May 12, 2026
Official minutes have not been published yet for this meeting.
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 (2 hours, 36 minutes)
Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, welcome to the 8th meeting of council, it’s May 12th, and I’m gonna start with a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we’re gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, Lani Peiwak, and Adawandran peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the Dura’s indigenous people who call this territory home.
We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, so we’re covered in a chain. The beaver hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee, Nanfand Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishnabek and the Dish with One Spoon, Covenant Wampum of the Anishnabek and Honoshone. Pre-Indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual unique languages, cultures, and customs. The City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats communication supports for meetings upon request.
If you’d like to make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact council agenda at London .ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. With that, I will invite our national anthem singer up. Louis Engel is known as Big Blue and is a Caribbean Canadian hip-hop artist and entrepreneur from Saint Martin and now a proud Londoner. The FCLMA hip-hop artist of the year in 2025 and a community performer, he blends island hip-hop with uplifting storytelling for audiences across Southwestern Ontario.
Please rise and join me in welcoming Big Blue, who will now perform the National Anthem for us. Canada, our home and native land. Oh, true patriot love, in all of us comment. With glowing hearts we see the rise.
The true north strong and free. From far and wide, oh, Canada. We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land.
Glory us and free. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Hey, I’ll now turn to the disclosures of pecun iary interest.
I look to colleagues who have a disclosure. I see Councillor Ploza. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I’m declaring a conflict on the Summit Report Community Strategic Services , number three being 2.2, the YMCA Center Branch service agreement as I have a family member who would also have a competing interest pecuniary. Thank you. Okay, I ‘ll look for others. Councillor ramen.
Thank you. I will be declaring pecuniary interest on item to in the ninth report of the ICSC committee. It’s the extension of the Fanshawe College Agreement to support the downtown campus. It was Fanshawe College as my employer.
Any others? Okay, and I’ll just note that we’re joined by all members of council, either in chambers or in person with the exception of Deputy Mayor Lewis, I think will be joining us shortly remotely. Oh, he is online, so he’s here. So we have everybody then, perfect.
Okay, we’re on to recognitions. I’m actually gonna start with Councillor Vamever gan and then I have two recognitions to do myself. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to recognize the students and staff of Saunders Secondary.
They put on an absolutely wonderful production of a play called “Disaster,” which is a spoof on 1970s disaster movies such as “The Poseidon Adventure.” It was absolutely hilarious. It had fantastic music from the ’70s and it just shows the youth of today are indeed full of talent. and when they concentrate and put it to productive use, we can see the benefits. So thank you again to Saunders.
Great, thanks, Council Member Wren. I’ll just do a couple of recognitions myself. The first is for museums in our city. We have a number of museums, but specific requests from the London Children’s Museum and Museum London for Council to recognize that it’s meeting today, National Museum Day, which is May 18th.
This has been occurring annually since the year 2000 and is a program that was run and supported by the Ontario Museum Association, which celebrates Ontario’s 700 plus museums, galleries, inheritors sites and their 9,000 employees and 35,000 volunteers. For those of us in the city who know our museums well, we know their hubs of culture, entertainment, even summer camps and places where kids, you know , meet friends and explore the world for the first time and/or broaden their horizons. We have wonderful museum resources in our city. I know a number of colleagues have had the honor of serving on the boards of one of those two bodies.
And it is our great honor to recognize them on, well, what will be May 18th, but this is the council meeting closest to it. So we thank them, their employees, their staff, their patrons, their donors for all that they do in our community to provide amazing culture. The other recognition I wanted to do is actually with respect to Councilor Hillier in part and I appreciate that I had a chance to speak with them to let them know that I was gonna do this recognition and I think all of our thoughts were with Councillor Hilliard this past weekend as celebration of the life of his mother Ruby occurred. Ruby had five grandchildren, five great grandchildren.
She was a community member who contributed to our city and our air region. She was a fundraiser. She helped build and fundraise for a church that was built with her hands and the hands of others from the ground up. She sponsored multiple families from Africa over her time here on our earth.
And she worked at a prison teaching people English. She was a stalwart at multiple festivals and events in our downtown core and across the city. Councilor Hillier, I know we’ve all expressed it privately, but we are condolences on the loss of your mother and thank you for on behalf of council for the wonderful contributions that she and her family have made to the city of London over the years. So thank you.
Okay, any other recognitions? Seeing none, then we have a review of confidential matters to be considered in public. We have none. We’ll move to council in close session of which there are, I believe, three items from a variety of committees.
I’ll look for a motion to move into confidential session. moved by Councillor van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion? Okay, we’re going to open that for voting.
Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to 0. >> Okay, colleagues, we’ll be moving to committee room five. For those in the gallery, you can say here, we’ll return as soon as we’re done our in-camera closed session. Okay, that concludes our closed session matters.
We’re on to confirmation signing of the minutes of previous meetings. We have the seventh meeting, which was held April 28th. I look for a mover and a seconder of the minutes. Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Cutty, any questions, comments, changes to the minutes?
Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Palazzo votes yes. Councillor Trosto votes yes. Thank you, closing the vote.
Motion carries 15-0. Okay, in communications and petitions we have one item that we’ll deal with now and then after that we can refer all the other items to various points of the agenda. The item we have to deal with now is a motion to receive the integrity commissioner’s annual report from 2025 to 2026. So I’ll look for someone who’s willing to put that on the floor.
We’ll have discussion on that now. Councilor Van Meerberg and put it on the floor, seconded by Councilor Frank. And I’ll look for any discussion on this one. Councilor Stevenson, go ahead.
Hey, can you just try your microphone one more time? Red light is on. Now we’ve got it. Okay, okay, all right.
So we’ll reset your time and then you could just take it from the top there. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I did send a couple of questions in just prior to the meeting. So if the information’s available, I was wondering what the buildings were for either the period of this report or 2025, whichever is easier.
I see Mr. Murray turning his camera on, which is always a sign that he’s got an answer, so I’ll turn it over to him. Thank you and through your worship. Yes, the total integrity commissioner buildings inclusive of HST for 2025 were approximately $85, 000 of which approximately $76,000 relates to the current integrity commissioner.
Okay, go ahead. Okay, thank you. And the other question that I had was just a follow-up to what happened last time. I mean, it’s nice to see this report and the way it’s laid out and a reminder that our code of conduct hasn’t changed.
We deferred any of those changes. So this is what we should have been getting from the previous integrity commissioner and didn ‘t. But it also has me just follow-up on the two taxpayer-funded reports that found me not to be in contravention of the code of conduct on complaints that were made publicly that the previous integrity commissioner didn’t bring forward. I just wondered if staff or administration have or are planning to find a way to bring those forward or if that matters closed.
I’ll go to Ms. Paula. Thank you and through you. The code of conduct provides that when a complaint it’s dismissed, the integrity commissioner shall not report to municipal council except in exceptional circumstances.
So the reports are the work product of the integrity commissioner in there and neutral third parties. So it’s up to the integrity commissioner as to whether they get put on the council agenda or not those reports were not put on the council agenda. So the matter is now closed. Councillor Stevenson.
Okay, thank you. So I’ll just make a couple of comments then in that we did terminate that contract for whatever reasons council deemed that that needed to be cancelled and there were two taxpayer funded reports that were written, prepared on reports that were publicly made about me that have not found their way to be public. The reports themselves weren’t allowed to be put on the agenda and my comments related to them just saying what they were was redacted. So I guess it leaves me as a Councillor is finding a way to share with the public the publicly funded reports that find me not in contravention as was brought forward by this current integrity commissioner and as seems warranted in a case when accusations are made and the taxpayers pay for these reports.
So I’ll follow it up on my own and find a way to bring those forward to the public. Thank you. Okay. Any other speakers to this matter?
