Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Please be seated. All right. Welcome to the 14th uh meeting of council for this session. I'm going to start with a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anesnabek, Hneson, Lan Paywok, and Adawandron peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and cultures 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 wampel treaty of the Hodnoson Confederacy silver covenant chain. The beaver hunting grounds of the hodnoson nanfan treaty of 1701. The McKe treaty of 1790. The Lenin township treaty of 1796. The huran track treaty of 1827 with the Anesnabek and the dishwith spoon covenant wampam of the Anesnabek and Hodnoni. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chipuis and the Temps First Nation, Onida Nation of the Tempames, and the Muny Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. Uh, the city of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for any meeting upon request. If you would like to make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact council agenda lendon.ca. CA or 519-661-2489 extension2425. Uh, and with that, it gives me a great pleasure to introduce our national anthem singer today. Born and raised in the small town of Mount Bridges, Tommy Brier now resides in our very own London, Ontario. He is a musician who is the lead vocalist and frontman of the punk and hard rock band No Expectations, who opened Rock the Park last year. Please rise and join me in welcoming Tommy who will now perform the national anthem. Oh Canada, our home unated land. True patri love in all of us command with glowing arts we see the rise the true north strong and free from far and wide. Oh Canada, we stand on God for thee. God, keep our land. Glorious and free. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Mr. Okay. Next, I'm going to turn to disclosures of pecunior interest. I'll look to colleagues for any interests they'd like to disclose today. Okay. Seeing none, uh then we have a super exciting special day. Uh today we get to do recognitions of uh employees who have achieved 25 years of service uh during the 2026 year. So I'm going to move uh to the podium at the front and we'll uh do uh do a little bit of recognition. I'll say a few words first. So just give me a moment to move to the podium. Okay. So first off, I I said it was an exciting day and it is um because uh once a year we get to celebrate uh employees of the city of London who have achieved significant milestone uh in their service to the people of the city of London. Uh 25 years is a long time to work for one place and we know that people who have uh done their education and dedicated their lives to public service uh show up to work each and every day to try to make the lives of Londoners better. Uh we also know that uh people can't do their jobs and can't commit to a long service career without the support of loved ones in their lives. And uh at a small reception uh beforehand uh we were able to gather with uh the employees who were able to join us today as well as some of their supporters and loved ones. Uh so as we as we celebrate and we'll bring them out in service area group as we celebrate those who uh who are achieving that accomplishment today uh we also recognize those who may be in the gallery uh who are their friends family members who support them uh in everything they do here at the city of London. And on behalf of London City Council and the people of London uh in advance of of all of the people who will be coming out today, thank you for a long and dedicated career of public service to the city of London. I'm going to have the city manager join me for the presentation of certificates and then uh as we go through the service areas. Um I'll have the deputy city managers for those service areas come out. We'll do individuals one at a time. Clerk's going to read out the names. That's my way of not getting any of them wrong. Uh and uh and then we'll do uh we'll are we doing a group photo at the end? >> We'll do a small group photo of the service area at the end too. So individuals will come out though. Okay. So we'll get to it. I'll we're going to start with enterprise supports. So, we'll have John Parody come to the front. >> First employee being recognized is Dan Dobson. Chris Goodall, Brian Martin. April Vlasman. Stano vage. That concludes the enterprise support service area. Next is environment and infrastructure. John, we're going to do this. Thanks. This also, April told me this is her first time ever in council chambers in 25 years. She's like the luckiest person in the room, right? >> The next service area is environment and infrastructure. Peter Cooper. We'll go to Candyo. Eric Dennison Stefan Moss, George Peele And that concludes the employees being recognized from environment and infrastructure. Next service area is finance supports. Alan Dunar, Sharon Swans. There you go. >> And that concludes the employees recognized from finance supports. The next service area is housing and community growth. >> Analisa Christensen. and that concludes uh the housing and community growth service area. Next is neighborhood and communitywide services. Bruce Adair Simon Macintosh. Nigel Mando. And that concludes the employees from neighborhood and communitywide services. Thank you. Next is social and health development. Philip Boyd, Susan Crosby Robin Mahan. Linda Taylor, Tracy Turner that concludes social and health development. Yeah. And Philip told me he was on vacation today and then he said I wore my vacation shirt. So he's uh best vacation day ever. Um okay, that concludes it. So thanks again for everybody. Uh thanks again to the family members and loved ones who are in the the gallery. We