pursuant to the requirements in section 7.1 of the code’s complaint protocol.

These individuals were notified of this in December and we advise them that our investigation would be concluded in due course. I ‘ll now turn to our investigative report itself. As with any investigative report, it distills and synthesizes the facts and issues and assesses them against the framework of the code, makes findings and draws conclusions. Our conclusion, based on a consideration of the totality of the evidence submitted to our office, is that the counselor did not contribute in the code of conduct as alleged.

In reviewing the entire matter, we find that the counselor did not contribute in the code by virtue of her conduct at the town home meeting. During our investigation, we made inquiries with staff on the process whereby members of council convene town hall meetings for their constituents. We were advised that no fees charged for the use of this facility. However, we noted that this did not make the town hall meeting a public meeting subject to the requirements of the Municipal Act 2001, including the open meeting rule and other meeting requirements and formalities.

It’s our view that as the organizer of the town hall meeting. That individual had the authority to run the meeting as they deemed appropriate and to address perceived disruptions as they considered to be necessary, including for the comfort of the attendees. We also note that each of the complainants provided addresses which indicated that they did not reside in Ward 4 of the city, as such they did not appear to be constituents residing in the counselor’s ward. This is not to say that they were not entitled to attend the meeting, but simply to indicate that they were not the core group that the town hall meeting was intended to host.

While the complaints and reply submissions rightly draw attention to the fact that at the meeting the counselor moved Mr. Durham’s camera, we found the counselor stated explanation and the video recording of her actions show she moved the camera to the front of the room for the state of purpose of not having attendees be recorded. When the issue escalated and was perceived to be detract ing from the meeting, she asked city security staff to advise Mr. Durham to either stop recording or leave the meeting.

In our view, she was entitled to do so as the organizer of the meeting. She could control the meeting as she considered appropriate. She encountered a difficult situation and attempted to address it. She appeared to be calm when she spoke with Mr.

Durham and requested that he stopped his recording. She also appeared to understand that he would comply with her request, but when he did not, she decided to act on her own and move his camera. Now, while in hindsight, this action might be viewed as inappropriate and dismissive. It is our view that the context is important.

The Councillor sought to find a solution to permit the meeting to continue while also addressing concerns about the recording. That she was clearly frustrated in the moment can be understood given the circumstances. As such, we did not find that the overall comportment of the Councillor at the town hall meeting rose to a level that contravened the provisions of the code as alleged, and we went through each provision of the code at pages 7, 8, and 9 of our report. With respect to the reporting process itself, we duly finalize our report and submitted it to the city on February 24, 2026.

This was done in compliance with our reporting obligations to the city under the Code of Conduct’s complete protocol, section 223 of the Municipal Act, where the the integrity commissioner reports directly to council itself, and is a standard practice amongst integrity commissioners across the province. The report was subsequently published as part of the agenda for today’s public meeting, and at that time the report was made public. Our final report was submitted to the city to fulfill our reporting requirements to council as required by the municipal act. A copy of the final report was not provided to any single member of councilor, including the counselor or attorney person, including the complainants in advance, as this would have contributed our legislative obligations as integrity commissioner.

We note that section 7.4 of the city’s complaint protocol provides that where a complaint is dismissed other than an exceptional circumstances , the integrity commissioner shall not report to counsel. In presenting today to you, we wanted to specifically draw attention to this provision. we viewed the circumstances of this matter as rising to the level contemplated in the city’s code of conduct, given the level of public scrutiny and media attention this matter generated. And we wanted to draw this to council’s attention .

As the investigative process does not always result in a public report in all circumstances, there are many ways in which a complaint process may unfold. And I’ll set out a few examples. First, when a complaint is filed with our office, may be summarily dismissed, and the responding member may never be made aware of the allegations because we determined that the facts on their face as alleged did not demonstrate a breach of the code. Ultimately, a complaint may be investigated and terminated due to the facts not disclosing a contravention.

In such a situation, if a member has been made aware of the process and been involved in it, they will be provided with notice of the termination or summary dismissal on a strictly confidential basis. Alternatively, a complaint may be investigated and it may be found that a member’s conduct did not contravene the code. And we may still publicly report on the matter if our matter viewed as appropriate. As I said earlier, that is expressly such a determination that we’ve made in the matter before you today.

Finally, a complaint may be sustained in whole at which time we would report our findings and make a recommendation to counsel as any reprimand or penalty. That is not the case before you today. As I set out, based on our review of the entire evidentiary record, and for the reasons set out in our report, it’s our finding that the Councill or is not contravene rules two, four, five, or seven of the city’s code of conduct. I’ll speak now to the conclusions and our recommendations.

As Council is the decision-making body for the municipality and is entrusted with enforcing its code of conduct. As we noted, we’ve investigated the complaint and have produced a report that details our findings and conclusion. We have done so in accordance with our authority, mandate, and jurisdiction with an adherence to procedural fairness to all parties, including the counselor and complainants who exercise their right to file formal complaints. Given that we found no contravention of the code, there is no authority pursuant to Municipal Act for counsel to impose a penalty.

This is confirmed by the city’s complaint protocol, which provides if the integrity commissioner determines that there has been no contravention of the code of conduct or that a contravention occurred, although the member took all reasonable measures to prevent it , or that a contravention occurred that was trivial or committed to inadvertence or air of judgment made in good faith, the integrity commissioner shall so state in the report and shall recommend that no penalty be imposed. I’d also like to draw council’s attention today to the divisional court ‘s decision in Asley and town of Hoxbury, which sets out that a council has no power to contest or question the factual findings of the integrity commissioner. Our report is barely merely for informational purposes only. Council has no authority to substitute or question our findings.

This concludes my presentation with respect to the investigative report. I will remain present to answer any questions that members of council may have with respect to the process. But as I said out earlier, I respectfully remind council of the court’s decision in the town of Hawkesbury case I cited and that integrity commissioners factual findings are final and council has no authority to question or substitute our findings and that our report is nearly informational. Thank you very much and I’d be pleased to answer any questions.

Thank you, Miss Cowan. So before we go to questions and comments, I need a mover and a seconder to receive the integrity commissioners report. I move by councilor Cuddy, seconded by councilor Layman. Okay, so that’s on the floor and now we can move to questions and comments.

Councillor truss out. Thank you very much into the chair. I have no intention of questioning any of the factual findings, but I am a little confused about a few things. Am I correct in assuming that you made a factual finding that the Councillor did touch the personal property of the complainant without his consent?

Is that a true reflection of your factual findings? Ms. Cowan. Deputy Mayor, through you, yes, that is not set out in our report.

And you, and furthermore, you did not get to the question of whether or not any damage was done to the equipment. You just said that it was taken. Through you, Deputy Mayor, to answer that question. That was not raised in any complaints set before us, and it was not a lie of issue in our investigation.

Okay, my other question through the chair deals with the matter of freedom of expression. You stated that there was a summary dismissal on the grounds that you do not have jurisdiction over constitutional issues. And I think that’s what you said. No, I’ll repeat that.

Just, you don’t have to answer that. Just correct me if I’m wrong. Furthermore, at some other point, you indicated that the counselor and all members of council are under obligations to follow otherwise what’s in the law, is that correct? And again, this is not a factual question, this is a legal question.

Hey, I will go to Ms. Cowan for that. Councillor Truss, although I will remind you of where at council, so I do need you to stand. So your new chair makes me think I’m a previous group.

That’s okay, listen, I forgot to, ‘cause I’m used to chairing SPPC, not this one, so. But we are at council, so I will ask you to stand . Ms. Cowan, if you can respond, please.

Generally, thank you, through you, Deputy Mayor . The question really was in two parts and referred to two summary dismissals that we made. The first dealt with, there was an allegation and one of the complaints brought to us that the counselor’s conduct had infringed on an individual’s charter rights in the meeting and the way that she addressed and dealt with that individual. And with respect to that allegation, we set out that we had no jurisdiction to find make a finding about that that individual’s charter rights as we were not a court of competent jurisdiction.

So it’s separate and distinct from the social media and freedom of expression issue that I’ll touch on briefly. But I just want to set that out very clearly that there was a specific allegation that the counselor had reached an individual’s charter rights. And we had said that we that a that individual hadn’t raised them with us and we were not a competent court that could apply on that individual’s right. The second part of the question related to the freedom of expression comments I made.

And that was with respect to a separate and distinct allegation made in the complaint that the counselor’s certain comments that she had made to the media, contravened an individual’s, excuse me, and contravened the code of conduct. And specifically it contravened section 7.1 that they were alleged to be harassing or creating an environment that was not welcoming to a public self-proclaimed member of the public acting as a journalist. We, in looking at those allegations, made a comment of determination that in our view, they didn’t rise to such a level as to breach the code of conduct. And I touched there, I’ll bring your attention to pages four and five of our report that goes into greater detail on this.

But essentially, we noted that all members of council have a right of freedom of expression, but that right can be curtailed by the code of conduct. So if comments rose to such a level as to contra vene the code, we could have made a finding that they had contravene the code. In this case, we found that the comments themselves did not rise to such a level, especially as they contain the councilor’s opinion, which we can either validate is being true or false. Through you, Deputy Mayor , I hope that answers the questions.

It’s a bit more nuanced and sort of a two-part answer. Yes, and again through the chair, I’m not questioning your finding that it didn’t rise to the level of etc. What I’m questioning is what I feel is a contradiction between the first statement that we don’t have jurisdiction to delve into constitutional questions, but in finding that it didn’t rise to the level of violating constitutional rights, you necessarily recognized that that was a matter that you were adjudicating. So I think that there is a fundamental disconnect , not one matters of fact, but one matters of law and the interpretation of your jurisdiction.

Is it your position that counselors have, at least for purposes of the code of conduct, the absolute ability to violate people’s constitutional rights and not face repercussions under the code of conduct? Through you, Deputy Mayor, and no, that is not my position or what I ‘ve set out in the materials. We’ve clearly set out that as long as the councilors’ comments did not rise to such a level as to violate the code, we would not make a finding with respect to them. So this does not mean that a member of council can make any kind of expression, you know, carte blanche.

Political expression is protected, but not such a level that rises to a level that would breach the code of conduct. Their integrity commissioner reports that have set out certain comments like those like in support of slavery, for example, while it’s technically, you know, a stated public expression, it is one that it would not be provided and viewed appropriately under the Code of Conduct and the Rice is such a level that that contravenes the Code of Conduct. So I want to be very specific here on the questions and that these are two specific areas. I, with respect to the individual’s charter rights, they, I don’t have any authority under the charter to look into those allegations and that’s what we set out on the report.

With respect to the counselor’s rights to make public speech, we acknowledge that she has a right to make public speech but it can be constrained by the code of conduct if it rises to such a level that would contradict the code. There’s a distinction and an element there. Okay, thank you very much and I will wrap up. I ‘ve tried to make my point.

I can’t accept this report as it’s written and I do that very reluctantly because I have the the greatest respect for your process and your office and you and what you’ve done. But I think to say that we cannot look at whether or not there’s been a violation of somebody’s constitutional right, I just don’t think that can be right if we’re then going to look at the implications of the violation of that constitutional right in terms of your decision. So I want to be very very specific, my issue with your report is limited to the question of refraining from looking at the issue of whether or not the complainant’s freedom of expression was violated. And I just want to be very clear that I think that is something that cannot be made to go away on jurisdictional grounds.

And I want everyone to understand that, regardless of what the council does with this decision, Mr. the complainants, the issue of whether or not the complainants constitutional rights have not been adjudicated here, and he is free to continue doing that without any type of collateral estoppel or other type of binding effect. But I do think we cannot just sort of close our eyes to whether or not a constitutional right has been impacted, especially if we’re in a public forum, whether or not it constitutes a public meeting within the meeting of the municipal act, it’s still a public forum. And he was told to stop engaging in expressive activity.

And I think it’s very clear from the facts that you recited, which I’m not questioning. The councilors conduct resulted in, whether it was intentional or not, the cessation of the complainant’s ability to exercise his expressive activity under the constitution. And I’ll just leave it at that. Looking for any.

Deputy Mayor, if I may through you, just one kind of— - Ms. Cowan, I’m just going to take that as comment from the councilor. I don’t want to get into, frankly, the two of you cross-examining, cross-debating one another on the finer points of law, or just taking that as comment. There was no direct question there.

And so we’re going to leave it at that. Look for other speakers. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

As I’ve stated, you know, it was, I appreciated going through a process that followed our code of conduct. It shows that it is possible. And I just want to say that I did appreciate that . The issue of the recording, I mean, I fully support being recorded at any point, being used anyway that people want to do it.

When I wanted to livestream one of my town halls, I was cautioned by civic administration that I couldn’t do that, that there were processes that had to be in place in order to do that, and so I didn’t at the time. People are fully like like we know there’s cameras going or phones going at any time. One time I invited the media to one of my town halls and the media was you know they’re well advertised as to who they are. They They also asked me to be sure, was this a public space?

Was it, you know, to just triple check that it was okay that they be filming? And I took the opportunity at the front of the room to make everybody aware that the media was there, that if they didn’t want to be recorded to please let us know, we would put them in a different section. In this case, I was not made aware that somebody was going to be recording the town hall. And when I first saw the camera, I was okay with like I didn’t know who they were, but I just didn’t see a problem with it.

Then I started thinking about it, I remembered the rules, was wondering if I was breaching anything, then I had some residents tell me that they were uncomfortable with it, there was an assumption that it was mine, it was not. I also had invited panelists for the first time, who I had not asked their permission and whether they could be filmed. And that was more important to me. The residents that were there to listen and discuss on topics for which it is very uncomfortable for people.

And there is a lot of retaliation online that puts people’s livelihoods and businesses and family insecurity at risk. I appreciate the report. I appreciate the learning in this. As far as I know, we’ve got some policies in place as a city now to preemptively have practices in place for town halls that cover us from the Civic Administration point of view.

And then I appreciated in this report the fact that it says that I have the right as an organizer to address issues that arise and the discomfort or the comfort of the people who are there. And the people who are there have a right as well to speak about the concerns that they are living with on a daily basis concerns for which there is a lot of retribution at times. And I have done everything that I can since I’ve been elected to create a safe space for people to speak. Those who oppose me, those who want to say things that I oppose, and I’ve encouraged the audience and the people to come and be with each other and to hear opposing views in a respectful place, in a respectful way.

And it has worked well up until this meeting. And when I make a request and someone answers me and says that they’re going to do something and they don’t, and I address it in different ways without being able to address the issue. And at the same time, I’m respectful of the people who’ve come to discuss the issues and listen to the panelists that I had there. So I just wanna be clear that as a politician, you can record me, you can put me on TikTok, can get millions of views, that’s all fair and good.

I have a responsibility as a leader and an organizer of an event to protect the people who come and who listen and want to participate in a free and open space where their rights are protected as well. And that’s something that we may still need to figure out and talk about. How do we balance those rights? And I’m open to working with civic administration and my colleagues going forward.

but I do appreciate this report and the process through which our protocols were respected. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Looking for any other speakers before I call the vote, Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer, Acting Mayor. Follow this one with, I would say, great interest having watched the video online and wait if this report’s realizing we feel a really unique role within our communities. And I hold my own opinions. When I hosted war town hall meeting, it doesn’t matter to me what residents come, which resident, Trump’s another resident.

They’re all Lenin taxpayers. And for me, it never considered one of my public town halls to be a private meeting, realizing how we host things here at the city. And when the city civic administration do pop up meetings for different engagement, I do appreciate the report. And on page 17, acknowledging that the counselor ‘s husband recording, and if people didn’t know that was her husband and underage ahead of time, they absolutely might have questions of who is this person, why can they record and not me?

A question through you to staff. Page 17 is outlining our direction to corporate security, to intervene with it. I did watch the recording of some residents forming a human chain in front of the person recording. Looking for confirmation through you, do we have who controls corporate security events.

Is it under their discretion of how they’ve been trained or counselors have that opportunity to direct them to engage with residents as we seem fit? Or to the I.C. whoever can who directs it? I want to caution that I don’t think the I.C.

can opinion on which staff direct corporate security. But I also want to caution that we are on an I.C. report, not on internal policies. I’m going to allow a little leeway and ask Mr.

Latiser if he can respond briefly. But I need need us to stay on topic, which is the I.C. report, and not on internal policies. Mr.

Lettissure. Through the chair, I can say that corporate security is looking at how we move forward with this information from an internal perspective. Obviously, each meeting presents unique challenges, so obviously that’s something we have to take back. Generally, our staff take direction from whoever ‘s running the meeting, but in the event that that there’s an immediate safety concern and then corporate security would intervene.

So that’s what I can say for now, but we are reviewing how we move forward. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, a more precise follow-up then of page 20 section 51, the conclusion in light of the tensions generated by the recording of the town hall meeting. In our view, being the integrity commissioner’s view, it’d be prudent to identify protocols for future town hall meetings, whereby there is clear in how much meetings will be run and whether individuals will be permitted to record any such meetings.

Looking for you since the IC is with us today, if they could elaborate on that a little bit, or if our staff would be able to walk us through the process, I certainly don’t have a motion prepared today of what better policies and process would look like coming back to council. But definitely that for councilors and members of the public that we both know the direct lines. The next steps. Ms.

Cowan. Certainly through you, Chair, that comment was made in light of the media scrutiny this issue and that there appeared to be uncertainty about the processes and protocols. As integrity commissioner, I can’t speak to city processes, procedures, policies. I’m not the lawyer for the city, but that comment was made given in view of and in light of our investigation, what we saw in terms of the uncertainty surrounding some of these issues, we wanted to draw it to all of council’s attention, which is what we intended to do by paragraph 51 of the report.

Councilor Ploza. Thank you. I appreciate the report looking for transparency and accountability on this as we still use taxpayer funded time to do it and we welcome residents and just make sure that we can all do so across the board. So regardless of what meeting a resident goes to or what councilor is hosting independently or jointly that we know our expectations.

Thank you. Any other speakers? You can make a point of order, Councilor. Is it possible to, I’ve already spoken, so I’m not gonna talk to the merits, but is it possible to pull out a paragraph and say, Vote on that separately because I cannot accept paragraph 20.

No, that point of order is not in order. The report as a whole has to be received or not. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Chair.

So I see we’re talking about kind of two different issues here. We’re talking about whether there was a violation of our code of conduct. And I’ve seen the debate kind of touch into whether there was a violation of someone’s charter of rights and freedoms, freedom of expression. And I do see from the conversation, or what was presented to us from the IC, that they’re not able to rule on a breach of charter rights or freedom of expression.

They’re able to rule and look into whether we breach our code of conduct. And I do see that there was a good questioning from Councilor Trussell on whether that freedom of expression could be, I guess, restricted or inhibited by the code of conduct. So I would point that out. I do see, the IC has said that there has been no violation with the code of conduct, sections two, five, hopefully I wrote this right, right, four, 7.1, but it does seem that there was a freedom of expression violation here.

And I do see that political expression is protected, but it’s not absolute, and I would point that out . We are not protected with absolute privilege. We are protected with a qualified privilege, and that qualified privilege should be shown to be made with no intention or no malice involved or anything like that. And I do see that, you know, just watching the video, there were some areas that maybe weren’t captured ‘cause I do see in the video that the counselor did maybe try to turn off the camera or do something with the buttons on the camera.

I’m not sure. I wanted to know if the integrity commissioner looked into that part ‘cause I do see that there was comments that the camera was turned away. So the audio could still be recorded, but I wanted to know if there was any look into the touching of the buttons on the camera and what was the intent on that? So I will go to the IAC on this once, but I think that this has already been addressed in that they did not look into any property damage or tampering, they just looked at the camera being moved.

But Ms. Cowan, I think you’ve answered this, but I’m gonna allow you to a brief response on this again, but I’m just gonna caution colleagues that I’m not gonna entertain the same question to the IAC over and over from multiple speakers. Ms. Cowan.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, through you. Our report sets out that the allegations that the camera was moved and touched. So both elements were raised with us, reviewed and investigated and commented on our findings in the report at pages four through seven. Councillor Ferrera.

Okay, thank you. So much like Councillor Palose’s comments, you know, when I have a town hall, I open it for everybody. I don’t just have a select view of individuals that are able to attend or record. As far as I’m concerned, as a political official, as an elected official, I assume that everything is being recorded at all times.

And that is just part of the, as part of the gig. So I respect the comments of Councilor Palosa on that one. I would say that I do think that we should always be creating a safe space when we’re having a public forum, especially when it’s being paid for by the tax dollar. And I do believe that when we have a town hall or any type of open forum, that is supposed to be accessible to everybody in the city.