Seeing none, then we’ll open this for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, the next two items are pieces of correspondence related to two things that we will deal with in the agenda later on. There’s a consolidated motion to refer all that correspondence to the relevant items in the agenda.
I’ll look for someone to move it, Councillor C uddy. Seconded by Councillor Ferrera. Any discussion on that? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.
Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, we have no motions to which notice was given. We’re on to reports. We have the infrastructure and corporate services committee.
And I will just note for the chair that there was a conflict declared on item two in that. So I’ll let you present the report. Thank you. And through your worship, happy to report or do the ninth report on the infrastructure and corporate services committee.
So yeah, we will pull two and eight and I will put one, three, four, five, six, seven and nine. Okay, let me just check to see if anybody wants any of those dealt with separate with Councillor Stevenson. Yeah. Thank you.
I’d like six pulled separately as well. Okay. Just one sec. Anybody else want anything else separate?
Okay. Go ahead, Chair. Okay. One, three, four, five, seven and nine.
Okay. Those are on the floor. Any discussion on those items? Go ahead.
Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanted to make a couple of comments on number five. thank my council colleagues for the willingness to send this back and get the definitions added to this by-law.
The definitions really address the concerns I had with the $5 million in homeless funding that was done through delegated authority in 2022, just a week before we were sworn in where there was, as I said, $5 million. Some of the contracts were two years long. One of them was one year long with a brand new agency. So this seems to address it as needed means it has to be urgent, short-term service means it has to be six months or less, reporting looks good and that you need to include the executed contracts and agreements and the rationale for the execution under the delegated authority, which is all great because, again, that one year contract of $650,000 for the the women’s shelter, we were never able to see that in the way that it was done, never able to see the budget, never able to see the contract.
So this addresses all my concerns. And again, I just wanted to thank my council colleagues for letting that go back and tighten that up as I believe it should be. Any other comments to anything in this package? Go ahead, councilor Hopkins.
Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I would like to just make a comment on number 9, 4.1. I wanna thank the committee for endorsing my name to stand for re-election at the IMO conference in August for re-election. It’s been an honor and a privilege to serve London on the board and I want to thank the committee for their endorsement.
Great, thank you. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead, Councillor Roman. Thank you and through you. So on the same item, I just wanted to say thank you to Councillor Hopkins because not only does she do the heavy lifting for us at IMO, but she brings back great reports to us when she can, she advocates on behalf of AMO.
I’m very proud to stand with you at AMO and help get you elected again. Thank you. Yep, and that’s an important point. This is just our authorization for Councilor Haw ke’s run.
She still has to win. So attending the AMO conference and supporting her, should there be a race is one way that you can do that this August. Any other discussions on any of the matters before us? Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting.
We’ll go ahead Councilor Merbergen. Oh, sorry. Not yet. Okay, yeah, we’re not quite on that one yet.
So we’ll do, they were one, three, four, five, seven, and the nine. Okay, we’re gonna vote on those. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. I’ll go back to the chair.
Put item two on the floor. Right, item two is on the floor. Any comments or questions on that? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
Thank you. And I just wanted to thank staff. I did send some questions and I was able to get information on the money that was sent to Fanta and the attendance numbers. All that was great.
I sent, again, just before council, I sent a couple of questions if the answers are available. I would like to know what the consequences would be of not doing this extension, ‘cause I could see that we’ve already given all of the funding, so I was just curious as to what the consequence would be of not doing it. Would any money be reimbursed to the city or some other reason beyond just making sure that everything gets done as per the contract? Mr.
Murray, is that you? That is me and thank you and through you. So in terms of the consequences of not doing the extension, really, this agreement in front of you today basically continues to formally protect the city’s investment for another year. So that ensures that we have the continuity, the continued operation of the downtown campus.
And of course, it’s associated economic benefits, the enrollment, the staff that support the school , and of course the economic spin-offs that go along with it. The original agreement that was entered into in 2011 spoke to what was called the failure of the school. That could include things like sale, closure, abandonment, enrollment not being consistent with what was contemplated in the business plan and then the remedies that would be available to the city should those occurrences happen. So ultimately continuing the agreement for another year, you know, guards us against those occurrences should they happen and the unlikely event that they should happen.
In terms of the reimbursement to the city if the agreement was not extended. I personally believe that it’s unlikely that we could consider an event of failure to have occurred. Enrollment has been consistent with and in fact it actually exceeded what was contemplated in the business plan for the project so I’m not sure that we could conclude that the delays that Fanshawe has experienced have materially impacted enrollment and therefore I’m not sure that any remedies associated with an event of failure would be available to us in this situation. Councillor Stevenson.
Yes, thank you for that. And I just wanted to be clear, really happy to have Fanshawe downtown and do this agreement. Just wanted to reassure taxpayers that we weren’t for going any monies or anything like that. So I appreciate the update.
The other thing is, and I also wondered just how much leverage we had in doing this extension. There’s a lot of concerns about the state of our downtown and the ongoing safety concerns down there. Was there any opportunity to negotiate something longer than one year or any updates in terms of status regarding the college’s campus downtown that can be shared with us? Mr.
Murray. Yeah, and for you, your worship. So the original agreement expires this month, so the focus really was on ensuring that we You could get this one year extension done to get that dealt with. I think any discussion about future commitments would have required no doubt a significantly longer timeframe, particularly to work through on Fanshawe’s end.
So the focus this time around was really on this one year extension. Councillor Stevenson. No, thanks. That’s all.
And I did appreciate the support getting all the information. So thank you. Any others on item two? Okay.
We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one refusal. Back to the chair. Good item six on the floor.
Okay, item six on the floor, I’ll look for any speakers to item six. Seeing none, we’ll open item six for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Thank you, and I will put item eight on the floor.
Okay, item eight is on the floor. I’ll look to any speakers on item eight, Councillor van Merebergen. Mayor, as I stated at committee, These e-scooters with a mounted motor that can easily do 50 kilometers an hour with individuals or sometimes more than one individual standing are inherently unsafe. It’s also very difficult for us to do really any proper enforcement.
So we can try to feel good about setting up some penalties, what have you. But the enforcement is really the issue does not come to fruition when it comes to something like these e-scooters. You can see a lot of reckless behavior out there on the streets. You can also see younger children on these, and I’m sure to them it seems somewhat of a toy.
But we’re talking about a motorized vehicle, we’re talking about real life injuries, real life chances of God forbid death. We see numerous examples of not wearing helmets, and frankly avoiding all safety precautions whatsoever. So I will not be supporting this, the so-called pilot project runs until almost 2030. And I will not be supporting that.
I can receive it. And I will endorse the fine for parents when kids are riding them. But the main part of it, I certainly will not support. Thank you, Mayor.
Okay. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Thank you, your worship, and through you. I agree with what we just heard from Councilor Van Meerberg.
I’m going to say this really clear. I’m not opposed to some regime of regulatory framework that would allow for e-scooters to be used, responsibly. However, this is, to me, one of the most slapdash programs the province has brought forward to municipalities, and that’s saying a lot with this provincial government, because it’s not the first time. And, and almost 10 years by the time it’s done, that’s not a pilot project.
That’s a download by stealth by the province to municipalities. There’s, well, I support the idea of, of fines, as Councilor Vamirberg indicated. I think it’s a bit of virtue signaling on our part because they’re, the enforcement just is not there, nor do we have the resources to do that. We don’t have the opportunity to put bylaw officers out on e-scooters or London police officers out on e-scooters to patrol and see how those devices are being used.
They can’t be enforced by a regular patrol car because, of course, those vehicles are capable of darting in and out of parks and pedestrian breezeways and those sorts of things. And for me, the big issue is the lack of insurance. This is a motorized vehicle. If staff have been clear, we can’t require insurance and the lack of a licensing program that allows us to identify the owner with some sort of license plate type identification.
