Transcript - Approves Displacing Tower Amid Housing Crisis - London City Council

Approves Displacing Tower Amid Housing Crisis - London City Council - March 3, 2026

Welcome colleagues. I'm going to call the fourth council meeting to order and begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anoshabek, the Hnesoni, the Len Paywok, and the Adawanderan peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all the treaties that are specific to this area. The two row wampom belt treaty of the honosonyi confederacy and silver covenant chain. The beaver hunting grounds of the honosonyi nanfan treaty of 1701. The mcke treaty of 1790. The London township treaty of 1796. The heron tract treaty of 1827 with the anosabic and the dish with one spoon covenant wampam of the anosabic and the hnesoni. The three indigenous nations that are in neighbors to London are the Chipoa of the Tempame's first nation, the Onidita First Nation of the Tempames and the Muny Delaware Nation. All who continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The city of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. And to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda@london.ca or phone 519661 2489 extension 2425. Uh colleagues, before we begin our formal part of the meeting, it is my pleasure to welcome today our anthem singer. Jag Kooligan is a Bahamianb born and now Londonbased recording artist who's made an explosive impact in the Canadian music scene. He has crossed several genres with hip hop utilizing reggae and R&B influences. And since making his way to Canada, he has accomplished many accolades such as the Sony ATV Songwriter Award in 2016, publications in several local newspapers and radio station interviews, and the passionate hip hop artist plans to bring his message and creativity on tour to further spread his positive message through his music. Please rise and join me in welcoming Jag, who will now perform our national anthem. Oh Canada, our home and native land. True patriot love in all of us command with glowing hearts. We've seen thee rise the true north strong and free from far and wide. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. God, keep our land. Glorious and free. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Thank you colleagues. Uh I'm just going to uh begin by stating the obvious. Uh I am not Mayor Morgan. Uh uh I am acting mayor today. Uh as the mayor is in St. John's, Newfoundland for the FCM board of directors. Uh however, I did hear from him an hour ago. Uh he is planning to join us by Zoom. Um it's been an hour, so he should have had time to get screeched in because it is after uh noon in Newfoundland. So uh we'll look forward to him joining us online uh as soon as he's able to do that. Uh I'm going to begin by looking for any disclosures of peerary interest. Seeing none uh then we will move on to item three. Uh that's review of confidential matters to be considered in public. There are none. Item four. Oh sorry I did miss one item. Uh, number two is recognitions and I believe councelor Pribble has a recognition to share with us today. I certainly do. Thank you, chair. And it is truly my great honor to stand in front of you and in front of my colleagues and to all the Londoners to recognize a great Londoner. Sheldon Erin, a businessman, a philanthropist and a universally respected Londoner, passed away on February 20th of this year. Many Londoners knew Sheldon Aaron as the longtime owner of the Lamplighter in a premium meeting hotel and banquet facilities in our city. Others knew him as a residential real estate developer. Mr. Eron's most profound and lasting impact in our city however was as a philanthropist and a charitable volunteer. Almost every charity in the city is better off for if not indeped to Mr. for his support from Hiron University College, the London Y and YWCA, LHSC, the Alzheimer's Society, St. Joseph's Healthcare, the London Property Managers Association, the Museum of Ontario Archaeology, the London Jewish Federation, and too many more benevolent and charitable organizations to mention. Sheldon Erin made a lasting and profound contribution. His legacy of leadership, entrepreneurship, and philanthropy has simply made London a much better place. I would like to extend thanks and sincere condolences from our city council on behalf of all Londoners to the Aaron family on the loss of Sheldon Erin, a man who has truly left a wonderful legacy in our city of London. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Prible. Uh I'm not aware of any other recognitions. So we are going to move on to our next item which is council in close session. Uh we do have some items that we need to move uh in camera in close session for. Uh we will leave for members of the public who uh aren't regulars at our council meeting. We will leave deal with these in another committee room. You're welcome to stay in the gallery. We'll return when those matters have been dispensed with. So I'm going to look for a motion to go in close session. and councelor Van Mirburgen and Hopkins have moved and seconded that. And I will ask clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. The reasons are as indicated on the public agenda. Thank you colleagues. We will move to committee room five for close session. Please be seated. Oh, God. Thank you, Nana. Okay. I will just let everyone know that Mayor Morgan has been able to join us now by Zoom uh from the East Coast. So, welcome Mayor Morgan to the meeting. Uh, our next item is confirmation and signing of the minutes of the previous meetings. Looking for a mover and a seconder. Councelor Van Miran, councelor Cuddy. Any discussion? Seeing none, then we'll ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, that brings us to communications and petitions. So colleague, colleagues, we're going to deal with this in three parts. So first I'm going to look for a mover and a seconder to refer 6.2 through 6.8 uh all of the communications with the exception of the integrity commissioner report and councelor Pelosa's added item. So we'll look to refer those all to the appropriate items in the agenda. Do we have a mover and a second for that? Councelor Hopkins and Councelor Ferrer. Thank you. We'll look to open the vote on that. Councelor Trusso. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 15 to zero. Now we'll deal with item six. This is the communication from the integrity commissioner. The report on code of conduct complaints 2025 04 A, B, and C. And our uh Miss Cowan from our integrity commissioner's office is with us. Uh so I am going to go to you uh to provide a verbal presentation to us on this matter. Thank you very much and good afternoon mayor, deputy mayor and members of council. My name is Megan Cowan. I'm a partner at Ariden Burles LLP. Aiden Burles is the interim integrity commissioner for the city of London as appointed by council. As such, we have jurisdiction to review complaints against members of council made pursuant to the code of conduct. As integrity commissioner, we act as an impartial, neutral, and objective investigator. We neither seek to shelter members from culpability from wrongdoing nor attempt to punish me them when the objective facts do not support a finding of a contravention. We do not work for the municipality. We are an independent statutory officer pursuant to section 223.3 sub1 of the municipal act and we report directly to council. It is in that capacity that we appear before you this afternoon to present our investigative report on the complaints filed against councelor Susan Stevenson under the city's code of conduct. I will provide a detailed presentation with respect to the investigative report. Thereafter, I would be pleased to respond to any questions that members of council may have as to our procedure. I'll begin by providing an overview of our investigation. Our investigation was conducted in accordance with our authority as integrity commissioner under the municipal act, the city's code of conduct and the process and procedures outlined therein. Three formal complaints were filed with our office in accordance with the requirements set out in the complaint protocol to the code. Those complaints variously alleged that the counselor contravened a number of rules of the code in relation to her conduct at the town hall meeting for her W4 constituents held on September 10th, 2025 at the Boille Memorial Community Center and by virtue of comments made to the media with respect to the town hall meeting. Specifically, the complaints alleged that the counselor had moved and touched camera equipment belonging to a member of the audience and asked that individual to stop recording the town hall meeting and had requested that city security staff speak to the same individual to ask them to stop recording or leave the town hall meeting. Now, the individual in question, Mr. Ben Durham, posted an online video on YouTube titled, "I was forced to stop filming a public meeting, legal or not, about the town hall meeting." And I will refer to this as the online meeting commentary, a short from as I've done so in the report. The online meeting commentary appears to have been viewed more than 2,000 times on YouTube and garnered reportedly over more than one and a half million views on Tik Tok. It also generated substantial public interest in the town hall meeting. In the online meeting commentary, Mr. Durham shares video that he recorded at the town hall meeting and describes his interaction with the counselor. This includes a video of the counselor asking him to stop recording. And we did not exceed to the request stopping and moving Mr. Durham's tripod mounted camera while he continued to film and comment on the interaction on his cell phone camera during the meeting. The online meeting commentary also contains video captured by Mr. Durham on his cell phone in which a member of the public advised him that people did not want to be filmed. and finally also captures conversations with an individual identifying himself as a member of city security staff asking Mr. Durham to stop recording the meeting. The online meeting commentary received a lot of media attention. In our report at page two, we cite some of the articles that we were made aware of which reported on the town hall meeting. I will now turn to the investigative process itself. Our office received a large number of communications about the town hall meeting in September and October given the online meeting commentary and the news articles that we cited in our report. Now, a number of the communications purported to be formal complaints but did not actually comprise of proper complaints pursuant to the codes complaint protocol. We believe it's important to offer those individuals wishing to file a formal complaint an opportunity to do so. Accordingly, we held our initial inquiry in obeyance so as to allow and address any complaints that would be received in a collective manner. As we set out in our report, this is not an uncommon practice. Many integrity commissioners utilize such such an approach when there are multiple complaints received on the same incident or similar factual circumstances. In order to ensure that the complaint inquiry and investigation proceeds both effectively and efficiently, we ultimately received three formal complaints which were validly filed pursuant to the code's complaint protocol. Given the similar subject matter of the complaints, we elected to investigate them collectively to ensure that they proceeded efficiently while at the same time ensuring that the counselor was afforded due procedural fairness. As I will describe in further detail shortly, this resulted in us holding the complaints in obeyance until November when we formally issued a notice of the complaints to the counselor. Now, I set out in my report I'm going to briefly touch on uh some of the summary dismissals that we made early on in our investigative process. Our report provides a detailed overview of our decisions at page four. Briefly, we dismissed complaint A in full as no response to our request for particulars was provided despite repeated requests. With respect to complaint B, certain allegations were summarily dismissed as they alleged that the counselor had infringed on an individual's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we set out in our report, we determined that we did not have jurisdiction to inquire into those allegations as we are not a court of competent jurisdiction. Finally, with with respect to complaint C, we summarily dismissed certain allegations alleging that the counselor had made comments to the media that constituted harassment and created an discriminary environment for a citizen journalist. As said in our report at page four, we would determine that the counselor's comments did not rise to such a level as to necessitate an investigation, nor did they contravene rule 7.1 of the code. In particular, we viewed the counselor's comments as containing her opinion, which we could not validate as either being true or false. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Canada. As such, the code must be interpreted in a manner consistent with this right and in a way that provides as broad an interpretation as possible. Now, members can still be exercising their right to freedom of expression and yet be subject to to reasonable limits as set may be set out in law such as a municipal code of conduct. However, in this instance, we did not view the counselor's com comments as rising as to such a level that would constitute a breach. We therefore duly provided notice of the summary dismissals to all three complaintants. And we also provided notice to the counselor of the complaints and of the summary dismissals. In our notice to the counselor, we advised her that we'd be proceeding with an investigation with respect to her conduct at the town hall and whether that conduct contravened rules 2.2 2 2.3 2.4 4.1 5.2 A G and 7.1 of the code and we invited the counselor to make submissions. The council wrote to us and requested a very brief extension to provide her submissions which we duly provided. The counselor ultimately provided submissions to our office that set out in part she had made arrangements to record the meeting for her own accurate record of events. She was not aware of any policies that pertain to this matter. She referenced the integrity commissioner's previous report of December 8th, 2023, by which the city's former integrity commissioner had set out that posting photos of recognizable individuals on social media fell below the standard expected of members of council. Now, in referencing this former integrity commissioner's public findings on her posting, she noted that once she realized the discomfort of some attendees, quote, "I approached Mr. Durham and spoke softly and respectfully. I made requests, not demands." End quote. The counselor asserted that she asked Mr. Durham to turn his camera off, and he replied, "Okay, but then did not do so." She stated that it was only after this that she walked over to turn the camera forward at the wall as a compromise to allow audio to be recorded. However, Mr. Durham followed her in front of the room while recording her and narrating his actions. As a result, the counselor submitted that she requested Mr. Durham leave the meeting, quote, in response to the escalation of what I believe to be quote a behavior of defiance. In her submissions, the counselor also advised us that she received a number of hateful messages as a result of the online meeting commentary, including a threat against a member of her family. And as a result of the media scrutiny over this matter, she advised that she'd make necessary arrangements for future meetings. These submissions in turn were provided to all the complainants. One complainant filed reply submissions and one complainant did not. In conducting our investigation, we duly considered all submissions and documentation provided by the complaintants and the submissions of the counselor in accordance with the city's complaint protocol. This included the complaints, all supporting evidence, including review of the online meeting commentary, and correspondence with city security staff and news articles, the council's sworn submissions, one complainant's reply submissions, correspondence with staff about city's protocols and processes with respect to town hall meetings, and various case law of other integrity commissioners as relevant to the complaint. Given that we held the complaints in obeyance and provided notice to the counselor in November, we duly advised the counselor and the complainants that we anticipated that our investigation would take longer than 90 days pursuant to the requirements in section 7.1 of the codes complaint protocol. These individuals were notified of this in December and we advised them that our investigation would be concluded in due course. I'll now turn to our investigative report itself. As with any investigative report, it distills and synthesizes the facts and issues and assesses them against the framework of the code, makes findings and draws conclusions. Our conclusion based on a consideration of the totality of the evidence submitted to our office is that the counselor did not contravene the code of conduct as alleged. In reviewing the entire matter, we find that the counselor did not contravene the code by virtue of her conduct at the town hall meeting. During our investigation, we made inquiries with staff on the process whereby members of council convene town hall meetings for their constituents. We were advised that no fees charged for the use of this facility. However, we noted that this does not make the town hall meeting a public meeting subject to the requirements of the municipal act 2001, including the open meeting rule and other meeting requirements and formalities. It's our view that as the organizer of the town hall meeting, that individual had the authority to run the meeting as they deemed appropriate and to address perceived disruptions as they considered to be necessary, including for the comfort of the attendees. We also note that each of the complainants provided addresses which indicated that they did not reside in ward 4 of the city. As such, they did not appear to be constituents residing in the counselor's ward. This is not to say that they were not entitled to attend the meeting, but simply to indicate that they were not the core group that the town hall meeting was intended to host. While the complaintants and reply submissions rightly draw attention to the fact that at the meeting the counselor moved Mr. Durham's camera, we found the counselor stated explanation and the video recording of her actions show moved the camera to the front of the room for the state of purpose of not having attendees be recorded. When the issue escalated and was perceived to be detracting from the meeting, she asked city security staff to advise Mr. Durham to either stop recording or leave the meeting. In our view, she was entitled to do so as the organizer of the meeting. She could control the meeting as she considered appropriate. She encountered a difficult situation and attempted to to address it. She appeared to be calm when she spoke with Mr. Durm and requested that he stopped his recording. She also appeared to understand that he would comply with her request, but when he did not, she decided to act on her own and move his camera. Now, while in hindsight this action might be viewed as inappropriate and dismissive, it is our view that the context is important. The counselor sought to find a solution to permit the meeting to continue while also addressing concerns about the recording. That she was clearly frustrated in the moment can be understood given the circumstances. As such, we did not find that the overall comportment of the counselor at the town hall meeting rose to a level that contravene the provisions of the code as alleged and we went through each provision of the code at pages 7, 8, and 9 of our report. With respect to the reporting process itself, we duly finalized our report and submitted it to the city on February 24th, 2026. This was done in compliance with our reporting obligations to the city under the code of conducts complaint protocol section 223 of the municipal act where the integrity commissioner reports directly to council itself and is a standard practice amongst integrity commissioners across the province. The report was subsequently published as part of the agenda for today's public meeting and at that time the report was made public. Our final report was submitted to the city to fulfill our reporting requirements to council as required by the municipal act. A copy of the final report was not provided to any single member of councelor including the counselor or to any person including the complaintants in advance as this would have contravened our legislative obligations as integrity commissioner. We note that section 7.4 four of the city's complaint protocol provides that where a complaint is dismissed other than in exceptional circumstances, the integrity commissioner shall not report to council. In presenting today to you, we wanted to specifically draw attention to this provision. We viewed the circumstances of this matter as riv as rising to the level contemplated in the city's code of conduct given the level of public scrutiny and media attention this matter generated. And we wanted to draw this to council's attention as the investigative process does not always result in a public report in all circumstances. There are many ways in which a complaint process may may unfold and I'll set out a few examples. First, when a complaint is filed with our office, it may be summarily dismissed and the responding member may never be made aware of the allegations because we determined that the facts on their faces alleged did not demonstrate a breach of the code. Alternately, a complaint may be investigated and terminated due to the facts not disclosing a contravention. In such a situation, if a member has been made aware of the process and been involved in it, they will be provided with notice of the termination or summary dismissal on a strictly confidential basis. Alternatively, a complaint may be investigated and it may be found that a member's conduct did not contravene the code and we may still publicly report on the matter if in our view it is appropriate. As I set out earlier, that is expressly such a determination that we've made in the matter before you today. Finally, a complaint may be sustained in whole at which time we would report our findings and make a recommendation to council as any reprimand or penalty. That is not the case before you today. As I set out based on our review of the entire evidentary record and for the reasons set out in our report is our finding that the council has not contravened rules 2, four, five or seven of the city's code of conduct. I'll speak now to the conclusions and our recommendations. As council is the decision-making body for the municipality and is entrusted with enforcing its code of conduct. As we noted, we've investigated the complaint and I produced a report that details our findings and conclusion. We have done so in accordance with our authority, mandate, and jurisdiction with an adherence to procedural fairness to all parties, including the counselor and complainants who exercise their right to file formal complaints. Given that we found no contravention of the code, there is no authority pursuant to the municipal act for council to impose a penalty. This is confirmed by the city's complaint protocol which provides if the integrity commissioner determines that there has been no contravention of the code of conduct or that a contravention occurred although the member took all reasonable measures to prevent it or that a contravention occurred that was trivial or committed through inadvertence or error of judgment made in good faith. The integrity commissioner shall so state in the report and shall recommend that no penalty be imposed. I'd also like to draw council's attention today to the divisional court's decision in Asellay and town of Hawkbury which sets out that a council has no power to excuse me to contest or question the factual findings of the integrity commissioner. Our report is therely merely forformational purposes only. Council has no authority to substitute or question our findings. This concludes my presentation with respect to the investigative report. I will remain present to answer any questions that members of council may have with respect to the process. But as I set out earlier, I respectfully remind council of the court's decision in the town of Hawkbury case I cited and that an integrity commissioner's factual findings are final and council has no authority to question or substitute our findings and that our report is nearly informationational. Thank you very much and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you, Miss Cowan. So before we go to questions and comments, uh I need a mover and a seconder to receive the integrity commissioner report. Moved by councelor Cuddy, seconded by councelor Layman. Okay, so that's on the floor. Now we can move to questions and comments. Councelor Trussau. Um, thank you very much. And through the chair, I have no intention of questioning any of the factual findings, but I am a little confused about a few things. Am I correct in assuming that you made a factual finding that the counselor did touch the personal property of the complainant without his consent? Is is is is that a true reflection of your factual findings, Miss Cowen? Uh, Deputy Mayor, through you. Yes, that is, and that's set out in our report. And furthermore, you did not get to the question of whether or not any damage was done to the to the equipment. You just you just said that it was taken through you, Deputy Mayor, to answer that question. uh that was not raised in any complaints set before us and it was not a live issue in our investigation. Okay. Um my my other question to the chair deals with the matter of uh freedom of expression. You stated that there was a um summary dismissal on the grounds that you do not have jurisdiction over constitutional issues. And I I I think that's what you said and I'll I'll repeat that. Ju just you don't have to answer that. Just correct me if I'm if I'm wrong. Furthermore, you at some other point you indicated that the counselor and all all all members of council are under obligations to follow otherwise what's in the law. Is is that correct? And again, this is not a factual question. This is a legal question. Okay. Uh I will go to Miss Cowan for that. council trust. Although I will remind you we're at council, so I do need you to stand. I'm sorry. Seeing new chair makes me think I'm at the SPC. Uh that's okay. Uh listen, um I forgot to cuz I'm used to chairing SPC, not this one. So, uh but we are council. So, I will ask you to stand. Miss Cowan, if you can respond, please. Certainly. Thank you. Through you, Deputy Mayor. Um the the question really was in two parts and referred to two summary dismissals that we made. The first dealt with there was an allegation in one of the the complaints u brought to us that the counselor's conduct had infringed on an individual's charter rights in the meeting and the way that she addressed and dealt with that individual. And with respect to that allegation, we set out that we had no jurisdiction to find or make a finding about that that individual's charter rights as we were not a court of competent jurisdiction. So, it's separate and distinct from the social media and freedom of expression issue that that I'll touch on briefly, but I just want to set that out very clearly that there was a specific allegation that the counselor had breached an individual's charter rights and we had set out that we that a that individual hadn't raised them with us and we were not uh a competent court that could appine on that individual's rights. The second part of the question related to the freedom of expression comments I made and that was with respect to a separate and distinct allegation made in the complaint that the counselor's um certain comments that she had made to the media contravened um uh an individual's um excuse me and contravened a code of conduct and specifically it contravened section 7.1 and that they were alleged to be harassing or creating an environment that was um not welcoming to a a public um self-proclaimed member of the public acting as a journalist. We in in looking at those allegations made a comment of determination that in our view they didn't rise to such a level as to breach the code of conduct. And I touched there. I I'll bring your attention to pages four and five of our report that goes into greater detail on this, but essentially we noted that all members of council have right of freedom of expression. Um, but that right can be curtailed by the code of conduct. So if comments rose to such a level as to contravene the code, we could have made a finding that they had contravened the code. In this case, we found that the comments themselves did not rise to such a level, especially as they contain the counselor's opinion, which we can neither validate as being true or false. Um, through you, deputy mayor, I hope that answers the questions. It's a bit more nuanced and sort of a a two-part answer. Trusso. Yes. And again, through the chair, I'm not questioning your finding that it didn't rise to the level of etc. What I'm questioning is what I feel is a contradiction between the first statement that we don't have jurisdiction to delve into constitutional questions, but in finding that it didn't rise to the level of violating constitutional rights, you necessarily recognized that that was a matter that you were adjudicating. So I think that there is a I think there is a fundamental disconnect not on matters of fact but on matters of law and the interpretation of your jurisdiction. Is it your position that counselors have at least for purposes of the code of conduct the absolute ability to violate people's constitutional rights and not face uh repercussions under the code of conduct? through you, Deputy Mayor. No, that is not my position or what I've set out in in the materials. We've clearly set out that um as long as the council's comments did not rise to such a level as to violate the code, we would not make a finding with respect to them. So, this does not mean that um a member of council can make any kind of expression, you know, cart blanch. political expression is protected but not such a level that rises to um a level that would breach the code of conduct. There integrity commissioner reports that have set out certain comments like those like in support of slavery for example while it's technically you know a stated public expression um it is one that it would not be provided and and viewed appropriately under the code of conduct and rise to such a level that that uh contravenes the code of conduct. So I want to be