I do see that there’s some restrictions here on how the integrity commissioner can look into matters like this because it seems like we’re really restricted with our code of conduct. I will say that, you know, creating a safe space, like I have been called chicken little online before, and I don’t think that really creates a safe space now as part of the gig, but at the same time, I would rebut some of the comments that I’ve heard when it comes to creating a safe space and really trying to make sure and promote that really exists. I have seen a lot of issues with some of the real levels of transparency, and I do see some restrictions on real accountability. And I do want to see transparency and accountability, but I don’t just want that to be just words.

I’d like to see that be turned into actions. So I do have a little bit of concern with some of the comments that I’ve heard on the reasoning why of what we saw, what we saw. So this kind of leaves me in a weird position because I respect what the integrity commissioner can and can’t do, but at the same time, I just want to put it on the public record that this has nothing to do with the freedom of expression or a charter-right violation. A charter-right violation can only be really seen by within the courts.

The integrity commissioner, it cannot absolve whether this was a charter-right violation itself . It can say that there was no breach of the code of conduct, but I just want to put on the record that there could be a charter-right violation here, and the only real person that can actually oversee and make a decision on that would be the court of law. Thank you, Councillor Ferra, any other speakers before we call the question. Seeing none , I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote.

closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 1. Thank you, colleagues. Moving on, we are still on communications and petitions.

6.9 isn’t added from Councillor Palosa. You have that in your package. So that was in your package. The Councillor’s communication is there.

It’s a personal update from her. The Councillor does have a motion to move with respect to that as she’s indicated. the mayor has issued a strong mayor direction as well in terms of committee chairs to help accommodate this so before we can proceed we need to pursue in section 20.1 of the procedure by-law we need to seek leave for Councillor Pal osa to move a motion related to her communication. This does require two-thirds so I see Councillor Frank and Councillor Layman moving and seconding the request for leave and if I have no speakers I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Opposed, the leaves granted, the floor is yours . Thank you. I want to thank Councillor ramen for stepping up to take on caps.

It is not a late committee, lots happening there. And Councillor McAllister for stepping up to serve as the chair of ICSC. With Councillor ramen moving over, I’m asking that you receive my correspondence. The mayor has already used strong mayor directives to make those two chairs.

Thus opening up a position on ICSC that I would like to fill as I still remain chair of audit and budget, but it’s still like a standing committee to be part of, assuming I’ll mostly be virtual from here, but looking for your support to fill out speed with my name. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Palosa. So the motion in eScribe is that Councilor E.

Pal osa be appointed to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee for the term ending November 15th, 2026 , being noted that municipal council received a March 2nd from Councilor Palosa with respect to this matter . So that’s been moved and seconded. Councillor Frank and Councillor Layman again. So that’s on the floor.

Any discussion? This is with regard to the appointment. Councillor Trussow. This is simply a question.

Does this mean you’re no longer serving as a member of community and protective services committee? ‘Cause I think that could be stated in there for clarity. That is correct. Councillor Palosa will no longer serve on community and protective services.

Her position there was as a result of the mayor’s appointment as chair, with the mayor removing her as chair, replacing her with Councilor Raman, Councilor Palosa is no longer a member of the community protective services committee, hence her request to be appointed to infrastructure and corporate services. Yes, and I think that’s right. Well, I think that process is right. I’m wondering if the motion might be clearer from members of the public who might be wondering if we have an extra person on the committee.

Should it say, and she is no longer a member of the committee as a result for clarity? That would be captured in the strong mayor direction, which is accessible to the public online. My point is that without getting into the technical details of what documents incorporate by reference, other documents that are available online, it might just be clearer for the public trying to understand our process if it just included that extra little subclass. And yes, you’re quite right, that if one wanted to look at the intricacies of the strong air powers and what by virtue happens when those are exercised, you’re absolutely right .

But why don’t we just write into the motion and as a result, she is no longer a member of the CAHPS Committee. And I think it would just assist the public in trying to sort out what’s going on here. And I would request that that be added to the motion. And also move.

Councilor it can be added as in it being noted in checking with the clerk so it being what would the language be? It being noted that Councilor Palosa will no longer be serving on the community protective services committee that would that would take care of my Concern. Thank you. Is there a seconder for that Councilor Ferrera.

Okay, Mayor Morgan I saw your hand go up before the amendments is this on the amendments or do you want to wait? Yes, no, it was on Councillor Trosau’s concern. Okay, go ahead. Yes, given the direction, and I made the direction at the request of Councillor Blosa when she wanted to step down as chair, given the direction I set basically caused the series of events that lead to the request today, for simplicity, and I would ask through you to the clerk, can we just attach the mayoral direction to the council motion, doesn’t it like it’s not being noted but can you just make it part of the poem I mean it’s public record because it’s posted but you know we just attached it to it then everything would be there I’ll leave it with you okay the advice of the clerks is no that’s why he listened to the clerks yes okay on the amendment only any other questions or comments so we’ll open the vote on the amendments to add the being closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 okay so we are on the main motion as amended any other speakers before we vote seeing none then we’ll open the vote closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 Thank you colleagues that will complete the communications and petitions portion of our meeting Moving on notice motions of which notice is given there are none that brings us to section 8 Which is reports and I will turn to Councillor Layman to present the fourth report of the planning and environment committee Thank You chair, I’m pleased to put the fourth report of the planning environment committee on the floor I’m have requests to pull numbers 10 11 and 13.

Okay, so would you like to make a motion to move the rest? Yeah, so I’d like to move items one through nine 12 14 15 and 16 okay, those items are on the floor any discussion seeing none. I’ve asked the clerk to vote motion carries 15 to 0 Councillor Layman. Thank you.

I’ll move Number 10, which is 550 right out street north and 82 90 Ken Street Okay, that’s been moved and Councillor Frank you have circulated an amendment Would you like to rise and introduce that I’d be happy to and not sure if you need three separate motions are just one all together but be nicer to do it all together but I’ll leave it up to you. On the advice of the clerk you can move all three at once. Wonderful and would you like me to read them out loud? If you could please.

Sure okay so the first being a direction to site plan authority so A the site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following issues through site plan process. I provide a landscape design including a minimum 50 percent native species with no invasive species planted. I I investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof of the building, III, investigate air source heat pump options, IV, utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard, then the second being adding direction regarding tenant location so that the motion be amended to add a new part C to read as follows, see that the applicant be requested to prepare a tenant relocation plan specifically addressing matters set out in the communication on the added council agenda dated February 25th, 2026 from ASU fund president of York developments. And the third being, add an it being noted regarding the park.

It being further noted that the applicant has indicated in the communication on the added council agenda dated February 25th, 2026, from ASUFA on President York developments, that they are proposing a privately owned public space pops at 565 right out street north. And at such time when the site plan is submitted for 550 right out street north, the park at 565 right out street north should be included as part of the site plan and part of the overall development agreement process. and I can speak to it if I have a seconder. And the chair is already indicated.

He’ll second that for you. So if you’d like to speak to it, go ahead. Sure. So I wanted to explain my decision-making process because this took a little bit of a pathway for me.

I attended the planning committee meeting but I did not speak at that time. But when the application first came forward, I was not in favor of it moving forward. For me at the time, the drawbacks to the application outweigh the potential benefits And my primary concern being the approximately 30 units currently living on site, many of whom are paying rents between $1,000 to $1,500 range, which is, as we know, below market rate. I was also concerned about the deficiency in green space and whether the proposal was sufficiently balancing the private development return with public benefit.

Since then, we have seen, as on the added agenda, York developments has submitted a letter outlining additional commitments. And the work that I did with this motion was to actually include that in the motion. So that was part of the official record and process. They’re offering relocation plans, either to a comparable unit at a similar price point, either downtown or somewhere else in the city.

Some of their units they have are between $1,000 to $1,500. So it’d be able to be a lateral move. Those units are, some of them are new, some of them are current. So there’s a lot of variety for tenants.

And I called to confirm that they actually had available units, and they said they had about 60 to 70 available within their large portfolio. Additionally, folks would be given $10,000 if they wanted to instead move out and move somewhere else. For the folks who are staying and relocating, they would still get the required three months rent for leaving, which would assist within moving costs. So I also consider that to be somewhat beneficial given the cost of moving as well.

They’ve committed to delivering a privately owned publicly accessible park on adjacent property. So for folks just across the street, they own a parcel of land, and they have agreed to putting a park on that, which would be available actually to the general public. And as we know, downtown, in my opinion, does not have sufficient park space, and they’ve committed to adding some small play facilities as well as benches. And I think that this would actually be an asset to downtown because we lack park space, and it would be provided without the need for public funds.

So those two commitments have meaningfully addressed like earlier concerns about tenant displacement and green space. And while no redevelopment is without impact, these measures demonstrate an effort to mitigate them. Additionally, I’ve included in site plan direction many green measures. Folks are familiar.

I add these to a bunch of different planning applications, although not recently. So maybe getting back into the thick of it. But you can see in regards to native species, renewable sources, air, sort of heat pumps, and bird friendly policies. So additionally, I think that will improve the building composition as a whole.

The remaining tension for me still is the loss of relatively affordable units, which is kind of at odds some days with our clear policy to encourage infill and intensification. And I don’t consider it to be a simple trade off. I think we have to protect affordability wherever possible. But at the same time, we have consistently said that growth belongs downtown.

And I think if we’re serious about intens ification and supporting our transit system and strengthening our downtown, infill in the downtown area, I think is where it is appropriate. I do understand that this specific parcel is allowed to go up to 15, just on the other side of the street. So just south of this property can go up to 22, but then just south of that, on the same block of right out, it can go up to 45. So I understand it’s not in that 45 zone, but I think that’s why they’re coming forward for a ZBA.

And I do think 30 stories is appropriate and consistent with the broader planning framework for the area. But after outlining all of those pros and cons and reflecting on my commitment to intens ification, I think with the additional commitments and including them into the motion, I am supportive of this application overall at this point. Thank you, Councillor Frank. I have Councillor Lehman next.

Thank you. I want to thank Councillor Frank for doing the work here and improving this particular application with some unique features. while addressing the concerns we heard at PEC regarding the folks that live currently in that space, which I was pleased to see. The owner responding with finding comparable spaces are better at the same rent and lease terms that they currently have or at their option, a $10,000 pay-out plus the added that Councillor mentioned.

I also was really interested in the concept of a private park. I think this is a unique thing that we haven’t, I can’t recall seeing downtown and it brings to mind what we see in the other London, London, England, where there’s a number of these smaller privately owned parks that allow for green space in a higher density big city. And finally, with the, you know, the added for native species, et cetera, why can’t we have a properly designed development, even though it’s tall, why do we have to lose those things we can we can have it as well as we do in other building applications so I definitely support this. Thank you Councillor Layman looking for other speakers on the amendment Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you Chair. So I guess the first thing with the site plan this would have to be across the street because there’s no room on the site as it is because you know there’s the setbacks are minimal it’s just it’s it is too big I’ve said this again and again for the tenant relocation part. Now I would say codifying this, does that make a difference? Because the proponent has already said that publicly that they will be relocating the tenants and having a plan.

So if this is something to kind of make this more digestible, I would say this is unnecessary. I would say what do the tenants have to say? Because the tenants for relocation, they may want to stay in place. They may have jobs in the area, it may cost more to move out further out and find other ways of transportation to those jobs.

They may have kids who goes to school in the area, which they do. That will still be an impact on them. Like if this was something that we wanted to move along and codify it, I would say push it a little bit further and not only have a relocation, but it should be a temporary relocation during a build, which I’m still not going to support the application as it is. But it should be a temporary relocation and then a replacement in the same spot.

And maybe that replacement should be with some type of agreement where we would still treat those tendencies under rent control. So they would be able to stay in place and still be able to maintain that rent control, affordable housing, and they would have that confidence in that. I would also say we’re still going to lose affordable housing here. You know, the demolishing of these units will lose affordable housing.

If we move people from that housing into another area, into other affordable housing, not only are they going to be having to be displaced, but we’re still losing that affordable housing. So there’s still issues here. And again, what do the tenants have to say? I would I would just wonder if there is if there is some issues or concerns whether the proponents going to follow through with what they said publicly by codifying this.

And and I would I would just think that you know this is not a necessary thing. I will speak to the application when it comes up I guess I’m as amended. I’m not going to not support this of course but at the same time I don’t think it’s necessary. I would say the site plan has to be across the street.

The building is just too big. There’s no room. There’s no room for anything when it comes to native species, no invasive species plant that I appreciate that. But we just don’t have the room there.

And I would say, again, what do the tenants have to say? Because at the same time, no matter what, if we support this application, we are going to lose the affordable housing. It should be a temporary relocation and a replacement in the same spot. That would be better.

I think. Any other speakers on the amendment? Councillor Trussell. Question on the amendment.

Could the site plan authority be requested to be changed to the site plan authority shall be directed? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair.

So that’s not an option. This is a delegated authority to the site to the approval authority. So you can provide recommendations or request that that be considered, but the authorities with that individual, because that’s what, as per council’s direction. Councilor Trussell.

So do I understand it that if I made such a motion to substitute those words, it would be out of order? That is correct. Then I won’t take people’s time to make that motion. But I will point out, there is nothing binding here.

We’re requesting the site plan authority to do something, and even if they do it, they’re requesting the owner to do it. My next question is, supposing the site plan authority agrees to engage in this process. Is there anything binding in this resolution regarding the owner’s obligation to follow through on the promises that were made? Legally binding.

Mr. M athers. Through the Deputy Mayor, as far as the site plan approval components here, there isn’t anything that’s necessarily legally binding. The site plan approval portion is just the C part.

So those are the items related to site plan approval authority. And then that additional section, it would just really be based on the comments made by the developer at the time and through that letter. But there isn’t anything that we can do from a planning process and a planning act perspective to actually enforce that or force those things to happen. Thank you.

And sorry, Councilor Truss, just before I go back to you there, Mr. Mathers, just going to ask you on follow-up to further expand on your answer. That direction was lost when bonusing was removed by the province. Is that accurate?

Just asking you to confirm there used to be unability, but that was removed. Through the deputy mayor, absolutely there used to be an ability to be able to provide and compel affordable units, but that has been removed from some changes in provincial legislation. Thanks. Councilor.

Thank you. I’ll save my diet tribe about how the province did a real injustice to municipalities by taking that bonus thing away because I’d probably be out of order. So I won’t say that. Okay, here, here I am with us.

I ‘m going to vote no on this project because there’s nothing in these nice things. These, these non obligatory nice things that are binding. These are things that should have been brought forward before, but maybe we didn’t even have the authority to do it. For me, this points to a lot of deficiencies, not only in provincial law, but in the city’s demolition control by law and other things that are beyond this motion.

So I won’t go into detail on. However, I’m going to support the amendment, but I’m going to support it really reluctantly because I don’t really think that it provides the level of protection that not only the tenants in this building, but the neighbors and the city and the city’s process deserves. So I don’t want to say it’s meaningless. That would be too harsh, but it’s not meaningful.

It’s not substantially meaningful. And I will support this. I appreciate the counselor trying to make this a little less worse than it could have been, but it’s still like worse. And I’ll save the rest of my comments for the main motion where I’ll be opposing this application.

Thank you. Well, counselor, if it’s any consolation, rather than having to rule you out of order, I’m always happy to share diatribes about provincial or federal concerns over a pint after a meeting. but I appreciate you restricting it in the meeting and I’m looking for any other speakers. Councilor Raman.

Thank you and through you and in a similar vein , I guess. I just wanted to ask about the it being further noted part where it connects to site plans, whether or not or how that is interpreted, taken forward and addressed. Mr. Mathers or Ms.

McNeely on the it being further noted. through the deputy mayor. So we would of course take that into consideration as it’s part of a council resolution and that we want to try to honor the requirements that then set forth. We would really be relying on the applicant to pursue some of these, this park idea and this item.

So we would help them of course through that process, help them through that process. But again, there’s no way for us to compel that, but we would work with them on that option. And I’m just wondering before you sit down, Mr. Mathers, if in terms of the implementation piece, it would be the registering of a public easement over private lands for the establishment of such park land, is that correct?

Through the deputy mayor. So there might be a few different aspects, but that would be one for sure. Councilor Rowan. Thank you and through you.

So I’m sorry, just in the last part of that, where you said that there was an easement portion . So can I get more clarification on that, please? Ms. McNeely or Mr.

Mathers, whichever one of you wants to take that one. Thank you, through the Deputy Mayor, yes. That’s correct, there would be reciprocal agreements and easements over both the 550 Rideout Street as well as the 565 Rideout Street. Those would be elaborated on through the development agreement, but that would ultimately be registered on title.

So then, but we have to get to that process. And so there may be the liability on the owner, the property owner to take on for insurance and things like that for the public entering onto the property, but that’s not the city’s responsibility. It would remain with the land owner. Councilor Rowan.

Thank you and through you. So I wanna say first, I appreciate the work done by the Councilor on this. And I understand the rationale for what’s in front of us. My challenge is that I don’t believe that we have the tools available to enforce D, nor do I feel that we have enough of an ability to really enforce the it being noted either.

With respect to the easement portion of the discussion, why can’t the it being noted be a conditional clause where the site plan authority can’t grant unless it’s these things are met. Ms. McNeely. Thank you, through the deputy mayor, what’s before council is dealing with his zoning bylaw amendment, not a site plan.

So at this point, that’s why we have to focus on the zoning and it’s not a conditional zoning. There are matters for the site plan approval authority to consider, which are outlined in clause C, but the request for the private park would be a separate request, the obligation on the applicant to follow through . Once the site plan is submitted, then we could tie those parcels together through that process. But as part of the zoning application, we don’t have that mechanism.

Counselor. Thank you. So I guess my issue here is that this part, again , does not feel like it’s firm enough for us to stand on in a way that compels action. And it sounds actually, in my opinion, rather difficult to actually construct and put together.

And instead of creating opportunity for our staff to work with the developer through the site plan process. I feel like some of this may be things that that over complicate the issue, and we’re doing that to fit a larger floor plate and a larger building in place. So I understand the rationale and I appreciate my colleagues doing this work, but for D and the if being noted , I couldn’t support either. So I’d like those called separately.

Okay, we can have the clerk separate C and D and the app being noted into two separate votes. That ‘s not an issue Councilor Hopkins. I have you next. Yeah, thank you.

Mr. Poseidon officer I I want to thank the counselor for doing her due diligence trying to make a some kind of a Consensus for council to support this application . I want to thank the developer as well for bringing forward to you know, supporting tenant location. But we have absolutely no tools through the site plan process to make sure that this goes forward.

So I’ll support the amendment. I’ll speak further on the main motion, but I feel that we’re not at council thinking this through and supporting the community as a whole. and our policies, we’re just sort of doing this with no follow-up, no community participation through this process, which will, this goes forward, drastically change this area. So I’ll support the amendment and I’ll speak further to the motion.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. I’m Mayor Morgan next on the list. I am, however, going to just caution Councillors now that there has been a public process through the public participation meeting at the Planning and Environment Committee. So I wanna reflect that we have followed the legally required public participation process under the Planning Act of the Province on Ontario .

Mayor Morgan, you are next. Yes, thank you, Jared. And not only have we done that, I believe the application has been strengthened through that public process based on the concerns raised. The work that Councilor Frank has done and the proposed amendments before us today.

Listen, I’m happy to join you when you wanna talk about Section 37 Bonusing, but it doesn’t exist anymore. And so, what alternatives do we have? We have the alternatives like the one that’s before us, and is it perfect, and is it 100% binding? No, it’s not, but we have, it is a letter on the agenda that says we’re willing to do these things.

It’s very clear and transparent at a public meeting what they’re offering to do. I’m sure the applicant and their staff are watching this meeting and seeing what council’s expectations are, and they bring a lot of applications through council. So, if we don’t have the legislative tools to enforce, that doesn’t stop us from working with an applicant to get some community trade-offs for increased heightened density through the process that Councilor Frank has pursued. And I think that that is fair for us to try.

It won’t be binding, but it is the best we can do in the interim. So I’m gonna support the amendments. I think that the work is good. I think the changes are great.

And I think it makes the application better. So that’s where I’ll be voting jail to support the amendment. And because the amendment will support the application as well, we’ll get to that debate. Thank you, Mayor Morgan.

Any other speakers on the amendment before we call the vote? And we will call it separately per councilor ram en’s request. We will deal with clause C and the four bullets under that before we move to clause D and the it being further noted. Seeing no other speakers.

This is not a public participation meeting. This is a council meeting. So I’m going to have to ask you to please take your seat back. It’s not a public participation meeting.

The ma’am, I’m gonna have to ask you to leave if you can’t remain quiet. I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote, please. This is on clause C. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, now on clause D from Councillor Frank and Councillor Layman. This is the D, the relocation plan and the being noted on the park plan. The clerk to open the vote.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, so the main motion as amended. Councilor Lehman, you move the original motion. You’re happy to remain on as the mover.

Councilor Frank, are you willing to second? Okay, so we have Lehman and Frank on the main motion now as amended, and I’ll look for speakers. So for Lara. Thank you.