So, I know there’s lots of e-scooter riders who follow the rules. There’s lots who don’t and I see it every day in front of my house. I see them riding down bike lanes and on Wavell going the wrong direction. I see 13 , 14-year-old kids riding around without helmet.
I do think a regulatory framework is required. I don’t think it should take till 2030. I think the province is writing the puck on this. And without insurance and licensing components, I can’t support this.
Again, I know there’s lots of e-scooter riders who do follow the rules, who use that vehicle to go to school or to work. And I appreciate that they do follow the rules. Nothing’s going to change whether this bylaws passed or not. That’s the reality.
It’s not going to increase better behavior. It’s not going to decrease ridership. What we’ll just have is a void of a regulatory framework, but we essentially have that now because we have no mechanism for enforcement and no mechanism to require insurance. So I won’t be supporting this.
Other speakers on this? Go ahead, Councillor Sall and then Councillor Stevenson. Thank you very much through the chair. I tried to make it a point to traverse around my immediate area in the ward to get a sense of what’s going on.
What I see is a lot of people particularly going to the university, who don’t have other really good options, not to mention the fact that there’s a storage problem once you get there. I see a lot of people making good use of this form of transportation, and I see them doing it responsibly and legally, and I don’t want to take that away from them. I’ve gotten too many requests from people in my ward, largely youth, but not just youth, saying this is important. I was coming down to City Hall going down Waterloo and I saw something very interesting and I had to pull over and talk to the gentleman.
Crossing guard at the corner of Waterloo, Waterloo in St. James, not to be confused with Coldborn in St. James, where Crossing drives his injured, just the next street. And he wasn’t a young kid.
I didn’t ask him his age, but it looked like he was in his 40s or 50s. And he had an electric skitter sitting there, and I said, “You are a safety officer who’s helping our neighborhood keep our children safe, and you get to work using an e-scooter. Why is that?” He said, “This is what I can afford to get to work.” And I looked him up and went online, and he actually posted a very, very, I thought but exciting right along from about his trip to work. And it just gave me a lot of satisfaction to see that.
So it makes me feel a lot more comfortable supporting this pilot program, which it is. And let’s face it, if the province tried saying, oh, you can’t do this, we’d be all over the province for telling the municipality what the municipality can and can’t do with respect to the conduct of people on our streets, which would be a problem. And what the province has done here quite rightly , I think, is they’ve empowered and enabled municipalities to make decisions on this. And I like that.
I don’t like the fact that we came within one vote. We had a very close vote last time about this without even doing the consultation. And we came very close to banning these things. That wasn’t good policy.
And I’m really glad that staff undertook very, very careful and persuasive report and I don’t want to let this go without really thanking the the staff working in deputy city manager shares department for the work that they did on this. It’s solid and I have confidence that we’ll be able to roll out a better enforcement and education program. I want I want to stop some of the problems at the source. I would like to see the city engage in maybe doing some education with the vendors of these devices, which is difficult online.
But we know who they are in the city. I think it would be difficult to go into Walmart or some of the other stores and tell them they can’t sell these otherwise lawful products. But I think we can ask them to distribute literature for us that talks about public safety. That’s presumably what we do with fireworks when we allow vendors to put up stands.
So I think there are a number of enforcement things we can do. I’m very satisfied with the staff report and I will be supporting this the continuation of this program. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson.
Yeah thank you. I just wanted to quickly say I’m not going to be supporting this either. I do understand that there are some affordability issues and some people really do value them but we’ve heard from, you know, from my colleagues that it does provide a risk and a hazard to a lot of people. And people haven’t mentioned the disability groups and the seniors groups who’ve been pleading with municipalities for the safety concerns that they face on the sidewalks due to these things.
And we really struggle with enforcement and adding more rules where then there’s an expectation from the public that they’ll be enforced. I think this doesn’t set us up to win either financially from a budget perspective or from a measurement of success. There’s so many bylaws that the public is complaining that don’t seem to be enforced, that to add another one that’s going to be a real challenge even with the new penalty system, I just don’t think it’s in the greater public interest right now so I won’t be supporting. Councillor Cudi.
Thank you. Your worship and through you. disagree with anything that Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Van Mirberg upset. The insurance issue is an issue, the lack of insurance is an issue, the darting in between cars, the reckless behavior, motorists without the cyclists without helmets, all of that, all of that is true .
Here’s the problem and it’s a brief and I reference Councillor Trossell. I have residents in my ward who cannot afford another way to get to Fanshawe and this is their sole source of transportation and I respect that and I also respect my residents your worship who have said Peter I’ve got people dart ing in and out with these e-scooters what do we do the problem is that I don’t think by law can it can enforce this we have you know to to miss Fife’s work and effort she has a yeoman group of of by-law officers but they can’t do all of this but at the same time I don’t think we can die to deny people the right to get to work to get to school to operate a vehicle. I respect the fact that there are issues with this, and I respect the fact that this is a very long- term trial period. I was out cycling in my ward on the weekend on Sunday, and I saw a cyclist.
I saw an east scooter go by me without a helmet, darting in and out of traffic. All of the things that we’ve said are wrong, and they shouldn’t be doing, and there was no one there to stop them from this behavior. But at the same time, we have cyclists that do the same thing. We have motorists who drive recklessly.
So you’re worship. I’ll be supporting this somewhat begrudgingly. I want to see this come to a conclusion in a few years. And I hope we can find a way.
Minister transportation can find a way to bring resolution to this. We do have a safe way of transportation for everyone. Thank you. Councillor Frank.
Thank you, yes. I wanted to share that I will be supporting the proposal from staff in extending London’s participation in the E-Scooter pilot. I think the measures that they’ve outlined address some of the concerns that I’ve been hearing. And I think that our goal should be improving the safety outcomes.
That seems to be the main point that comes up and not eliminating a transportation option that many residents rely upon. And I think that by not extending the pilot, the main people we penalize are the people who are actually using it properly to get to work , to go to school. I dropped my kid off this morning and I saw some people using their e-scooter properly in the bike lane with a helmet on. They were not weaving in and out.
They were probably going to work or probably going to school or wherever they need to go. And I do hear that there are concerns that e-scooters are on sidewalks or they’re in mixed traffic. That to me says we actually need to build more protected active transportation, not penalize people who are trying to find a safe way to get to work or school. And I think the proposed additional measures, again, with clear education, some better enforcement options, stronger rules around the underage riders.
Those are reasonable steps that address some of the public concerns we’ve heard. I think we also need to keep this issue in perspective. Motor vehicles remain far more dangerous on our streets in terms of the number and severity of collisions and injuries and fatalities. And we do not respond to roadway safety concerns by banning cars or asking the province to remove them.
We in fact improve on infrastructure education enforcement and I think we need the same balanced approach. And I just wanna highlight for folks who maybe didn’t read the whole report and for the public, some of the stats that were included. So LHSC provided some comparison data for injuries. With eScooters last year, total injuries were 179 , total admissions 33.
For motor vehicle collisions, it was 1,656 total injuries and 571 total admissions into the hospital. And then London Police Services kindly provided some data as well. In regards to number of collisions in 2025, those involving an e-scooter were eight, those involving a car, 12,175. So I think when we’re talking about safety concerns, we need to provide a proportional response.
And I think that e-scooters are part of a broader shift towards more affordable transportation options. We heard from Councillor Cuddy that there are folks that require an e-scooter because it’s what they can afford to get to, to work or to school. And I think that we need to continue to provide mobility options for people. And we also hear a lot about traffic concerns in the city, I think that at a time where we take away a potential legal method for people to get to the school and to work, we’re gonna see more people shift towards cars and an increase in traffic, which is something that I know this council is very committed to try and alleviate.
