- Okay, thank you, please be seated.
Okay, welcome to the 11th meeting of council.
I'm gonna start with an land acknowledgement.
We acknowledge that we are gathered today
on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak,
Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran
peoples.
We honor respect the history, language,
and culture of the diverse indigenous people
who call this territory home.
We acknowledge all of the treaties
that are specific to this area.
Two Row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee
Confederacy,
so we're coming to chain.
Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee
Nanfantry of 1701.
the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township
Treaty of 1796.
Here on track treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaab
ek
and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum,
the Anishinaabek and the Haudenosaunee.
The three indigenous nations that are neighbors
to London
are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation,
Oneida Nation of the Thames and the Muncie
Delaware Nation
who all continue to live as sovereign nations
with individual and unique languages, cultures
and customs.
The city of London is also committed
to making every effort to providing 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. Okay next we're
going to do our national
anthem singer. Connor Elge is a Canadian
instrumental artist who makes music
that blends soundscapes with technical guitar
playing. Connor makes music for
those with too much going on in their heads and
hopes that his music can help
them as his playing does for himself. Connor has
a new song being released on
the 26th named Stars. Please rise and join me in
welcoming Connor who will now
perform the National Anthem for us. Thanks again.
That was pretty awesome.
Turning to the disclosures of pecuniary interest,
I look to colleagues who have
any disclosures for us today. Dean Nunn will move
to recognitions and the first
recognition will be by Deputy Mayor Lewis,
followed by Councillor Pribble, followed by
myself
and then a presentation that I'll be making,
which is already listed in the agenda. So I'll go
to
Deputy Mayor Lewis first. Thank you, Your Worship
and through you and colleagues and staff and
the members of the public. I wanted today to take
a moment what I would normally do at the start of
June. However, I was certainly not up to it
health-wise at the last Council meeting to
recognize that
June is National Pride Month, and there have been
celebrations throughout this month, particularly
in Councillor Frank's Ward 11 worthy Pride
Festival, but celebrations are happening across
the country
for the LGBTQ+ community. And on the weekend, the
Pride flag will fly in Reg Cooper Square on the
community flagpole in recognition of the Stonew
all Riots, which started in the early hours of
June
27th and continued on for five days afterwards.
The flag will fly in recognition until Canada
day. And then, of course, London celebrates our
Pride Festival in Victoria Park in July.
And I know that the Pride Festival has asked for
the flag to be flown again during that
celebration. And so we will be celebrating twice
in London, recognizing that we have
a different local celebration than the National
Pride Month. However, it is a time for both
members of the LGBTQ+ community and their allies
to come together and celebrate our
diversity.
So I just wanted to take this opportunity to
recognize Pride Month and wish everyone
a happy Pride.
Thank you.
I'll go to Councillor Pribble next.
Thank you.
How can't I recognize Canadian national soccer
team during the World Cup?
I know it's only two games but so far.
First Indoor Group, tomorrow at 3 p.m. they play
in Switzerland with a draw, they'll be
first in the group and it will guarantee them
staying in Canada in Vancouver. Certainly already
a great accomplishment. I want to invite everyone
4th of July at Victoria Park. We have a fan fest,
FIFA fan fest. And of course, first, July 1st,
Canada Day, lots of events throughout the city
and especially downtown. Welcome everyone and
enjoy it. Have a great time with your families
and
friends. Thank you Mayor. Thank you. I appreciate
that Council approval. I'm going to move to the
podium for my next two recognitions. I'll just,
let me just move this closer. Okay, there we go.
So the first recognition I want to do is
recognizing those who serve on the front lines,
whether it's
EMS, fire, London Police Service, healthcare
staff, or even the bystanders involved in the
incident that happened at Sherwood Forest Mall,
where an individual ended up going through the
wall
and coming into a class that was currently going
on that morning.
I know we've said many times how important all
those frontline staffers are
and everybody out in the emergency services who
act and respond very quickly in incidents.
But I came across a story from one of the
paramedics about a bystander who intervened
shortly afterwards
and it struck me that the story was so impactful
that I wanted to share it today.
These aren't my words, these are something I'm
going to read.
And the story recognizes the heroic actions of
Mia LaRue.
Mia is a frontline paramedic with London Middles
ex Paramedic Services,
and while only in her second year as a paramedic,
she just demonstrated the skill, compassion, and
calm leadership
that defined the very best of our public service.
She was off duty at the gym.
She heard the sound of a crash and immediately
responded.
Seeing a cloud of dust and debris, she ran
towards the scene
where she found multiple people injured,
including a woman trapped beneath a vehicle
that had crashed through a wall.
Without hesitation, Mia stepped forward to help,
recognizing the immediate danger,
including the vehicle leaking fluids,
the risk posed by the vehicle remaining in gear,
and the dangerous position of the debris
surrounding the trapped woman,
Mia acted quickly to protect the woman
in those nearby.
She placed the vehicle in park,
assessed the situation,
and began directing bystanders and staff to
assist.
When police arrived, Mia's experience
as an off-duty paramedic was quickly recognized,
Working together, Mia and the other responding
officer
were able to move the vehicle to a safer position
,
allowing Mia to reach the woman and help free her
.
Her actions reflect the very best qualities
of a paramedic and a member of the community.
Courage, professionalism, compassion,
and a willingness to serve others whenever help
is needed.
On behalf of council and the residents of London,
we extend our sincere appreciation to Mia
for her bravery and dedication.
Her actions made a meaningful difference
during a frightening moment and serve as an
example
to the testament that the impact that one person
can have when they choose to step forward
and help in a moment of crisis.
London is fortunate to have people like Mia among
us and to Mia and all of the emergency
responders who responded that day.
Thank you for making our city safer and a
compassionate place to live.
You make a difference in our community each and
every day.
Thank you.
And now on to what we do on an annual basis and
that is the recognition of the contributions
that OLG makes through the municipal contribution
agreement, and each and every year we recognize
the significant contribution they make to our
community through us hosting a gaming site
here.
So I'm pleased to begin today's meeting by
acknowledging that the Ontario Lottery Gaming
Corporation OLG has its continuing investment in
London, Ontario through that municipal
contribution
agreement.
In 1999, the City of London entered into a
municipal contribution agreement with the OLG.
this agreement, OLG provides an annual share of
the gaming revenues generated from Gateway
Casino London to the City of London. These funds
are then earmarked for projects that
positively impact residents from all corners of
our vibrant community. From April 1st, 2025
to March 31st, 2026, we received over $5 million
from OLG through the revenue generated at
Gateway Casino. This revenue has played a crucial
role in supporting several essential
community initiatives, including funding for not-
for-profit organizations through the
City of London Community Grants Program.
Specifically, Type DIABIT was allocated funds
to support BIPOC food literacy programs. The
program promotes food literacy through teaching
the health benefits of cultural leading,
maintaining cultural food practices while making
healthier
choices with an emphasis on flavors from the
African diaspora. Through it, 227 children
and youth had access to the cultural food
literacy provided to them and other equity
denied groups to learn about nutrition, food
security and the skills for food connections
to identity to health and community.
Today we're honored to be joined by
representatives from the organization that has
greatly benefited
from the funds provided through this partnership
with OLG.
They have provided a pivotal role in our
community's well-being and are grateful, we are
grateful
to recognize their outstanding contributions
today.
So they're here with us right over here.
So thank you very much.
The remaining funds received from April 1st, 2025
to March 31st, 2026 through the municipal
contribution
agreement were used for a range of projects,
including
the restoration of the roof at Deerness Home,
the cities of London's long-term care facility,
various recreational facility upgrades
which include replacing the roofs at Argal Arena,
the Canada Games Aquatic Center, replacing the
pool heater
at Silverwoods Park, transforming the former Glen
Carren Arena to community space and replacing
the gym floor at the Boyle Community Center.
Local road reconstruction programs to reconstruct
roads, replace catch basins, install new curbs
and gatters, repair sidewalks, including new
ramps
and tactile plates. Strengthening the green fleet
with the purchase of 11 hybrid vehicles for the
corporate fleet, continuing to support for other
community organizations. So these are supports
been done in the past but are continuing on. The
Boys and Girls Club operating funding to support
seniors programming, children and youth
recreation, social and nutrition programs and
education and
leadership initiatives. The London and Middlesex
Heritage Museum operating funding to support
Fanshawe Pioneer Village delivering programs and
events and educational activities and exhibits
and preserving its collection of 33 original and
replica buildings and more than 40,000 artifacts.
in total the city has received now 107.7 million
in non-tax gaming revenue for hosting a gaming
facility in London since the inception of this
agreement in 1999. These revenues are a
cornerstone
for the support for local programs and essential
infrastructure making substantial tangible
differences in the lives of the people of London
Ontario. I'd also like to recognize Gateway
Casino London as a key employer in the old East
Village community. Following a total investment
of approximately 54 million. The casino's
workforce has now grown to about 329 employees
creating more than 80 new jobs and contributing
to the local economy. Thank you for your
continued
partnership and investment in London OLG. I'd now
like to introduce Kathleen Devine,
Senior Municipal Relations Manager at OLG, who
will be providing a couple of remarks and
bringing a big giant check to the front. Yes. So
good afternoon everybody. I'm Kathleen Devine,
senior municipal relations manager at OLG. And I
am the lucky person that gets to come into London
every year for this community recognition program
event. So I do want to thank yourself
Mayor Morgan, council and city staff for inviting
OLG here every year. This year was fun because
we've had a busy morning traveling around London,
getting a behind the scenes look at where some of
of the money has gone to.
And so we traveled to Silverwoods Park
for the new heater and filtration system
for the outdoor pool, which is amazing
if you haven't been there, you should go.
We went to the North London Optimus Community
Center
and saw the new flooring for the indoor tennis
courts,
all really tangible, positive impacts across
London.
And we were incredibly lucky to spend an hour or
so
with mystery and Gonzales from type diabetes, it
was incredible.
Looking at this garden that they have growing all
of these
various types of foods, plant-based,
gorgeous vegetables in their greenhouse,
out in the garden, learning about their
commitment
to food education and inclusivity
and equality across understanding food
and how to access it.
I can't say enough about type diabetes.
And so, of course, the thanks goes to American
Council
for choosing type diabetes as one of their
recipients
of your community grant program.
So, incredible work to all of you.
Again, from OLG, all of this community impact
resonates with us 100% of our profits
go back into the province every year.
and it's something we're really proud of.
So thank you for inviting us here every year.
Thank you to Tanvi for taking us on this
behind the scenes London tour.
And we look forward to coming back again next
year.
And now we'll just take a big check presentation,
shall we?
So please come on up and join us.
So as Mayor Morgan mentioned,
this is the amount the city of London received
fiscal 26 and I'll just grab it and I guess
probably stand in front. Yeah. And we are
pleased on behalf of all of OLG to present the
amount of 5,051,022 dollars.
Yeah. Thank you.
(audience applauding)
- Thanks, I'll just return to the seat.
That's really appreciate the words today
and we'll continue on with the meeting.
Thank you for bearing with us on that.
We are now on to review of confidential matters
to be considered in public.
There are none, we're moving to council in close
session
of which there are all of the items before us.
- Okay, they're all here, 4.1 through 4.8.
So I look for a motion to go into camera
for all those items.
I'll let the council frank,
seconded by councilor Hopkins,
we'll open that for voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.
- Okay, and we'll be moving to committee room
five.
So members of the public, you can stay here
and we will return as soon as we're done
in camera session.
Okay, please be seated.
Okay, that brings us to
confirmation and signing of previous minutes.
We have two sets of minutes that we could do
together.
That's the ninth meeting
in the 10th special meeting.
I'll look for a mover and seconder for those.
Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Leh
man.
Any discussion on the minutes?
Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- No, any Councillor for available?
- Oh, yes.
- Opposed in vote, motion carries 14-0.
- Okay, onto motions, oh, sorry.
Onto communications and petitions,
there are a fair number of them,
but they all relate to components of the agenda.
So there's a motion to refer all those
to the various parts of the agenda,
look for mover and seconder to that.
Councilor Cuddy and Councillor Troso.
Any discussion on referral of those matters
to the various parts of the agenda?
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Oh yes.
- Noted, thank you for closing the vote.
Motion carries 14-0.
- Okay, there are no motions to which notice was
given.
So we're on to section eight reports.
A section 8.1, it's the ninth report
of the Community and Protective Services
Committee.
I will turn it over to the chair to present.
- Thank you.
I will look to present the ninth report
of Community and Protective Services Committee.
I've been asked to pull items two, three, five,
seven,
and 11, just looking to see if there's any other
items.
Seeing none, I will put the remaining items on
the floor.
- Okay, so the chair's moving, moving in motion
for one, four, six, eight through 10, 12, and 13.
That's on the floor.
I'll look for any discussion on those items.
Go ahead, Councillor Trocev.
- Thank you, I just want to make a comment
about item number four of this is not a
controversial item,
wasn't even pulled for me and people in my ward
in the near campus neighborhood.
And I know people in other wards,
this is a very significant item.
And this, and I just wanna mark this
and not let this go without saying.
This has been the source of a lot of tension
and a lot of concern and a lot of dissatisfaction
in the community in terms of how these things
have historically been responded to.
And I want to say that Councillor Primple
and I have been working on this now
with Civic Administration for a good part of this
term.
And I'm just so pleased to see this
come to final council vote.
And I have to say it has just been
a total refreshing pleasure to work with your
staff
and in particular the Director of Municipal
Compliance.
because I think what we're doing here is we're
entering
into a sea change in terms of how we talk to
members
of the public about the complaints
and the concerns that they've filed.
So I just think this is such a positive step
in the right direction and again,
to the Deputy City Manager.
I wanna thank you so much for the work
that your staff has done with us on this.
Thank you.
- Other speakers to the items before us,
Councillor McAllister and then Perbal.
- Thank you, through your worship.
I just wanted to speak quickly on item six.
Again, previous counselor,
I just want to express my thanks to Mr. Rather's,
your team and Ms. Pfeffer really appreciate
the turnaround time on this.
I know this was something that I asked for
a little while ago, but I made some changes
based on the feedback I was receiving from the
community.
And it is very much greatly appreciated.
RAT says not something anyone necessarily wants
to talk about,
it is an issue that's impacting people's lives,
their health, and many properties are
experiencing
the adverse effects of this. So I want to say
thank you. I hate to say, but this might generate
some more work for your team, but it's very much
appreciated. I hear this a lot from my
constituents in terms of trying to see a further
enforcement action on this. And I know there's a
few properties that we'll probably get looked at.
So again, very thankful for this. And I just,
again wanted to say that this is greatly
appreciated by not only my word but I
think all words will benefit from this the long
run because I think having a
comprehensive rat strategy will serve the city in
the long run so thank you once
again. That's our privilege. Thank you I guess I
'm going to continue to thank you
around but I'm going to be a really brief and I
want to say thanks again to
Council Trust on the staff 0.4 if I if I look at
when I started three and a half
years ago if I look at the emails and focus I'll
be receiving it this is the
the report that stopped it, that actually answers
most of my emails and calls.
So thank you very much and to the entire team.
Any of the speakers to these items?
Go ahead, Councillor ramen.
- Thank you and through you.
And I appreciate the expression of sentiment.
I agree with it.
On item four, specifically on part C,
we discussed the municipal compliance city map
and development of the business portal
enhancements
that'll go to the multi-year budget.
just wanted through you to maybe ask staff,
one information will be available to counselors
to be able to access this information in interim.
- Mr. Mathers, go ahead.
- Through the chair, so we're always happy
to help any of the counselors and the counselor
offices,
well, to be able to access information.
Their information generally is available,
it's just maybe difficult to find
'cause you have to go to two or three different
sources,
so we're always happy to be able to provide that
help to you
and any further assistance FAQs or anything
we could provide you or your constituents
would be happy to provide that, so thank you.
- Thank you and through you.
So I appreciate the steps that we're taking
with the matter.
One of the challenges still remains though
is the service London portal.
So not being able to get this information
through the portal, but having to go through a
counselor
to get access to the information.
It's still an onus that the public has to go
through.