So as was said, that amendment’s not binding. It does point to deficiencies. It is some good PR, but it’s not enough to carry a vote here. I don’t see how this changes anything.

Obviously, I’m gonna support it. Okay, I’m not gonna say it’s meaningless, but it’s not meaningful enough. And I did hear some points about across the street at Ken Street, it’s 22 stories, that’s correct. It’s on the periphery of the downtown place type.

In the core, the TSA five zone, that’s 45, but that’s a TSA four. Can I go to Miss McNeely and just confirm that? What is the height limit across the street of Ken ? Miss McNeely.

Thank you through the Deputy Mayor under the TSA Four Zone, directly across the streets, 22 stories. Councillor Ferrero. Thank you, 22 stories, this is 30 plus one. I did hear from the move on the last amendment that on the other side of Rideout, it was 45 stories.

What’s the height limit of that area? Ms. McNealy. Sorry, could you, through the Deputy Mayor, could you repeat the question?

Councillor. Don’t count that towards my time, please. What’s the height limit on the other side of Ride out? Ms.

McNealy. Through the Deputy Mayor, it’s a varying height from the existing zoning today. I have four stories up to about 12 stories. Councilor Ferreira.

Okay, I gotta clarify that on the record. It’s not 45. Councilor Frank. Thank you.

I said just further south along right out is 45 stories. Not on the other side of right out. Thank you, Councilor Frank. That’s technically a point of personal privilege to clarify your remarks, not a point of order, but recognize Councilor Ferreira, go ahead.

Appreciate that clarification. That just goes to my point, because we’re on the periphery of the downtown place type. So now we’re going to have zoning where we did all this work on how the intensity and height should be, and it’s supposed to go down, and then we’re going to have one big tower, and then it’s going to continue to go down . It doesn’t fit within our planning policies.

I would also say, I wish I saw something like this for the chemistry departments, because there was 11 households displaced there, I heard nothing. The city and the people of London want us to listen to them. They want to know that their council is fighting for them, that their council is holding to their word when it comes to saving supportive or affordable housing, when it comes to making sure that the city is affordable, when it comes to good planning, when it comes to good governance, and when it comes to making decisions that are within the public interest. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a planning report, maybe I’m wrong, say that the proposal, as it is, does not constitute good planning.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a planning document, a planning report, say that the proposal as it is is not in the public interest so I’m just wondering this what we see here the amendment doesn’t change anything the proponent has already said that they’re going to do this and I hear that this is enough to sway us towards supporting the proposal as it is I don’t understand I don’t hear anything I don’t hear anyone saying we need to speak to the tenants or we need to speak with staff you know staff did give us a pathway to approval we’re not talking about that We’re just talking about supporting a building that is way too big for the site that is there. We see a report that says it’s going to push services out to the public space. We see the report also saying that it is not going to be conducive to the walkability, not using the words specifically, but it alludes to that. It does say things about how the frontage is going to be.

If it’s friendly to people walking along on the space, It’s just completely out of proportion for the area. And these amendments aren’t enough to push us into supporting this. We should go back to the proponent and say we have a concern of a loss of affordable housing, a real concern. And if we don’t want to see that loss of affordable housing and we’re trying to find a way of compromise, we should say temporary relocation.

If you have to demolish the building, bring those people back to the building, bring those people back to the site and make sure that they’re still within a rent-controlled agreement and framework so they don’t have to worry because in that case we’re still going to lose the affordable housing but at least we’re not taking over other affordable housing elsewhere and in that case we ‘re not moving people away from where they live. Like this is about where people live, this is about people’s homes, this is about their livelihoods and I think Councillor Trussell said to this there’s a real human cost here and I don’t see that being discussed enough. So I really would like to see us really use our staff expertise, really use what says, what is said in the report and take that direction. 30 seconds counselor.

So I would say the city of London and the people are not going to accept this amendment as a reason to support this application. It’s not binding, it’s already been said it’s going to be done and we’re not pushing hard enough, we’re not fighting hard enough for London. So That’s what I would say to you. Don’t support this application.

Thank you, Councilor Ferrer, looking for any other speakers. Councilor Trossaou. Well, thank you very much. This will be my last word on this matter.

It’ll be the last time we look at this. I guess I have a question for staff. And I wanna go back to your original staff recommendation. If we adopted your original staff recommendation, and that was challenged at the tribunal, would we have a sustainable position or is the original staff recommendation a frivolous position that will be struck down in your view?

And I know I’m asking you for somewhat of an opinion here in terms of what’s likely to happen, but do you think your staff recommendation is viable and sustainable at the level of an appeal? So I’m not going to ask staff to speculate on what they feel they could or could not achieve at the Ontario Land Tribunal. We do not have staff here to engage in a position on debate with us or to answer speculative questions. you will have to make that judgment yourself, counselor, based on the knowledge you have.

In that case, my next question is to direct the same question from a legal point of view to the city solicitor. And if you wanna go into closed session to talk about whether you think the staff recommendation would be viable on appeal, I think it’s something that we need to hear. ‘Cause I don’t think the staff would put forward a recommendation that is reckless and not viable. I will go to Ms.

Pollett to see if she wants to provide any public response to OLT processes. Thank you and through the chair. Staff put forward recommendations using their best professional opinions. What the OLT does with any individual appeal depends on a number of factors.

It’s quite speculative and I really couldn’t predict with any certainty. Councillor. This matter go to the O-O-L-T, how would the city deal with, well, no, cancel, let me just go on to say, I really want to impress the public and my colleagues with the fact that underneath all of this, this is a bad planning application and it should be rejected. Not only that, city staff has given them a path to approval and we’re not there right now, but what was the purpose?

And I asked this every time. What was the purpose of going through this extensive planning process if we say, well, if it was across the street, it would be different. Boundaries are boundaries. I can’t show up on Election Day in Ward 3 and say, well, I live in Ward 4, but I’d really like to vote in Ward 3.

And I’m just across the street, so why don’t you just sort of let me make that make that change. I think boundaries are important and they’re part of the law in terms of what’s in our official plan that went through extensive process and was approved by the province. So I’m urging people to vote no on this application and and again I appreciate the counselor trying to make this a little easier to go down a little easier to take a little and I will say this a little less horrible but not a lot and I say that with respect to the counselor. There’s nothing enforceable here.

There’s nothing that’s going to protect the tenants. I also want to point out in the in the added we have a we have a letter from Borden Ladner and Gorese which I think raises some very excellent legal points. I’m sure all the Councill ors have read that and considered it and that law firm also included a very extensive planning report from Ramsey Planning which I also think I would have preferred to have seen that earlier in the process but it’s here so on our record and I guess the question I have is how can we support this Floyd by the words of our staff, recommendation, and look our residents in the eye and say, you know, when we hold public participant, when we do get involved in public participation sessions and we ask you to come out and get involved in these long processes, at some point people are going to just look us back and say, because whatever we tell you, you’re just going to ignore later when a developer comes to you and says, “Nah, let’s just do this anyway.” Even though it’s not in keeping, even though it’s not in keeping with our policies . And I really wish I could pull back the curtain and see what was going on.

And I’m not making any in situations here. But how did we get to the point of having this plan adopted, having a staff report say no, and having this planning committee, and apparently from what I’m hearing today, the council, say yes, how did we get from one point to another ? It raises serious questions. So in any event, I’ll be absolutely opposing this .

30 seconds, Councilor. And I hope that there are people who have standing who will be able to take this matter up on appeal . I wonder how the city is going to sort of conduct itself at that appeal when you’ve got our staff sort of in line with who the opponents would be if you pass this. And I won’t get into the question of standing at that hearing right now that hasn’t happened yet.

But please vote no on this application. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor. I have Councilor Frank, and then I have myself next.

I’ll, when I do that, I’ll ask Councilor McAll ister to take the chair, since you’re the newest chair of a committee, as of a few, well, a couple of items ago. I’ll ask you to take the chair when that time comes, but I’ll go to Councilor Frank first. Thank you, yes, I just wanna start with a question through you, staff. So at this location, the developer could do 15 stories as of right and kick out all the tenants and demolish it.

I just want to confirm that that’s possible within our framework. Ms. McNeely. Thank you.

Through the deputy mayor, they could build 14 stories with the high density residential overlay from the 1989 official plan. Councilor. Thank you and to confirm then also, there’s no additional requirement for a tenant relocation if they are going with like in this suggested amendment, there is a process and a pathway for that. I’m just wondering if they’re able to do the 14 story one, there is no mechanism for us to enforce that.

Ms. McNeely. Through the deputy mayor under the planning act process, there is none, but the applicant would be obligated to follow the tenancy act. Councillor Frank.

Thank you. So I just wanted to point that out that in this case, I think actually it is better that we have on written record and codified into this language . And I understand fellow Councillors’ perspectives , the inability to further enforce it. I share the same worries.

I, at first, tried to make it a holding provision and then tried to put stuff into the site plan authority and tried to put stuff wherever I could, where there was some sort of staff jurisdiction and oversight. And it being that having it in the motion and having it approved by council in the motion, at least that is a point and a reference point that staff can point back to when they’re discussing the site plan in the next steps with the developer and that if there is staff turnover or if this parcel gets sold, it will carry on with the approval at the motion level. So this was the most I could do and really the least I could do to get it into some sort of formal arrangement. That being said, I do again recognize the concerns that counselors have.

And in that vein, I think it is a struggle for us because we see more and more of these info projects. This isn’t the first one where we’ve seen the potential for displacements of tenants. And in fact, at 145 baseline in my ward, we did add some additional conditions that required the landlord to put in some relocation programming. So this is actually the second one I’ve seen that we’re trying to make do with what we can given the limitations that the province has provided us.

One of the things I do hope to move forward on, I think that will actually help all of us and codify this, is a tenant relocation assistance program. And I think that’s something that potentially we could have a discussion about, having an actual policy in place that we would have to follow and developers would have to follow. We do not have that here right now. Other cities in Ontario do.

And I think that this demonstrates to me that we should. All of that to say, I think that we know that the developer at this point could move forward with an application that’s 14 stories at this location and have no further responsibility to provide for extra green space or for tenant relocation. So I prefer to approve something that carries both of those. And again, I do, I personally, Again, this is my personal perspective.

I do not mind 30 stories at this location. It is literally 30 second walk from somewhere that could be 45 stories. And I do not see that to be, again, in my opinion , a significant jump when it is so close to being within the infill catchment for 45 stories. Thank you, Councillor Frank.

Councillor McAllister, can you take the chair please? Okay, recognizing that I have the chair, go ahead Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. As a presiding officer, I appreciate you over seeing this while I speak.

Just wanna share a few points. First of all, thank you, Councillor Frank for doing the work. I had mentioned that committee that there were a couple things that I wanted to see technically adjusted beforehand. And you beat me to the work.

You already had it underway by the time I got around to it. So you saved me some time. And this is not the first time you and I have been supportive of things like the native species planting and the bird friendly window compliance. So happy to support you on that in the amendment and see it in the main motion.

I also agree quite substantively with everything that Councilor Frank has articulated here. There could absolutely be a 14 story and likely an 18 story with no accommodation, with no requirement or with no request for public keys and been to over private park to create some extra green space downtown with none of that. And I know from talking to alternate builders in our city just to get a different opinion That when you’re talking about a floor plate The floor plate size between 18 and a 30 really doesn’t change. It’s pretty standard.

There might be some additional shoring pieces But in terms of the dimensions When you’re going high the laws of physics sort of take over and you need a certain base to do that I also appreciate that we’re actually losing a surface parking lot to create some green space. That’s actually a nice little bonus from the perspective but I’ve heard a lot of talk about you know the the policy and done a look back even in the past year every single member of this horseshoe has at one time or another voted against a staff recommended planning application or voted for a staff refusal for approval of something the staff had recommended refused on every single one of us all 15 of us have voted against a policy at one point or another during our term of council and I can get to most of us within the last 12 months. Because we have neighborhood pressures, because people feel differently about things. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But when we’re voting against these things, we have to keep in mind that people are going to bring different perspectives. And the policies are there to provide guidelines. They are there to help with good planning. But there are times when staff have said that this doesn’t represent good planning and we have still gone ahead and done it.

I know we have because I myself have moved an amendment on another application that said the same thing. And Ms. McNeely said yes, that’s our recommendation but not withstanding. If this is what you want to do, Councilor, then this is the path that you take to do that.

And so when we look at these things, all of us as Council get to bring our ideas and opinions to the table. But the policies are there to provide guidelines for planning. They’re there to make sure that things like sanitary and storm sewer servicing is adequate, things like that. That’s where, to me, those weren’t issues that were raised.

Servicing’s not an issue. I agree with Councillor Frank, the downtown core of our city. That’s where we want to see the heightened density. And so I’m going to be supportive of this application as I was at committee.

I’m more supportive of it now because of the work Councillor Frank’s done. I want to thank her for that. Again, I know I’ve done that already, but I want to thank her for that again. I also think that we need to keep in mind when we talk about affordable housing.

This isn’t a building right now, the current one, that has any sort of public subsidy 20 year, 25 year, 50 year AMR agreement in place. When we’re talking about this type of affordable, we’re talking about a building that is subject to the maximum manual increases under provincial rent controls. That does not in and of itself make it the same as an RGI unit at LMCH or high supportive unit or 70% of AMR, it’s just a preexisting condition. When we talk about affordable housing, there’s actually a whole gamut of things that constitute affordable housing in our community.

And so, for me, I think we need to be careful when we’re talking about affordable housing to focus on our municipal housing and our partnerships with our not-for-profits and our social housing providers, which we absolutely need more of. I think that’s one thing we all agree on, but that’s not something that the private sector provides. So I know I’m almost out of time. I’m gonna finish it there.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, you got 15 seconds left on our return to the chair to you, no speakers on the list, go ahead. Oh, Councillor Palazzo, go ahead. Okay, I’ve got Councillor Ploza and then Mayor Morgan.

Councillor Ploza. Thank you, Mr. Chair, just through you to staff realizing it’s been different conversations in the media and appreciate the staff report and the close proximity to transit that’s already nearby and to higher zoning. Is there any concerns with this property for emergency vehicles being able to access it at the increased density?

If they’re able to speak at this time to that. Would that be Mr. Alata sewer or Ms. Share?

Mr. Alata sewer? Mr. Mathers put his hand up.

I’ll go to whichever one of you wants to take the first crack and then you can pass it to the other one. How about that? Mr. Mathers, why don’t you start?

Through the chair. So we would ensure as part of the site plan process that anything that is brought forward, if it’s to be able to get that approval, that it meets any kind of requirements from London Fire or other service providers. So we would ensure that that’s the case. We wouldn’t approve a site plan that is in here on LandSafe.

Councilor Palosa. Thank you. I know that’s part of the conversation. as we move through different spaces and things go off to site plan to make sure that those provisions were accounted for.

I know back in the day a developer took the opportunity to explain to me that kind of once the base of a building is done, it gets to a certain height and you just keep going up that the foundation is the foundation and supports much more on top. I also appreciate their willingness to work with the tenant relocation. I had a project on Southdale that went a little bit, maybe not so much as easily that way. And making sure that the housing stock is available is important at this time leading towards it, recognizing some of these concerns regarding accessible vehicles, emergency services , waste disposal will be dealt with during site plan and it might just be garbage because we picked it up twice a week instead of once.

And I know that site plan would take care of those and that would be out of our jurisdiction. And some of the bonus thing that I did enjoy in the past is currently removed from our purview. I do miss it, I thought it was very impactful and interested in the green space adding some things to downtown as well as we know that vibrancy needs to be there. Thank you, Councilor Ploza, Mayor Morgan.

Yes, thank you. And I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. And I also appreciate the perspectives of those who are looking to try to balance things. Here’s the challenging piece that we have.

like we face this across the city in multiple different ways. In this case, it’s residential intensification in generally the downtown and core area. We face intensification along rapid transit lines . We’ve even expropriated lands along rapid transit lines and use those for municipal purposes in those cases.

What we’re trying to do in the downtown area though is create some density and I still support that. And if we have the ability of having a builder in the area who says, “I want to build 30 stories,” in close proximity to where businesses can be supported, where there’s walkability, where there’s transit, that’s going to strengthen our downtown and core area. The 30 floors of people are going to shop at local businesses, eat at local restaurants, utilize municipal facilities, create feet on the street, and create a vibrancy and safety in the core. At the same time, you know, we recognize that affordable units are important.

We have just down the street from City Hall, an office of residential conversion. We’re converting office into residential units of which a good portion of those, or a meaningful portion of those, are in the affordable category. And we have to continue to do that work. And everything has to work in balance with each other.

So, you know, I think this is certainly a difficult one, but I go back to what I said on the amendment. You know, I think, you know, Councilor Frank has made some good adjustments here. And I agree with her comments wholeheartedly that there are as of right permissions that displace tenants and they get not much of anything for it and you don’t get the other additions that are being added in here. And so, you know, I like the commitments that are being made.

We give a little bit more density. It feels a little bit like the bonusing process we used to have. And I think that that was an advantage to the city that we created. We created a lot of units across the city through that.

We got a lot of public trade-offs for it. So I’m gonna support this. It’s hard for me to say no to increase intensity in the downtown area. This is the kind of things that my mayoral colleagues in other cities would say yes to in a second if they had that opportunity to build that sort of density in their downtown course to support that revital ization of those areas.

So I’m gonna be a yes on this one. Thank you Mayor Morgan. I have Councillor Lehman next. Thank you, Chair.

I first wanna say thank you for the debate and viewpoints expressed by all of us around the horse. We’re not always going to agree. And I think that’s very important. Between the 15 of us, the more often than not, the right decision will bubble to the top.

So I want to give my viewpoint. And I’ll say this, I believe strongly in our downtown. And I also believe the key to a vibrant downtown is the high density of people living in the downtown. If you look at cities with successful downtowns, the commonality, you’ll see high density population living there, but with that comes high buildings.

For those folks living as expansion space is not available. We spoke a bit tonight, we’ve turned today, we’ve touched on different policies, et cetera. I think if you look at the London Plan’s base is up and in. High density in the core mitigates urban sprawl, traffic congestion, as we’re not seeing people having to travel to and from work using up a road space.

And as I mentioned, a vibrant downtown with thousands living downtown that can walk to the work, entertainment, restaurants, parks, Dundas place, and all the events that are held there. When you have people living downtown, business will follow the people that are living downtown, and those businesses will create more attraction for people coming downtown which creates that vibrancy. It’s also important for our downtown employers as parking becomes more expensive. Our downtown players are more concerned with the cost of their employees.

So I think having high density downtown offers a lifestyle to those that wish to work downtown, be able to walk to work and then to be able to walk to all the other amenities. So I’d like to speak more specifically to this particular location. You know, we’ve talked about boundaries and it’s across the street, few steps. But to bring things into perspective, this is a block and a half from Richmond Street.

It’s a transit corridor. It’s a block away from a 40-story apartment building and 229-story apartment buildings. It’s Kitty Quarter from a tall office tower at another apartment building. It’s a five-minute walk to Canada Life.

It’s a seven-minute walk to the Grand Theatre. I think this is the type of downtown and residential space that the London Plan spoke to, and that I believe strongly, that will make our downtown a vibrant place. I’ve supported all housing in the downtown area, regardless of where it’s been in the core, old East, along York Street, Hamilton Road. Because of that belief, that the more people we have living downtown, will create a better downtown.

And that’s why I support this particular application, and I encourage those at council to support as well for that reason, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. We’ll look to see if there’s any other speakers before we open the vote. Seeing none, then I’m gonna ask the clerk, Councillor Hopkins, sorry, I didn’t see your hand behind Councillor Lehman there if, go ahead.

No need to be sorry. I was just waiting for more Councillors to give their comments and their perspectives. I wanna thank the Councillors that have already done so. I’d like to just make some comments on this one from my perspective.

So first of all, I support intensification. I support the London plan, our official plan. I support development in and up. Intensification should happen in the downtown core without a doubt.

I support true affordable housing. I think we get really, really stuck though as a council and as a committee. When it comes to not understanding our policies and following through, we really get stuck. We get stuck because if we’ve approved something over here, it said yes.

And then we say no over here, we get stuck. That’s where I rely on our policies. And of course, they can be flexible. We get them updated, we can change them.

But I rely on them to allow me to explain to residents In my ward, for instance, we have had many, many applications. Throughout the past three years, in ward nine, that if you really look at those applications and if those buildings are going to be built, they will drastically change our neighborhoods. And I see this application doing the same thing. As much as we could try, we could request, we could plead to the developer, We need to really step back and understand the consequences to the decisions.

We are not the experts here. I rely on staff recommendations. Yes, plans can be flexible. They can change.

Why not 35? Why not 25? Those are the conversations I’ve had with myself. When we as a council have approved drastic applications that will change our neighborhoods in my ward.