So at this point, I will continue to support the pilot. I agree with many of my colleagues. I would like the province to step up and provide some better legislation. But I think at this point, I don’t wanna penalize people are using the scooters properly.
Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, your worship. And I really appreciate the comment from Council Cudi finding a way. I hear Councillor Vermeer Bergen, and I see it for myself in my ward, the misuse of e-scooters and the danger that they can cause if they’re on the side box.
I think we have to figure it out in this pilot project allows us to figure it out. We have a couple of years. There’s a great opportunity for an education. if we don’t have a program, it’s gonna be very difficult for us to educate the community.
I wanna thank staff. I was at the open house over in Ward 9 and they did such a great job and it was a great conversation and I realized, speaking with residents, they have no clue of what the rules are. So having a pilot program allows us to have that piece of education. Sure, we could be doing more.
I would like to see schools do a little bit more. I’d like to see the companies that sell these on Amazon or whatever give a little bit more information to parents. But there’s a lack of information there. It gives us a way of collecting data as well.
There’s no easy way to go here, but it is figuring it out. And that’s why I will be supporting it. To me, the bottom line, it’s going to be the equity. It is about other opportunities of moving around.
We need to have those opportunities and it allows that we should not agree, Councillor Frank, penalize people that are using the e-scooters in the right way. And with that, I’ll be supporting staff’s work and thank you for this. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you.
So I just wanted to start first by thanking staff for the information that’s provided in this report. When we discussed this issue in the fall of last year I went into that conversation quite concerned with our position on expanding the program and continue to have those same concerns or continue to extend the program, sorry, and I continue to have those concerns, mainly because of the safety issues and the lack of enforcement. However, I do think whether we continue with the pilot or we cancel it, it’s the same outcome. People will continue to ride East Scooters in the city of London.
And so over the course of the last few months, I had a chance to do an environmental scan of cities that are not participating in the East Scooter Pilot to get a sense of their enforcement efforts. And it’s just as convoluted. So I think what I’m hearing, and as I’ve been following the debate in other cities as well, Mississauga just went through a review of their e-scooter pilot as well. And in speaking with members of council there, one of the things that they’re trying for, and I think perhaps we need to look at a, either an AMO resolution or something of that sort, is we need to take an approach to ask the province to move faster on the response to the pilot and come back with an answer on the issue of insurance and come back with stricter guidelines for those that are selling e-scooters in the province of Ontario.
And lastly, some sort of mechanism, whether that’s a license plate or something on the back of an e-scooter, but some sort of way to tie the rider to some sort of license to be able to follow up on an issue. So I think there are lots of ways we can do this. We know that there are cities in Europe that have figured those things out. We have places that we can go to see best practices.
But that’s up to the province to do. And so here we are in this situation where the pressure on either side would be put on our staff and by-law to enforce this either if we kept it or not. And so at this time, I’m going to reluctantly support keeping the pilot. And it comes down to, again, that issue of not just affordability and people’s ability to use e-scooters.
But I also think that what I heard from the debate and from the— read from the report is that we’re doing things collectively already to better educate the public. I think there is more that will be done from what I’ve gathered from this report. And I do think that just in the time span of when we started talking about this in the fall to now, we saw London Police do a social media campaign about it. We’ve done some more proactive engagement, including reminding parents not to purchase these at Christmas time and so on and so forth.
So at this time, like I said, I’m reluctantly supportive. I think that this strikes a balance at this point to do something, to continue with the education, to increase the enforcement, to find now parents of those under 16, if they’re caught riding and riding them improperly and without helmets, all of those things I think are very important. But I do want to see us do something, perhaps at AMO, to try to get a provincial position on this. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Pribble.
Thank you, Chair. I supported this pilot project last time. I’m even more so supporting this time based on the report we received from the staff. It’s thank you very much for the current status and future steps that you are describing in the report.
The order, every pilot, and if you look at it, kind of the pilots, the countries, the continents that started this before, The pilots are about two things. So it’s always safer urban integration and while tightening the regulation. And that’s the way I look at it right now. I do think for us that I hope that my colleagues will support it and we’ll move this forward because again, I don’t want to stop it now.
And yes, what was said, I’m not going to repeat in terms of the province, but I will certainly be supporting it. I think it’s a way forward to this initiative. Thank you. Other speakers, go ahead, Councilor McAllister.
Thank you, and as my first time speaking, if I could make an amendment to add in that our delegate for AMO be directed to lobby on our behalf to the province for a regulatory framework. Okay, just give us one second, Councilor McAll ister. So not that I don’t have the utmost confidence in Councilor Hopkins, but if you frame it as delegate to AMO and for some reason we don’t have a delegate to AMO, that might be problematic. So we’re just gonna word it if you’re okay with that slightly differently on the advocacy front, just to align with that if you’re.
Yeah, AMO, and then if you want to even OBCM if they want to. Sure, yes, go ahead. If I could, through your worship, if I might be so bold to say that Councilor Hopkins is a board member of AMO currently, and so she can take it forward currently, not as a delegate, but as a board member. Sure, perfect, we’re gonna add AMO, OBCM.
We’ll have it all covered so we can, all of us do it no matter what the situation is. All right, Councilor McAllister, I’m gonna read this and then I’m gonna see, if you’re okay with it, there’s a seconder. that a new part, EB added that reads as follows, E, the advocacy through to AMO and OBCM, advocacy through to AMO and OBCM to request the province to speed up the assessment of the pilot project and bring forward recommended legislative changes as soon as possible. And Councillor Robbins willing to second.
Okay, all right, so that amendment is now on the floor to add that clause E. I’ll take debate and discussion on that. Go ahead, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and on the amendment.
Appreciate Councillor Robbins bringing it up. I do think it’s on all of us, every municipality, to advocate for this accelerated timeline. I’ve seen what other provinces have done with east scooters were a bit behind in terms of where we could be at, but I do think that advocacy is a critical part of this. I think the more municipalities that come forward and say we need action on this, we’ll strengthen our case with the province.
We’re all dealing with it. I think we all are kind of existing in a gray area right now and would really appreciate the province to step in with a regulatory framework. So I hope my colleagues will support this. I know we’ve done good work in the past, lobbying the province and I’m sure our representatives will do a great job bringing this forward again as well.
Thanks. Okay, other speakers to the amendment and just the amendment. Just the amendment, okay. Seeing none, then we’re gonna vote on just the amendment.
We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. You’ll move the as amended motion. Okay, and a seconder for the as amended motion.
Councilor Cuddy. All right, we’ll go to debate on that. Councilor McAllister, go ahead. Thank you, sorry.
I wish my train of thought and not to give up my time. I appreciate all the comments today. We did have a bit of a debate at committee, but a bit light on members unfortunately, but this is something that had come back to us. So I think we all had a desire to see some improvements.
Again, like I just said, it’s unfortunately a bit of a gray area right now with e-scooters in the province of Ontario. Other provinces have, as I said, done a bit more work on this. I do think we will eventually get there. But from what I’ve heard from my residents and a few counselors have brought it up today.
It is a bit of an affordability issue. This is a mode of transportation and a number of my residents utilize. And I don’t want to punish them at this time without any sort of regulatory framework to come and play to deal with this. Because an outright ban, I don’t think, is the appropriate way of going about this.
I think it’s on the province to actually come forward with rules and regs to actually give people something to follow and not just strip it away from them. So what we have before us, I think, is appropriate. I know we all have some issues with it, but I don’t want to stop it at this point without something to replace it. And I will support this.
So thank you. Other speakers, go ahead. Councillor Vameer-Bergen. Thank you, Mayor.
Is it possible to call B and D separately? Yeah, in fact, we already set it up that way for you. So we try. Any other, any other speakers?