And so I do look for the time that we are able to
do this
and the public are able to do this like they can
in Brampton,
like they can in other municipalities like Ottawa
,
where this information is public facing
so that people can access it themselves
instead of having to go through a municipal
councilor
or council staff to get answers
that in my opinion should be publicly available.
I'll await that time and potentially bring it
forward
in the future, thank you.
- Any other speakers on the various matters
before us?
- Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14-0.
- Thank you, I will look to put item two on the
floor.
- Okay, item two is on the floor,
I'll look for any speakers to item two.
- Seeing none, we can open item two.
- Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13-1.
- Thank you, I will look to move item three, 2.2,
which is the city of London Tree Nursery Feas
ibility.
I'll put that on the floor.
- Okay, that item's on the floor,
I'll look to any speakers,
seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13-1.
- Thank you, I'll look to put item five on the
floor,
2.4, the request to submit an application for new
affordable housing, funding through
Filled Home, Filled Canada Homes.
Okay.
That's on the floor.
I'll look to any speakers.
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
Closing the vote.
Motion carries, 13-1.
Right, Councillor.
Thank you.
Next is item 7-2.6.
1-22 baseline, transition plan, update quarter
two.
Okay.
That's on the floor.
I'll look to any speakers.
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
Closing the vote.
Motion carries, 13-1.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
I'll look to put 11-2.7.
and the award of the NRFP 2025-248,
municipal lands for affordable housing
at 1-9-5-8 Duluth Crescent Block 6
related to bill number 239, the floor.
- Okay, I'll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis.
How's the speaker on that?
He has his hand up.
- Thank you, Your Worship.
And through you, I spoke to this at committee.
I'm just going to speak to it again,
'cause I know not everybody was at committee.
I've been very supportive of the Duluth Crescent
redevelopment to date and I actually support the
initial dedication that was
submitted to this block but what we have here is
staff asking to be able to go
back and increase the density on this block
further and I'm asking counsel to
respectfully not direct staff to do that but to
have staff move forward with the
density that they had already they're allowed the
height but not the density
And the reason I'm asking you this is we're
redeveloping this Duluth crescent block that we
purchased as a surplus school property for the
purpose of developing affordable housing.
We've already increased the height on block five
to advance a project forward there.
We also, though, continuously talk about the need
to be mindful of how much concentration we have
when it comes to social services and affordable
and RGI housing in a single area.
single area. Just south of this former school
block divided by Trafalgar, but just south
of this along Marconi Boulevard, we have 64
affordable housing units at Genesis Co-op.
We have 138 at the Telesman Woods Co-op. LMCH has
51 townhouses, plus an entire block
of duplexes running from Marconi to Noel, that
are RGI units as well. So we have in
this immediate vicinity already over 200 units
of affordable and RGI housing.
We're adding more on the Duluth School Walk.
This is not something that was contemplated
when this plan of subdivision was presented
to the community.
It was not something that was contemplated
when Council approved the draft zoning through P
EC.
And I'm just asking that staff stick to the
density
and heights that were granted through the
planning committee process already.
We want affordable housing in our city, but we do
have to be mindful of how much we are
putting in any given location.
And this is just, you know, we've already had one
block increased.
Is it the next block going to be an increase as
well and the next block and the next block?
There are seven blocks for development on this
site.
If we increase the density on every one of them,
we are going to be creating a bad scenario
for this neighborhood.
I'm asking fells to respect the density
that was originally approved through the zoning.
- Okay, so that's debate.
I look for other speakers on this.
Seeing none, then we're gonna open that for
voting.
- You worship my apologies.
I should have indicated to you that my objection
was to clause C, not clause A and B.
I know we've opened the voting.
I'm hoping we can cancel it and just separate
those.
- That's okay.
We hadn't closed the voting,
so it's pretty easy to separate those still.
- Thank you.
My apologies to colleagues.
I should have been clear about that.
- Okay, so you'd like C dealt with separately,
but we can deal with everything else together?
- Yes, C is the only one that deals with the
density.
- Okay, we're gonna go with C first.
So the density piece first.
So we'll open that for voting.
- Closing the vote on part C, motion carries
eight to six.
- Okay, and on the remainder, we'll open that for
voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to one.
- I think that concludes that report, right?
But you've got another one so you can keep going,
Councillor.
- Thank you, I'll move on to 8.2,
10th special report of the Community Protective
Services Committee. We had two items that we
dealt
with. I'm putting all items on the floor. Okay,
so that's item 8.2, all items on the floor. I
looked to any speakers to that. Go ahead, Coun
cillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship, and
I
love good news stories. This is a donation
agreement for the Byron Springback Ventrance
Monument. I want to thank Deputy Mayor Lewis. I
know who's done a lot of work with the consortium
.
I'm looking forward to the unveiling on October
the 3rd.
So thank you very much.
- Any of the speakers?
Yep, seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Okay, Councillor Trussell, absent, close the
vote.
Motion carries 14-0.
- Councillor, go ahead.
- Thank you, that concludes the 10th report,
but I'll move on to 8.3, the 8th report
of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.
I've been asked to pull items six and seven,
so I'll look to craft, I'll just see
if there's any other items.
- Seeing none.
- Well, just let me just check.
Does anybody want anything else dealt with
separately
from that report?
Okay, you can go ahead and make one.
- Thank you.
I would like to put one through five and eight
on the floor.
- Okay, all of those items are on the floor.
I'll look to any speakers for those items.
Ed, Councilor Trossal.
- Thank you very much to the mayor.
I made some very long comments about four and
five.
No, four, and I'm not going to repeat them here.
So I'm just not going to do that.
So Vorni made them at the committee
and I'm not going to repeat them here.
So that's that.
- Thank you.
- Okay, any other speakers?
We'll open those items for voting.
- Those yes?
- No to thank you, closing vote.
Motion carries 14-0.
- Go ahead, Councilor Ramen.
- Thank you, I'll put item six on the floor,
the Center of Opportunity, London Economic
Development
Strategy, 2026-2030, and Implementation Plan.
- Okay, that item's on the floor.
I'll look to speakers on that item.
Okay, seeing none, we're gonna open that for
voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 13-1.
- It's a Ramen.
- Thank you, I'll put item seven, 4.2,
downtown reimagined City of London downtown plan
on the floor.
Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look to speakers
to that. Okay, Councilor Preble, go ahead.
I'll be very brief. As I stated during our
committee meetings, if I look at both plans
that we do previous one and this one, I think
that's really compared to what we had before in
London.
Those are both really great plans with great
implementation. We know about the other issues,
the big picture, but again, there's not part of
it. This is the only concern and I'm going to
going to repeat what I said before is really
the accountability to deliver implementation plan
.
If you get that right, then we have some great
plans,
not just some great plans that will be sitting on
the desk,
but actually plans that will deliver the best
possible
results for half a million of Londoners.
Thank you.
- Thanks, Councilor Pervault, Councillor Ferrera.
- Thank you, Mayor.
I thought I would speak to this one just one more
time.
I appreciate the vote and the support at SPPC
for this plan.
We're looking for a vision.
looking for a way into the future and I know the
plan did speak to some big items and fifty-eight
actions but there's some things we didn't speak
about so I thought maybe I should reveal them or
speak to them now. The first thing that I thought
was very interesting because I hear a lot from
people living in the core and especially because
we're moving towards having more individuals live
in the core, what type of amenities, what things
are available, what can people do, where can they
shop, where can they get their groceries. So I
thought I'd start with that one with the grocery
because I know this is something that comes up
from time to time and I just
wanted to go to staff because the plan does call
for services and amenities
gap assessment so I just wanted to go to staff
and see if you could just speak
to that a little bit what would that services and
amenities gap assessment
reveal would it look into things like a grocery
store would it look into things
such as other amenities for people to be able to
to use or shop or go to
within the core and when would we potentially be
expecting something like
like that coming to council.
- Mr. Mathers.
- Through the chair.
So yeah, that's exactly what, as you phrased it,
but what we'd be looking at as part of that
assessment.
So my intention wouldn't necessarily be
to go to a consultant for this.
I think this is something that we're very well
set up
of working with the community,
to be able to develop that information.
It would include like speaking to residents,
understanding from both of the current business
community
and the folks that are actually living in London,
in the downtown, what they're looking for
what they might may need and building off any
other research we can do as well.
So I think it is very well known that there are
needs downtown, especially for a grocery
store space and there are possibly the other
needs as well.
So that would be something we'd be bringing
forward.
It would likely be in Q1 or Q2 of next year
because we want to kick off some of the other
elements.
There's a report that will be coming forward in
the Q4 that we're just going to provide
a bit more of the implementation steps that you
're going to be able to see.
and I believe that'll be a very timely report
and be something that's important
to be able to be understood,
to be able to move forward in the core.
- Go ahead, Councillor Ferra.
- Okay, thank you for that.
And I do also hear, and I agree,
that I guess the downtown success also hinges
on the day-to-day accessibility,
the visibility of it, the cleanliness of it,
and things like that.
So I understand that we do have already,
we have already propped up the downtown's
operations team.
We are already bringing in a CIR.
We are already consulting with LPS.
we are already consulting with municipal
compliance
to look at storefronts and everything like that.
And I wanted to know if we could get any update
on when we would start seeing reports coming back
to council for actual, once we start seeing
the implementation get rolled out,
what will we start to see coming back with
respect
to as those actions or the success of those
actions
start taking place?
- Through your worship.
So, well, absolutely, those are very important
details
and we'll have to be able to provide you.
Through that implementation,
step in Q4, we'll be able to lay that out
and if council has any other ideas or other
thoughts
of what they would like to see as reporting.
Currently, the downtown plan
speaks to having an annual report,
but you're gonna have reports
from probably on a quarterly basis
with any kind of initiatives that are coming out
of the work
and it'll definitely be informed
by the next council strategic plan
and the multi-year budget process moving forward
as well.
- Okay, thank you for that.
And also, I know that Vacancy is a big thing
that we talk about downtown, 31.5%.
I think Vacancy right now,
which I would say has plateaued since 2023.
And we really saw that reveal itself after the
changes
of the pandemic with the office workers moving
outside
of the core, but we have other Vacancy issues as
well.
And I do see that we have some successful
programs
that we use right now with incentive programs.
We could be using some other tools as well.
I wanted to know if some of the, I guess,
re-envisioned or reorganized incentive programs,
as they come back, will we see incentive programs
that will kind of help with potentially heritage
properties?
Or would we see incentive programs that would
help
with some office spaces that we kind of have
deemed
as not the low hanging fruit?
Would we be looking at those office spaces
that may be just too big on the floor plate
perspective?
Whether it's from demolishing them
or finding another type of use that is not
necessarily
residential, would we be seeing any type of
programs
or look into that?
Mr. Mathers.
- Through you, worship.
So there is a five year review
of our community improvement programs
that we will be undertaking in the next,
we'll be just ramping that up next year.
So there'll be an overall comprehensive review of
that.
I'm hoping that out of the downtown champions
table as well,
getting those really great ideas
of what would be important from the core
and making some recommendations back
committee and council of the ones that are
programs that might be most influential and
most important at the time. So I think at this
point all of those options are on the table but
it'll take in having this implementation coming
forward and also developing this team moving
forward as well to be able to actually get
something before council so they can make some
decisions. Thank you for that and I like how you
brought up the downtown champions table and I
guess I'll take that as into segue into talking
about the governance structure that we are
seeking
to approve here in the new service area for
downtown,
which I believe is vitally important,
just because with such a big economic engine
that we have in the city here
and all the things that are going on,
it would be much easier whether it's individuals
who are trying to bring something forward to
downtown,
an initiative, some type of activation, or
whatever,
to be able to go to that one place
and also to have that governance structure
that's responsible for the implementation
of the plan itself.
'Cause we, like I think I said this at committee,
but we've had other plans in the downtown in the
past.
Sometimes items were picked up, sometimes items
were not.
And we really kind of revealed that we need that
authority
that's responsible for the implementation
of those actions coming out of the plan.
So this is one of the biggest things
that I'm most excited about
because we're actually gonna have the ability
to do these things that come into the plan.
Whatever initiative it is,
all the 58 actions I'd like to see them all plus
more.
But whatever initiative it is,
that downtown service area will be responsible
for bringing those items to council for approval
with budgets and also bringing back the KPIs
and the reporting of where the successes are,
whether it's vacancy, whether it's activations,
whether it's business incubation.
So these are the things that are really gonna
kind
of get this plan moving.
So this is why I'm fully supportive of this.
I'm glad of the discussion that I heard at
committee
and I'm hoping to get full support with this.
And this is about the vision of downtown.
This is about the identity, the face of the city.
I've said this before,
but if we were to look at downtown,
30 seconds, comparatively speaking,
to other big corporations, this is the flagship.
This is like the money maker.
This is where everybody looks
when they look at London from outside,
and this is also something that gives us
the sense of what it means to be a Londoner.
So this is something that we need,
and this is something that we'll really bring
Londoners together.
So I'm supportive of this,
I'm hoping that we get support today,
which I think we will,
and thank you, those are my comments.
- Okay, other speakers.
Councilor Trossab.
- Very briefly, I would like to again thank
Deputy City Manager for his memo,
which added some additional language
with respect to the cultural anchors.
And I particularly want to thank Mr. Macaulay
for spending the time with me and Museum London
and the London Public Library to add some
specific things
that they felt was missing.
Very significant for me,
I guess I've been talking about this quite a bit.
I'm very, very excited to see the additional
language
in 12.2 and I really will be looking forward
to working with staff and sort of looking at what
we already
have on the books and how that can be
incorporated
into the implementation here.
So thank you again for working with me on that
and particular thanks to Mr. Macaulay.
Thank you.
- Other speakers?
I have myself on the list, I'll briefly speak.
I will turn it over to Councillor Layman to chair
.
- Thank you, go ahead, Mayor.
- Yeah, I don't want to repeat what colleagues
have already said.
But I do want to actually take a moment to thank
our staff
and all of the different community partners
who took the time to engage on both this and the
plan
that we just passed on the economic development
plan.
These were things that we said in a direction
a couple of years ago to actually come to
fruition.
It took a lot of work.
It took a lot of engagement.
The consultants did thousands of hours of work.
Our staff did the same.
And so although we have the chance to pass it
today,
and there's obviously a lot of work ahead,
'cause these are plans that have to be
implemented,
it is important for us to recognize
that there's a significant amount of work
that go into this point,
to getting to this point is a critical piece.
But this is, as Councilor Perbal always likes to
say,
when we do the strategic plan,
implementation is obviously a critical part
of any document or plan.
Having a solid plan is just the first step.
One of the things that I just wanted to take a
moment
to highlight, 'cause there are many things
to highlight in the downtown plan,
is I appreciate the recognition of the assets
that we have in the downtown already.
We are lucky to be a city where there is hundreds
of millions of dollars of residential investment
already going into our downtown
that we have the capacity to accelerate.
We are lucky to be a city where we have already
made
the decision to improve on significant
and existing critical assets that are already
driving
activity and events in the downtown
like the investment we made in the enhancements
to Canada Life Place.
We also recognize through this plan
that we have significant natural heritage aspects
in our downtown, that other cities are ambious up
.
We have a beautiful river flowing through the
downtown
of the city.
We have private sector interested in the river
district.
It's a grassroots moment.
It's not a city idea coming to being layered
onto the community.
We're seizing these things in our community.
And of course, right beside this building,
we recognize that we have one of the most
beautiful
downtown parks of any city and we have the
ability
to make that a truly transformative space
through the execution of this plan.
Downtowns are shifting to we neighborhoods,
and that means downtowns will feel like
neighborhoods
with people living in them, working in them,
enjoying beautiful public spaces,
and we have the chance now to move forward
up on the passing of this plan
with execution implementation of a really
critical plan
that was representative of many hours of hard
work
for many people, so thank you.
- I'll turn the chair back to you, Mayor.
- Okay, others, speakers to do this.
Okay, seeing none, we can open this for a moment.
- Councillor Palazzo, second call, Councillor Pal
azzo,
or I can Councillor Palazzo absent,
closing the vote, motion carries 12 to one.
