Okay. Thank you. Please be seated. Okay. Welcome to the 11th meeting of council. Uh I'm going to start with a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we be gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anesnav, Honosoni, Lan Piwok, and Adawandron peoples. We honor, respect the history, language, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. The two row wamp and bell treaty of the hodnoson confederacy silver covenant chain. The beaver hunting grounds of the hodnon nanfan treaty of 1701. The McKe treaty of 1790. The Lenon township treaty of 1796. The heron track treaty of 1827 with the Anesnabek and the dish with one spoon covenant wampam. The anosnabic and the hoden shony. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chipua, the Temps First Nation, Onida Nation of the Temps, and the Muny Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations uh with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. Uh the city of London is also committed to making every effort to providing alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. If you'd like to make to make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact council agenda@london.ca DA or 519-6612489 extension 2425. Okay, next we're going to do our uh national anthem singer. Uh Connor Elgie is a Canadian instrumental uh instrumental artist who makes music that blends uh soundscapes with technical guitar playing. Connor makes music for those with uh too much going on in their heads and hopes that his music can help them as his playing does for himself. Connor has a new song being released on the 26th named Stars. Please rise and join me in welcoming Connor who will now perform the national anthem for us. >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [applause] [applause] >> Perfect. Thanks again. That was uh that was pretty awesome. Uh turning to the disclosures of pecunary interest, I'll look to colleagues who have any disclosures for us today. Okay, seeing none, uh we'll move to recognitions and the first recognition will be by Deputy Mayor Lewis, followed by Councelor Pribble, followed by myself, and then a presentation that I'll be making um uh which is already listed in the agenda. So, I'll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis first. Uh thank you, your worship, and and through you and colleagues and and staff and the members of the public. I wanted today uh to take a moment, what I would normally do at the start of June. Uh however, I was certainly not up to it healthwise at the last council meeting uh to recognize that June is National Pride Month and there have been celebrations throughout this month, particularly in councelor Frank's W 11 worldly pride festival. Uh but celebrations are happening across the country uh for the LGBTQ plus community. And on the weekend, the pride flag will fly in Reg Cooper Square on the community flag pole in recognition of the Stonewall riots, which started in the early hours of June 27th, uh, and continued on for 5 days afterwards. The flag will fly in recognition until Canada Day. And then, of course, London celebrates our Pride Festival in Victoria Park in July. And I know that uh the Pride Festival uh has asked for the flag to be flown again during that celebration. And so we will be celebrating twice in London uh recognizing that we have a different local celebration than the National Pride uh month. However, it is a time for both members of the LGBTQ plus community and their allies to come together and celebrate our diversity. So, I just wanted to take this opportunity to recognize Pride Month and wish everyone a happy Pride. >> Thank you. I'll go to Councelor Prible next. >> Thank you. How can I recognize Canadian National Soccer Team during the World Cup? I know it's been only two games, but so far first in the group with tomorrow at 3 p.m. they play in Switzerland with with a draw. They'll be first in the group and we'll guarantee them staying in Canada in Vancouver. Certainly already a great accomplishment. I want to invite everyone 4th of July at Victoria Park. We have a FanFest, FIFA FanFest. And of course, first July 1st, Canada Day. Lots of events throughout the city and especially downtown. Welcome everyone and enjoy it. Have a great time with your families and friends. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you. I appreciate that, Councelor Prible. Uh, I'm going to move to the podium for my next two recognitions. All right, I'll just uh let me just move this closer. Okay, there we go. Uh so the first recognition I want to do is uh recognizing those who serve on the front lines whether it's EMS, fire, uh London Police Service, healthcare staff, or even the bystanders involved in the incident that happened uh at Sherwood for Forest Mall um where an individual ended up uh going through the wall and um uh coming into a class that was uh currently going on that morning. Uh, I know we've said many times how important all those frontline staffers are and and everybody out in the emergency services who act and respond very quickly in incidents, but I came across a story um from uh one of the paramedics uh about a bystander who um intervened shortly afterwards and and and it was it struck me that the story was so impactful that I wanted to share it today. These aren't my words. These are uh something I'm going to read. And the story recognizes the heroic actions of Mia Laru. Uh Mia is a frontline paramedic with Len Middle Sex Paramedic Services and while only in her second year as a paramedic, she just demonstrated the skill, compassion, and calm leadership that defined the very best of our public service. She was off duty at the gym. She heard the sound of a crash and immediately responded. Seeing a cloud of dust and debris, she ran towards the scene where she found multiple people injured, including a woman trapped beneath a vehicle that had crashed through a wall. Without hesitation, Mia stepped forward to help. Recognizing the immediate danger, including the vehicle leaking fluids, the risk posed by the vehicle remaining in gear, and the dangerous position of the debris surrounding the trapped woman, Mia acted quickly to protect the woman and those nearby. She placed the vehicle in park, assessed the situation, and began directing bystanders and staff to assist. When police arrived, Mia's experience as an offduty paramedic was quickly recognized. Working together, Mia and the other responding officer were able to move the vehicle to a safer position, allowing Mia to reach the woman and help free her. Her actions reflect the very best qualities of of a paramedic and a member of the community. Courage, professionalism, compassion, and a willingness to serve others whenever help is needed. On behalf of council and the residents of London, we extend our sincere appreciation to Mia for her bravery and dedication. Her actions made a meaningful difference during a frightening moment and serve as an example to the testament that the impact that one person can have when they choose to step forward and help in a moment of crisis. London is fortunate to have people like Mia among us and to Mia and all the emergency responders who responded that day. Thank you for making our city safer and a compassionate place to live. You make a difference in our community each and every day. Thank you. And now on to uh what we do on an annual basis and that is the uh recognition of the contributions that uh OOLG makes through the municipal contribution agreement. Uh and each and every year we recognize the significant contribution they make to our community uh through us hosting a gaming site here. So, I'm pleased to begin today's meeting by acknowledging that the Ontario Lottery Gaming Corporation or OOLG has its continuing investment in London, Ontario through that municipal contribution agreement. In 1999, the City of London entered into a municipal contribution agreement with the OG. Under this agreement, OLG provides an annual share of the gaming revenues generated from Gateway Casino London to the city of London. These funds are then earmarked for projects that positively impact residents from all corners of our vibrant community. From April 1st, 2025 to March 20 31st, 2026, we received over $5 million from OLG through the revenue generated at Gateway Casino. This revenue has played a crucial role in supporting several essential community initiatives, including funding for notfor-profit organizations through the city of London community grants program. Specific specifically, type diabet was allocated funds to support bypac uh food literacy programs. Uh the program promotes food literacy through teaching the health benefits of cultural eating, maintaining cultural food practices while ma while making healthier choices with an emphasis on flavors from the African diaspora. Through it, 227 children and youth had access to the cultural food literacy provided uh to them and uh to them and other equity denied uh groups to learn about nutrition, food security and the skills uh for uh food connections to identity, to health and community. Uh today we're honored to be joined by representatives from the organization uh that has greatly benefited from the funds provided uh through this partnership with OG. They have provided a pivot pivotal role in our community's well-being and are grateful we are grateful to recognize their outstanding contributions today. So they're they're here with us right over here. So thank you very much. Uh the remaining funds received from April 1st, 2025 to March 31st, 2026 through the municipal contribution agreement were used for a range of projects including the restoration of the roof at Deerness Home, the cities of London's long-term care facility, various recreational facility upgrades which include replacing the roofs at Argal Arena, the Canada Games Aquatic Center, replacing the pool heater at Silverwoods Park, transforming the former Glen Karen Arena to community space, and replacing the gym floor at the Boille Community Center. local road reconstruction programs to reconstruct roads, replace catch basins, install new curbs and gutters, repair sidewalks, including new ramps and tactile plates. Strengthening the green fleet with the purchase of 11 hybrid vehicles for the corporate fleet. Continuing to support uh for other community organizations. Uh so these are supports have been done in the past but are continuing on. The Boys and Girls Club operating funding to support seniors programming, children and youth recreation, social and nutrition programs, and education and leadership initiatives. The London and Middle Sex Heritage Museum operating funding to support Fshaw Pioneer Village, delivering programs and events and educational activities and exhibits and preserving its collection of 33 original and replica buildings and more than 40,000 artifacts. In total, the city has received now 107.7 million in non-ax gaming revenue for hosting a gaming facility in London since the inception of this agreement in 1999. These revenues are a cornerstone for the support for local programs and essential infrastructure making um substantial tangible differences in the lives of the people of London, Ontario. I'd also like to recognize Gateway Casino London as a key employer in the Old East Village community. Following a total investment of approximately 54 million, the casino's workforce has now grown to about 329 employees, creating more than 80 new jobs and contributing to the local economy. Thank you for your continued partnership and investment in London OLG. I'd now like to introduce Kathleen Divine, senior municipal relations manager at OG, who will be providing a couple of remarks and bringing a big giant check to the front. Yeah. >> As you know. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Uh so, good afternoon everybody. Um, I'm Kathleen Divine, senior municipal relations manager at OOLG and uh I am the lucky person that gets to come into London every year uh for this community recognition program event. So I do want to thank uh yourself, Mayor Morgan, council and uh city staff for inviting OG here every year. This year was um was was fun because we've had a busy morning uh traveling around London getting a behind the scenes look at where some of the money has gone to. And so we traveled to Silverwoods Park for the new heater and filtration system for the outdoor pool, which is amazing. If you haven't been there, you should go. Um we went to the North London Optimus Community Center and saw the new flooring for the indoor tennis courts. Um uh all really tangible positive impacts across London. Um and we were incredibly lucky to spend an hour or so with Mystery and Gonzalez from type diabet. Um it it was incredible looking at this garden that they have growing all of these various types of foods, plantbased gorgeous vegetables in their greenhouse out in the garden. um learning about their commitment to food education and inclusivity and and and equality across um across understanding food and how to access it. Um, I can't say enough about type diabet. Um, and so of course the thanks goes to Mayor Council uh for, you know, choosing uh type diabet recipients of your community grant program. So uh incredible work to all of you. Um, again from OOLG, you know, all of this community impact resonates with us. Um, 100% of our profits go back into the province every year. Um, and and it's something we're really proud of. So, um, thank you for inviting us here every year. Uh, thank you to, uh, Tanvi for taking us on this behind thescenes London tour. And, um, and, uh, we look forward to coming back again next year. >> And now we'll just do the big check presentation, shall we? Uh, so please come on up, uh, and join us. Uh, so, as Mayor Morgan mentioned, this is the amount uh, the city of London received in fiscal uh, 26. Um, and I we'll just grab it and I guess probably stand in front. Yeah. >> Uh, and we are pleased on behalf of all of OOLG to present the amount of 5,51,22. [clears throat] >> Yes. Thank you. [applause] Couple of cameras. Thank you so much. That's a great [laughter] >> take to the new. [laughter] >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Thanks. I'll just return to the seat. That's uh really appreciate the words today and um we'll continue on with the meeting. Okay, thank you for uh uh bearing with us on that. Uh we are now on to review of confidential matters to be considered in public. There are none. We're moving to council in close session of which there are uh all of the items before us. Just >> yeah. Okay. They're all they're all here. Uh 4.1 through 4.8. Uh so I'll look for a motion to go into camera for all those items. Councelor Frank seconded by councelor Hopkins. We'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Okay. And we'll be moving to committee room 5. So members of the public, you can stay here and we will return as soon as we're done the in camera section. Okay, please be seated. Okay, that brings us to confirmation and signing of previous minutes. We have two sets of minutes that we could do together. That's the ninth meeting and the 10th special meeting. Uh I'll look for a mover and second for those. Councelor Mallister, seconded by councelor Layman. Any discussion on the minutes? Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Noting did is councelor Ferrer available? Yes. >> I vote yes. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 140. >> Okay. On to uh motions. Oh, sorry. Um on to communications and petitions. There are a fair number of them, but they all relate to components of the agenda. So there's a motion to refer all those to the various parts of the agenda. Look for a mover and second to that. Seeing councelor Cuddy and councelor Troau, any discussion on the referral of those matters to the various parts of the agenda? Seeing none, we'll open that up for voting. >> I vote. Yes. >> Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 4. >> Okay. There are uh no motions to which notice was given. Uh so we're on to uh section 8 reports. A section 8.1 is the ninth report of the community and protective services committee. I will turn it over to the chair to present. >> Thank you. I would like to present the ninth report of community and protective services committee. I've been asked to pull items 2 3 5 7 and 11. Just looking to see if there's any other items. Seeing none, I will put the remaining items on the floor. >> Okay. So, the chair is moving mo moving a motion for 1 4 6 8 through 10 12 and 13. That's on the floor. I look for any discussion on those items. Go ahead, councelor Troa. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Um through to through you, mayor. I I just want to uh make a comment about item number four. Uh this is not a controversial item. Wasn't even pulled. Um for for me and people in my ward in the near campus neighborhood and I know people in other wards, this is a very significant item. And this and I just want to mark this and not let this go without saying. This has been the source of a lot of tension and a lot of concern and a lot of dissatisfaction in the community in terms of how these things have historically been responded to. And I I want to say that councelor Primple and I have been working on this now with civic administration um during a good for a good part of this term. And I'm just so pleased to see this come to final council vote. and and I have to I have to say um it is it has just been a total refreshing pleasure to work with their [clears throat] staff and in particular the director of municipal compliance because I think what we're doing here is we're we're we're we're entering into a sea change in terms of how we uh how we talk to members of the public about the complaints and the concerns that they've filed. So, I just think this is such a positive step in the in the right direction. And again, uh to the deputy city manager, I I I want to thank you so much [clears throat] for the work that you you've your staff has done with us on this. Thank you. >> Other speakers, the items before us, uh councelor McCallister and then Purbal. >> Uh thank you through your worship. Um I just wanted to speak quickly on item six again. Uh, as previous counselor, I just want to express my thanks to Mr. Mather's your team uh and uh Miss Feffer. Um really appreciate the turnaround time on this. I know um this was something that I asked for uh a little while ago, but I made some changes um based on the feedback I was receiving from the community. Uh and it is very much greatly appreciated. Um, rats is not something anyone necessarily wants to talk about, but it is an issue that's impacting people's lives, their their health. Uh, and many properties are experiencing the adverse effects of this. So, I want to say thank you. Um, I hate to say uh, but this [clears throat] might generate some more work for your team, but um, it's very much appreciated. I hear this a lot from my uh, constituents in terms of trying to see uh, further uh, enforcement action on this. And, uh, I know there's a few properties that, uh, will probably get looked at. So again, very thankful for this. Um, and uh, I just again wanted to say that this is greatly appreciated by not only my ward, but I think uh, all wards will benefit from this in the long run because I think having a comprehensive um, rat strategy will will serve the city in the long run. So, thank you once again, Councelor Prebble. >> Thank you. I guess I'm going to continue to thank you around, but I'm going to be really brief and I want to say thanks again to council trust and the staff. point4. If I if I look at when I started three and a half years ago, if I look at the emails and phone calls I've been receiving it, this is the report that staff did that actually answers most of my emails and calls. So, thank you very much and to the entire team. >> Any other speakers to these items? Go ahead, Council Ramen. >> Uh, thank you and through you and uh I appreciate the expression of sentiment. I agree with it. Um, on item four, specifically on part C, uh, we discussed the municipal compliance city map and development of the business portal enhancements that'll go to the multi-year budget. Um, just wanted through you to maybe ask staff what information will be available to uh, counselors to be able to access this information in the interim. >> Mr. Maithers, go ahead. uh through the chair. So, uh we're always happy to help any of the counselors and and the counselor office as well to be able to access information there. Information generally is available. It's just maybe difficult to find because you have to go to two or three different sources. So, we're always happy to be able to provide that help to you and um any further assistance uh FAQs or anything we could provide you or your constituents would be happy to provide that. So, thank you. >> Thank you. And through you. So I appreciate the steps that we're taking um with the matter. One of the challenges still remains though is the service London portal. Um so not being able to get this information through the portal but having to go through a counselor to get access to the information. Um it's still an onus that the public has to go through. Um, and so I do look for the time that we are able to do this and the public are able to do this like they can in Bmpton, like they can in other municipalities like Ottawa where this information is public facing so that people can access it themselves instead of having to go through a municipal counselor or council staff to get answers that in my opinion should be publicly available. Uh, I'll await that time and potentially bring it forward in future. Thank you. Any other speakers on the various matters before us? Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 140 Thank you. I will look to put item two on the floor. >> Okay, item two is on the floor. I'll look for any speakers to item two. >> Okay, seeing none, we can open item two for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 131. >> Thank you. I will look to move item 3 2.2 which is the city of London tree nursery feasibility. Put I'll put that on the floor. >> Okay, that item's on the floor. I'll look to any speakers. >> Uh seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 131. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. I'll look to put item five on the floor of 2.4, the request to submit an application for new affordable housing funding through build home build Canada homes. >> Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look to any speakers. >> Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 131. Go ahead, counselor. >> Thank you. Next is item 72.6, 122, baseline transition plan update quarter 2. >> Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look to any speakers. >> Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Closing vote. Motion carries 131. >> Go ahead. Thank you. I'll look to put 11 uh 2.7 the award of the NRFP 2025 248 municipal lands for affordable housing at 1 1958 Duth Crescent Block 6 related to bill number 239. The floor. >> Okay, I'll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis as a speaker on that. He has his hand up. Uh thank you your worship and through you. Uh I spoke to this at committee. Uh I'm just going to speak to it again uh because I know not everybody was at committee. Um I've been very supportive of the of the Duth Crescent redevelopment uh to date. Um and I actually support uh the initial dedication that was submitted to this block. Um but what we have here is staff asking to be able to go back and increase the density on this block further. And I'm asking council uh to respectfully uh not direct staff to do that uh but to have staff move forward uh with the density uh that they had already. Uh they're allowed the height um but not the density. Uh and the reason I'm asking you this is we are redeveloping this duth crescent block that we purchased as a surplus school property for the purpose of developing affordable housing. We've already increased the height on block five uh to advance a project forward there. We also though continuously talk about the need to be mindful of how much concentration we have uh when it comes to social services and affordable and RGI housing in a in a single area just south of this former school block uh divided by Trafalar but just south of this along Maronei Boulevard we have 64 affordable housing units at the Genesis co-op we have 130 38 at the Talisman Woods Co-op. LMCH has 51 town houses plus an entire block of duplexes running from Maronei to Null uh that are RGI uh units as well. So we have in this immediate vicinity already over 200 units of affordable and RGI housing. We are adding more on the Doo school block. This is not something that was contemplated when this plan of subdivision was presented to the community. It was not something that was contemplated when council approved the draft zoning through PEC. And I'm just asking that staff stick to the density and heights that were granted through the planning committee process already. We want affordable housing in our city, but we do have to be mindful of how much we are putting in any given location. And this is just, you know, we've already had one block increased. Is it the next block going to be an increase as well? And the next block and the next block. There are seven blocks for development on this site. If we increase the density on every one of them, we are going to be creating a bad scenario for this neighborhood. So, I'm asking council to respect the density that was originally approved through the zoning. >> Okay. So, that's debate. I look for other speakers on this. Okay. Seeing none, then we're going to open that for voting. You worship. >> Yes. >> My apologies. I should have indicated to you that my my objection was to clause C, not clause A and B. I know we've opened the voting. I'm hoping we can cancel it and just separate those. >> Yeah, >> that's okay. Uh we hadn't closed the voting so it's pretty easy to separate those still. Um >> thank you. My apologies to colleagues. I should have been clear about that. >> Okay. So you'd like C dealt with separately but we can deal with everything else together. >> Yes. C is the only one that deals with the density. Okay. We're going to go with C first. So the density piece first. So we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote on part C. Motion carries 8 to six. >> Okay. And on the remainder, we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to1. >> Okay, I think that concludes that report, right? But you've got another one, so you can keep going, counselor. >> Thank you. I'll move on to 8.2, the 10th special report of the community and protective services committee. We had two items that we dealt with. I'm putting all items on the floor. >> Okay. So, that's uh item 8.2, all items on the floor. I'll look to any speakers to that. >> Go ahead, Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah, thank you uh your worship and I love good news stories. This is a donation agreement uh for the Byron Springback Veterans Monument. Um I want to thank um Deputy Mayor Lewis, I know, who's done a lot of work with the consortium. I'm looking forward to the unveiling on October the 3rd. So, thank you very much. >> Any other speakers? >> Okay, seeing none, we'll not for voting. Morning. Councelor Trusso absent. >> No, I'm here. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 140. >> All right, council. Go ahead. >> Thank you. That concludes the 10th report, but I'll move on to 8.3, the eighth report of the strategic priorities and policy committee. Uh, I've been asked to pull items six and seven. So, I'll looked to correct I'll just see if there's any other items. Seeing none, >> let's just let me just check. Does anybody want anything else dealt with separately from that report? >> Okay, you can go ahead and make >> Thank you. I will look to put one through five and eight on the floor. >> Okay, all of those items are on the floor. I'll look to any speakers for those items. >> Go ahead, Council Tro. Um, thank you very much uh to to the mayor. I made some very long comments about um four and five. No, four. And I'm not going to repeat them here. So, I'm just not going to do that. So, I've already made them at the committee and I'm not going to repeat them here. Um, so that's that. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other speakers? We'll open those items for voting. >> Cy votes yes. >> Noted. Thank you. Closing vote. Motion carries. 140. >> Go ahead, Council Ramen. >> Thank you. I'll put item six on the floor. the center of opportunity London economic London's economic development strategy 2026 to 2030 and implementation plan. >> Okay, that item's on the floor. I'll look to speakers on that item. >> Okay, seeing none, we're going to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to1. Councelor Ramen. >> Thank you. I'll put item 74.2 the downtown reimagined city of London downtown plan on the floor. >> Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look to speakers to that. >> Okay, councelor Pribble, go ahead. I'll be very brief. As I st as I stated during our committee meetings, if I look at both plans that we the previous one and this one, I think that's really compared to what we had before in London. Those are both were really great plans with great implementation. We know about the other issues, the big picture. But again, this is not part of it. This is the only concern and I'm going to repeat what I said before is really the accountability, the delivery, implementation plan. If we get that right, then we have some great plans. not just some great plans that will be sitting on the desk but actually plans that will deliver the best possible results for half a million of Londoners. Thank you. >> Thanks Councelor Pil Councelor Ferrer. >> Thank you mayor. Uh I thought I would speak to this one just one more time. I appreciate the vote and the support at SPC for this plan. Um you know we're looking for a vision. We're looking for a way into the future and I know the plan did speak to some big items and 58 actions but there's some things we didn't speak about. So I thought maybe I should reveal them or speak to them now. Um the first thing that I thought was very interesting because I hear a lot from uh people living in the core and especially because we're moving towards having more individuals live in the core. What type of amenities? What things are available? What can people do? Where can they shop? Where can they get their groceries? So I thought I'd start with that one with the grocery store because I know this is something that comes up from time to time. And I just wanted to go to staff because the plan does call for um a services and amenities gap assessment. So I just wanted to go to staff and see um if you could just uh speak to that a little bit. What would that services and amenities gap assessment reveal? Would it look into things like a grocery store? Would it look into things uh such as other amenities for people to be able to to use or shop or go to within the core? And uh when would we potentially be expecting something like that uh coming to council? Mr. Mathers [clears throat] >> uh through the chair. So yeah, um that's exactly as you phrased it what we'd be looking at as part of that assessment. So uh my intention wouldn't necessarily be to go to a consultant for this. I think this is something that we're very well set up of working with the community to be able to develop that information. It would include like speaking to residents, understanding from uh um both the current business community and the folks that are actually living in London in the downtown what they're looking for and what they might may need. Um and building off any other research we could do as well. So I think there it is very well known that there are needs downtown especially for for a grocery store space and uh and there's possibly other needs as well. So that would be something that we'd be bringing forward. It would likely be in Q1 or Q2 of next year because we want to kick off some of the other elements. The there's a report that'll be coming forward in the Q4 that it's going to provide a bit more of the implementation steps um that you're going to be able to see and uh I believe that'll be a very timely report and be something that's important to be able to be understood to be able to move forward in the core. >> Go ahead, councelor Farah. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Um, and I do also hear and I agree that uh I guess the downtown success, you know, also hinges on the day-to-day um accessibility, the visibility of it, the cleanliness of it and things like that. So, I understand that we do have already we have already propped up the downtown's operations team. We're already bringing in a CIR. We are already consulting with LPS. We already consulting with um with municipal compliance to look at storefronts and everything like that. And I wanted to know uh if we could get any update on when we would start seeing um reports coming back to council for actual um once we start seeing the implementation get rolled out. What will we be start to see coming back um with respect to as those actions or the success of those actions start taking place >> uh through your worship. So, uh, we'll absolutely be those are very important details and we'll have to be able to provide you, uh, through that implementation, um, uh, step in in Q4. We'll be able to lay that out and if council has any other ideas or other, um, uh, thoughts of what [snorts] they would like to see as reporting. Currently the the the um downtown plan speaks to having an annual report, but you're going to have reports from probably on a quarterly basis with uh any kind of initiatives that are coming out of the work and it'll definitely be informed by the next council strategic plan and the multi-year budget process moving forward as well. >> Go ahead. Okay, thank you for that. And also I know that vacancy is a big thing that we talk about downtown 31.5% I think vacancy right now which I would say has plateaued since 2023 and we really saw that reveal itself after the changes of the pandemic with uh office workers moving outside of the core but we have other vacancy issues as well. Um and I do see that we have some uh successful programs that we use right now with incentive programs. We could be using some other tools as well. I wanted to know um if some of the um I guess uh reinvisioned or or reorganized incentive programs as they come back, will we see incentive programs that will kind of help with potentially uh heritage properties or would we see incentive programs that would help with uh some office spaces that we kind of have deemed as not the lowhanging fruit? Would we be looking at those office spaces that may be just too big on the floor plate perspective? um whether it's from demolishing them or finding another type of use that is not necessar necessarily residential. Would we be seeing any type of programs or a look into that? >> Mr. Mathers >> uh through your worship. So, uh there is a five-year um review of our community improvement programs that we will be undertaking in the next we'll be just ramping that up next year. So, there'll be an overall comprehensive review of that. I'm hoping that out of the downtown champions table as well getting those really great ideas of what's would be important from the core and making some recommendations back to committee and council of the ones that are are programs that might be most influential and most important at the time. So I think at this point all of those options are on the table. But uh um it'll take in having this implementation coming forward and also developing uh this team moving forward as well to be able to actually get something before council so they can make some decisions. >> Okay. Thank you for that. And I like how you brought up the downtown uh champions table. And I guess I'll take that as into a segue into talking about the governance structure that we are seeking to approve here in the new service area for uh downtown which I believe is vitally important uh just because um with you know such a big economic engine that we have in the city here and all the things that are going on it would be much easier uh whether it's uh individuals who are trying to bring something forward to downtown initiative some type of activation or whatever to be able to go to that one place and also to have that governance structure that's responsible for the implementation of the plan itself because we like I I think I said this at committee, but we've had other plans in the downtown in the past. Sometimes items were picked up, sometimes items were not. Um, and we really kind of revealed that we need that authority that's responsible for the implementation of those actions coming out of the plan. So, this is one of the biggest things that I'm I I'm most excited about because we're actually going to have the ability to do these things that come into the plan. Whatever initiative it is, all the 58 actions, I'd like to see them all plus more. Um but whatever initiative is it is that downtown service area will be responsible for bringing those items to council for approval with budgets and also bringing back the KPIs and the reporting of where the successes are whether it's vacancy whether it's activations whether it's business incubation. So these are the things that um are really going to kind of get this plan moving. So uh this is why I'm fully supportive of this. I'm glad uh of the discussion that I heard at committee and I'm hoping hoping to get full support with this and this is about the vision of downtown. This is about the identity, the face of the city. I've said this before, but if we were to look at downtown comparative 30 seconds, comparatively speaking to other big corporations, this is the flagship. This is like the the money maker. This is where everybody looks when they look at London from outside and this is also the something that gives us the sense of what it means to be a Londoner. So, this is something that we need and this is something that will really bring Londoners together. So, I'm supportive of this. I'm hoping that we get support today, which I I think we will. Uh, and thank you. Those are my comments. Okay, other speakers. Councilor Troau. >> Um, very briefly, I would like to um again thank deputy city manager for his uh memo which uh which added some additional language with respect to the cultural anchors. Um and I I particularly want to thank Mr. McCauley for spending the time with me and Museum London and the London Public Library to uh add some specific things that they felt was missing. Um very significant for me because I've been talking about this um quite a bit. I'm very very excited to see the additional language in 12.2 and I really will be looking forward to working with staff and uh sort of looking what looking at what we already have on the books and how that can be incorporated into the implementation here. So, thank you again for working uh with me on that. In particular, thanks to Mr. McCauley. Thank you. >> Other speakers, >> I have myself on the list. Uh I'll briefly speak. I will turn it over to Councelor Layman to chair. >> Thank you. Go ahead, Mayor. >> Yeah, I don't want to uh repeat what uh colleagues have already said. Uh but I do want to uh actually take a moment to thank uh our staff and all of the different community partners who took the time to engage on both this and the uh the plan that we just passed on the economic development plan. Um these were things that we set in a direction a couple years ago to actually come to fruition. Um it took a lot of work. It took a lot of engagement. Uh the the consultants did, you know, thousands of hours of work. Our staff did the same. Uh and so you know although we have the chance to pass it today and there's obviously a lot of work ahead because these are plans that have to be implemented uh it is important for us to recognize that there's a significant amount of work that go into this point. Uh to getting to this point is a critical piece but this is as councelor Pribble always likes to say when we do the strategic plan implementation is obviously a critical part of any document or plan. Having a solid plan is just the first step. You know, one of the things that I I just wanted to take a moment to highlight because there are many things to highlight in the downtown plan is I appreciate the recognition of the assets that we have in the downtown already. Uh we are lucky to be a city where there is hundreds of millions of dollars of residential investment already going into our downtown that we have the capacity to accelerate. We are lucky to be a city where we have already made the decision to improve on significant and uh existing critical assets that are already driving uh activity and uh per uh events in the downtown like the investment we made in uh in the enhancements to Canada life place. Uh we also recognize through this plan that we have significant natural heritage aspects in our downtown that other other cities are envious of. We have a beautiful river flowing through the downtown of the city. We have private sector uh interested in the river district. It's a grassroots moment. It's not a city idea coming to being layered onto the community. We're we're seizing these things in our community. And of course, you know, right beside this building, we recognize that we have, you know, one of the most beautiful downtown parks uh uh of any city and we have the ability to make that a truly transformative space through the execution of this plan. Downtowns are shifting to be neighborhoods and that means downtowns will feel like neighborhoods with people living in them, working in them, enjoying beautiful public spaces. And we have the chance now to move forward upon the passing of this plan with execution and implementation of of a really critical uh plan that was on that was representative of of many hours of hard work for many people. So thank you. >> I'll turn the chair back to you may. >> Okay. Other speakers to this. Okay. Seeing none, we can open this for. Councelor Poza. Second call. Councelor Poza. Marking councelor Pelosa absent closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to1. >> Thank you. That concludes my report. >> We're on to uh the 11th report of the infrastructure and corporate services committee. Council Mallister, I'll turn it over to you to present. >> Uh thank you. Uh pleased to report uh the 11th report on infrastructure and corporate services. Um I have had requests for 8 9 and 11 to be pulled. So I will look to move uh 1 through 7 and 10. Okay. Anybody else want anything dealt with separately besides 8 9 and 11? >> Okay. So you'll move a motion counselor then. >> Uh yes. Uh that was 1 to 7 and 10. So 1 to 7 and 10 are before us. Moved by the chair. Any discussion on those matters. Okay. Seeing none, we will open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 13 to zero. >> Sorry, Mr. Chair, Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. >> Uh my vote thing, sorry. Same thing with the last vote. Just keep saying vote closed even though I'm trying to vote. Um so I'm here. I'm going to start restart. But my vote would have been a yes if it would let me vote. >> Oh, on the um the downtown plan that one. >> Yeah, on that one. And then uh counselors counselor stuff right now. Just I said I'll restart. It just keeps saying boat closed. So, I'll retry and I'll do it verbally if it's givingven me more problems. Sorry. >> No problem, counselor. I mean, if we're happy that you verbally confirmed your support for the downtown plan. If you really want to vote for it, we can >> No, we're not going back. Always forward. Thank you. [laughter] >> Perfect. That's the way I like it. All right. Okay. So, we'll move on then. Um, and if you need to vote verbally, just vote verbally. Um, we'll we'll I'll we'll slow things down and make sure you can jump in uh until Lee Scribe gets working for you. I'll turn it back to councelor Mallister for the remaining items in the report. >> Okay. Uh thank you. And through you, I'll put item eight on the floor. >> Okay. So, that's on the floor. I'll look to any speakers. >> Okay. Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> I'll vote yes. Councelor Plausa >> closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to one. >> Council McAllister. >> Okay. Um through you I will put item nine on the floor. >> Okay. Item nine is on the floor. I'll look to any speakers on item nine. Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Pastor close the votes yes. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to1. >> Councelor McAllister. >> Thank you. Through you. I'll put item 11 on the floor. >> Item 11 is on the floor. I'll look for any speakers to item 11. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Um, I do have some questions uh through you to staff. I just want to confirm um that this report says that there's $1.8 billion in tax property tax funding or taxpayer funding that is internally invested and managed. And I also just want to confirm that the policies that we have regarding uh how how to invest and how to report out are the provincial standards uh and nothing more than that. >> Sure. I'll go to Mr. Murray online. >> Uh thank you and through you Mr. Mayor. Yes, that is uh correct. The total uh market value uh of the city's uh investment portfolio as of the end of uh 2025 was approximately uh 1.8 billion. Uh and to the second part of the councelor's question, uh the uh investment process uh and uh ultimately our investment strategy and decisions are guided by uh provincial legislation uh specifically the municipal act and associated uh regulations as well as uh our city investment policy which is available on our website. uh and that policy itself is uh informed of course by uh the regulations uh in the municipal act. Thank you >> councelor Stevenson. >> Uh thank you and to confirm in terms of reporting uh it's just the minimum required by the municipal act. Correct >> Mr. Murray? >> Uh through you. So the the uh reporting that is uh required is outlined in our investment uh policy uh itself as well. Uh it does uh certainly meet the minimum requirements in the uh in the legislation. Although we do provide uh additional context and additional commentary as part of our uh investment report to help council understand our investment performance. >> Okay. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Yeah, I talked about this one a little bit at committee, but I I you know, we talk about transparency and accountability and as I said, this is 1.8 billion and what is reported and it's no well it's 1.5 uh billion in fixed income in GIC's and 295 million in Canadian equity poolled funds. When I and that's that's all that we see. So when I asked at committee, you know, other cities will list all of the different investments and we get to see them all. And uh the response was there's a lot of them. There's 180 different investments. And I just think well all the more reason why two lines is not sufficient uh transparency in my opinion to taxpayers uh where we're investing money on behalf of them. And when I go back to 2021, the investment report for the year ending 2021, um it showed uh 10 or 12 different uh investments. It also talked about the average term to maturity. It showed book value and there was an appendix B that showed um the various different five uh poolled investment funds, government fixed income, corporate fixed income, assetbacked uh securities and other investments. And it showed both cost and market value for the current year and the previous year. It says an excerpt from the 2021 consolidated financial statements. So, but in the in the 2025 report here, we're only showing fair value. We're not showing book value and market value. You can't see if there was a gain or a loss. Um, and so I'm just wondering when this report is developed and brought forward to council, how does civic administration decide how much to provide um and and what information to provide? and if there's a change from one year to the next because it seems to me and I've said this before that in iterations of council we seem to be having less and less accountability and transparency less and less detail whether it's uh multi-year budgets um uh you know uh operating things or the investments we're seeing less and less when I go back 10 years ago there's tons of detail ins and outs uh balances now we just get everything summed out so my question through you the staff is um can you just help me understand why there's a change to um fair value reporting rather than book value and market value and uh who and how is are the decisions made around uh less reporting to council? >> I don't know Mr. Mayor you want to start with that one. >> Certainly and through you Mr. Mayor. So uh what I will say and uh certainly the uh the environment and the landscape has changed somewhat uh in the last uh few years as it pertains to uh accounting uh policies and accounting requirements uh in relation to our investments. uh new accounting standards related to financial instruments have come into effect approximately two years ago uh which has required municipalities to uh reflect our uh investments uh in many cases at fair market value. So that is why uh the uh the shift perhaps in focus from uh book value to to fair market value that is to align with uh the the uh accounting standards that are currently in effect. Uh what I will say more generally as well is that you know certainly we are open to uh providing the information that council believes is is uh valuable and relevant and and helpful in your understanding of our uh of our investment portfolio and activities. Uh certainly we're we're happy to to take that direction. We do have a fairly sizable uh investment portfolio as as was noted in the committee report itself. We have you know upwards of uh almost 200 different uh securities in our fixed income portfolio. So, it is a it is a sizable uh portfolio, but you know, certainly we are open to taking council's direction on additional information or specifics that council would like to see going forward. >> Council Stevenson. >> Yeah, thank you. So, I mean, I think it'll be clear by what I'm doing here that I do think that we should have a more extensive investment policy and council should be saying that we what we want to see. Um, this is just so summed that it's there's just it's just not accountable or transparent in my opinion. And I think the general public would agree that if there's 180 different investments that, you know, it'd be nice to know for those who know about investing be able to see transparently what we're doing. So, in the 2021 uh report, it took an excerpt from the consolidated financial statements for the year. Uh did staff think that there was anything in the current year financial statements that was warranted to bring forward for council's attention here? I'm I'm assuming not because it's not here, but I just want to know if that consideration is made and and who's making that decision. >> Mr. Murray. >> Uh thank you. So the the information here I'll just uh I'll just caution uh as well is uh not directly uh tiable to the the financial statements themselves. Of course our financial statements are consolidated financial statements. This investment report deals with uh specifically our unconsolidated uh investments. Those being the investments uh of the city uh itself and not inclusive of uh investments that our agencies, boards or commissions may hold. So uh there there is a challenge I guess in in pulling information directly from our our financial statements cuz they are uh two different basis uh of numbers that uh that they relate to. So um that that is the the challenge but certainly the the portion uh of our investments that relate to the city itself uh is uh reconciled to what is reported in our annual audited financial statements. >> Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. And who who is it that makes the decision as to the level of information that comes to council? >> Mr. Murray, are I see nods in the room too, Mr. Murray? Okay. Or do you want to go? Mr. Murray, I'll start with you and then then we might have more answers in the room. So, >> certainly certainly I I can start Mr. Mayor and uh through you. uh it is the the treasurer uh who has ultimate responsibility for uh the uh investment uh policy and ultimately the investment report of the city. >> Would you like to add anything? >> Uh thank you for the chair. So certainly throughout the number of years through our investment update we've provided numerous policy changes and through those policy changes we take the direction of council. So certainly if council was looking for additional information or does not wish to follow the advice that staff have put forward with respect to policy changes, council is always open to make those changes through the policy that is brought forward on a regular basis for review. >> Perfect. Thank you. Councelor Stevenson, you have I just want to give you your time. You got 38 seconds or so. >> Yeah. So, and I understand that and hence why I'm talking to council and talking to the public about this in that the minimum standards are met, but there's a variation. Changes are happening from year to year. The the presentation is changing. What is reported is changing. The level of detail is changing and there's no explanation as to why in the report those changes are made. So, it does say that the 2024 portfolio investment, you know, that we closed out the retail brokerage accounts um and everything's been moved internally. Um I guess and I'm not trying to trap staff here and I am a little frustrated by what is being presented here when I read >> your time is up. Okay. other speakers to this item. >> Okay, we're going to open that for voting. >> Councelor Pelosa, thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 131. >> And that concludes my report. Okay, thank you. We're going to move on to the report of the planning and environment committee. I'll turn it over to Chair Layman to present the report. >> Thank you, mayor, and please the uh present the ninth report of the planning and environment committee. Uh I've been requested to pull item seven and that's the extent of that. >> Okay, item seven. Uh anything else? Go ahead. Councelor Troa or sorry Ra Council Ramen you wanted something separate. >> Thank you. Uh item 12 please. 4.1. >> Okay. 12. Uh councelor Troa you had your hand up. >> Yes. I'm I'm sorry. Um I wanted to vote separately on item six. >> Uh oh. Item six in the planning report. Sure. No problem. We can do that separate. Councelor Stevenson. Uh, thank you. I'd like to pull five, eight, and nine, please. >> Anyone want anything else? 1 through four. >> So, it seems like what we have left is 1 through 4, 10, and 11, if I'm right. Yep. Okay, I see nods. Everybody okay with doing those ones together? >> Okay. Councelor Layman. >> So I'll move those items. >> Those items are on the floor. I'll look for any discussion. Go ahead, Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah. Thank you, Worship. I just want to take uh an opportunity here to thank the committee on uh 3.1 which is uh subdivision on Colonel Telbbert Road. I u did bring forward an amendment. uh given the amount of development that's going on in this area and the development that is to come that uh a revised transportation impact assessment be considered as it goes through the draft plan of subdivision as well as the um uh site plan. I just want to thank the committee for supporting that amendment. >> Any other speakers to the items before us? Okay, we're going to open that up for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 140. >> So I'd like to put on uh item five regarding 2496 Dundas Street. Councelor Stevenson requests that to be pulled. >> Okay. That item is dealt with separately. I looked at any speakers on that. Go ahead. >> Thank you. So, yes, there was a written submission that came in from the uh airport authority, I believe, on this one. I'd just like an update uh or staff's comment on this. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> Sorry, mayor. Point of order. >> Uh >> um >> point of order. >> I believe, and this is not with respect to the counselor's comments, I see 12 was moved here. I thought that was pulled. I don't know if you're reading the motion wrong. It says with the exception of items and then it lists them and it includes 12. So that means it's not in. >> Okay, I pulled that back. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So all good. Go ahead. >> Thank you. through your worship. The uh the letter on the agenda was provided for information for council to make you aware that uh they do operate uh 24 hours and uh and the concerns related to potential noise complaints from uh as as growth happens and growth comes closer to the airport lands. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. I I guess I was surprised to see this like right on the added agenda for council given that we talked about this at planning a little while ago and I would have thought the airport as a major neighbor to that area that we would have reached out to them or consulted them or had their input. So can I just ask do we have a policy around consulting with the airport around uh these kinds of things? >> Mr. from others. >> Uh through your worship, they we were they were circulated on this application and they chose not to make a submission through the normal course of the process. Um we did reach out to them uh very close to the committee because there were some questions that we'd received about uh the uh the 24-hour nature of the of the airport lands and they decided at that point to put in submit a letter, but uh we did include them. They weren't they're actually outside the required distance, but we decided to um provide them a notification as part of our our process, but they chose not to at the time to be able to make a submission. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. Can I ask um in terms of our economic development and our economic development strategy? Uh has this zoning change or development been considered in terms of our goals there? Go ahead. >> Thank you. Through your worship, these lands were brought into um a change in land use through the land needs assessment review. So they were originally industrial and council opted to put these lands into residential. Uh so now the nature of the zoning application is to follow that land use. Um, from that perspective, no, we don't necessarily follow the economic development plan because it's um we're f following the planning act in terms of zoning applications um that are submitted to for council's consideration. >> Council Stevenson. >> Uh thank you. through the staff though. Could I hear from economic development in terms of uh that being one of our focuses and how this might impact? >> Go ahead. >> Thank you through the chair. Um so I can what I can say to you and I'm not sure it answers your full question. I can tell you the airport was heavily involved in the discussions as it relates to development of the economic development plan. I do not know that they've raised this specific issue uh but they have certainly uh been active in the discussions as we develop the plan. I'm happy to get more information and specific questions if you have them. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Well, I guess my last question is um uh what are the risks of referring this and allowing us to have the time for civic administration to talk to them about this and to look at our economic development strategy that was just passed. Maybe you can comment on timelines or anything related to risk. Uh >> thank you through your worship. From a planning perspective, the risk would be not meeting the statutory timelines. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Okay. I I think that's the only questions I have. Like I said, I I just feel uncomfortable when I get a letter when I see a letter like this last minute on the agenda. It doesn't feel good, you know. >> Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> Uh thank you, Chair, and through you. Um, you know, I I'm I'm going to encourage everyone to support the committee's recommendation here. Um, first of all, as Miss McNeely indicated in her comments, this land through the land needs assessment was removed from the industrial place type and the employment sector lands. Um, I think between 18 and 24 months ago, uh, or thereabouts, staff can correct me if I've got the timeline wrong. Um the letter that we received from the airport not only was late um after not participating in the initial opportunity to uh comment but really is not different substantively than the letter we received almost two years ago when we made the land use change. Um so irrespective of the economic development plan which does feature some pieces of the airport we have to make a planning decision here based on an application that was received and with respect to the 247 comments I mean this is a situation where anyone purchasing a unit in this townhouse complex uh is going to know from day one that they're moving near the airport. Um there are actually homes that are closer to the airport already existing on Costa Sav and Premarie Road. Um so again I just bring it back to this is a planning application uh not an economic development question and we should be submitting uh or we should be voting based on the planning rationale that was supported by staff in their staff report uh and moving this application forward. So I would encourage colleagues to stay with committee recommendation. >> Other speakers to this matter? Councelor Ferrer. >> Uh thanks mayor. Uh I would also agree that to stay with the recommendation from the committee, Deputy Mayor Lewis beat me to the punch, but Kostasav is closer to approach on the big runway there than this residential development would be. So there are individuals who would be closer than this one. Um, and just with the patterns of aviation going around, you're not going to see any aircraft right over that area. Um, it would be much less uh of of a noise, I guess, complaint than it would for the Costa uh coming in. So, um, those would be my comments. I just want to add to that. Okay. Other speakers to this matter. Okay. Seeing none, the item before us is the committee's recommendation. We'll open that for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to1. >> Councelor Layman. Mayor, I'll put uh item number six. This is regarding 221 Queen Zav on the floor. This is request to be pulled by councelor Trusso. Okay, that item uh is on the floor. I look to any speakers. Go ahead, councelor Troile. [clears throat] >> Um again, in the interest of time uh through through the mayor, um I um I made some rather long comments about this at the committee, I cannot support this. I could not I cannot support another temporary temporary extension. Uh and uh I I believe that the staff report had it had it right. And I don't think it's really appropriate for us to get into a discussion about whether we like the applicant or not. That's not a land use uh cons consideration. So, um I I really think it's time for us to say uh to this property owner with respect to this parcel that it's time to move on and do some housing development. It's perfect place for it and that's why I'll be voting no on this item. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other speakers? >> Go ahead. Councelor Prible, >> thank you. I I will certainly be supporting the recommendation of the committee. Uh the applicant, the owner of the property of the parking lot was very clear in terms of the need need for his uh for their current tenants that they have and in terms of the safe nearby parking and as we all know uh this developer certainly uh is or does develop in uh various properties downtown London or throughout London. So I will be supporting it based on the facts uh that this parking lot is needed and for the current and as you know the situation downtown with our vacancy rate I think that we should be working in terms of uh increasing our economic growth not decreasing and therefore I'm going to support this. It does make sense in this case to support this parking lot. Absolutely. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. I have just so you know that I've got you on the list Lewis Frank and Ferrer. I'll go to Deputy Mar Lewis first. >> Uh thank you, chair, and through you. Uh I'm absolutely supporting the committee recommendation. Uh I moved it at committee. Uh and I'm going to be blunt. First of all, we can't tell the applicant to move on and build housing. The property isn't actually zoned for residential use um moving forward. So what we would have is a vacant piece of land. These are fully leased spots uh that serve tenants in existing downtown commercial office buildings. Without these spots, the uh landlord would be in breach of lease and potentially could see early termination of leases and have tenants vacating the downtown core and increasing commercial vacancy. Uh and in addition to that, uh you know, we hear it's it's temporary. It's temporary. Well, yes, it's an extension of another temporary use. If we look back at some of our own municipal plans, by this point in time, we should have multiple downtown parking garages that have not materialized. We still have a parking problem in downtown London and we are not going to see surface lots disappear until we see something develop around the development of a parking garage. So I strongly encourage colleagues to not increase uh commercial vacancy uh to not presume that this could be turned into housing because it's not even zoned for that use currently. Uh so it would have to go through a reasonzoning before that could even be considered. Uh the applicants made it very clear that they're not interested in doing that right now and so we should be supporting this committee's recommendation. >> Councelor Ferrer. >> Thanks Mayor. Uh just listening to the conversation I just want to add I feel like we should be pragmatic in uh in kind of how we approach this. Like I understand council Trusso's sentiments. uh I don't want to see parking surface level lots either. However, at the same time, I think the discussion should be about what can we do to discuss with the owner um of future work and I think that's going to take some time, but I think we should start doing that. We had a parking strategy. Um I agree with Councelor Lewis's comments. We do need to figure out how it is we're going to accommodate certain parking and I feel like building structures or mixeduse developments would would help us in that but you know supporting 3 years for this is something that I would do now but I think the conversation should be about what do we do when that 3 years comes to an end are we able to potentially work with the owner here and see if we can find a solution so we don't have to have an extension on the next 3 years so right now um I am going to support it um but I think The conversation really should be about what's next after the 3 years so we don't come up to this situation again in 3 years and talk about extending it again. I think that there's good use here and I really think that there's some interest uh to obviously you know create a better way of how we accommodate parking in the downtown core. >> Okay. Uh councelor Cuddy. >> Thank you worship and through you. um the the applicant if they thought they could fill a building, they would build a building up. This these are one of the leading developers and builders in our city and they have been for 50 60 years. So, not to repeat anything that's already been said by Deputy Mayor Lewis or others. Um I would strongly recommend and encourage uh my colleagues to support this. Uh I don't disagree with with um what councelor Fer said. It would be nice to know in the next three years what their plans are. And I have no doubt I have no doubt at all that they will tell us what their plans are. They'll telegraph them fairly quickly because they'll understand when the economy is changing, when there's an opportunity to fill buildings, I'm sure they will build them. So, thank you. Okay. Any other speakers on this one? Okay. Seeing none, we're going to open up it for voting. >> May >> Oh, sorry. Stop. Uh I see councelor PL's hand up. So, we won't vote yet. You can go ahead and speak. >> That's okay. Certainly not uh anticipating to sway any votes here. Um I think that's the issue that we've always had. Uh we don't want to see vacant property going unuse. Uh parking is a use, but I think that's a conversation that's probably been had around this very horseshoe for 31 years of looking forward to a plan coming and at some point um either we just stop with temporary and let it be permanent um or we actually look for that application. I I think that's just my standing feeling about these uh temporary parking lots that we've seen across the core um throughout my term on council and this report cites 30 31 years um for for some potentially on council that's almost their entire lifetime. Thank you. >> Okay, seeing no other speakers we're now going [clears throat] to open up for voting. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to three. Noting councelor Mallister has left the meeting. >> Okay, I'll turn back to councelor Layman. >> Thank you, mayor. I'll put number seven regarding 1057 to 1061 Richmond Street on the floor. This was requested to be pulled by council Robin. Okay, that is uh on the floor. I'll look to speakers. Go ahead, councelor Ramen. >> Uh thank you and through you. Uh I'd like to um put forward an amendment that I have circulated and I apologize to my colleagues for uh the late circulation, but I understand that the de developer did also circulate a letter regarding my uh amendment. Um so the amendment that I'm looking to introduce, would you like me to read it? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Um, and I'll just confirm with staff that it's the alternative recommendation that I shared. And so with that, uh, it starts with notwithstanding the recommendation the director of planning and development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 100 14436158 Ontario, Inc. Royal Premier Homes related to the property located at 10571061 Richmond Street. the proposed alternate bylaw attached here too as appendix A be introduced at the municipal council meeting June 23rd 2026 to amend zoning bylaw number Z1 uh in the municipal council meeting June 23rd 2026 uh sorry in conformity with the official plan the London plan to change the zoning of the subject property from a neighborhood facility special provision bonus NF114B24 zone to a neighborhood facility special provision 14 zone And be it further resolved that pursuant to subsection 3417 of the planning act, no further notice be given. It being noted that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons. Uh I the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024. Two, the recommended amendment conforms to the London plan including but not limited to the key direction city building policies and the urban corridor place type policies. N3, the recommendation amended amendment facilitates residential intensification that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighborhood. Uh I've included an um an update to the bylaw. Um and so that is prepared and ready. Uh that includes in it um two additional components that are under XI and XIV. The first one is maximum number of bedrooms were per dwelling unit at three and XIV maximum number of bedrooms on the property at 35. >> Okay. So, I need to look for a second. Deputy Mayor Lewis, I assume you're not looking to second. >> Uh, no. Actually, I'm uh going to call a point of order, Mr. Chair. Um, in my opinion, this amendment is out of order. It substantively alters the committee recommendation uh by imposing caps uh that are not u something that was in the staff recommendation as was indicated by uh the communication we received from the applicant. It would halt the development not approve it. Uh it would force them to go back. It would also potentially result in an OOLT appeal. I this is a substantive change and contrary to the committee's recommendation. >> Okay, so that's a point of order. I just going to need a second on that one. Okay. Um so the point of order was essentially um not to allow the uh uh the amendment um because uh the counselor felt it was contrary to the um uh the the planning committee's recommendation. So, uh, my ruling on this after consultation with the clerks is that although it could have be substantially different, uh, I don't believe it is contrary even if it does have significant consequences for the developer. So, I'm going to let the amendment proceed as an amendment based on the advice of the clerks and it is my decision, but that's what I'm going to decide. Um, and certainly we can have a debate on the amendment. Uh, should that fail, we can have a debate on it. respectfully your worship. I'm going to challenge the chair's ruling then >> as I expected you would. So, all right. So, we'll do a challenge of the chair. So, my ruling is that uh the amendment is allowed. So, there will be a vote uh and that is uh basically should the essentially it's should the um ruling of the chair be upheld. So, you vote yes, you agree with me that the amendment can stand. You vote no. uh then what we will do is uh the amendment will not stand and the motion would have to be uh defeated first for councelor to introduce the uh alternate. So but the but the decision that we'll make now not debatable is uh does council support the decision I made to allow the amendment to stand. Okay. So we're going to put that on. A yes is you agree with me. A no is you disagree with my ruling. Okay. We'll open that for voting. closing the vote. The challenge to the chair is successful. The ruling of the chair is not sustained in a vote of 5 to 8. >> Okay. And by the way, I take no offense to that. It's a decision-making mechanism. So that means uh council has decided that the uh amendment will not be allowed. So to make your amendment councelor uh we would have to defeat the committee's recommendation and then we could proceed with an alternate. Um so that would be the pathway before us. So I will so what we're on is the committee chair uh presenting the committee's recommendation. All you did was rise and propose an amendment. So I'm going to allow you to still have the right to speak to the main motion. You don't have to do that now. You can do it later or you can do it now. But that's where we are. I think she has to speak now. >> Oh, >> okay. Clerk says you should speak now because you already rose and on the speakers list. So, we're going to do that. >> Uh, okay. Through you. Um, thank you. Uh, I will start by asking my colleagues not to support the recommendation that's on the floor from planning today. uh and the reason for that uh I think is well articulated in uh some of the letters submitted uh including the one from uh Mr. Barrett and Miss Smoot. Um in that letter you'll see a summary of the reasons why uh the alternative recommendation should this motion fail of which I would like to move or someone else to move um to limit the bedrooms would be an important consideration. So um in this summary that's provided uh it's explained that the policy context in the planning framework has not substantially changed since council first considered the adaptive reuse and intensification of this property. Uh as we know from this discussion, this item went to the OOLTM at the time in 2013 and it determined that the appropriate level of intensification of this this particular building was nine dwelling units with a total of 27 bedrooms. What we have here today is 17 units for discussion. Uh what I'm proposing as an alternative is yes, keep the 17 units but limit the bedroom count. The bedroom count would be limited by what we heard in the room at PEC during the conversation provided by the planning consultant, Mike Davis. So the amendment would conform with the verbal commitment given by the planning consultant that was three bedrooms on the nine already constructed units and in the basement and yes the basement one bedroom or studios in the remaining eight units. So you have residents of the area who've had a chance to tour this particular building since it has been constructed and they've given their feedback as well and shared that in your submissions. But you'll also see again in this summary that this is a reasonable opportunity to have a conversation around the kind of bedroom bedroom count that should be in a unit in a in a development like this. Uh the interesting thing about this proposal in front of us is we can't see anything. So we have to take into account what we heard in the meeting. What we heard in the meeting was a commitment that the three bedrooms which are already constructed in those nine units should stand and that the remaining makeup of the building should be one bedroom in studios. So I asked this question yesterday at planning as well. What happens when we hear from a planner, a planning consultant or the developer during a public uh meeting on an application? The feedback that we heard what we heard during that debate. I asked the question, what's the bedroom makeup? And I brought the amendment based on that only to then receive communication from the developer not to constrain the plan by having bedroom limits. But I thought that was going to be the bedroom makeup. Do we know what we're agreeing to otherwise? So, this is my concern. In front of us, we have the opportunity to make a decision that addresses some of the issues from the neighborhood, that addresses some of the concerns with an underparked property, that addresses some of the concerns about having units in a basement, limiting the count on those units. So, I do think this is a viable way for us to move this project forward. I'm asking you not to support what's on the floor so that we can move the amendment or sorry that we can move an alternative motion. Thank you. >> Okay, I'll look to other speakers for the item on the floor. >> Go ahead, councelor Cuddy. >> Thank you. Worship and through you. And um colleagues, if you had been at um at the planning committee meeting, um I I referenced um a similar development that we're seeing at the Robinson Church, and that was uh Locus Mont, which was uh one of the oldest uh buildings in the in the city, which was raised to the ground. Raised to the ground because someone went in and lit a match and and destroyed it. And colleagues, it was raised to the ground because no one cared about the building. It was one of the most historic buildings behind Elden House in this city. It was on Talvin Street. Robinson Church is like that. It's a historic building and the only way it can be preserved and it has not been preserved well, by the way, if you if you drive by and take a look at or if you've been in the building. But the only way it can be preserved is if is if it's developed. The current the current owners of the building have taken the time, spent the money and the effort to put a ring around it, security fence, and have a 24-hour security guard there. They are making every effort to preserve that building. Yet, people have still gotten in there and have still tried to tried to burn it down. Now, I know understand the residents and I heard them and I've spoken to them. I understand the re the residents. They're concerned. But but colleagues, if this building is not preserved, if it's not developed, it will fall into a shambles or or even more, it will burn to the ground. What the developers have have proposed, I think at least, and I think we all agreed that at PEC, that this is a suitable arrangement for this building. This is a good project and it will preserve this this property for for decades or longer. So I would encourage you all to support the planning decision and move ahead with this development. Thank you. >> I have councelor I don't actually have a list. Councelor Tro and then Stevenson. >> Um thank you. [clears throat] Thank you very much and through the through the mayor. Um, I really wanted to see a compromise here. Yes, this has fallen into disrepair. Yes, the owner has been the previous owners have been negligent in allowing uh what amounts to demolition by neglect and yes, there needs to be refurbishment and development in this building. No disagreement from me. I go by it every day and I hear the complaints from the adjacent residents about the bad condition of this building. However, that doesn't mean that I can support a development that is not well thought out, that is inappropriate and will cause substantial hardship to people. not only hardship to people on the streets but a danger to the residents in terms of being crammed into a basement. And I really think that the this this is the kind of development that we have to look at very carefully and we have to take into account first and foremost the nature of this building and the nature of the stub street. And I I love the term stub street because it is a stub street. You turn you turn down Sherwood, you're gonna have a hard time getting out because you're not going anywhere. And I just I just think that um the residents of this block have been very diligent over the years in terms of trying to allow an appropriate level of development without without sort of overcharging the property. This is um what councelor Ramen has come forward with is a reasonable development that will allow an appropriate development of this site in a way that mitigates some of the harsh effects that the uh I think illthought out uh proposal. I mean the question was asked at the planning committee. How many bedrooms are going to be in this property? still she didn't get a good answer. And if we approve this, they can go to the next stage of getting a building permit. [clears throat] No, there's something missing there. There's something missing there. I also feel uh and you know, I've really given this a lot of thought. I I do think that the OM decision, albeit more than a few years old, is still a viable decision. There's really nothing about this street or this property that's changed. And um I went through Mr. Barrett's detailed letter very carefully and I think all of his points are well taken. So, I'll be joining councelor Ramen in asking you to vote this uh to vote this down at which at which point we can come back and put something on the table that is a reasonable compromise. This is not a reasonable compromise. So, thank you very much. >> Uh councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Um, it's not a compromise when the other party doesn't agree. And I, uh, the people in my ward still are in despair around the McCormick factory where we did the same thing. We allowed the developer some parts, but we wouldn't give them everything that they wanted. And then they don't develop, and then it falls into neglect. And then the public's mad and rightfully so, I think, because if we can't make somebody do it. So, they're bringing us a development proposal for a heritage church that's been sitting vacant for 13 years that is susceptible to vandalism, damage, fire, and neglect, and we're going to lose it. They're willing to to to take over a heritage building with all that that comes with with anybody who's has a heritage building knows it's an experience. They're willing to do it. It's on Richmond Street and we're going to try to tell them how they should do it and how many units and we're going to end up getting nothing. And it isn't about cowttowing to the developer. It's about, we talk about trusting the experts all the time. Most of the developers want to build great housing. They want to meet the needs of Londoners. [clears throat] They want to do these things. This is an opportunity. And to at the last minute try to say this is a compromise. When we just make changes at the last minute just doesn't make any sense to me and it puts at risk that building, that location. The other thing I want to say, and I know this will be a little contentious, but we're going to talk about it a lot today, I think, is