Okay, well, we’re gonna, let me just figure out the order. So we’re gonna do B and D first, and then we’ll do the balance of the clauses afterwards. So where to do B and D is the first vote. Yeah, okay, everybody good?
Okay, we’re gonna open. No, your worship, actually, I’d like to meet and D called separately. Which one? B and D.
I want B and D called individually, not together. Sure. Seeing where this is going, while I won’t be supportive of B, I will support B because if this is gonna pass, I do wanna staff report back. So I’d like to be able to vote in favor of the staff report back, even though I won’t be supporting the bylaw.
Okay, so we’ll do three separate votes. We’ll do B, we’ll do D, and then we’ll do the balance. Just give us one second. All right, we’re gonna vote on part B now.
Just by itself, we’ll open that for voting. We’re losing the vote on part B. Motion carries 11 to four. Okay, and now we’re gonna vote on part D, which is the report back piece.
We’ll open that for voting. Councillor Lewis. Sorry for some reason that did not come up in these scribe. Councillor Lewis will jess.
No, thank you for closing the vote on part D. Motion carries 14 to one. Okay, now we’ll do the balance of the clauses to receive the amendment that was passed already, all the other pieces. Okay, we’ll open that for voting.
Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, Councillor. And that concludes my report, thank you. Well, thank you very much for that.
We’re on to 8.2, which is the seventh report of the Planning and Environment Committee. And I’ll turn it over to Chair Layman to present the report. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to present the seventh report of the Planning and Environment Committee.
I will pull number seven, that is for 945 Blue grass Drive. I’ve had no other request for any other items to be pulled. Okay, any other items to be pulled? Okay, I’ll let you make a motion then Councillor.
Thank you, so I’ll move, I was one through six and eight. Any comments on one through six and eight? I will open that for voting. Present vote, motion carries 15-0.
Councillor Layman. Thank you, so that leaves item seven regarding 945 Bluegrass Drive, as I did not support it at committee and I will not be supporting it this afternoon night. I’m not able to move it. Okay, I look for, is there a member of the committee who’s willing to all move at your worship?
Okay, so Deputy Mayor Lewis will present the report and move this, so it’s on the floor. I’ll look for any discussion now. Councillor Lehman, go ahead. Thank you, so for those of you that were not at Packer, we’re able to follow.
I just want to give a brief outline. First of all, the area that we’re talking about, this area is back in a residential neighborhood, single family homes, low density. bluegrass is a very narrow road that kind of connects two neighborhoods. It kind of splits the properties of where the gateway church is, and then where this proposed development is.
Bluegrass is a very narrow road that’s used by many families in the area, people on cycles, a lot of pedestrians, and also those from the neighborhood to the west connect over to Beaverbrook that way they can get out to starting a road where their transit pickup is. What’s being proposed today with its development is two four-story buildings. One is a residential building and the other is long-term care. The height first of all four stories is not appropriate in the middle of this neighborhood.
And just as concerning though is the use along with I think it’s 54-unit apartment. There is also a 224 long-term care facility, which is essentially a business and that’s going to involve the number of things that come with operating a 24/7 business. You’re going to get shift work changes. You’re going to get delivery vehicles, maintenance vehicles, visitors coming and going.
Just a lot of noise and disruption, again, in this neighborhood environment. If this was out on Sarn ia Road, it would be a totally different story, but it’s not. It’s going up to four stories. It was approved already for three.
This is just pushing it too far. So for those reasons, I encourage my colleagues not to support this. Thank you. Yeah, there’s speakers to this.
All right, Councillor Trossa. Thank you very much to the chair. One of my recurring issues in many of these development projects, which is apparent here, over the council term has been, in my view, just my opinion, the inadequacy of the traffic studies. And there are a number of very legitimate concerns that have been raised about this project.
I’m going to focus on the traffic study, because it comes up time and time again. And my question for Steph is, in reviewing the traffic management study, submit it as part of the application process. How does staff assess whether or not the report is complete and should be accepted? Or on the other hand, if it should be rejected and sent back for more analysis?
How does that happen? Hi, Mr. Felberg. Thank you, and through you, Mr.
Chair. So we would look at all the technical requirements in order to approve a particular application. It would be certain criteria that we look at. In this particular case, the road is a neighborhood connector, so it has a certain traffic volume that we’d be expecting based on the development.
So in this case, when we reviewed it, it was identified that the proposed volume to be generated by the site would be appropriate for a neighborhood connector . And for that particular location, we might also look at potentially traffic calming measures for a particular area as well. As far as the larger system and how it might connect to a broader street, that would be done through some of our growth management studies and we’d take a look and identify if additional capacity is required outside of this particular area. So in my view then through the chair, some of what I’m hearing needs to be dealt with across the board as a shift in policy in terms of what are the criteria that we’re gonna use to even accept the traffic study.
I found this traffic study to be wholly and adequate. Not only from the point of view of not looking at the cumulative effects with other activities in the neighborhood, which is typical, that’s part of the standard boilerplate traffic study that we’re used to getting. But maybe even more significant, the failure of this traffic study to sort of go beyond there are 200 beds here. Was there anything in the traffic study that dealt with the 24/7 nature of not just 24 bedrooms and residents, But the industrial nature of the food service and the deliveries, was that included in the traffic study?
Mr. Felberg. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair.
Some of the technical requirements we would address through site plan, but the long-term care facility, it does have a certain use and intended use and then amount of traffic or a volume that would come through the site. That was considered a number of trips were counted as part of that additional, those additional uses and that additional traffic that we’ve been generated by the site. However, through the chair, it’s not simply a question of quantitatively counting trips. It’s a question of qualitatively, looking at the type of trip and what time of day they’re gonna happen and what the intensity of it is.
And with this type of facility where you’ve got like a very specialized food service, which is going to involve a lot of deliveries, you’ve got some healthcare needs that may involve ambulances coming at all hours, you’ve got all sorts of other issues that go beyond a simple 24 bedroom residence. And I think that level of intensity of not just the number of vehicles, but the types of trips needs to be included in a proper traffic study. So for no other reason, and there are other reasons, but if for no other reason, I’ll certainly be voting no on this as I indicated because I don’t think the traffic study is adequate. Having visited the site and looked at some of the land features, I see that there is, it’s not an even land on this parcel and across the street.
Apparently land was moved from the parking lot and the church across at one point. And it seems to me as if there are potential situations that could occur with stormwater running off, I don’t think that’s been adequately addressed. And I do think that there’s a risk management question here. And I do appreciate that at some level, if it was in a floodplain, there would be intervention from the Conservation Authority.
But I think this property by property analysis of levels needed to be given more thought. also very troubled by the noise that would be generated by the kinds of HVAC equipment that’s in a facility like this. This is not a run of-the-mill apartment building. This is an industrial facility that has an industrial- type kitchen and all the other things that I talked about, not to mention staff coming at different hours, not to mention family members being in an emergency to come at different hours, ambul ances.
So for all these reasons and others, I’m gonna be voting against this project. I think I laid it out in a little bit more detail at the planning— - 30 seconds. But there’s nothing I’ve seen that’s changed my mind. We just have to send this back.
And you know, if the developer can’t do this properly within three stories, they’re trying to cram too much on this property. So please vote, please vote no on this. Next, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor Hillier. Actually, Councillor Hill here had his hand up first, so I’ll let him go ahead of me.
All right, Councillor Hill here, and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you very much. My question is regarding the relationship between the 54 unit apartment building and the 224 beds in the LTC, the long-term care. During the presentation, there was noted that these would be supportive apartments for people helping people in the long-term care.
And I’m curious what happens with the inevitable we reach when that person passes, does this family become evicted? And then, okay, are these units furnished units? And then there’s no furniture being brought back and forth, or are these things that they have to bring things to? Because then we’re looking at a parade of moving trucks, and this type of thing.