And I’m trying to do the same thing here, supporting intensification, understanding our policies. Again, I’m not the expert. I think everything, if you go to a planning committee, everything gets approved, most things get approved, most refusals even get overturned. I have never, throughout my years on council, seen how much we have gotten away from our policies and I will be the first one to say you don’t like the policies then let’s change the policies.

I agree, Councillor Frank, you know the need to put in more programs our tenant assistance programs, there’s a lot more work that we can be doing but doing this right here at council just changing things is not the place to do it. I don’t have confidence in us making these decisions so I won’t be supporting it. Any other speakers? Councillor Robin.

Thank you and through you. And I just wanna follow up on Councillor Hopkins’ comments. First, I wanna say, I do agree with a lot of what you said, Councillor Hopkins, in my support for those things, intensification, building and seeing our downtown , revitalized, and looking for opportunities to do so. And I will say, when I evaluate a proposal, I do look to staff’s recommendation and I do take into consideration that pathway to approval that’s outlined there when a refusal comes through and what I saw in the pathway to approval was a way to find a way forward and I understand that that way forward may not have been in agreement with the neighborhood and I understand that that way forward may not have been fully supportive of what the developer had put forward as well.

But I did see that there was a balancing act there in that pathway to approval. And part of that balancing act, in my opinion, was that it outlined there that if 18 stories was contemplated, it should be contemplated with appropriate setbacks and the step backs as well as the site functionality. That was our way to move forward with this application in a way that demonstrated a compromise, in a way that demonstrated that we were able to meet the context of allowing for more development downtown, increasing intensification, but not doing so in a way that was as obstructive . And my challenge here is we had these comments about the floor plate.

And my understanding is, at an 18 story, you can have a reduced floor plate. So I just wanna ask staff if they can clarify that for us. Ms. McNeely.

Thank you through the Deputy Mayor, yes, that’s correct. But in terms of the application that we were looking at, the floor plate could be the same notwithstanding the height. But with the path to approval where staff we’re looking at was basically a different design development altogether that would incorporate those sensitivities, the mitigative measures for the surrounding lands . Councillor.

Thank you, and through you, I’m just wondering through pre-consultation and consultation on the application, how long would this process have taken, potentially? Ms. McNeely. Thank you, through the Deputy Mayor, will consultations no longer requirement under the Planning Act?

So we have 90 days to process an application. Councillor. Thank you, and in that 90-day conversation and in any pre-consultation that may have happened on the application, these ideas of the pathway to approval would have been discussed with the applicant. Ms.

McNeely, through the deputy mayor, yes, that’s correct, Councilor. Thank you and through you. So the applicant is aware that there was a pathway here to find common ground. And so when we’re talking about the fact that we have developers in our community that are willing to work with our staff, willing to work with the community to find a way forward to build something that fits within the context of our neighborhoods , that fits within the context of our downtown, that is something that our communities will benefit from and find livable.

I think that within the pathway for approval, there was an aspect of that consideration here in . One of my challenges with what’s in front of us with the 30 stories is I don’t see those additional conversations or ability to compromise. I do appreciate that, you know, other counselors have amended what’s been brought forward to include some of those other elements. But for me, the challenge is, how do we then hold ourselves to, or hold the developer in this case, to account on these extra items?

And I still think that that’s going to be a challenge. And I think that it’s going to create even more sensitivities in the neighborhood. We have from the community, a letter from a community member’s legal lawyers, as well as a planning application or a planning reviewed, sorry, of this application from their perspective as residents next door. And I think that has to be considered as well, because what we’re doing is we’re going to have to in a way rely on the community to take up the mantle on the concern if we don’t or if we move forward with what’s amended here and put on the floor.

So I think for me I’m still at the same place where I was when I heard that this debated and discussed at PEC and that is I’m supportive of the pathway to approval and would support moving forward with that but I cannot support this application at 30 stories. >> Thank you, Councillor. Any other speakers before Councillor Stevenson. >> Thank you.

I wasn’t going to speak on this but I would just like to say a couple of things and that is that what any one of us feels is appropriate for our downtown or for that location is an opinion and it varies. I mean some have said this is 30 seconds from 45 stories. I personally think 30 stories is appropriate here and I do appreciate the attention to the the tenancy plans and like to see what’s come forward. When CMHC brought a development plan for 644, 646 , here on street, I had calls, there were 12 to 15 people displaced there.

And developers often do their best to take care of people and we don’t always get involved. So I’m interested in certain developments we get involved, certain ones we don’t. There’s been mention of a plan or policy, maybe that’s something to look at. But this does happen and it was mentioned that this could happen a different way without us being able to advocate here.

So I am supported this and just wanting to remember that it is differences of opinion here. And as was said, we’ll come to the best decision usually as a council. Councilor Preble. Thank you.

And I would like to thank my colleague Councilor Frank for these amendments because when this application came forward, my actually number one concern the biggest one, what’s going to happen is this 30 plus individuals thing at this property. Having said that, I knew some years ago individuals who state that these properties who are actually my customers and there were many, many, many issues at this property that they were dealt with. I don’t know what happened in the last few years if there were any upgrades or not. I really appreciated the letter that came back forward from the developer in terms of having a plan for these individuals who would be moving from these premises.

I’m going to take this from, if I look at the intensification and high density, I really think that downtown and core is the place to do it, and I like to see maximizing the opportunities of developers more downtown than in some other parts of London, which actually we have and we have this application coming through where the neighbourhoods are even more, I would say, low density or lower grade bungalows, etc. Not saying that they are not here in this area as well, but again, downtown, I don’t want to repeat again how many seconds it’s walked from kind of where we can go even over 40. I think with this, there will be improved, and by the way, our staff said and my colleagues as well in terms of the services, how they are in place, etc. With the higher intensification, more people As we can see and we will see more businesses coming in.

I know there’s always requests from downtowners for a grocery store We keep talking about the grocery stores and we are getting close to that number magic number for the grocery stores to be in there Park space and we always have always hear from people that there’s not Enough athletic and sports sports facilities grounds I will believe that these are the things that will be both private and and public sector that we will have to come together and deliver these amenities. So I do see certainly classes on this side. Also see when it’s busier, and we see it already. When the Dundas place or the downtown core, it’s busy and special events.

The homeless individuals are not at these places. They move away because they don’t feel comfortable around this era. The crime is down as well, and we do know that. because again, if the people are out, there is less crime.

So I do see positives. I honestly do, and I like to see the maximization for the developers downtown core area. And I will be, I’m just looking at my notes. I think I did address all of them.

Thank you, and I will be supporting the application. That’s in front of us. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pribble.

Any other speakers before I call the vote? Seeing none, that I’m gonna ask the clerk to— Opposing the vote, motion carries 11 to four. Thank you, colleagues. Moving on, Councillor Layman, your next item that was pulled.

Thank you, I’d like to move item 11, which is regarding additional residential unit permissions. Thank you, Councillor ramen. I believe you have an amendment or an addition. I’m not sure which is the appropriate language.

I know you ran it by me and the clerk. Okay, thank you and through you. So yes, I am looking to amend and it would be to add to the existing motion, the part C, and that relates to the interim control by-law portion of the—that reflects the study that was part of the original motion on November 4, 2025, so I’m happy to read that out. >> If you could, please.

Sure. The staff report to the Planning and Environment Committee dated February 18, 2026 be received to fulfill Municipal Council’s direction on November 4, 2025, that a land use study be under taken in regard to appropriate restrictions for the use of ARUs within the city of London in accordance with section 38 of the Planning Act 1990 and that no further notice be given is included in the rest of the preamble below as well. Okay, and do we have a seconder for that? I’m happy to second that.

Oh, I also see Councillor. Oh, Councillor Hopkins, are you seconding or you want us? Okay, we’ll put Councillor Hopkins as the second er and then we’ll look for speakers but I’ll start with you, Councillor Raman, so you can provide your rationale. Thank you and through you.

So I’m looking to provide my rationale on this motion. When we first introduced this ARU motion and then the interim control by-law, the purpose of the by-law was to basically create a pause at that time in the applications that were coming forward on this item until we had agreement on how to move forward with the ARU. So in front of ARU motion, sorry, and what we are going to be allowing in ARUs in terms of bedroom count and as well as the gross floor area. So once that was put in place in this motion contained, my point here is I don’t believe we need a further study.

The study was really just a combination of what’s in the existing interim control by-law language, which basically states that we needed to have a study to have the interim controlled by-law. So this just kind of negates the need for that because we now have the information ready from staff with full discussion at planning already around where we should head with the ARUs. And so in front of us is the next steps in that. And I don’t believe that a study is further needed to help us to make that decision.

Thank you, Councillor Raman. So I’m just, I just wanna be clear, you’re putting the whole thing on the floor, right? Thank you, I’m putting the whole thing and then the amount of time. Okay, so we’ll look for speakers on that.

Seeing none, oh, Councillor Layman. Yeah, just through your chair to staff. As far as process is concerned, my understanding is we did consider this, but there is some need for a public participation meeting or something along those lines before we went ahead with it. So I just want to confirm that from your perspective, this is okay to proceed.

We’ll go to Mr. Mathers. I believe the staff’s comment was that we just needed to bring back the study as part of the process, but it will get Mr. Mathers to confirm that.

Sure, absolutely. Through the deputy mayor, this is an appropriate process mechanism to be able to bring this forward and happy to procedures counsel, which is regarding that study. You’re good, Councillor. Councillor Frank and then Councillor Trussow.

Thank you, yes. I’ll be quick. Similar to at committee, I won’t be supporting this motion. I’ve had, since the interim control bylaw was in place, I’ve had three different residents reach out who were in the process of doing ARUs and now are unable to, having despite spending lots of money and doing all the planning works and submitting different permits, they’re not able to finish the work that they’re doing because specifically the 80% gross floor area limit.

We did try to change it to 90%, that was not approved at committee. So specifically for that reason, I won’t be supportive of this. I think that we had been doing good work on ARUs. I know that there was an exceptional case that really caused the desire to make these changes.

But I do think that we had been doing good work and giving flexibility to folks to be able to fit the ARUs within different complex situations and existing neighborhoods. And I was enjoying the move towards that gentle density. I understand my colleagues’ perspectives on it, but I won’t be supporting it. Also, trust out.

Thank you very much. And I hate to admit what I’m confused, but confused, at least I’m honest. So if step could in a nutshell, in your own words , explain to me the difference that this amendment would bring about in terms of the actual substance of what is going to be permitted. That’s the first part of my question.

The second part of my question goes more to process. And that is, what’s the downside of holding another public participation meeting? So we’ll go to Mr. Mathers for that.

I’m, if you’ll allow Councilor, I think it might be helpful if I just said, Mr. Mathers, you, in the lead up to the committee , knowing that the repeal thing was coming, you did explain to me that essentially staff, the study means staff just have to go back and count all the bedrooms in the previous applications, which is a lot of manual labor. Perhaps if you can help explain that, the way you did to me for Council Trustout might actually clear up a lot of, or might make things very clear, ‘cause the explanation you provided me was very helpful. I think Councilor Trust, I was asking the same sort of question I asked before.

Through the Deputy Mayor. So the change is being made here. We’ll ensure that we’re not bringing back a report with a further background study. that was a requirement of the interim control by law.

Part of the difficulty in doing that work is actually going back in time and looking at all of the ARUs that and specifically by the floor area, by the number of bedrooms. A lot of that information isn’t something that we collect in a table or as part of our systems. We have to manually go back and pull that information as you probably noted from the actual report that was submitted. fairly limited time that we selected and mostly because it was very time-intensive work to be able to do that.

The by-laws that is before you to be able to approve highlights very specific elements that was directed to staff to bring back. So if that is the direction the council is going and you’re not looking at making further edits or further changes, then moving forward with this today and not having that background that more further background is possible if you remove that need to have the background study. And otherwise, for public participation meetings, we’re always happy to have those meetings, really, very much at the direction of council. Thank you, thank you for that, through the chair.

For me, the issue with the public participation meeting is are there going to be any substantive changes anticipated in terms of what people can or can’t do in their properties with respect to ARUs? ‘cause if the answer to that is no, I’m not gonna push for another PPM, but if the answer to that is yes or even maybe, I would like that, have that ability for the public to look at this again. Mr. Mathers.

Through the deputy mayor, so at this time that the answer would be no, there’s no further direction to take any, look at any other further changes. Of course, as part of like our monitoring and work moving forward, we would consider if there was some changes in legislation bringing something back to council for your consideration and at this time we’re not when we’d be looking or actively pursuing any changes to the rules related to ARUs. Okay, perhaps I’m being overly cautious or protective of PPMs, but this sounds okay. I can support this, thank you.

Thank you. And sorry, my device timed out, so I don’t see my speaker’s list. Oh, Councillor Tressa, you were the last on my speaker’s list at the moment. Councillor Ferrera.

Thanks, Chair. So to confirm, this is the expiry the interim control bylaw and then a new bylaw, which looks like the interim control bylaw that we had before. Mr. Mathers.

Through the Deputy Mayor, yes, that’s accurate. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you. So can I just get, and I know I did, I had this conversation with staff like a month ago, but I just want to put it on the record.

Can you tell me just the distinction, the differences now with the new bylaw with respect to the near campus neighborhoods and what the differences are between the two? Ms. McNeely. Thank you through the deputy mayor.

It would apply city-wide with the exception of the Western near-campus neighborhood. Councillor. So the near-campus neighborhoods has a maximum of five bedrooms per main dwelling unit with a maximum of three additional residential units with a maximum of eight bedrooms total on the property. So if you were to have, let’s say, the full amount of three additional residential units, you’d have one bedroom breach with a maximum of eight.

But if you had two additional residential units, you could have two bedrooms in one and one bedroom in the other with a maximum of eight, is that correct? Ms. McNeely. Thank you.

Through the Deputy Mayor, yes, that’s correct. It would be the maximum within any configuration, within those. And I’d also like to clarify it applies to both near-campus neighborhoods, so Fanshawe and Western. Counselor.

And the distinction between the city-wide part relative vis-a-vis to the near-campus neighborhoods is that with this interim control by-law, the main dwelling unit does not have a maximum bedroom limit within the main dwelling. Ms. McNeely. Thank you, Sudeipi.

Mary, yes, that’s correct. And then the secondary units would be limited to 80% in terms of their square foot. Councillor. Thank you.

And then this is where my knowledge is gonna get a little hazy ‘cause I know this is the new part. There’s a maximum of two ARUs. I think how many is the maximum of ARUs now with the new by-law not in the near-campus neighborhoods for any property? Ms.

McNealy. So again, are you talking about bedrooms or the units and that’s the challenge. There’s variation within and so it’s a maximum of five and different iterations but maybe you could clarify for me. Counselor.

Both ARU, maximums on a property and I guess the maximum amount of bedrooms per AR U or the maximum amount of bedrooms per ARU, or maximum amount of bedrooms on all the ARUs total, if that’s how we do it. I’ll start with the first, the variation would be a maximum of five, and the maximum of four. Councillor. Thank you, maximum of five ARUs, or maximum of bedrooms.

Ms. McNeely. Through the deputy mayor, maximum of five bedrooms. Councillor.

Then the last one, sorry. That’s a maximum of how many ARUs? Ms. McNeely.

Through the deputy mayor, it’s a maximum of four units. Okay, so last thing, it’s a comment, it’s not a question. So maximum before air use, with maximum of five bedrooms total, within all of the air use, and it could be distributed in different ways or variations within those air use. Ms.

McNeely. Through the Deputy Mayor, yes, that’s correct. Councillor Ferrer. Thank you.

Any other speakers on this? Seeing none, then I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote. Just to be clear, this includes the revised by- law and the additional by-law. So it’s both, like Councillor ramen has moved the whole thing.

So we’re, we’re voting on everything at once. Excuse me, Chair. Yes. I just want, could you repeat that?

Are we voting on the whole motion as a amendment? Are we just voting on the Councillor’s amendment? The whole motion as a, when Councillor ramen moved it, she moved the whole thing. Like the, the, the repealing of the current interim bylaw, the new draft bylaw that came through PEC together.

Go ahead. Did I not move the original PEC recommendation? Was that not the original motion? You did put the original motion on the floor, then Councillor ramen moved an amendment to the whole thing.

If you want us to call them separately, you can, but the way the clerk has it in Eastc ribe, they’re just all together. So right now, the way the vote is set up, we’d vote once, prove the new draft by-law that came through Peck from staff, and we would repeal the interim control by-law at the same time with one vote rather than do two . And Councillor Pluzza, have you joined us online yet? Just checking.

Can Councillor Pluzza absent closing the vote? Motion carries 13. Thank you, colleagues. And Councillor Ploza did let us know she was leaving, but she’s going to join remotely.

Sorry, Councillor Layman, back to you. Thank you. Move 13, which is regarding the zoning bylaw amendment. Parking changes.

Thank you, so you’ve put that on the floor. And Councillor Trussau, you and I circulated an amendment. So I’ll turn to you to see if you’re willing to move the amendment. Yes, I would very much like to move the amendment.

I’ll save my comments for once it’s on the floor. Is it an e-scribe or do— It is. But can you just give us the— the ex-book list doesn’t count towards your time. Can you just introduce the language?

Yes, I don’t have it in front of me on the screen . But the gist of it is, with respect to parts B and C, not A, not D, just B and C, the New York Campus neighborhood, the University of Western Ontario only portion of the New York Campus neighborhood is excluded from the amendments in B&C with request, with respect to the driveway changes. Thank you, Councilor Trussow. And I had indicated to you that I would second that.

So that’s been moved and seconded and is now on the floor for debate. Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, Sharon, through you. I’d like to thank Councilor Trussow for bringing this motion for the amendment forward.

I think it makes a lot of sense. And what I mean by that is it makes more sense for it to be applied for this motion to be applied in the east end, closer to the fan shop, where we have more land available, more driveways and so on. But to your point, Councilor Trossow, in your area, around Western, you have limitations. And I think this is a perfectly good motion, and I’m happy to support it.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Councilor Ferreira? Thank you.

So the Western Near Campus neighborhood is a big portion of my ward as well. And like this motion, looking at this, I am gonna support it. And I’m gonna support it for the reason that it is gonna preserve the frontages of the properties there. Because I fear with the main motion, which I’m not gonna support, but I’ll speak to that a little bit more in that motion, is that we didn’t actually have a proper report coming back.

We were kind of blanket slating this application citywide. And I fear that in the future, especially when we started kind of trying to track up to our mode share targets, especially when I hope that we, you know, see a public transit system that is able to accommodate, especially in these areas. If we have private residences kind of changing the widths of the lots of their driveways on their front lawn, we can’t change back. We can’t change that back.

There’s a cost, there’s an individual, personal, private cost on that. So this motion as I see it does preserve the status quo within those near campus neighborhoods. And I do believe in the future we won’t need this . I do believe in the future we will have a transit system that actually does support individuals who want to take public transit in a way that’s reliable for them.

So I do, I don’t want to try to get too much in the main motion, but with this, I see as a preservation of the status quo. I do have concerns because on the end of it all, We don’t have the ability to actually see what type of tenants are placed in the near campus neighborhoods. And I did speak to council trust so about this. But I see why you’d want to do this.

And I say on the end of it all, especially with respect to the public transit system as it is right now, there are a lot of students who come in and they do still bring their cars. And those cars still park on the neighborhood roads. And there’s a lot of issues with that. like I live in a near campus neighborhood.

And I see these issues every single day. And I see cars parked on the road every single day at nighttime, getting parking infraction. So I guess there’s a source of revenue there, but still it is an issue when it comes to the neighborhood. Sometimes I can’t even get to my place without knocking on doors to get someone to come out and move their car because it’s literally blocking the way.

The route is just not big enough to get there. So I do have that concern, but at the same time, I do believe, and I have faith in the future, that we are gonna be making some real tangible moves towards a public transit system that won’t necessarily need to have this in the first place. So we are preserving the status quo within the near campus neighborhoods because of that. I just fear when it comes to the citywide applic ability of this, we will be reducing those frontages and I have real concerns when it comes to the storm runoffs and the, you know, the percolation of water being able to infiltrate into those front lawns.

We already have lots of pavement as it is. and we are now reducing even more permutation of water when it comes into just the, when it comes to raining alone. So I have fears with that. That’s why I’m not gonna be sporting the main motion and maybe I spoke to it just a little bit too much.

But I am gonna sport this because it does preserve that status quo. I fear the rest of the city will be irreversible in a lot of respects, but this side we are protecting those areas for that. And I do have faith in the future that we’ll have a transit system that eventually you won’t need to have this. So I’ll keep it there.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else on the amendment? Sorry, Councillor Robin. Thank you and through you.

So I was not consulted on the amendment, but I do have near campus neighborhood for Western University in my ward. And so I won’t be supporting the amendment because now I feel like I’m going to get back a by-law that has two sets of different operations that perhaps wouldn’t necessarily address the concerns of residents I’ve heard from that are in the near campus neighborhood portion of the ward. So at this time, I’m not prepared to support it. Thank you, Councillor.