that there is a growing perception that different neighborhoods are treated differently. And so, again, here we go again where the Western University uh near campus neighborhood is is is being catered to according to uh No, but I'm just going to say there's a per I said there's a perception. >> So, councelor Tro, you got to use your microphone. a point point of personal privilege. >> Yes. Uh on behalf of my ward and on behalf of my ward residents, I really think that's a little insulting and I just think that she should moderate her um her tone her tone here. I think that there the whether or not you agree with the positions of the neighbors, I'm arguing now, so I'll >> Okay. Yeah, you don't argue. So, uh so the um uh the language catering to um uh is uh I mean the council represents the area. he represents constituents there. Uh we all I think I'll say to councelor Stevenson I think you can word that differently and would ask you to do that for the remainder of your comments. >> Thank you and I'm happy to do that. This is a and and I don't want to argue the point either but this is a very short what they call stub street not concerned about through traffic flying through. We're going to have several other developments that are going we're going to talk about shortly where residents are concerned about the over the intensity, the number of uh bedrooms, the traffic impacts, and it just goes through. And then there's other areas of the city where staff say uh you know, we don't deem it's appropriate here. Some some some we do say it's appropriate. I'm going to talk about that later. And here we're being asked to try to impose limits in this particular spot, but we're not going to do it consistently in other areas. And I think I think that's an issue. I think it's a growing sense of inequity that there are certain sort of lower income, lower status, whatever you want to call it, people don't know people in a certain neighborhood and uh that they don't get the same consideration from their elected council. So it's a perception. I'm not saying it's a reality, but it's a growing perception. And so, I'm just going to end on I fully am going to support this. I appreciate the investment in our city in that heritage property. I think it's going to be a beautiful place to live. And uh I'm going to trust the developer. I hear that the basement has really nice big huge windows. Um I'm looking forward to seeing it when it's built and I'm happy to support it as is. >> Deputy Mayor Lewis, >> thank you. to your worship and through you. Um, I'm going to start by saying uh my recollection and councelor Ramen's recollection uh of what happened at at planning from the consultant's response are different and I'm not saying that she's incorrect. My recollection, however, was that the indication was uh the basement units would be smaller uh because of the constraints uh around renovating a heritage building. Um, I don't recall a commitment to them being all onebedrooms. Um, but there there was an indication that they would likely be smaller. Um, however, that's my recollection and I did not go back because we only received this amendment uh just before the meeting started uh to check the committee meeting. Um, but I do want to through you ask our staff not in terms of citywide policies. Obviously, we have policies like the mir campus neighborhood. Uh we have some other policies, but is there a planning basis on an individual address application for putting a cap on bedrooms in our official plan or through our zoning bylaw processes? >> Just one second. >> All right. I and I'll just say I know council can do it but is there a planning basis for it? >> So we're getting that answer. Just give it a sec because we have staff conferring. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Through your worship. Uh notwithstanding the the planning rationale. The there was a cap at one point for bedrooms but council opted to remove that. um and that would be a a council uh position um municipality to municipality um university towns and that we've seen that across Canada. But having said that um there's no planning basis for a camp. >> Go ahead. >> Uh thank you for that. uh also through you your worship. Um we heard the rationale for for an amendment is that um the perception was the planning framework has not substantially changed since 2013. Um but is it not true through you staff that uh the 2013 decision was made under the 1989 official plan? We now operate under the London plan. So there has been a change in our official plan. There have been three new provincial policy statements uh as well as our own amendments to our official plan since the London plan was adopted with the heights plan review. U so would staff opinion that there actually has been substantive change to the planning framework since 2013. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Through your worship. Yes, that's correct. Uh that's the planning position on that plus it's also in a strategic growth area. So that's a big uh shift from 2013. And uh also under the 1989 official plan, these lands were designated lowdensity residential recognizing these lands are now in an urban corridor. Yes, they may be in a preservation policy area, but it still would contemplate higher intensity and this would be gentle intensification uh with no external changes. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. So through you, I think that right there underlines it. um the the the rationale for the amendment is actually not supported by our planning staff. It it doesn't have a basis in planning policies today. The planning framework has substantively changed. Um and and as has been uh said by my colleagues uh councelor Cuddy, councelor Stevenson both referenced this. This applicant who's only had the property less than a year is willing to take on the risk of a heritage property with no external change to the building. So the changes are all internal. So it's correct to say we don't see them ahead of time because there's no external change to the building. There's no extra construction going on. So the internal building configuration is a matter of going through the process of permits and fitting in what works as it moves forward. Um with 13 years of vacancy here already and the communication that we've seen from the applicant um you know they they've been working in good faith on this and I think this is a wholly appropriate application supported by our staff and I think that we should be supporting the committee's recommendation. I'll look to other speakers. >> Go ahead, Councelor Hopkins. >> Uh yeah, thank you. Uh first of all, I want to start off with thanking Councelor Ramen uh for trying. I think um it's worth an opportunity to create development at this location. It's not about no development. It's an opportunity to have a compromise, support the community. We heard at Pek the developer is going to create bedrooms, smaller bedrooms in the basement. Uh I think uh it's worth noting uh that there is no site plan process for this application. This is an opportunity where we can manage the amount of bedrooms. So I will be supporting an amendment if this uh uh recommendation from staff fails to put a cap on on the bedrooms. Uh the other thing uh for me that is an issue is that appeals matter, hearings matter. The development or the uh community did go through an appeal process. They already had to compromise. They had to settle in the middle. I'm surprised that that does not matter to us here at council. Why wouldn't that matter? The community goes through a lengthy process when they had the ability to be part of an appeal process to spend time, money, energy, and then somehow meet in the middle to get a um uh uh a ruling from the chair. So I I I'm just really surprised why we here today would not try to support a compromise, allow the developer to continue to develop, have the community meet again halfway. I I I I'm just really um kind of a little surprised why we would not do that. why uh some of us really want to put that um you know that stick in the stand and not move from it. So again um I I do appreciate um the will of um my colleagues to uh try to work with a compromise. >> Other speakers to this council. >> Uh thanks mayor. Um so I'm listening to this conversation. I think this is a good one. Um, I like what I'm hearing about the striving for protecting our heritage buildings. Um, that's something I'd like to see at council as much as possible. I have lots in my ward. Um, and I also understand that, you know, um, decisions are made that may not necessarily have the equity there or may perceive be perceived that way and a downtown definitely feels that from time to time. Um when it comes to this project, I just wanted to go to staff um first like with with the way it is right now like are we going to see an increase in height or massing or the footprint or anything like that or is this development the way it's proposed is able to be constrained within the existing building? Could you just speak to >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Yes, through your worship uh there's no external changes to the property to the building. Um, as you see it today, the conversion is within the the internal parts of the building. Um, we've heard the basement units being um added to. >> Go ahead. Okay. Thank you for that. So, I understand um the appeal to reduce the cap. I understand all that, but I also also understand of everything else. It's a heritage building. It is not going to be increasing the footprint or the everything about the building. Um, and this is something that is going to save this potential heritage place. I would love to have a development come to my ward with some of my heritage buildings that are right now suffering from that term demolition by neglect. I would say that and that would be something that I would really love like you know trying to mitigate between um community concerns and saving these historic buildings is something that would also something I would like to do but I don't even get to that first step. So I would say with this application, I like what I'm hearing about heritage. If we can see that with heritage buildings in the core, um I would like to see that. But the way this is the massing, the footprint, the height is not changing. Pretty much the heritage building is going to look intact. This is an adaptive reuse. This is exactly what we're asking for all the time. I understand there's going to be more residences there. Um and at the same time, that is a compromise. We are saving this building. we are able to bring in more housing. We are going to have a reuse of it. I I would take that as a win if that was in my ward. I would take that as a big win. So, um, so I understand the concerns and the appeal to reduce the capping, but I'm going to support this the way it is. I I think I would like to see this in my word and I would like to see the sentiments for our heritage buildings come to my word as well. >> Council Pri, thank you. I will start uh right away by stating that I will certainly support the recommendation by the committee. Uh we heard that word here quite a few times compromise but again compromise is without the actually person or company organization that's coming step forward and putting their money their investment forward to actually make this uh building that was vacant for many years etc. I drive by almost every day and I'm really happy that there will be something happening but I can't compromise without them. It's kind of what I always call about you without you and that's really the case here. So I really don't feel in terms of that uh us making a uh decision on compromise. There's no compromise on the table whatsoever because the other party the party that's actually making the investment is actually not present here. Uh I do agree with most of the stuff that uh of the individuals that were stated here by the ones that are recommending uh to support the committee's uh recommendation because if I do look at this again the height, the width, the length, whatever it is, it actually stays the same. It stays the same. It doesn't increase. and and this I do realize that based on the type of the building zoning and near neighbor or near campus neighborhoods I do agree or I do understand what's the maximum number of the bedrooms but again other organizations looked at this quite a few of them during the past years and get what guess what it wasn't feasible for them financially they didn't want to do it because of the heritage we have someone that is actually willing to take this on are they going to maximize their opportunity I'm quite sure they will. Are they going to do it within the exterior that's currently there? Yes, they are. I will be supporting this and I hope there will be most uh of my colleagues will be supporting this application going forward and supporting the committee's recommendation. Thank you. Okay, that's uh all the speakers I have before me. So, I'm going to open the committee's recommendation for voting. clos on the vote. Motion carries 10 to three. Councelor Frank. >> Could we move a 15-minute break just cuz it's been a little while? >> Yes, we can. That's moved. Seconded by Councelor Ferrer. Let's do that by hand. Can I do it by hand? I'm just going to do it by hand. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right, I'm going to get everybody to sit down. We're going to start again, >> including Councelor Layman. Okay, you good, Council? Okay, we're we're going to continue on. Um, thanks for the uh short break and uh we'll uh continue with the planning report. I'll turn it back to Councelor Layman. >> Thanks, Mayor. Um, going on to number eight. This is regarding 36 Weathered Street and Councelor Stevenson requested be pulled. >> Okay, that one is separate. I'll look for any speakers. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, so this one passed I believe it was 32 at committee. I I just want to be clear like the developer reached out to me that they are trying to do good things and and build housing in our city and and no detriment to them. But what what I want to understand through this five minutes that I get is how are our policies being applied in such a way that people residents of London understand and know what can be expected to be happening uh on their street and in their houses beside them. So, in this case, uh this is uh a quiet residential street, uh larger lots, older homes. There are seven houses uh on this little stretch of this street before. There's a little curve and it keeps going. I didn't realize that uh the house right beside this development had been taken down and there's um that the entire property is got units on it. and then four down uh a house was taken down and there's town houses now again the length of the backyard. So when I read like in this motion in this re it says uh the recommended amendment is um considered compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. [snorts] And yet on page 208 it says policy 969 of the London plan further discourages forms of intensification within near campus neighborhoods that are within neighborhoods that have already absorbed significant amounts of residential intensification andor residential intensity. So we've already got two of the seven homes that are now uh intensified. this would potentially be a third. That would be three out of seven. At what point would staff determine that it would be uh too much and that the next planning application would not receive uh recommendation? >> Well, I can see if our staff can give some sense of that. I I think every application is individual, but I'll go to go to uh our staff to see what they can say. >> Thank you. Through your worship. Yes, that's correct. Each uh application is reviewed on its own merits. Uh we do look at the full policy framework as if mentioned under that policy 969, but we also have uh other council direction in terms of additional residential units and uh and what that means in terms of neighborhoods and basically spreading housing um and intensification across the entire city. So, we're going to see that through council's decision uh within neighborhoods. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I understand. But again, it's policy that's being applied. And so I'm just wondering, is it like 50% once more than 50% of a street was intensified, then that would be considered? Is there any kind of a ballpark that we can share with residents? >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh through your worship. Um again we review it on a policy by case by case basis based on the policy framework. Um we look at aspects in terms of cumulative impact whether it's traffic servicing and the capabilities of what um sites can take and in this case staff are recommending approval of it. um and uh as other sites within this uh neighborhood and we have seen this within neighborhoods and uh through council direction we'll see a little bit more uptake across the city. >> Go ahead. >> Uh thank you. Uh what I'm trying to get at though is we've got these policies. Londoners are concerned. They're concerned that they're going to have uh that their street is going to be turned into uh highdensity housing. it. The the other part of policy 969 says continue an uh the the uh the our London plan discourages forms of intensification that continue an ad hoc and incremental trend towards residential intensification within a given street, block or neighborhood rather than a proactive coordinated and planned approach towards residential intensification. So I'm wondering what plans or how do how are we going to ensure that it's not going to continue like it's not going to be ad hoc in this neighborhood. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you uh through your worship. Uh the planning was done based on council's direction looking at additional residential units for example and that's the planning that that would be expected in residential neighborhoods including this neighborhood. >> Go ahead councelor Stevenson. So any neighborhood can expect to have potentially all of their homes filled with residential units that take up, you know, the vast majority of the lots. That's that's what we're telling Londoners. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you through your worship. We'll be looking at it at a casebyase basis as I mentioned. Um, in terms of some neighborhoods, there is opportunities for transition to accommodate more intensification. And when we're talking about intensification, we're not talking about high-rise buildings. We're talking about gentle intensification for units on a property. Again, it's based on the size of the property, um, site functionality, access, and um, other site matters that would uh, make the site viable for development. Go ahead. >> Thank you. And I'm going to keep pushing here and I apologize, but this is a 24 meter frontage. Like this is not this is not a big uh area. This is the third uh home in seven homes that is going to be the basically the entire lot turned into housing. So staff when they make this decision are looking at the neighborhood and I'm asking you to share with this particular neighborhood because you've looked at it a couple of times now. What is your vision? What is your plan? What is the policies? What what can the residents expect? Just ballpark. >> Thank you. Through your worship. Um in some neighborhoods where it's already as of right zoning that would happen and they would be able to apply for building permit. Uh there are some sites that may not meet the zoning framework and so that's why we would look at it on a case- by case basis. >> Go ahead councelor. >> Uh thank you. And through you this is eight units. eight units on a you know what people would not call too big of a lot and um you're saying case by case uh this one doesn't meet the requirements uh we're doing 80% of the minimum front lot and 83% of the front yard. So again, I'm just going to ask because uh there's a couple of houses for sale on that street and now the rest of them are saying maybe they should leave too. If this is what's going to happen, then they might as well free up the properties for these uh high higher density. >> Uh I don't know if there was a question there. You got about 30 seconds left. >> The question is that particular neighborhood has been evaluated and staff have said they see it as compatible. So at what point is it not going to be compatible? >> So I can go to Minne again. Um I think you answered it about case by case or servicing. There's lots of considerations but go ahead. >> Thank you through your worship. Yes. And that talks about that cumulative impact that I was talking about. So um at some point as you've mentioned that there's a threshold but um for this particular application um it meets the policy framework. Councelor Stevenson. We just had counselors willing to go against staff recommendation on a few units that didn't change a footprint. This, if you look, the the the the couple was here. They have their little baby. They've got this uh little nice little property. The house is pretty much on the property line, and now they're going to have this big development beside them. And beside that is another big development. And four houses down is another big development. And there's two houses across the street. We're running into problems here without it being clear because people could be buying a lot. >> Time's up. >> All right. Other speakers to this matter? >> Okay. Seeing none, then I'm going to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to three. >> Council Layman. >> Thank you, mayor. Moving on to number nine. This is regarding 929 Cheapside Street. So, I'll put that in the floor. >> Okay, that's on the floor. I'll go to speakers on this. Go ahead, councelor Stevenson. Thank you. This is another one in my ward and and I'm going to keep coming back to this. Londoners are asking us to be clear. What is our policy? What can they expect when they're purchasing property to develop or when they're purchasing property to live with their raise their families or for people who've lived in neighborhoods for a long time. This is coming across as very inconsistent. We're willing to we we want to reduce neighborhoods or a number of bedrooms in a in a building that where the the uh footprint doesn't change. But then we're going to put three out of seven on one street. And then we've got uh this development which was >> okay. I have a point of order. >> Thank you. I'm rising on a point of order. I'm not sure what the counselor is debating right now. Can she stick to the matter that's on the floor? Uh yes. So the thing I heard that is not really related to this is uh counselors made uh well there wasn't even counselors who made a motion. So uh you're raising a matter about changing possible bedrooms that wasn't even allowed to be on the floor by council decision. We voted on the actual development. So if you could keep it to the matter before us and not things that weren't even motions on the floor but something a counselor wanted to do. Many counselors want to do many things. the decisions we make here is uh you know the the decision-m of the group. So if you could keep it focused on that, I'm going to say the point of order is dealt with and I'll let the council debate the issue that's before us. >> Chair, the counselor can withdraw her comment. >> Could you just say which comment to be withdrawn? >> Her comment that were not related to the application that's in front of us. So, I would usually have a comment that was a point of personal privilege withdrawn. I think your your point was more a point of order to stick to the topic at hand. I I don't think I need the counselor to actually withdraw that to continue on with the with the debate. So, councelor Troa, >> then I'll make a point of personal privilege because that was in direct reference to the one that just came up in my ward where I was speaking against an application where there was no change in footprint. And I'm just going to leave it at that and you rule on it. But I just I just don't think we have to be this divisive. Okay, so let's just settle this now. So lots of people want to call points of order points of personal privilege. Point of order is with respect to is the member following the general rules or practices. Council Ramen raises a point of order. Yes, we got to stay on track. We got to debate the thing that's before us. I I address that. Councelor Trroso, a point of personal privilege is really something that negatively affects the rights or privileges of council members or council as a whole despite other pending business before council. So like I I get that the counselor and your comments are not in alignment. I didn't hear anything that was I mean it could be not directly related which I've actually addressed but I don't think it was uh restricting uh your right to have said what you said before uh or to continue to say it in the future and I will continue to to make sure it's done in a very respectful way. But I think counselors can have disagreements of opinion. Um they can say they disagreed with another counselor's opinion. Um you can disagree with that counselor as long as it's done respectfully. That's to me is part of the debate and decision-m process. So, um I agree we, you know, we could we could if counselors keep their comments focused and respectful. We're going to be really efficient for the rest of the matters before us. And if not, we're going to deal with points of privilege and points of order. I'm happy to do that. But, um I think we can all just focus on the actual debates, keep the uh the subject of that debate really rooted in why the matters before us. In this case, they're planning items. there's lots of planning reasons that you can be for or against something and if we keep it in that space rather than even getting into other council's opinions, I think we'll be in a much uh more efficient way of speaking. So that's my general caution to everybody. I'm going to say not really a point of personal privilege because I don't think your rights were really impuged there. Councelor Stevenson, you can continue debating this item before us. >> Thank you. I'm asking for colleagues support in saying no to this development and I'm bringing up for comparison. We've got a neighborhood here and some of them would have been here uh to say, "Hey, [clears throat] I hear council saying we've got this short little stub street and we're asking to talk about reducing bedrooms." Then we've got uh the development in Stonybrook where it was within the height, the number of stories was approved, the parking is about the same, the lot coverage is the same. the um the density uh of units per hectare is actually 358 units per hectare in Carling Heights. In fact, the original one that staff recommended was 420 units per hectare whereas the one on Giri in Stonybrook was rejected as too intense at 235. So I get to answer to the residents in Carling Heights to say, "Why is staff saying it's too intense in Stonybrook, but it's not too intense in Carling Heights?" Why is council wanting to reduce the number of bedrooms in a in a church that doesn't change its footprint? And they don't they're not concerned about what I'm going to jump in cuz no one is reducing the number of bedrooms in that development. That's the part that I need you to say focus on. the councilors are suggesting that they might want to do that. But there was no motion even on the floor to do that. So I would say that's keep it relevant to this debate like because that wasn't even a matter that we even considered. It didn't actually make the floor. In fact, a majority of council said it wasn't even a valid amendment. So we did not do that. We didn't even consider it. We didn't even really debate it. We debated the main motion. People referenced something alternative they want to do, but that actually ultimately passed and there was no motion on the floor. So, I think that's the part where if we can keep it focused on this and not bring up things that are, you know, speculative about, you know, or even attributing those things to something council did when we didn't actually do it despite the fact that some counselors would have liked to. We we got nowhere near making that decision. Thank you. But I'm saying that these residents watched their mayor and four counselors willing to consider that because of the concerns of a few residents even when the two neighbors closest to that supported it. So it is relevant when we've got Londoners who are saying why not us? Why aren't you listening to us? How can you go say something is too intense when it falls within all the parameters and here you're saying uh that it's okay when it falls within all the parameters. Londoners are concerned about the policies that this council has put in place that are raising intensification in their neighborhoods. The one of the biggest reasons why I said no to this is because the heights review framework that came in August and was passed by council in September of 2024 was not transparent. it wasn't transparent to the counselor and I'll own that I didn't know what was happening and uh the public certainly did not know that these heights had been raised on uh corners in their neighborhood and I'm a firm believer that if it's the right thing to do not everybody's going to like it but we're going to do it publicly and say this is what's happening we believe it's the right thing and we're going to do it so I'm asking for this council tonight to say no to this because out of equity and out of fairness we get to have a look at this we get to talk about how we're applying and and who whose residents and what neighbors we're listening to and what ones aren't. And this is an equity issue as far as I'm concerned. So, I'm asking for council support and saying no to this. It only passed 3 to two at uh council I or committee. I do appreciate the fact that the developer made changes and modified it. It's still uh most of these uh neighborhoods have spoken really eloquently. They've said they're not opposed to change. They're not opposed to development. They're asking for the lower height prior to this council putting through the heights framework review without talking to them. So that's what they're asking for. Uh with Giri, uh staff made it easy. They said no. Made it easy for us to support. I'm asking for consistency in this particular meeting at council to say no to this one. And uh then let's talk about this more about uh what so that Londoners have a better sense not they don't know exactly what's coming but they have a better sense of what's happening in their neighborhoods. Um this group did a great job. They were here. They've shown up at meetings and um and I don't know what else to say except to say I don't know how we can support one and not the other. And if it's uh sight specific, then I guess this council right now is going to decide whether this is appropriate for Carl Heights and whether the residents around this building um should be taken into account as much as the ones uh on Richmond or on Fanta. >> Okay. I have councelor Ramen and then deputy mayor Lewis. >> Uh thank you and through you mayor. Um let me start by saying this. Um, when I make a decision at council, and I'm speaking for myself, uh, I make a decision taking into consideration the entire city and not just one part of the city. Yes, we represent boards, but we represent the entire community. When we're asked to look at a development application, we're not applying an inconsistent approach because it's in a certain neighborhood. I'm not. That's my opinion. Um the counselor and other counselors have opportunities to move amendments to make different decisions to bring issues to their residents to talk to their residents to move things that are different. What I saw with this application was I saw a referral come forward first. the referral which was supported to then bring back another proposal working with the developer. That's what we have in front of us now is this recommendation. That's what's on the floor. That's what I'd like to debate today. I'm not supportive of what's here. And it's not because the counselor has highlighted an equity issue or a perceived equity issue. I'm looking at it from the perspective of what's in front of me. I see, and again, I brought this up during the debate at PC, is that we are presented with a support for the recommendation on the height, but the special provisions are not clear to me in terms of what will come back. And so for that reason, I'm not supportive. Um what I see is either and and I have had a chance to talk to the developer about it. Um I see a building that I'm not sure how it gets to the same six stories with the footprint. Uh I still think the parking's inadequate for the area. I I still see some issues with it here and that's why I'm not supporting it. But these other issues, comparing neighborhoods, why divide the community when we can talk about the planning rationale and the and the planning information that's in front of us. Don't understand that rationale, but I will debate the issue. I will look at it from the perspective of what's in front of us. And I've been clear that I'm not supportive of the application. >> Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, chair. Sorry, I'm just trying to get my video working here. Uh, okay. Uh, thank you, chair. Um, I was going to speak to this. I I said my piece at committee. Um, however, uh, I have to speak to it now because, uh, I didn't call a point of personal privilege. I perhaps should have. The Heights plan review was absolutely transparent. It was subject to the same public participation meeting, same sort of notifications and public announcements uh that this actual planning application was. It followed the same process that the urban growth boundary expansion and and other matters that come before PEC take that and I agree with councelor Roman. If counselors didn't feel that was enough, they always have the opportunity to do further engagement with their residents. Councelor Ramen and I disagree on this one, but that's okay. I respect where where she is saying uh she's not comfortable with the parking. Um, and we just had a discussion at PEC yesterday. That'll come to the next council meeting about changing the parking ratio again. But we have to evaluate this application through the planning rules that are in place today which say that this has more than sufficient parking because it is above the.5 ratio. It also says the six stories is allowed based on the street classification of cheapside under the London plan heights review that was signed off by this council in 2024 and by the province in 2025. So, we are being consistent with our decisions here and that's why I supported this staff recommendation because it approves the height the zoning but it still says you can't be this close to some of the setbacks. You have some things to work out in your design detail here. And maybe that means that um units won't have balconies on one side. Maybe it means that they're changing uh the orientation of the building on the property slightly. But that's a matter that can be resolved through site plan uh without uh requiring special provisions if they can meet that. Uh maybe they'll reduce the units further by another uh unit on you know each end. I don't know. But that will be up to them to decide through the detailed design and site plan process with our staff by not giving them the special provisions. Um to refuse it based on the height or the parking uh is not actually supported by our official plan. And so I would encourage colleagues to support the committee recommendation here. Uh and I would also really echo your earlier comments that we need to be cautious. I chose not to use a point of personal privilege this time because I don't want this meeting to go till 11:00 p.m. tonight. Let's be careful about what we're saying. >> Okay. Uh other speakers to this matter. [clears throat] Go ahead, Councelor Frank. >> Thank you. Yes. Uh, I'll be supporting this application and I think that the improvements that have been made since the referral demonstrate that the developer is willing to make some adjustments. I was happy to see the open space move forward and meet our 30% minimum. I also would share that along ride out which is also a neighborhood connector. We have an 18story apartment building, a couple uh 12story apartment buildings, a 16story apartment building. So, uh, for a similar road type, we have in Old South a variety of apartment buildings that are much, much higher, and they are surrounded by single family homes, and they fit in nicely. There's a bus route, there's um, bike paths, and both this cheapsite application as well as those ones I'm referencing are about 10-minute walk from commercial areas close to schools. Um, so I do see having apartment buildings in areas with single family homes to be quite nice in some areas, and I think it would be nice in this one, too. Any other speakers to this matter? Go ahead, Councelor Tro. >> Thank you. Um, mayor through you. Um, many of the points I wanted to make were made by councelor Ramen. I thought very well. I'm not going to be supporting this application and um it's not because of I'm not going to be supporting this application because I think it's inappropriate for this neighborhood. And that's not a real technical way of going through all the different criteria, but I go through here all of the time. And the houses in that area, not only not only are they detached single family dwellings, but they're small. They're they're small. Th this this application is going to just totally transform in a negative way the look and feel and and uh just how people relate to this neighborhood. And I think it's it's sort of like it's it's going to be a placemaker thing because I think we're going to be seeing [clears throat] other ones. And um I sort of I I I like I like I like the way um this neighborhood feels. I would I would prefer to see a little bit more maintenance done in some of the um units, particularly some of the um rental units and some of the units uh held by absentee owners. But for the mo for the most part um I I I think this would be very disruptive and I don't I don't think saying um well that's that's what I think but I the point I want to stress is my opposition to this is not based on anything other than my my my my feeling about this file and this file only. And you can disagree with me on my assessment of this file. I think most of you probably would as we'll find out in the when we do the vote in a few minutes. But like this is this is a heartfelt honest assessment that I'm making that I I cannot support this project. So thank you. >> Okay. Any other speakers? >> Yeah. Council Pri go ahead. >> Thank you mayor. Even though I know we passed on but on the on the issue that were mentioned here I do want to mention a couple of things and again maybe for the neighborhood as well that's up here it was stated with another sorry with another application that was here earlier I think the biggest difference is if you look at this one looks at uh u uh one looks at how many units per hectare so again this one is this one is almost half of what the other one was the other one was 395 this one is 235 the other one had a height higher etc But so I really don't think again no no no two projects no two infills are apples to apples but there is a really big differentiation there really is honestly one things I want to know we already heard that some of the counselors that said and I'm absolutely on the same page in terms of I don't really uh make my decisions based on the neighborhoods or you know which part of London it is in but I also want to state one thing is the staff and if you look every application starts with the staff that's based on housing policy the concrete facts and that's if it's a refusal recommendation whatever it is it's black on white based on the policy and they go by the policy we can support it we don't have to support it but there is no way I will ever agree that uh the staff or certainly speaking of myself that I will be making decisions based on which part of London it is yes I can say that if it's in our ward I believe that we would fight more which Because again there is nothing wrong with it because guess what those are our constituents and we do go we go for everyone we go extra mile for our war we go extra two miles I do understand that but I really want to clear this that I totally don't believe that any one of us nor the staff would make such decisions that's not true uh I do uh I will what's in front of us and uh I do agree that there are certain things that are again what I call maximizing the opportunities But uh similar what council Frank said a few minutes ago, I did see the progress in terms of what is was made and I will be supporting what is uh what is in front of us. Thank you. Okay. Any other speakers? Okay. Seeing none, we're going to open this for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 9 to 4. >> Councelor Layman. Thank you, mayor. Moving on to number 12. This is regarding uh councelor Robbins third party appeal mechanism and the councelor has requested people. Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look to any speakers. Go ahead, Council Robin. Uh, thank you. And through you, I was looking to move an amendment. Uh, and it's the amendment that was discussed or put on the floor uh by the mayor uh at that meeting. And I'm just wondering if I could read it. Okay. that municipal council endorse the following actions with respect to third party appeal mechanisms during the Ontario land tribunal process. A the mayor be requested to write to the association municipalities of Ontario requesting that it consider advocating for the restoration of a limited third party appeal mechanism to the Ontario land tribunal that I applies to individuals residing within the statuto statutory notice area who have demonstrated prior participation in the municipal planning process. I I incorporate appropriate safeguards to discourage frivolous, vexacious or delayed driven appeals and I I support the province's objective objective of facilitating timely and efficient housing development and the communication uh be received as in the rest of the motion. >> Sure. Um so you want to put that on the floor. That was what uh went to committee uh and did not uh proceed. Um I'll I'll second it uh just to get it on the floor. So, you're moving it on. I'll second so we can have a a debate on that. Do you want to start the debate? No. You're going to preserve your Okay. I'll uh I'll look to other speakers on this. Go ahead, Deputy Ray Lewis. >> Thank you, worship. I'm just going to repeat what I said at committee, but I I'm going to emphasize it in light of the discussion we had yesterday around the GMIS and questions raised about uh the province making us whole and discussions happening not just in London but at AMO about that commitment. We can't send a letter to the province on every issue. And I don't think we are doing ourselves any favors by having you send a letter to AMO saying advocate for this. Uh, I think it simply goes to AMO, uh, gets probably bogged down there in the 200 other things that municipalities are asking AMO to lobby for. Um, and even if it saw the light of day, when we're asking the province to make us whole on DCs to develop housing, I think asking them to restore third party appeal processes at the OOLT flies contrary to asking them to make us whole on DCs when they're trying to streamline housing processes. We know that third party appeals created a huge backlog, a huge amount of red tape and complaints uh across the province and I don't think that this is a an area where we should be poking the province and saying hey you did a bad thing you took away these things while at the same time saying to the province by the way u you want us to speed up housing you want us to make it more affordable you want us to cut DCs uh so make us whole we can only ask for so much. At the end of the day, there's only so many lobby positions and meetings that you can have at AMO or yourself, your worship, with uh the minister or any of us anywhere. We have to recognize that the province has made a decision. They're we can write letters to them. A can lobby them. They're not going to change it. Let's be pragmatic about that. And so, I don't think that this is a a good use, frankly, of anyone's time. And I'm just going to leave it at that. I won't be supporting this >> other speakers. Go ahead, councelor Tro. [clears throat] >> Well, through through through the mayor again, for me, this is a question of fundamental justice, access to justice, not closing the courthouse door to litigants because of the side of the dispute that they happen to be on. When we have these contested hearings, quasi [clears throat] judicial proceedings, people should not feel that they shouldn't raise issues because if I raise my issue and [clears throat] I prevail at council, I'm going to be taken to the OOLT. That's a club. Appeal rights are not supposed to be clubs. There's supposed to be there's supposed to be mechanisms that the parties can use to correct errors or prejudice below. And I feel that this this entire provincial administration in in in in its in its intensity to want to do something fundamentally good and that is build more housing has gone too far. And the one place that they've gone too far that I feel very strongly about is that you don't take parties procedural rights away. You don't say, "Well, there's too much crime on the street, so let's just say people can't file appeals anymore." You don't you don't say there are some bad tenants and some of them don't pay rent. So you you you therefore take away their ability to seek procedural justice. And in the case of uh the the the OM uh the the LPAT and now the OOLT, it's the same thing. People need to be people need to be able to make their arguments. And yes, if you're making a frivolous argument, the the the board has all sorts of mechanisms that it can already use to discourage that and sanction you. And it will do that. They have done it. And I know as somebody who's appeared at the OM um that uh you want to be careful when you raise when you raise an appeal to the OMB, you want it to have some kind of uh you want it to have some sort of basis. Now, the problem with the way the procedure works now, and it was corrected for a little while, but now we're back to doovo hearings. And I and I think that if we were looking at you only get to do these appeals if there's been some type of uh jurisdictional issue or or an error of law, that's one thing. But now um we're we're back to the old OM rules where there's a denovo hearing, a a new hearing. And um I just think that like to take people's appeal rights away is it's it's just it's just a violation of fundamental rights. And I have no doubt that if somebody wanted to litigate this, and let's face it, who's going to litigate it? You're you're a neighbor and you you you've lost it. City council, you probably don't have the means or the wherewithal or the time to be able to launch a challenge. But we should be asking the province to act in accord with fundamental principles of justice and and saying well there are other things that are more important. Maybe to you there are but these are these are important rights that all of our rightsbearing residents have. So this is this is not good that people people people can't people can't follow a procedural rule that should go without saying and if you're wrong you'll lose and if you do something frivolous you'll be sanctioned but you don't take away the litigation rights of an entire class of people because you want to rush things through and you want to build more housing. So with that, I want to thank uh the mayor and councelor Ramen again for um bringing this forward. I think this is definitely something that we should be raising at AMO uh and other places and I feel very strongly that we have to uh at least give people their day in court. Thank you very much. >> Okay, other speakers to this one. >> Go ahead, Councelor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you your worship and thank you for committing to do this and thank you councelor Ramen as well. I'm very supportive. I'd like to more or less just start with the rights that individuals have and that was taken away. Uh when I speak to a number of residents, they're quite surprised that there is no appeal process that they have. The public participation meeting with a an Oz change is their only opportunity. They don't even have a site plan process. Sure, we could put a H5 on, but a lot of their rights have been taken away. This gives the community an opportunity. Uh, and an appeal process is a lengthy, costly, it is a process that um, individuals take seriously, too. I would really like to see what the numbers are that we're slowing down the uh development process of all the the units that we must build by not doing this. It it it just seems it's quite obvious that we should have a mechanism there for individuals to have rights. Um we just had an application that we decided not to even you know listen to an OB OM hearing and a decision councils have that right to decide if that is an important decision. Yes, our planning policies change, but there are opportunities. And I think the most important opportunity here, in fact, there's two important opportunities. It's the rights of individuals. But the second part is at AMO, we did have conversations. There are other municipalities that are bringing forward motions and having support. So, with those voices come louder and stronger voices. So, uh, thank U. Councelor Roman and the mayor uh for um doing this >> other speakers of this. Go ahead, councelor Ferrer. >> Thank you. Uh so like I I fundamentally agree with this. You know, bill um 23 and 185 definitely removes some of these appeal rights and the you know the voice of the community was kind of lost in that. But I would also say that um you know there's a there is also a level of appeal here. I kind of saw it was hinted at here that still exists and that is at council itself. Um we have planning applications for zoning bylaw amendments. We need public participation meetings and there is an appeal process h happening right here with us. So we still have the ability to make decisions and also hear those appeals before that comes through. So I just wanted to highlight that as well because there is some accountability here for us as well and we have the ability to hear and make decisions and we are talking about something after the fact after a decision that's made here. So to point that out I agree that we do need that extra level of protection and I understand that um you know we had it before. It gives the rights of individuals to be able to express their voices and their opinions, but that level is here as well. So I just wanted to point that fact out. We have the ability to. So there is a democratic layer here that exists with us amongst us here. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. I I I'm not going to support this at all. And I I honestly find it a little ironic how often we want to tell the province what they should do when we aren't utilizing what we can do here. We we're talking about asking to give our our residents their day in court to appeal our decisions. What why they want their day at council. They want this council to represent them and make the decision in their best interests. So to give them the right to spend the money and the time and everything to fight what we won't do here for them, it doesn't make any sense to me. If we believe that they have a voice worth listening to, we should be responding. And if we feel that we have responded appropriately to the majority [clears throat] of Londoners, we shouldn't see the value in them going to another level at time and money and slowing down something that this council has done in the best interest of this city. So, do we not believe in the decision that we're making and so we want to give residents the right to overturn us or is this about giving them the power without taking the accountability ourselves? We're passing the buck to them. You fight it. We're not going to do it here. We don't get to say the province makes their choices. I I don't want to listen to all kinds of organizations sending us letters telling us what to do. I don't think the province wants it. It doesn't help in our advocacy efforts. I don't think to be continually telling them they're the problem when they're saying you, it's your council. It's your city. Make decisions that serve your your residents. Why would you want us to have the right to overturn you? Why why would you do that? Do you not have the courage to make your own decisions or do what you think is right for the residents? I I'm not sure where the um I'm not sure what the selling feature is on this, but to empower residents to spend a lot of time and money overturning the decisions that this council has, you know, made in the best interests of our city doesn't make sense to me. and the province isn't going to be listening to this anyway. So, is it just to say we did something to say that they should have they that the province should be doing something? Londoners want us to do something. They want us to stand in our decisions. If we think it's in the best interest of the growth of our city, then we get to defend our decisions to our residents. And if we can't do that, we should be making the decisions here. We keep being told, "Oh, well, it's uh we can't go against staff because then they'll just take it to OOLT." Well, then let them take it to OOLT. If we don't think if we're acting on behalf of residents, let them take it to OOLT. Why are we so afraid of it and yet we want to empower our residents to go through it? I'm interested in the mayor and uh the councelor's reason for this, but uh I I don't see any reason to support it at all. And I think it's >> [clears throat] >> uh not a very good look to Londoners who are asking us to be leaders here. [clears throat] >> Other speakers. >> Oh, councelor Pribble. Sorry, I had you on the list. Go ahead. That's twice I did that to you. I'm sorry. >> No worries. >> I heard that we have made decisions today. Absolutely we did. What did we base it on? Not we don't have the expertise but guess what the people across from us they do and guess what they have the same housing policy they have the same bylaws just like OLT uh if I look at during the last three and a half years that's actually I do understand that there are certain neighborhoods that are not happy with some of our decisions because it's a change to the neighborhood but if I think that's one of the things that council did when I was knocking three and a half four years ago one of the top two was housing housing availability and housing costs and I think that council did again I'm looking not perspective from one two neighborhoods I'm looking from the perspective of half a million of Londoners we could have been better no doubt everyone can be better but that's a that's a path that we certainly have progressed on and we have delivered maybe not 100% but we have and there's no doubt that I I will argue with anyone that supply and demand in this case is number one reason absolutely it is because the supply is up demand is uh either stable or lower and now people that there are you know uh both prices of the housing doesn't matter if it's purchase or if it's rental it is down. The other thing is again going back to it if you think about how many good projects we have approved and how many neighborhoods we had up in the gallery that they weren't for it all those if they were to go to OLT everything is delayed by 10 10 to 12 month where is our economy where is the pricing and this is the thing that we really have to look at the big picture and I really think that in this decision I'm all for freedoms absolutely especially with my background coming from a communist country I'm all for freedoms but on the other hand we are here to push and to deliver for half a million of Londoners. I'm not supporting this. I really think what was what I just heard from my colleagueuh counselor when she was saying that it is in our power and we can uh it's up to us to make those tough calls to tough decisions. And yes, if there is certain things that our neighborhoods people they want, they do have opportunity in public participation meeting if they want us to go any further. We are all there to listen to them and to see potentially if there are any other options to do it. But again, I don't like passing the buck. Let's take the responsibility. Let's not delay. Let's move keep moving our city forward. And again, if I look at this and economy is very very tough the situation worldwide, not just in London, not just in Canada. And this is one of the few positive economic factors that we had and that's what residential development. And I do understand that there are certain individuals that they might not be uh their uh developers are not their number one favorite person in the world. But on the other hand, I have to look at this and they are the one who are making the investments putting their money on the table during these very tough times when everyone is looking at the dollar. It's flipping it left and right back and forth if they're going to spend it or not. So actually they are investing. Are they maximizing their opportunities? Yes, they are. Would I prefer sometimes that they choose a different location or lesser density? Yes, I would. But on the other hand, we need to move our economy forward. I will not support this because I do believe that we are on the right track and the last three and a half years, we have delivered on this. London has us for affordable and more housing options and we have been delivering. Thank you. other speakers. Councilor Ramen, >> thank you and through you. Uh, a lot of what I'm going to say is contained in in the letter that, uh, I submitted on the, uh, PE agenda. Um, but I just want to remind everyone how we got here. Um, the first is, uh, I want to say thank you to Windsor City Council for, uh, their leadership uh, on moving this issue forward. Um I think it's important to watch other decisions in other places and provide support when uh we see something that we align with. And so I want to talk a little bit about what bill 185, the cutting red tape to build more homes act in 2024. So a very recent decision. Uh I want to talk a little bit about that that impact. So, um, when we lost or when our province lost the Ontario Land Tribunal process being open to residents, it's really important that we understand that um, this isn't something that has had a longstanding time to take hold. We have the ability. It's something that we should do with our own decisions as we try to report back, find out what the temperature is like out there for a decision we make and make corrective action when we've made a decision perhaps that doesn't support its intent or that maybe uh we realize has unintended consequences or has other outcomes. And and I think in this case, what I see why I wrote this letter is public confidence in the planning system isn't the same. It isn't. We feel it. We're feeling it. Um public confidence in the planning system is strengthened when residents have their ability to participate. They participate here in a meaningful way and then from there their concerns can be fairly reviewed. I don't think taking the appeal mechanism had all of the outcomes that the province had intended and I think what we're looking for here is to alter the balance again. So the current framework has altered this balance. It has created a situation where the developer is the only one that can go to the tribunal. And again, I I'm not sure how that can continue and why we wouldn't want to push back on behalf of our residents to say there is a way to do this to to alter the balance in a in a way that positively supports resident engagement by way of just allowing them the opportunity to have a voice. And again, what's put in front of us today is to consider it a limited ability to have a voice. so that you live within the the area that's affected. I think that's that's a good thing to add to to the process. But here's the best part. The province has lots of policy makers. They have a lot of uh opportunity to write the this the right way [clears throat] that they want to see it so that they can encourage housing development, but at the same time hear residents voices. We don't have to create all the situations for them to do that. Um, I'll tell you, we are here. We're sitting in this room and we're doing our work today. Our province is is is not our government right now in the province of Ontario could be working on this. And I think it's fair to say that by sending something to our association to say, "Hey, we have a clear position across the province that multiple cities are standing up and saying that these appeal rights matter gives them pause, moments to pause, maybe gives them some things to work on. Thank you." Okay, I have myself on the list, so I'll turn the chair over to councelor Ramen, I think, since councelor Lman's presenting. >> Thank you. I have the chair. Go ahead. >> Sure. So, I appreciate the comments of councilor Ramen um because uh you you're going to make my comments a little bit shorter. F first, I want to recognize um what is being asked. It's not a return to what the status quo was before. It's a recognition of the reasons the province made the change in the first place. Province was dealing with a series of, you know, frivolous, vexacious, delay driven appeals um that that were basically bogging down the system and they're looking to get rid of that. And if you look at the motion, we recognize that any sort of change would need to incorporate uh mechanisms to ensure that doesn't uh that's not the case. The other piece here is uh in the things to consider that AMO could consider should they even want to craft a position is that it should be individuals residing within the statutory notice area. People should not be going across the city on the other side of the city that isn't even in their neighborhood and being able to appeal something simply because they don't like it. But if you live right beside a development and the person building that development has the ability to go and present their case to a provincial body, why shouldn't the person beside the development be able to do the same thing? Now, for the counselors who say, "Hey, let's make the decisions here." I'm all for that. Like I like local decision-m uh we get rid of the tribunal altogether and have all the decisions of council stand. Like that's that's fine with me. We could debate everything here. That's not the system that we actually have out there. If someone wants to go that direction, I'm happy to have the debate on that particular motion. But I cannot imagine that having someone who is a neighbor have the right to go and make a case for the development beside their house and empowering them with those rights isn't is somehow something that's negative, right? That it's