So I’m just curious, what’s the relationship between this building and the continuum of care building? Thank you. I’m not sure if Mr. Felberg can answer that, but I’ll turn it over to you to give it a go.
Thank you, Your Worship. I really can’t answer that freely about the operations of the long-term care facility the services that they’re offering at this particular building. So, apologies for that. Councillor Hillier.
I understand. Thank you. I voted yes at committee, but I wasn’t in favor of the density of stories, so I will not be voting in favor of this. Thank you.
Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So, apologies. I’m going to try and I’ve been making some notes here as well.
I’m going to try and follow those two. First of all, I think it’s very important, and I cannot underscore this enough. The colleagues keep in mind, this is a staff recommended application. If we refuse this, we absolutely open ourselves up to an appeal at the OLT.
And again, listen, my opinion, but I’ll tell you, my batting record is pretty strong on OLT outcomes with staff supporting this. And based on what’s in front of us, if this goes to the OLT, we will lose in my opinion. When we talk about this is going to be a 24/7 operation. Respectfully, I think we’re getting a little bit out of context of what a 24/7 out 24/7 operation looks like.
Food deliveries are scheduled to come at specific times every day. They don’t just randomly show up. When I hear about ambulances, they’re going to come. Listen, a couple of weeks ago, I was in an ambulance on my way to UH.
Ambulances come to every neighborhood in the city as required, and I think it’s a little bit over the top, in my opinion, to suggest that the neighborhood doesn’t have ambulance visits already. When I hear things like the the noise from an HVAC unit, listen, I live across from the East Lions Community Center. There is a community kitchen in that community center. There are HVAC units running in that facility all day and all night off, and you don’t hear them at all.
And I’m talking about right across the street, you don’t hear them. So I think that we’re getting into some territory where we’re overreacting to some neighborhood opposition. I mean, we heard comments about we’re going to lose the green space. It’s not green space.
It’s not publicly owned. It’s not a park. It is owned by a private landowner who wants to move a development forward on something I think we all agree is needed in our community which is long-term care and transitional apartments for those who are either supporting someone in long-term care or who may be at the point where they are downs izing and want to have an option near the the long-term care homes so they move once. I respectfully cannot disagree strongly enough with Councillor Hillier’s comment that there’s going to be a parade of moving vehicles coming in and out of this facility as loved ones pass away.
That’s not how those sort of agreements work. That would be up to the tenant to decide that they no longer want to live there. It’s not an eviction notice because the loved one has passed away. And that would have been a question.
This should have, you know, appropriately been reached out to the developer to ask, honestly. It is a neighborhood connector. Through you, I want to ask your worship, would a four-story stacked townhouse be allowed on a neighborhood connector? Go ahead.
Through you, your worship. Thank you for the question. The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to fold. It’s to permit the use through the London Plan, but also the four-story height.
The stacked townhouse use would be permitted, however, an Official Plan Amendment would still be required to permit four stories. go ahead, Deputy. Thank you. I think that’s relevant, because I think when we did our Heights Plan review and said that four-story stacked towns would be acceptable on neighborhood connectors.
So now we’re going to argue that a four-story apartment building and long-term care home are not. I heard concerns about the height and I look at the Gateway Church across the road, which itself, in its massing, is over three stories. So it’s not like there’s not big buildings right there to begin with. When I hear about traffic and complaints about traffic from the church, well then we need to have a discussion with the church about their overflow traffic.
Not deny somebody planning application because somebody else has a parking problem. We need to step back from the concerns we’ve heard and take a look at this from a planning rationale. And from a planning rationale, our staff, our professionally accredited planning staff have determine that this is an acceptable application. So I really encourage people to listen to our staff and support this application because I think the consequences of going down this path for the next several months, which is what I see starting to happen, going down this path of we’re going to refuse anything that the public objects to is a very dangerous path and a very expensive one when we start racking up the legal bills at the O LT.
We need to listen to our planning staff, we need to follow the planning act and we need to act in the best interests of the city on this and recognize that a development has been approved here for a long time. This is an adjustment to that and it should be approved. I have Coun cillor ramen next. Thank you through you.
So I am not supportive of moving forward with this development and I want to share my rationale for not to supporting it at this time. First I want to take a moment to thank our staff and to thank as well as link a preammo for answering the questions that I had sent in about long-term care homes because I needed to be educated on the funding formula for a capital bill to better understand the cost per bed. That, that was, would be accessing for this type of agreement as well as some of those operating costs, which I still have some unanswered questions on, but appreciate that, that they were able to give me more cost. were able to give me more context to that.
When it comes to this location, I’m very familiar with this area. Councilor Lehman and I have spent quite a bit of time at Gateway Church together. And this is very different from the church. The church fronts are on your road.
The church has one building with a lot of parking around it. This building and the configuration and what they’ve proposed is much different. The church has adequate green space in their area . They’ve got a playground.
They’ve got other amenities. This feels much more compact on that site with what’s proposed. We all, I think around this horseshoe, support the need for long-term care in our community and more spaces and more beds. And so I do hope that Jarlett looks to other places to put a facility because I think it’s actually quite important.
Looking at some of their other forms that they have, they have a lot of 160-bed formats with better three-story. They have a lot of other formats and other communities. But part of the reason why this is what they put forward is because of the land costs associated with this particular property, and to make the perform a work, they had to go this tall. So I understand why they brought what they brought forward for that reason.
I will say though that there’s I think room for discussion with the province on the funding formula on this as well. When you look at it, you know, 85% of the funding for a bed, maximizing that funding at $436,000 per bed. This project, just on the long-term care side, would have been about $100 million. The apartment side is a whole other piece.
And then there’s— that’s just capital spend. That’s not the operating. The operating itself is another ball of wax. So I understand why the applicant brought this proposal forward.
I think it’s good news that they’re looking at London, that they’re looking at how to expand their operations here even further, but I think that for the context of this neighborhood and what is, what they’re looking at this space, I know that someone is going to build, the developer’s going to put something here. I just don’t know what it’s going to be at this time, but I think this is the wrong project for this place. Those are my comments. Other speakers to this?
Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, first of all, I do appreciate the conversation and I know we’ve heard loud and clear from the community and I can see here this afternoon the vote no signs. So I appreciate the community engagement taking place. I didn’t attend the planning committee.
I’m usually attend and usually I see many applications get approved, refusals even get approved. And I was quite surprised that this was not supported given that our policies do support it. And the special provision with the extra bit of height, it was interesting to hear based on Deputy Mayor Lewis’s questions around the four-story townhouses. Sure, the amendment would have to be made, but it is allowed on the street.
And how do we look at our policies? I appreciate the work that staff have done on this. I don’t think this came lightly. When I see no vote, I also see two, three stories, 40-some units per hector, that is already allowed to be built, 80 units.
So again, we get through the units, the traffic, the congestion, and the safety issues. That’s already approved. I have great concerns that this is going to be appealed, given the support and the recommendation coming from our experts. So I hear loud and clear, the height is an issue.
But again, I also know that this type of application, and a few applications have been refused in Ward 9, the ward that I represent, because there wasn’t enough land. So you have to go up. But with these long-term facilities, they can’t build small long-term facilities. Again, getting back to the provincial formula, they need a little bit of space.
I also appreciate the fact that there is going to be a community benefit with this application. It is going to be provided by the applicant to give some land, and land dedication, as well as supporting the trails. So for me, it’s an institutional piece of land already. It’s already zoned for that.
We’re already going to have an infill here. This gives us a little bit more supporting long term. There’s a long process still to go through with the site plan process, but I do not want to support our policies. We have our policies.
If you don’t want to support the policies, then we should change our policies. But I get very defensive when we chip away and pick away at certain applications that we want to proceed forward or not. The intensity here is just over 60 units per hect are going from 40 to 60. That is so low compared to many, many applications that we have already approved that have gone against our policies.