Any other speakers before we call the vote? Seeing none, and I will ask the clerk to open the vote on the amendment. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 11 to three . So we now have a main motion as amended, looking to see if somebody wants to move and second that, just so that it’s on the floor, Councillor Cuddy.

Councillor Layman, you’d put the committee recommendation on the floor, are you okay still doing that? Okay, so we’ve cut Ian Layman on that one. Okay, so the main motion as amended. Now I’ll look for other speakers.

Councillor Frank, did you, you had suggested you might be moving an amendment, so I’m gonna go to you next, ‘cause I’d like to deal with amendments before we deal with main motions as amended. Yes, yes, thank you for the reminder. So I circulated a, did we circle? Yes, we did.

Circulated two amendments. Mostly in reference to some of the communication we got, Would you like me to read it before I get going too far? Yes, please. Okay, that the motion be amended by adding a new part E and F to read as follows.

E to map the relative availability of on-street parking in different parts of the city and evaluate on-street parking capacity to determine if on-street parking can be absorbed in areas. F to explore best practices for spatially differentiated policies and report back about options, including but not limited to policies that can link any minimum parking requirements for larger high density developments to site specific characteristics such as the proximity of public transit, the zoning designation of the site and availability of on-street parking. And I will speak to it if I have a seconder. Is there a seconder?

Councillor Ferreira, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. So generally, and folks probably already know this, I’m not very supportive of moving from 0.5 spaces per unit to one space per unit. I think that the right direction that we’ve been moving in is trying to encourage folks to live in more compact, transit supportive walkable neighborhoods.

And I think that increasing parking and forcing higher investment from developers into parking infrastructure, which we know is quite costly, I don’t think that is necessarily in the right direction. I think it further entrenches car dependency when we’re trying to give people viable alternatives. And parking minimums quite rightly by definition, I think is market interference, which I know we’ve talked a lot about this council, how we don’t like to stack the deck in any direction for any mode share. But it requires that developers build a fixed number of spaces regardless of whether or not the future residents will actually want to use them or need them.

And structured parking, as we know, is very expensive. So the further you go underground, the more expensive the parking spots are per parking spot. And they’re embedded in the price of the rent or ownership. So we know that folks who potentially don’t even own a car, they are subsidizing folks that are using them if you’re forcing there to be more parking spots that are actually necessary.

And I think that if the market believes that one spot per unit is necessary, developers will build it. And again, I’ve heard this discussion at council before in the past. So that all being said, I would like to have more information ‘cause I’m not totally convinced and I haven’t actually seen very compelling evidence that we have a parking shortage. And so the two motions, the amendments would actually provide more information for us to understand if there are certain areas where, you know, there are hundreds of cars parked on the street versus there are some areas where potentially there are none.

And I’m speaking from my perspective, but I actually don’t mind cars parking on the street. I know some folks don’t, but I think one, it reduces the width of the street. So it actually forces people to drive slower because the streets look a little bit smaller. We’ve already paved and paid for all that asphalt that just sits there, essentially wasted when people aren’t using it as a parking space.

and we are actually able to collect revenue from people parking on streets. So we know that there’s a certain number of free parking on streets overnight, but eventually they start having to pay to park overnight. So again, I’m actually okay with on-street parking. That being said, I would like to understand from staff where in the city there’s, you know, potentially some empty areas for on-street parking to happen and where there’s not and actually make a case-by case deliberation on that.

And I know that included in the motion was, you know, a request for them to come back and provide some of that data, but I would like to see it in a map format so I can feel I understand what we’re committing to. And I appreciate that this is a future report back. So that is explanation of the amendments. Thank you, Councillor Frank.

Any other speakers on the amendment? Councillor Ferrer. Thank you. So I’m supporting this ‘cause this is kind of what I was asking for, so I appreciate the work on that.

I understand Councillor says that she is okay on street parking but it doesn’t apply you can’t just have a blanket slate citywide like at the end of my street it’s a dead end street and more often than not cars park right at the dead end of the street like as though it’s a parking lot and I do call city staff to come out you guys are great you come out real fast when that happens but when you have one person park that way you have another person park that way immediately after and then another one and then another one and it literally is like you know an effect where people are just following suit because they think it’s okay. So I do think that there’s definitely areas. I know that there’s definitely areas that just doesn’t apply. And I think that the report back and just a little bit more of a review in an analysis here would kind of help us differentiate between those areas that would be more sufficient for capacity in areas that just don’t work.

I also see the part about how it’s such as proximity to public transit. And I do think that if we do have a report back, will get information that shows that, you know, a lot of these issues when it comes to parking is because, you know, public transit may not be necessarily sufficient in that area, and I’m hoping that this report back will speak to that, and this report back will kind of help us in our decision-making in the future, so we actually have more data and more information on how much more of a benefit it is when we start really trying to expand the capacity of public transit. So those would be the two things that I ‘d really point out, but I think this is really good because I’m just not comfortable of making a full blanket slate, let’s do this direction with no real information on that, especially considering a lot of things have changed since we’ve had this last as a policy in the city , and especially considering we have those mode share targets that we just set, I don’t know , a year ago or something like that. So I’m supportive of this.

I hope that council supports this as well. Yes. I suppose I asked you what I should hand it to you. Councillor ramen, can you take the chair, please?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So through you, Madam Presiding Officer, I am not inclined to support these two additional amendments for a couple reasons.

I hear a lot of justification that well we need to see if if on- street parking can absorb. Through you, I’d like to ask staff not counting where they’re parking meters. When we’re talking about residential on-street parking out in subdivisions, how does staff even envision measuring absorption capacity with the staffing resources you have. Thank you.

I’ll go to Mr. Mathers. Through the presiding officer, that would be an intense activity of just mapping throughout the city. It’s fairly broad, but it’s very broad what it’s suggested here.

So it would be us going through systematically, street by street, just assessing where there’s parking available and then coming up with some other kind of a strategy. That would be something, yes, we would highlight in a report, but it would be very time and staff intensive effort. Deputy Mayor. And three, Madam Presiding Officer.

With that method, not just be staff and time intensive, but would it really be something that would require, realistically, on all four seasons evaluation, noting different changes through school years, noting different changes of guest patterns and things, because ultimately on street parking is meant not to accommodate residents living there full time, but is actually meant to accommodate things like guest parking when you have visitors, delivery parking perhaps. And so time of day and seasonal changes would actually be something that you would have to evaluate through that process, would it not? Mr. Mathers.

Through the presiding officer, yeah, it would be a multifaceted elements that would be looking at that, because holiday related parking would be times of year that would be ups and downs and springs of barg ains. have to come up with some kind of a strategy to determine that and evaluate that as well. Deputy Mayor? Yeah, so that right there is for me the reason I can’t support these.

Staff don’t have, they’re actually going to have to create from scratch a way to map out and then evaluate the use and we’re going to have to look at it from seasonal changes, time of day changes and everything else. We have problem today in neighborhoods in our city and we don’t have honestly in my opinion, the luxury of waiting five years till BRT is up and running or waiting to see if patterns change as different transit roads come online over the next few years. We have a problem today that residents complain about. We talk about the, again, I’m trying to state the amendment not to the main motion yet, but we’ve seen when we talk about trying to change the ratios in the the higher density and when we look at spatial differentiation and site specific changes, that’s how we actually used to do things before we went to the point five.

Planning justification report would come in for a reduced amount. Unfortunately, what we’re seeing now is that we ‘re seeing a lot of standardization and then we’re seeing neighborhood impacts, particularly away from neighborhoods where there ‘s transit service. And I know Councillor ramen, when we designed the original motion, I know we talked about some of the neighborhoods in your wards that don ‘t have transit service and thus are impacted by some of the higher medium and higher density developments that are happening in the Hyde Park area. So I can’t support tying a studies that staff aren’t even have a mechanism yet to try and advance.

I can’t support asking for those kind of studies on something that we need to start to find a way to address. When we talk to the main motion I’m going to talk about how we’re actually going back to something that we had previously because for me I think where we made the mistake was when we made some changes not just in the reduced parking minimum ratio outside of the primary transit areas but also going back from long before any of us were even here some of the changes that were made under a previous regime around so- called front yard parking for urban design guidelines which were put in place for after decades of allowing front outside parking and so I’ll talk to that more in the main motion but that’s why I’m not supporting either of these amendments. Thank you returning the chair to you with no one on the speakers list. I think we had Councilor Trust out next so I’ll go to Councilor Trust out next.

Is this motion with respect to part A only or is it with respect to parts A, B and C? The way it’s written Councilor it would apply to everything. Is there a reason why in part F, there’s the words report back and in parts either is not the words report back. I can only ask the mover of the motion, Councill or Frank.

Sure, yes. So these are intended to come back at the same time that all the other by-law amendments stuff that was included in A to D is coming back. So that is the reference to report back. Like I want this information at the same time, all this other stuff comes back.

Councillor. Yeah, that confuses me a little bit because she went to use the words report back. back in one and not in the other if it was happening anyway so it it makes me it worries me that the two are not being treated the same way report back when that would help I just find this wording to be a little confusing anyway that’s just me thank you any other speakers on the amendment seeing none that I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote losing the vote motion fails four to ten okay so this brings us back to the main motion as previously amended and we We hadn’t started speaking on that, so that we are now on the main motion as amended to go ahead. That’s our approval.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. Even though it’s quite clear that it says, “Bring forward the zoning by-law amendment in the future.” I just want to verify because there were a few residents of mine that asked me if we are approving anything today. No, we are just approving, giving the direction to the staff to come back with us.

I know it’s quite clear, but can you please confirm them to me? Thank you. Ms. McNeely.

Thank you. Correct, the purpose of this is to initiate that process which is a public process and a public participation meeting. Councillor, perfect, thank you. And the second question I have is, I do have some houses and especially those are rental, rentals where usually it would be students or more workers staying.

And currently there is kind of one and a half, let’s say, driveway, let’s say one and a half of the car. And we do have an issue that they park right wheels could be on the pavement, left wheels could be on the grass. And our enforcement teams being going back and talking to the car owners, finding them, et c etera. How will when you come back, how will this be reflected that let’s say in this example I’ve given you, let’s say they’re not gonna put like a break on the grass or they’re not gonna bring some line around and they say, oh, we are within the six or nine meters.

Is this gonna somehow address so we don’t have potential at these occurrences. If it comes back, if you pass it, thank you. Mr. Mathers.

Through the deputy mayor. So we’ll include a portion of that report just to speak to the enforcement elements of it, but to innovate, if it is something that is approved by council, we’ll ensure that it’s enforced as per the direction of the zoning amendment. Okay, thank you for that. I will just make it, I will end it by making a comment.

I certainly hope if this does go through, If we do approve it, that the driveway would be certainly same solid material interlocking block, asphalt, whatever it is. But it’s not gonna be kind of just grass. So I just, in the by-load that’s gonna be coming back, I hope it’s gonna be quite clear that people will not be at vanity. They can’t vanity just the size, but also the quality.

Thank you. Yes, thank you, Councilor Pribland. And just to be clear, the motion that’s on the floor is about driveway widths. not about parking, like front yard parking and front lawn parking are actually two different things.

Front yard means you’re on a hard, like on our approved driveway surface in front of the dwelling. Front yard would mean you’re parking on the grass . So there actually is two different things. So I just wanted to clarify, that’s why the motion was written the way it is about driveway widths, ‘cause that doesn’t change the requirement to your point about interlocking brick or asphalt or anything like that.

That would have to be something when the staff comes back. If we wanted to make some other change, we’d have to consider it at that time. Thank you. Councilor Cuddy.

Thank you, Chair, and through you. And I’ll be very brief for fear that Councilor Lehman may fade or pass out in the next few minutes after an hour and a half of being on his feet. Deputy Mayor, I wanna thank you for once again, working with me post sponsoring a motion and also Council Raman for coming on board with us. Once again, Deputy Mayor, this is a time when you and I both had incidents happen almost simultaneously, where residents came to us and asked us for a solution.

And we came to them with one. And I won’t talk to you colleagues about my residents and what they said to me, but this is a solution that they need. And in Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor McAllister’s words and my own word , we have these happening every day where residents have children who wanna go to university can’t afford to leave the city, look for ways to accommodate them in the city. In my case, one of their children going to Western, needed to buy another car, didn’t have a place to park it.

So again, we’ve come up with a solution that I think is really reasonable and will work for us. And I’m so grateful to Councilor Trossow. And I mean this Councilor Trossow for coming up with a solution to your ward that works. But I’m also grateful to my colleagues for supporting this because this is really gonna help a lot of our residents in the east end.

Thank you. Okay, so I’ve got Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Ferrer, then Councillor McAllister. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you.

And I wanna thank the Councillors for putting this forward. Unfortunately, I don’t see this as being a solution. I do understand the problems. I have the same problems in Ward 9 when it comes to young adults now living at home, and there are three or four cars in the driveway, and they don’t fit.

I also understand areas such as areas in Ward 9 that don’t have transit routes. But I think when we try to fix things now, we really don’t understand what may happen in a few years from now. Things may be completely different, and we may be back changing bylaws again. And that’s my concern here.

Even though I appreciate the council’s trying to fix it, But I don’t think it’s going to really make a substantial difference. What I have concerns though is that it’s going to change the look of our neighborhoods. I’m a big fan of Joni Mitchell, Yellow Taxi. They pay paradise, and they put up a parking lot.

She came up with those words they say when she looked out of her hotel room when she was in Hawaii and saw a parking lot. And it kind of jarred with the natural green spaces that are around. And I see the same thing happening in our neighborhoods. And I’m very cautious.

I’m a big supporter of minimum parking, 0.5, minimum. It’s really up to developers in the planning application and process to figure out how many parking spaces will there be when we do infill projects and development. But I don’t see this right now. It may solve one or two problems right now, but we’re not solving the problems for the next generation.

We’re down the road. So again, I think the council is coming up with trying to find a solution, but again, I don’t think this is the solution. Councilor Ferrer. Thank you.

So I will say thank you to the councillors for trying to find a solution. I think that this is a little way more complex than we are making it out to be. I appreciate Councilor Hopkins’ comments, and I think that if we dive in a little deeper, you can see some of the nuances that are kind of approaching us. First thing I will say, I’ll ask, I guess.

So this is a PPM, so there is a report coming back, and in that report, what are we gonna expect? Are we gonna get the impacts that may arise of this motion are we going to get impacts with respect to I guess the cost of housing where it would kind of bring an extra cost would we get any information on the impacts with respect to the ARUs. I know we just proved a motion for ARUs but I do see this as one lot per residential unit so I would assume ARUs are included there I would assume that this could be a restricting factor of how many ARUs could be added to a certain lot. Through the chair, just looking through the resolution here.

So it is specific that it’s asking us to bring back these zoning by-law changes. And of course, with any port that has second zoning by-law whom would component of it, we’re gonna provide some analysis and details from a planning perspective, whether those are justifiable, as far as the opinions of our planning staff. We’re not intending to do a huge amount of research. just from the planning perspective and looking at the PPS, like we usually would, it’s not for us to go and look at reasons or rationales of why these may not be appropriate.

We’re taking the council direction and then just providing from a planning rationale, whether it’s something that’s supported by the P PS. Councillor. Thank you. So I guess with respect to the air you comment or question that I just had, like it does say that there’s a minimum of one parking space for each residential unit, while providing exemptions for the developments of affordable housing.

So for each residential unit there could be an impact here that that could constrain the amount of additional residential units we’re looking at with the last motion that we just approved. So there is some issues there. We should look for more information because this is very explicit and clear of the issue. Another issue that I would like to ask I guess would be I guess it would be with respect to what what I was saying before with the stormwater management system that we have.

So currently, as I understand it, our stormwater is not treated. We have stormwater rates that collect stormwater runoff from driveways, from roads, and that goes in to the system and it goes out into the Thames, is that correct? Ms. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is correct, stormwater is generally not treated by any cities in Canada. Councillor.

Thank you. And some of the, I guess what I’d say, the surface area that captures that is that non-permeable surface area. So that’s driveways, that’s roads, but some of the areas that do capture that, that don’t go into that system, is front lawns. Is that correct?

Councillor. Sorry, Ms. Sharer, I was gonna call you Councill or Sharer. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and I’m fine with Ms. Sharer. (laughing) So our stormwater system is a combination of major and minor engineered systems. So those are retention and channel works, are underground pipes and storm greats.

And then there is also infiltration, which will reduce the amount that is carried into those systems in any given subdivision. Yes. Councilor. Thank you.

So infiltration can happen with permeable surfaces. That’s the grass. And that’s exactly what we could be taking out. Now we are the forest city, but sometimes it’s referred to as we are the city cut out in the forest.

And I’m worried that the more surface area we take away for infiltration. And the more we expand driveways in this blanket slate, the bigger impacts will have the more surface area that will capture storm runoff, especially on driveways because cars leak oil. And that oil is untreated as it runs off and goes directly into the Thames River. So I would ask, and I know, and I’m sorry to put you on the spot, Michelle, but here’s another question.

What would the impact speed? Do we have any idea of how much more surface area we’ll be creating with this motion? that would be eventually capturing more runoff and going into the Thames? Ms.

Chair. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. It would be impossible to speculate that on that without knowing the current state of permeability of those lawns that could potentially become driveways, as well as the degree of uptake that happens throughout the city.

So I’m afraid I’m not able to answer that. Councillor. Thank you, and I thought you were gonna say that. And that’s why we need a report.

And that’s why this is more complicated than it seems to be. You know, we do have problems today. And one of the biggest problems we have is with waste materials going into the temps. And we can’t take away more areas of infiltration and then just say, you know, this is the problem we have now, this is a solution, but it just goes into our watershed in for the future to deal with.

We used to do that, we used to do this, but you know, we’ve smartened up a little bit and we’ve learned a little bit more. So going back to the old ways and saying the old ways is, you know, it happened to work before, we should do it again. It doesn’t apply. I think we need to be approaching this with a different lens.

And we need to be getting a little bit more information on this because we don’t know what the impacts are gonna be. You know, this pollution that goes into the, the Thames is permanent and it will go downstream and it affects everybody. The biggest thing that I would say is it doesn’t necessarily affect us today, but it will affect everyone’s kids tomorrow. It will affect my kids tomorrow and it will affect everybody downstream in the watershed.

That’s not just in London. And we need to start looking towards solutions that don’t necessarily do that because we’re just kicking problem down the road that’s inevitable right now . So I really think a report looking into this is a smart way to go and you may think that maybe you know it’s just a little bit of widening here a little bit widening there but when you look at it into accumulation of how many drive ways could be widened I think the impact would be a lot more than we’re expecting but we don’t have that information before us and I really think that it would be wise and prudent to look into a report that’s why I supported a Council of Frank’s report at least it something. I don’t see that this public participation report is really going to speak to that.

It obviously is not going to speak to the fact that it most likely is going to constrain how many additional residential units we’re going to have. So that goes against us all that policy as well. But I think that there’s a lot of different issues here. And that’s just what I kind of came up with just looking at this motion as it is now.

There’s probably more, but I think maybe having staff look into this would be a wise choice because it’s not as simple as it looks. Oh, and that’s why I’m not going to support it. Councillor McAllister. Thank you through the chair.

My train of thought. Gone here. First time speaking actually this afternoon or almost this evening. So I appreciate in terms of where the Councillors are coming from with this.

It’s an issue I’ve heard as well and I’m just kind of speaking to my own experiences and my thought process with this. I mean I’m curious to hear from the PPM people coming forward. I know Councillor Cuddy kind of touched on this but in terms of the east portion I have it’s It’s a real mixed bag of housing and a number of issues in terms of parking come up with that. When you have older neighborhoods, there really wasn’t a lot of thought in terms of a driveway back in the day anyways.

They’re very narrow. I personally think the shared driveway model is hell for a lot of homeowners and I’m sure that they all get very creative in terms of where they put their cars. I think some of the older ones also, they might have smaller homes and a larger lot. So if we’re trying to encourage some ARUs, having some parking spaces would probably be beneficial.

Because really, the issue that I hear the most is in terms of the spillover of the parking onto the street itself. And I think we probably all have cases of this happening where the streets themselves, I know Councillor Frank wanted to see more information on this, but I can assure you just from even my neighborhood that the street parking is unreal. I mean, if you live near a school, you have your own hell when it comes to drop off some pickups and dealing with that situation as well. And the parking situation has just really become untenable.

I think in an ideal situation, I would have loved to have seen a better functioning transit system years ago than what I think would have addressed a lot of this. But with the housing issues we’re facing in the current climate, I think people have had to find creative ways in terms of parking. You’ve got multi-generational families. You’ve got students living in larger situations, almost into boarding houses.