- Councillor Rhomme.
- Thank you, that concludes my report.
- We're on to the 11th report
of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services
Committee,
Councillor McAllister, I'll turn it over to you
to present.
- Thank you, please, to report the 11th report
on Infrastructure and Corporate Services.
I have had requests for eight, nine, and 11 to be
pulled,
so I will look to move one through seven and 10.
- Okay, anybody else want anything dealt with
separately
besides eight, nine and 11?
Okay, so you'll move a motion council then?
- Yes, that was one, two, seven.
- So one to seven and 10 are before us moved by
the chair.
Any discussion on those matters, okay?
Seeing none, we will open that for voting.
- Those in the vote, motion carries, 13 to zero.
- Sorry, Mr. Chair, Mr. Mayor.
- Yes.
- My vote, sorry, sitting with the last vote,
just keep saying vote closed,
even though I'm trying to vote.
- So I'm here, I'm gonna start restart E-scribe,
but my vote would have been a yes if it would let
me vote.
- Oh, on the downtown plan, that one?
- Yeah, on that one and then Councillors,
Democrats are stuff right now.
Just, I said, I'll restart it, just keep saying
vote close.
So I'll retry and I'll do it verbally
if it's giving me more problems, sorry.
- No problem, Councillor.
I mean, we're happy that you verbally confirmed
your support for the downtown plan.
If you really want to vote for a week or three--
- Nope, we're not going back, always forward.
Thank you.
- Perfect, that's the way I like it.
All right, okay, so we'll move on then.
And if you need to vote verbally, just vote
verbally,
we'll slow things down to make sure you can jump
in
until Lee Scribe gets working for you.
I'll turn it back to Councilor McAllister
for the remaining items in the report.
- Thank you, and through you, I'll put item eight
on the floor.
- Okay, so that's on the floor.
I'll look to any speakers.
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Well, yes, Councilor Plaza.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to one.
- Councilor McAllister.
- For you, I will put item nine on the floor.
- Okay, item nine is on the floor.
I'll look to any speakers on item nine.
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Councilor Close votes yes.
- Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to one.
- Councilor McAllister.
- Thank you, through you, I'll put item 11 on the
floor.
- Item 11 is on the floor.
I'll look for any speakers to item 11.
Councilor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
I do have some questions through you to staff.
I just wanna confirm that this report says
that there's $1.8 billion in property tax funding
or taxpayer funding that is internally invested
and managed.
And I also just wanna confirm that the policies
that we have regarding how to invest
and how to report out are the provincial
standards
and nothing more than that.
- Sure, I'll go to Mr. Murray online.
- Thank you and three Mr. Murray, yes.
That is correct.
The total market value of the city's investment
portfolio
as of the end of 2025 was approximately 1.8
billion.
And to the second part of the councilor's
question,
the investment process,
some of their investment strategy and decisions
are guided by provincial legislation,
specifically the Municipal Act
and associated regulations as well
as our city investment policy,
which is available on our website,
and that policy itself is informed, of course,
by the regulations in the Municipal Act, thank
you.
- Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you, and to confirm, in terms of
reporting,
it's just the minimum required by the Municipal
Act, correct?
- Mr. Murray.
- Through you, so the reporting that is required
outlined in our investment policy itself as well.
It does certainly meet the minimum requirements
in the legislation, although we do provide
additional context and additional commentary
as part of our investment report to help council
understand our investment performance.
Okay, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Yeah, I
talked about this one a little bit at committee,
but I you know we talk about transparency and
accountability and as I said this is 1.8 billion
dollars and what is reported and it's no well it
's 1.5 billion in fixed income in GICs and 295
million in Canadian equity pooled funds when I
and that's that's all that we see so when I asked
at committee you know other cities will list all
of the different investments and we get to see
them
all. And the response was there's a lot of them,
there's 180 different investments. And
I just think, well, all the more reason why two
lines is not sufficient, transparency,
in my opinion, two taxpayers, where we're
investing money on behalf of them. And when
I go back to 2021, the investment report for the
year ending 2021, it showed 10 or 12
different investments. It also talked about the
average term maturity. It showed book value.
And there was an appendix B that showed the
various different five cool investment funds,
government fixed income, corporate fixed income,
asset backed securities and other investments.
And it showed both cost and market value for the
current year and the previous year.
it says an excerpt from the 2021 consolidated
financial statements so but in the in the 2025
report here we're only showing fair value we're
not showing book value and market value you can't
see if there was a gain or a loss and so i'm just
wondering when this report is developed and
brought
forward to council how does civic administration
decide how much to provide and and what
information
to provide. And if there's a change from one year
to the next, because it seems to me, and I've
said this before, that in iterations of Council,
we seem to be having less and less accountability
and transparency, less and less detail, whether
it's multi-year budgets, you know, operating
things
or the investments. We're seeing less and less.
When I go back 10 years ago, there's tons of
detail ins and outs, balances. Now we just get
everything summed out. So my question through
you to staff is can you just help me understand
why there's a change to fair value reporting
rather
than book value and market value and who and how
is or the decisions made around less reporting
to counsel. I don't have Mr. Roy you want to
start with that one? Certainly and through you Mr
. Mayor so
what I will say and certainly the the environment
and the landscape has changed somewhat in the
the last few years as it pertains to accounting
policies and accounting requirements in relation
to our investments.
New accounting standards related to financial
instruments have come into effect approximately
two years ago, which has required municipalities
to reflect our investments in many cases at
fair market value. So that is why the shift
perhaps in focus from book value to fair market
value,
that is to align with the accounting standards
that are currently in effect. What I will say
more generally as well is that certainly we are
open to providing the information that council
believes is valuable and relevant and helpful in
your understanding of our investment portfolio
activities. Certainly we're happy to take that
direction. We do have a fairly
sizable investment portfolio. As was noted in the
committee report itself, we
have upwards of almost 200 different securities
in our fixed income
portfolio. So it is a sizable portfolio, but
certainly we are open to taking
Council's direction on additional information or
specifics that Council
would like to see going forward. Councilor
Stevenson. Yeah, thank you. I mean I
I think it would be clear by what I'm doing here
that I do think that we should have
a more extensive investment policy
and council should be saying that what we wanna
see,
this is just so summed that it's just not
accountable
or transparent in my opinion.
And I think the general public would agree
that if there's 180 different investments
that it'd be nice to know for those who know
about investing, be able to see transparently
what we're doing.
So in the 2021 report,
it took an excerpt from the consolidated
financial statements
for the year.
Did staff think that there was anything
in the current year of financial statements
that was warranted to bring forward
for council's attention here?
I'm assuming not because it's not here,
but I just wanna know if that consideration is
made
and who's making that decision.
- Mr. Murray.
- Thank you through you.
So the information here, I'll just caution as
well
is not directly tieable to the financial
statements themselves.
Of course, our financial statements are
consolidated
financial statements, this investment report
deals
with specifically our unconsolidated investments,
those being the investments of the city itself
and not inclusive of investments
that our agencies, boards or commissions may hold
.
So there is a challenge, I guess,
in pulling information directly
our financial statements because they are two
different basis of numbers that that they relate
to.
So that is the challenge but certainly the the
portion of our investments that relate to the
city itself is reconciled to what is reported in
our annual audited financial statements.
Councilor Stevenson. Thank you and who is it that
makes the decision as to the level of information
and that comes to council.
- Mr. Murray, are I see nods in the room to Mr.
Murray?
Okay.
Or do you want to go?
Mr. Murray, I'll start with you
and then we might have more answers in the room,
so.
- Certainly, certainly.
I can start Mr. Mayor and through you,
it is the treasurer who has ultimate
responsibility
for the investment policy
and ultimately the investment report of the city.
- Would you like to add anything?
- Thank you for the chair.
So certainly throughout the number of years
through our investment update,
we've provided numerous policy changes
and through those policy changes,
we take the direction of council.
So certainly if council was looking for
additional information
or does not wish to follow the advice
that staff have put forward with respect to
policy changes,
council is always open to make those changes
through the policy that is brought forward
on a regular basis for review.
- Perfect, thank you.
Councillor Stevenson, you have,
I just wanna give you your time.
you got 38 seconds or so.
- Yeah, so, and I understand that,
and hence why I'm talking to council
and talking to the public about this,
in that the minimum standards are met,
but there's a variation,
changes are happening from year to year,
the presentation is changing,
what is reported is changing,
the level of detail is changing,
and there's no explanation as to why in the
report,
those changes are made.
So it does say that the 2024 portfolio investment
,
that we closed out the retail brokerage accounts
and everything's been moved internally.
I guess and I'm not trying to trap staff here and
I am a little frustrated by what is being
presented here when I read your time is up. Other
speakers to this item we're going to open that
for voting. Sir Pelosi thank you closing the vote
motion carries 13-1 and that concludes my report.
Okay thank you we're going to move on to the
report of the Planning and Environment Committee
I'll turn it over to chair layman to present the
report.
- Thank you, Mayor.
I'm pleased to present the ninth report
of the playing an environment committee.
I've been requested to pull item seven
and that's the extent of that.
- Okay, item seven, anything else?
Go ahead, Councilor Trossa, or sorry,
Raman, Councilor Raman, you wanted something
separate?
- Thank you, item 12, please, 4.1.
- Okay, 12, Councilor Trossa, you have your hand
up?
- Yes, I'm sorry.
I wanted to vote separately on item six.
- Oh, item six in the planning report, sure, no
problem.
We can do that separate.
Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
I'd like to pull five, eight and nine, please.
- Hey, one, one, anything else?
So it seems like what we have left is one through
four,
10 and 11, if I'm right.
I see nods.
Everybody okay with doing those ones together?
Okay, Councillor Layman.
- So I'll move those items.
- Those items are on the floor.
I'll look for any discussion.
Go ahead, Councillor.
- Yeah, thank you.
Well, I just want to take an opportunity here
to thank the committee on 3.1,
which is subdivision on Colonel Talbot.
Road, I did bring forward an amendment
given the amount of development that's going on
in this area and the development that is to come
that a revised transportation impact assessment
be considered as it goes through the draft plan
of subdivision as well as the site plan.
I just want to thank the committee
for supporting that amendment.
- Any other speakers to the items before us?
Okay, we're gonna open that for voting.
- Those in the vote, motion carries 14-0.
- Oh, I'd like to put on item five regarding 2496
Dundas Street.
Councilor Stevenson requests that to be pulled.
- Okay, that item is dealt with separately.
I looked at any speakers on that, go ahead.
- Thank you, yes, there was a written submission
that came in from the airport authority, I
believe.
On this one, I'd just like an update
or staff's comment on this.
- Go ahead.
- Sorry Mayor, point of order.
- Point of order.
- I believe, and this is not with respect
to the councilor's comments.
I see 12 was moved here.
I thought that was pulled.
- I don't know if you're reading the motion wrong
,
it says with the exception of items,
and then it lists them, and it includes 12.
So that means it's not in.
- Okay, I pulled that back, thank you.
So, all good.
- Thank you through your worship.
The letter on the agenda is provided for
information
for council to make you aware
that they do operate 24 hours,
and the concerns related to potential noise
complaints
from as growth happens and growth comes closer
to the airport lands.
- Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
I guess I was surprised to see this
like right on the added agenda for council
given that we talked about this at planning a
little while ago
and I would have thought the airport as a major
neighbor
to that area that we would have reached out to
them
or consulted them or had their input.
So can I just ask, do we have a policy around
consulting
with the airport around these kinds of things?
- Mr. Mathers.
- Through your worship, we were circulated
on this application and they chose not to make a
submission
through the normal course of the process.
We did reach out to them very close to the
committee
'cause there were some questions that we'd
received
about the 24-hour nature of the airport lands
and they decided at that point to put and submit
a letter
but we did include them.
They were actually outside the required distance,
but we decided to provide them a notification
as part of our process,
but they chose not to at the time
to be able to make a submission.
- Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
Can I ask in terms of our economic development
and our economic development strategy,
has this zoning change or app development been
considered
in terms of our goals there?
- Thank you through your worship.
These lands were brought into a change in land
use
through the land needs assessment review.
So they were originally industrial
and Council opted to put these lands into
residential.
So now the nature of the zoning application
is to follow that land use.
From that perspective, no, we don't necessarily
follow the economic development plan
because we're following the Planning Act
in terms of zoning applications
that are submitted for Council's consideration.
- Council Stevenson.
- Thank you through the staff though,
could I hear from economic development in terms
of
that being one of our focuses and how this might
impact?
- Thank you through the chair.
So I can, what I can say to you,
and I'm not sure it answers your full question,
I can tell you the airport was heavily involved
in the discussions as it relates to development
of the economic development plan.
I do not know that they've raised this specific
issue,
but they've certainly been active in the
discussions
as we develop the plan.
I'm happy to get more information
and specific questions if you have them.
- Councillor Stevenson.
- Well, I guess my last question is what are the
risks
of referring this and allowing us to have the
time
for civic administration to talk to them about
this
and to look at our economic development strategy
that was just passed?
- Maybe you can comment on timelines or anything
related to risk.
- Thank you through your worship.
From a planning perspective, the risk would be
not meeting the statutory timelines.
- Councillor Stevenson.
- Okay, I think that's the only questions I have.
- Like I said, I just feel uncomfortable
when I see a letter like this last minute on the
agenda.
It doesn't feel good, you know?
- Deputy Mayor Lewis.
- Thank you, Chair, and through you,
I'm gonna encourage everyone to support
the committee's recommendation here.
First of all, as Ms. Medele indicated in our
comments,
this land through the land needs assessment
was removed from the industrial place type
and the employment sector lands.
I think between 18 and 24 months ago,
or there about staffing correctly,
if I've got the timeline wrong,
the letter that we received from the airport
not only was late after not participating
in the initial opportunity to comment,
but really is not different substantively
than the letter we received almost two years ago
when we made the land use change.
So irrespective of the economic development plan,
which does feature some pieces of the airport,
have to make a planning decision here based on an
application that was received. And with respect
to the 24/7 comments, I mean, this is a situation
where anyone purchasing a unit in this townhouse
complex is going to know from day one that they
're moving near the airport. There are actually
homes that are closer to the airport already
existing on Costasav and Creamery Road. So again,
I just bring it back to this is a planning
application, not an economic development question
,
and we should be submitting or we should be
voting based on the planning rationale that was
supported
by staff in their staff report and moving this
application forward. So I would encourage
colleagues
to stay with committee recommendation. Other
speakers to this matter, Councillor Ferrera.
Thanks, Mayor. I would also agree that to stay
with the recommendation from the committee,
Deputy Mayor Lewis beat me to the punch, but cost
us out of this closer to approach
on the big runway there than this residential
development would be.
So there are individuals who would be closer than
this one.
And just with the patterns of aviation going
around, you're not going to see any aircraft
right over that area.
It would be much less of a noise, I guess,
complaint than it would for the Costes app
coming in.
So those would be my comments, I just wanted to
add to that.
Other speakers in this matter?
Keep seeing none, the item forces, the committee
's recommendation will open that for voting.
and the vote motion carries 13 to one.
- Councillor Layman.
- Mayor, I'll put item number six.
This is regarding 221 Queen's Ave on the floor.
This was requested to be pulled by Councillor Tro
so.
Okay, that item is on the floor.
I looked any speakers.
Go ahead, Councillor Troso.
- Again, in the interest of time to the Mayor,
I made some rather long comments about this at
the committee.
I cannot support this.
I cannot, I cannot support another temporary,
temporary extension.
And I believe that the staff report had it right.
And I don't think it's really appropriate for us
to get into a discussion about whether we like
the applicant
or not, that's not a land use consideration.
So I really think it's time for us to say
to this property owner with respect to this
parcel,
but it's time to move on and do some housing
development.
Perfect place for it.
And that's why I'll be voting no on this item.
Thank you.
speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Preble. Thank you.