really appreciate everything you do to support those who work for us here at the city of London and uh we appreciate the service especially our long long service members. Thanks very much. Okay, that concludes sorry uh did any colleagues have any other recognitions today? Okay. Uh seeing none, then that moves us to a review of confidential matters to be considered in public. We have none. Uh council in close session. We have four items as part of council in close session. Uh so I'll look for a motion to move into close session. Councelor McAllister, seconded by councelor Cuddy. Any discussion? Okay, we'll open that for voting. Trust >> noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Okay. We'll be moving to committee room 5. So me, we'll be back as soon as we're done our close session. I don't Okay, thank you. Please be seated. All right, so that concludes our closed session. We're on to confirmation and signing of the minutes of previous meetings. We have the 13th minutes, which is the August 25th minutes. I'll look for a mover and seconder of the minutes of the last meeting. Councelor Ramen, seconded by Councelor Van Mirburgen. Any discussion or changes to the minutes? Okay, we're going to open that for voting. >> Trust votes. Yes. >> Noted. Thank you. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries. 15 to zero. >> Okay, we're on to communications and petitions. Uh what we have is uh four items. Uh there's a number of added uh items as well. All of these relate to different parts of the agenda. So there's a consolidated motion to refer all of those to the relevant parts of the agenda. Moved by councelor Ferrer, seconded by councelor Troau. Any discussion? >> Okay, we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay. Uh now we're on to motions to which notice is given. Uh, councelor Frank gave notice of a motion to which she wants to put on the council agenda floor. Uh, just a reminder um, she will require leave for that um, motion. So, just give me one second. >> Okay. So, councelor Frank, you can ask for leave. Um, you can't debate the item yet, but if you want to just say in a brief sentence why you want leave to make a motion. >> Thank you. Yes. As outlined in the letter, I'm asking for leave for this motion uh due to timelines. So, trying to post the uh London Transit Commission appointments uh to the public in a timely manner to allow for them to apply. >> Okay. So, uh, leave is, uh, moved by councelor Frank, seconded by councelor, uh, Pelosa. Leave is not amendable or debatable. So, we will vote on leave because this was posted on the agenda in advance. Leave leave requires a simple majority of counsel. So, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, councelor Frank, you have leave to make a motion. >> Thank you. Yes. And I won't go over everything, but uh simply uh as we got back the KPMG report, it was referred from council to the London Transit Commission for review. Uh the commission has been reviewing those reports and providing uh feedback as we move forward. One of the recommendations from the KPMG report was to amend the bylaws to allow for three residents to serve, three citizen members to serve on the London Transit Commission and four members of council. Our current bylaw states that we have five members of council, which is what the commi commission composition is currently. Um, and in order to be able to proceed with the timelines to have citizens be able to apply and then be, um, selected by the future council for a November December date, uh, we're trying to get this out as early as possible because we've already seen the appointments posted for our other boards and commissions. So, this is just trying to meet those timelines and provide that opportunity. >> Okay. So given the motion is the public has not seen the motion. I'm going to have you read the motion in its entirety. Then I'll ask for a seconder and then we can proceed with the you have a seconder but I I still need you to read the motion into the public record. Thank you. Yes. That the following actions be taken with respect to the LTC governance review. A be directed to prepare and bring forward a bylaw to amend bylaw A6377206 to a future meeting of municipal council to approve I. A revised composition of the London Transit Commission consisting of four council members and three citizen members. I I a revised quorum of four members. I I requiring citizen members to have relevant expertise. IV requiring the Lenin transit commission to provide one annual report to municipal council and sharing the commission packages via email. And B, the civic administration be directed to advertise the vacancies for four council members and three citizen members to the London Transit Commission in accordance with the applicable appointment process. and the following qualifications be added to the commission job description prior to the call for applicants. I financial audit expertise. I I transit transportation planning expertise. I I economic development city building expertise. Uh IV accessibility equity expertise. V and that lived experience as a conventional andor specialized trans London transit rider be considered an asset. >> Okay. And so that's on the floor moved uh by councelor Frank, seconded by councelor PLA. um you could speak now to it. >> Thanks. I think uh I kind of summarized it at the beginning, so I don't really have too much. >> I know kind of let that happen out of order. I I'm not going to let that happen again, but I wanted to make sure you had a chance. Um I'll look for other uh speakers to the motion on the floor. Councelor Troau, go ahead. >> Uh thank you very much, uh Mayor through you. Um I'll keep this brief. We had a very long discussion at