There’s rental homes around near campus. People have had to really get creative with their housing these days, and parking is a reality of that. People are staying at home longer. And I mean, I don’t love necessarily going back on this.

Like, I hear the comments about, you know, paving over green, and I don’t love that either. But I also find having our streets jammed with parking is not helping the neighborhoods either. So it’s a bit of a catch-22 that, I mean, there’s good and bad with this. I’m curious to see what the folks for the PPM want us to say.

I haven’t seen the final bylaw, but I think we need to explore it. So I’m willing to support this currently, but I just wanted to share my thoughts in terms of the reality that my ward’s facing, and I hear it a lot of the time, that the parking has just become brutal in a lot of neighborhoods, and we really need some options on the table to address that. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor McAllister.

I will ask Councilor Raman to take the chair for me. Thank you, I have the chair, go ahead. Thank you. I’m gonna try very hard to not repeat everything colleagues have said, we’re already over three hours in, and I don’t think the repetition is necessary.

What I will say is this, I’m going to share an example for one family in my ward. When we talk about cost, I don’t know, Councilor Frank referenced, great, we got some revenue. Sure, we do, in the winter months, when they have to pay to park on the street overnight, at $5 a night, if they’ve got to do that for three months, that’s $450. So that is an impact on families right there.

And then there are nights. They can’t park on the street because Ms. Cher’s team needs to clear the snow off the road. And while they can’t do every road within three to five a.m., they need that time when they can go do cleanup.

So we already don’t allow that. I could not disagree more that we’re going to see the fears realized of somehow there’s gonna be a massive uptake of this and we’re gonna pay over the city. there’s gonna be a cost to the homeowner to widen the driveway. But if a family has to pay $450 for winter on- street parking every year versus having a one-time cost of $3, 000, maybe $5,000, maybe to do a driveway widening.

And we have materials that are permeable today for driveway services. That’d be up to the owner to decide what they wanna do. That’s an option for them to pursue. A one-time cost makes a whole lot more sense.

And then when that multi-generational family situation changes, maybe they do pursue the ARU. But I know that there are people who won’t pursue an ARU because they have no way to provide parking for their tenant, should they have one. Not every ARU tenant is going to come without a vehicle, not every neighborhood, as we’ve all mentioned in some way, shape or form is gonna have transit. And I can’t, I respectfully, I understand where Councilor Hopkins is coming from, but I don’t agree that we need to wait because if we change this today, we’re in periling future generations.

we need to solve the problems of today today we can yes we could change the bylaws again in the future we did that and we have a problem now so I think we have to step back from what we did and move forward especially when we think about how and we’re not talking about the 1 to 1 parking ratio or the 0.5 parking ratio here I’m talking specifically about the driveway bump out spot or the extra lane of driveway for width you know that was frankly driven not buy anything more than urban design guidelines of a previous regime. Like I said, long before any of us are here, it’s not a comment on any decisions we’ve made. But it was about people thinking that we should just not allow people to park in front of their house. And that a parking spot had to be defined by leading to a garage or rear yard.

That’s side laneway. As Councillor McAllister said, those narrow laneways in many neighborhoods, there is still going to be perme able surface in front yards, even where this is taken up because there’s still maximum limits and it’s based on front edges. So you can’t go the entire width of your yard. You can’t turn your entire front yard into a parking lot.

What this ultimately does, and we have to think about what our current by-law is, which is an 8 meter end point something. Basically, the current by-law says you can’t do double-wide if it’s not double-wide all the way back. So If you’ve got a narrow side yard, you can only be single. This would allow for a double wide where a car might be parked in front of the living room window or the kitchen window or the bedroom window with what I call the bump out.

We’re not talking about widening curb cuts or impacting boulevard trees. That’s a street spy law thing. It’s only on private property. So there’s no cost to us as a municipality for letting homeowners widen their driveway on private property.

We will continue to have opportunities in new subdivisions, in existing subdivisions to retrofit things into create ARUs, to create units of housing that people are going to take because there is a parking spot included. And we know that some of our vacancy, and not all of our vacancy, but some of it is attributed to the fact that we’re building with less than one to one, or we have an ARU without a parking spot, and now it’s hard to find a tenant. So I encourage folks to let staff come back with a bylaw. We’ll take some public input and we’ll go from there, but let’s move this forward today.

Thank you, returning the chair to you. And if there’s no one else on the speakers list , Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. So I wanna talk a little bit about A and then a little bit about the changes that have been made in B and C.

So A is something that in the last few months And actually, in the last year or so, I’ve had a number of applications that have come through, and this has been a concern around one-to-one parking. And so this helps to address some of those concerns, especially in where we’re planning to put a lot of growth, which is the northwest part of the city. When I look at the current— the changes that we’ve made and that are planned for the urban growth boundary expansion. If those are to be changes where we’re seeing more high rise, mid rise in those areas, we are going to need parking in order to address the needs of residents in those areas, because we do not have transit around where we’ve approved the expansion of the urban growth boundary.

So I understand that we can have a desire for people to ride transit, but when transit stops at a point in my ward where there’s no access to transit for a good almost quarter of the new subdivisions. And in some cases, as I’ve said, these subdiv isions have been in place for 15 years. We’re not moving fast enough to be able to accommodate the type of growth that we’ve already seen in the city and the planned growth that we have in the city with the urban growth boundaries. So we’re making changes to things like assessment growth so that we can put transit where we’re going to put housing.

But until such time as we can meet those requests , we are going to have to plan better. And to do that, we are going to have to make sure that we have adequate parking. And that’s why you’ll see in that language, again , around changes around located in protected major transit station areas, and other recommendations for potential exemptions to come back with for the by-law. In part B and C, I was supportive of us looking at this and bringing this by-law forward.

The changes to the near-campus neighborhood, though, complicate this for my ward considerably. And so I’m going to have to pull B and C apart because of that. And D, what I hear from a lot of residences, you allowed an ARU or a neighbor is considering an additional residential unit, but they’ve already have parking challenges in the area. So this is something to help address some of those concerns.

So thanks to my colleagues for the discussion. I really do appreciate it. I think there’s opportunity for more of that as well as public consultation as this information comes back with an updated by law. Okay, do we have any other speakers before we call the question?

And we will separate it out per your request, Councillor Raman. So seeing none, we’re just gonna give the clerk a moment to get the vote separated deal with a independent from B and C. Sorry, A and D, you’re okay with D. Just so colleagues are aware, this is the last vote on planning committee.

So after that, I will look for a motion for a brief recess. We’ll have been at it for three and a half hours. folks may need to refresh for a few minutes. So we’ll look to do that after planning committee .

Okay, so the first vote we’re gonna call is B and C. These are the driveway widths that were amended to exempt the Western University near campus neighborhood. And we’ll open the vote on that now. So Farara, do you close in the vote?

Motion carries 11 to three. Colleagues, and now we’ll open the vote on A and D. Close in the vote, motion carries 11 to three. Thank you, colleagues.

Councilor Layman. Thank you, Chair. That concludes the fourth report of the planning environment. Okay, it’s 4.30.

I’m gonna look to see if there’s a motion for a brief recess. Councilor Vameer-Bergin, did you have a time you wanted to move, Councilor , 10 minutes? 15, what’s your? I’m gonna rule an hour and a half out of order because we would need a motion to extend past six for that.

10 minutes? Okay, is there a seconder for a 10-minute break? Councilor Stevenson, by hand, all those in favor. Can you please keep your hands up?

We will return at 4.40, please. And colleagues, we are going to call the fourth council meeting back to order and community and protective services is next, Councilor Palosa has taken her leave. So I will turn to Councilor Preble. Thank you, Chair and dear colleagues.

It’s my pleasure to present to you the third report of the community and protective committee. And I strongly keynote that we had during the committee, we had actually six members because the Mayor Sean Lewis, he was acting married that day. And I was asked to pull out four and four from committee 2.5, affordable and community housing update. Five from committee 2.6, 2025 Ontario Works participant and service delivery profile, both pulled by Council Stevenson.

It was approved under the consent agenda 6-0 at the committee meeting. Then 0.8, 2.4, residential unit licensing license display. The committee was unable to reach a majority decision on this matter and it is being reported to the council today without a recommendation. So we’ll be voting on that.

And then also a 4.1 request for reimbursement for private property cleaning and graffiti removal services by all these village BIA. And at the committee it was voted to be referred to the next ICIS meeting. And this was pulled also by Councillor Stevenson. So you worship, sorry, you’re the preliminary.

We can vote on two, one, two, two, three and two, seven. We can vote currently right now. And then we have four points at the agenda to go one by one. Okay, so Councillor, I’m just gonna refer to them by the council numbering rather than the committee.

So you’re moving one, two, three, six and seven. Two, three, six and seven. And one, which is the enclosures of community interest. Yes.

That is correct. Okay, so we have one through three, six and seven moved on community protective services. Any speakers to those? Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you and through you. Just a quick question on perks and recreation master plan in your report. I noticed there’s a large dollar value assigned to the multi-year budget, but nothing in the plan says, you know, this is what was spent so far on which projects. Just wondered if that shows up in another report or is that something we’d have to request in the annual updates going forward?

Ms. Smith. Thank you and through your worship. For part of the report, the recreation and programming side, we have item I in the budget lines for recreation programs and our community centers .

So we can articulate if there’s any facility builds. For example, we are going forward with Silver woods. So we can articulate or put in brackets afterwards the budget at amount. Some of them we also get funding from the provincial and federal government, so we’re happy to articulate what those are.

Let Ms. Shear speak to the parks projects. Ms. Shear.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do not currently report out on all of the multiple renewal and new capital projects for parks. Often they end up being a parks party where we invite everybody to come and be part of that new space, we would report back if there was a requirement to change the funding beyond what we’re able to manage within our contingencies.

Councilor, any other speakers on the consent items. Can I just do perhaps a point of order? Councillor McAllister. Is it possible to do a change of order within the report in terms of items?

Or do we have to, I know we’re voting on these ones, but the pulled items, can we do a change of order once we get to that? I’m just looking for clarification. Do you mean that a change of order in the items that are not yet on the floor? Yeah, when we get to them, sorry.

So a change of order can absolutely be considered. I would suggest we just deal with the consent first and then we can proceed, seeing no other speakers , I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, before I go back to Councilor Pribble, I’ll go to Councilor McAllister.

Well, thank you. And I’m just hoping to kind of flip the order, deal with number nine and number eight, just as we have people in the gallery who have been waiting a while. So if we could deal with those first. So you want to deal with eight?

So you want to deal with eight, nine, then five and six? Just go backwards, nine, eight, and then deal with the others. Okay, I’m just gonna look to see if there’s any objection to that. If there is, then we’ll have to put it to a vote.

I don’t see any objection. So I’m seeing consensus on the change of order. So Councilor Pribble, can I ask that you just, we’re going to accept that as consensus of council. So if you can deal with 9, 8, 6, 5, rather than 5, 6, 8, 9.

Thank you Chair, I certainly will. So I would like to put up 0.9 at the committee 4. 1 request for reimbursement for private property cleaning, graffiti removal services, which was presented by all these village BIA at a committee meeting. It was referred to the next ICIS meeting, and it was asked to be pulled by Councillor Stevenson.

Okay, so you’re putting the community recommendation referral on the floor, and now Councillor Stevenson. Correct. Thank you very much. I put a submission in to the added agenda, and basically it’s asking my colleagues to say no to the referral and then I have an alternate motion ready to pay the 14,152-33 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund and just be done with this.

And basically in the communication it says the Old East Village BIA came in the summertime, said, “Can you reimburse us for the amount from January to April?” It was 34,000 and something. it was actually denied at committee but then at council we were able to put it through and say let’s just get that paid. At the time it was mentioned that there would be another an additional invoice coming. This is the additional invoice.

That program has been stopped. So there will not be another invoice. It’s not part of the old East Village VIA 2026 budget. This was for non-levvy paying businesses.

It was a goodwill gesture to try to bridge through a difficult time in that area to address, you know, critically important historical buildings like Aolian Hall, Banting House, Palace Theatre, Clay Works. It’s a very small amount of money. If we want to refer it to committee and talk about it for a long time and have delegations, I am more than happy to talk about the problems in the old East Village and what needs to be done. If that’s That’s what council wants.

It’s fine, I’m offering a shorter path to say no to the referral, reimburse the money. And that’s my request. Councillor McAllister. Thank you, through the chair, I’ll be brief.

Ditto to it. Councillor Stevenson just said, I’d like to deal with this item now. We’ve done that previously. I don’t think this needs to go to ICSC.

And I would also, I’ll second the motion. The Councillor Stevenson said it’s an alternate to this referral, thank you. Okay, well, if we get to that motion, I will look to you to second it. We have the committee recommendation on the floor first, looking for any other speakers to that.

Councillor Ferrera. Thank you. At the committee, I was not necessarily a favor of the recommendation. I did have another alternate motion I wanted to bring for requests to kind of just have a clean up in the whole area.

So we wouldn’t have to go and use the BIA. I would say, no, just because the amount of money is small doesn’t mean that it’s insignificant and we should be spending it. all money is meaningful and all the money, especially taxpayer funds, we should have a full fiduciary responsibility in how we spend that. So just because it’s small, relatively speaking, not small for me, I would also say that these are non-lovey paying members that we’re trying to reimburse with the old East Village.

That should come through council. That shouldn’t be an old East Village BIA thing. I think the best course of action would have been to come to a counselor and the counselor would bring it to council maybe we can discuss it there, and then looking to pay it back retroactively, yeah, just because that we did do that in the previous committee, and the committee said no, and I was one of the ones that said no to that in the previous committee. Does it mean we can come back and ask for it again?

Like, you know, the downtown VA got $1.16 million . Maybe I’ll come back and say, “Well, we got $1.16 million in the past. Maybe you should get another $1.16 million.” I would say that kind of thinking, you know, could snowball into something that I know council wouldn’t necessarily be comfortable for. Because of that, you know, with the referral going to ICSC, then I guess just send it to ICSC.

So I’m just gonna go with the committee recommendation. And we’re on the, yes, so the motion from the committee was the referral to ICSC, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for clarifying that. And I supported, I second this at committee.

I do think it’s really, really important that we try not to do a lot of this committee work here at council. You can see how our meetings have extended, and this is not the first council meeting, but the referral should go to another committee where they receive the financial statements from the BIA and then have that conversation at committee. So that’s why I seconded it. I don’t think we should start again doing committee work here at council.

Other speakers? Council approval. Thank you, Chair. After our committee meeting, I did have a conversation with the BIA, with the members, merchants and other businesses in all these village to confirm that the work was done and certainly there was an improvement during the last year.

My talk also to BIA, they do have this cleaning budget line in their budget and they do expect to use it up or spend it all based on the current situation there during this year. Based on that and some of the things that were said, I will be voting, defeating the committee’s motion that was passed. I would like to take care of it right now and for us to put this again. This is the last one, they were very specific about it.

And as I said, actually, I think that when I look at the amounts, after they don’t do it and we start doing it as a city or this, I think that there’s a potentially even fair chance that it’s gonna be in higher amounts than this. But I would encourage as well, Let’s put this behind us. Yes, there were some said it should have been done this way. Should have been done that way.

That’s not a situation we are here. It’s in front of us. Let’s deal with it. Let’s deal with it.

Let’s get it done. Let’s move on. Thank you. That’s where trust out.

I was in favor of the referral at committee and I’m in favor of the referral now. I think we’re doing too much committee work here. Any other speakers on the referral as it stands ? Seeing none, Mr.

Raman, I’ll ask you to take the chair. just briefly, I’ll be really quick. I have the chair, go ahead. Thank you.

So I do appreciate the communication we received from Mr. Morrison with respect to the focus on the non-Levi paying members. I also appreciate the comments that this program has ended. I would actually prefer in the future if non-Levi paying members need support, that they make a direct ask.

Don’t think, honestly, with all due respect to the BIA’s and I have a couple of non-Levi paying members in my BIAA too. I actually don’t think the BIAA should be doing non-Levy member support work. I think that those two things should be separated . So I supported the referral at committee.

I’m inclined to just deal with this today because I’ve been told we’re not coming again, we’ve removed it from our budget. This is non-Levy paying members, Banting House, a couple others that are involved, but it does spur for me as well the importance of the conversation about what a BIAA is supposed to be doing, which to me is not doing all, it’s supposed to be there to support the businesses. So it’s a discussion I think we have to have around our BIAs and the budgets they bring forward and what they’re doing with their money. But at the same time, I’m also inclined to put this issue to bed.

So I just wanted to share where my thought process is. I understand colleagues have a couple of different opinions and I’m okay with that whichever way this goes. Moving forward, we’ve got to figure out this non-levvy paying members of the BIA situation. It’s not, to me, it’s created a very difficult conversation in wards across the city.

Turning the chair to you is known on the speaker’s list. Okay, last call for any other speakers. Seeing none, then I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. We are voting on the committee recommendation to refer.

So if you vote yes, it’s referred to ICSC. If you vote no, then we’ll have to have an alternate motion. Opposed in the vote, motion fails, five to eight. Okay, Councillor Stevenson, indicated you had an altered motion, so I’ll go to you.

I do and it’s with the clerk. I can read it out if you like. That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from Kay Morrison, Old East Village Business Improvement Area with respect to a request for reimbursement for private property cleaning and graffiti removal. A, the civic administration be directed to immediately reimburse the Old East Village VIA in the amount of $14,152.33 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for previously expended costs related to private property cleanups, graffiti removal, and enhanced safety and security measures.

It being noted there’s another communication from the Midtown Community Organization. Councilor McAllister, you indicated you were seconding that. Okay, so that’s been moved and seconded. Now that’s on the floor for discussion.

Councilor Ferrer. Thank you. So how much do we have in the community investment will reserve fund and is there any commitment to that balance and are we where we should be on that reserve fund? Ms.

Barbong. Mr. Murray is on the line, and I believe he has that information, so. Mr.

Murray, go ahead. Thank you, through you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. So the current projection for the Community Investment Reserve Fund is a balance in 2026 of approximately $1.6 million.

That does decline over the next couple years beyond 2026. You’ll recall we recently approved the transit pass, secondary school transit past pilot program that utilizes some funding from that reserve fund . So that does draw on that reserve fund over the next couple of years. But as of current projections for 2026, the balance is about 1.6 million.

Councilor. Thank you. So that 1.6 million does not include the transit pilot project or it does. Mr.

Murray. Through you Mr. Chair, that does include the cost for 2026, the balance in that reserve fund is projected to decline to approximately a million dollars as of the end of 2027, and then decline to approximately $650,000 or thereabouts by 2028. I will note, however, that that does not include any projections as it relates to infusions into that reserve fund from any year-end surplus in accordance with the surplus deficit policy.

So any inflows associated with that, which are not yet finalized, of course , for 2025 are not reflected in those numbers yet. >> That’s, sir. >> Thank you. Well, I hope we don ‘t have another surplus that puts money into that.

Is that the only source of funding we have in the community investment reserve fund just through any type of surpluses in the deficit surplus policy? >> Mr. Murray. >> Through you, that is correct.

There are no other tax-reported contributions that go into that reserve fund. >> Counselor. >> Well, I don’t want to speculate, but it does seem like we’re just kind of using this reserve fund for one-offs here and there and I feel like if we were to take the balance down to I think Mr. Murray said 600, 000 we’ve kind of pretty much tied our hands with any uses of what the community investment reserve fund is supposed to be used for so we are not going to be able to necessarily have any kind of initiatives or funding for the community investment reserve fund coming out of that and I hope that we don’t have huge influxes of money with another surplus.

I would also say that you know council is supposed to make these decisions and council should be helping, you know , anyone that’s not necessarily a member of the BIA. I agree with the deputy mayor’s comments on BIA’s should be focusing on BIA members. We, any type of specific ask for non- members, you know, they can come to us. We would be more than willing to help that.

So, I ‘m worried on kind of what direction that takes us. I guess I would also go to this. What type of funds would be available in the old East Village BIA as it is, if we were to pay that money back. Do, is the old East Village BIA, are they depleted of funds, or what are the balances are in those accounts, do we have that information?

Ms. Barboon. Thank you, through the chair. Perhaps to clarify, the BIA budgets that you’re referring to are approved by the Corporate Services.

The reports that we presented were brought forward to the ICSC Committee in January. There is, as part of that report, there was noted , there was funding from previous COVID relief funding that did show a balance that was outstanding. Is that the fund that you’re referring to? I appreciate the clarification.

I’m sorry, I know we’re supposed to be doing committee work at committee, and I didn’t see this motion coming. I would say yes, and what are the current reserves in the balance now? And I guess I would expand on that would be, was this also something that was part of the BIA ‘s budget? Point of order, Councillor McAllister.

This is for reimbursement for past years. We’re not rehashing budget discussions at this time. This is a very specific item for a reimbursement that’s already occurred. You are correct in that it is a reimbursement for 2025 expenses incurred.