I will certainly be supporting the recommendation
of the committee. The applicant, the owner of the
property of the parking lot was very clear
in terms of the need, need for their current
tenants that they have and in terms of the safe
nearby parking. And as we all know, this
developer certainly is or does develop in the
various
properties downtown London or throughout London
so I will be supporting it based on the facts
that this parking lot is needed and for the
current and as you know the situation downtown
with our vacancy rate I think that we should be
working in terms of increasing our economic
growth not decreasing and therefore I'm going to
support this it does make sense in this case
to support this parking lot absolutely thank you.
Okay thank you I have just you know that I've
I've got you on the list, Louis, Frank, and Ferre
ira.
Go to Jeopardy, where Louis first.
- Thank you, Chair.
And through you, I'm absolutely supporting
the committee recommendation.
I moved it at committee and I'm gonna be blunt.
First of all, we can't tell the applicant
to move on and build housing.
The property isn't actually zoned for residential
use,
moving forward.
So what we would have is a vacant piece of land.
These are fully leased spots that serve tenants
in existing downtown commercial office buildings.
Without these spots,
the landlord would be in breach of lease
and potentially could see early termination of
leases
and have tenants vacating the downtown floor
and increasing commercial vacancy.
And in addition to that,
we hear it's temporary, it's temporary.
Yes, it's an extension of another temporary use.
If we look back at some of our own municipal
plans,
By this point in time,
we should have multiple downtown parking garages
that have not materialized.
We still have a parking problem in downtown
London
and we are not going to see surface lots
disappear
until we see something develop
around the development of a parking garage.
So I strongly encourage colleagues
to not increase commercial vacancy,
to not presume that this could be turned into
housing
because it's not even zoned for that use
currently.
So it would have to go through a rezoning
before that could even be considered.
The applicants made it very clear
that they're not interested in doing that right
now.
And so we should be supporting
this committee's recommendation.
- That's our prayer.
- Thanks, Mayor.
Just listening to the conversation, I just wanna
add,
I feel like we should be pragmatic
in kind of how we approach this.
Like I understand Council Troso's sentiments.
I don't wanna see parking surface love lots
either.
However, at the same time,
I think the discussion should be about
what can we do to discuss with the owner of
future work?
And I think that's gonna take some time,
but I think we should start doing that.
We had a parking strategy.
I agree with Councillor Lewis' comments.
We do need to figure out how it is
we're gonna accommodate certain parking
and I feel like building structures
or mixed use developments would help us in that.
But supporting three years for this
is something that I would do now,
but I think the conversation should be about what
do we do
when that three years comes to an end?
Are we able to potentially work with the owner
here
and see if we can find a solution
so we don't have to have an extension on the next
three years?
So right now, I am gonna support it,
but I think the conversation really should be
about
what's next after the three years.
So we don't come up to this situation again in
three years
and talk about extending it again.
I think that there's good use here,
and I really think that there's some interest
to obviously, you know, create a better way
of how we accommodate parking in the downtown
court.
- Okay, Councilor Cady.
- Thank you, Your Worship, and through you.
The applicant, if they thought they could fill a
building,
they would put a building up.
These are one of the leading developers and
builders
in our city, and they have been for 50, 60 years.
So not to repeat anything that's already been
said
by Deputy Mayor Lewis or others.
I would strongly recommend and encourage my
colleagues
to support this.
I don't disagree with what Councilor Ferra said.
would be nice to know in the next three years
what their plans are and I have no
doubt I've no doubt at all that they will tell us
what their plans are they'll
telegraph them fairly quickly because they'll
understand when the economy is
changing when there's an opportunity to fill
buildings I'm sure they will build
them so thank you okay any other speakers on this
one okay seeing none we're
gonna open it for voting me oh sorry stop I see
councilor blows his hand up
so we won't vote yet you can go ahead and speak
that's okay certainly not
anticipating to sway any votes here I think that
's the issue that we've always
had we don't want to see vacant property going on
use parking is a use but I think
that's a conversation that's probably been had
around this very horseshoe for
31 years of looking forward to a plan coming and
at some point either we just
stop with temporary and let it be permanent or we
actually look for that
application I think that's just my standing
feeling about these temporary
parking lots that we've seen across the core
throughout my term on council and
this report cites 31 years for some potentially
on council that's almost
their entire lifetime. Thank you. Seeing no other
speakers for now can open it
for voting. Thank you for closing the vote.
Motion carries 10 to 3. Noting
Councilor McAllister has left the meeting. Turn
back to Councilor Lehman.
Thank you Mayor. I'll put number 7 regarding 1057
to 1061 Richmond Street.
on the floor. This was requested to be pulled by
Council Raman. Okay, that is on
the floor. I look to speakers. Go ahead, Council
Raman. Thank you and through you.
I'd like to put forward an amendment that I have
circulated and I
apologize to my colleagues for the late
circulation, but I understand that the
developer did also circulate a letter regarding
my amendment. So the
amendment that I'm looking to introduce, would
you like me to read it? Yes, please.
And I'll just confirm with staff that it's the
alternative recommendation that I shared.
And so with that, it starts with not withstanding
the recommendation, the Director of Planning
and Development, the following actions be taken
with respect to the application of
100, 144, 36, 158, Ontario, Inc., Royal Premier
Homes, related to the property located at
1057, 1061 Richmond Street, the proposed
alternate bylaw attached here to as Appendix
be introduced at the Municipal Council meeting
June 23rd, 2026 to amend zoning
by-law number Z1 in the Municipal Council meeting
June 23rd, 2026. Sorry.
In conformity with the Official Plan, the London
Plan to change the zoning of the
subject property from a neighborhood facility
special provision bonus and F-114B-24
zone to a neighborhood facility special provision
14 zone and be it further
result that pursuant to subsection 3417 of the
Planning Act to know for their
notice be given, it being noted that the above
noted amendment is being
recommended for the following reasons. I the
recommended amendment is consistent
with the PPS 2024 to the recommended amendment
conforms to the London Plan
including but not limited to the key direction
city building policies and the
urban corridor place type policies and three the
recommendation amendment
and facilitates residential intensification
that is appropriate for the existing
and planned context of the site and surrounding
neighborhood.
I've included an update to the by-law,
and so that is prepared and ready.
That includes in it two additional components
that are under XII and XIV.
The first one is maximum number of bedrooms
were per dwelling unit at three
and XIV maximum number of bedrooms on the
property at 35.
- Okay, so I need to look for a seconder.
Deputy Mayor, I assume you're not looking to
second.
- No, actually, I'm gonna call a point of order,
Mr. Chair.
In my opinion, this amendment is out of order.
It's substantively alters the committee
recommendation
by imposing caps that are not something
that was in the staff recommendation,
as was indicated by the communication
where it received from the applicant.
It would halt to the development, not approve it,
would force them to go back,
it would also potentially result in an OLT appeal
.
I think this is a substantive change
and contrary to the committee's recommendation.
- Okay, so that's a point of order.
I'm just gonna need a second on that one.
So point of order was essentially not to allow
the amendment
because the councilor felt it was contrary
to the planning committee's recommendation.
So my ruling on this after consultation with the
clerks
is that although it could be substantially
different,
I don't believe it is contrary,
even if it does have significant consequences
for the developer.
So I'm gonna let the amendment proceed as an
amendment
based on the advice of the clerks.
And it is my decision, but that's what I'm going
to decide.
And certainly we can have a debate on the
amendment.
Should that fail?
We'll have a debate on it.
respectfully your worship I'm going to challenge
the chairs ruling that as I expected you would so
All right, so we'll do a challenge of the chair.
So my ruling is that
The amendment is allowed. So there will be a vote
and that is
Basically should the essentially is should the
ruling of the chair be upheld
So you vote yes, you agree with me that the
amendment can stand you vote no
Then what we will do is
the amendment will not stand and the motion would
have to be defeated first for Councillor
to introduce the alternate. So but the but the
decision that we'll make now, not debatable,
is does Council support the decision I made to
allow the amendment to stand? Okay, so we're
going to put that on. Yes, is you agree with me?
I know as you disagree with my ruling. Okay,
we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. The
challenge of the chair is successful. The ruling
of the chair is not sustained in a vote of five
to eight.
- Okay, and by the way, I take no offense
to that, it's a decision-making mechanism.
So that means council has decided
that the amendment will not be allowed.
So to make your amendment councilor,
we would have to defeat the committee's
recommendation
and then we could proceed with an alternate.
So that would be the pathway before us.
So I will, so what we're on is the committee
chair
presenting these committee's recommendation.
All you did was rise and propose an amendment.
So I'm gonna allow you to still have the right
to speak to the main motion.
You don't have to do that now, you can do it
later,
or you can do it now, but that's where we are.
Oh, okay, Clerk says you should speak now
'cause he already rose and on the speaker's list,
so we're gonna do that.
- Through you, thank you.
I will start by asking my colleagues
not to support the recommendation
that's on the floor from planning today.
And the reason for that, I think,
well articulated in the sum of the letters
submitted, including the one from Mr. Barrett
and Ms. Smoot. In that letter, you'll see a
summary of the reasons why the alternative
recommendation should this motion fail, of which
I would like to move or someone else
to move to limit the bedrooms would be an
important consideration. So in this
summary that's provided it's explained that the
policy context and the planning
framework has not substantially changed since
Council first considered the
adaptive reuse and intensification of this
property. As we know from this
discussion, this item went to the OLT OMB at the
time in 2013, and it determined that
the appropriate level of intensification of this
particular building was nine dwelling
units with a total of 27 bedrooms.
What we have here today is 17 units for
discussion.
What I'm proposing as an alternative is yes, keep
the 17 units, but limit the bedroom count.
The bedroom count would be limited by what we
heard in the room at PEC during the conversation
provided by the planning consultant Mike Davis.
So the amendment would conform with the verbal
commitment given by the planning consultant.
That was three bedrooms on the nine already
constructed units and in the basement and
Yes, the basement, one bedroom or studios
in the remaining eight units.
So you have residents of the area
who've had a chance to tour this particular
building
since it has been constructed.
And they've given their feedback as well
and shared that in your submissions.
But you'll also see again in this summary
that this is a reasonable opportunity
to have a conversation around the kind of bedroom
count
that should be in a unit, in a development like
this.
The interesting thing about this proposal in
front of us
is we can't see anything.
So we have to take into account what we heard in
the meeting.
What we heard in the meeting was a commitment
that the three bedrooms, which are already
constructed
in those nine units should stand,
and that the remaining makeup of the building
should be one bedroom in studios.
So I asked this question yesterday at planning as
well.
What happens when we hear from a planner,
a planning consultant, or the developer
during a public meeting on an application?
The feedback that we heard, what we heard during
that debate,
I asked the question, what's the bedroom makeup?
And I brought the amendment based on that.
only to then receive communication from the
developer
not to constrain the plan by having bedroom
limits.
But I thought that was going to be the bedroom
makeup.
Do we know what we're agreeing to otherwise?
So this is my concern.
In front of us, we have the opportunity to make a
decision
that addresses some of the issues from the
neighborhood,
that addresses some of the concerns
with an under-parked property,
that addresses some of the concerns
about having units in a basement,
limiting the count on those units.
So I do think this is a viable way for us
to move this project forward.
I'm asking not to support what's on the floor
so that we can move the amendment,
or sorry that we can move an alternative motion.
Thank you.
- Okay, I'll look to other speakers
for the item on the floor.
Go ahead, Councillor Cuddy.
- Thank you, we're shipping through you.
And colleagues, if you had been at the Planning
Committee
meeting, I referenced a similar development
that we're seeing at the Robinson Church,
and that was Locustmont,
which was one of the oldest buildings in the city
,
which was raised to the ground.
Raised to the ground because someone went in
and lit a match and destroyed it.
And colleagues, it was raised to the ground
because no one cared about the building.
It was one of the most historic buildings
behind Eldon House in the city.
It was on Talbot Street.
Robinson Church is like that.
It's a historic building,
and the only way it can be preserved,
and it has not been preserved, well, by the way,
if you drive by and take a look at her,
you've been in the building. But the only way it
can be preserved is if it's developed.
The current owners of the building have taken the
time, spent the money, and the effort
to put a ring around it, security fence, and have
a 24-hour security guard there. They
are making every effort to preserve that building
. Yet, people have still gotten in there and
have still tried to burn it down. Now, I don't
understand the residents, and I've heard
them, and I've spoken to them. I don't understand
the residents' their concern. But colleagues,
If this building is not preserved, if it's not
developed, it will fall into a shampse
or even more it will burn to the ground.
What the developers have proposed, I think, at
least, and I think we all agreed that at
PAC, that this is a suitable arrangement for this
building.
This is a good project and it will preserve this
property for decades or longer.
So I would encourage you all to support the
planning decision and move ahead with this
development.
- I have Councillor, don't actually have a list.
Councillor Trosoff and then Stevenson.
- Thank you, thank you very much through the
Mayor.
I really wanted to see a compromise here.
Yes, this has fallen into disrepair.
Yes, the owner has been, the previous owners
have been negligent in allowing
what amounts to demolition by neglect.
And yes, there needs to be refurbishment
and development in this building.
no disagreement from me.
I go by it every day and I hear the complaints
from the adjacent residents
about the bad condition of this building.
However, that doesn't mean that I can support
a development that is not well thought out,
that is inappropriate and will cause substantial
hardship
to people, not only hardship to people on the
streets,
but a danger to the residents
from being crammed into a basement.
And I really think that this is the kind of
development
that we have to look at very carefully.
And we have to take into account first and
foremost
the nature of this building
and the nature of the stubbed street.
And I love the term stubbed street
because it is a stubbed street.
You turn down Sherwood,
you're gonna have a hard time getting out
'cause you're not going anywhere.
And I just think that the resonance of this block
have been very diligent over the years
in terms of trying to allow an appropriate level
of development without sort of overcharging
property.
This is what Councillor ramen has come forward
with
is a reasonable development that will allow
an appropriate development of this site
in a way that mitigates some of the harsh effects
that the, I think ill thought out proposal.
I mean, the question was asked at the planning
committee,
how many bedrooms are gonna be in this
You can't get a good answer.
And if we approve this, they can go to the next
stage
of getting a building permit.
No, there's something missing there.
There's something missing there.
I also feel, and I've really given this a lot of
thought,
I do think that the OMB decision,
albeit more than a few years old,
is still a viable decision.
There's really nothing about this street
or this property that's changed.
And I went through Mr. Barrett's detailed letter
very carefully.
And I think all of his points are well taken.
So I'll be joining Councillor Ramen
in asking you to vote this down
at which point we can come back
and put something on the table
that is a reasonable compromise.
This is not a reasonable compromise.
So thank you very much.
- All right, Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
It's not a compromise when the other party doesn
't agree.
And the people in my ward still are in despair
around the McCormick factory, where we did the
same thing.
We allowed the developer some parts,
but we wouldn't give them everything that they
wanted.
And then, they don't develop.
And then it falls into neglect.
And then the public's mad.
And rightfully so, I think.
Because if we can't make somebody do it,
so they're bringing us a development proposal
for a heritage church that's been sitting vacant
for 13 years that is susceptible to vandalism,
damage, fire, and neglect, and we're gonna lose
it.
They're willing to take over a heritage building
with all that that comes with,
with anybody who has a heritage building that
knows.
It's an experience.
They're willing to do it.
It's on Richmond Street.
And we're gonna try to tell them how they should
do it
and how many units, and we're gonna end up
getting nothing.
And it isn't about cow-towing to the developer.
It's about, we talk about trusting the experts
all the time.
Most of the developers want to build great
housing,
they want to meet the needs of Londoners,
they want to do these things.
This is an opportunity, and at the last minute,
try to say this is a compromise
when we just make changes at the last minute.
It just doesn't make any sense to me,
and it puts at risk that building, that location.
The other thing I want to say,
and I know this will be a little contentious,
but we're gonna talk about it a lot today I think
,
is that there is a growing perception
that different neighborhoods are treated
differently.
And so again, here we go again,
where the Western University near-campus
neighborhood
is being catered to according to...
No, but I'm just gonna say,
I said there's a perception.
- So, Councillor Troz, you gotta use your
microphone
point of personal privilege?
- Yes, on behalf of my ward,
and on behalf of my ward residents,
I really think that's a little insulting.