the LTC um board about this. I voted no. Um, I I wanted to separate out the question of relevant experience and I'm still troubled by the list of relevant experience that we're we're asking for. Um, the the LTC staff, we we have a very strong financial management staff including people with uh auditing and accounting experience. Furthermore, when there is an auditing uh exercise to go through, we actually hire an outside auditor and we try very hard to sort of uh keep a uh keep somewhat of a wall between political decisions and uh auditing expertise decisions. I I in in in in all due respect to I'm sure the many people in this room who are accountants and auditors and I could say the same thing for HR managers and lawyers. Um we have that expertise in house. My view is what we sorely and very badly need on the commission is the lived experience of transit riders and um transit riders of the special services and the traditional uh conventional services while we're leaving space for that to be considered a plus. I think that the importance of the lived experience of of writers, which could include uh people who are in our uh groups that have special contracts, such as uh such as student writers, I think is uh being uh I don't want to say marginalized because it's mentioned, but I don't think it's getting enough emphasis. So, I'm going to be voting no on this. I won't I won't uh pursue this further, but um I I'm very happy with expediting the timeline, but I'm not happy with the criteria that we've uh that we've landed on. Thank Thank you very much. >> All right. Any other speakers to the motion before us? >> All right. Seeing none, then we can open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to1. >> All right. Thanks. I have councelor Layman who wants to request a change of order. >> Uh thank you, mayor. Um I'm asking my colleagues to allow a change of order uh to put planning uh first. I have a uh debate tonight and there's a number number of items are going to be pulled on planning. So, I would just like to uh as chair of planning like to get through that uh report first um in case I have to leave early. Thank you. >> Okay. So, you're moving uh a motion. Do you do you need it to read out? I just need you to read it out or do you want >> I believe the clerk has a wording. >> Perfect. >> I I can read it. >> That pursuant to section 6.4 Four of the council procedure bylaw a change in order the council agenda be approved to provide that uh for the 13th report of planning and environment committee stage 8.3 be considered before the 14th report of infrastructure and corporate services committee in stage 8.1. Um this motion requires a seconder and twoth3 votes of members present and it's not debatable or amendable. So I'll look for a seconder for that. Councelor Hopkins. It's not debatable or amendable. So, we'll move straight to a vote and I'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay. >> Okay. That means we get to go to planning uh because we're on that now because we've changed the order. So, I'll turn it over to Chair Layman to present the planning and environment committee report. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Um, so I've had requests to pull 6 9 12 and 13. >> Okay. 6 9 12 and 13 to be dealt with separately. Does anybody want anything else dealt with separately? >> Okay. Then I'll let you make a motion, counselor. >> Okay. So I'll move uh items 1 through 5, 78, 10, 11, and 14. >> Okay. The chairs put those items on the floor. That's 1 through 5, 7, 8, uh, 10, 11, and 14. Any discussion on those particular matters? Seeing none, we'll open those for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 15 to zero. Council layman. >> Thank you. Um put uh number six on the floor. This is regarding 725 uh Notre Dame Drive. >> Okay, this is on the floor. Um I'll look for any discussion. Go ahead, Councelor V. Mayor Bergen. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank um uh the planning committee and indeed council for giving us the 30-day uh referral period for more discussion, more information about this proposal of um town houses in a parking lot of an existing commercial area. Uh there was a lot of fruitful discussion and indeed some good information that flowed back and forth. But in the final analysis, uh the majority of residents in that area do not want this development and therefore I will not be supporting it. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other speakers to this matter? Councelor Troau, go ahead. >> Very briefly, um I'm going to stand with the word counselor on this. I've I've had the opportunity to discuss this with people in the vicinity. Um I uh I'm going to uh be voting no on this again. I think people in the area um spoke at at length at the meeting. There were a number of submissions and I think I think their arguments are wellounded. I think their arguments are well founded on planning principles and I'm very comfortable voting no on this which I will do. Thank you. other speakers to this particular item. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I just want to remind colleagues this is a staff recommended application. Uh, it has met all of the planning act and London plan requirements. Uh, and it is taking something that we've talked about regularly on this council, an underutilized space and creating housing. And so I I would really encourage colleagues to support the staff recommendation on this. Uh the alternative will be an OOLT appeal. Um that's been made very clear to us. Uh and there is nothing in the staff recommendation on which you're going to base uh an opposition vote. And I I say this respectfully because I know change is hard for neighborhoods. Uh but the councelor said people don't like it. Well, we have to make our decision based on the planning act and planning principles. Uh, and that's where we are today with a recommendation from our staff who have done their work, the professionally accredited planners, the engineers looking at the water servicing, looking at the traffic impact, uh, looking at the appropriateness of the height and density and they have come forward and said yes, this is appropriate. So, I would encourage colleagues to support the staff recommendation. >> Okay. other speakers on this item. Okay. Uh seeing none, then the planning committee's recommendations on the floor and I'm going to open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12-3. Councelor Layman. >> Um, thank you, Chair. Uh, the next item is number nine regarding 299 to 307 Sarnia Road. I will be speaking to this, so I will ask I will look to the vice chair um to put this item on the floor. I'm happy to put this item on the floor. Your worship. Okay, this item's on the floor. I'll look to speakers. Go ahead, councelor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair. Um, this was a difficult one because I know planning has approved it and uh I'm on the planning committee and um and I also uh approved it at um at committee. Um but after touring the area, the Orchard Park area to speaking with residents, um you know, I I find it very difficult, your worship, to support this, um this is an area that um it's very quiet. It's um residents have been here for years. and um to put, you know, an eight-story building uh on a on a piece of land that's that's really and and it's it's student housing. We're not talking about condominium developments. We're not talking about about homes. We're we're talking about student residences and and quite frankly, I I find it troubling that we are doing this um to this area to anywhere in the city, your worship. So, um, uh, despite the fact that I have the highest respect for planning and the planning department and their decisions, um, I'll be voting against this. Thank you. >> Okay, other speakers to this. Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you, and thank you to the residents who are out here today. Uh, I voted against this at planning and I'll be voting against it today at committee. And that's consistent with my other votes regarding these height increases where we brought forward the heights review, increasing the heights in neighborhoods without doing it transparently and without having conversations with people ahead of time. So I wish that um and that's my opinion. >> Sorry. Point of personal privilege. >> Sure. Hold on. Point of personal privilege. Go ahead. >> Need the mic please. Again, the council is referring to without transparency. The Heights plan review was subject to public participation meetings. There was a get involved piece on the London.ca website. There was transparency in this. Regardless of how many people participated, the information was out there. And to say that the changes were made without transparency is not accurate and reflects poorly uh in terms of the appropriateness of that comment towards council as a whole. um and a decided matter of counsel. So I would request that the the speaker withdraw the piece uh regarding without transparency because it's not accurate. Uh yes. So uh give me one second. So, I I tend to agree with the deputy mayor that although colleagues can have different opinions on what should or should not be uh involved in the planning process, uh this was a matter that did um legally come through all of the required processes of under the planning act uh followed municipal counselor procedure bylaws. And although colleagues are free to vote how they'd like today, I would ask the counselor if uh if she could rephrase her language. Certainly, you're welcome to say you don't feel the process is extensive enough, but certainly not cast um uh aversions on all of council that there was a non-transparent process when uh municipal council followed every legal requirement uh under the act to to bring the matter forward uh which was legally processed and approved. Yeah, that that's fine. This is um the same statement and argument though I've made over the last few votes where I've said no to developments that I might have supported otherwise had we had conversations with residents before and said, you know, we had this conversation, we agreed to raise the heights and so therefore it's an as of right approval. But when it went through in August, September of 2024, it was late August, early September. When I went back to the public notices, I couldn't see that it said that we went from four to six stories, that we went from eight uh six to eight stories in these areas. I had to go back through and find out, you know, it was down in this paragraph and then an asterisk down to another spot to see. And I just think that I had we had you know open public discussions around this and then voted publicly with having engaging with the public I guess around this then we wouldn't be having this debate development by development we would have had it once upfront. So for that reason, I'm voting no with the neighbors as I've done on previous developments because in my opinion uh it wasn't done in such a way that I can I can I can stand with the development process on this. >> Okay, other speakers. >> Councelor Layman, go ahead. >> Um thank you, Chair. Uh this has been a difficult one for me. Um I'll be frank. Uh I didn't like the fact that the applicant came back uh after getting approval for six and going up to eight. Um that has happened to in my ward and I know the toll it puts on the neighborhood. That being said, that's no reason to base a decision uh for for planning. Um I've spoken to residents. I've toured the area um as I do with with all applications that come before planning. I take each application on a case-byase basis. So I have different reasons than um my colleagues at uh spoke prior. Um for me um after speaking to residents touring I had a great conversation with with San 11 um who represents a number of residents. Uh for me it's the elevation of the property. Uh I think it it um emphasizes the height differential. Um so uh the community is good with six. I am still supportive of six like I originally uh voted. However, in this particular case, I don't think it's suitable to go up to eight. Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah. Thank you your worship and thank you to my colleagues for your comments. I too tooured the U area and I will not be supporting the application. Um the chair mentioned about it being built on a hill and that's one thing I would have liked to have seen stronger wording in the recommendation that the back of the building would be four stories not eight. I know there's a site plan process but I'm not confident in in the strength of this recommendation. I uh will not uh be supporting it. I do think it is important um that we recognize that this was approved for a sixtory and a lot of work, my understanding from the community as well as the developer went into uh settling on a sixtory which we approved. So uh again I'm okay with the sixth but not okay with the eighth. other speakers. Councelor Ramen, go ahead. >> Uh thank you and through you. Uh I just wanted to share my thoughts on this uh particular uh plan. So first I want to thank neighbors and residents who have taken the time to reach out. Uh to me this uh application is actually very similar to another application that's in front of us tonight which is windmir road. Uh but the difference is the height and the density in this area as well. So uh in looking at this application um again I think hearing my colleagues and from what I heard listening to the debate and the conversation at planning I am more comfortable with the initial height of six stories. I do think that this building as uh presented is too tall. I agree with residents that it would be helpful to have more clarity in the bylaw uh when it comes to to the height as well as the step back. Um, and so, uh, I want to thank the neighborhood for the engagement, but I also wanted to thank, uh, members of council, uh, who've taken the time to, uh, hear from residents and to be part of this process. And, you know, I I hear my other colleagues talking about the fact that, you know, there was a process that we went through for the Heights review. Absolutely. At any point, council can decide to relook at a decision. Uh, it doesn't take an election to do so. >> Okay. Other speakers. Go ahead, Councelor Tro. >> Um, thank you very much. I've spoken at length about this, so I will not repeat all of the technical um objections that I have to this plan, including the um my my worry about leaving important issues to the site review um process. Um my main concern, well, one of my main concerns with with this project was the traffic. I do not believe that the traffic study was adequate. Um, and this this is a point that I raise time and time again uh to justify my um opposition to a lot of different um developments. I I I think the traffic is it just it just speaks for itself and I just I think that something more needs to be done with the Sarnia with the Sarnia corridor and I think that every one of the applica we're going to be seeing a lot of applications in the next few years along the Sarnia uh corridor and we have to get clear on what our policies are going to be. However, what I want to talk about is two things. Number one, I have worked very closely with the neighborhood association, the immediate neighbors, the more remote neighbors, the developer and city staff over a period of a few years. We've had this file now for a few years, and it's gone through different iterations. And what really bothers me is everyone involved worked so hard and gave up things that were important to them to reach a compromise. And it was not a perfect compromise. But the sixstory the sixstory proposal that passed this council last year on a unanimous vote including myself was an example of the best sort of collaboration between the different stakeholders. And for the developer to come in now at the end and say well never mind that we want to go to eight stories because we technically can. I think that if we approve that, we're sending a very bad signal to every neighborhood group who is seriously thinking about engaging in good faith negotiations with a developer. And it that really that really bothers me. The other thing I want to say is, and I've spoken to the residents in great detail about this, not just in the leadup to this meeting, but over the years, and I am satisfied that everybody involved in the neighborhood understands that there is going to be additional density and additional development along the Sarnia Carter, and that's going to most likely involve student housing. Everybody understands that there's going to be more student housing in the neighborhood and I am satisfied that members of this neighborhood in good faith appreciate that. This is not an anti- studentent backlash. This is not nimiism. You've got people who who are way far away from the backyards of this development expressing con concerns about the overall character of the neighborhood. a neighborhood, by the way, which is facing many other serious uh concerns regarding uh cutth through traffic and and other things that could be coming down the pike in the next in the next year. I was