My point is we’re not discussing 2026 budget. The current balance is irrelevant when we’re discussing a 2025 reimbursement. So I agree with you on that. I think that’s a valid point of order in terms of staying on what’s on the floor.

But I think if Councilor Ferreira is asking about - I didn’t say 2026 budget. So, okay, Councillors, you don’t engage in cross debate on a point of order, so please stop. I was about to say if Councilor Ferreira was asking, is there a 2025 surplus from the OEVBIA that has just been carried forward that could have otherwise reimbursed this? That would be an order.

The 2026 budget moving forward, which doesn’t include a line item for this, would not be relevant. But if you’re asking specifically, was there unspent funds in 2025, that’s in order. So, yes, Councilor McAllister, your point of order is valid, but Councilor Ferreira, if you can clarify your question, it may be in order. I’m looking for, with the balances, I don’t look, two questions.

Number one, in the budgeting, in the past budget ing, where this money came out of the funds that we’re looking to, or potentially discussing for refunding, want to know if we can know if that was in the budget, first of all. And I also want to know what the balance would be after that fiscal year before 2026 starts. Basically, I want to know is the remaining funds left over. Does the BIA need these funds?

I don’t have the information. This is why I’m looking for this. This is why I’m asking the questions. Like how I need I need this so I can make a judgment here.

Ms. Barbara and I don’t know whether you can provide that information or Mr. Murray if you have that information I will go to staff though to see if they can provide any additional details. Thank you through you Mr.

Deputy Mayor so what I can advise and as was reported in the BIA budget report for all these village back in January the operating fund of old East Village BIA has a projected balance as of the end of 2025 of approximately $260,000. However, 189,000 of that is projected to be drawn on in 2026 to support the BIA’s budget and initiatives. So that leaves a remaining operating fund balance of approximately $71,000 or their abouts for oldies village which aligns with as miss barbone was referring to the remaining approximately seventy thousand dollars of covid relief funding that was previously provided by the city to oldies village bia counselor thank you and do we know what was budgeted for the last budget like was this something that was budgeted or was this kind of a discretionary expense by the BIA. Mr.

Murray, was there a line item for this in 2025? Is that what you’re asking Councilor for seeing a nod? Three Mr. Deputy Mayor, I can confirm that in the Old East Village BIA budget for 2025, there is a budgeted line item for private property cleanup.

I can’t speak though, however, to the specifics or details of how that funds were intended to be spent or specifically on on what properties they were intended for. Thank you. So if there is a line item for that, and we did provide funding for that for this exact specific thing, but it didn’t have the clarification whether it would be a member or not, I think we’ve already given the BIA the money to spend this money. I don’t understand why the BIA is coming back and asking for reimbursement.

When we did give that money intended for this exact purpose, the money was spent, there’s a line item in the budget, and then there’s a reimbursement request. So that’s kind of where I’m held up here. Same issue that I was held up on the last request . I’d also say there comes a time when we kind of have to put our foot down and say no, enough is enough.

If there is a request for non-members, they should come to council. I’m sure we would have more than the ability to say yes and help them out. I’m just concerned on some of our decisions and our hands being a little tied when these decisions are made outside this hors eshoe and then a reimbursement request comes up. So I will finish there.

Looking for other speakers. I have Councilor McAllister, you haven’t spoken on this yet, go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. Appreciate the opportunity to speak on this.

Recognizing the challenges that OEVs face. Understanding that this program was intended to kind of help the area. Struggles are going through my BIA similar issues . We’ve had to devote a lot of resources to cleaning graffiti.

Yes, we have the business paying members, but when you’re in an area such as this, there’s a lot of crossover in terms of the community. These funds, I’m sure, in terms of the intentions , OEV was good. They’re trying to clean up their area. I also understand that completely.

In terms of refunding these funds, I think it’s incumbent on us to look at something like this as a community benefit. I think this is still an appropriate source of funds. They’re trying to improve the area. These are important historical landmark sites within their BIA district.

And I agree with what the deputy mayor had previously said. I think this has spurred a lot of discussions amongst the BIA’s in terms of what their roles should be in terms of some of the comments that Councilor Ferris said, parking helps the whole area. We have previously had that discussion in terms of the downtown BIA, and we have approved funding for them. And that is not exclusive to business paying members.

That is something that brings people downtown. They stay, they use the services, the businesses, could even be residents. There are a lot of services where there are some crossover. I do think that the conversation more and more discussion amongst all the BIA’s in terms of what they want to provide, but the city could provide.

But I think this is an appropriate ask. It is a program that has since ended, but I do think it has spread a very important discussion in terms of cleaning up certain areas that really need the investment. And so leave my comments there and I’ll pass over to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

Thank you. I don’t have Councillor Stevenson on the list yet . I am looking for other speakers though. I don’t have other speakers unless Councilor Stevenson wants to get on the list.

I do, I’m gonna keep it really short. I just wanted to thank the executive director for the old East Village BIA for being here today for this meeting, for also for the submission that went in along with my own from a Banting House and National Historic Site, the Palace Theater, and Alien Hall. I appreciate their submissions. I also appreciate their understanding that this program had to come to an end at the end of December.

and despite the ongoing despair and clean up and all that kind of stuff, this was a short-term thing that was done in the hopes that there was gonna be more progress than there’s been. So the references, I kind of laugh with the committee work should be done at committee. I got my own comments about how we can’t, as non-members, do committee work at committee and it’s not very easy to do that. And there’s also, there was the ability if people felt really strongly that we didn’t want to make this last payment, that could have been done at the last committee.

It was very clearly said there was going to be one more payment coming. It’s actually half the cost of the last one. I understand this is why it’s been ended. This is a unique situation in a unique neighborhood with unique needs, many of which are not under the control of the BIA or the business owners there.

Their funding is needed for them. the problems are still very, very serious there. It’s not about, we didn’t come and say we don’t have any money, can you pay our bill? This was done as a community benefit.

The understanding was there that this would be taking care of and so I’m asking for committee support around just finishing this off, finishing it well. And thank you to everybody in advance. No other speakers. I’m gonna ask Clerk to open the vote.

closing the vote, motion carries 10 to three. Councilor Preble. Thank you, Chair, and I would like to put on a 0. 8, 2.4 residential unit licensing license display.

And just so you know, the staff recommendation was defeated, which was BRC for information and no future action be taken. It was defeated by tie to two. Then there was an alternate motion in front of us , which was felt as well, two to two. So what I would like to do is I would like to put on actually the motion, the recommendation from the staff right now in front of us that to be or see for information and that no further action be taken.

Okay, just give me a minute while I just check in with the clerk here. Sorry, I just had to check on something with the clerk. So your correct counselor, there’s no recommendation coming out of committee . You can put that on the floor.

I should have asked you to wait until I came back to recognize on that, but you wanna put that on the floor. All it would have required is for you to put your hand up and she said, “Nothing’s coming out of the committee.” So discuss it with Clerk, fine to go ahead. So you can put that on the floor. Thank you, Chair.

So currently I would like to put on the floor the recommendation that came to the committee from the staff, BRC for information, and then no further action be taken, thank you, Chair. And Councillor Stevenson, you indicated your seconding. Point of order, Councillor Ferrera. All right, so with no recommendation from the committee, what is the proper procedure to bring something forward with no recommendation?

Do we need to seek leave? Do we need to, what do we need to do there? No, that’s what I was talking to the clerk about, whether we needed to seek leave, whether there’s anything, but any member of council could put anything on the floor. So that the acting, sort of the vice chair has put the staff recommendation back on.

Proceeds really, would this be considered an emergent motion or additional matters because we didn’t have a recommendation from the committee? No, the item is simply forwarded from the committee without a recommendation from the committee. So there’s no deadlines or anything like that that are applied here. Councilor Cuddy.

Thank you, Chair, through you. This was actually a motion that I brought up a while ago and Councilor Trossa was helping me with it. And I wasn’t able to attend the committee meeting , although I wasn’t a member to vote. I guess my question is similar to Councilor Fer ris and just for procedural matters.

If this is received, where does it go from there? Are we able to bring it back in a year’s time or at another committee or to council? So the staff recommendation in their report, which was neither, which was not endorsed by committee, but neither was anything else, was to receive their report for information and take no further action on it. Should we prove that, then it is a decided matter of council for at least a year, and something else would have to be brought forward in its place, that, and I’m just gonna check with , ‘cause I think I know where you’re going, council or, ‘cause I asked staff the same question.

So just let me check and see if Ms. Feffer’s available to us on the line or Mr. Mathers, okay. So our chief of municipal by-law officers not available to you, and I’m sorry if I’m being presumptuous, but there were some other directions given around , or there were some other discussions around other components that Council was asking Ms.

Feffer to look into, but this would not preclude other items. She’s not here to answer, so I can’t really, but this is very specific to posting public information about landlords, the contact information. If you’re asking about other things, like having a website that lists outstanding, that is not part of this, that is a separate item that’s being looked into. So I hope that helps.

Thank you, Chair, and that does help. So this could be brought back to council in a year’s time. So that’s, that’s efficient. Thank you.

Point of order again. I believe with the new council’s term, that year doesn’t go for a full extent. You are correct, councilor, that is, yes. It is a decided matter of this council.

The clock resets as soon as the next council is sworn in, anything can be brought back up. Councilor Truss, I want to point of order. My point of order is, would it be in order to make a motion to just pass that motion, but delete the words and no further action be taken, which case we would not have to wait the year and it would go back to committee if somebody wanted to put it on the committee agenda which is which here we are doing committee work and I want this to go back to the committee and that ‘s my that’s my point of question order whatever it is but yeah that’s okay I’d make that motion so I will rule on that as a point of order it would be substantially substantially different from what the counselor has put on the floor because he’s specifically put on the floor take no action so you can’t amend it to just delete that you You have to defeat this and then put it just to receive on the floor. You can’t remove a take no action from emotion because it’s substantively different.

It’s actually contrary to what the intention of the counselor is when they put that language on the floor. I’ll speak now if I can. I truly believe that this needs to be sent back to cap’s committee for a full discussion. Now, if this passes, this council will be done.

We won’t be able to do this during this council. And I think that would be too bad. So even though I’d prefer to make a motion to whittle down that less motion, which I would oppose, I think what I’m gonna be asking councilors to do in the interest of this getting this back to a committee discussion where it belongs in my view is just defeat the motion that’s on the floor. And I think that’s the cleanest way of doing it.

and if the motion is defeated on the floor, I would then suggest that this be referred to committee be in that it’s 5.30. We still have a lot of things to do on this council agenda. We’re doing too much committee work, people. And I see we got people.

We got people here who are waiting for items. We could talk about this for an hour, and we will look committee. So let’s defeat this motion, and then there’ll be another motion to refer to the next meeting, of the next available meeting of so please vote no on this motion. I got that straight.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Trussa . Looking for other speakers, getting my lists mixed up here so bear with me for a moment. With that, Councillor Ferrer, go ahead.

Thank you. So I guess point of clarification, I know that’s not necessarily a point, but just a clarification for the clerks. There was an alternate motion brought that was substantially different from this recommendation. If we were to, and I do want to defeat this, but if this were to pass, that wouldn’t preclude that other motion coming to committee.

Is that correct? It was a motion with a business or get the exact language, a website with business licensing or landlord licensing with businesses. I forget the exact language. Sorry.

You’re gonna get me to give us a moment. Just need to make sure we’re on point. Sorry about that. Okay, so we went back and looked at the other motion that came to committee because it speaks to professional or business contact of rental owners.

It is still tied to CP 19 so if what we have on the floor passes then that other motion could not come back before the next term of council. So this would have to be defeated before a new motion could be introduced. It’s the scope matters here because it’s specific to rental property owners and CP 19 is the governing over rental property owners. So that’s where the clerks and I in reviewing that were looking specifically to whether it was germane to CP 19 or whether it was to more a more general bylaw matter.

But it’s the way it was written. It’s tied to CP 19, which is the rental licensing bylaw. So that’s if the receive and take no action is passed, then it’s done until the end of council. The other motion would be out of order to come back to committee.

So if it’s relating to CP-19 by-law in general, any changes would be a decided matter council would not be able to come forward. Changes that are related to the owner’s information being posted, whether physically or online or because it’s all tied to CP-19 and the rental license. So if it helps, what it doesn’t prevent is excluding the owner contact information. And this may tie into Council Cutty’s previous comments as well.

It does not prevent, for example, the posting of simply through the residential property lookup portal or through a website map or something, doesn’t necessarily prevent the posting of a notice of a by-law action. So, you know, one, two, three, Main Street has an open property standards complaint about unman aged garbage. That is different from Posting John and Jane Cube public are the owners of the rental at 123 Main Street. That’s helpful So there’s different components that could still be brought forward, but it would be around the posting of the owners Information, I could think of a whole bunch of examples with other Motions that we passed that would be very similar to that and then they would have been considered not a decided matter of counsel So I’m a little confused So I won’t take any more time, but I will say we don’t have I don’t want to support this.

I’m not going to ask you not to. I know what you’re going to do. But I don’t think we have a balance when it comes to who it is we’re looking after. You look, I’m a landlord myself.

I don’t have a problem with the original intent and the motion that we brought a few months ago or whenever we brought it. I don’t have a problem with the amendment that we brought to committee. I think when it comes to the fact that a rental property license is very similar to a business license and there is an income associated with that rental property. Just like any other business, why are we saying no to providing extra information for transparency and accountability?

I think this is a real step that we should bring forward because I just don’t see why not. There’s no balance. We do it elsewhere, but we won’t do it here. And that is concerning to me.

So, like I said, I won’t take too much time. I do have some extra questions on that ruling, whether this is your main or not, with respect to by-law CP-19. But I’m not gonna hold the committee here and ask those extra questions. But I do feel that there is some work we can do that would not be a decided matter of council here.

‘Cause I do have a few examples off the top of my head that that wouldn’t apply. And then that would make those last decisions, those last decided matter of councils. I don’t know what that would do to those decisions because we’ve made decisions before that I think are direct comparisons here that would go against that. Councilor Hopkins.

Yes, so a committee, I supported staff’s recommendation. I still do, but I hear the concerns from the two counselors, one in particular that maybe more work needs to be done. It is committee work, not council work. So I am okay with defeating this motion and then seeing if there’s a referral to go back to committee.

Councillor Pribble. Thank you, dear colleagues. I hope you will support what’s in front of us. The staff did a really good report coming back to us.

We asked them to come back. They did a couple of things that I would like to mention. The staff did say an option how individuals can find out this information. No doubt, if it would be on the front window, it would be much easier accessible.

I would like to correct a couple of things. The business licenses that we issue, there are no names. He would be actually names of the individuals. And during the meeting, or it was in the report, the staff did ask, will be kind of the purpose because our steps, our bylaws, stayed very clearly.

If there is an issue with a certain property owner, it’s done by our enforcement team. Our bylaw enforcement team, they do have this information. So they were actually saying, first of all, protecting the privacy of the individuals, but again, it’s not just hiding. Point of order, it’s been determined in the staff report.

Okay, Councillor Trussell, please wait till I recognize you. You have called a point of order, but Councillor Pribble has to relinquish the mic. You have to ask your point of order on the mic because it’s not captured on the video feed if you do not. My point of order is that as a matter of what was in the staff report, the staff indicated clearly that this was not a matter of personal privacy.

So for him to say that it is, he’s really destroyed in the report and we should stay away from that. Would that make a point of order? Okay, again, the side conversations back and forth between members about what is and isn’t a private point of order need to stop because that’s a determination of the chair. Please and thank you.

So I’m just gonna go back to Councilor Pribble. Hold on, there’s a point of order that I need to rule on. So, Councilor Trussau’s point of order, I think is, sorry, now I’m gonna sound like Mayor Morgan. I think it’s a matter of a matter of opinion on how the counselor is expressing himself.

I think it’s more a point of personal privilege than a point of order. Nonetheless, Councilor Pribble, if you can frame that you feel, rather than that the staff feel, because it’s not up to council to reflect what staff are intending. Staff’s own language communicates that. Councilor Pribble, go ahead.

And I will refrain to my comments as my opinion of the privacy, not staffs. But my bigger thing is that going back to the licensing and we do not have business licenses that say specific names of the individuals is the corporations, it’s the businesses. And again, I’ll repeat one more thing, what the staff said. If there is an issue with such properties, we do have a process by law that goes to our by law officer and they are the ones who are addressing these issues.

So if we do have it in place, yes, it could be potentially that some could be potentially address more prop, more faster if you have such experiences. But I would, again, if you haven’t, the report from the style was quite clear and recommending what they did, because even if they stated, even if it was posted, we still still have the same procedure for procedures policies. Thank you. Councilor Pribble, any other speakers to the motion that’s on the floor?

Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Close in the vote, motion carries, seven to six . Okay, colleagues, we still have two more items on CPSC. It’s 543, I need a motion to extend past six PM please.

Councilor Raman, Councilor Cuddy, I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Councilor Pribble. Thank you Chair, and I would like to table the 2.5, 2.6 2025 Ontario Works participant and service delivery profile, which was asked to be pulled up by Councillor Stevenson.

Committee was out of consent, 6-0. So because we’re working backwards, this is item five in the CPSC list in e-scribe for you. Item 2.6 from the committee agenda. And that’s what I said.

Sorry, just out of councilor. Okay. Asked from the side. So that’s on the floor.

Councilor Pribble, speakers. Looking for speakers. Seeing none, I’ll ask her to open the vote. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 12 to one. Councillor Bribble. Thank you and the last one. 0.5, affordable and community housing update.

And at a committee, it was on the consent 6-0. Thank you for speakers. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

On this one, I wanted to ask a couple of questions about Appendix B. So it talks about liquidity in the first part. And it says, “Based on 2024 data, “more than 40% of housing providers do not generate “and retain enough cash to pay for short-term debt. it’s an area that needs attention.

So if I could get an update from staff on what we’re doing about that. And would that be Mr. Mathers? The deputy mayor.

So related to this item, we are working with all of the housing providers to try to make improvements. And part of what you’ve seen in that of an appendix is ratings that we’re starting to collect information on to be able to be able to give good advice to the various housing providers so it is something that’s part of our work plan and we’re working with these providers one-on-one to be able to improve those metrics and ensure that that they can ensure that that liquidity moving forward. Councilor. If they are unable to pay their bills what’s the process and when is council involved or informed?

Mr. Mathers. Through the deputy mayor the process would be if there is There is a housing provider that cannot make those important payments, then they will work with us as the service provider to be able to ensure that there’s opportunities to be able to—if there’s other funding sources that they can use, if it gets to the point where they’re no longer able to sufficiently work through themselves and work through their board, then that’s—and we indicate that as a project in difficulty. And that’s something that we bring back or report directly to committee and council to be able to provide some background and information on that specific project and look at different ways that we can try to ensure that the housing provider is brought back into conformance with with their agreement with the service provider.

I’m sorry. Thank you. How soon after being informed that they’re no longer to pay their bills would it come to council? Mr.

Mathers. Through the deputy mayor as soon as as possible that we have that information. So definitely that’s something that we’d want to make sure the council’s aware of as soon as possible. Councillor.

Thank you. I’m aware of one at least that says that they won ‘t have enough money to last the month and that the city’s been informed. So I’m just wondering do you have to wait until it actually happens before it comes back? And I’m also wondering like it says 25% of housing providers have an accumulated deficit, a significant risk to the future survival of providers in this category without attention on how to correct for this moving forward there is a risk that the business can become insolvent and require service manager intervention by my math that could be potentially 16 providers I’m just wondering again like the KPIs and the percentages are good but they could hide that we potentially have 16 buildings full of units that potentially are on the brink of bankruptcy.

Mr. Mathers. Through your worship. I can’t speak about specific housing providers at this point.

I will note that if there are providers that are in this situation, we would be bringing back a report as soon as possible. So it could be as soon as it’s this April, if there was something that was imminently happening. So I can’t speak to the specifics ‘cause that’s between the city and the service provider and the housing boards. But if there is anything that’s important, we’ll bring that back to council as soon as possible.

Councillor. Thank you, I’m gonna just make a few comments that, you know, this is an annual update report that, you know, we’ve got in the appendix saying that potentially there’s some very, very difficult situations coming for organizations. And I’m aware of one that is on the edge right now that does not have the money to pay their bills and doesn’t know what to do and is wondering how to get support. And I’m just feeling that when we get a report like this, we’re talking about hundreds of units.

In this particular building, there’s 94 units, there’s five that are damaged so badly struct urally. It’ll probably be years before they can be occupied. There’s 12 that are damaged and they’re unable to afford to repair them and two that are coming online shortly. They’re telling me that this is a baseline, a 122 baseline situation in a cooperative housing building that we’ve got vulnerable people and families these buildings and affordable units that are sitting empty while we’ve got people on the streets.