And I just think that she should moderate
her tone here, I think that whether or not you
agree
with the positions of the neighbors,
I'm arguing now, so I'll say.
- Okay, yeah, I don't argue.
So the language catering to is,
I mean, the council represents the area.
He represents constituents there.
We all, I think, I'll say to councilor Stevenson,
I think you can word that differently
and I would ask you to do that
for the remainder of your comments.
- Thank you, and I'm happy to do that.
This is, and I don't wanna argue the point either
,
but this is a very sort, what they call stubbed
street,
not concerned about through traffic flying
through.
We're gonna have several other developments
that we're gonna talk about shortly,
where residents are concerned about the intensity
,
the number of bedrooms, the traffic impacts,
and it just goes through.
And then there's other areas of the city
where staff say, we don't deem it's appropriate
here,
Some we do say it's appropriate.
I'm gonna talk about that later.
And here, we're being asked to try to impose
limits
in this particular spot,
but we're not gonna do it consistently in other
areas.
And I think that's an issue.
I think it's a growing sense of inequity
that there are certain sort of lower income,
lower status,
whatever you wanna call it,
people don't know people in a certain
neighborhood
and that they don't get the same consideration
from their elected council.
So that's a perception, I'm not saying it's a
reality,
but it's a growing perception.
And so I'm just gonna end on,
I fully, I'm gonna support this.
I appreciate the investment in our city
in that heritage property.
I think it's gonna be a beautiful place to live.
And I'm gonna trust the developer.
I hear that the basement has really nice big huge
windows.
I'm looking forward to seeing it when it's built,
and I'm happy to support it as is.
- Thank you Mayor Lewis.
- Thank you Your Worship and through you.
I'm going to start by saying my recollection in
Councillor
Robin's recollection of what happened at planning
from the
consultant's response are different. And I'm not
saying
that she's incorrect. My recollection, however,
was that
indication was the basement units would be
smaller
because of the constraints around renovating a
heritage building.
I don't recall a commitment to them being all one
bedrooms.
But there was an indication that they would
likely be smaller.
However, that's my recollection and I did not go
back because we only received this
amendment just before the meeting started to
check the committee meeting.
But I do want to, through you, ask our staff, not
in terms of city-wide policies.
Obviously, we have policies like the near-campus
neighborhood.
We have some other policies.
But is there a planning basis on an individual
address application for putting a cap on bedrooms
in our official plan or through our zoning by-law
processes.
- Just one second.
- And I'll just say, I know council can do it,
but is there a planning basis for it?
- So we're getting into that answer,
just to give it a second 'cause we have staff
conferring.
Go ahead.
- Thank you, through your worship.
Notwithstanding the planning rationale,
there was a cap at one point for bedrooms,
but council opted to remove that.
And that would be a council position,
municipality to municipality University towns and
that we've seen that across Canada. But
having said that there's no planning basis for a
cap. Go ahead. Thank you for that. Also through
you, Your Worship, we heard the rationale for for
an amendment is that the perception was the
planning framework has not substantially changed
since 2013. But is it not true through you to
staff
that the 2013 decision was made under the 1989
official plan.
We now operate under the London plan.
So there has been a change in our official plan.
There have been three new provincial policy
statements
as well as our own amendments to our official
plan
since the London plan was adopted
with the Heights plan review.
So with staff opinion that there actually has
been
substantive change to the planning framework
since 2013.
- Go ahead.
- Thank you through your worship.
Yes, that's correct.
that's the planning position on that. Plus, it's
also in a strategic growth area. So that's a big
shift from 2013. And also under the 1989 Official
Plan, these lands were designated low density
residential, recognizing these lands are now in
an urban corridor. Yes, they may be in a
preservation policy area, but it still would
contemplate higher intensity. And this would be
gentle intensification with no external changes.
Go ahead. Thank you, Chair. So through you,
But I think that right there underlines it.
The rationale for the amendments
is actually not supported by our planning staff.
It doesn't have a basis in planning policies
today.
The planning framework has substantively changed.
And as has been said by my colleagues,
Councillor Cuddy, Councillor Stevenson,
both referenced this applicant,
who's only had the property less than a year,
is willing to take on the risk of a heritage
property
with no external change to the building.
So the changes are all internal.
So it's correct to say, we don't see them ahead
of time
because there's no external change to the
building.
There's no extra construction going on.
So the internal building configuration is a
matter
of going through the process of permits
and fitting in what works as it moves forward.
With 13 years of vacancy here already
and the communication that we've seen from the
applicants,
you know, they've been working in good faith on
this.
And I think this is a wholly appropriate
application
supported by our staff.
And I think that we should be supporting
the committee's recommendation.
- I'll look to other speakers.
All right, Councillor Hopkins.
- Yeah, thank you.
First of all, I wanna start off with thanking
Councillor ramen for trying.
I think it's worth an opportunity
to create development at this location.
It's not about no development.
It's an opportunity to have a compromise,
support the community.
We heard at PEC the developer is going to create
bedrooms, smaller bedrooms in the basement.
I think it's worth noting that there is no site
plan process for this application.
This is an opportunity where we can manage the
amount of bedrooms.
So I will be supporting an amendment if this
recommendation from staff fails to put a cap
on the bedrooms. The other thing for me that is
an issue is that appeals matter,
hearings matter, the development or the community
did go through an appeal process.
They already had to compromise. They had to
settle in the middle. I'm surprised that that
does not
matter to us here at council. Why wouldn't that
matter? Community goes through a lengthy process
when they had the ability to be part of an appeal
process, to spend time, money, energy,
and then somehow meet in the middle to get a
ruling from the chair. So I'm just really
surprised
why we here today would not try to support a
compromise, allow the developer to continue to
to develop, have the community meet again halfway
.
I am just really kind of a little surprised
why we would not do that.
Why some of us really want to put that stick in
the stand
and not move from it.
So again, I do appreciate the will of my
colleagues
to try to work with the compromise.
- Other speakers to this?
- Councilor Ferra.
- Thanks, Mayor.
I'm listening to this conversation. I think this
is a good one. I like what I'm hearing about
the striving for protecting our heritage
buildings. That's something I'd like to see at
council as
much as possible. I have lots in my ward and I
also understand that, you know, decisions are
made
that may not necessarily have the equity there or
may be perceived that way and downtown definitely
feels that from time to time. When it comes to
this project, I just wanted to go to staff
first. Like, with the way it is right now, like,
are we going to see an increase in height or
massing or the footprint or anything like that?
Or is this development the way it's proposed
is able to be constrained within the existing
building? Could you just speak to me? Go ahead.
Thank you. Yes, through your ship. There's no
external changes to the property to the building.
As you see it today, the conversion is within the
internal
part, so the property building, we've heard the
basement units being added to.
Go ahead.
Thank you for that.
So I understand the appeal to reduce the cap, I
understand all that.
But I also understand of everything else.
It's a heritage building.
It's not going to be increasing the footprint or
everything about the building.
And this is something that is going to save this
potential heritage place.
heritage place. I would love to have a
development come to my ward with some of
my heritage buildings that are right now
suffering from that term demolition by
neglect. I would say that. And that would be
something that I would really
love. Like, you know, trying to mitigate between
community concerns and saving
these historic buildings is something that would
also something I would like
to do. But I don't even get to that first step.
So I would say with this
application, I like what I'm hearing about
heritage. If we can see that with
heritage buildings in the core. I would like to
see that. But the way this is, the
massing footprint, the height is not changing.
Pretty much the heritage
building is going to look intact. This is an
adaptive reuse. This is exactly what
we're asking for all the time. I understand there
's going to be more
residences there. And at the same time, that is a
compromise. We are saving this
building. We are able to bring in more housing.
We are going to have a reuse of
it. I would take that as a win if that was in my
ward. I would take that as a big
win. So I understand the concerns and the appeal
to reduce the capping, but I'm going
to support this the way it is. I think, I would
like to see this in my ward, and I would like
to see the sentiments for our heritage buildings
come to my ward as well.
Councillor Pribble. Thank you. I will start right
away by stating that I will certainly
support the recommendation by the committee. We
heard that word here quite a few times,
compromise, but again, compromise is without the
actual person or company organization that's
coming step forward and putting their money,
their investment forward to actually make
this building that was vacant for many years, etc
. I drive by almost every day and I'm really
happy that there will be something happening. But
I can compromise without them. It's kind
of what I always call about you, without you. And
that's really the case here. So I really
don't feel in terms of that us making a decision
on compromise, there's no compromise on the
table whatsoever. Because the other party, the
party that's actually making the investment
actually not present here. I do agree with most
of the stuff that of the individuals that were
stated here by the ones that are recommending the
support of the committee's recommendation,
because if I do look at this, again, the height,
the width, the length, whatever it is, it
actually
stays the same. It stays the same. It doesn't
increase. And this, I do realize that based on
the
type of the building zoning and near-neighborough
or near-campus neighborhoods. I do agree or I
do understand what's the maximum number of the
bedrooms. But again, other organizations looked
at
this quite a few of them during the past years
and guess what, it wasn't feasible for them
financially. They didn't want to do it because of
the heritage. We have someone that is actually
willing to take this on. Are they going to
maximize their opportunity? I'm quite sure they
will.
Are they going to do it within the exterior that
's currently there?
Yes, they are. I will be supporting this and I
hope there will be most of my colleagues will
be supporting this application going forward and
supporting the committee's recommendation.
Thank you. Okay. That's all the speakers I have
before me. So I'm going to open the committee's
recommendation with voting. Close on the vote.
Motion carries 10 to 3. Councillor Frank.
Could we move a 15-minute break just because it's
been a while? Yes, we can. That's moved,
seconded by Councillor Ferreira. Let's do that by
hand. Can I do by hand? I'm just going to do
by hand. All those in favor? Any opposed? All
right, I'm going to get everybody to sit down. We
're
going to start again, including Councillor Layman
. Okay, we're going to continue on. Thanks for
the short break and we'll continue with the
planning report. I'll turn it back to Councillor
Layman.
Thanks, Mayor. Going on to number eight, this is
regarding 36 Weathered Street and
and Councilor Stevenson requests us to be pulled.
- Okay, that one is separate.
I'll look for any speakers.
Go ahead.
- Thank you.
So this one passed, I believe it was 3-2 at
committee.
I just want to be clear.
Like the developer reached out to me
that they are trying to do good things
and build housing in our city
and no detriment to them.
But what I want to understand
through this five minutes that I get
is how are our policies being applied
in such a way that people, residents of London,
understand and know what can be expected
to be happening on their street
and in their houses beside them.
So in this case, this is a quiet residential
street,
larger lots, older homes.
There are seven houses on this little stretch
of this street before there's a little curve
it keeps going. I didn't realize that the house
right beside this development had been taken
down and there's the entire property has got
units on it. And then four down a house was taken
down and there's townhouses now again the length
of the backyard. So when I read like in this
motion
in this, it says the recommended amendment is
considered compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. And yet on page 208, it says policy
969 of the London Plan further discourages
forms of intensification within near-campus
neighborhoods that are within neighborhoods
that have already absorbed significant amounts of
residential intensification and/or residential
intensity. So we've already got two of the seven
homes that are now intensified. This
would potentially be a third. That would be three
out of seven. At what point would staff
determine that it would be too much and that the
next planning application would not receive
recommendation? Well, I can see if our staff can
give some sense of that. I think every
application is individual, but I'll go to go to
our staff to see what they can say.
- Thank you through your worship, yes, that's
correct.
Each application is reviewed on its own merits.
We do look at the full policy framework,
as you've mentioned under that policy 969,
but we also have other council direction
in terms of additional residential units
and what that means in terms of neighborhoods
and basically spreading housing
and intensification across the entire city.
So we're gonna see that through council's
decision
within neighborhoods.
- Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you, I understand.
But again, it's policy that's being applied.
And so I'm just wondering, is it like 50%,
once more than 50% of the street was intensified,
then that would be considered,
is there's any kind of a ballpark
that we can share with residents?
- Thank you through your worship.
Again, we reviewed on a policy by,
a case by case basis based on the policy
framework.
We look at aspects in terms of cumulative impact,
whether it's traffic, servicing, and the
capabilities
of what sites can take.
And in this case, staff are recommending approval
of it.
And as other sites within this neighborhood,
and we have seen this within neighborhoods,
and through council direction,
we'll see a little bit more uptake across the
city.
- Go ahead.
- Thank you.
What I'm trying to get at, though,
is we've got these policies.
Londoners are concerned.
They're concerned that they're gonna have,
that the street is going to be turned into high-
density housing.
The other part of policy 969 says continuing--
our London plan discourages forms of intens
ification
that continue an ad hoc and incremental trend
towards residential intensification
within a given street, block, or neighborhood,
rather than a proactive, coordinated, and planned
approach towards residential intensification.
So I'm wondering what plans or how are we gonna
ensure
that it's not gonna be ad hoc in this
neighborhood?
- Go ahead.
- Thank you through your worship.
The planning was done based on council's
direction,
looking at additional residential units.
For example, and that's the planning
that would be expected in residential
neighborhoods,
including this neighborhood.
- Go ahead, Councilor Stevenson.
- So any neighborhood can expect to have
potentially
all of their homes filled with residential units
that take up the vast majority of the lots.
That's what we're telling Londoners.
- Good, thank you, through your worship.
We'll be looking at it at a case-by-case basis,
as I mentioned.
In terms of some neighborhoods,
there is opportunities for transition
to accommodate more intensification.
And when we're talking about intensification,
we're not talking about high-rise buildings.
We're talking about gentle intensification
for units on a property.
Again, it's based on the size of the property,
site functionality, access, and other site
matters
that would make the sites viable for development.
- Go ahead.
- Thank you.
And I'm gonna keep pushing here and I apologize.
But this is a 24 meter frontage.
Like this is not a big area.
This is the third home in seven homes
that is gonna be basically the entire lot
turned into housing.
So staff, when they make this decision,
are looking at the neighborhood,
and I'm asking you to share with this particular
neighborhood
because you've looked at it a couple of times now
,
what is your vision, what is your plan,
what is the policies, what can the residents
expect?
Just ballpark.
- Thank you, through your worship.
In some neighborhoods where it's already as a
right zoning,
that would happen and they would be able to apply
for building permit.
There are some sites that may not meet the zoning
framework,
and so that's why we would look at it on a case-
by-case basis.
- Go ahead, Councillor.
- Thank you and through you.
This is eight units.
Eight units on a, you know,
what people would not call too big of a lot.
And you're saying case by case,
this one doesn't meet the requirements.
We're doing 80% of the minimum front lot
and 83% of the front yard.
So again, I'm just gonna ask
because there's a couple of houses for sale on
that street
and now the rest of them are saying
maybe they should leave too
If this is what's going to happen,
then they might as well free up the properties
for these higher density.
- I don't know if there was a question there.
You got about 30 seconds left.
- The question is that particular neighborhood
has been evaluated and staff have said
they see it as compatible.
So at what point is it not going to be compatible
?
- So I can go to Ms. O'Neill again.
I think you answered it about case-by-case
or servicing there's lots of considerations, but
go ahead.
- Thank you, through your worship.
Yes, and that talks about that cumulative impact
that I was talking about.
So at some point, as you've mentioned,
that there's a threshold.
But for this particular application,
it meets the policy framework.
Councilor Stevenson.
- We just had counselors willing to go against
staff
recommendation on a few units
that didn't change a footprint.
This, if you look, the couple was here.
They have their little baby.
They've got this nice little property.
The house is pretty much on the property line.
And now they're gonna have this big development
beside them.
And beside that is another big development.
and four houses down is another big development
and there's two houses across the street.
We're running into problems here without it being
clear
because people could be buying a lot.
- Time's up.
All right, other speakers to this matter, okay?
Seeing none, that I'm gonna open that for voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to three.
- That's a layman.
- Thank you, Mayor.
Moving on to number nine.
This is regarding nine, two, and nine.
Cheap size streets, I'll put that in the floor.
- Okay, that's on the floor.
I'll go to speakers on this.
Go ahead, Councilor from Stevenson.