just to me even asking to pursue this is something that empowers residents who are immediately impacted to have a right. while recognizing that we have to support the province in ensuring that this doesn't slow things down. The other piece here too is neither of us are asking for the municipal council to go to the province directly on this. I agree that would not be a good use of time. We've got lots of ask before the province. We're not even pointing this towards the province. We're saying listen, there's some other municipalities carving out positions on this. These positions are best uh defined if uh debated [snorts] and discussed as municipalities as a whole. and AMO and all the municipalities can have a discussion like do we even want this on our agenda as one of our issues right so that is what the ask is before us it's not going to the province directly on this it's listening to what some of the residents have said there are many residents who are surprised you know we pass a development today it's probably residents here were like well I'd like to appeal this and the answer is like sorry you can't but I live right beside the building you know too bad you don't have that right so I think this is a reasonable pathway forward that does not consume assume the municipalities GR resources because we've got lots of things to ask for. It says if AMO is going to consider this, we're interested in the discussion. These are some things that you should consider if you have the discussion because we support the province on getting rid of frivolous and vexacious and delay driven appeals. But we also support the residents who live in the immediate area, not across the city, to have some sort of recourse for decision-m if there continues to be a body beyond municipal councils that get to make that. Because remember, this is a body that gets to make decisions beyond this room. When it goes to that body, we don't get a say anymore. So, some level of representation there by those immediately impacted, I think, is a reasonable ask. And I think this is a reasonable process to even decide whether it becomes a municipal ask across the province of the province. So, happy councelor Rahman forwarded. Happy that she was willing to adjust some of the language to align with uh with that. I think that's that's good collaborative work together [snorts] and uh and I'll support this today and um uh yeah, we'll see how it goes. >> Returning the chair of no one on the speakers list. >> Any other speakers? I think almost everybody has spoken. Councelor Frank, >> thank you. Yes. I just want to briefly say that I'll be supporting this. Uh I don't think it's fair that developers get to appeal stuff and residents don't. And I think that this to me is should be and is about fairness. And fairness would require that both sides have the same uh rights and access to the appeal process. And so I think it's courageous for us to uh send this along and request that we give our residents the same rights that developers get. >> Okay. Any other speakers? Okay. We'll deal with this matter. Then we're going to have to do a motion to uh go past six. So we'll deal with that immediately after. Uh this has been moved and seconded. We'll open that up for voting. Councelor Pelosa. >> Sorry, it didn't come up. Yes. >> Noted. Closing the vote. Motion carries 7 to six. >> Okay. And now we're going to need a motion to extend past six. Sorry. Okay, we're going to do this in the system. A motion to extend pass six. Moved by councelor Frank, seconded by councelor Hopkins. Trust votes yes. >> Noted. Thank you. Councelor Stevenson. >> I vote yes. >> Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to1. >> Okay. Back to you, Council Layman. Um I believe that concludes the ninth report that uh I initiated about 10 hours ago. >> Perfect. Thanks for your work. You can see keep standing if you want or you can take a seat. Uh we'll move on to the audit report. I have uh council Pelosa online to present uh the audit report. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. I was the one person who voted not to extend and it's my report uh not because report is not excellent. So I will present it now. It's the third report of the audit committee. I will highlight um everything was unanimous discussions as per item 7 being 4.6. This was a letter from um councelor Frank that has been referred to the next round of audits for 2027 is everything was already packed and set and contracted for this round. And item 8 5.1 request for proposals for 2026 for the internal audit services. The recommendation is MNP that would commence in 2027 and they are actually our current internal audit uh people and we just appreciate everyone who did apply and went through the process with the city. Thank you. >> And been giving no notice to pull anything. >> Does anyone want anything separate? >> Okay. Um seeing none then we can vote on this whole group. Oh. Oh. Oh yeah. Oh okay. Sorry. Uh seeing none then we can vote on the whole thing al together. Uh so councelor Posa will move the whole slate and I'll see if there's any speakers on these matters. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. This is a bit of a followup to the uh portfolio investment report. So the 2025 uh financial audit, we've got the audited statements here and in note 23 it talks about financial instruments and risk management. It talks about market risk and it says that management monitors this exposure regularly and estimates that if interest rates increase by 1% and all other variables are held constant the potential change in unrealized loss on its fair valued fixed income holdings would be 49,466,000 as compared to 2024 where there was a $40,948,000 unrealized loss. So um through you to staff I would just like to understand a little bit more about uh the law. >> Go ahead. >> Um thank you to the chair. So generally the city's position is to hold all of our investments through to maturity. So those are obviously unrealized and if they were to go forward that is the quantification of the risk. Um keep in mind that is also on a consolidated basis which takes into account all of the boards and commissions that also have investments as well as part of that portfolio that would include um the consolidations that are part of that as well. So certainly um that is generally our policy. We have uh certainly moved to accounting for investments through the financial instruments a new standard that came forward um a year ago that we have the mark tomarket. So all of our um instruments are recorded for market value. So through the investment report we had noted what those unrealized gains are at this point in time and obviously if we hold to maturity then we don't anticipate to have any losses based on the portfolio that the city invests in. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Sorry. So just to through you then to understand you don't you're not anticipating losses at the end of the maturity. >> Uh thank you through the chair. No that is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. So that's good to know. Um, I and I guess this is where I would suggest that having that in the investment report and explaining it would help because when somebody's reading these statements and they see that we have an unrealized loss, they might wonder, you know, why we have a $40 million loss on our investments. The other thing is um I noticed in the financial statements it talks about credit rating of uh talks about credit risk. Uh this is in 23B talks about credit risk and the credit rating of the corporation's fixed income holdings. Um so it I noticed that in 2024 we had 2.8% of the holdings were tripleB credit rating and in previous years I think we had the similar kind of amount. I noticed that a couple of cities they aren't allowed like in their investment policy it says uh that they must invest in uh A and above and so I'm just wondering are there any limits or restrictions on what staff are investing in and and why the move out of the tripleB Go ahead. >> Uh thank you through the chair. So the city of London invests under the investment policy in accordance with municipal act. So the restrictions are very very specific as to what the city can invest in. Um I had wish I had the question before because I could have been able to point to exactly what that's from. I'm going to assume that that is part of one of the consolidated entities that are investments because the city does not typically invest in tripleB um bonds because that's not typically one of the things that our investment or portfolio and is not part of our investment policy. So, I'm sorry I don't have the information to point to you exactly what that entity is, but those are not investments that is held by the city of London, noting that this is a consolidated entity and would take into account only the investments of the consolidated ABCs that are also part of the city of London. >> Okay. Thank you through through you. That's helpful. Um, like I said, I understand the municipal act doesn't do it, but I did look up other cities investment policies and they say uh A and above and it sounds like we're A and above as well and yet we've got boards and commissions that are less than that. So that's interesting. I'll be looking into that a little further. Um the other thing on the financial statements was um so in under the credit rating it says uh there there was quite a shift in double A credit rating so of our fixed income holdings in 2024 we had 43% double A now it's down to 29% and yet the A has gone from 34 up to 50. So for those that don't understand the credit ratings on the fixed income holdings, uh I just threw you to staff would be curious as to how you monitor that. You know, are there any concerns? Uh what does it mean to see that that shift down to the double A uh fixed income holdings? >> Go ahead. Thank you through the chair. My apologies without um the detail behind this note of where all of those numbers are coming from. It's a little bit challenging to be able to give you exact information. I'd have to go back and look at that information. Um certainly at a global basis as we're looking at our investment policy sets out where that is. Most cases we are investing in government bonds and things that are certainly on the higher end. And one of the things in from our investment policy is to ensure how we monitor that and as we're holding them through to the end and the maturity dates there are no losses and we're basically monitoring on a regular basis how those um investments are providing those returns. So based on the investment report that was earlier um provided earlier this uh afternoon that does set out the returns that have been forward. So because it's consolidated, it's a little bit challenging to look at the percentages and be able to tell you exactly without the numbers in front of me exactly where those are with respect to the various boards and commissions as well and where those investments are. But generally through our investment policy, we are trying to hold the highest grade as much as possible. And then depending on some of those entities, we would need to monitor on a regular basis. If there are credit rate changes that if there was something that was held in a particular entity that got downgraded while we were holding that investment, we would look to find the right time to hold that through to maturity and then sell it at that time so that we're not selling at a loss and then would ensure we would not go forward. So certainly one of the things that would primarily look at this is the city's one investment fund where we have a large proportion of our equity holdings. So within that that is managed through the one investment of which the city of London is one of the many municipalities that invest in that. That is primarily where you will have other variabilities that are there that which the city does not have direct control over but which that board monitors what those investments are and ensures the proper mix. So, I'm going to garner a a good a guess that the majority of those are tied to that investment and the city's share, but without the details, it's very challenging, but that would generally at a broad level be how that would happen. Thank you. I appreciate that and uh appreciate that uh you don't have these all off the top of your head. Totally understand that. And I apologize for not getting the detailed questions to you earlier. Um, I guess the only point I want to make is that as I said at committee, the amount in our investment portfolio is significantly higher than some of the comparable municipalities. We're about 1.4 or something of our annual budget. Other municipalities were like 3.5. One of them was8. I obviously didn't do a full scan, but I think given the amount of money, $1.8 8 billion being invested. Um, and some of the notes in the financial statements may be raising concerns that it sounds like are unwarranted. I would love to see the investment uh report come with those excerpts from the um financial statements with some explanations so that Londoners who are interested in this kind of thing, and I get that it's not everybody can see that information uh transparently. I didn't pull it. I'm I'm supportive of everything in here. I just wanted to make those points. Thank you. >> Okay. Other speakers for the audit committee report. >> Okay. Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. >> Okay. Thanks, Councelor Ploi. Uh we're on to added reports. Uh there's one coming out of the uh inc camera session and councelor Frank although I gave it to you a long time ago uh is going to read that out cuz she's the vice chair of the committee that the report is linked to. So I'll have you present that report. Thank you. The 11th report of the council in close session. Your council in close session report grant of easement 1712 Dundas Street Pottersburg phase 3 sanitary project. That as a procedural matter pursuant to section 2396 of the municipal act 2001 the following recommendation be forwarded to council in close session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to council for deliberation and a vote in public session. that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure on the advice of the director realy services with respect to the property located at 1712 Dundas Street further described as being part of lot 10 and part of lot 17 on registered plan number 19 and to be further described by the new reference plan as shown by the as shown on the location map as appendix B for the purpose of installing a new municipal infrastructure in connection with the Pottersburg phase 3 sanitary project the following actions be taken. A the grant of easement agreement substantially in the form as appendex C submitted by 382672 Ontario limited the transfer to grant an easement over the portion of the subject property to the city to construct municipal infrastructure for the sum of $350,000 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement and B the civic administration be directed to apply the financing for this procurement is set out in the source of financing report as appendix A that progress is made with respect to items 4.1 4.2 2 4.4 4.5 4.6 and 4.7 is noted on the public agenda. >> Okay. You get to that's like presenting a report. So you get to stay. Is there any uh so that's moved by you. Any discussion on that? >> Okay. Seeing none, we'll open that up for voting. Councelor Hopkins votes yes. >> Council for votes yes. >> Noted. Thank you. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. >> Okay. Deferred matters. Uh, there are none inquiries. I see none urgent motions. There were none submitted. We're on to bylaws. I've got good news and bad news is good news is it's the last thing. Bad news is is we have to do 27 separate votes based on the conflicts and what people asked to be pulled separately. So, we'll work our way through them. Um, >> you worship. I'm happy to serve as a mover for all of them. >> Perfect. You can move them all. Councelor Cuddy always reliable to second them all um because he's an agreeable guy. Uh okay. So, we're going to work through them. I'm going to say which ones they are um so colleagues can uh decide their votes. But we're going to start with uh Okay, someone pulled that separate Right. Okay. We're going to start with the confirming bylaw. Um so, uh that'll be the first one. Moved by councelor Cuddy. Uh moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councelor Cuddy. We'll open first reading for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 120. >> Okay. And second reading. Uh any debate or discussion? Seeing none, same move and second or second reading for voting. >> Motion carries 120. Uh third and final reading of this same over and second. We'll open that for voting. Motion carries 120. All right. Next one is going to be bill 239 which is uh so this one is the contribution agreement uh related to duth crescent block six. Uh 18 sorry 1958 Duth crush on block six. Okay. So uh that's moved and seconded and uh we'll open first reading for voting. Thank you. Uh just noting that councelor Pelosa indicated she needed to leave the meeting marking her as absent. Closing the vote. Motion carries 92. >> Okay. And second reading. Uh any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, we'll open second reading for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 92. >> Okay. Third and final reading. We'll open that for voting. Councelor Privile Councelor Lewis Motion carries 92. Okay. Next one is bill 241 which is the green municipal fund grant agreement. We will use the same mover in secondary and we'll open first reading for voting. Motion carries 101 >> and second reading. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll open second reading for voting. Motion carries. 101. and third reading. We'll open that for voting. >> Motion carries 101. >> All right. The next one is going to be bill 244 which is the bylaw to amend the administrative monetary penalties uh system or bylaw essentially. So we'll have use the same move in secondary and we'll open that for voting. Motion carries 101 >> second reading. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Councelor Trussell. Thank you. Motion carries 101. >> Third and final reading and we'll open third reading for vote on Motion carries. 101. Yeah. The next one is bill 257 which is 2496 Dundas Street East. We'll open first reading for voting with the same mover and secure. >> Motion carries 10 to one >> and second reading on this. Look for any discussion. Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Motion carries 10 to one. Uh third and final reading. We will open that for voting. >> Motion carries 101. >> All right. The next one is >> two oh 259 which is 1057 to 1061 Richmond Street. We'll use the same mover and secondary and we'll open first reading for voting. Motion carries 83. Second reading and we will look for any discussion. See none, we'll open that for voting. Councelor Stevenson, >> I vote yes. >> Noted. Thank you. Motion carries. 83. >> Okay. Third and final reading. We're going to open that for voting. Motion carries. 83. Okay. The next is bill 260 which is 36 Weathered Street. We'll open first reading for voting. Council Trusso. >> Motion carries 9 to2. >> Second reading. I look for any discussion. Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Motion carries 8 to three and third and final reading of that. We'll open that for voting. >> Motion carries 8 to three. >> Okay. Next is bill 261 which is 929 cheapside. We will open first reading for voting. >> Motion carries 7 to 4. Second reading. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we'll open that up for voting. Council >> Ferrer for votes yes >> noted. Thank you. Motion carries 7 to four. >> Okay. Third and final reading. We'll open that for voting. Motion carries 74. >> Okay, the next motion is everything else that we didn't do. So, all the pieces together. You want >> You want 258 separate? >> Okay, we can do that. We'll just got to pull it out of the motions. Sorry. All right. Now, we're going to do first reading of 258, which is the one we just asked for separate uh the temporary zoning on the parking lot. We'll open that for voting. First reading. Motion carries 10 one >> and second reading. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. motion carries 101 and third and final reading of this bylaw. We'll open that for voting. Motion carries. 10 1. Now we're going to try to deal with everything else. Everybody's good with that. Okay. Okay, we'll open that for voting. All remaining bylaws. >> Motion carries. 110. >> Okay, second reading. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll open that up for voting. motion carries 110 third and final reading. We'll open that for voting. Councelor. Uh, thank you. Motion carries 11 to zero. >> Okay, that's all the uh bylaws. So, I'll just look for a motion to adjurnn. Moved by Councelor Hopkins, seconded by Councelor Frank. We can do that by hand. All those in favor? Motion carries. >> All right, we'rejourned. Thank you.