And here we are debating this one because of it going to a four-story knowing that we could probably make some official plan amendments to go for a four-story townhouse. So I am very concerned that we are picking and choosing our applications. I want to support our policies and I want to thank staff for the work that they’ve done and thank you. Any other speakers to this?
Councillor Ferrer. Thanks, Mayor. I thought I would speak to this when I’ve been seeing the emails come in and I looked at the application and I’m hearing the comments that I’ve heard here today. I’m just going to give some perspective on, I guess my neighborhood.
like I currently live about 100 and I just looked 140 meters from a long-term care facility. That’s exactly four stories tall. It’s exactly the same. I also have an apartment building that’s just a little bit further.
That’s about I think 17 stories tall. I hear the concerns that the neighbors are saying and I do hear kind of some of the conversations here but there’s really no impact. I live in a very low density neighborhood. I also have a neighborhood connector street actually that I live off of that too.
So everything’s very directly applicable to me. So I see that I have a very good experience with I guess at the development like this that’s being proposed right now because I got a lot of like for like issues here. A lot of like for like, you know, apples to apples considerations that I can put out here. I would say I like what Council Hopkins was saying.
Like we do need long-term care facilities. Both of these are very low intensity. I understand the neighborhood is a very low density neighborhood, but at the same time, I feel like this is, you know, a lower intensity development here and it is a appropriate fit. So I, you know, I think that this would be something that I would support just because I do want to hear what staff have to say.
I agree with the recommendations that staff give. I do want to follow our planning policies. I’ve said that before. And I think that this is a situation where we should be following our planning statements in our planning policies and the recommendations from staff.
I feel the same as Councillor Hawkins, picking and choosing between certain recommendations can kind of hurt our consistency and how we move forward. So with that said, I’m gonna be supporting this application. Any other speakers? Seeing none, then we’re gonna open this for, oh, Councillor Flossa, sorry, caught you just at the last minute there, you can go ahead.
Sorry, I think I’m just pushing all the buttons , trying to get something to work. Thank you. I’ve been following this one, And I think our prior speakers and the residents who have been emailing in their comments that are attached to this report and my colleagues who have clarified a few things that this was not a city green space, I’ve seen that comment made that we’re selling off our lands. It’s not our land and it wasn’t our part.
A question through you to staff, just on page 61, looking at the height, realizing it was already approved for 13 meters. The applicant wanted 17 and a half and my understanding is the staff recommendation is 14 and a half of habitable space and then some rooftop space for the HVAC of non habitable space just looking for clarification that I’ve written that correctly. Go ahead. Through you your worship and thank you for the question.
So the applicant’s height request includes some architectural features that are on top of the building. Staff were concerned that there was possibility for the zoning permissions they were seeking to actually allow for a fifth story in the absence of those features. So for that reason, staff are recommending 14 and a half meters reflecting the actual building height, but then some exemptions for those architectural features as proposed. Thank you go ahead.
I appreciate that. When you start seeing the higher height, I think it’s important to note that that’s not habitable space. It’s architectural features. It ‘s some HVAC and other amenities for making the building function that was already approved for 13 meters and this is just 1.5 meters more to accommodate the inhabitants.
Having served on the Deerness long-term care home for eight years. I know that there is a need for long-term care and residents seeking care in their families to live close to us here in London. I appreciate the campus of care kind of models that the province likes, also having family who’ve used these in the past that you get to have community and stay within it. I appreciate the 39% open space of green space within the application as well and realizing there is community gathering space in a place of worship nearby for more space and giving a sense of community as well.
As with every infill project, I know it’s difficult for communities, but knowing it’s going to be 1.5 meters more, I am going to be supporting this today. Thank you . Okay, any other speakers? All right, we’re going to open it for voting.
This is the committee’s recommendation. closing the vote, motion fails, five to 10. Okay, Councillor Layman. Thank you Mayor.
That concludes the seventh report of the Planning and Biomoke Committee. Okay, sorry about that. We just had to make sure there was nothing. We had to clean up on that one.
We’re on to the seventh report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I’m gonna turn it over to Councillor ramen to present that report. Thank you. I will look to put items one, two and four on the floor.
Unless anyone wants anything else from their poll. All right, one, two, and four. Anybody want any of those dealt with separately? Okay, seeing none, you can put those on the floor .
Okay, those are on the floor by the chair. Any discussion? We’re gonna open that for voting, one, two, and four. Close in the vote, motion carries 14-0.
I would like to put item three on the floor, the YMCA center branch program service and access agreement. Okay, that’s on the floor, I look for any speakers. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 13-0 with one recusal.
Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, I’ll put item five, 2.4, the Housing Stability Action Plan 2026-2031 update on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for any speakers.
Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I’m not gonna be supporting this and I just wanted to just make a few brief comments about it, I’ve made a lot of these points in the past, but in the report itself, it says that the plan defines housing stability as ensuring that everyone has access to safe, appropriate, affordable housing and the supports needed to remain housed. And we hear so much about the lack of safety in almost every aspect of our housing continuum.
There’s 11 categories in our housing continuum. Unhoused obviously is unsafe, but our emergency shelters. We talked about this when we did our strategic plan and I still hear incredible concerns around even in our family shelter. A lot of it is related to the use of drugs and that kind of thing.
Hubs, you know, highly supportive housing for transitional housing, other supportive community. At every level, even the affordable rentals, market rentals, people are concerned about a lack of safe housing options and a lack of the impact on what it’s doing to their housing. It talks about responding to homelessness. And I just, you know, through the consultation, a lot of things are mentioned here, but I’m not seeing anything about recovery.
And I hear so much about people who do the 10 day detox, have nowhere to go, nowhere to go to escape the rampant drug use that is in the shelters and the housing. The cost compares, I don’t understand why we’re comparing housing to correctional facilities, mental healthcare and psychiatric hospitals. Now we’re up to 378,000 a year. As though somebody who would be in a facility like that, actually housing them in our housing.
You know there’s poverty and there’s a lack of housing and then there’s illness and addiction and mental illness and one requires treatment and the other one just needs some financial support and some housing and we’re mixing the two together and it really doesn’t seem to be serving anybody. It ‘s reducing affordability as we saw with 122 to baseline. That was a city built affordable housing unit, housing building. And it was very unsafe for people.
And it’s not even affordable anymore. The rents we’ve had to increase them. And it’s still not a safe building from what a lot of people are telling me. So there’s so many things through this report.
I, you know, another one, again, we talk about public awareness and advocacy and it’s reduced stigma through education campaigns. I’m not seeing a focus on recovery. We don’t need to be providing health care with treatment, but we do need pathways. Is there sober shelters so that people aren’t surrounded by drug use in a really low moment?
People who do 10-day detox, can they access safe shelter or housing where there isn’t rampant drug use? What about people who are recovered addicts and they find themselves homeless and And their sobriety and their mental health is put at risk because our entire continuum is impacted or has drug use in it. And the number of calls that I get, I spoke to two young people recently who had finally got the golden ticket where they received a housing unit in one of our RGI social housing buildings. They were both recovered addicts, both had suffered mental illness and had been doing well.
a few years, you know, in their parents basement waiting for that moment when they’d get a housing unit. They got it and they called me six months later in despair because of all the drug use, because of all kinds of other activities that were affecting their mental health. And this was, this is the best we have for them in our social housing. So for us to just keep going forward without addressing the issues that have been brought to light at toll puddle, at 122 baseline, the issues that we know are happening in shelters , the fact that the province changed their focus to recovery-oriented system of care, and we are going to continue reducing the stigma of drug use and trying to make it safer when it’s very unsafe , and people are getting sick, and they’re dying, and they’re dying outside, and they’re dying inside, and they’re dying in our shelters, and they’re dying in our housing, and we’re not talking about it.