And so I guess my concern is that this report is a lot of data but it’s not highlighting to counsel how many buildings are at risk, how many units are empty, how long have they been empty, what amount of dollars is needed to be able to get them occupied again. I’m very, very concerned that the quickest way for us to get affordable units in this city is to repair the damaged units that are there. And the best thing we can do to prevent homelessness is to ensure that our affordable housing buildings are safe and that we don’t have 122 baseline situations. So the other concern that I have is regarding the Coachee funding in Appendix C.

So again, I’m in communication with the building in my ward that fortunately had reached out to me . I don’t know. I’m going to maybe need to make some phone calls to all the rest of them in my ward to make sure they’re okay and find out what I can do to support. But in this one it says specifically here that there’s funding available to them and for two critically needed projects.

So I saw this and I was so relieved because it says approved and I know they need these when I met with them in December. But then after this report came to committee I was informed that they were informed by the city that those two things that they critically critically critically need were only going to be paid if another thing that they didn’t want paid was also paid. So I guess I’m very confused. And then when I’ve clarified with staff, this approved listing is actually just preliminary ones.

So I guess this isn’t actually what is going to happen. That’s not clear in this report. And so I guess my last question through you to The staff is, are these housing providers submitting requests for funding? How is it the city is telling the provider that they are going to pay a bill that they don’t want paid in order to get the funding for the stuff they do want?

I just want to understand the operations around that and how we can assist from a policy perspective. Mr. Mathers, through the Deputy Mayor, I can’t speak about specific applications as part of this process, I think I understand with the property that’s being referred to at this point, but I can’t get into that without a lot of other context and background, and this is an appropriate time to share it as part of this report. Councilor.

Thank you, and I understand, and I hear that, but I mean just from a policy perspective, who are the providers submitting requests, or is the city making some decisions there and pushing projects or recommending projects? Okay, Councilor, I am going to say, I will go to Mr. May, there’s four of this response, but I think that the questions you’re asking really need to be taken when you’re talking about getting into policy changes that might be needed to operationalize something that’s really beyond the scope of the item that’s on the floor and needs to be dealt with by meeting with staff and discussing ideas with them at that point, Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair. So as the service manager responsible for allocating and distributing the funding from Coachee as part of, as outlined within the requirement. So that’s our role. There is processes that we follow through an application process.

And there’s also a specific criteria that we need to ensure that we’re maintaining at the same time. So we do work very closely with all of the service providers to be able to revive what they need as well. So that’s part of the conversation and part of what we’re trying to do moving forward to ensure that people have the funding to be able to to do this great work in the community. Councillor.

What’s my time? Good, the clerk and I have the same time. 420 is how much you’ve used up, so you got 40 seconds. My concern is about this annual report.

I appreciate all the work and the challenges that are out there, but this does not transparently represent the problems that exist potentially within our city. If the provider that I’m in contact with is any indication. We need to know how many units, we need to know how damaged they are, we need to know how much money you need to fix them. We need to address the security concerns, and we need to make sure that families and people are safe in our buildings.

And it needs to be a top priority. And this annual report does not give council, in my opinion, the information that we need. Councilor, any other speakers? Councilor Ferreira.

Thank you, Chair. So this is something that I’ve been on for a while. There’s a few reports in the past that you could go to. I would point the council to the roadmap 2.0.

believe has it and I believe that there was a report on this for the end of mortgage agreement specifically I think January or November of 24 but if the counselor wants to send me an email and I’ll give you those reports I do see that there is concerns here I agree with the counselor’s concerns we have a lot of subsidized housing that was affordable housing that was provincially operated that have been downloaded to us and no longer have that subsidization They’re also in huge capital disrepair because those capital upgrade or those capital maintenance didn’t actually exist. So the issue is multi-prong. We don’t have that operational money for that subsidization. We have units or buildings that are in capital disrepair that require that.

We have boards that may not necessarily be willing to serve on the board. they may be a little bit later in their career and their age and they don’t want to be or they don’t have the capacity to be able to serve all those boards. There’s lots of issues here. But I also would point out, just from memory, I’m pretty sure that the intent was, and I think this might have been in the roadmap 2 .0 or in that report from, and I can’t remember when , sometime in 2024 or early 25, that it’s gonna be pretty much falling on the city and the taxpayer base to be able to fund both the capital repair and the operational parts of it and the subsidization.

And that’s gonna be falling on us, I think, within 2018, I believe, I didn’t prepare for this ‘cause I didn’t know that these questions were coming, but I’m pretty sure we are gonna be paying for all of that within the next couple of years. And the way I understand that it works is if those private housing providers aren’t able to get subsidization from us, then as a tenancy ends, that’s affordable, Most likely they’ll be going into your average market rate tenancy, which means we lose affordable housing. So I agree that there is a concern here, but I do have that information. This has been coming to committee for the last year and a half, two years.

And there are subsequent reports that the council can look at to get that information. Any other speakers? Seeing none, then I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to one.

Councilor Pribble. Thank you Chair, and this concludes the report. Thank you. - Thank you.

Councilor Raman, I’m gonna call on you for SPPC . Thank you for standing in my place today. Thank you. I’m pleased to present the fourth report of SPPC.

I have not been asked to pull any items at this time, but I’ll look around the room, see if there’s anything that anyone would like to pull. Hey, looking to colleagues to see if any items need to be dealt with separately. I think you can put the whole thing on the floor, Councillor. Wonderful, happy to put the whole thing on the floor.

Questions and comments. Just wanna make a comment, and I’m really glad to see people here in the audience who— Still just wanna say that. Yeah, and you’ll need, you’ll, Councillor Truss ow, sorry, you just need your mic. Councillor ramen, can you turn yours off so he, Councillor Trussow, can offer his comments .

Councillor Trussow, go ahead, please. You see that we have representatives from tourism London here, and they’ve sat through the whole meeting very patiently. And I just wanna say I appreciate you coming. I don’t think it doesn’t sound like anything’s being pulled on your item.

I don’t know if other people on this, Council have any comments or questions, but you look like you’re falling asleep and I feel really bad for you. But thank you for coming, thank you for coming, thank you for coming, that’s all, okay? That’s all it was. Councilor McAllister, Councillor Farrij, do you want on the list as well?

Okay, Councillor McAllister and then Councillor Farrij. Thank you through the chair. I don’t want to take up time, but I just also wanted to thank Mr. Chisholm for sticking it out for your back for only killing you.

But again, thank you for being here. Councillor Farrij. Thank you. So nothing was pulled or speaking to everything.

So thank you Mr. Chisholm for standing there. sitting. We’re going to be out of bed full of them.

I’m sure you’re going to be out of here right when that’s done to tourism and to the music office. Thank you for sitting also through this. And I know it’s going to be a little event ful. I wasn’t there at SPPC.

So I just wanted to make some comments here. I do appreciate the tie with the downtown plan and the economic development strategy. I do appreciate the motion that was brought forward. Just five new spaces and just make sure that we can activate citywide because I do know that this is not just a downtown thing obviously I’m excited for it to be downtown and we do have you know the Dundas place and we do have everything ready to go to activate things but I just I do want to point out that this is obviously something that we will have citywide and we can have activations and kind of just leverage our music talent citywide so I just want to say thank you for the work I’m sorry I wasn’t here for SPPC I could go on but I’m not going to because I know you want to get out here so I just want to say that thanks.

Thank you Councillor Ferra, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I did have a couple of pull requests that I pulled my pull requests just to try to keep things moving here tonight. But I did want to speak to a couple of things.

One is the, you know, SCO City Music Action Plan. I did want to mention that there is a request. I know we’ve got some amendments that we got put through and it’s going to be coming back to us. I just wanted to put in the public record so that people who are working on this can keep in mind that I heard general consensus around more communication from the London Music Office related to supports for venues, grassroots organizations and artists, stronger definition and communication regarding the London Music Office mandate and rev iving engaging the London business of music committees.

I was going to try to move this amendment. I don’t think I’d support for it but I am just going to put it out there in the hopes that those who are working in this will take that into consideration that that’s what I heard from several people. The other thing was the 2026 assessment growth funding allocation. I’ve really been given that a lot of thought since I heard that this is not the normal thing that’s done across the province and it troubles me a little bit that you know 7 million like 14 million dollars gets It’s just, we’ve delegated that authority to staff with very little oversight.

And in fact, it was kind of like, we’re not supposed to have any input into that. And half of that is corporate services. So half of that funding goes to the people who have the delegated authority to make that decision. And I just think that it’s worthy of consideration.

I’m gonna be bringing forward something potentially at some other time to say, can we have a report on that and we look at that decision that was made, is it in the best interest of taxpayers given the financial pressures that are on us, given the fact that other municipalities have not followed our lead on that other than I hear there’s two. It does concern me that it’s, it does, the delegate who spoke, made a good point about it almost being off budget allocations. And it does make it a little harder for the general public and for counselors to understand the overall picture. And so I’m not really happy about it.

I didn’t pull it, but I don’t think that we should be allocating $7 million to corporate services, increases without some debate and discussion about the four hires, why those four that employee FTEs have gone up 354 employees in two years. I do think we need more information, which departments, where is that happening? Is it frontline? I just have a ton of questions, and I think the public wants more details.

We want a lot of details, like I just said about the other report. Give us the details, give us the information, and so I’ll be moving motions at another time, but I did not pull it today. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, looking for any other speakers. Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12-0. Councillor Raman. Thank you. That concludes my report for SPPC, if I may move on to ICSC.

Yes, I was gonna say congratulations on the shortest standing up for report today, and now you get to do it again for standing in your own place. Thank you, always looking to set a record. Okay, so let’s get started with ICSC. I’m looking to put items one through six, eight, nine, 12, 15, and 16 on the floor.

Those are the ones that I have not been asked to pull as of yet. Sorry, can you just repeat that? Sure, one through six, eight, nine, 12, 15, and 16. So those are on the floor looking for any discussion.

Seeing none, I want to ask the clerk to open the vote. Okay, that’s now open. Sorry, we’re in big motion, so it took a moment. Sorry, there’s an error in that.

We’re just gonna cancel and then we’ll fix it and reopen it. Councillor ramen, can you just clarify? Absolutely, and through you. So I’m just clarifying with council that item 15 was not requested to be pulled.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. Thank you. I’ll look to put item seven on the floor and just noting for my colleagues that the wrong bylaw had been attached and that’s why I pulled it to introduce the correct. And item seven is the fiber connect three municipal access agreements.

And I just wanna make sure it relates to bill 100 correct number, okay? Any discussion? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.

Okay, and then we will need a motion now for the as amended. Councilor Ramen, you’re willing to move that. We have a seconder, Councilor McAllister, thank you. And we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that.

Those in the vote, motion carries 12-0. Councillor Robin. Thank you, the next item is item 10, which is the FCM Green Municipal Fund Agreement for Accelerating Community Energy Systems, and it’s related to bill number 97. Looking for any discussion on this one?

Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Those in the vote, motion carries 11-1. Councillor Robin. Thank you, I’m looking to put item 11, sorry, 2 .3, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Green Municipal Fund Agreement, for municipal fleet decarbonization, These abilities study related to bill number 98 on the floor.

And looking for any discussion on that one. Seeing none, I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 11 to one. Thank you colleagues, Councilor ramen.

Thank you, I’ll put item 13 on the floor 2.9, contract award tender number RFT 2025, 2023 Wellington Gateway and municipal infrastructure improvement phase two, a Wilkinson street to Wilkins, sorry street to baseline road. Looking for any discussion, seeing none, clerk to open the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 11 to one. Councillor Ramen.

Thank you, I’ll put item 14 to 10, limited tendering and cooperative procurement for LTC’s purchase of nine new buses. And looking for any speakers on that one. Seeing none, I’ll ask Clerk to open the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.

Councillor Ramen. Thank you, that concludes my fourth report of ICSC moving on to the fifth report of, which was a special Infrastructure and Corporate Services report and I’d like to put that item on the floor . Okay, so we are on the fifth report of ICSC now and Councillor Roman has moved that. Any discussion?

Seeing none, I will ask Clerk to open the vote. Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. Thank you colleagues, Councillor Roman. That concludes my report.

Thank you. Moving on item 8.6 is the audit committee, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I have the pleasure to present the first report of the audit committee. I am going to pull six for just a housekeeping item that was circulated.

I haven’t been asked to pull anything else. I’ll just do a quick check. So I will put on from one, two, five, and seven, two, nine. Put that on the floor.

Okay, making sure nobody wants anything else to deal with separately. Seeing none, so that’s on the floor for discussion. Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I would like to put six on the floor with the amendment that I had circulated as a housekeeping item. I think I have to pass the chair right or yes you you have to put the original on first and then you have to move an amendment we have to we didn’t have to do that for the other one it got moved changed so it’s slightly different I get what you ‘re saying counselor Stevenson the challenge is in terms of so it’s to be received but your amendment is actually changing the order of which audit’s coming in which order. I don’t see, like, if the other one was able to move the motion with an amendment, what does it matter in this case?

It’s just a housekeeping item to put it back to what was already available. I’m gonna respectfully, Councillor, just give me a moment here with the clerk, because what you’re describing as a housekeeping amendment is not, in my view, as a chair, a housekeeping amendment. You’re actually asking to swap which audit is done in which order, which would require those of us who don’t want to switch the order to vote differently. And if it’s just to be received, like there’s a challenge.

I was just trying to move it fast and we did the other one, so whatever you need. Yeah, I’m just trying to figure out how we can do this. Well, and I’m gonna share. The reason that I am trying to figure out how to do this is because I don’t wanna change the order.

I paid attention to the discussion that was had at audit committee about the concern around the election and clerk resources for staffing. But that, I can speak to it when I move it, but that’s all been addressed. Okay, ‘cause the motion, well, and the other thing is the motion I have in E-Sc ribe is just that the communication from NMP with respect to the summary update for internal audit be received. So I need to know, like, I know you— If it’s faster, let’s just, I’ll put the original motion on and then I’ll move in a minute.

Okay, let’s do it that way. So I’m gonna pass the chair to Councillor Prib bles so that I can— So that you can then move the amendments. Okay. I have the chair and I recognize Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, so I guess did the motion get on already and now I’m moving the amendment. Yes, the motion’s on, so now you wanna amend the order. Okay, I’ll slow it down a little. I was trying to just get this last thing done.

So the amendment that was circulated is moving the audit schedule back to what we originally had. There was a debate and discussion at audit committee, which I appreciated. Since that time, there’s been further emails back and forth, and the clerk’s office graciously has been able to figure out a way to accommodate that staffing and MNP has also said that they can do it. So I’ve been informed that it’s not an issue at all to put this back to the way that it was.

And so that’s my amendment. So that’s on the floor. Is there a seconder for that? Okay, seconded by Councilor Preble.

Councilor Preble. Thank you. I do have a questions for you, Chair, to the staff. This order, if I remember correctly, was changing the fall, which the new order was approved by the council.

Does it make any difference in terms of do we have to vote two-thirds because it was a decision? That’s a question for me to the staff. Through you, Mr. Deputy Mayor.

No, I don’t believe that it requires reconsider ation. Councilor. Thank you. And one follow-up, even though Councilor Stephen stated it, I know when we had the meeting, we were talking about the election staffing issue .

And directly from the clerk, this could be, this change could be accommodated and you feel comfortable in terms of the staffing issues. And let’s go to the clerk. Thank you, through you, Mr. Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, since the meeting, I’ve had discussions with staff and MNP, and we can accommodate the move with minimal impacts to the election. Thank you very much, Chair, no more questions? Looking for other speakers, Councillor Ferriero . Thank you.

I’m just, like when I heard this was a house keeping item, like when I hear housekeeping, I think issue the by-law language or some kind of clerical error, but this was presented as a housekeeping item, but it doesn’t seem like it’s a house keeping item. This is something that was discussed at the audit committee, and I would just say, presenting this to us as a housekeeping item when it is not a housekeeping item, frankly, hurts my trust. And I also followed the audit committee discussion. So when I first heard it being just at the housekeeping item alone, lost me because I’m just wondering what’s the goal?

What’s the reason? I think the approach would be to not say to us it’s housekeeping when it’s not because I have been shared. I have seen housekeeping items come forward but there are never items that I am trying to push myself. That is not housekeeping.

That is something that should be debated with full transparency and your reasonings for that. Coming to us saying this is a housekeeping item, I think is not the way to go. Because of that, just right there, I’m not supporting that because I don’t know what the intent is. And I can see that the intent has not been forthcoming to us when it is described as a house keeping item.

So I’m not supporting us. I need further speakers. Seeing none, on the amendment, which is the change of order piece, to change the submission dates for the privacy audit from December to October and the submission for the continuous improvement audit from October to December and Councillor Stevenson can you just confirm that that’s the language in eScribe it’s you might have to refresh but just okay we have no other speakers so I’m going to open the vote on that closing the vote motion carries eight to three okay so now we have a main motion as amended so Councill or Stevenson now you’re presenting your amendments done so if you can take back over for Councillor Perfect, I will then present the motion as amended if there’s any speakers. And we will need a seconder for that ‘cause it is now amended.

Okay. Councilor Cuddy, I see you seconding. Okay, so the main motion as amended, moved and seconded, looking for any speakers. I just wanna say thanks to the clerk’s office for helping me with that.

Thank you, Councilor. I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote. Close the vote, motion. Councilor.

Thank you, that’s the first order report complete. Thank you. Moving along, Councillor Layman, I’m gonna ask you to report out from closed session. This is a fourth report of the council in closed session.

Report that progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 as noted on the public agenda, 6.1/4/pack, 6.1/4/SPPC, 6.1/4/ICSC, and 6.2/4/ICSC. Thank you, Councillor Layman. We have no other added reports. We have no deferred matters.

Furred matters, we have none, inquiries. I’m not aware of any emergent motions. We have none. So that moves us on to bylaws.

The clerk has broken things up into a series of votes for us. So the first two bylaw votes will be bills number 97 and 98. These go together and they are the green municipal fund grant agreements so I’m looking for a mover and a seconder for ideally can we get a mover and a seconder for all the bylaws or is anyone posed to any of the bylaws like sorry Councilor Layman and Councilor Hill here that’ll just make it easy we’ll use those on all the votes so now we will move to the votes on bills 97 and 98 so there’s no debate on first or third so we’ll open the vote On first reading close in the vote motion carries 10 to 1 and we will now open the vote on second reading 98 communicable funds any speakers seeing none we will open the vote motion carries 10 1 and third vote on bills 97 and 98 we will ask clerk to open the vote motion carries 10 1 and using the same mover and seconder we will now move on the next votes are bills number 105 and number 123 and these are related to 550 Rideout Street North and 8290 Kent Street. So we move the introduction and first reading of Bill 105 and ask the clerk to open the vote.

All the dice, can you just repeat that one more time? Yes, this is Bill 105 and 123. This is 550 Rideout Street North and 8290 Kent Street. Motion carries 8 to 3.

And second reading, Annie Speakers, seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. >> Motion carries 8-3. >> And third and final reading, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. >> Motion carries 8-3.

Hey, our next bill is 108. This is the travel and business expenses by law. And we will move to first reading and ask the clerk to open the vote. >> Motion carries 9-2.

And we will now look to second reading, any speakers? Seeing none, I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. >> Motion carries 9-2. >> And third and final reading of bill number 108 , I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote.

Next vote will be bill 109. This is the municipal alcohol policy. And I will ask the clerk to open the first read. Apologize.

Wait, which one is this again? This is bill 109. The municipal alcohol policy by law. Motion carries 10-1.

And moving to second reading . Any speakers on bill 109. Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. It carries ten one and our third and final reading of bill one oh nine.

I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote and carries ten one Okay colleagues the next two bills are revised bill number one twenty four and added bill number one twenty five These are the two bills related to the ARU’s and the limit bedroom counts and gross floor area So I will look to have the clerk open the vote for first reading and carries ten one moving to second reading of bills 24 and 125. Any speakers? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Caris 10-1.

And moving on to the third and final reading of Bill’s 124 and 125, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Caris 10-1. And the balance of our bills, this will be first reading of Bill’s 95 through 122 with the exceptions of 97, 98, 105, 108 and 109, as we’ve already dispensed with those. And I will open, I will ask the clerk to open the vote on.

Carries 11-0. And second reading of the balance of all of our bills with the exception of 97, 98, 105, 108, and 109, any speakers? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk. Carries 11-0.

And third and final reading and enactment of bills 95 through 122 with the exception of 97, 98, 105, 108, 109. I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. And carries 11-0. The vote concludes our meeting.

We just have two minor, what I will call housekeeping items on this one. The first is the opportunity to wish Councilor C uddy a very happy birthday. I’m glad you got to spend so much time with us today on your special day. And then the second item is looking for a motion to adjourn.

Councilor McAllister and Stevenson, we can do this one by hand, all in favor. Motion carries. Thank you, everyone.