very specific here on the questions in that these are two specific areas. I I've with respect to the individual's charter rights the I don't have any authority under the charter to look into those allegations and that's what we set out in the report with respect to the the counselor's rights to make public speech. We acknowledge that she has a right to make public speech, but it can be constrained by the code of conduct if it rises to such a level that would contravene the code. There's a distinction and an element there. Okay. Thank you very much. And I will wrap up. I I've tried to make my point. I can't accept this report as it's written and I I do that very reluctantly because I have the greatest respect for your process and your office and you and what what what you've done. But but I think to say that we cannot look at whether or not there's been a violation of somebody's constitutional right, I just don't think that can be right if we're then going to look at the implications of the violation of that constitutional right in terms of your decision. So I want to be very very specific. My my issue with your report is limited to the the the question of uh re refraining from looking at the the issue of whether or not the complainant's freedom of expression was violated. And I just want to be very clear that I think that is something that cannot be made to go away on jurisdictional grounds. And I want to I want I want everyone to understand that regardless of what the council does with this decision, Mr. uh the the the the complainants the issue of whether or not the complainant's constitutional rights have not been adjudicated here and he is free to continue doing that without any type of collateral estoppel or uh other other type of uh uh binding binding effect. But I I do think we cannot just sort of close our eyes to whether or not a constitutional right has been impacted, especially if we're in a public forum. Whether or not it constitutes a public meeting within the meaning of the uh municipal act, it's still a public forum. And he was told to stop engaging in expressive activity. And I think it's very clear from the facts that you recited, which I'm not questioning, uh, the counselor's conduct resulted in, whether it was intentional or not, uh, the sessation of the complainant's ability to exercise his expressive activity under the constitution. And I'll just leave it at that. Looking for any deputy mayor, if I may, through you, just one point. Miss Cow, I'm just going to take that as comment from the counselor. Um I I I don't want to get into the frankly the two of you cross-examining cross debating one another on the finer points of law. We're just taking that as comment. There was no direct question there and so we're going to leave it at that. Look for other speakers. Councelor Stevenson. Uh thank you. Uh, as as I've stated, you know, it was um I appreciated going through a process that followed our code of conduct. It shows that it is possible and uh I just want to say that I did appreciate that. The um the issue of the recording, I mean, I fully support I being recorded at any point use being used any way that people want to do it. when I wanted to live stream one of my town halls, I was cautioned by civic administration that I couldn't do that, that there were processes that had to be in place in order to do that. And so, I didn't at the time. People are fully like like we know there's cameras going or or uh phones going at any time. One time I invited the media to um one of my town halls and the media was, you know, they're well advertised as to who they are. They also asked me to be sure, was this a public space? Was it, you know, to just triple check that it was okay that they be filming? And I took the opportunity at the front of the room to make everybody aware that the media was there, that if they didn't want to be recorded to please let us know. We would put them in a different section. In this case, uh, I was not a made aware that somebody was going to be recording the town hall. And um when I first saw the camera, I was okay with like I didn't know who they were, but I I just didn't see a problem with it. Then I started thinking about it. I remembered the rules. Uh was wondering if I was breaching anything. Then I had some residents tell me that they were uncomfortable with it. There was an assumption that it was mine. It was not. Uh I also had invited panelists for the first time who I had not asked their permission whether they could be uh filmed and that's that was more important to me the residents that that were there to listen and discuss on topics for which it is very uncomfortable for people and there is a lot of retaliation online that puts people's livelihoods and businesses and family and security at risk. I I appreciate the report. I appreciate the learning in this. Um, as far as I know, we've got some policies in place as a city now to preemptively um have practices in place for town halls that cover us from the civic administration point of view. And then I appreciated in this report the fact that it says that I have the right as an organizer to address issues that arise and uh the discomfort or the comfort of the people who are there and the people who are there have a right as well to speak about the concerns that they are living with on a daily basis. Concerns for which there is a lot of ret retribution at times. And I have done everything that I can since I've been elected to create a safe space for people to speak, those who oppose me, those who things want to say things that I oppose. And I've encouraged the audience and the people to come and be with each other and to hear opposing views in a respectful place, in a respectful way. And it has worked well up until this meeting. And when I make a request and someone answers me and says that they're going to do something and they don't and I address it in different ways uh without being able to address the issue and at the same time I'm respectful of the people who've come to discuss the issues and listen to the panelists that I had there. So I just want to be clear that as a as a politician you can record me, you can put me on TikTok, you can get millions of views. That's all fair and good. I have a responsibility as a leader and an organizer of an event to protect the people who come and who listen and want to participate in a free and open space where they their rights are protected as well. And that's something that we may still need to figure out and talk about how do we balance those rights and I'm open to working with civic administration and my colleagues going forward. But I do appreciate this report and uh the process through which uh our protocols were uh respected. Thank you, Councelor Stevenson. Looking for any other speakers before I call the vote. Councelor Pelosa. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer, Acting Mayor. Um, followed this one with uh, I would say great interest having watched the video online and waited for this report, uh, realizing we fill a really unique role within our communities. Um, and I hold my own opinions when I host a board town hall meeting. It doesn't matter to me what residents come, which resident trumps another resident. They are all London taxpayers. And for me, I never considered one of my public town halls to be a private meeting. Um, realizing how we host things here at the city and when the city civic administration do popup meetings for different engagement. Um, I do appreciate the report and on page 17, you know, acknowledging that the counselor's husband was recording and if people didn't know that was her husband and arranged ahead of time, they absolutely might have questions of who is this person? Why can they record and not me? Um, a question through you to staff. Um, page 17 is outlining um, our direction to corporate security to intervene with it. Uh I did watch the recording of some residents forming a a human chain in front of the person recording. Um looking for confirmation for you. Do we have who controls corporate security at our events? Is it under their discretion of how they've been trained or counselors have that opportunity to direct them to engage with residents as we see fit? So or to the IC whoever can well direct it. I I want to caution that I don't think the IC can opinion on on which staff direct corporate security, but I also want to caution that we are on an IC report, not on internal policies. Um, I'm going to allow a little leeway and ask Mr. Latiser if he can respond briefly, but I need us to stay on topic, which is the IC report and not on internal policies. Mr. Latasur through the uh the chair I can say that uh corporate security is looking at how we move forward uh with uh with this uh information um from an internal perspective. Um obviously each uh each meeting presents unique challenges. Um so obviously that's something we have to take back. Generally our staff uh take direction from whoever's running the meeting. uh but uh in the event that there's an immediate uh safety concern then uh corporate security would intervene. Um so that's what I can say for now but we are reviewing uh how we move forward. Thank you counselor. Thank you. Uh more precise followup then of page 20 section uh 51. In conclusion, in light of the tensions generated by the recording of the town hall meeting, in our view being the integrity commissioner's view, it'd be prudent to identify protocols for future town hall meetings whereby there is clarity on how much meetings will be run and whether individuals will be permitted to record any such meetings. Um, looking for you since the IC is with us today if they could elaborate on that a little bit or if our staff would be able to walk us through the process. I certainly don't have a motion prepared today of what what better policies and process would look like coming back to council, but definitely that um for counselors and members of the public that we both know uh the direct lines and next steps. Miss Cowan certainly through you um chair that comment was made in light of the the media scrutiny surrounding this issue and that there appeared to be uncertainty about the processes and protocols. As integrity commissioner I can't speak to city processes, procedures, um policies. I I'm not the lawyer for for the city, but that comment was made given uh in view of and in light of our investigation, what we saw in terms of the uncertainty surrounding some of these issues. We wanted to draw it to all of council's attention, which is what we intended to do by paragraph 51 of the report. Councelor Ploa, thank you. I appreciate the report looking for transparency and accountability on this is um we still use taxpayer funded time to do it and we welcome residents and just making sure that we can all do so across the board. So regardless of what meeting a resident goes to or what counselor is hosting independently or jointly that we know our expectations. Thank you. Any other speakers? Can I make a point of order? You can make a point of order counselor. Is it possible to I've already spoken so I'm not going to talk to the merits but is it possible to pull out a paragraph and say vote on that separately because I cannot accept paragraph 26. No, that point of order is not in order. The report as a whole has to be received or not. Okay, councelor Ferrer. Thank you, Chair. Um, so I see we're talking about kind of two different issues here. We're talking about whether there was a violation of our code of conduct and I've seen the debate kind of touch into whether there was a violation of someone's charter of rights and freedoms, freedom of expression. And I do see from the conversation um or what was um um presented to us from the IC um that they're not able to ru uh rule on a breach of charter rights or freedom of expression. They're able to rule and look into whether we breached our code of conduct. And I do see that there was uh a good questioning from council trusso on whether that uh freedom of expression could be I guess restricted or inhibited by uh the code of conduct. So I would point that out. Um I do see the IC has said that there has been no violation with the code of conduct sections 25 hopefully I wrote this right uh right 47.1 but it does seem that there was a freedom of expression violation here um and I do see that um you know political expression is protected but it's not absolute and I would point that out we are not protected with absolute uh privilege we are protected with a qualified privilege and that qualified privilege should be shown uh to be made with no intention or no malice uh involved or anything like that. And and I do see that, you know, just watching the video, um there were some areas that maybe weren't captured because I do see in the video that the counselor did maybe try to turn off the camera or do something with the buttons on the camera. I'm not sure. I wanted to know if the integrity commissioner looked into that part because I do see that there was comments that the camera was turned away so the audio could still be recorded but I wanted to know if there was any look into the touching of the buttons on the camera and what was the intent on that. So, I will go to the IA on this once, but I think that this has already been addressed in that they looked into they did not look into any property damage or tampering. They just looked at the the camera being moved. But, Miss Cowan, um, I think you've answered this, but but I'm going to allow you to a brief response on this again, but I'm just going to caution colleagues that I'm not going to entertain the same question to the IC over and over from multiple speakers. Miss Cowan. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Through you, uh, a report sets out that the allegations were that the camera was moved and touched. So, both elements were, uh, raised with us, reviewed, and investigated, and commented on on our findings in the report at pages 4 through 7. Councelor Ferrer. Okay. Thank you. So, much like councelor Pelos's comments, you know, when I have a town hall, I open it for everybody. I don't just have a select few of individuals that are able to attend or record. As far as I'm concerned, as a political official, as a as an elected official, I assume that everything is being recorded at all times and that is just part of as part of the gig. Um, so I I I I respect the comments of councelor Pelos on that one. I would say that I do think that we should always be creating a safe space um when we're having a public forum, especially when it's being paid for by the tax dollar. And I do believe that when we have a town hall or any type of open forum that is supposed to be accessible to everybody in the city. Um I do see that there's some restrictions here on how the integrity commissioner can uh look into matters like this because it seems like we were really restricted with our code of conduct. Um I will say that you know creating a safe space like I have been called chicken little online before and I don't think that really creates a safe space now. That's part of the gig. Um but at the same time I would rebut some of the comments that I've heard when it comes to creating a safe space and really trying to make sure and promote that really exists. I have seen uh a lot of issues with some of the real um levels of transparency and I do see some restrictions on real accountability and I do want to see transparency accountability but I don't just want that to be just words. I'd like to see that be turned into actions. Um, so I I do have a little bit of concerns of some of the comments that I've heard on the reasoning why of what we saw what we saw. Um, so this kind of leaves me in a weird position because I I I respect what the integrity commissioner uh can and can't do. But at the same time, I just want to put it on the public record that this has nothing to do with the freedom of expression or a charter right violation. A charter right violation can only be really seen by within the courts. Um the integrity commissioner it cannot absolve whether this was a charter right violation itself. Um it can say that there was no breach of the code of conduct. Um but I would I just want to put on the record that there could be a charter of right violation here and the only real person that can actually oversee and make a decision on that would be the court of law. Thank you councelor for any other speakers before we call the question. Seeing none, I'm going to ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 14 to 1. Uh so that was uh uh in your package. Uh the counselor's communication is there. It's a personal update from her. Um the councelor does have a motion to move uh with respect to that as she's indicated. Uh the mayor has issued a a strong mayor direction as well in terms of committee chairs um to help accommodate this. So before we can proceed, we need to uh pursuant to section 20.1 of the procedure bylaw, we need to seek leave for councelor Pelosa to move a motion related to her communication. This does require 2/3. So I see councelor Frank and councelor Layman moving and seconding uh the request for leave. And if I have no speakers, I will ask clerk to open the vote. closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Councelor PLOA leaves granted. The floor is yours. Thank you. Um I want to thank councelor Roman for stepping up to take on CAPS. It is not a light committee. Lots happening there. and councelor McAllister for stepping up to serve as uh the chair of ICSC. With councelor Ramen moving over, um I'm asking that you receive my correspondence. Uh the mayor has always already used strong mayor directives to make those two uh chairs, thus opening up a position on IC that I would like to fill as I still remain chair of audit and budget, but still like a standing committee uh to be part of. Um assuming I'll mostly be virtual from here, but uh looking for your support to fill that speak seat with my name. Thank you. Thank you, councelor PLA. So the motion in escribe is that councelor e pelosa be appointed to the infrastructure and corporate services committee for the term ending November 15th, 2026. It being noted that municipal council dated March 2nd from councelor Pelosa with respect to this matter. Uh so that's been moved and seconded. Uh councelor Frank and councelor Layman again. So that's on the floor. Any discussion? This is with regard to the appointment. Councelor Trusso, this is simply a question. Um, does does this mean you're no longer serving as a member of uh community and and protective services committee because I think that could be stated in in there for clarity. Uh, that is correct. Uh, councelor Pelosa will no longer serve on community and protective services. Her position there was as a result of the mayor's appointment as chair. With the mayor removing her as chair, replacing her with councelor Ramen, councelor Pelosa is no longer a member of the community protective services committee, hence her request to be appointed to infrastructure and corporate services. Yes, I and I I think I think that's right. Well, I I think that process is is is right. I'm wondering if the motion might be clearer for members of the public who might be wondering if we have an extra person on the committee. Should it say and she is no longer a member of the committee as a result for clarity that would be captured in the strong mayor direction which is accessible to the public online. Um my my point is that without without getting into the technical details of what documents incorporate by reference other documents that are available online, it it might it might just be clearer for the public trying to understand our process if it just included that extra little sub clause. And yes, you're quite right that if one wanted to look at the intric intricacies of the strong mayor powers and what by virtue happens when those are exercised, you're absolutely right. But why don't we just write into the motion and as a result she is no longer a member of the caps committee and I think it would just assist the public in trying to sort out what's going on here and I would request that that be added to the uh motion. I also move councelor it can be added as in it being noted in checking with the clerk. So it being and what would the language be? Uh it being noted that councelor Pelosa will no longer be serving on the community and protective services committee. That would that would take care of my concern. Thank you. Okay. Is there a second for that? Councelor Ferrer. Okay. Uh Mayor Morgan, I saw your hand go up before the amendment. Is this on the amendment or do you want to wait? Yes. No, it was on uh uh councelor Troau's concern. Okay, go ahead. Yes. uh given the uh direction and and I made the direction at the request of of councelor Ploza when she uh wanted to um uh step down as chair um given the the direction I set uh basically caused the series of events that lead to the request today for simplicity and I would ask through you to the clerk can we just attach the maril direction to the council motion as it like it's being noted but can you just make it part of the public I mean it's public record cuz is posted but you know we just attach it to it and then everything would be there. I'll leave it with you. Okay. The advice of the clerks is no. That's why he listened to the clerks. Yes. Okay. On the amendment only. Any other questions or comments? So we'll open the vote on the amendment to add the closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to1. Okay, so we are on the main motion as amended. Any other speakers before we vote? Seeing none, then we'll open the vote. closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. That will complete the communications and petitions portion of our meeting. Uh moving on, notice motions of which notice is given. There are none. That brings us to section eight which is reports and I will turn to councelor layman to present the fourth report of the planning and environment committee. Uh thank you chair and please put the fourth report of the planning environment committee on the floor. Um I'm have request to pull numbers 10 11 and 13. Okay. So, would you like to uh make a motion to move the rest? Uh, yeah. So, I'd like to move uh items 1 through 9, 12, 14, 15, and 16. Okay, those items are on the floor. Any discussion? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Councelor Layman. Um, thank you. I'll move uh number 10, which is 550 Ride Out Street North and 8290 Ken Street. Okay, that's been moved. And Councelor Frank, you have circulated an amendment. Would you like to rise and introduce that? Sure, I'd be happy to. I'm not sure if you need three separate motions or just one all together, but um be nicer to do it all together, but I'll leave it up to you. Okay. On the advice of the clerk, you can move all three at once. Wonderful. And would you like me to read them out loud? If you could, please. Sure. Okay. So, the first being a direction to site plan authority. So a the site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following issues through site plan process. I provide a landscape design including a minimum 50% native species with no invasive species planted. I I investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof of the building. I I investigate air source heat pump options. IV utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard. Then the second being adding direction regarding tenant location so that the motion be amended to add a new part C to read as follows. C that the applicant be requested to prepare a tenant relocation plan specifically addressing matters set out in the communication on the added council agenda dated February 25th 2026 from Aufon president of York Developments and the third being add and it being noted regarding the park. It being further noted that the applicant has indicated in the communication on the added council agenda dated February 25th, 2026 from ASUN, President York Developments that they are proposing a privately owned public space pops at 565 Right Out Street North and at such time when the site plan is submitted for 550 Ride Out Street North, the park at 565 Ride Out Street North should be included as part of the site plan and part of the overall development agreement process. And I can speak to it if I have a seconder. And the chair has already indicated he'll second that for you. So, if you'd like to speak to it, go ahead. Sure. Um, so I want to explain my decision-m process because, uh, this took a little bit of a pathway for me. Uh, I attended the planning committee meeting, but I did not speak at that time. But when the application first came forward, I was not in favor of it moving forward. Um, for me at the time, the drawbacks to the application outweighed the potential benefits. And my primary concern being the um approximately 30 units currently living on site, many of whom are paying rents between $1,000 to $1,500 range, which is um as we know below market rate. I was also concerned about the deficiency in green space and whether the proposal was sufficiently balancing the private development return with public benefit. Um, since then we have seen as on the added agenda, York Developments has submitted a letter outlining additional commitments and um, the work that I did with this motion was to actually include that in the motion. So that was part of the official record and process. Um, they're offering relocation plans either to a comparable unit at a similar price point either downtown or somewhere else in the city. Um, some of their units they have are between $1,000 to $1,500. So it' be able to be a lateral move. Um those units are some of them are new, some of them are current. Um so there's a lot of variety for tenants and I called to confirm that they actually had available units and they said they had about uh 60 to 70 available within their large portfolio. Additionally, folks would be um given $10,000 if they wanted to instead uh move out and move somewhere else. Um for the folks who are staying and relocating, they would still get the required 3 months rent for leaving which would assist within moving costs. U so I also consider that to be um somewhat beneficial given the cost of moving as well. Um they've committed to delivering a privately owned publicly accessible park on adjacent prop property. So for folks just across the street they own a parcel of land and they have agreed to putting a park on that which would be available actually to the general public. And as we know downtown in my opinion does not have sufficient park space and they've committed to adding um some small play facilities as well as benches. And I think that this would actually be an asset to downtown because we lack park space and it would be provided without the need for public funds. So those two commitments have meaningfully addressed my earlier concerns about tenant displacement and green space. And while no redevelopment is without impact, these measures demonstrate an effort to mitigate them. Additionally, I've included in site plan direction many green measures. Folks are familiar. I add these to a bunch of different planning applications although um not recently so maybe getting back into the thick of it but you can see in regards to native species uh renewable sources air heat pump heat pumps and bird friendly policies. So uh additionally I think that will improve the building composition as a whole. U the remaining tension for me still is the loss of relatively affordable units um which is kind of at odd some days with our clear policy to encourage infill and intensification and I don't consider it to be a simple trade-off. I think we have to uh protect affordability wherever possible. But at the same time, we have consistently said that growth belongs downtown. And I think if we're serious about intensification and supporting our transit system and strengthening our downtown, infill in the downtown area, I think is where it is appropriate. Uh I do understand that this specific parcel is allowed to go up to 15. Just on the other side of the street, so just south of this property, can go up to 22. Um, but then just south of that on the same block of ride out, it can go up to 45. So, I understand it's not in that 45 zone. Um, but I think that's why they're coming forward for a ZBA. And I do think 30 stories is appropriate and consistent with the broader planning framework for the area. So, after outlining all those pros and cons um and reflecting on my commitment to intensification, uh I think with the the additional commitments and including them into the motion, I am supportive of this application overall at this point. Thank you, Councelor Frank. I have councelor Layman next on the list. Uh thank you. And I want to thank councelor Frank for uh doing the work here and um uh improving uh this particular application with some some unique features. Uh first of all addressing the concerns we heard at PEC uh regarding uh the folks that that live uh currently in that space. um which I was pleased to see. Um the the owner responding with finding comparable spaces or better uh at the same rent and lease um terms that they currently uh have or at their option a $10,000 payout plus uh the added uh that counselor mentioned. I also kind was really um interested in in the concept of a private park. Um, I think this is a a unique thing that uh we haven't I don't I can't recall seeing uh downtown. And it brings to mind what we see uh in the other London uh London, England, where there's a number of these smaller um privately owned parks um that allow for green space uh in a higher density uh big city. Um and finally with the the uh you know the the um added for native species etc. Why can't we uh have a properly designed um development even though it's tall? Why do we have to lose those things? Uh we can we can have it as well as we do in other uh building applications. Uh so I definitely support this. Thank you councelor Layman. Looking for other speakers on the amendment. Councelor Ferrer. Thank you, Chair. So, I guess the first thing for the site plan, um, this would have to be across the street because there's no room on the site as it is because, you know, there's the setbacks are minimal. Um, it's just it's it is too big. I've said this again and again for the tenant relocation part. Now, I would say codifying this, does that make a difference? um because the proponent has already said that publicly that they will be relocating the tenants and having a plan. So if this is something to kind of make this more digestible, I would say this is unnecessary. Um I would say what do the tenants have to say? Um because the tenants for relocation, they may want to stay in place. They may have jobs in the area. It may cost more to move out further out and find other ways of transportation to those jobs there. they may have kids who goes to school in the area, which they do. Um, that will still be an impact on them. Like, if this was