Thank you, this is another one in my ward,
and I'm gonna keep coming back to this.
Londoners are asking us to be clear.
What is our policy?
What can they expect when they're purchasing
property
to develop, or when they're purchasing property
to live with, raise their families,
or for people who've lived in neighborhoods for a
long time?
This is coming across as very inconsistent.
We're willing to, we wanna reduce neighborhoods
or a number of bedrooms in a building
that where the footprint doesn't change,
but then we're gonna put three out of seven on
one street.
And then we've got this development, which was--
- Okay, I have a point of order.
- Thank you.
I'm rising on a point of order.
I'm not sure what the counselor's debating right
now.
Can she stick to the matter that's on the floor?
- Yeah, so the thing I heard that is not really
related
to this is counselors made,
well, there wasn't even counselors who made a
motion.
So you're raising a matter about changing
possible bedrooms
It wasn't even allowed to be on the floor by
council decision.
We voted on the actual development.
So if you could keep it to the matter before us
and not things that weren't even motions on the
floor,
but something a councilor wanted to do.
Many counselors want to do many things.
The decisions we make here is, you know,
the decision-making of the group.
So if you could keep it focused on that,
I'm going to say the point of order is dealt with
and I'll let the council debate the issue that's
before us.
- Chair, the councilor can withdraw her comment.
- Do you just save which comment to be withdrawn?
her comments that were not related to the
application
that's in front of us.
- So I would usually have a comment
that was a point of personal privilege withdrawn.
I think your point was more a point of order
to stick to the topic at hand.
I don't think I need the counselor to actually
withdraw
that to continue on with the debate.
So the counselor chose that.
- Then I'll make a point of personal privilege
because that was in direct reference
to the one that just came up in my ward
where I was speaking against an application
where there was no change in footprint.
And I'm just gonna leave it at that and you rule
on it,
but I just don't think we have to be this
divisive.
- Okay, so let's just settle this down.
So lots of people want to call points of order,
points of personal privilege.
Point of order is with respect to,
is the member following the general rules or
practices?
Councilor ramen raises the point of order.
Yes, we got to stay on track.
We got to debate the things before us.
I address that.
- Councilor Troso, a point of personal privilege
is really something that negatively affects
the rights or privileges of council members
or council as a whole,
despite other pending business before council.
So like, I get that the councilor
and your comments are not in alignment.
I didn't hear anything that was,
I mean, it could be not directly related,
which I've actually addressed,
but I don't think it was restricting your right
to have said what you said before,
or to continue to say it in the future.
And I will continue to make sure it's done
in a very respectful way.
But I think counselors can have disagreements of
opinion.
They can say they disagreed with another
counselor's opinion.
You can disagree with that.
Counselors, as long as it's done respectfully,
that's to me is part of the debate
and decision-making process.
So I agree, we could, counselors,
keep their comments focused and respectful.
We're gonna be really efficient
for the rest of the matters before us.
And if not, we're gonna deal with points of
privilege
and points of order, and I'm happy to do that,
but I think we can all just focus on the actual
debates,
keep the subject of that debate really rooted
in why the matters before us.
In this case, they're planning items,
there's lots of planning reasons
that you can before or against something.
And if we keep it in that space,
rather than even getting into other council's
opinions,
I think we'll be in a much more efficient way of
speaking.
So that's my general caution to everybody.
I'm gonna say not really a point of personal
privilege
because I don't think your rights were really imp
ugned there.
Councillor Stevenson, you can continue debating
this item before us.
- Thank you.
I'm asking for colleagues support
and saying no to this development
and I'm bringing up for comparison.
We've got a neighborhood here
and some of them would have been here to say,
hey, I hear Council saying we've got this short
little
stub street and we're asking to talk about
reducing bedrooms.
Then we've got the development in Stony Brook
where it was within the height.
The number of stories was approved.
The parking is about the same.
The lot coverage is the same.
The density of units per hectare is actually 358
units per hectare
in curling heights.
In fact, the original one that staff recommended
was 420 units per hectare.
Whereas the one on Geary in Stony Brook
was rejected as two intents at 235.
So I get to answer to the residents in Carling
Heights to say, "Why is staff saying it's
too intense in Stony Brook, but it's not too
intense in Carling Heights?
Why is Council wanting to reduce the number of
bedrooms in a church that doesn't change
its footprint and they're not concerned about
what I'm saying."
So, Councilor, I'm going to jump in because no
one is reducing the number of bedrooms
in that development.
That's the part that I need you to say focus on.
The Councillors are suggesting that they might
want to do that, but there was no motion
even on the floor to do that so I would say that
's keep it relevant to this
debate like because that wasn't even a matter
that we even considered it didn't
actually make the floor in fact a majority of
counsel said it wasn't even a valid
amendment so we did not do that we didn't even
consider it we didn't even
really debate it we debated the main motion
people referenced something
alternative they want to do but that actually
ultimately passed and there was
no motion on the floor so I think that's the part
where if we can keep it
focused on this and not bring up things that are
speculative or even attributing those things
to something Council did when we didn't actually
do it despite the fact that some Councillors
would have liked to, we got nowhere near making
that decision.
Thank you.
But I'm saying that these residents watched their
mayor and four Councillors willing
to consider that because of the concerns of a few
residents, even when the two neighbours
closest to that supported it.
So it is relevant when we've got lenders who are
saying, why not us?
Why aren't you listening to us?
How can you go say something as too intense when
it falls within all the parameters?
And here you're saying that it's okay when it
falls within all the parameters.
Lendeners are concerned about the policies that
this council has put in place that are
raising intensification in their neighborhoods.
One of the biggest reasons why I said no to this
is because the Heights Review framework
that came in August and was passed by Council in
September of 2024 was not transparent.
It wasn't transparent to the Councilor and I'll
own that I didn't know what was happening.
And the public certainly did not know that these
heights had been raised on corners in
their neighborhood.
And I'm a firm believer that if it's the right
thing to do, not everybody's going
to like it, but we're going to do it publicly and
say this is what's happening.
We believe it's the right thing and we're going
to do it.
So I'm asking for this council tonight to say no
to this because out of equity and
out of fairness, we get to have a look at this.
We get to talk about how we're applying and who
whose residents and what neighbors we're
listening to and what ones aren't.
And this is an equity issue as far as I'm
concerned.
So I'm asking for council support and saying no
to this.
It only passed three to two at council or
committee.
I do appreciate the fact that the developer made
changes and modified it.
It's still, most of these neighborhoods have
spoken really eloquently, they've said they're
not opposed to change, they're not opposed to
development, they're asking for the lower
height prior to this council putting through the
Heights framework review, without talking
to them.
So that's what they're asking for.
With Geary, staff made it easy, they said no,
made it easy for us to support.
I'm asking for consistency in this particular
meeting at council to say no to this one.
And then let's talk about this more about what --
so that lenders have a better sense.
Not -- they don't know exactly what's coming, but
they have a better sense of what's happening
in their neighborhoods.
This group did a great job.
They were here.
They've shown up at meetings and -- and I don't
know what else to say except to say I don't
know how we can support one and not the other and
if it's site specific then I
guess this council right now is going to decide
whether this is appropriate for
Karlic Heights and whether the residents around
this building should be taken
into account as much as the ones on Richmond or
on Vancha. Okay I have
Councillor ramen and then Deputy Mayor Lewis.
Thank you and through you Mayor.
Let me start by saying this. When I make a
decision at council and I'm
speaking for myself. I make a decision taking
into consideration the entire city
and not just one part of the city. Yes we
represent boards but we represent the
entire community. When we're asked to look at a
development application we're
not applying an inconsistent approach because it
's in a certain
neighborhood. I'm not. That's my opinion. The
counselor and other counselors have
opportunities to move amendments, to make
different decisions, to bring issues to
their residents, to talk to their residents, to
move things that are
different. What I saw with this application was I
saw a referral come
for our first. The referral, which was supported,
to then bring back another
proposal, working with the developer, that's what
we have in front of us now, is
is this recommendation, that's what's on the
floor,
that's what I'd like to debate today.
I'm not supportive of what's here,
and it's not because the counselor
has highlighted an equity issue or a perceived
equity issue.
I'm looking at it from the perspective
of what's in front of me.
I see, and again, I brought this up
during the debate at P.C.,
is that we are presented with a support
for the recommendation on the height,
but the special provisions are not clear to me
in terms of what will come back.
And so for that reason, I'm not supportive.
What I see is either, and I have had a chance
to talk to the developer about it,
I see a building that I'm not sure how it gets
to the same six stories with the footprint.
I still think the parking's inadequate for the
area.
I still see some issues with it here
and that's why I'm not supporting it.
But these other issues, comparing neighborhoods,
why divide the community when we can talk
about the planning rationale
and the planning information that's in front of
us.
Don't understand that rationale,
but I will debate the issue.
I will look at it from the perspective
of what's in front of us.
And I've been clear that I'm not supportive
about the application.
- Thank you, Mary Lewis.
- Thank you, Chair.
Sorry, I'm just trying to get my video working
here.
Okay, thank you, Chair.
I wasn't gonna speak to this.
I said my PSAT committee.
However, I have to speak to it now
because I didn't call a point of personal
privilege.
I perhaps should have.
The Heights Plan review was absolutely
transparent.
it was subject to the same public participation
meeting,
same sort of notifications and public
announcements
that this actual planning application was.
It followed the same process
that the Urban Growth Boundary expansion
and other matters that come before PEC take that,
and I agree with Councilor Rollman,
if Councilors didn't feel that was enough,
they always have the opportunity
to do further engagement with their residents.
Councilor Rollman and I disagree on this one,
but that's okay.
expect where she's saying she's not comfortable
with the parking, and we just had a discussion
at Peck yesterday that will come to the next
council meeting about changing the parking
ratio again.
But we have to evaluate this occasion through the
planning rules that are in place today,
which say that this has more than sufficient
parking because it is above the .5 ratio.
It also says the six stories is allowed based on
the street classification of cheap side
under the London Plan Heights review
that was signed off by this council in 2024
and by the province in 2025.
So we are being consistent with our decisions
here.
And that's why I supported this staff
recommendation
because it approves the height, the zoning,
but it still says you can't be this close
to some of the setbacks.
You have some things to work out in your design
detail here.
And maybe that means that units won't have balcon
ies
on one side.
Maybe it means that they're changing
the orientation of the building on the property
slightly.
But that's a matter that can be resolved through
site plan
without requiring special provisions if they can
meet that.
Maybe they'll reduce the units further
by another unit on each end, I don't know.
But that will be up to them to decide
through the detailed design and site plan process
with our staff by not giving them the special
provisions.
To refuse it based on the height or the parking
is not actually supported by our official plan.
And so I would encourage colleagues
to support the committee recommendation here.
And I would also really echo your earlier
comments
that we need to be cautious.
I chose not to use the point of personal
privilege this time
'cause I don't want this meeting to go till 11 p.
m. tonight.
Let's be careful about what we're saying.
- Okay, other speakers to this matter.
Go ahead, Councillor Frank.
- Thank you, yes.
I'll be supporting this application.
And I think that the improvements that have been
made
since the referral demonstrate that the developer
is willing to make some adjustments.
I was happy to see the open space move forward
and meet our 30% minimum.
I also would share that a long ride out,
which is also a neighborhood connector.
We have an 18-story apartment building,
a couple 12-story apartment buildings,
a 16-story apartment building.
So for a similar road type,
we have in Old South,
a variety of apartment buildings that are much,
much higher.
And they are surrounded by single-family homes.
And they fit in nicely.
There's a bus route.
There is bike paths.
and both this cheap side application,
as well as those ones I'm referencing,
are about 10 minute walk from commercial areas
close to schools.
So I do see having apartment buildings in areas
with single family homes to be quite nice in some
areas.
And I think it would be nice in this one too.
- Any other speakers to this matter?
Go ahead, Councilor Trossa.
- Thank you, Mayor, through you.
Many of the points I wanted to make
were made by Councilor Ramen, but very well.
I'm not gonna be supporting this application.
And it's not because of, I'm not gonna be
supporting
this application 'cause I think it's
inappropriate
for this neighborhood.
And that's not a real technical way of going
through
all the different criteria, but I go through here
all over the time and the houses in that area,
not only are they detached single family
dwellings,
but they're small, they're small.
This application is gonna just totally transform
in a negative way, the look and feel,
and just how people relate to this neighborhood.
And I think it's sort of like it's
going to be a placemaker thing, because I
think we're going to be seeing other ones.
And I sort of, I liked the way this neighborhood
feels.
I would prefer to see a little bit more
maintenance done
in some of the units, particularly some
of the rental units and some of the units held by
absentee
owners, but for the most part, I think
this would be very disruptive.
And I don't think saying, well, that's what I
think.
But the point I want to stress is my opposition
to this
is not based on anything other than my feeling
about this
file and this file only and you can disagree
with me on my assessment of this file.
Most of you probably would as we'll find out
when we do the vote in a few minutes.
But like this is a heartfelt, honest assessment
that I'm making that I cannot support this
project.
So thank you.
- Hey, any other speakers?
- Yep, Councilor Preble, go ahead.
- Thank you, Mayor.
Even though I will be passed on,
but on the issue that we're mentioned here,
I do wanna mention a couple of things.
And again, maybe for their neighborhood as well.
That's up here.
It was stated with another-- sorry, with another
application
that I was seeing earlier.
I think the biggest difference is if you look at
it,
is that one looks at how many units per hectare.
So again, this one is almost half of the other
one.
Was the other one was 395.
This one is 235.
The other one had a height, higher, et cetera.
But so I really don't think, again, no two
projects.
No two infilles are apples to apples.
but there's a really big differentiation.
There really is, honestly, one thing is I want to
know,
we already heard that some of the counselors that
said,
and I'm absolutely on the same page in terms of,
I don't really make my decisions based on the
neighborhoods,
or, you know, which part of London it is.
But also, I want to say one thing is the staff.
And if you look, every application starts with
the staff
that's based on housing policy, the concrete
facts,
and that's if it's a refusal, recommendation,
whatever it is, it's black on white based on the
policy.
And they go by the policy.
We can support it.
We don't have to support it.
But there is no way I will ever agree that other
staff,
or certainly speaking on myself,
that I will be making decisions
based on which part of London it is.
Yes, I can say that if it's in our ward,
I believe that we would fight more,
which is again, there is nothing wrong with it,
because guess what?
Those are our constituents and we do go,
We go for everyone, we go extra mouth,
for our ward, we go extra two miles.
I do understand that, but I really wanna clear
this
that I totally don't believe that any one of us
nor the staff would make such decisions.
That's not true.
I do, I will, what's in front of us.
And I do agree that there are certain things
that are, again, what I call maximizing the
opportunities.
But similar, what Council of Frank said few
minutes ago,
I did see the progress in terms of what it was
made
and I will be supporting what is in front of us.
Thank you.
- Any other speakers?
Okay, seeing none, we're gonna open this for
voting.
- Opposed in the vote.
Motion carries nine to four.
- Councillor Layman.
- Thank you Mayor.
Moving on to number 12.
This is regarding Councillor Robbins' third party
appeal
mechanism and the Councillor has requested as
people.
- Okay, that's on the floor.
I'll look to any speakers.
Go ahead, Councillor Robbins.
- Thank you and through you.
I was looking to move an amendment
and it's the amendment that was discussed
or put on the floor by the mayor at that meeting
and I'm just wondering if I could read it.
Okay, that municipal council
endorse the following actions
with respect to third party appeal mechanisms
during the Ontario Land Tribunal process A,
the mayor be requested to write today
Association Municipalities of Ontario
requesting that it consider advocating
for the restoration of a limited third party
appeal
mechanism to the Ontario land tribunal that I
applies to individuals residing
within the statutory notice area who have
demonstrated prior participation in
the municipal planning process. I I incorporate
appropriate safeguards to
discourage frivolous, vexatious or delayed driven
appeals and I I support the
province's objective objective of facilitating
timely and efficient
housing development and the communication be
received in the rest of the motion.
>> Sure. So you want to put that on the floor.
That was what went to committee and did not
proceed.