So I cannot continue to support this almost four years in when we knew we had unsafe shelters and we’re not talking about it. We have seen firsthand the devastation in the videos, and if you haven’t seen them, I’ve got many I can share, but listen to the people who feel very unwell and unstable in their housing. There was one other thing I wanted to read here that was in our report, and it talks about children and mental health. And again, we ‘ve got, we put women and children fleeing domestic violence into a building that we built, run, and operate with people with mental health and addiction concerns.
And those stories are very tragic. That the pictures that I showed at toll puddle was the stairwell going down to a playground. We’ve got children living in these buildings and we need to start addressing the addiction crisis and the impact. Other speakers Okay.
Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. I vote yes. Closing the vote, motion carries, 12 to one. Thank you, that concludes my report.
Okay, thank you for that. We’re on to added reports. We’ll go to Councilor McAllister, who has been again volunteered to read the added report, although I don’t know if it was volunteered, but he’s gonna do it for us, so we appreciate that. Thanks, no problem.
Most of these are from my committee anyway, so no problem. This is the eighth report of council in closed session. Your council in closed session report, 6.1 property acquisition, 3826-year trail partial acquisition, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director parks and forestry and the director planning environment on the advice of director realtio services with respect to a portion of 3826-year trail being part of lot six plan 33M 751 designated Part 2, 33R-22306, the subject property in the city of London, the following actions be taken. A, the offer submitted by Mamalda Holdings Inc orporated the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 100,000 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as Appendix C and B, the financing of this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing here too as Appendix A .
6.2 offered a purchase industrial lands here on industrial park C2 block that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of direct reality services with respect to the city owned industrial land situated in Huron industrial park being the C2 block and municipally known as 2079 here on the street in the city of of London in the county of Middlesex containing approximately 32.648 acres more or less and legally described as part of the north half of lot three concession to geographic township of London, designated as part two and part five and plan 33R-22400 and being part of pin 08126-0020 LT, the subject property, the following exits being taken, A, the agreement of purchase of sale of the agreement as Appendix B submitted to Hitachi Energy Canada Incorporated , the purchaser to purchase 32.648 acres of the subject property from the city at the purchase of $8,984,120. The accepted and the subject to the conditions and terms set out in the agreement and B, the Director of Realty Services be authorized to execute any closing documentation required to fulfill the city’s obligation under the agreement in consultation with the Deputy City Manager of Legal Services. The progress was made with respect to item 4.3 as noted on the public agenda, 6.1-7 or so-you-sl ash-7-slash community and protective services committee. And that’s it, thank you.
Okay, thank you. So that you’re presenting a report, Councillor, so you get to still stand. And that’s put on the floor by the councilor, any discussion on these? Okay, see none, we’ll open that for voting.
Those in the vote, motion carries 14-0. All right, thanks councilor, appreciate that. Deferred matters, we have none, inquiries. I’ve been informed of one from councilor Stevenson, so I’ll turn it over to you.
Thank you, yes, I did send this just a little before the council meeting. Given the death that we had at the micro shelter and knowing that our contracts all require critical incidents to be reported, or most of the contracts require critical incidents to be reported within 24 hours. And I’m aware of deaths happening in our highly supportive housing, and in several of our housing stability programs. I’m not sure about LMCH.
I just wondered if staff could give us a little bit of information in general around how this information is reported, who does it go to, what’s done with it, how is the cause of death reported and tracked, And has this data ever been reported to council so that we know how many deaths are happening in these various housing options? Thank you, I’ll go to Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship and through you.
So yes, the city requires that all shelter, highly supportive housing and housing stability programs, providers report critical incidents as part of their contractual obligations. This includes incidents such as participant deaths, situations involving emergency services, life-threatening events, as well as any service interruption, so loss of water, hydro, or any incidents related to the response of emergency services like fire police. Organizations have 24 hours to submit a critical incident to the city. Those participant-related incidents are also uploaded into HIFAS if they’re tied to a specific individual We can maintain that client record for that individual and any other service providers connected to them .
The information is received and reviewed daily by our city staff. So if their incidents are coming in each day, they are received by our Housing Stability Services team. They’re reviewed on a daily basis. We also track them internally looking for any trends.
They help us inform things like our procurement framework. So as Council has already endorsed, we are to do a review of all of our housing stability programs at your request and direction. These type of data sets help inform that review, they help inform any suggested policy changes and the like. As far as reporting to Council, we’ve reported the number of deaths that have happened in our community through various report backs, including an evaluation and research report.
It’s in our corporate strategic plan, the number of critical incidents that occur in shelters that ‘s in council’s strategic plan as well. We often don’t know what the cause of death is. Those are often a police matter or a coroner’s investigation and sometimes it’s shared with a service provider or sometimes it’s not and often it’s not shared with the city directly. If it is, we don’t take any steps to validate or verify that.
we just take those cause of death as verbatim. But yes, we receive a number of different criteria on these critical incidents related to the matters that I don’t mind. All right, thank you. Thank you.
Any other inquiries? That was the only one I was notified of. Okay, seeing none, we’re on to emergent motions. I have no ones who’s notified me of an emergent motion.
So we’re on to bylaws. So let me tell you how we’re gonna do the bylaws and the clerk already put in front of me, ‘cause they’re so great. So we’re gonna divide this in the following ways. We’re gonna do 188, which is the YMCA access agreement first.
We’re gonna do 190, which is the Fanshawe college agreement second. We’re gonna do 195 and 196, which is the electric scooter pilot bylaws. We’re removing the bylaws on bluegrass, ‘cause we don’t need to vote on those anymore. And then everything that’s left.
Is everybody okay with that breakdown? Yeah, I see lots of nods. Okay, great. Well, then what we’ll do is there anybody who’s supportive of all the things there?
Councillor McAllister and Councillor Cuddy, thank you. All right, then we’re gonna start with the YMCA access agreement. This is bill 188 and we will open voting for first reading. Motion carries 13-0 with one recusal.
Okay, and second reading of the same by-law. Any debate or discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Carries 13-0, one recusal.
Okay, third and final reading of this by-law. We’ll open that for voting. And carries 13-0, one recusal. Okay, we’re on to the next one, which is going to be the Fanshawe College Agreement.
This is bill 190. I’ll use the same mover and seconder as last set of bylaws and we’ll open for reading for voting. Carries 1301 recusal. Second reading of the same bylaw, any discussion?
Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Carries 1301 recusal. And third and final reading of bill 190. We’ll open that for voting.
Carries 1301 recusal. Okay, and now on to bills 195, 196, which is the electric kick scooter pilot related bylaws will open first reading for voting. Carries 12 to two. And second reading of these two bylaws.
Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Carries 11 to three. Third and final reading of these two bylaws, we’ll open that for voting.
Sorry, yes? Sorry and apologies, but 195 and 196 together can support 195, but not 196. Can they be called separately, or do we need a reconsideration? We can split the third reading at this point.
We’ve done— Okay. Two-by-law right? Okay, that’s fine, thank you. All right, we’re gonna do the third reading of bill 195.
That’s what we’re doing. All right, that’s gonna open for voting. Carries 12 to two. Okay, now third reading of 196.
We’ll open that for voting. Be those yes. Noted, thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to three.
Okay, now the balance of all the other bills will open first reading for voting. And carries 14-0. Second reading of all the remaining bills. Any discussion?
Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Carries 14-0. And third reading of all the remaining by-laws. We’ll open that for voting.
Carries 14-0. Okay, that concludes by-laws. All I need is a motion to adjourn. I’ll look to Councillor Frank and seconded by Councillor Van Mereberg and we can do that one by hand.
All those in favor of adjournment? Motion carries. All right, thank you. We’re adjourned.