something that we wanted to move along and codify it, I would say push it a little bit further and not only have a relocation, but it should be a temporary relocation during a build, which I'm still not going to support the application as it is, but it should be a temporary relocation and then a replacement in the same spot. And maybe that replacement should be with some type of agreement where we would still treat those tenencies under rent control. So they would be able to stay in place and still be able to maintain that rent controlled affordable housing and they would have that confidence in that. Um I would also say we're still going to lose affordable housing here. You know the demolishing of these units will lose affordable housing. If we move people from that housing into another area into other affordable housing, not only are they going to be have having to be displaced, but we're still losing that affordable housing. So there's still issues here. And again, what do the tenants have to say? Um, I would I would just wonder if there is if there is a a some issues or concerns whether the proponent is going to follow through with what they said publicly by codifying this and and I would I would just think that, you know, this is not a necessary thing. Um, I will speak to the application uh when it comes up, I guess, on as amended. I'm not going to not support this, of course, but at the same time, I don't think it's necessary. I would say the site plan has to be across the street. The the building is just too big. There's no room. There's no room for anything uh when it comes to native species, no invasive species planted. I appreciate that, but we just don't have the room there. Um and I would say again, what do the tenants have to say? Because at the same time, no matter what, if we support this application, um we are going to lose the affordable housing. It should be a temporary relocation and a replacement in the same spot. That would be better, I think. Any other speakers on the amendment? Councelor Trusso. Question on the amendment. Could the site plan authority be requested be changed to the site plan authority shall be directed? Mr. Matherthers uh through the chair. So that's not um an option. Uh this is a delegated authority to the site to the approval authority. So you can provide recommendations or or uh request that that be considered. but uh the authorities with that individual. Um because that's what as per council's direction, councelor Trusso. So do I understand it that if I made such a motion to substitute those words, it would be out of order. That is correct. Then I won't take people's time to make that motion. But I will point out there is nothing binding here. We're requesting the site plan authority to do something. And even if they do it, they're requesting the owner to do it. Uh my next question is supposing the site plan authority agrees to engage in this process. Is there anything binding in this resolution regarding the uh the owner's obligation to follow through on the promises that were made legally binding? Mr. the mayors uh through the deputy mayor. Um as far as the site plan approval components here, there isn't anything that's necessarily legally be binding. Um the site plan approval portion is just the C part. So those are the items related to site plan approval authority. Um and then that additional section, it would just really be um based on the comments made by the the uh developer at the time and uh through that letter. But there isn't anything that we can do from a a planning process and a planning act perspective to actually enforce that or force those things to happen. Thank you. Um and sorry, Council Truss, just before I I go back to you there. Um Mr. May, there's um I'm just going to ask you on followup to like to further expand on your answer that direction was lost when bonusing was removed by the province. Is that accurate? Just ju just asking you to confirm. There used to be an ability, but that was removed uh through the deputy mayor. Absolutely. There used to be an ability to be able to provide and and compel affordable units, but that has been removed from uh some changes in provincial legislation. Thanks, councelor. Thank you. Well, I'll save my diet tribe about how the province did a real injustice to municipalities by taking that bonus thing away because I'd probably be out of order, so I won't say that. Um, okay. here. Here I am with this. I'm going to vote no on this project because there's nothing in these nice things. These uh these non-obligatory nice things that are binding. Uh these are things that should have been brought forward before, but maybe we didn't even have the authority to do it. Uh for me, this points to a lot of uh deficiencies not only in provincial law, but in uh the city's uh demolition control bylaw and other things that are beyond this motion. So, I won't go into detail on um however, I'm going to support the amendment, but I'm going to support it really reluctantly cuz I don't really think that it provides the level of protection that not only the tenants in this building, but the neighbors and the city and the city's process deserves. So, I don't want to say it's meaningless. That would be too harsh, but it's not meaningful. It's not substantially meaningful. And I will support I will support this. I I appreciate the counselor trying to make this a little less worse than it than it than it could have been, but it's still like worse. And I'll save the rest of my comments for the uh main motion where I'll be opposing this application. Thank you. Well, councelor, if it's any consolation, rather than having to rule you out of order, I'm always happy to share diet tribes about provincial or federal uh concerns over a pint after a meeting. But uh I appreciate you restricting it uh in the meeting. Um and I'm looking for any other speakers. Councelor Ramen. Uh thank you. and through you and in a similar vein I guess. Um I just wanted to ask about the it being further noted part where it connects to site plans uh whether or not or how that is interpreted taken forward and addressed Mr. Mathers or Miss McNeely on the it being further noted uh through the deputy mayor. So, uh, we would of course take that into consideration as it's it's a part of a council resolution and that we want to to try to honor the, uh, requirements that been set forth. Um, we would really be relying on the applicant to pursue some of these that this park idea and this item. So, we would help them, of course, through that process. Help them through that process. But, uh, there again, there's no way for us to compel that, but we would work with them on that option. And I'm just wondering before you sit down, Mr. Mathers if in terms of the implementation piece it's the reg it would be the registering of a public easement over private lands for the establishment of such a parkland is that correct uh through the deputy mayor so there might be a few different aspects but that would be one for sure council ramen uh thank you and you so I'm sorry just in the last part of that where you said that there was an easement portion So, can I get more clarification on that please? Miss McNeely or Mr. Mayers, whichever one of you wants to take that one. Thank you. Through the deputy mayor. Yes, that's correct. There there would be reciprocal agreements and um easements over both the 550 ride out street as well as the 565 ride out street. those would be um um elaborated on through the development agreement but uh that would ultimately be registered on title. So then but we have to get to that process and uh and so there may be um uh the liability on the owner the property owner to take on for insurance and things like that for the public entering onto the property but that's not the city's responsibility. It would remain with the um the land owner. Councelor Rowan. Uh thank you and through you. So uh I want to say first I appreciate the work done by the counselor on this. Um and uh I understand the rationale for what's in front of us. Um my challenge is that I don't believe that we have the tools available to enforce D. Um nor do I feel that we have enough of an ability to really uh enforce the it being noted either. Um, with respect to the easement portion of the discussion, why can't the it being noted be a conditional clause where the the site plan authority can't grant unless it's these things are met. Ms. McNeely. Thank you. Through the deputy mayor, uh, what's before council is dealing with a zoning bylaw amendment, not a site plan. So at this point that's why we have to focus on the zoning and it's not a conditional zoning. Um there are matters for the site plan approval authority to consider which are outlined in clause C but the request for the p uh the private park would be a separate request the obligation on the applicant to follow through once the site plan is submitted. then we could tie those parcels together through that process but as part of the zoning application we don't have that mechanism counselor thank you and through you so I guess my issue here is that this part again does not feel like it's firm enough for us to stand on in a way that compels action and it sounds actually uh in my opinion rather um difficult to actually uh construct and put together and instead of creating um opportunity for our staff to work with the developer through the site plan process, I feel like some of this may be things that that over complicate the issue and we're doing that to fit uh a larger floor plate and a larger building in place. So, I understand the rationale and I appreciate my colleagues doing this work. Um, but for for D and the it being noted, I couldn't support either. So, I'd like those called separately. Okay. We can have the clerk separate C and D and it being noted into two separate votes. That's not an issue. Uh, Councelor Hopkins, I have you next. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I um I want to thank the counselor for doing her due diligence trying to make a uh some kind of a uh a consensus for council to support this application. I want to thank the developer as well for bringing forward to um um you know supporting tenant location but we have absolutely no tools through the site plan process to make sure that this goes forward. So I'll support the amendment. I'll speak further on the main um motion, but uh I I I feel that we're not at council thinking this through and supporting the community as a whole and our policies. We're we're just sort of doing this with with no followup, no no uh community participation through this process, which will, if this goes forward, drastically change this area. So, I'll support the amendment and I'll uh speak further to the motion. Thank you, Councelor Hopkins. Um I have Mayor Morgan next on the list. I am however going to just caution counselors now that there has been a public process through the public participation meeting at the planning and environment committee. So uh I want to reflect that we have followed the legally required public participation process uh under the planning act of the province of Ontario. Mayor Morgan, you are next. Uh yes, thank you chair. And not only uh have we done that, uh I believe the uh the application has been strengthened through that public process based on the uh concerns raised uh the work that council Frank has done uh and the proposed amendments before us today. Uh listen, I you know, I'm happy to join you when you want to talk about um section 37 bonusing. Um but it doesn't exist anymore. And so, you know, what alternatives do we have? We have the alternatives like the one that's before us. And is it perfect? And is it 100% binding? No, it's not. But what you have is a letter uh on the agenda that says we're willing to do these things. It's very clear and transparent at a public meeting what they're offering to do. Um I'm sure the applicant and and their um staff are watching this meeting and seeing what council's expectations are and they bring a lot of applications through council. So, you know, if we don't have the uh legislative tools to enforce, uh that doesn't stop us from working with an applicant to get some community tradeoffs for increased uh heightened density through the process that councelor Frank has has pursued. And I think that that is fair for us to try. Uh it won't be binding, but it is the best we can do in the interm. So, I'm going to support the amendments. I think that the work is good. I think the changes are great. Uh and I think it makes the application better. So, uh so that's where I'll be voting today. I will support the amendment and because of the amendment I'll support the application as well when we get to that debate. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Any other speakers on the amendment before we call the vote? And we will call it separately uh per council ramen's request. We will deal with clause C and the four bullets under that before we move to clause D and the it being further noted. Seeing no other speakers, I'm This is not a public participation meeting. This is a council meeting. So, I'm going to have to ask you to please take your seat back. It's not a public participation meeting. The ma'am, I'm going to have to ask you to leave if you can't remain quiet. Okay. I'm going to ask the clerk to open the vote, please. This is on clause C. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay. Right. Now on clause D uh from Councelor Frank and councelor Layman. Uh this is the uh D the relocation plan and the being noted on the parkland. And we'll ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. Okay. So, the main motion as amended. Councelor Layman, you move the original motion. You're happy to remain on as the mover. Councelor Frank, are you willing to second? Okay. So, we have Layman and Frank on the main motion now as amended. And I'll look for speakers. Councelor Ferrer. Thank you. So, as was said, that amendment is not binding. Um, it does point to deficiencies. It is some good PR, but it's not enough to carry a vote here. I don't see how this changes anything. Obviously, I'm going to support it, but I Okay, I'm not going to say it's meaningless, but it's not meaningful enough. And I did hear some points about um across the street at Ken Street it's 22 stories. That's correct. It's on the periphery of the downtown place type in the core the TSA 5 zone that's 45 but that's a TSA 4. Can I go to Miss McNeely and just confirm that? What is the the height limit across the street of Kent? Miss McNeely. Thank you. through the deputy mayor uh under the TSA 4 zone directly across the street. It's 22 stories. Council Ferrer, thank you. 22 stories. This is 30 plus one. I did hear from the mover on the last amendment that uh on the other side of write out it was 45 stories. What's the height limit of that area? Miss McNeely. Sorry. Could you through the deputy mayor? Could you repeat the question? Uh, don't count that towards my time, please. Um, what's the height limit on the other side of Ride Out through the deputy mayor? Um, it's a varying height from uh from the existing zoning today, four stories up to about 12 stories. Councelor Ferrer. Okay, I got to clarify that on the record. It's not 45. Point of order. Councelor Frank, thank you. I said just further south along Ride Out is 45 stories. Not on the other side of Ry Out. Thank you, Councelor Frank. That's technically a point of personal privilege to clarify your remarks, not a point of order, but recognized. Councelor Ferrer, go ahead. I appreciate that clarification. That just goes to my point because we're on the periphery of the downtown place type. So now we're going to have zoning and we did all this work on how the intensity and height should be and it's supposed to go down and then we're going to have one big tower and then it's going to continue to go down. It doesn't fit within our planning policies. I would also say I wish I saw something like this for the Kent Street apartments because there was 11 households displaced there. I heard nothing. Um the city and the people of London want us to listen to them. They want to know that their council is fighting for them, that their council is holding to their word when it comes to saving supportive or affordable housing, when it comes to making sure that the city is affordable, when it comes to good planning, when it comes to good governance, and when it comes to making decisions that are within the public interest. I don't think I've ever seen a planning report, maybe I'm wrong, say that the proposal, as it is, does not constitute good planning. I don't think I've ever seen a planning document, a planning report say that the proposal as it is is not in the public interest. So, I'm just wondering this what we see here, the amendment doesn't change anything. The proponent has already said that they're going to do this and I hear that this is enough to sway us towards supporting the proposal as it is. I don't understand. I don't hear anything uh I don't hear anyone saying we need to speak to the tenants or we need to speak with staff. You know, staff did give us a pathway to approval. We're not talking about that. We're just talking about supporting a building that is way too big for the site that is there. We see a report that says it's going to push services out onto the public space. We see the report also saying that it is not going to be conducive to the walkability. I'm not using the words specifically, but it alludes to that. It does say things about how the frontage is going to be, if it's if it's friendly to to people walking along on the space. It's just completely out of proportion for the area. And these amendments aren't enough to to push us into supporting this. We should we go back to the proponent and say we have a concern of a loss of affordable housing, a real concern. And if we don't want to see that loss of affordable housing and we're trying to find a way of compromise, we should say temporary relocation. If you have to demolish the building, bring those people back to the building. bring those people back to the site and make sure that they're still within a rent controlled agreement and framework so they don't have to worry because in that case we're still going to lose the affordable housing but at least we're not taking over other affordable housing elsewhere and in that case we're not moving people away from where they live like this is about where people live this is about people's homes this is about their livelihoods and I think council said to this there's a real human cost here and I don't see that being discussed enough. So, I really would like to see us really use our staff's expertise, really use what says what what is said in the report and take that direction. 30 seconds, councelor. So, I would say the city of London and the people are not going to accept this amendment as a reason to support this application. It's not binding. It's already been said it's going to be done and we're not pushing hard enough. We're not fighting hard enough for London. So that's what I would say to you. Don't support this application. Thank you. Councelor Ferrer. Looking for any other speakers. Councelor Trussau. Well, thank thank you very much. This will be my last word on this uh on this matter. It'll be the last time we look at this. I guess I have a question for staff and I want to go back to your original staff recommendation. If if we adopted your original staff recommendation and that was challenged at the tribunal, would we have a sustainable position or is the original staff recommendation a frivolous position that will be struck down in your view? And I I know I'm asking you for somewhat of an opinion here in terms of what's likely to happen, but do you think your staff recommendation is viable and sustainable at the level of an appeal? So, I'm not going to ask staff to speculate on what they feel they could or could not achieve at the Ontario Land Tribunal. We do not have staff here to engage in a position on debate with us or or to answer speculative questions. You will have to make that judgment yourself, counselor, based on the knowledge you have. In that case, my next uh question is to direct the same question from a legal point of view to the city solicitor. And if you want to go into close session to talk about whether you think the uh staff the staff recommendation would be viable on appeal, uh I think it's something that uh we need we need to hear cuz I don't think the staff would put forward a recommendation that is reckless and not viable. I will go to Miss Plet to see if she wants to provide any public response to uh OOLT processes. Uh thank you. And through the chair um staff put forward recommendations using their best um professional opinions. uh what the OOLT does with any individual appeal depends on a number of factors. It's uh it's quite speculative and I I really couldn't uh predict uh with any certainty. councelor, should this matter go to the um OOLT, how would uh the city deal with um well, no, council, let let me just go on to say um I really want to impress the public and my colleagues with the fact that underneath all of this, this is a bad planning application and it should be rejected. Not only that, city staff has given them a pass to path to approval. And we're not there right now, but what was the purpose? And I ask this every time. What was the purpose of going through this extensive planning process if we say, well, if it was across the street, it would be different. Boundaries are boundaries. I can't show up on election day in W three and say, "Well, I live in Ward 4, but I'd really like to vote in W three, and I'm just across the street, so why don't you just sort of let me make that make that change?" I I think boundaries are important, and they're part of the law in terms of what's in our official plan that went through extensive process and was approved by the province. So, I'm urging people to vote no on this application. And and again, I I appreciate the counselor trying to make this a little easier to go down, a little easier to take, a little and I will say this, a a little less horrible, but not a lot. And I say that with respect to the counselor. Um there's nothing enforcable here. There's nothing that's going to protect the tenants. Uh I also want to point out in the uh in the added we we have a um we have a letter from Bordon Ladner and Ger which I think raises some very excellent legal points. I'm sure all the counselors have um read that and considered it. And that law firm also uh included a very extensive planning report from Mammy Planning, which I also think uh I would have preferred to have seen that earlier in the process, but it's here. It's on our record. And I guess the question I have is how can we support this flawed by the words of our staff recommendation and look our residents in the eye and say you know when we hold public particip when we when we do get involved in public participation sessions and we ask you to come out and ex and get get involved in these long processes is at some point people are going to just look look us back and say why why because whatever we tell you you're just going to ignore later when a developer comes to you and says nah let let's let's just let's just do this anyway even though it's not in keeping even though it's not in keeping with our policies and I really wish I could pull back the curtain and see what was going on. And I'm not making any insituations here, but how did we get to the point of having this plan adopted, having a staff report say no, and having this planning committee, and apparently from what I'm hearing today, the council say yes. How did we get from one point to another? It raises serious questions. So in any event, I'll be absolutely uh opposing this 30 seconds council. And I I hope that there are people who have standing who will be able to take this matter up on appeal. I wonder how the city is going to sort of conduct itself at that at that appeal when you got your when we when you've got our staff sort of uh in line with who the appellants would be if you pass this. And I won't get into the question of standing at that hearing right now. That that hasn't happened yet. But please vote no on this application. Thank you very much. Thank you, councelor. Uh I have councelor Frank and then I have myself next. I'll when I do that I'll ask councelor McAllister to take the chair since you're the newest uh chair of a committee. Uh as of a few uh well a couple of items ago. I I'll ask you to take the chair when that time comes. But I'll go to councelor Frank first. Thank you. Yes. Just want to start with a question for you staff. Um, so at this location, uh, the developer could do 15 stories as of right and kick out all the tenants and demolish it. I just want to confirm that that's possible within our framework. Miss McNeely, thank you. Through the deputy mayor, they could build 14 stories with the H the highdensity residential overlay from the 1989 official plan. Councelor, thank you. And to confirm then also there's no additional requirement for tenant relocation if they are going with the like in this uh suggested amendment there is a a process and a pathway for that. I'm just wondering if they're able to do the 14 story one. There is no mechanism for us to enforce that. Miss McNeely uh through the deputy mayor under the planning act process there is none but the the applicant would be obligated to follow uh the tenency act councelor Frank thank you yes I just wanted to point that out that um in this case I think actually it is better that we have on written record and codified into this language and I understand uh fellow counselor's perspectives the inability to further uh enforce it. I share the same worries. I at first tried to make it a holding provision and then tried to put stuff into the site plan authority and tried to put stuff wherever I could where there was some sort of staff um jurisdiction and oversight. Um and it being that this having it in the motion having approved by council in the motion at least then is a point and a reference point that staff can point back to when they're discussing uh the site plan and the next steps with the developer. um and that if there is staff turnover or if this um parcel gets sold, it will carry on with the approval uh at the motion level. So, this was the the most I could do and really the least I could do to get it into some sort of formal arrangement. Um that being said, I do again recognize the concerns that counselors have. Um and in that vein, I think it is a struggle for us because we see more and more of these info projects. This isn't the first one where we've seen the potential for displacements of tenants. And in fact, at 145 baseline in my ward, we did add some additional conditions that required um the the landlord to put in uh some relocation programming. So, this is actually the second one I've seen that we are we're trying to make do with what we can given the limitations that the province has provided us. Um, one of the things I do hope to move forward on, I think that will actually help all of us and codify this is a tenant relocation assistance program. And I think that's something that potentially we could have a discussion about having an actual policy in place that we would have to follow and developers would have to follow. We do not have that here right now. Other cities in Ontario do and I think that it this demonstrates to me that we should. Um all of that to say, I think that we know that the developer at this point could move forward with an application that's 14 stories at this location and have no further responsibility uh to provide for extra green space or for tenant relocation. So, I would prefer to approve something that carries both of those. And again, I do I personally, again, this is my personal perspective. I do not mind 30 stories at this location. It is literally 30-cond walk from somewhere that could be 45 stories. And I do not see that to be again, in my opinion, a significant jump when it is so close to being within the uh infill catchment for 45 stories. Thank you, Councelor Frank. Council Mallister, can you take the chair, please? Okay. Uh, recognizing uh that I have the chair. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Uh, thank you, Council Mallister, as presiding officer. Appreciate you, uh, overseeing this while I speak. Uh, just want to share a few points. Um, first of all, uh, thank you, Councelor Frank, for doing the work. Um, I had mentioned at committee that there were a couple things that I wanted to see technically adjusted beforehand. Uh, and you beat me to the work. you already had it underway uh by the time I got around to it. So, uh you saved me some time. Um and this is not the first time uh you and I have been supportive of things like uh the native species planting and the bird friendly uh window compliance. So, uh happy to support you on that uh in the amendment and see it in the main motion. Um I also agree uh quite substantively with everything that councelor Frank has has articulated here. Um, there could absolutely be a 14story and likely an 18story with no accommodation with no requirement or with no uh request for uh public easement over private park uh to create some extra green space downtown with none of that. Um, and I know from talking to alternate builders in our city, just to get a different opinion, um, that when you're talking about a floor plate, um, the floor plate size between an 18 and a 30 really doesn't change. It's pretty standard. There might be some additional shoring pieces, but in terms of the dimensions, um, when you're going high, the laws of physics sort of take over, and you need a certain base to do that. Um, I also appreciate that we're actually losing a surface parking lot to create some green space. Uh that's actually a nice little uh bonus from the perspective. But I've heard a lot of talk about, you know, the the policy and I've done a look back even in the past year, every single member of this horseshoe has at one time or another voted against a staff recommended planning application or voted for a staff refusal for approval of something the staff had recommended refusal on. Every single one of us, all 15 of us have voted against a policy at one point or another during our term of council. And I can get to most of us within the last 12 months because we have neighborhood pressures, because people feel differently about things. There's nothing wrong with that. But when we're voting against these things, um we have to keep in mind that people are going to bring different perspectives and the policies are there to provide guidelines. They are there to help with good planning. Um but there are times when staff have said um that this doesn't represent good planning and we have still gone ahead and done it. I know we have cuz I myself have moved an amendment on another application that said the same thing and Miss McNeely said yes that's our recommendation but notwithstanding if this is what you want to do counselor then this is the path that you you take to do that. Um and so when we look at these things all of us as council get to bring our ideas and opinions to the table but the policies are there to provide guidelines for planning. They're there to make sure that things like sanitary and storm sewer servicing is adequate. Um things like that. That's where to me those weren't issues that were raised. Servicing is not an issue. Um I agree with councelor Frank. The downtown core of our city, that's where we want to see the heightened density. Um and so I'm going to be supportive of this application as I was at committee. I'm more supportive of it now because of the work councelor Frank's done. I want to thank her for that. Um, again, I know I've done that already, but I want to thank her for that. Again, I also think that we need to keep in mind when we talk about affordable housing, this isn't a building right now, the current one, that has any sort of public subsidy, 20 year, 25 year, 50-year AMR agreement in place. Um, when we're talking about this type of affordable, we're talking about a building that is uh subject to the maximum annual increases under provincial rent controls. um that does not in and of itself make it the same as an RGI unit at LMCH or highest supportive unit or 70% of AMR. It's just a pre-existing condition. Um when we talk about affordable housing, there's actually a whole gamut of things that constitute affordable housing in our community. And so for me, I think we need to be careful when we're talking about affordable housing to focus on our municipal housing and our partnerships with our not for-p profofits and our social housing providers, which we absolutely need more of. I think that's one thing we all agree on. Um, but that's not something that the private sector provides. So, I know I'm almost out of time. I'm going to finish it there. Uh, thank you, uh, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, you got 15 seconds left, so I don't return the chair to you. No speakers on the list. Go ahead. Oh, councelor Pelosa, go ahead. Okay, I've got councelor Poza and then Mayor Morgan. Councelor Pelosa. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. just uh through you to staff realizing it's been different conversations in the media and appreciate the staff report um and the close proximity to transit that's already nearby and higher zoning. Is there any concerns uh with this property for emergency vehicles being able to access it at the increased density if they're able to speak at this time to that? Uh would that be Mr. Ladosour or Miss Sher? Mr. Latiser, Mr. Mayers's put his hand up. M uh I'll go to whichever one of you wants to take the first crack and then you can pass it to the other one. How about that? Mr. Mayers, why don't you start? Uh through the chair. So, we would ensure as part of the site plan process that anything that is brought forward if to be able to get that approval that it meets any kind of requirements from uh um London Fire or other service providers. So, we would ensure that that's the case. We wouldn't approve a site plan that that is inherently unsafe. Councelor Pelosa, thank you. Um, I know that's part of the conversation as we move through different spaces and things go off to site plan to make sure that those provisions uh were accounted for. I know back in the day a developer took the opportunity to explain to me that kind of once the um base of a building is done, it gets to a certain height and you just keep going up that the foundation is the foundation and supports much more on top. Um, I also appreciate their willingness to work with the tenant relocation. I had a project on Southdale that went a little bit maybe not so much uh as easily that way. Um and making sure that the housing stock is available is important. Um at this time leading towards it recognizing some of these concerns regarding accessible vehicles, emergency services, uh waste disposal will be dealt with during site plan and it might just be garbage gets picked up twice a week instead of once. And I know that site plan would take care of those and that would be out of our jurisdiction and some of the bonusing that I did enjoy in the past uh is currently rem removed from our purview. Um I do miss it. I thought it was very impactful and interested in the green space adding some things to downtown as well as we know that vibrancy needs to be there. Thank you councelor PLA Mayor Morgan. Uh yes, thank you. And I appreciate the comments uh of uh my colleagues and and I you know I also appreciate the the perspectives of uh of those who um uh you know are looking to try to balance things. Um here's the the you know the challenging piece that we have like we we face this across the city in multiple different ways. Uh in in this case uh it's residential intensification in um you know generally the downtown and core area. Uh we face intensification along rapid transit lines. We've even expropriated lands along rapid transit lines and um uh used those for municipal purposes in those cases. You know what what we're trying to do in the downtown area though is create some density and and I still support that. And if we have the ability of having uh a a builder in the in the area who says, "I want to build 30 stories uh in close proximity uh to where businesses can be supported, where there's walkability, where there's transit, you know, that's going to strengthen our downtown and core area. The the the 30 floors of people are going to uh shop at local businesses, eat at local restaurants, utilize municipal facilities, create feet on the street, and create a vibrancy and safety in the core. At the same time, you know, we recognize that affordable units are important. We have just down the street from city hall an office residential conversion where we're converting office uh into residential units of which uh a good portion of those or a meaningful portion of those are are in the affordable category and we have to continue to do that work and everything has to work in balance with each other. So, you know, I think that this is certainly a difficult one, but I go back to what I said in the amendment. you know, I think, you know, councelor Frank has made some good adjustments here and I agree with her comments wholeheartedly that there are as of right permissions um that displace uh tenants and they get not much of anything for it. Uh and you don't get the other additions that are being added in here. And so, you know, I like the commitments that are being made. We give a little bit more density. It feels a little bit like the bonusing process we used to have. And and I think that that was an advantage to the city. We created we created a lot of units across the city through that. we got a lot of public trade-offs for it. So, um I'm going to support this. Um it's hard for me to say no to increase intensity in the downtown area. This is the kind of things that, you know, my mayoral colleagues in other cities would would would say yes to in a second if they had that opportunity to build that sort of density in their downtown cores to support um to support that revitalization of those areas. So, I'm uh I'm going to be a yes on this one. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I have councelor Layman next. Uh thank you, Chair. I first want to say thank you for um the debate um and viewpoints expressed by all of us around the horse. You know, I I we're not always going to agree and I think that's very important between the 15 of us. Um we'll somehow the more more often than not the right decision will bubble to the top. So I want to give my viewpoint. Um, and I'll say this, I believe strongly in our downtown, and I also believe the key to a vibrant downtown is the high density of people living in the downtown. If you look at cities with successful downtowns, the commonality, you'll see high density population living there, but with that comes high buildings for those folks to live in. as expansion space is not available. We spoke a bit tonight we or today we touched on different policies etc. I think if you look at the London plan's base is up and in. High density in the core mitigates urban sprawl, traffic congestion as we're not seeing people having to travel to and from work, using up our road space, and as I mentioned, a vibrant downtown with thousands living downtown that can walk to their work, entertainment, restaurants, parks, Dundas Place, and all the events that are held there. When you have people living downtown, business will follow the people that are living downtown and those business will create more attraction for people coming downtown which creates that vibrancy. It's also important for our downtown employers. As parking becomes more expensive, uh, our downtown employers are more concerned with the cost of their employees. So, I think having high density downtown offers a lifestyle to those that wish to work downtown, be able to walk to work, be able and then to be able to walk to all the other amenities. So, I'd like to speak more specifically to this particular location. You know, it we've talked about boundaries and it's across the street, few steps, but to bring things into perspective, this is a block and a half from Richmond Street. There's a transit quarter. It's a block away from a 40story apartment building and two 29 story apartment buildings. It's Kitty Quarter from a tall office tower and another apartment building. It's a 5-minute walk to Canada Life. It's a 7minute walk to the Grand Theater. I think this is the type of downtown and residential space that the London plan spoke to and that I believe strongly uh that will make our downtown a vibrant uh place. I've supported uh all housing in the downtown area regardless of where it's been on in the core, Old East, along York Street, Hamilton Road, because of that belief that the more people we have living downtown will create a better downtown. And that's why I support this particular application and I encourage those uh at council to to support it as well uh for that reason. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Layman. Look to see if there's any other speakers before we open the vote. Seeing none, then I'm going to ask the clerk. Oh, councelor Hopkins. Sorry, I couldn't see your hand behind councelor Layman there if Go ahead. Um, no need to be sorry. I was just waiting for uh more counselors to um give their comments and their perspectives. I want to thank the counselors that have already done so. Uh I'd like to just make some comments on this one from my perspective. So first of all, I support intensification. I support the London plan, our official plan. I support development in and up. Intensification should happen in the downtown core. Without a doubt, I support true affordable housing. I think we get really really stuck though as a council and as a committee um when it comes to not understanding our policies and following through. We really get stuck. We get stuck because if we've approved something over here and said yes and then we say no over here, we get stuck. That's where I rely on our policies. And of course, they can be flexible. We get them updated. We can change them. But I rely on them to allow me to explain to residents. In my ward for instance, we have had many many applications throughout the past three years in Ward 9 that if you really look at those applications and if those buildings are going to be built, they will drastically change our neighborhoods. And I see this application doing the same thing. As much as we could try, we could request, we could plead to the developer, we can we need to really step back and understand the consequences to the decisions. We are not the experts here. I rely on staff recommendations. Yes, plans can be flexible. They can change. Why not 35? Why not 25? Those are the conversations I've had with myself when we as a council have approved drastic applications that will change our neighborhoods in my ward. And I'm trying to do the same thing here, supporting intensification, understanding our policies. Again, I'm not the expert. I think everything if you go to a planning committee everything gets approved. Most things get approved. Most refusals even get overturned. I have never throughout my years on council seen how much uh we have gotten away from our policies and I will be the first one to say if you don't like the policies then let's change the policies. I agree, Councelor Frank. You know, the need to uh put in more programs, our our tenant um assistance programs. There's a lot more work that we can be doing, but doing this right here at council, just changing things is not the place to do it. I don't have confidence uh in us making these decisions. Uh so I won't be uh supporting it. Any other speakers? Councelor Ramen. Uh, thank you and through you. And, uh, I just want to follow up on Councelor Hopkins comments. First, I want to say, um, I do agree with a lot of what you said, Councelor Hopkins, in my support for those things, intensification, uh, building and seeing our our downtown revitalized and looking for opportunities to do so. And I will say um when I evaluate a proposal, I do look to staff's recommendation and I do take into consideration that pathway to approval uh that's outlined there when a refusal comes through. And what I saw in the pathway to approval was uh a way to find a way forward. Um and I understand that that way forward may not have been an agreement with the neighborhood. And I understand that that way forward may not have been fully supportive of what the developer had put forward as well. But I did did see that there was a balancing act there in that pathway to approval. And part of that balancing act in my opinion was that it outlined there that if 18 stories was contemplated, it should be contemplated with appropriate setbacks and the stepbacks as well as the site functionality. That was our way to move forward with this application in a way that demonstrated a compromise. in a way that demonstrated that we were able to meet the context of allowing for more development downtown, increasing intensification, but not doing so in a way that was as obstructive. And my challenge here is we had these comments about the floor plate. Um, and my understanding is at an 18story you can have a reduced floor plate. So, I just want to ask staff if they can clarify that for us. Ms. McNeely. Thank you. Through the deputy mayor. Yes, that's correct. Um, but at a in terms of the application that we were looking at, the floor plate could be the same notwithstanding the height, but with the path to approval where staff were looking at was basically a different design um development altogether that would incorporate those sensitivities, the mitigative measures uh for the surrounding lands. councelor. Thank you. And through you, I'm just wondering through pre-conultation and consultation on the application, how long would this process have taken potentially? Miss McNeely, thank you. Through the deputy mayor, well, consultation's no longer requirement under the planning act. Um, so we have 90 days uh to process an application. Counselor, thank you. And in that 90-day conversation and in any pre-conultation that may have happened on the application, these ideas of the pathway to approval would have been discussed with the applicant. Ms. McNeely uh through the deputy mayor. Yes, that's correct. Counselor. Thank you. And through you. So the the applicant is aware that there was a pathway here to find common ground. And so when we're talking about the fact that we have developers in our community that are willing to work with our staff, willing to work with the community to find a way forward to build something that's fits within the context of our neighborhoods, that fits within the context of our downtown that is something that our communities will benefit from and find livable. I think that within the pathway for approval, there was an aspect of that consideration herein. One of my challenges with what's in front of us with the 30 stories is I don't see those additional conversations or uh ability to compromise. I do appreciate that, you know, other counselors have amended what's been brought forward to include some of those other elements, but for me the challenge is how do we then hold ourselves to to or hold the developer in this case to account on these these extra items. And I still think that um that's going to be a challenge and I think that it's going to create even more sensitivities in the neighborhood. We have from the community a letter from a a a community member's legal um uh lawyers as well as an a planning application or a planning reviewed sorry of this application from their perspective as residents next door. And I think that has to be considered as well because what we're doing is we're we're going to have to in a way re rely on the community to take up the mantle on the concern if we don't or if we move forward with what's amended here and put on the floor. So I think for me I'm still at the same place where I was when I heard that this uh this debated and discussed at PEC and that is I'm supportive of the pathway to approval and would support moving forward with that but I cannot support this application at 30 stories. Thank you councelor. Any other speakers before councelor Stevenson? Thank you. I wasn't going to speak on this, but I I would just like to say a couple of things. And that is that what any one of us feels is appropriate for our downtown or for the that location is an opinion and it varies. I mean, some have said this is 30 seconds from 45 stories. I I personally think 30 stories is appropriate here. And I do appreciate the attention to the tenency plans and and like to see what's come forward. when CMHC uh brought a development plan for 644 646 Hiron Street I had calls there were 12 to 15 people displaced there and uh developers often uh you know do their best to take care of people and we don't always get involved so I'm interested in you know certain developments we get involved certain ones we don't there's been mention of a plan or policy maybe that's something to look at but this does happen um and it has mentioned that this could happen a different way without us being able to to advocate here. So I am supportive of this and just wanting to remember that it is differences of opinion here and uh as was said we'll come to the best decision usually as a as a council. Councelor Prebble. Thank you. And I would like to thank thank my colleague councelor Frank for these amendments because when this application came forward my actually number one concern or the biggest one what's going to happen with the 30 plus individuals staying at uh at this uh property. Having said that I knew uh some years ago individuals who stayed at these properties who are actually my customers and there were many many many issues at this property that were dealt with. I don't know what happened last few years if there were any upgrades or not. I really appreciated the letter that came back forward from uh from the developer in terms of having a plan for these individuals who would be moving from these premises. Uh uh I'm going to take this from if I look at the intensification and high density I really think that downtown and core is the place to do it and I like to see maximizing the opportunities of developers more downtown than in some other parts of London which actually we have and we have these application coming through where where the neighborhoods are even more I would say uh low density or lower grade bungalows etc. Not saying that they are not here in this area as well but again downtown I don't want to repeat again how many seconds it's walk from kind of where we can go even over 40 uh I uh I think with this there will be improved and by the way our staff said and our my colleagues as well in terms of the services how they are in place etc. uh with the with the higher intensification more people as we can see and we will see more businesses coming. I know there's always requests from downtowners for a grocery store. We keep talking about the grocery stores and we are getting close to that number magic number for the grocery stores to be in there uh park space and we always have always hear uh from people that there is not uh enough athletic and sports sports facilities grounds. I will believe that these are the things that will be both private and public sector that we will have could to come together and deliver these uh these amenities. So I do see certainly pluses on this side also see when it's busier and we see it already when the Dundas place or the downtown core it's busy and uh special events uh the homeless individuals are not at these places. they move away because they don't they don't feel comfortable around this era. The crime is down as well and we do know that because again if the people are around there is less crime. So I do see uh I do see positives. I I honestly do and I see I like to see the maximization for the developers downtown core area and uh I will be I'm just looking at my notes. I think I did address all of them. Thank you and I will be supporting the application that's in front of us. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Pribble. Any other speakers before I call the vote? Seeing none, then I'm going to ask the clerk. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to 4. Thank you colleagues. Moving on. Uh councelor Layman, your next item that was pulled. Thank you. I'd like to uh move uh item 11 which is regarding additional residential unit uh permissions. Thank you. Uh Council Ramen, I believe you have uh an amendment or an addition. Not sure which is the appropriate language. I know you s you ran it by me and the clerk. Okay. Thank you. And through you. So, um yes, I am looking to amend and it would be to uh add to the existing motion uh the part C and that relates to the interim control bylaw uh portion of this that reflects the study that was part of the original motion uh on uh November 4th, 2025. So, I'm happy to read that out if you could please. Sure. The staff report to the planning and environment committee dated February 18, 2026 be received to fulfill municipal council's direction on November 4th, 2025 that a land use study be undertaken in regard to appropriate restrictions for the use of ARUS within the city of London in accordance with section 38 of the planning act 1990. Uh and that no further notice be given uh is included in the rest of the preamble below as well. Okay. And do we have a seconder for that? I'm happy to second that. Oh, I also see councelor H. Oh, councelor Hopkins, are you seconding or you want to Okay, we'll put councelor Hopkins as the seconder and then we'll look for speakers, but I'll start with you, Councelor Ramen, so you can provide your rationale. Uh, thank you and through you. So, I'm looking to provide my rationale on this motion. Uh when we first introduced this uh ARU motion and then the interim control bylaw, the purpose of the bylaw uh was to basically create a pause at that time uh in the applications that were coming forward on this item until we had agreement on how to move forward with the ARU. So in front of a aru motion sorry and and what we are going to be allowing in arus uh in terms of bedroom count and uh as well as the uh gross floor area. So once that is was put in place in this motion contained um my point here is I don't believe we need a further study. Um the study was really just a combination of uh what's in the existing interim control bylaw language which uh basically states that we need to have we needed to have a study to have the interim control bylaw. So this just kinds of negates the need for that because we now have the information ready from staff uh with um full discussion at planning already around where we should head with the ARUS and so in front of us is the uh next steps in that and I don't believe that a study uh is further needed to help us to make that decision. Thank you councelor Ramen. Uh, so I'm just I just want to be clear. You're putting the whole thing on the floor, right? Thank you. I'm putting the whole thing and then the amendment part. Okay. So, we'll look for speakers on that. Seeing none. Oh, councelor Layman. Um, yeah, just through your chair to staff. Um as far as process is concerned, my understanding is we did consider this but there was some need for a public participation meeting or something along those lines uh before we we went ahead with this. So I just want to confirm that uh from your perspective this is okay to proceed. Uh we'll go to Mr. Matherthers. I I believe the staff's comment was that we just needed to bring back the study as part of the process, but we'll get Mr. Mr. Mayers to confirm that. Sure. Absolutely. Uh through the deputy mayor, this is a is an appropriate um process mechanism to be able to bring this forward. Um and happy to proceed as council wishes regarding that study. You're good, counselor. Okay. Uh councelor Frank and then councelor Trusso. Thank you. Yes. I'll be quick. Uh similar to at committee, I won't be supporting this motion. I've had uh since the interim control bylaw was in place, I've had three different residents reach out who were uh in the process of doing ARUS and now are unable to um having despite spending lots of money and doing all the planning works and submitting different permits um they're not able to finish the work that they're doing because specifically the 80% gross floor area limit um we did try to change it to 90% that was not approved at committee. Um so specifically for that reason I won't be supportive of this. I think that um we had been doing good work on ARUs. I know that there was an exceptional case that really caused the desire to to to make these changes. Um but I do think that we had been doing good work and giving flexibility to folks to be able to fit the areus within different complex situations and existing neighborhoods. Um and I was enjoying the the move towards that gentle density. Uh I understand my colleagues perspectives on it, but I won't be supporting it. Councelor Trussile. Um, thank thank you very much. And I I hate to admit when I'm confused, but I'm confused. At least I'm honest. Um so so if if staff could in a nutshell in your own words explain to me the difference that this amendment would would would bring about uh in terms of the actual substance of uh what is going to be permitted. That's the first part of my question. The second part of my question goes more to process and that is what's the what's the downside of holding another public participation meeting. So uh we'll go to Mr. Mathers for that. Um I I'm if you'll allow counselor I think it might be helpful if I just said Mr. Mayors, you in the leadup to the committee knowing that the repeal thing was coming, you did explain to me that essentially staff the study means staff just have to go back and count all the bedrooms in the previous applications which is a lot of manual labor. Perhaps if you can help explain that the way you did to me for council truss out might actually clear up a lot of um might make things very clear cuz the explanation you provided me was very helpful. I think councelor Trussa was asking the same sort of question I asked before uh through the through the deputy mayor. So um the the changes being made here will ensure that uh we're not bringing back a report with a further background study that was a requirement of the interim control bylaw. Um, part of the difficulty in in doing that that work is actually going back in time and looking at all of the ARUS that uh um and by specifically by the the floor area by the number of bedrooms. A lot of that information isn't something that we uh collect uh in a in a table or or as part of our system. So, we have to manually go back and and pull that information. And as you probably noted from the uh actual report that was submitted, we had a fairly limited time that we selected and mostly because it was very timeintensive uh work to be able to do that. Um the uh the bylaws that before you to be able to approve highlights very specific elements that was uh are the directed to staff to bring back. So if that is the direction the council is going and you're not looking at uh making further edits or or further changes then um moving forward with this today and not having that background that further background um is possible if you remove that need to have the background study um and otherwise for public participation meetings we're always happy to have those meetings really very much at the direction of council. Um thank you thank you for that through the chair. For me, the issue with the public participation meeting is are there going to be any substantive changes anticipated in terms of what people can or can't do in their on their properties with respect to ARUS? Because if the answer to that is no, I'm not going to push for another PPM. But if the answer to that is yes or even maybe, I would like to have that ability for the public to look at this again. Mr. Mathers uh through the deputy mayor. So at this time that the answer would be no. There's no further direction to take any uh look at any other further changes. Of course, as part of like our our monitoring and work moving forward, we would uh consider if there was some changes to legislation bringing something back to council for your consideration. And at this time, we're not we wouldn't be looking or actively pursuing any changes to the rules related to ARUS. Okay. per perhaps I'm being overly um cautious or protective of PPMs, but this sounds this sounds okay. I can I can support this. Thank you. Thank you. Uh and sorry, my device timed out, so I don't see my speakers list. Uh oh, Councelor Trussa, you were the last on my speakers list at the moment. Councelor Ferrer. Thanks, Chair. Um, so to confirm this is the expiry of the interim control bylaw and then a new bylaw which looks like the interim control bylaw that we had before. Mr. Mathers uh through the deputy mayor. Yes, that's accurate. Councelor Ferrer. Thank you. Um, so can I just get um and I know I did I had this conversation with staff uh like a month ago, but I just want to put it on the record. Can you can can you tell me just the distinction the differences now with the the new bylaw with respect to the near campus neighborhoods and what the differences are between the two? Miss McNeely. Uh thank you through the deputy mayor. Um it would apply citywide with the exception of the western near campus neighborhood councelor. So um so the near campus neighborhoods has a maximum of five bedrooms per main dwelling unit with a maximum of three additional residential units with a maximum of eight bedrooms total on the property. Uh so um if if if you were to have let's say the full amount of three additional residential units, you'd have one bedroom for each with a maximum of eight. But if you had two additional residential units, you could have two bedrooms in one and one bedroom in the other with a maximum of eight. Is that correct, Ms. McNeely? Thank you. Through the deputy mayor. Yes, that's correct. It would be the maximum within any configuration within those. And I'd also like to clarify it applies to both near campus neighborhoods, Fanshaw and Western counselor. And the distinction between the citywide part um relative visav to the near campus neighborhoods is that with this in interim control bylaw the main dwelling unit does not have a maximum of bedroom li does not have a maximum bedroom limit within the main dwelling. Ms. McNeely. Thank you to the deputy mayor. Yes, that's correct. And uh and then the secondary units would be limited to 80% in terms of their square foot. councelor. Thank you. And then this is where my knowledge is going to get a little hazy because I know this is the new part. Um there's a maximum of two ARUS I think. Uh how many is the maximum of ARUS now with the new bylaw not in the near campus neighborhoods per any property? Miss McNeely. So again, are you talking about m bedrooms or the uh the units? And that that's the challenge. there's variation within um and so it's a maximum of five um in different iterations but um maybe you could clarify for me counselor both ARU maximums on a property and I guess the maximum amount of bedrooms per ARU or the maximum yeah the maximum amount of bedrooms per ARU or maximum amount of bedrooms on all the areus total if if if that's how we do it I'll start with the first the variation it would be a maximum of five um and um the maximum of four counselor. Thank you. Maximum of five ARUS or maximum of bedrooms? Miss McNeely through the deputy mayor. Maximum five bedrooms counselor. Then the last one, sorry. That's a maximum of how many ARUs? Miss McNeely deputy through the deputy mayor. It's a maximum of four units. councelor. Okay. So, last last thing, this is a comment. It's not a question. So, maximum four arus with maximum five bedrooms total within all of the arus and it could be distributed uh in different ways or variations within those arus. Ms. McNeely through the deputy mayor. Yes, that's correct. Councelor Ferrer. Thank you. Any other speakers on this? Seeing none, then I'm going to ask the clerk to open the vote. Oh, and just to be clear, this is the uh this is this includes the the revised bylaw and the additional bylaw. So, it's it's both like Council Ramen has moved the whole thing. So, we've voting on everything at once. Uh, excuse me, chair. Yes. I just want Could you repeat that? Are we voting on the whole motion as amendment or are we just voting on the council's amendment? the whole motion as when councelor Ramen moved it, she moved the whole thing like the the the repealing of the current interim bylaw, the new draft bylaw that came through PEC together. Go ahead. Did I not move the original uh PC recommendation? Was that not the original motion? You did move. You did put the original motion on the floor. Then councelor Ramen moved an amendment to the whole thing. If you want us to call them separately, you can. But the way the clerk has it in escribe, they're just all together. So right now, the way the vote is set up, we'd vote once. We would approve the new draft bylaw that came through PEC from staff, and we would repeal the interim control bylaw at the same time with one vote rather than do two. Uh, and councelor Pelosa, have you joined us online yet? Just checking. Marking. Councelor Pelosa absent. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 13. Thank you, colle. And councelor Pelosa did let us know she was leaving, but she's going to join remotely. Uh, sorry, Councelor Layman. Back to you. Thank you. Um, I'll move uh 13, which is regarding the um zoning bylaw amendment. uh parking changes. Thank you. So, you've put that on the floor and councelor Trussau, uh you and I circulated an amendment, so I'll turn to you to see if you're willing to move the amendment. Yes, I would very much like to move the amendment. Uh I'll save my comments once it for once it's on the floor. Is it in escribe or do uh it is but can you just um give us the the exp this doesn't count towards your time. Can you just introduce the language? Um yes I don't I don't have it in front of me on the screen but the gist of it is with respect to parts B and C. Uh not A not D just B and C. Um the near campus neighborhood, the University of Western Ontario only portion of the near campus neighborhood is excluded from the amendments in B and C with with request with respect to the driveway changes. Thank you, Councelor Trussau. And I had indicated to you that I would second that. So that's been moved and seconded and is now uh on the floor for debate. Councelor Cuddy. Thank you, Sharon. Threeu. I'd like to um thank uh Councelor Trussell for bring this motion for the amendment forward. I think it makes a lot of sense. And what I mean by that is it makes more sense for it to be applied for this motion to be applied in the east end closer to the Fanshaw where we have more land available, more driveways and so on. But to your point, councelor Trasau, in in your area around Western, you have limitations and I think this is a perfectly good motion and I'm I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Any other speakers? Councelor Ferrer. Thank you. So, the Western Ear campus neighborhood is in a big portion of my ward as well. Um and like I like this motion looking at this I am going to support it and I'm going to support it uh for the reason that it is going to preserve the frontages of of the properties there um because I fear with the main motion which I'm not going to support but I'll speak to that a little bit more in that motion is that we didn't actually have a proper report coming back. we we're kind of blanket slating this um application uh citywide and I fear that in the future especially when we start kind of trying to track up to our mode share targets especially when I hope that we you know see a public transit system that is able to accommodate especially in these areas if we have private residences um kind of changing uh the widths of the lots of of their driveways on their front lawn we can't change back we can't change that back. There's a cost as an individual, personal, private cost on that. Um, so this motion as I see it does preserve the status quo within those near campus neighborhoods. And I do believe in the future we won't need this. Um, I do believe in the future we will have uh, you know, a transit system that actually does support uh, individuals who want to take public transit in a way that's reliable for them. Um, so I I do I I I don't want to try to get too much into the main motion, but but with this I see as a preservation of the status quo. I do have concerns because on the end of it all, we don't have the ability to um actually see what type of tenants are placed in the near campus neighborhoods. And I did speak to council trusso about this. Um but I I see why you'd want to do this. And I say on the end of it all, especially with respect to the public transit system as it is right now, there are a lot of students who come in um and they do still bring their cars and those cars still park on um on the neighborhood roads and there's a lot of issues with that. Like I live in a near campus neighborhood and I see these issues every single day and I see cars parked on the road every single day at nighttime getting parking infraction. So, I guess there's a source of revenue there, but still it is an issue when it comes to the neighborhood. Sometimes I can't even get to my place without knocking on doors to get someone to come out and move their car because it's literally blocking the way. The route is just not big enough to get there. Um, so I do have that concern. Um, but at the same time, I do believe and I have faith in the future that we are going to be making some real tangible moves towards a public transit system that won't necessarily need to have this in the first place. So, we are preserving the status quo within the near campus neighborhoods because of that. I just fear when it comes to the citywide applicability of this. We will be reducing those frontages and I have real concerns when it comes to the storm runoffs and the, you know, the percolation of water being able to infiltrate into those into those front lawns. We already have lots of pavement as it is. Um, and we are now reducing even more permutation of water uh, when it comes into just the when it comes to raining alone. So, I I I have fears with that. That's why I'm not going to be supporting the main motion. Maybe I spoke to it just a little bit too much, but um, I am going to support this because it does preserve that status quo. Um, I fear the rest of the city will be irreversible in a lot of respects, but this side we are protecting those areas for that. And I do have faith uh in the future that we'll have a transit system that eventually you won't need to have this. So I'll I'll keep it there. Thank you, councelor. Anyone else on the amendment? Oh, sorry, Councelor Ramen. Uh thank you and through you. So uh I was not consulted on the amendment. Um but I do have near campus neighborhood for Western University in my ward. Um, and so I won't be supporting the amendment because now I feel like uh I'm going to get back a bylaw that has two sets of different operations that uh perhaps wouldn't uh necessarily address the concerns of residents I've heard from that are in the near campus neighborhood portion of the ward. Um so at this time I'm not prepared to support it. Thank you counselor. Any other speakers before we call the vote? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote on the amendment. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to three. Okay. So, we now have a main motion as amended. Uh, looking to see if somebody wants to move and second that just so that it's on the floor. Councelor Cuddy, councelor Layman, you'd put the committee recommendation on the floor. Are you okay still doing that? Okay. So, we have Cuddy and Layman on that one. Okay. So, the main motion as amended. Now, I'll look for other speakers. Uh, Councelor Frank, did you you had suggested you might be moving an amendment, so I'm going to go to you next because I'd like to deal with amendments before we deal with main motions as amended. Yes. Yes. Thank you for the reminder. Um, so I circulated Did I circulate? Yes, we did. Circulated two amendments um mostly in reference to some of the communication we got. Would you like me to read it before I get going too far? Yes, please. Okay. that the motion be amended by adding a new part E and F to read as follows. E to map the relative availability of on street parking in different parts of the city and evaluate on street parking capacity to determine if on street parking can be absorbed in areas. F to explore best practices for spatially differentiated policies and report back about options including but not limited to policies that can link any minimum parking requirements for larger or highdensity developments to sight specific characteristics such as the proximity of public transit the zoning designation of the site and availability of on street parking and I will speak to it if I have a seconder. Is there a seconder? Councelor Ferrer. Councelor Frank. Thank you. Yes. So, um, generally, and folks probably already know this, I'm not very supportive of moving from 0.5 spaces per unit to one space per unit. Um, I think that the right direction that we've been moving in is trying to encourage folks to um, live in more compact, transit supportive, walkable neighborhoods. And I think that increasing uh parking and forcing uh higher investment from developers uh into parking infrastructure which we know is quite costly uh I don't think that is necessarily in the right direction. I think it further entrenches car dependency when we're trying to give people viable alternatives. Um, and you know, parking minimums quite rightly by definition I think is market interference, which I know we've talked a lot about this council, how we don't like to, you know, stack the deck in any in any direction for any mode share. Um, but it requires that developers build a fixed number of spaces regardless of whether or not the future residents will actually want to use them or need them. And structured parking, as we know, is very expensive. So the further you go underground, the more expensive the um parking spots are per uh parking spot. And they're embedded in the price of the rent or ownership. So we know that um folks who potentially don't even own a car, they are subsidizing folks that are using them. If you're forcing there to be more parking spots than are actually necessary and I think that if the market believes that one spot per unit is necessary, developers will build it. And again, I've heard this discussion at council before in the past. So, um, that all being said, uh, I would like to have more information because I'm not totally convinced and I haven't actually seen very compelling evidence that we have a parking shortage. And so, the two motions, the amendments would actually provide more information for us to understand if there are certain areas where, you know, there are hundreds of cars parked on the street versus there are some areas where potentially there are none. And, um, I'm speaking from my perspective, but I actually don't mind cars parking on the street. Um, I know some folks don't, but uh I think one it reduces the width of the street, so it actually forces people to drive slower because the the streets look a little bit smaller. Um, we've already paved and paid for all of that ashalt that just sits there essentially wasted um when people aren't using it as a parking space. And we are actually able to collect revenue from people parking on streets. So, uh, we know that there's a certain number of free parking on streets overnight, uh, but eventually they start having to pay to park overnight. So again, I'm actually okay with on street parking. That being said, I would like to understand from staff where in the city there's, you know, um potentially some um empty areas for on street parking to happen and where there is not and actually make a case by case uh deliberation on that. And I know that included in the motion was, you know, a request for for them to come back and provide some of that data. But I would like to see it in a map format so I can fully understand what we're committing to. and I appreciate that this is a future report back. So that is uh explanation of the amendments. Thank you, Councelor Frank. Any other speakers on the amendment? Councelor Ferrer. Thank you. So I'm supporting this because this is kind of what I was asking for. So I appreciate the work on that. Um I understand councelor says that uh she is okay with on street parking but it it doesn't apply. You can't just have a blanket slate citywide. like at the end of my street, it's a dead end street and more often than not, cars park right at the dead end of the street, like as though it's a parking lot. And I do call city staff to come out and you guys are great. You come out real fast when that happens. Um, but when you have one person park that way, you have another person park that way immediately after, and then another one, and then another one, and it literally is like, you know, an effect where people are just following suit because they think it's okay. So, I do think that there's definitely areas. I know that there's definitely areas that just doesn't apply and I think that the report back and just a little bit more of a review and an analysis here would kind of help us uh differentiate between those areas that would be more sufficient for capacity and areas that just don't work. I also see the part about um how it's such uh such as proximity to public transit and I do think that if we do have a report back we will get information that shows that you know a lot of these issues when it comes to parking is because you know public transit uh may not be necessarily sufficient in that area and I'm hoping that this report back will speak to that and this report back will kind of help us in our decision-m in the future so we actually have more data and more information on how bene how much more of a benefit that it is when we start really trying to expand the capacity of public transit. So, those would be the two things that I'd really point at, but I think this is really good because I I'm just not comfortable of making like a full, you know, blanket slate. Let's do this direction with no real information on that, especially considering a lot of things have changed since we've had this uh last as a policy in the city and especially considering we have those mode share targets that we just uh set, I don't know, a year ago or something like that. Um, so, so I'm supportive of this. I hope that council supports this as well. Oh, yes. I suppose I asked you, but I should hand it to you. Councelor Ramen, can you take the chair, please? Yes. Thank you. I have the chair. Go ahead. Uh, thank you. So, um, through you, madame presiding officer, I am not inclined to support these two additional amendments. uh for a couple reasons. I I hear a lot of justification that well we need to see if if uh on street parking can absorb through you. I'd like to ask staff not counting where there are parking meters when we're talking about residential on street parking out in subdivisions. How does staff even envision measuring absorption capacity um with the staffing resources you have? Thank you. I'll go to Mr. nethers uh through the presiding officer that would be a an intense u activity of just mapping throughout the city. It's fairly broad but it's very broad what is suggested here. So it would be us going through systematically street by street just assessing where there's parking available um and then coming up with some other kind of a strategy. That would be something I guess we would highlight in a report but it would be very uh time and and uh staff uh intens of effort. Deputy Mayor and through you, Madam Presiding Officer, um would that method not not just be staff and time intensive, but would it really be something that would require, you know, realistically an an all four seasons evaluation, noting different changes through school years, noting different changes of of guest patterns and things because ultimately on street parking is meant not to accommodate residents living there full-time, but is is actually meant to accommodate things like guest parking when you have visitors uh delivery parking perhaps and so time of day and seasonal changes would actually be uh something that you would have to evaluate through that process would it not Mr. Mr. Mathers uh through the presiding officer. Yeah, it would be a multifaceted elements that would be looking at that because I think the holiday part related parking could be times of of year that would be ups and downs and swings of parking. So, we'd have to come up with some kind of a strategy to determine that and evaluate that as well. Deputy Mayor. Yeah. So that right there is for me the the reason I can't support these staff don't have they they're actually going to have to create from scratch a way to map out and then evaluate the use and we're going to have to look at it from seasonal changes, time of day changes and everything else. Um we have a problem today in neighborhoods in our city. Um, and we don't have, honestly, in my opinion, the luxury of waiting 5 years till BRT is up and running or waiting to see if patterns change as different transit routes come online over the next few years. Um, we have a problem today that residents complain about. um we talk about um the and again I'm trying to stay to the amendment and not to the the uh main motion yet but uh we've seen uh when we talk about trying to change the ratios and the higher density and when we look at spatial differentiation and and sight specific changes that's how we actually used to do things before we went to the 0.5 a planning justification report would come in for a reduced amount. Um, unfortunately, what we're seeing now is that we're we're seeing a lot of standardization and then we're seeing neighborhood impacts particularly away from neighborhoods where there's transit service. And I know councelor Ramen in in when we designed the original motion, I know we talked about some of the neighborhoods in your ward that don't have transit service uh and thus are impacted by some of the higher medium and higher density developments that are happening in the Hyde Park area. Um, so I can't support tying studies that staff aren't even uh have a mechanism yet to to try and advance. I I can't support asking for those kind of studies uh on something that we need to start to find a way to address. Um, when we talk to the main motion, I'm going to talk about how um we're actually going back to something that we had previously. Um because for me I think where we made the mistake was when we made some changes not just in the reduced parking minimum ratio outside of the primary transit uh areas but also going back from long before any of us were even here some of the changes that were made under a previous regime around so-called front yard parking for urban design guidelines um which were put in place for after decades of allowing front yard side parking. And so I'll talk to that more in the main motion, but that's why I'm not supporting either of these amendments. Thank you. Returning the chair to you with no one on the speakers list. I think we had councelor Truss out next. So I'll go to councelor Truss out next. Is this motion with respect to part A only or is it with respect to parts A, B, and C? The way it's written, counselor, it would apply to everything. Is there a reason why in part F there's the words report back and in parts C there's not the words report back. I can only ask the mover of the motion. Councelor Frank. Sure. Yes. So these are intended to come back at the same time that all the other bylaw amendment stuff that was included in A to D is coming back. So that is the reference to report back. Like I want this information at the same time. All this other stuff comes back. Counselor. Yeah. That that confuses me a little bit because you wouldn't have used the words report back in one and not in the other if it was happening anyway. So, it it makes me it it it worries me that the the two are not being treated the same way. Uh, report back when. That would help. I just find this wording to be a little confusing. Anyway, that's just me. Thank you. Any other speakers on the amendment? Seeing none, then I'm going to ask the clerk to open the vote. closing the vote. Motion fails 4 to 10. Okay. So, this brings us back to the main motion as previously amended. Uh and we hadn't started speaking on that. So, we are now on the main motion as amended to go ahead. Council approval. Thank you and the chair to the staff. Even though it's quite clear that it says bring forward a zoning bylaw amendment in in the future, I just want to verify because there were a few uh residents of mine that asked me if we are approving anything today. No, we are just approving giving the direction to the staff to come back with us. Uh I know it's quite clear, but can you please confirm them to be? Thank you, Miss McNeely. Thank you. Through the deputy mayor. Yes, that's correct. The the purpose of this is to initiate that process which is a public process and a public participation meeting counselor. Perfect. Thank you. And the second question I have is I do have uh some houses and especially those are rental uh rentals where usually would be students or more workers staying and currently there is kind of one and a half let's say driveway let's say one and a half width of the car and we do have an issue that they park right wheels could be on the uh pavement left wheels could be on the grass and our enforcement teams keep going back and talking to the uh car owners finding them etc. How will when you come back, how will this be reflected that let's say let's say in this example I've given you let's say they're not going to put like a break on the grass or they're going to bring some line around and they say oh we are within the six or 9 m you know is this going to somehow address so we don't have potentially these uh occurrences if we if it comes back if we pass it. Thank you. Mr. Mayers, uh through the deputy mayor. So, we'll include a portion of that report just to speak to the enforcement elements of it. But, uh at the end of the day, if if it is something that is uh approved by council, we'll ensure that it's enforced as per the direction of the of the zoning amendment. Okay. Thank you for that. I will just make a I will end it by making a comment. I certainly hope if if this does go through if we did approve it that the driveway would be certainly same solid material interlocking block ash whatever it is but it's not going to be kind of just grass. So I just in the bylaw that's going to be coming back I hope it's going to be quite clear that people will not be advant take advantage of just the uh just the size but also the quality. Thank you. Yes. Uh, thank you, Council Privol. And just to be clear, the motion that's on the floor is about driveway widths, not about parking like front front yard parking and front lawn parking are actually two different things. Um, front yard means you're on a hard like an approved driveway surface in front of the dwelling. Front yard would mean you're parking on the grass. So there's there actually is two different things. Um so I just wanted to clarify that's why the motion was written the way it is about driveway widths cuz that doesn't change the requirement to your point about interlocking brick or ash fault or anything like that. That would have to be something when the staff comes back if we wanted to make some other change we'd have to consider it at that time. Thank you councelor Cuddy. Thank you, Chairu. And I'll be very brief um for fear that councelor Lehman may may fade or pass out in the next few minutes after an hour and a half of being on his feet. Um Deputy Mayor, I want to thank you for once again working with me, co-sponsoring a motion, and also Council Ramen for coming on board with us. Um, once again, Deputy Mayor, this is a a time when you and I both had incidents happen almost simultaneously where residents came to us and asked us for a solution and we came to them with one. And I won't I won't talk to you colleagues about my residents and what they said to me, but this is a solution that they need. And in in councelor um in in deputy mayor Lewis and and uh um councelor Mallister's wards and my my own ward, we have these these happening every day where residents have children who want to go to university, can't afford to leave the city, look for ways to accommodate them in the city. In my case, um one of their children going to Western needed to buy another car, didn't have a place to park it. So again, we've come up with a solution that I think is is really reasonable and will work for us. And I'm so grateful to councelor Trasau, and I mean this council for coming up with a solution in your ward that works. But I'm also grateful to to my colleagues for supporting this because this is really going to help a lot of our residents in the east end. Thank you. Okay, so I've got uh Councelor Hopkins, Councelor Ferrer, then councelor Mallister. Councelor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. And uh I want to thank the uh counselors for uh putting this forward. Uh unfortunately I don't see this as being a solution. I do understand the problems. I have the same problems in W 9 when it comes to young adults now living at home and there are three or four cars in the in the driveway and they don't fit. I also understand areas such as areas in W 9 that don't have transit routes. But I think when we try to fix things now, we really don't understand what may happen in a few years from now. Things may be completely different and we may be back changing bylaws again. And and that's my concern here. Uh even though I appreciate the counselors trying to fix it, but I don't think it's going to really um make make a substantial difference. What I have concerns though is that it's going to change the look of our neighborhoods. Um, I'm a big fan of Joanie Mitchell, Yellow Taxi, They Pave Paradise, and they put up a a parking lot. She came up with those words they say when she looked out of her hotel room and when she was in Hawaii and saw a parking lot and it kind of jarred with the natural uh green spaces uh that are around. And I see the same thing happening in our neighborhoods. And I'm very cautious. I'm a big supporter of minimum uh parking 0.5 minimum. It's really up to developers and the planning application and process to figure out how many uh parking spaces uh will there be uh when we do infill projects and and uh development. But I don't see this right now. uh it may solve one or two problems right now, but we're not solving the problems for the next generation or down the road. So, uh again, think uh the council is coming up with trying to find a solution, but again, I don't think this is the solution. Councelor Ferrer, thank you. So, I will say thank you to the counselors for trying to find a solution. Um, I think that this is a little way more complex uh than we are making it out to be. Um, I appreciate councelor Hopkins comments and I think that you know if we dive in a little deeper you can see some of the nuances that are kind of approaching us. Um, first thing I will say I'll ask I guess so this is a PPM so there is a report coming back and in that report what are we going to expect? Are we going to get the impacts that may arise out of this motion? Are we going to get impacts with respect to um I guess the cost of housing where it would kind of bring in extra costs. Would we get any information on the impacts with respect to the ARUS? Um I know we just approved a motion for ARUS, but I do see this as one lot per residential unit. So I would assume ARUS are included there. I would assume that this could be a restricting factor of how many ARUS could be added to a certain lot. Mr. Mayers through the chair just uh looking through the resolution here. So, it is specific that it's asking us to bring back these zoning bylaw changes. And of course, with any report um that has like a zoning bylaw component of it, we're going to provide some uh analysis and uh um details from a planning perspective, whether those can those are justifiable. As far as uh the uh opinions of our planning staff, we're not intending to do a a huge amount of research um just from the planning perspective and looking at the PPS like we usually would. It's not the for us to go and look at reasons or ration of why these may not be appropriate. We're taking the the council direction and then just providing from a planning rationale whether it's something that's supported by the PPS counselor. Thank you. So I guess with respect to the ARU comment that or question that I just had like it does say that um there's a minimum of one parking space for each residential unit uh while providing exemptions for the developments of affordable housing. So for each residential unit there could be an impact here that that could constrain the amount of additional residential units we're looking at uh with the last motion that we just approved. So there is some issues there. we should look for more information because this is very explicit and clear of the issue. Another issue that I would like to ask I guess would be um I guess it would be with respect to what I was saying before with the storm water management system that we have. So currently as I understand it our storm water is not treated. We have storm uh water grates that collect storm water runoff from driveways from roads and that goes in to the system and it goes out into the temps. Is that correct, Miss Chair? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh that is correct. Storm water is generally not treated by any cities in Canada. Councelor, thank you. And some of the I guess I'd say the surface area that captures that is that non-permeable surface area. So that's driveways, that's roads, but some of the areas that do capture that that don't go into that system is front lawns. Is that correct? C uh sorry, Miss Sher, I was going to call you councelor share. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. And I I'm fine with Miss Share. So uh so so our storm water system is a combination of major and minor engineered systems. So those are our retention and channel works um our underground pipes and storm grates and then there is also infiltration which will reduce the amount that is carried into those systems in any given subdivision. Yes counselor. Thank you. So infiltration is uh can happen with permeable surfaces. That's the grass and that's exactly what we could be taking out. Now, we are the forest city, but sometimes it's referred to as we are the city cut out in the forest. And I'm worried that the more surface area we take away for infiltration. And the more we expand driveways in this blanket slate, the bigger impacts we'll have, the more surface area that will capture um storm runoff, especially on driveways because cars leak oil and that oil is untreated as it runs off and goes directly into the Temp's River. So, I would ask and I know and I'm sorry to put you on the spot, Masher, but here's another question. Um, what would the impacts be? Do we have any idea of how much more surface area we'll be creating with this motion that would be eventually capturing more runoff and going into the temps? M shar. Uh, thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. It would be impossible to speculate that on that without knowing the current state of permeability of those lawns that could potentially become driveways as well as the degree of uptake that happens throughout the city. So, I'm afraid I'm not able to answer that, counselor. Thank you. And I thought you were going to say that and that's why we need a report and that's why this is more comp complicated than it seems to be. You know, we do have problems today and one of the biggest problems we have is with waste materials going into the temps and we can't take away more areas of infiltration and then just say, you know, this is the problem we have now. This is the solution, but it just goes into our wershed in in for the future to deal with. Um, we used to do that. We used to do this, but you know, we we've smartened up a little bit and we've learned a little bit more. So going back to the old ways and saying the old ways is, you know, it happened to work before, we should do it again. That doesn't apply. I think we need to be approaching this with a different lens and we need to be getting a little bit more information on this because we don't know what the impacts are going to be. You know, this pollution that goes into the the temps is permanent and it will go downstream and it affects everybody. it. The biggest thing that I would say is it doesn't necessarily affect us today, but it will affect everyone's kids tomorrow. It will affect my kids tomorrow and it will affect everybody downstream in the watershed. That's not just in London. And we need to start looking towards solutions that don't necessarily do that because we're just kicking a problem down the road that's inevitable right now. So, I really think a report and looking into this is is a smart way to go. And you may think that maybe, you know, it's just a little bit of widening here, a little bit widening there. But when you look at it into accumulation of how many driveways could be widened, I think the impact would be a lot more than we're we're expecting. U but we don't have that information before us. And I really think that it would be wise and prudent to look into a report. That's why I supported Council Frank's report. At least it was something. I don't see that this public participation report is really going to speak to that. It obviously is not going to speak to the fact that it most likely is going to constrain how many additional residential units we're going to have. So, that goes against us on that policy as well. Um, but I think that there's a lot of different issues here and that's just what I kind of came up with just looking at this motion as it is now. Who there's probably more, but I think maybe having staff look into this would be a wise choice because it's not as simple as it looks. Oh, and that's why I'm not going to support it. Councelor Mallister, thank you through the chair. My train of thought, it's gone here uh first time speaking actually uh this afternoon or almost this evening. Um so I appreciate in terms of um where the counselors are coming from with this. Um it's an issue I've heard as well and I'm just kind of speaking to my own experiences and my thought process with this. Uh I mean I'm curious to hear from the PPM uh people coming forward. Um I know councelor Cuddy kind of touched on this but in terms of the east uh portion I have it's a real mixed bag of housing uh and number of issues in terms of parking come up with that. Uh when you have older neighborhoods there really wasn't a lot of thought in terms of a driveway back in the day anyways. They're very narrow. Um, I personally think the shared driveway model is hell for a lot of homeowners and I'm sure that they all get very creative in terms of where they put their cars. Um, I think some of the older ones also they might have smaller homes on a larger lot. Um, so, you know, if we're trying to encourage some ARUs, having some parking spaces would probably be beneficial because really the issue that I hear the most is in terms of the spillover of the parking onto um, the street itself. And I think we probably all have cases of this happening where um the streets themselves, I know councelor Frank wanted to see more information on this, but I can assure you just from even my neighborhood that the street parking is unreal. Uh I mean if you live near a school, you have your own hell when it comes to drop offs and pickups and dealing with that situation as well. And the parking situation has just really become untenable. I think um in an ideal situation, I would have loved to have seen a, you know, better functioning transit system years ago that would I think would have addressed a lot of this, but with the housing issues we're facing in the current climate, I think um people have had to find creative ways in terms of parking. You've got multigenerational families. You've got students uh living in larger um situations almost akin to boarding houses. Uh there's rental homes around near campus. Um people have had to really get creative with their housing these days. Uh, and parking is a reality of that. People are staying at home longer. Um, and I mean, I don't love necessarily going back on this. Like, I hear the comments about, you know, paving over green, and I don't love that either, but I also find having our streets jammed with parking is not helping the neighborhoods either. So, it's a bit of a catch 22 that I mean, there's good and bad with this. I'm curious to see what the folks for the PPM want to um say. I haven't seen the final bylaw, but I think we need to explore it. So, I'm willing to support this currently, but um I just wanted to share my thoughts in terms of the reality that my ward's facing, and I hear it a lot of the time that um the parking has just become brutal in a lot of neighborhoods, and we really need some options on the table to address that. Thanks. Thank you, Council Mallister. Uh I will ask Councelor Ramen to take the chair for me. Thank you. I have the chair. Go ahead. Thank you. Uh I'm going to try very hard to not repeat uh everything colleagues have said. Uh we're already over 3 hours in. Uh and I don't think the repetition is is necessary. What I will say is this, and I'm going to share uh an example from one family in my ward. When we talk about cost, councelor Frank referenced, great. We got some revenue. Sure, we do. Uh in the winter months when they have to pay to park on the street overnight uh at $5 a night, if they've got to do that for 3 months, that's $450. So that is an impact on families right there. And then there are nights they can't park on the street because Miss Sher's team needs to clear the snow off the road. Um, and while they can't do every road within 3 to 5:00 a.m., they have they need that time when they can go do cleanup. Um, so we already don't allow that. I could not disagree more that we're we're going to see, you know, the the fears realized of of somehow there's going to be a massive uptake of this and we're going to pave over the city. there's going to be a cost to the homeowner to widen the driveway. But if a family has to pay $450 uh for winter on street parking every year versus having a onetime cost of $3,000, maybe $5,000 maybe to do a driveway widening. And we have materials that are permeable today for driveway services. That'd be up to the owner to decide what they want to do. Um but uh that's an option for them to pursue. um a onetime cost makes a whole lot more sense. And then when that multigenerational family situation changes, maybe they do pursue the ARU, but I know that there are people who won't pursue an ARU because they have no way to provide parking for their tenant should they have one. Um not every ARU tenant is going to come without a vehicle. Not every neighborhood, as we've all mentioned, in some way, shape, or form is going to have transit. And I can't I I respectfully I understand where councelor Hopkins is coming from but I don't agree that we need to wait because if we change this today we're imperiling future generations. We need to solve the problems of today today we can yes we could change the bylaws again in the future. We did that and we have a problem now. So, I think we have to step back from what we did um and and move forward, especially when we think about how uh and we're not talking about the 1:1 parking ratio or the 0.5 parking ratio here. Um I I'm I'm talking specifically about the driveway bumpout spot or the extra lane of driveway for width. um you know that was frankly driven not by anything more than urban design guidelines of a previous regime. Like I said long before any of us are here. It's it's not a comment on on any decisions we've made. Um but it was about people thinking that we should just not allow people to park in front of their house and that a parking spot had to be defined by leading to a garage or rear yard. that side lane way, as councelor McAllister said, those narrow laneways in many neighborhoods. Um, there is still going to be permeable surface in front yards even where this is taken up because there's still maximum limits. Uh, and it's based on frontages. So, you can't go the entire width of your yard. You can't turn your entire front yard into a parking lot. what this ultimately does and we have to think about what our current bylaw is which is uh an 8 m uh and point something. Um but basically uh the current bylaw says you can't do double wide if it's not double wide all the way back. So if you've got a narrow sideyard, you can only be single. This would allow for a double wide where a car might be parked in front of the living room window or the kitchen window or the bedroom window um with a what I call the bump out. We're not talking about widening curb cuts or impacting Boulevard trees. That's a streets bylaw thing. It's only on private property. So, there's no cost to us as a municipality for letting homeowners widen their driveway on private property. Um, we will continue to have uh opportunities uh in new subdivisions, in existing subdivisions to retrofit things and to create ARUS um to create units of housing that people are going to take because there is a parking spot included. And we know that some of our vacancy and not all of our vacancy, but some of it is attributed to the fact that we had building with less than one:1 or we have an ARU without a parking spot and now it's hard to find a tenant. So I encourage folks to let staff come back with a bylaw. Uh we'll take some public input and we'll go from there. But let's move this forward today. Thank you. Returning the chair to you. And if there's no one else on the speakers list, councelor Ramen. Uh thank you and through you. So um I want to talk a little bit about a um and then uh a little bit about the changes that have been made in BNC. So, a is something that um in the last uh few months and uh oh actually in the last year or so um I've had a number of applications that have come through and this has been a concern around onetoone parking um and so this helps to address some of those concerns especially in where we're planning to put a lot of growth which is the northwest part of the city. Um, you know, when I look at the current, uh, the changes that we've made and that are planned for the urban growth foundry expansion, um, if those are to be changes where, uh, we're seeing more high-rise, mid-rise in those areas, we are going to need parking in order to address the needs of residents in those areas because we do not have transit around where we've approved the expansion of the urban growth bound. boundary. So, I understand that we can have a desire for people to ride transit, but when transit stops at a point in the in my ward where there's no access to transit for a good almost quarter of the new subdivisions, and in some cases, as I've said, these subdivisions have been in place for 15 years. um we're not moving fast enough to be able to accommodate the type of growth that we've already seen in the city and the planned growth that we have in the city with the urban growth boundary. So, we're making changes to things like assessment growth so that we can put transit where we're going to put housing. But until such time as we can meet those requests, we are going to have to plan better. And to do that, we are going to make have to make sure that we have uh adequate parking. Um and that's why you'll see in that language again around changes around located in uh protected major transit station areas uh and other recommendations for potential exemptions to come back with for the bylaw. In part B and C, uh I was supportive of us looking at this and bringing this bylaw forward. The changes to the near campus neighborhood though complicate this for my word considerably and so I'm gonna have to pull B and C apart uh because of that. Um and D I what I hear from a lot of residents is you allowed an ARU or uh you know a neighbor is considering an an additional residential unit but they've already have parking challenges in the area. So this is something to help address some of those concerns. So thanks to my colleagues for the discussion. I really do appreciate it. I think there's opportunity for more of that as well as public consultation as this information comes back with an updated bylaw. Okay. Do we have any other speakers before we call the question and we will separate it out per your request, councelor Ramen? Uh so seeing none, we're just going to give the clerk a moment to get the vote separated. Deal with A uh independent from B and C. Sorry, A and D. You're okay with D? Yep. And just so colleagues are aware, this this is the last vote on planning committee. So after that, uh I will look for a motion for a brief recess. We'll have been at it for 3 and 1/2 hours. Um folks may need to uh refresh for a few minutes. So we'll look to do that after planning committee. Okay. So, the first vote we're going to call is B and C. Uh these are the driveway widths that were amended to exempt the Western University near campus neighborhood. And we will open the vote on that now. Councelor Ferrer. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to three. Thank you colleagues. And now we'll open the vote on A and D. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to three. Thank you, colleagues. Uh, councelor Layman. Thank you, Chair. That concludes the fourth report of the planning environment. Okay, it's 4:30. I'm going to look to see if there's a motion for a brief recess. Councelor Vir, did you have a time you wanted to move? Councelor 10 minutes, 15. What's your I I'm going to rule an hour and a half out of order uh because we would need a motion to extend past six for that. Um 10 minutes. Okay. Is there a second or for a 10-minute break? Councelor Stevenson by hand. All those in favor, can you please keep your hands up? Carrie, we will return at 4:40. Complete. Okay colleagues, we are going to uh call the fourth council meeting back to order and community and protective services is next. Uh councelor Pelosa has taken her leave so I will turn to councelor Privile. Thank you chair and dear colleagues. It's my pleasure to uh to present to you the third report of the community and protective committee and I just want to let you know that we had uh during the committee we had actually six members because the beauty uh mayor Sean Lewis he was acting mayor that day and uh I was asked to pull out four and four from committee 2.5 affordable and community housing update five from committee 2.6 6 2025 Ontario Works participant and service delivery profile both pulled by council Stevenson. Uh it was approved under the consent agenda 6 at a committee meeting. Uh then 82.4 residential unit licensing uh license display. Uh the committee was unable to reach a majority decision on this matter and it is being reported to to the council today without a recommendation. So we'll be voting on that. And then also 4.1 requests for reimbursement for private property cleaning and graffiti removal services by uh by all these village BIA and at the committee it was uh voted to be uh referred to the new to sorry to the next IC meeting and this was pulled also by councelor Stevenson. So uh your worship uh sorry your deputy mayor we can vote on 21 22 23 and 27. We can vote currently right now and then we have four points on the agenda to go one by one. Is is is the um Okay. So councelor I'm just going to refer to the to them by the council uh numbering rather than the committee. So you're moving 1 2 3 6 and 7. 2 3 6 and 7 and one which is the closures of punary interest. Yes. Okay, that is correct. Okay, so we have 1 through 3, 6 and 7 moved on community and protective services. Uh any speakers to those? Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. And through you, just a quick question on um parks and recreation master plan annual report. I noticed there's a large uh dollar value assigned to the multi-year budget and but nothing in the plan says, you know, this is what was spent so far on which projects. Just wondered if that shows up in another report or um is that something we'd have to request in annual updates going forward. Miss Smith, thank you. through your worship. Uh for for part of uh the report, the recreation and programming side, we have itemized in the budget lines for recreation programs and our community centers so we can articulate if there's any big facility builds. For example, we are going forward with Silverwoods uh so we can articulate or put in brackets afterwards the budgeted amount. Some of them we uh also get funding from the provincial and federal uh government. So, we're happy to articulate what those are and I'll let Miss Sharer speak to the parks projects. Miss Sher. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. We do not currently report out on all of the multiple renewal and new capital projects for parks. Um, often they end up being a parks party where we invite everybody to come and be part of that new space. We would report back if there was a requirement to change the funding beyond what we're able to manage within our contingencies. Councelor, any other speakers on the consent items? Um, can I just do a perhaps a point of order? Councelor Mallister. Um, is it possible to do a change of order within the report in terms of items or do we have to? I know we're voting on these ones, but the pulled items, can we do a change of order once we get to that? Uh, I I I'm just looking for clarification. Do you mean that a change of order in the items that are not yet on the floor? Yeah. When we get to them. Sorry. So, a change of order can absolutely be considered. I would suggest we just deal with the consent first and then we can proceed. Seeing no other speakers, I'll ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. Okay. Before I go back to councelor Pribble, I'll go to councelor Mallister. Uh thank you. And I'm just hoping to kind of flip the the order and deal with number nine and number eight just as we have people in the gallery who have been waiting a while. So if we could deal with those first. So you want to deal with eight. So you want to deal with 8 9 then five and six. Uh just go backwards 98 and then deal with the others. Okay. Um I'm just going to look to see if there's any objection to that. If there is, then we'll have to put it to a vote. I don't see any objection. So I'm seeing consensus on the change of order. So, councelor Prible, can I ask that you just we're we're going to accept that as consensus of council. So, if you can deal with 9865 rather than 56 89. Thank you, chair. I certainly will. So I would like to put up 0.9 at the committee 4.1 request for uh reimbursement for private property cleaning and graffiti removal services which was uh presented by all these village BIA and at a committee meeting it was uh referred to the next ICIS meeting and it was asked to be pulled by councelor Stevenson. Okay. Uh, so the so you're putting the committee recommendation referral on the floor and now councelor Stevenson. Correct. Thank you very much. I put a submission in um to the added agenda and basically it's asking my colleagues to say no to the referral and then I have an alternate motion ready to pay the 14,15233 from the community investment reserve fund and just be done with this. And basically in the communication it says uh the old east village BIA came in the summertime said uh can you reimburse us for the amount from January to April it was 34,000 and something. Uh it was actually denied at committee but then at council we were able to put it through and say let's just uh get that paid. At the time it was mentioned that there would be another an additional invoice coming. This is the additional invoice. That program has been stopped. So there will not be another invoice. It's not part of the Old East Village BIA um 2026 budget. This was for non levy paying businesses. It was a goodwill gesture to try to bridge through a difficult time in that area to address uh you know critically important historical buildings like Aolon Hall, Banting House, Palace Theater, Clay Works. It's a very small amount of money. Um, if if we want to refer it to committee and talk about it for a long time and have delegations, I am more than happy to talk about the old the problems in the Old East Village and what needs to be done. Um, if that's what council wants, it's fine. I'm offering a shorter path to say no to the referral, reimburse the money, and um, that's my request. Councelor Mallister. Uh, thank you through the chair. I'll be brief. did to what councelor Stevenson just said. Uh I'd like to deal with this item now. We've done that previously. I don't think this needs to go to ICS. Uh and I would also I'll second um the motion uh the councelor um Stevenson said as an alternate to this referral. Thank you. Okay. Well, if we get to that motion, I will look to you to second it. Um we have the committee recommendation on the floor first. Looking for any other speakers to that. Councelor Ferrer. Thank you. Um, at the committee, I was not necessarily in favor of the recommendation. I did have another alternate motion I wanted to bring for a request uh to kind of just have a cleanup in the whole area so we wouldn't have to go uh and use the BIA. I would say no. Just just because the amount of money is small doesn't mean that it's insignificant and we should be spending it. small money is meaningful and all the money especially taxpayer funds we should have uh a full fiduciary responsibility in how we spend that. So, just because it's small, relatively speaking, not small for me. Um, I would also say that um these are non- levy paying members that we're trying to reimburse the Old East Village. That should come through council. That shouldn't be an old East Village BIA uh thing. I think the best course of action would have been to come to a counselor and the counselor would bring it to council and maybe we could discuss it there. Um, and then looking to pay it back retroactively. Yeah. Just because that we did do that in the previous committee and the committee said no and I was one of the ones that said no to that in the previous committee doesn't mean we can come back and and ask for it again. Like you know the downtown BA got $1.16 million. Maybe I'll come back and say well we got $1.16 million in the past maybe you should get another $1.16 million. I would say that that kind of thinking you know could snowball into something that I know council wouldn't necessarily be comfortable for because of that. And if you know if the with the referral going to IC then I guess just send it to IC. So I'm just going to go with the committee recommendation and we're on the Yes. So the motion from the committee was the referral to is ICSE. Councelor Hopkins. Uh thank you for clarifying that and um I supported uh I second this at committee. I do think it's really really important that we try not to do a lot of this committee work here at council. Uh you can see how our meetings have extended and this is not the first council meeting but the referral should go to another committee where they receive the financial statements from the BIA and then have that conversation at committee. So that's why I second it. I don't think we should start uh again doing committee work here at council other speakers. Councilor PBLO. Thank you chair. Uh after our committee meeting I did have conversation with the BIA with the uh with the members merchants and other businesses in all these village to confirm that the work was done and certainly there was an improving improvement during the last year. When I talk also to BIA, uh they do have this cleaning budget line in their budget and they do expect to uh use it up or spend it all based on the current situation there during this year. Uh based on that and some of the things that were said, I will uh I will be voting defeating the uh motion, sorry, defeating the committee's uh motion that was passed. I would like to take care of it right now and for us uh to put this again. This is the last one. They were very specific about it. And as I said, uh actually I think that when I look at the amounts, uh after they don't do it and we start doing it as a city or this, I think that there's a potentially even fair chance that it's going to be in higher amounts than than this. But I would encourage as well, let's put this behind us. Yes, there were some said it should have been done this way, it should have been done that way. That's not the situation we are here. It's in front of us. Let's deal with it. Let's uh let's let's deal with it. Let's get it done and let's move on. Thank you, Councelor Trussau. I was in favor of the referral at committee and I'm in favor of the referral now. I think we're doing too much committee work here. Any other speakers on the referral as it stands? Seeing none, uh, uh, if councelor Ramen, I'll ask you to take the chair just briefly. Uh, I'll be really quick. I have the chair. Go ahead. Uh, thank you. So, I do appreciate the communication we received from Mr. Morrison with respect to the uh focus on the non- levy paying members. Um I also appreciate the comments that this is this program has ended. Um I would actually prefer in the future if non levy paying members need support that they make a direct ask. I don't think honestly with with all due respect to the BAS and I have a couple of non- levy paying members in my BIA too. I I actually don't think the BIA should be doing non- levy member support work. I think that those two things should be separated. So, um I supported the referral at committee. I'm inclined to just deal with this today because I've been told we're not coming again. We've removed it from our budget. This is non-levy paying members, Banting House, uh a couple others that are involved. Um, but it does spur for me as well the importance of the conversation about what a BIA is supposed to be doing, which to me is not doing all it's supposed to be there to support the businesses. So, it's a discussion I think we have to have around our our BAS and the budgets they bring forward and what they're doing with their money. But at the same time, I'm also inclined to put this issue to bed. So, I just wanted to share where my thought process is. I understand colleagues have a couple of different opinions and I'm okay with that. Um, whichever way this goes, um, moving forward, we've got to figure out this non- levy paying members of the BIA situation. Uh, it's not to me it's created a very difficult conversation in wards across the city. Returning the chair to you with no one on the speakers list. Okay, last call for any other speakers. Seeing none, then I'll ask the clerk to open the vote. We are voting on the committee recommendation to refer. So if you vote yes, it's referred to ICSC. If you vote no, then we'll have to have an alternate motion. closing the vote. Motion fails 5 to8. Okay. Councelor Stevenson, you indicated you had an alternate motion, so I'll go to you. I do, and it's with the clerk. Um, I can read it out if you like. that the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from K Morrison Old East Village Business Improvement Area with respect to a request for reimbursement for private property cleaning and graffiti removal. A the civic administration be directed to immediately reimburse the Oldiest Village BIA in the amount of $14,152.33 from the community investment reserve fund for previously expended costs related to private property cleanups, graffiti removal, and enhanced safety and security measures. It being noted, uh there's another communication from the Midtown Community Organization Uh, councelor McAllister, you indicated you were seconding that. Okay, so that's been moved and seconded. Now that's on the floor for discussion. Councelor Ferrer. Thank you. So, how much do we have in the community investment reserve fund and uh is there any commitment to that balance and are we where we should be on that reserve fund? Miss Barbone. Mr. Murray is on the line and I believe he has that information. So, Mr. Murray, go ahead. Uh, thank you through you, uh, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Uh so the current uh projection for the community investment reserve fund uh is a balance uh in 2026 uh of approximately uh $1.6 million. Uh that does uh decline over the next uh couple years beyond 2026. Uh you'll recall we uh recently approved the uh transit pass secondary school transit pass pilot program uh that utilizes some funding from that reserve fund. So that does uh draw on that reserve fund over the next couple years. But uh as of uh current projections for 2026, the balance is about 1.6 million. Councelor, thank you. So that 1.6 million does not include the transit pilot project or it does, Mr. Murray. Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Uh that does include the cost for 2026. Uh the balance in that reserve fund though is projected to uh decline uh to approximately a million dollars as of the end of 2027 uh and then uh decline to approximately $650,000 or thereabouts uh by 2028. I will note however that that does not include any projections as it relates to infusions uh into that reserve fund from any uh year-end surplus in accordance with the surplus deficit policy. So any inflows associated with that which are not yet finalized of course for 2025 are not reflected in those numbers yet. Councelor, thank you. Well, I hope we don't have another surplus that puts money into that. Is that the only source of funding we have into community investment reserve fund just through any type of surpluses in the deficit surplus policy? Mr. Murray, uh through you. That is correct. There are no other uh tax contributions that go into that reserve fund. councelor. Well, I don't want to speculate. Um, but it does seem like we're just kind of using this reserve fund for one-offs here and there. And I feel like if we were to take the balance down to I think Mr. Murray says 600,000, we've kind of pretty much tied our hands with any uses of what the community investment reserve fund is supposed to be used for. So, we are not going to be able to necessarily uh have um any kind of initiatives or or funding for the community investment reserve fund coming out of that. And I hope that we don't have huge influxes of money with another surplus. I would also say that, you know, council is supposed to make these decisions and council should be um helping, you know, anyone that's not necessarily a member of the BIA. I agree with the deputy mayor's comments on BAS should be focusing on BIA members. Um we any type of specific ask for now members, you know, they can come to us. We would be more than willing to help that. So, I'm I'm worried on kind of what direction that takes us. Um, I guess I would also go to this. What type of um funds would be available in the Old East Village BIA as it is if we were to pay that money back? Um, do is the Old East Village BIA are they depleted of funds or what are the balances are in those in those accounts? Is that do we have that information? Miss Barbone. Thank you for the chair. Um perhaps to clarify, um the BIA budgets that you're referring to are approved by the corporate services. Um the reports that we presented were brought forward to the IC committee in January. Um there is as part of that report there was noted there was funding from previous um COVID relief funding that did show a balance that was outstanding. Is that the fund that you're referring to? I councelor I appreciate the clarification. I'm sorry. I know we're supposed to be doing committee work at committee and I I didn't see this motion coming. I would say um yes and what are the current reserves in the balance now? And I guess I would expand on that would be would was this also something part that was part of the BIA's uh budget? Point of order, councelor McCallister. Um this is for a reimbursement for past years. We're not rehashing budget discussions at this time. This is a very specific item for a reimbursement that's already occurred. You are correct uh in that it is a reimbursement for 2025 expenses incurred. Um my point is we're not discussing 2026 budget. The current balance is irrelevant when we're discussing a 2025 reimbursement. So uh I agree I with you on that. Um, I think that's a a valid point of order in terms of staying on what's on the floor, but I I think if councelor Ferrer is asking about I didn't say 2026 budget. So, okay, councilors, you don't engage in cross debate on a point of order, so please stop. I was about to say if councelor Ferrer was asking is there a 2025 surplus from the OEVBIA that has just been carried forward that could have otherwise reimburseed this that would be in order the 2026 budget moving forward which doesn't include a line item for this would not be relevant but if you're asking specifically was there unspent funds in 2025 that's in order. So yes, councelor Mallister, your point of order is valid, but councelor Ferrer, if you can clarify your question, it may be in order. I'm looking for what the balance is. I'm look two questions. Number one, in the budgeting, in the past budgeting where this money came out of the funds that we're looking to or potentially discussing for refunding, I want to know if if we can know if that was in the budget, first of all, and I also want to know what the balance would be after that fiscal year before 2026 starts. Basically, I want to know is the remaining funds left over. Does the BIA need these funds? Um, I don't have the information. This is why I'm looking for this. This is why I'm asking the questions like how I need I need this so I can make a judgment here. Okay. Uh, M. Morbone, I don't know whether you can provide that information or Mr. Murray, if you have that information. I will go to staff though to see if they can provide any additional details. Uh thank you through you uh Mr. Deputy Mayor. So, uh, what I can advise and and as was reported, uh, in the BIA budget report, uh, for Old East Village back in January, uh, the, uh, operating fund, uh, of Old East Village BIA, uh, has, uh, a projected balance as of the end of 2025 of approximately $260,000. Uh however uh 189,000 of that is projected to be drawn on in 2026 to support uh the BIA's budgeted initiatives. Uh so that leaves a remaining uh operating fund balance of uh approximately $71,000 or thereabouts uh for Old East Village uh which aligns with uh as uh Miss Barbone was referring to uh the remaining approximately $70,000 uh of uh COVID relief funding that was previously provided by the city uh to Old East Village BIA. Councelor, thank you. And do we know what was budgeted for the last budget? Like, was this something that was budgeted or was this kind of a discretionary expense by the BIA? Mr. Murray, was there a line item for this in the 2025? Is that what you're asking? Councelor Ferrer, seeing a nod. Uh, three. Mr. Deputy Mayor I can confirm that in the uh Old East Village BIA uh budget for 2025, there is uh a budgeted line item for private property cleanup. I can't speak though, however, to the uh specifics or details of how that funds uh were intended to be spent or specifically on what properties they were intended for. Thank you. So if there is a line item for that and we did provide funding for that for this exact specific thing but it didn't have the clarification whether it would be a member or not. I think we've already given the BIA the money to spend this money. I don't understand why the BIA is coming back and asking for a reimbursement when we did give that money intended for this exact purpose. The money was spent. There's a line item in the budget and then there's a reimbursement request. So I that's that's kind of where I'm I'm held up here. Same issue that I was held up on on the last request. I'd also say um there comes a time when we kind of have to put our foot down and say no, enough is enough. If there is a request for non-members, they should come to council. I'm sure we would have more than the ability to say yes and help them out. I'm just concerned on some of our decisions and our hands being a little tied uh when these decisions are made outside this horseshoe and then a reimbursement request comes up. So I I will finish there. Looking for other speakers. I have council Mallister. You haven't spoken on this yet. Go ahead. Uh thank you and through the chair appreciate the opportunity to speak on this. Um recognizing the challenges that OEV has faced uh understanding that this program was intended to kind of help the area the struggles are going through my BIA similar issues. Um we've had to devote a lot of resources to cleaning graffiti. Um, yes, we have the business paying members, but when you're in an area such as this, um, there is a lot of crossover in terms of the community. Um, these funds, I'm sure in terms of the intentions, uh, OEV is good. They're trying to, you know, clean up their area. U also understand that completely. In terms of refunding these funds, I think it's incumbent on us to look at something like this as a community benefit. I think this is still an appropriate source of funds. Um, they're trying to improve the area. These are important uh historical landmark sites within their BIA district and I agree with what the deputy mayor had previously said. I think this has spurred a lot of discussions amongst the BAS in terms of what their role should be. Um in terms of uh some of the comments that councelor Ferrer said, parking helps the whole area. Um we have previously had that discussion in terms of the downtown BIA and we have approved funding for them and that is not exclusive to business paying members. That is something that brings people downtown. they stay um they use the services the businesses could even be residents um there are a lot of services where there are some crossover I do think that the conversation warrants more discussion amongst all the BAS in terms of what they want to provide what the city could provide um but I think this is an appropriate ask it is a program that has since ended but I do think it has spurred a very important discussion in terms of um cleaning up certain areas uh that really need the investment uh and so leave my comments there and I'll pass it over to councelor Stevenson thank Thank you. I don't have councelor Stevenson on the list yet. I am looking for other speakers though. I don't have other speakers unless councelor Stevenson wants to get on the list to council. I do. I'm going to keep it really short. I just wanted to thank uh the executive director for the Old East Village BIA for being here today uh for this meeting for also for the submission that went in along with my own from uh Banting House, a national historic site, the Palace Theater and Aolon Hall. I appreciate their submissions. I also appreciate their understanding that this program had to come to an end at the end of December. And despite the, you know, the ongoing despair and uh cleanup and all that kind of stuff, this was a short-term thing that was done in the hopes that uh there was going to be more progress than there's been. So, uh the the references I kind of laugh with the committee work should be done at committee. I got my own comments about how we can't as non-members do committee work at committee and it's not very easy to do that. Um, and there's also there was the ability if people felt really strongly um that we didn't want to make this last payment that could have been done at the last committee. It was very clearly said there was going to be one more payment coming. It's actually half the cost of the last one. I think this I I I understand this is why it's been ended. This is a unique situation in a unique neighborhood with unique needs, many of which are not uh under the control of the BIA or the business owners there. their funding is needed for them. The problems are still very very serious there. Um it's not about we didn't come and say we don't have any money, can you pay our bill? This was done as a community benefit. The understanding was there that this would be taken care of. And so I'm I'm asking for committee support around uh just finishing this off, finishing it well. Um and thank you to everybody in advance. I have no other speakers. I'm going to ask the clerk to open the vote. closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to three. Councelor Prible. Thank you, chair. And I would like to put on.8 2.4 residential rental unit licensing license display. And just so you know, the staff recommendation was defeated which was be received for information and no future action be taken. It was defeated two to by tai 22. Then there was an alternate motion in front of us which was failed as well 2 to2. So what I would like to do is I would like to put on actually the motion the recommendation from the staff right now in front of us that to be received for information and that no further further action be taken. Okay, just give me a minute while I just check in with the clerk here. Okay. Sorry, I just had to check on something with the clerk. Um, so there you're correct, counselor. There is no recommendation coming out of committee. Um, you can put that on the floor. um should have I should have asked you to wait until I came back to recognize you on that, but that's you want to put that on the floor. Um all it would have required is for you to put your hand up when she said nothing's coming out of committee. Um so discuss it with clerk. It's fine to go ahead. So you can put that on the floor and thank you chair. So currently I would like to put on the floor the recommendation that came to the committee from the staff be received for information and that no further action be taken. Thank you chair and councelor Stevenson you indicated your seconding point of order. Point of order. Councelor Ferrer. All right. So with no recommendation from the committee what is the proper procedure to bring something forward with no recommendation? Do we need to seek leave? Do we need to what do we need to do there? No. Uh you that's what I was talking to the clerk about whether we needed to seek leave whether there was anything but any member of council could put anything on the floor. Uh so the the acting sorry the vice chair has has put the staff recommendation back on procedurally. Would this be considered uh an emergent motion or additional matters because we didn't have a recommendation from the committee? No it's the item is simply forwarded from the committee without a recommendation from the committee. So there's no deadlines or anything like that that are applied here. Councelor Cuddy. Thank you, Chairu. This was actually a motion that I brought up a while ago and councelor Trussa was helping me with it and I wasn't able to attend the committee meeting although I wasn't a member to vote. Um I guess my question is similar to councelor Ferrer's and just for procedural matters if if this is received uh where does it go from there are we able to bring it back in a year's time or or at another committee or to council? So the staff recommendation in their report which was neither which was not endorsed by committee but neither was anything else was to receive their report for information and take no further action on it. Should we approve that then it is a decided matter of council for at least a year. Um and something else would have to be brought forward in its place that uh and and I'm just going to check with cuz I think I know where you're going counselor cuz I asked staff the same question. Uh, so just let me check and see if Miss Feffer is available to us on the line or no, Mr. Mathers. Okay. Uh so our chief uh municipal by officer is not available to you but if I'm and I'm sorry if I'm being uh presumptuous but there were some other directions given around uh or there there were some other discussions around other components that council was asking Miss Feffer to look into but this would not preclude other items. She's not here to answer, so I can't really. Um, but this is very specific to posting public information about uh landlords, the contact information. Um, if you're if you're asking about other things like having a website that lists um outstanding file, that is not part of this. That is a separate item that's being looked into. So, um I I hope that helps. Thank Thank you, chair. and that does help. So, this can be brought back to council in a year's time. So, that's that's efficient. Thank you. Uh point of order again. Um I believe with the new council term, uh that year doesn't go for a full extent. You are correct, counselor. That is yes, it is a decided matter of this council. The re the clock resets as soon as the next council is sworn in. Anything can be brought back up. Councelor Trussell on a point of order. Um my point of order is would it be in order to make a motion to just pass that motion but delete the words and no further action be taken in which case we would not have to wait the year and it would go back to committee if somebody wanted to put it on the committee agenda which is which here we are doing committee work and uh I want this to go back to the committee and that's my that's my point of question order whatever it is but uh if that's okay I'd make that motion so I a rule on that as a point of order. It would be substantially substantially different from what the counselor has put on the floor because he's specifically put on the floor. Take no action. So, you can't amend it to just delete that. You have to defeat this and then put a just a receive on the floor. You can't remove a take no action from a motion because it's substantively diff. It's actually contrary to what the intention of the council is when they put that language on the floor. I I'll I'll speak now if I can cuz I um I truly believe that this needs to be sent back to CAPS committee for a full discussion. Now, if this passes, this council will be done. We won't be able to do do this during this council. And I think that would be too bad. So, even though I'd prefer to make a motion to whittle down that last motion, which I would oppose. I think what I'm going to be asking counselors to do in the interest of this getting this back to a committee discussion where it belongs in my view is just defeat the motion that's on the floor. And I think that's the cleanest way of doing it. And if the motion is defeated on the floor, I would then I would then suggest that this be referred to committee being that it's 5:30 and we still have a lot of things to do on this council agenda. We're doing too much committee work people and I see we got people we got people here who are waiting for for items. Uh we we could talk about this for an hour and we will at committee. So, let's defeat this motion and then there'll be another motion to refer it to uh the next meeting of the next available meeting meeting of uh CAPS. Yeah. So, please vote no on this motion. Yeah, I got that straight. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Trussa. Looking for other speakers. Uh getting my lists mixed up here, so bear with me for a moment. Sorry about that, Councelor Ferrer. Go ahead. Thank you. So, um I guess point of clarification, I know that's not necessarily a point, but just a clarification for the clerks. There was an alternate motion brought that uh was substantially different from this recommendation. If we were to, and I do want to defeat this, but if this were to pass, that wouldn't preclude that other motion coming to committee. Is that correct? It was a motion with a business or um forget the exact language, a website with business licensing or um with landlord licensing with businesses. I forget the exact language. Sorry. You're going to need to give us a moment. Just need to make sure we're on point. Okay, sorry about that. Um, okay. So, we went back and looked at the other motion that came to committee. Um, because it speaks to the professional or business contact of rental owners, it is still tied to CP19. So, if what we have on the floor passes, then that other motion could not come back before the next term of council. So, this would have to be defeated before a new motion could be introduced. It's the scope matters here because it's specific to rental property owners and CP19 is the governing over rental property owners. So that's where uh the clerks and I in reviewing that were looking specifically to whether it was gerine to CP19 or whether it was to more a more general um bylaw matter but it's the way it was written it's tied to CP19 which is the rental licensing bylaw. So that's if the receive and take no action is passed then it's done until the end of council. The other motion would be out of order to come back to committee. So if it's relating to CP19 bylaw in general, any changes would be a decided matter of council would not be able to come forward. changes that are related to the owner's information being posted whether physically or online or because it's all tied to CP19 and the rental license. Okay. I think so if if it helps what it doesn't prevent is excluding the the con the owner contact information. Uh and this may tie into councelor Cuy's previous uh comment as well. It does not prevent, for example, the posting of simply through the res the residential property lookup portal or through a a website map or something doesn't necessarily prevent the posting of a notice of a bylaw um action. So, you know, 123 Main Street has a an open property standards complaint about unmanaged garbage. that is different from posting uh John and Jane Q public are the owners of the rental at 123 Main Street if that's helpful. So there's different components that could still be brought forward, but it would be around the posting of the owner's information. Yeah, I could think of a whole bunch of examples with other motions that we passed that would be very similar to that and then they would have been considered not a decided matter of council. So, I'm a little confused. Um, so I won't take any more time, but I will say um we don't have um I don't want to support this. I'm not going to ask you not to because I know what you're going to do. But I don't think we have a balance when it comes to who it is we're looking after. You look, I'm a landlord myself. I don't have a problem with the original intent of the motion that we brought a few months ago or whenever we brought it. I don't have a problem with the amendment that we brought to committee. I think when it comes to the fact that a rental property license is very similar to a business license and there is an income associated with that rental property just like any other business. Why are we saying no to providing extra information for transparency and accountability? Um, I think this is a real step that we should bring forward because I I just don't see why not. Like there's no balance. I we we do it elsewhere but we won't do it here. And that is uh concerning to me. So like I said, I won't take too much time. I do have some extra questions on that ruling whether this is germaine or not with respect to bylaw CP19. But I'm not going to hold the committee here and ask those extra questions. But I do feel that there is some work we can do um that would not be a decided matter of council here. um because I I do have a few examples off the top of my head that that wouldn't apply and then that would make those last decisions those last decided matter of councils. I don't know what that would do to those decisions because we've made decisions before that I think are direct comparisons here um that would go against that councelor Hopkins. Um yes. So at committee I supported staff's recommendation. I still do but I hear the concerns from uh the two counselors uh one in particular that maybe more work needs to be done. It is committee work not council work. So, I am okay with um defeating this uh motion and then seeing if there's a referral to go back to committee. Councelor Pribble. Thank you, dear colleagues. I hope you will support what's in front of us. The staff did a really good report coming back to us. We asked them to come back. They did. Couple of things that I would like to I would like to mention. The staff did say an option how individuals can find out this information. No doubt if it would be on the front window it would be much easier accessible. I would like to correct a couple of things. the business licenses that we issue there are no names here would be actually names of the individuals and uh uh during the meeting or it was in the report the staff did ask what be kind of the purpose because our steps our bylaws state very clearly if there is an issue with a certain property property owner it's done by our enforcement team our bylaw enforcement team they do have this information so they were actually saying first of all protecting privacy say for the privacy for of the individuals, but again, it's not just hiding point of order. It's it's been it's been determined in the staff report. Okay, councelor Trasau, please wait till I recognize you. You have called a point of order, but councelor Pribble has to relinquish the mic. You have to ask your point of order on the mic because it's not captured on the video feed if you do not. My point of order is that as a matter of what was in the staff report, the staff indicated clearly that this was not a matter of personal privacy. So for him to say that it is is really the story that's in the uh report and we should stay away from that. Will they make a point of order? Okay. Again, the side conversations back and forth between members about what is and isn't a private uh point of order. You need to stop because that's a determination of the chair. Please and thank you. So I'm just going to relate back to council privile. Hold on. There's a point of order that I need to rule on. So, councelor Truss House's point of order I think is Sorry, now I'm going to sound like Mayor Morgan. I think it's a matter of a matter of uh opinion on how the counselor is expressing himself. I think it's more a point of personal privilege than a point of order. Nonetheless, councelor Pribble, if you can frame that you feel rather than that the staff feel because it's it's not up to council to reflect what staff are intending. Staff's own language communicates that. Council Prebble, go ahead. And I will referring to my comments as uh uh my opinion of the privacy not staffs but my my bigger thing is that going back to the licensing and we do not have business licenses that say specific names of the individuals it's the corporations it's it's the businesses and again I'll repeat one more thing what the staff said if there is an issue with such properties we do have a process bylaw that goes to our bylaw officer and they are the ones who are addressing these issues. So we do have it in place. Yes, it could be potentially that some some could be potentially addressed more prompt more faster if you have such experiences. But uh I would uh again if you haven't uh the the report from the staff was quite clear and uh recommending what they did because they even if they they stated even if it was posted we still still have the same procedures policies. Thank you. Thank you councelor Pribble. Any other speakers to the motion that's on the floor? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 7 to six. Okay, colleagues, we still have two more items on CPSC. It's 5:43. I need a motion to extend past 6 p.m., please. Councelor Ramen, Councelor Cuddy. I'll ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to one. Councilor PBLE. Thank you, chair. And I would like to uh table the 2.5 2.6 6, 2025, Ontario works participant and service delivery profile which was asked to be pulled up by councelor Stevenson uh at a committee was under consent uh 6. So because we're working backwards this is item five in the CPSC uh list in escribe for you. Item 2.6 from the committee agenda and that's what I said. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. I just had a counselor ask from the side. Um so that's on the floor. Councelor Pribble speakers looking for speakers. Seeing none, I'll ask clerk to open the vote. closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to one. Council approval. Thank you. And the last.5 affordable and community housing update and at the committee it was under consent 6. looking for speakers. Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. On this one, I wanted to ask a couple of questions about appendix B. So, it talks about liquidity um in the first part, and it says uh based on 2024 data, more than 40% of housing providers do not generate and retain enough cash to pay for short-term debts. It's an area that needs attention. So, if I could get an update from staff on what we're doing about that. And would that be Mr. Matherther's through the deputy mayor. Um so related to this item uh we are working with all of the housing providers to try to to make improvements and uh part of what you've seen in that in appendix uh is uh ratings that we're starting to collect information on to be able to be able to give uh good advice to the the various housing providers. So, um it is something that's part of our work plan and we're working with uh these uh providers uh one-on-one to be able to improve those metrics and ensure that uh that they can ensure that that liquidity moving forward. Counselor, uh if if they are unable to pay their bills, what's the process and when is council involved or informed? Mr. Mathers through the deputy mayor. Uh the process would be if uh if there is a housing provider that cannot make those uh those uh um important payments, then they will work with us as the service provider to be able to ensure that the that there's opportunities to be able to if there's other funding sources that they can use. If it gets to the point where they're no longer able to um sufficiently work through themselves and work through their board, then that's we indicate that as a project difficulty. And that's something that we bring back a report directly to committee and council to be able to um provide some background and information on that specific project and look at different ways that we can try to ensure that the uh housing provider uh is brought back into conformance with their agreement with the with the uh service provider. Councelor, thank you. How soon after being informed that they're no longer to pay their bills uh would it come to council? Mr. Mathers, uh through the deputy mayor um as soon as as possible that we have that information. So, uh uh definitely that's something that we'd want to make sure the council's aware of as soon as possible. Counselor, thank you. I'm aware of one at least that says that they won't have enough money to last the month and that the city's been uh informed. So, I'm just wondering, do you have to wait until it actually happens before it comes back? Um, and I'm also wondering like it says uh 25% of housing providers have an accumulated deficit uh significant risk to the future survival of providers in this category. with without attention on how to correct for this moving forward. There is a risk that the business can become insolvent and require service manager intervention. By my math, that could be potentially 16 providers. I'm just wondering again um like the KPIs and the percentages are good, but they they could hide that we potentially have 16 buildings full of units that potentially are on the brink of bankruptcy. Mr. Mathers uh through your worship. I can't speak speak about specific um uh housing providers at this point. Uh I will note that if there are if there are providers that are in this situation, we would be bringing back uh report as soon as possible. So it could be as soon as as this April if there was something that was imminently happening. So, um I can't speak to the specifics because that's between the city and the service provider and uh these uh the uh housing boards, but uh if there is anything that's important, we'll bring that back to council as soon as possible. Councelor, thank you. I'm going to just make some a few comments um that you know this is an annual update report that you know we've got in the appendix saying that potentially there's some very very difficult situations coming for organizations and I'm aware of one that is on the edge right now that does not have the money to pay their bills and doesn't know what to do and is wondering how to get support and I'm just feeling that when we get a report like this we are talking about hundreds of units in this particular building. There's 94 units. There's uh five that are damaged so so badly structurally it'll probably be years before they can be uh occupied. There's 12 that are damaged and they're unable to afford to repair them and two that are coming online shortly. They're telling me that this is a baseline, a 122 baseline situation in a cooperative housing building that we've got vulnerable people and families in these buildings and affordable units that are sitting empty while we've got people on the streets. And so I guess my concern is that this report is a lot of data, but it's not highlighting to council how many buildings are at risk, how many units are empty, uh how long have they been empty, what amount of dollars is needed to be able to get them occupied again. I'm very very concerned that the quickest way for us to get affordable units in this in this city is to repair the damaged units that are there. and the best thing we can do to prevent homelessness is to ensure that our affordable housing buildings are safe um and that we don't have 122 baseline situations. So, um the other concern that I have is regarding the coochi funding in appendix C. So, again, I'm in communication with the building in my ward that fortunately had reached out to me. Um I don't know, I'm going to maybe need to make some phone calls to all the rest of them in my ward to make sure they're okay and find out what I can do to support. But in this one, um, it says specifically here that there's funding available to them and for two critically needed projects. So, I saw this and I was so relieved because it says approved and I know they need these when I met with them in December. But then after this report came to committee, I was informed that they were informed by the city that those two things that they critic critically critically need were only going to be paid if another thing that they didn't want paid was also paid. So, I guess I'm very confused. And then when I've clarified with staff, these this approved listing is actually just preliminary ones. So, I guess this isn't actually what is going to happen. Um, that's not clear in this report. And so, I guess my last question through you to staff is who makes are are these housing providers submitting requests for funding? How is it that the city is telling the provider that they are going to pay a bill that they don't want paid in order to get the funding for the stuff they do want? I just want to understand the operations around that and how we can assist from a policy perspective. Mr. Matherthers through your uh through the deputy mayor. Um sorry, I can't speak about specific applications as part of this process. um there uh I I think I understand with the the property that's being referred to at this point, but uh I can't get into that without a lot of other context and background and that's not this is an appropriate time to share it as part of this report. Counselor, thank you. And I I understand and I hear that, but I mean just from a policy perspective, who are the are the providers submitting requests or is the city making some decisions there and and and and pushing projects or encourathers for this response, but I think that the questions you're asking really need to be taken when you're talking about getting into policy changes that might be needed to operationalize something that's really beyond the scope of the item that's on the floor and needs to be dealt with by meeting with staff and discussing ideas with them at that point. Mr. Mathers uh through the chair. So uh as the service manager responsible for um allocating and distributing the uh the funding from Coochi as part of as outlined within the requirements. So that's our role. There is a um uh processes that we follow through an application process and there's also specific criteria that we need to ensure that uh we're maintaining at the same time. So and we do ver work very closely with all the service providers to be able to provide what they need as well. So, that's part of the conversation and part of what we're trying to do moving forward, uh, to ensure that people have the funding to be able to to, uh, do these great this great work in the community. Counselor, what's my time? Uh, good. The clerk, and I have the same time. Uh, 420 is how much you've used up. So, you got 40 seconds. My concern is about this annual report. I appreciate all the work and the challenges that are out there, but this does not transparently represent the problems that exist potentially within our city. If the provider that I'm in contact with is any indication, we need to know how many units. We need to know how damaged they are. We need to know how much money you need to fix them. We need to address the security concerns. And we need to make sure that families and people are safe in our buildings. and it needs to be a top priority and this annual report does not give council in my opinion the information that we need. Thank you councelor. Any other speakers? Councelor Ferrer. Thank you chair. So this is something that I've been on for a while. There's a few reports in the past that you could go to. I would point the council to uh the road map 2.0 No, I believe has it and I believe that there was a report on this for the end of mortgage agreement specifically uh I think January or November of 24. But if the counselor wants, she can send me an email and I'll give you those reports. Um I I do see that there is concerns here. I agree with the counselor's concerns. We have a lot of um subsidized housing that was affordable housing that was proincially operated uh that have been downloaded to us and no longer have that subsidization. They're also in huge capital disrepair um because those capital upgrade or those capital um maintenance didn't actually exist. So the the issue is is multirong. We don't have that uh operational money for that subsidization. We have units or buildings that are in capital disrepair that require that. We have uh boards that may um not necessarily be willing to serve on the board. They may be a little bit later uh in their career or in their age and they don't want to be or they don't have the capacity to be able to serve on those boards. There's lots of issues here. Um but I also would point out just from memory I'm pretty sure that the intent was and I think this might have been in the road map 2.0 know or in that report from and I can't remember when uh sometime in 2024 or early 25 uh that it's going to be pretty much falling on the city uh and the taxpayer base to be able to fund uh both the capital repair and the operational parts of it and the subsidization um and that's going to be falling on us I think within 2018 I believe I I I didn't prepare for this because I wasn't um I didn't know that these questions were coming but I'm pretty sure we are going to be paying for all of that uh within the next couple of years. And the way I understand that it works is if those private housing providers um aren't able to get subsidization from us, then as a tenency ends that's affordable, most likely they will be going into your average market rate teny, which would means we lose affordable housing. So, so I agree uh that there's a concern here, but I do have that information. This has been coming into committee uh for the last year and a half, two years. Um, and there are subsequent reports that the councelor can look at to get that information. Any other speakers? Seeing none, then I'm going to ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to one. Councelor Pribble. Thank you, Chair. And this concludes the report. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Ramen. I'm going to call on you for SPC. Thank you for standing in my place today. Thank you. Uh I'm pleased to present the fourth report of SPC. Uh I have not been asked to pull any items at this time, but I'll look around the room, see if there's anything that anyone would like pulled. Hey, looking to colleagues to see if any items need to be dealt with separately. I think you can put the whole thing on the floor, counselor. Wonderful. happy to put the whole thing on the floor. Just questions and comments. I just want to make a comment and and and I'm really glad to see people here in the audience who Sorry. Yeah. Still I just want to say Yeah. And you'll need you'll councelor Trussau sorry you just need your mic. Councelor Ramen, can you turn yours off so he councelor Trussau can offer his comments? Councelor Trussau, go ahead please. I see that we have representatives from Tourism London here and they've sat through the whole meeting very patiently and I just want to say I appreciate you coming. I don't think doesn't sound like anything's being pulled on on your on your item. Um I don't know if other people on this uh council have any comments or questions, but you look like you're falling asleep and I feel really bad for you. But thank thank you thank thank you for thank you for coming. Thank you for coming. Yeah, that's all. Okay, that's all it was. Get excited. Councelor Mallister, councelor Fer, do you want on the list as well? Okay, councelor Mallister and then councelor Ferrer. Thank you through the chair. I don't want to take up time, but I just also wanted to thank Mr. Chisum for sticking it out for LMCH. I know your back's probably killing you, but again, thank you for being councelor Ferrer. Thank you. So, nothing was pulled. We're speaking to everything. Okay. So, um thank you Mr. Chisum for standing there and sitting. It's going to be uneventful and I'm sure you're going to be out of here right when that's done. Um to um tourism and to the music office or music office, thank you for sitting also through this and I know it's going to be a little uneventful. I wasn't there at SPC so I just wanted to make some comments here. I do appreciate the tie with the downtown plan and the economic development strategy. Um, I do appreciate the motion that was brought forward uh just to find new spaces and just make sure that we can activate citywide because I do know that this is not just a downtown thing. Obviously, I'm excited for it to be downtown and we do have, you know, the Dundas place and we do have everything ready to go uh to activate things, but I just I do want to point out that this is obviously something that we will have citywide and we can have activations and kind of just leverage our music talent uh citywide. So, I just want to say thank you uh for the work. I'm sorry I wasn't here for SPC. I could go on, but I'm not going to because I know you want to get out of here. So, I just want to say that. Thanks. Thank you, Councelor Ferrer. Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. I did have a couple of poll requests that I pulled my pull request just to try to keep things moving here tonight. Um, but I did want to speak to a couple of things. One is the UNESCO City Music Action Plan. Um, I did want to mention that there is a request. I know we've got some amendments that we got put through and we're going to it's going to be coming back to us. I just wanted to put in the public record so that people who are working on this can keep in mind that there's I heard um general consensus around more communication from the London Music Office related to supports for venues, grassroots organizations and artists. Stronger definition and communication regarding the London Music Office mandate and reviving engaging the London business of music committees. I was going to try to move this amendment. I I don't think I had support for it, but I am just going to put it out there in the hopes that um those who are working in this will uh take that into consideration. That that's what I heard from several people. The other thing was the uh 2026 assessment growth funding allocation. I've really been given that a lot of thought since uh I heard that this is not the normal thing that's done across the province. And it troubles me a little bit that, you know, 7 million like $14 million gets just we've we've delegated that authority to staff with very little oversight. Um and and in fact, you know, it was kind of like we're not supposed to have any input into that. And half of that is corporate services. So half of that funding goes to the people who have the delegated authority to make that decision. And I just think that it's worthy of consideration. I'm going to be bringing forward something potentially at some other time to say, can we have a report on that and relook at that decision that was made? Is it in the best interest of taxpayers given the financial pressures that are on us? Uh given the fact that u you know, other municipalities have not followed our lead on that other than I hear there's two. Um it does concern me that it's it does the the delegate who spoke made a good point about it almost being offbudget allocations and um it does make it a little harder for the general public and for counselors to understand the overall picture and so I'm not really happy about it. I didn't pull it, but um I don't think that we should be allocating uh $7 million to corporate services increases without some debate and discussion about the four hires, why those four that that employee FTEES have gone up 354 employees in 2 years. I I do think we need more information. Which departments, where is that happening? Is it frontline? I just have a ton of questions and I think the account the uh public wants more details. We want a lot of details. Like I just said about the other report, give us the details. Let give us the information. Um and so I'll be moving motions at another time, but I did not pull it today. Thank you, Councelor Stevenson. Looking for any other speakers. Seeing none, I will ask clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Council Ramen. Thank you. Uh that concludes my report for SPC. If I may move on to IC. Yes. I was going to say congratulations on the shortest standing of for report today and now you get to do it again for uh standing in your own place. Thank you. Always looking to set a record. Okay. Uh, so let's get started with ICSC. I'm looking to put items 1 through six, 8, 9, 12, 15, and 16 on the floor. Those are the ones that I have not been asked to pull as of yet. Sorry, can you just repeat that? Sure. Uh 1 through six, 8 and 9, 12, 15, and 16. Okay. So, those are on the floor looking for any discussion. Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Okay, that's now open. Sorry, we're big motion. So, it took a moment. Sorry, there's an error in that. We're just going to cancel and then we'll fix it and reopen it. Council Roman, can you just clarify? Absolutely. And through you. So, I'm just clarifying with with uh council that item 15 was not requested to be pulled. Okay. clos on the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Thank you. I'll look to put item seven on the floor. And just noting for my uh colleagues that the wrong bylaw had been attached and that's why I pulled it to introduce the correct bylaw. Okay. And item seven is the fiber connect 3 municipal access agreement. Ready. And I just want to make sure it relates to bill 100. It's correct number. Okay. Any discussion? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Okay. And then we will need a motion now for the as amended. Uh, councelor Ramen, you're willing to move that. Do we have a seconder? Councelor Mallister. Thank you. And we'll ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Councelor Robin. Thank you. The next item is item 10, which is the FCM green municipal fund agreement for accelerating community energy systems. related to bill number 97. Uh looking for any discussion on this one. Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to1. Councelor Ramen. Thank you. I'm looking to put item two uh 11, sorry, 2.3, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund Agreement for Municipal Fleet Decarbonization Fasibility Study related to bill number 98 on the floor. And looking for any discussion on that one. Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to1. Thank you, colleagues. Council Ramen. Thank you. I'll put item 13 on the floor. 2.9 contract award tender number RFT 2025 2023 Wellington gateway and municipal infrastructure improvement phase 2 a Wilkinson Street to Wilkins sorry street to baseline road. Looking for any discussion. Seeing I'll ask clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to1. Councelor Ramen. Thank you. I'll put item 14 to 10. limited tendering and cooperative procurement for LTC's purchase of nine new buses and looking for any speakers on that one. Seeing none, I'll ask clerk to open the vote. Closing vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Councelor Ramen. Thank you. That concludes my fourth report of ICSC. Moving on to the fifth report of which was a special infrastructure and corporate services report and I'd look to put that item on the floor. Okay. So, we are on the fifth report of ICSC now and councelor Roman has moved that. Uh any discussion? Seeing none, I will ask clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Councelor Ramen. That concludes my report. Thank you. Uh, moving on. Item 8.6 is audit committee. Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. I have the pleasure to present the uh first report of the audit committee. I am going to pull uh six for just a housekeeping item that was circulated. I haven't been asked to pull anything else. I'll just do a quick check. So, I will put on from 1 to 5 and 7 to 9. I'll put that on the floor. Okay. Just making sure nobody wants anything else dealt with separately. Seeing none. So, that's on the floor for discussion. Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. I would like to um put six on the floor with the amendment that I had circulated as a housekeeping item. Or I think I have to pass the chair, right? Or uh it's preferable. Yes, you the original. You have to put the original on first and then you have to move an amendment. Uh do we have to we didn't have to do that for the uh other one. It got moved changed. Uh, so it's slightly different. Um, I get what you're saying, councelor Stevenson. The challenge is in terms of so it's to be received but your amendment is actually changing the order of uh which audits coming in which order. So I don't see like if if if the other one was able to move the motion with an amendment, what does it matter in this case? It's just a housekeeping item to put it back to what was already applied. I I'm going to respectfully counselor just give me a moment here um with the clerk because what you're describing as a housekeeping amendment is not in my view as a chair a housekeeping amendment. You're actually asking to swap which audit is done in which order. um which would require those of us who don't want to switch the order to vote differently and if it's a just to be received like there there's I was just trying to move it fast and we did the other one so whatever you need yeah I'm I'm just trying to figure out how we can do this uh well and I'm going to share the reason that I am trying to figure out how to do this is because I don't want to change the order I paid attention to the discussion that was had at audit committee uh about the concern concern around the election and clerk resources for staffing, but that I I can speak to it when I move it, but that's all been addressed. Okay. Um cuz the motion Well, and the other thing is the motion I have in Escribe is just that the communication from NMP with respect to the summary update for internal audit be received. So, I need to know like I know you if it's faster. Let's just I'll put the the original motion on and then I'll move an amendment. Okay, let's do it that way. So, I'm going to pass the chair to councelor Pribble so that I can so that you can then move the amends. Okay. I have the chair and I recognize councelor Stevenson. Thank you. So, I guess did the motion get on already and now I'm moving the amendment? Yes, the motion's on. So, now you want to amend the order. Okay, I'll slow it down a little. I was trying to just get this last thing done. Um so the amendment that was circulated is moving the uh audit schedule back to what we we originally had. There was a debate and discussion at uh audit committee which I appreciated. Since that time there's been further emails back and forth and the clerk's office graciously has been able to figure out a way to uh accommodate that staffing and MNP has also said that they can do it. So, I've been informed that it's not an issue at all to put this back to the way that it was. And so, that's my amendment. Okay. Uh, so that's on the floor. Uh, is there a second for that? I'll second. Okay. Seconded by councelor Privble. Uh, councelor Privble. Thank you. I do have a questions for you chair to the staff. This order if I remember correctly was changed in the fall which the new order was approved by the council. Does it make any difference in terms of do we have to vote 2/3 because it was a decision? That's a question for me to the staff. Uh through you Mr. Deputy Mayor. Uh no I don't believe that it requires reconsideration. Counselor. Thank you. And one followup, even though councelor Stevens stated it, I know when we had the meeting, we were talking about the election staffing issue uh and directly from the clerk. This could be this change could be accommodated and you feel comfortable in terms of the staffing issues. And let's go to the clerk. Uh thank you uh through you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Yeah, since the meeting I've had uh discussions with staff and MNP and we can accommodate uh the move with minimal impacts to the election. Thank you very much, chair. No more questions. Looking for other speakers. Councelor Ferrer. Thank you. Um, I'm just um like when I heard this was a housekeeping item, like when I hear housekeeping, I think issue with the bylaw language or um some kind of clerical error, but this was presented as a housekeeping item, but it doesn't seem like it's a housekeeping item. This is something that was discussed at the audit committee. Um, and I would just say presenting this to us as a housekeeping item when it is not a housekeeping item, um, frankly hurts my trust and I also followed the audit committee discussion. So, when I first heard it being just at the housekeeping item alone, you lost me. Um, because I'm just wondering what what's the goal? What's what's the reason? Um I think the approach would be to not say to us it's housekeeping when it's not because I have been chair. I have seen housekeeping items come forward but they're never items that I am trying to push myself. That is not housekeeping. That that is something that should be debated um with full transparency and your reasonings for that. coming to us saying this is a housekeeping item um I think is is not the way to go because of that just right there I'm not supporting that because I don't know what the intent is and I can see that um the intent has not been forthcoming to us when it is described as a housekeeping item so I'm not supporting this looking for other speakers. Seeing none, on the amendment, which is the change of order piece, um to change the submission dates for the privacy audit from December to October and the submission date for the continuous improvement audit from October to December. And councelor Stevenson, can you just confirm that that's the language in escribe? It's you might have to refresh, but just Okay. Okay, we have no other speakers, so I'm going to open the vote on that. Closing the vote. Motion carries 8 to three. Okay, so now we have a main motion as amended. Uh so councelor Stevenson now you're presenting your amendment's done. So if you can take back over for councelor Prible perfect I will then present the motion as amended if there's any speakers and we we will need a seconder for that because it is now amended. Okay Jerry councelor Cuddy I see you seconding. Okay so main motion as amended moved and seconded. Looking for any speakers. I just want to say thanks to the clerk's office for uh helping me with that. Thank you, councelor. I'm going to ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Counselor, thank you. That's the uh first audit report complete. Thank you. Uh, moving along. Uh, councelor Layman, I'm going to ask you to report out from close session. Thank you. Uh, this is a fourth report of the council in closed session. Report that progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. As noted on the public agenda, 6.14PEC, 6.14 SPPC, 6.14/ICSC, and 6.24ICSC. Thank you, Councelor Layman. Uh, we have no other added reports. We have no deferred matters. Uh, wait. Uh, okay. Uh, deferred matters. We have none. Uh, inquiries. Uh, I'm not aware of any. emergent motions. We have none. So that moves us on to bylaws. Uh the clerk um has broken things up into a series of votes for us. So the first two bylaw votes will be bills number 97 and 98. These go together and they are the green municipal fund grant agreements. Uh, so I'm looking for a mover and a seconder for I ideally can we get a mover and a seconder for all the bylaws or is anyone opposed to any of the bylaws? Sorry, councelor Layman and councelor Hillier. That'll just make it easy. We'll use those on all the votes. Um, so now we will uh move to the votes on bills 97 and 98. Uh so there's no debate on first or third. So we'll open the vote on first reading. Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to one. And we will now open the vote on second reading 98 municipal funds. Any speakers? Seeing none, we will open the vote. Motion carries 101 and third vote on bills 97 and 98. We will ask the clerk to open the vote. Motion carries 101. And using the same mover and seconder, we will now move on. The next votes are bills number 105 and number 123. And these are related to 550 Routt Street North and 8290 Kent Street. Uh so we'll move the introduction and first reading of bills 105 and ask the clerk to open the vote. I apologize. Can you just repeat that one more time? What was Yes. This is bills 105 and 123. This is 550 Ride Out Street North and 8290 Kent Street. Motion carries 83 and second reading. Any speakers? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Motion carries 83 and third and final reading. I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Motion carries 83. Okay. Our next bill is 108. This is the travel and business expenses bylaw. And we will move to first reading and ask the clerk to open the vote. Motion carries 92 and we will now look to second reading. Any speakers? Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to open the vote. Motion carries 92. And third and final reading of bill number 108. I'll ask the clerk to open the vote. Motion carries 92. Our next vote will be bill 109. This is the municipal alcohol policy. And I will ask clerk to open the first. I apologize it's late. Which one is this again? Uh, this is bill 109, the municipal alcohol policy bylaw. Motion carries 101. And moving to second reading. Any speakers on bill 109? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Motion carries 101. Okay. And our third and final reading of bill 109. I'll ask the clerk to open the vote. Motion carries. 101. Okay, colleagues, the next two bills are revised bill number 124 and added bill number 125. These are the two bills related to the ARUS and the limit bedroom counts and gross floor area. So, I will look to have the clerk open the vote for first reading. Motion carries 101. Moving to second reading of bills 124 and 125. Any speakers? Seeing none, I will ask clerk to open the vote. Motion carries 101. And moving on to the third and final reading of bills 124 and 125. I will ask clerk to open the vote. Motion carries. 101. and the balance of our bills. This will be first reading of bills 95 through 122 with the exceptions of 97, 98, 105, 108, and 109 as we've already dispensed with those. And I will open I ask the clerk to open the vote on Motion carries 110 and second reading of the balance of all of our bills with the exception of 97 98 105 108 and 109. Any speakers? Seeing none, I will ask Motion carries 110. And third and final reading and enactment of bills 95 through 122 with the exception of 97 98 105 108 109. I'll ask the clerk to open the vote. Motion carries 110. Thank you. Just about concludes our meeting. Uh we just have uh two minor what I will call uh housekeeping items on this one. Uh the first is a uh the opportunity to wish Councelor Cuddy a very happy birthday. I'm glad you got to spend so much time with us today on your special day. And then the second item is looking for a motion to adjurnn. Councelor Mallister and Stevenson. We can do this one by hand. All in favor? Motion carries. Thank you everyone.

Full Transcript