I'll second it just to get it on the floor,
so you're moving it on all second.
So we can have a debate on that.
Do you want to start the debate?
No, you're going to preserve your, okay.
I'll look to other speakers on this.
Go ahead. Definitely where Lewis.
>> Thank you, worship. I'm just going to repeat
what I said at
committee, but I'm going to emphasize it in light
of
the discussion we had yesterday around the GMIS,
and questions raised about the province making us
whole and discussions happening not just in
London but at AMO about that commitment. We can't
send a letter to the province on every issue
and I don't think we are doing ourselves any
favors by having you send a letter to AMO
saying advocate for this. I think it simply goes
to AMO gets probably bogged down there in the
200 other things that municipalities are asking
able to law before, and even if it saw the light
of day, when we're asking the province to make us
whole on D.C.'s to develop housing,
like asking them to restore third-party appeal
processes at the O.L.T., flies contrary to asking
them to make us whole on D.C.'s when they're
trying to streamline housing processes. We know
that the third-party appeals created a huge
backlog, a huge amount of red tape, and
complaints
across the province. I don't think that this is
an area where we should be poking the province
and saying, "Hey, you did a bad thing, you took
away these things." Well, at the same time,
saying to the province, "By the way, you want us
to speed up housing, you want us to make it
more affordable, you want us to cut DCs, so make
us whole." We can only ask for so much at the
end of the day. There's only so many lobby
positions and meetings that you can have at AMO
or yourself your worship with the minister or any
of us anywhere. We have to recognize that
the province has made a decision. We can write
letters to them. They're not going to change it.
Let's be pragmatic about that. And so I don't
think that this is a good use, frankly, of anyone
's
time. And I'm just going to leave it at that. I
won't be supporting this.
Other speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Trust.
Well, through the mayor again, for me, this is a
question of fundamental justice,
access to justice, not closing the courthouse
door to litigants because of the side of the
dispute that they have beyond. When we have these
contested hearings, quasi-judicial proceedings,
people should not feel that they shouldn't raise
issues because if I raise my issue and I prevail
at council, I'm going to be taken to the OLT.
That's a club. Appeal rights are not supposed
to be clubs. They're supposed to be mechanisms
that the parties can use to correct errors
or prejudice below. And I feel that this entire
provincial administration in its intensity
to want to do something fundamentally good and
that it's built more housing has gone
too far. And the one place that they've gone too
far that I feel very strongly
about is that you don't take party's procedural
rights away. You don't say
well there's too much crime on the street so let
's just say people can't
file appeals anymore. You don't say there are
some bad tenants and some of
them don't pay rent. So you therefore take away
their ability to seek
procedural justice. And in the case of the OMB,
the LPAT, and now the OLT, it's the same thing.
People need to be able to make the arguments. And
yes, if you're making a frivolous argument,
the board has all sorts of mechanisms that it can
already use to discourage that and sanction
you. And it will do that. They have done it. And
I know, as somebody who's appeared at the OMB,
that you want to be careful when you raise an
appeal to the OMB.
You wanted to have some sort of basis.
Now the problem with the way the procedure works
now,
and I was corrected for a little while,
but now we're back to de no-go hearings.
And I think that if we were looking at
you want to get to do these appeals,
if there's been some type of jurisdictional issue
or law,
that's one thing.
But now we're back to the old OMB rules
where there's a de novo hearing, a new hearing
and I just think that like to take people's
appeal rights away is it's just a violation of
fundamental rights and I have no doubt
that if somebody wanted to litigate this and let
's face it, who's going to litigate it?
You're a neighbor and you've lost at City Council
. You probably don't have the means
or the wherewithal or the time to be able to
launch a challenge but we should be asking
the province to act in accord with fundamental
principles of justice and in saying, well,
there are other things that are more important.
Maybe to you, there are. But these are important
rights that all of our rights bearing residents
have. So this is not good, that people can't
follow procedural rule that should go without
saying. And if you're wrong, you'll lose.
And if you do something frivolous, you'll be
sanctioned.
But you don't take away the litigation rights of
an entire class of people because you want
to rush things through and you want to build more
housing.
So with that, I want to thank the mayor and Coun
cillor Ramen again for bringing this forward.
I think this is definitely something that we
should be raising at AMO and other places.
And I feel very strongly that we have to at least
give people their day in court.
Thank you very much.
other speakers to this one, go ahead Councillor
Hopkins.
- Yeah, thank you Your Worship,
and thank you for committing to do this,
and thank you Councillor Raman as well.
I'm very supportive.
I'd like to more or less just start with the
rights
that individuals have, and that was taken away.
When I speak to a number of residents,
they're quite surprised that there is no appeal
process
that they have, the public participation meeting
with an OZ change is their only opportunity.
They don't even have a site plan process.
Sure, we could put a H5 on,
but a lot of their rights have been taken away.
This gives the community an opportunity.
And an appeal process is a lengthy costly.
It is a process that individuals take seriously
too.
I would really like to see what the numbers are
that we're slowing down the development process
of all the units that we must build by not doing
this.
It just seems, it's quite obvious
that we should have a mechanism there for
individuals
to have rights.
We just had an application that we decided not to
even
listen to an OMB hearing and a decision.
Councils have that right to decide
if that is an important decision.
Yes, our planning policies change.
But there are opportunities,
and I think the most important opportunity here,
in fact, there's two important opportunities.
It's the rights of individuals.
But the second part is, at AMO,
we did have conversations.
There are other municipalities
that are bringing forward motions and having
support.
So with those voices come louder and stronger
voices.
So I think Councillor Rallman and the Mayor for
doing this.
- Others because of this, go ahead, Councillor
Ferrer.
- Thank you.
So I fundamentally agree with this.
Bill 23 and 185 definitely remove some of these
appeal rights
and the voice of the community was kind of lost
in that.
But I would also say that there is also a level
of appeal here.
I kind of saw it was hinted at here that still
exists,
and that is at council itself.
We have planning applications for zoning by-law
amendments.
We need public participation meetings,
and there is an appeal process happening right
here with us.
So we still have the ability to make decisions
and also hear those appeals before that comes
through.
So I just wanted to highlight that as well,
because there is some accountability here for us
as well.
And we have the ability to hear and make
decisions.
And we are talking about something after the fact
,
after a decision that's made here.
So to point that out, I agree that we do need
that extra level of protection.
And I understand that we had it before.
It gives the rights of individuals
to be able to express their voices and their
opinions.
But that level is here as well.
So I just wanted to point that fact out.
We have the ability to.
So there is a democratic layer here
that exists with us amongst us here.
Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
I'm not gonna support this at all.
And I honestly find it a little ironic how often
we want to tell the province what they should do
when we aren't utilizing what we can do here.
We were talking about asking to give our
residents
their day in court to appeal our decisions.
what they want, their day at council.
They want this council to represent them
and make the decision in their best interests.
So to give them the right to spend the money and
the time
and everything to fight what we won't do here for
them,
it doesn't make any sense to me.
If we believe that they have a voice worth
listening to,
we should be responding.
And if we feel that we have responded
appropriately
to the majority of Londoners,
we shouldn't see the value in them going to
another level
at time and money and slowing down something
that this council has done
in the best interest of the city.
So do we not believe in the decision that we're
making
and so we wanna give residents the right to
overturn us?
Or is this about giving them the power
without taking the accountability ourselves?
We're passing the buck to them, you fight it.
We're not gonna do it here.
We don't get to say, the province makes their
choices.
I don't want to listen to all kinds of
organizations sending us letters telling us what
to do.
I don't think the province wants it. It doesn't
help in our advocacy efforts. I don't think to
be continually telling them they're the problem.
When they're saying, it's your council, it's your
city, make decisions that serve your residents.
Why would you want us to have the right to
overturn
you? Why would you do that? Do you not have the
courage to make your own decisions or do what you
you think is right for the residents?
I'm not sure where the,
I'm not sure what the selling feature is on this,
but to empower residents to spend a lot of time
and money
overturning the decisions that this council has,
you know,
made in the best interests of our city,
doesn't make sense to me.
And the province isn't gonna be listening to this
anyway,
so is it just to say we did something,
to say that they should have,
that the province should be doing something,
lenders want us to do something.
They want us to stand in our decisions.
If we think it's in the best interest of the
growth of our city,
then we get to defend our decisions to our
residents.
And if we can't do that, we should be making the
decisions here.
We keep being told, we can't go against staff,
because then they'll just take it to OLT.
And take it to OLT.
If we don't think-- if we're acting on behalf of
residents,
let them take it to OLT.
Why are we so afraid of it?
And yet, we want to empower our residents to go
through it.
I'm interested in the mayor and the councilors
reason for this,
but I don't see any reason to support it at all.
And I think it's not a very good luck to London
ers
who are asking us to be leaders here.
- The speakers, oh, Councilor Pervil,
sorry I had you on the last slide.
That's twice I did that to you, I'm sorry.
- I heard that we have made decisions today.
Absolutely we did.
What did we base it on?
No, we don't have the expertise,
but guess what?
The people I trust from us, they do.
And guess what?
They have the same housing policy,
they have the same bylaws,
just like OLT.
If I look at during the last three and a half
years,
that's actually, I do understand that there are
certain
neighbourhoods that are not happy with some of
our decisions
because it's a change to the neighbourhood.
But if I think that's one of the things that
Council did
when I was darning three and a half, four years
ago,
one of the top two was housing, housing
availability
and housing costs.
And I think that Council did, again,
I'm looking not prospective from one, two
neighbourhoods,
I'm looking from the perspective of half a
million
Londoners. We could have been better, no doubt
everyone can be better but that's a path that we
certainly have progressed on and we have
delivered maybe not 100% but we have and there's
no doubt
that I will argue with anyone that supply and
demand in this case is number one reason
absolutely
it is because the supply is up demand is either
stable or lower and now people that there are
you know, both prices of the housing doesn't
matter if it's purchased or if it's rental,
it is down. The other thing is, again, going back
to it, if you think about how many good
projects we have approved and how many
neighborhoods we had up in the gallery that they
weren't for it.
All those, if they were to go to OLT, everything
is delayed by 10 to 12-month. Where is our
economy?
Where is the pricing? And this is the thing that
we really have to look at the big picture.
and I really think that in this decision, I'm all
for freedoms, absolutely. Especially with my
background coming from my communist country, I'm
all for freedoms. On the other hand, we are here
to push and to deliver for half a million of land
res. I'm not supporting this. I really think
what was what I just heard from my colleague,
Councillor, when she was saying that it is in
our power and we can, it's up to us to make those
tough calls to tough decisions. And yes, if there
there are certain things that are neighbourhoods.
People, they do have
the opportunity in public participation meeting
if they want us to go any further.
We are all there to listen to them and to see
potentially if there are any other
options to do it. But again, I don't like passing
the buck. Let's take the
responsibility. Let's not delay. Let's move, keep
moving our city forward. And again,
if I look at this, and the economy is very, very
tough, the situation worldwide,
just in London, just in Canada, and this is one
of the few positive economic factors that we had,
and that's what residential development. And I do
understand that there are certain individuals
that they might not be, their developers are not
their number one favorite person in the world.
On the other hand, I have to look at this, and
they are the ones who are making the
easements, putting in their money on the table
during these very tough times when everyone is
looking at the dollars, flipping it left and
right, back and forth, if they are going to spend
it or
not. So actually, they are investing. Are they
maximizing their opportunities? Yes, they are.
Would I prefer sometimes that they choose a
different location or less density? Yes, I would.
But on the other hand, we need to move our
economy forward. I will not support this because
I do
believe that we are on the right track. And the
last three and a half years, we have delivered
on this Londoner's ask us for affordable and more
housing options and we have been delivering.
Thank you. Other speakers? Councilor Robin. Thank
you and through you, a lot of what I'm going to
say is contained in the letter that I submitted
on the PEC agenda. But I just want to remind
everyone
how we got here. The first is I want to say thank
you to Windsor City Council for their leadership
on moving this issue forward. I think it's
important to watch other decisions in other
places and
provide support when we see something that we
align with. And so I want to talk a little bit
about what Bill 185, the cutting red tape to
build more homes act in 2024. So a very recent
decision. I want to talk a little bit about that
impact. So when we lost or when our province
lost the Ontario land tribunal process being open
to residents, it's really important that we
understand that this isn't something that has had
a long standing time to take hold. We have the
ability. It's something that we should do with
our own decisions as we try to. Report back.
Find out what the temperatures like out there for
a decision we may and make corrective action
when we've made a decision. Perhaps that doesn't
support its intent or that maybe we realize
has unintended consequences or has other outcomes
. And I think in this case, what I see why I
wrote this letter, is public confidence in the
planning
system isn't the same.
We feel it.
We're feeling it.
Public confidence in the planning system
is strengthened when residents have their ability
to participate.
They participate here in a meaningful way.
And then from there, their concerns can be fairly
reviewed.
I don't think taking the appeal mechanism
had all of the outcomes that the province had
intended.
And I think what we're looking for here
is to alter the balance again.
So the current framework has altered this balance
.
It has created a situation where the developer
is the only one that can go to the tribunal.
And again, I'm not sure how that can continue
and why we wouldn't want to push back
on behalf of our residents to say,
there is a way to do this,
to alter the balance in a way that positively
supports
resident engagement by way of just allowing them
the opportunity to have a voice.
And again, what's put in front of us today
is to consider it a limited ability to have a
voice,
so that you live within the area that's affected.
I think that's a good thing to add to the process
.
But here's the best part.
The province has lots of policy makers.
They have a lot of opportunity to write this,
the right way that they wanna see it
so that they can encourage housing development,
but at the same time here, residents voices.
We don't have to create all the situations
for them to do that.
I'll tell you, we are here,
we're sitting in this room and we're doing our
work today.
Our province is not.
Our government right now in the province of
Ontario
could be working on this.
And I think it's fair to say that by sending
something
to our association to say, hey, we have a clear
position
across the province, that multiple cities are
standing up
and saying that these appeal rights matter,
gives them pause moments to pause,
maybe gives them some things to work on.
Thank you.
- Okay, I have myself on the list,
so I'll turn the chair over to Councillor Ramen,
I think, since Councillor Lamey's presenting.
- Thank you, I have the chair.
- Go ahead.
- Sure, so I appreciate the comments of Council
Raman
because you're gonna make my comments a little
bit shorter.
First, I wanna recognize what is being asked.
It's not a return to what the status quo was
before.
It's a recognition of the reasons
the province made the change in the first place.
Problems was dealing with a series of, you know,
frivolous, vexatious, delayed-driven appeals
that were basically bogging down the system.
And they're looking to get rid of that.
And if you look at the motion, we recognize
that any sort of change would need to incorporate
mechanisms
to ensure that's not the case.
The other piece here is in the things
to consider that AMO could consider,
should they even want to craft a position,
is that it should be individuals residing
within the statutory notice area.
People should not be going across the city
on the other side of the city that isn't even
in their neighborhood and being able to appeal
something
simply because they don't like it.
But if you live right beside a development,
and the person building that development
has the ability to go and present their case
to a parental body,
why shouldn't the person beside the development
be able to do the same thing?
Now, for the Councillor to say,
hey, let's make the decisions here.
I'm all for that.
Like I like local decision-making.
We get rid of the tribunal altogether
and have all the decisions of council stand.
Like that's fine with me.
We could debate everything here.
That's not the system that we actually have out
there.
If someone wants to go that direction,
I'm happy to have the debate on that particular
motion.
But I cannot imagine that having someone who is a
neighbor
have the right to go and make a case
for the development beside their house
and empowering them with those rights
isn't somehow something that's negative, right?
That it's just, to me, even asking to pursue this
is something that empowers residents
who are immediately impacted to have a right,
while recognizing that we have to support the
province
in ensuring that this doesn't slow things down.
The other piece here too is,
Neither of us are asking for the municipal
council
to go to the province directly on this.
I agree that would not be a good use of time.
We've got lots of ask before the province.
We're not even pointing this towards the province
.
We're saying, listen, there's some other
municipalities
carving out positions on this.
These positions are best defined if debated and
discussed
as municipalities as a whole.
In AMO, when all the municipalities can have a
discussion,
like, do we even want this on our agenda
as one of our issues, right?
So that is what the ask is before us.
It's not going to the province directly on this.
It's listening to what some of the residents have
said.
There are many residents who are surprised.
We pass a development today.
It's probably residents here who are like,
"Well, I'd like to appeal this."
And the answer is like, "Sorry, you can't."
But I live right beside the building.
Too bad, you don't have that right.
So I think this is a reasonable pathway forward
that does not consume the municipalities' GR
resources
because we've got lots of things to ask for.
It says, "If AMO is gonna consider this,
"we're interested in the discussion.
these are some things that you should consider if
you have the discussion because we support
the province on getting rid of frivolous and vex
atious and delay-driven appeals. But we
also support the residents who live in the
immediate area, not across the city, to have
some sort of recourse for decision-making if
there continues to be a body beyond municipal
councils that get to make that. Because remember,
this is a body that gets to make decisions beyond
this room. When it goes to that body, we don't
get a say anymore. So some level of
representation
there by those immediately impacted I think is a
reasonable ask and I think
this is a reasonable process to even decide
whether it becomes a municipal
ask across the province of the province. So happy
Councillor Ramen
forwarded happy that she was willing to adjust
some of the language to align
with with that I think that's that's good
collaborative work together and I'll
support this today and yeah we'll see how it goes
. Returning the chair to you
know on the speakers list. Any other speakers? I
think almost everyone has
spoken. That's a break. Thank you. Yes, I just
want to briefly say that I'll be supporting this.
I don't think it's fair that developers get two
appeal stuff and residents don't. And I think
that
this to me is should be and is about fairness.
And fairness would require that both sides have
the same rights and access to the appeal process.
And so I think it's courageous for us to
send this along and request that we give our
residents the same rights that developers get.
Any other speakers? Okay, we'll deal with this
matter. Then we're going to have a few
motion to go past six and we'll deal with that
immediately after. This has been
moved and seconded. We'll open that for voting.
Councillor Palazzo. Sorry, didn't
come up, yes. Close in the vote. Motion carries
seven to six. Okay, and now we're
going to need a motion to extend to past six.
Okay, we're going to do this in the
system of motion to extend past six moved by Coun
cillor Frank, seconded by
Councillor Hopkins. So votes yes noted. Thank you
, Councillor Stevenson. I vote
yes. No noted. Thank you. Close in the vote.
Motion carries 12 to 1. Okay, back to
Councilwoman. I believe that concludes the ninth
report that I initiated about 10
hours ago. Perfect. Thanks for your work. Keep
standing if you want or you can
take a seat. We'll move on to the audit report. I
have Council Palosa online to
present the audit report. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I
was the one person who voted
not to extend and it's my report not because
report is not excellent so I
will present it now. It's the third report the
audit committee. I will
highlight everything was unanimous discussions as
per item 7 being 4.6.
This was a letter from Councillor Frank that has
been referred to the next round of audits
for 2027 as everything was already packed and set
and contracted for this round.
And item 8, 5.1, the request for proposals for 20
26 for the internal audit services.
The recommendation is MNP that would commence in
2027 and they are actually our current
internal audit people.
And we just appreciate everyone who did apply
and went through the process with the city.
Thank you.
And been giving no nose to pull anything.
- Does anyone want anything separate?
Seeing none then we can vote on this whole group.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, okay, sorry.
Seeing none then we can vote on the whole thing
altogether.
So Councilor Plaza will move the whole slate
and I'll see if there are any speakers on these
buyers.
Councilor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
This is a bit of a follow up
to the Portfolio Investment Report.
So the 2025 financial audit,
we've got the audited statements here.
And in note 23, it talks about financial
instruments
and risk management, it talks about market risk.
And it says that management monitors this
exposure
regularly and estimates that if interest rates
increased by 1% and all other variables are held
constant,
the potential change in unrealized loss
on its fair valued fixed income holdings
would be 49,466,000 as compared to 2024
where there was a $40,948,000 unrealized loss.
So through you to staff,
I would just like to understand a little bit more
about the law-- - Go ahead.
- Thank you for the chair.
So generally the city's position is to hold
all of our investments through to maturity.
So those are obviously unrealized
and if they were to go forward,
is the quantification of the risk. Keep in mind
that is also on a consolidated basis which takes
into account all of the boards and commissions
that also have investments as well as part of
that portfolio that would include the consolid
ations that are part of that as well. So certainly
that
is generally our policy. We have certainly moved
to accounting for investments through the
financial
instruments new standard that came forward a year
ago that we have the mark to market so all
all of our instruments are recorded for American
value.
So through the investment report,
we had noted what those unrealized gains are
at this point in time.
And obviously, if we hold to maturity,
then we don't anticipate to have any losses
based on the portfolio that the city invests in.
- Mr. Stevenson.
- Sorry, so just to, through you then,
to understand you're not anticipating losses
at the end of the maturity?
- Thank you, through the shared note, that is
correct.
- Okay, thank you, so that's good to know.
And I guess this is where I would suggest
that having that in the investment report
and explaining it would help
because when somebody's reading these statements
and they see that we have an unrealized loss,
they might wonder why we have a $40 million loss
in our investments.
The other thing is I noticed in the financial
statements
it talks about credit rating of,
talks about credit risk, this is in 23B,
talks about credit risk and the credit rating
of the corporation's fixed income holdings.
So I noticed that in 2024,
we had 2.8% of the holdings were triple B credit
rating.
And in previous years,
I think we had the similar kind of amount.
I noticed that a couple of cities,
they aren't allowed like in their investment
policy.
It says that they must invest in A and above.
And so I'm just wondering, are there any limits
or restrictions on what staff are investing in
and why the move out of the triple B?
- Thank you through the chair.
So the city of London under the investment policy
in accordance with Municipal Act.
So the restrictions are very, very specific
as to what the city can invest in.
I wish I had the question before,
'cause I could have been able to point
to exactly what that's from.
I'm going to assume that that is part
of one of the consolidated entities that are
investments
'cause the city does not typically invest in
triple B bonds
'cause that's not typically one of the things
that our investment portfolio
and is not part of our investment policy.
So I'm sorry, I don't have the information to
point to
exactly what that entity is,
but those are not investments that is held by the
city
of London noting that this is a consolidated
entity
and would take into account all in the
investments
of the consolidated ABCs that are also part
city of London. Okay, thank you through through
you. That's helpful. Like I said, I understand
the
municipal act doesn't do it, but I did look up
other city's investment policies and they say
A and above and it sounds like we're A and above
as well. And yet we've got boards and
commissions that are less than that. So that's
interesting. I'll be looking into that a little
further. The other thing on the financial
statements was, so in under the credit rating,
it says there was quite a shift in double A
credit rating. So of our fixed income holdings,
in 2024 we had 43 double A, now it's down to 29
percent and yet the A has gone from 34 up to 50.
So for those that don't understand the credit
ratings on the fixed income holdings,
I just threw you to staff would be curious as to
how you monitor that. You know, are there any
concerns. What does it mean to see that that
shift down to the AA fixed income
holdings? Thank you for the chair. My apologies
without the detail behind this
note of where all those numbers are coming from.
It's a little bit challenging to
be able to give you exact information. I'd have
to go back and look at that
information. Certainly at a global basis as we're
looking at our investment
policy sets out where that is.
Most cases, we are investing in government bonds
and things
that are certainly on the higher end.
And one of the things from our investment policy
is to ensure how we monitor that.
And as we're holding them through to the end and
the maturity
dates, there are no losses.
And we're basically monitoring on a regular basis
how those investments are providing those returns
.
So based on the investment report that
was earlier provided earlier this afternoon.
That does set out the returns that have been
forward.
So because it's consolidated, it's a little bit
challenging
to look at the percentages and be able to tell
you exactly
without the numbers in front of me exactly where
those are
with respect to the various boards and
commissions as well
and where those investments are.
But generally through our investment policy,
we are trying to hold the highest grade as much
as possible
and then depending on some of those entities,
we would need to monitor on a regular basis
if there are credit rate changes,
that if there was something that was held
in a particular entity that got downgraded
while we were holding that investment,
we would look to find the right time
to hold that through to maturity
and then sell it at that time
so that we're not selling at a loss
and then would ensure we would not go forward.
So certainly one of the things
that would primarily look at this
is the city's one investment fund
where we have a large proportion of our equity
holdings.
So within that, that is managed through the one
investment
of which the City of London is one of the many
municipalities
that invest in that.
That is primarily where you will have other
very abilities that are there,
that which the city does not have direct control
over,
but which that board monitors what those
investments are
and ensures the proper mix.
So I'm going to garner a guess that the majority
of those
tied to that investment and the city's share but
without the details it's very challenging
but that would generally at a broad level be how
that would happen.
Thank you I appreciate that and appreciate that
you don't have these all off the top of your head
totally understand that and I apologize for not
getting the detailed questions to you earlier.
I guess the only point I want to make is that as
I said at committee the amount in our investment
portfolio is significantly higher than some of
the comparable municipalities. We're about
1.4 or something of our annual budget. Other
municipalities were like 0.3, 0.5, one of
them was 0.8. I obviously didn't do a full scan.
But I think given the amount of money,
$1.8 billion being invested and some of the notes
in the financial statements may be raising
concerns that it sounds like are unwarranted, I
would love to see the investment report come
with those excerpts from the financial statements
with some explanations so
that Londoners who are interested in this kind of
thing and I get that it's not
everybody can see that information transparently.
I didn't pull it. I'm
supportive of everything in here. I just want to
make those points. Thank you.
Okay other speakers to the audit committee report
. Okay seeing none we'll
open that for voting. Let's close in the vote.
Motion carries 12 to 0. Thanks
Councilor Palosa. We're on two added reports.
There's one coming out of the in-camera session
and Councilor Frank, although I gave it to you a
long time ago, is going to read that
out because she's the vice chair of the committee
that the report is linked to. So I'll happy
to present that report. Thank you. The 11th
report of the Council in closed session,
your Council in closed session report, Grand of
Eastman, 1712 Dundas Street, Pottersburg,
phase three sanitary project that as a procedural
matter pursuant to section 239 six of the
municipal act 2001 the following recommendation
be forwarded to council in closed session for
the purpose of considering whether the
recommendation should be forwarded to council for
deliberation
and a vote in public session that on the
recommendation of the deputy city manager finance
supports
with the concurrence of the deputy city manager
environment and infrastructure on the advice
of the director realty services with respect to
the property located at 1712 Dundas street
further described as being part of lot 10 and
part of lot 17 on registered plan number 19
and to be further described by the new reference
plan as shown on the location map as Appendix B
for the purpose of installing a new municipal
infrastructure and connection with the Potters
burg
Phase 3 sanitary project the following actions be
taken a the grant of easement agreement
substantially
in the form as Appendix C submitted by 382672
Ontario limited the transfer to grant and eas
ement
and over the portion of the subject property to
the city
to construct municipal infrastructure
for the sum of $350,000 be accepted.
Subject to the terms and conditions
as set out in the agreement.
And B, the civic administration be directed
to apply the financing for this procurement
as set out in the source of financing report
as Appendix A, that progress is made with respect
to items 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7
as noted on the public agenda.
- Okay, you get to, that's like presenting a
report
So you get to stay.
Is there any, so that's moved by you?
Any discussion on that?
Okay, see none, we'll open that for voting.
- Councillor Hopkins votes yes.
- Councillor for votes yes.
- No, thank you.
Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.
- Okay, deferred matters.
There are none, inquiries.
See none, version of motions that were none
submitted.
We're on to bylaws.
I've got good news and bad news is,
good news is it's the last thing.
Bad news is we have to do 27 separate votes
based on the conflicts and what people ask
to be pulled separately.
So we'll work our way through them.
- You worship, I'm happy to serve as a member for
all of them.
- Perfect, you can move from all.
Councillor Caddy, always reliable to second them
all.
'Cause he's an agreeable guy.
Okay, so we're gonna work through them.
I'm gonna say which ones they are.
So colleagues can decide their votes,
but we're gonna start with, okay.
Someone pulled that separate.
Okay, we're gonna start with the confirming by-
law.
So that'll be the first one moved by Councillor C
utty.
I'll move by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Coun
cillor Cutty.
We'll open the first reading for voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 12-0.
- Okay, and second reading, any debate or
discussion?
Seeing none, same mover and seconder,
we'll open second reading for voting.
- Motion carries 12-0.
- Third and final reading of this,
same mover and seconder, we'll open that for
voting.
- Here is 12-0.
- Next one is gonna be bill 239, which is,
so this one is the contribution agreement
related to Duluth Crescent Block 6, 18,
sorry, 1958 Duluth Crescent Block 6.
Okay, so let's move to seconded
and we'll open first reading for voting.
- Thank you.
Just noting that Councilor Palosa indicated
she needed to leave the meeting.
Marking her as absent, closing the vote.
Motion carries 9-2.
- Okay, and second reading, any discussion?
Okay, seeing none, we'll open second reading for
voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 9-2.
- Okay, third and final reading, we'll open that
for voting.
- Councilor Pribble, Councillor Lewis.
Motion carries 9-2.
- Okay, next one is bill 241,
which is the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement
.
We will use the same over in seconder
and we'll open first reading for voting.
- Motion carries 10-1.
- And second reading, any discussion?
Seeing none, we'll open second reading for voting
.
- Motion carries 10-1.
- And third reading, we'll open that for voting.
- Motion carries 10-1.
- The next one is gonna be bill 244,
which is the by-law to amend
the administrative monetary penalties system,
or bylaw, essentially.
So we'll use the same move in seconder
and we'll open that for voting.
- And carries 10-1.
- Second reading, any discussion?
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Councillor Trussell, thank you.
Motion carries 10-1.
- Third and final reading,
and we'll open third reading for voting.
- Motion carries 10-1.
- Yeah, the next one is bill 257,
which is 2496 Dundas Street East.
We'll open first reading for voting
with the same move in seconder.
- And carries 10-1.
and second reading on this for any discussion.
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- And carries 10 to one.
- Third and final reading, we will open that for
voting.
- And carries 10, one.
- All right, the next one is two, oh, 259,
which is 1057 to 1061 Richmond Street.
We'll use the same, we'll open first reading for
voting.
- And carries eight to three.
- Second reading, and we will look for any
discussion.
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Mr. Stevenson.
- I vote yes.
- No to thank you, motion carries eight to three.
Okay, third and final reading, we're going to
open that for voting.
Carries 8-3.
Okay, the next is bill 260, which is 36 Weathered
Street.
We'll open first reading for voting.
Sir Trussell, carries 9-2.
Second reading, I look for any discussion.
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
Carries 8-3.
Third and final reading of that, we'll open that
for voting.
Carries 8-3.
Okay, next is bill 261, which is 929 Cheap Side.
We will open first reading for voting.
Carries 7-4.
Second reading, is there any discussion?
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
that for voting prayer votes yes noted thank you
motion carries 7 to 4 a third
and final reading we'll open that for voting and
carries 7 for okay the next
motion is everything else that we didn't do so
all the pieces together you want
to 58 separate okay we can do that we just got to
pull it out of the motion
sorry all right now we're gonna do first reading
of 258 which is the one you
just asked for separate the temporary zoning on
the parking lot we'll open
that for voting first reading motion carries 10 1
and second reading any
discussion. Seeing none we'll open that for
voting. Carries 10-1 and third and
final reading of this by-law will open that for
voting. Motion carries 10-1.
Now we're going to try to deal with everything
else. Everybody's good with
that. Okay okay we'll open that for voting all
remaining by-laws. Motion
carries 11-0. Okay second reading any discussion.
Seeing none we'll open that
for voting. Motion carries 11-0. Final reading on
that for voting. Councillor
Luke thank you. Motion carries 11-0. Okay that's
all the by-laws so I'll just
Let's look for a motion to adjourn.
Moved by Councillor Hough and seconded by Coun
cillor Frank.
We can do that by hand.
All those in favor?
Motion carries.
All right.
We're adjourned.