particularly happy to see the letter from the university student council, which for some reason is not reflected in the agenda. I I I I'm not going to get into that. But they were very clear that what the students need is affordable housing, not just housing. I mean, the developer told us that these were going to be marketed to the high-end students who could afford, and you know, we we can't hold them to what the rent is going to be, and we can't control the rent, but they were talking over $1,200 per bedroom. Per bedroom, not per unit per bedroom. And that is, in my view, uh a challenge to the affordability that uh the students need. So, I don't see a conflict here between the neighborhood and the students. And I would I would not be going I would not be taking such a strong position as the word counselor if I didn't feel that that was reconcilable. So, I really want to thank members of the neighborhood. >> 30 seconds. Uh in in closing, I think that the compromise that was reached last year represented the finest aspects of what the direction that I would like to see neighborhood developer relations go. And I just cannot countenance. I cannot support what the developer has done here. And by the way, they can still come back. I asked this at the planning committee. They could still come back. >> Your time's up, council. >> So, thank you very much. Thank you for all being here and uh I'll be voting no. >> Councelor Privile, you're next. >> Thank you, Horship. Uh councelor Stevenson, your mic's on for some reason. Yeah, go ahead. Council, >> am I not on the mic? >> No, you were on the mic. >> Thank you. So as stated before we had here uh that we approved the six stories and now we have in front of us eight stories. I'm not blaming the developer because again just like everyone else we maximize our opportunities staff they they did their job. They did their work in terms of uh housing policy and they really gave the report based on that. I totally understand as well. That's why it's here in front of us because we potentially have a chance to give our feedback and what we think about this. I truly based on when I look at the height and I do understand that we have our policy it's kind of 3.3 meters per story the 29.1 is really maximizing it and on top of that there's going to be the rooftop mechanical uh equipment even though it does state it will be screened from vision if I look at the coverage of the lot which is again just under 60% 58 something that it's covers so I do understand that uh staff recommended because it's front of us. Uh I will not be supporting it what's in front of us. I truly hope that the developer is going to uh hear certainly from the ones I don't know how the vote is going to go but certain certainly the ones who have not supported it and uh in terms of the neighborhood that they will reconsider going back to the six what was approved and they can put the shovels in the ground tomorrow. Thank you. >> Uh Deputy Mayor Lewis and then myself. Uh thank you worship. So at the risk of repeating myself from the last application, uh I'm going to say much of the same thing. This is coming forward with a planning recommendation from our professional planning staff based on their evaluation of the situation. I've heard colleagues uh ex I've heard some colleagues express concern uh that it's student housing. I appreciate councelor Trussau did not, but I heard other colleagues express concern about that. Um, it's not up to us. In fact, it would be contrary to the law for us to discriminate on an application based on who was going to live there. Um, councelor Trussile referenced the uh letter from the Western Student Council and with all due respect, while they may need affordable housing, uh, the developer is not obligated to provide affordable. We don't get to set those things. We don't get to tell the private sector what kind of housing they're going to build. They have to decide for themselves what market they can successfully or perhaps in some cases unsuccessfully market to. Um, you know, Western has another residence going up on the Richmond Street side right now. Uh, when it comes to affordable housing, in my opinion, that is up to the university to provide affordable housing on campus for their students. Uh, and there's partnerships that they can engage in with the federal and the provincial government to do that. They're they're doing so right now with one building. I have Fanshaw College in the east end. I wish Fanshaw was building another residence. I wish they'd be that responsible because the the student housing in the neighborhoods there is a challenge, too. Uh, in fact, I was on Second Street last night. Lots of students uh who actually aren't really tuned into city issues. So, I I was knocking on doors with people who weren't really aware that anything else was going on in the city. That said, um so I recognize that it's going to be student housing. I appreciate that the council has engaged and has said, you know, we're not opposed to more student housing in the area. Uh although I did hear that from a couple of other colleagues. Um so, this comes back to my same position as the last application. Um, we're not professional planners or traffic engineers. Our staff have evaluated this. They've said it meets uh the requirements uh under the planning act and under the London plan uh and they're bringing it forward as a recommendation. So, uh you know, again, I think what we set ourselves up for in the next step if we say no is that we'll have an OT appeal. The OLT will make a decision. Um, and it may be that it's just taken out of our hands. Uh, you know, to to say that um, you know, the the parcels on a quiet piece of land and such, it's on Sarnia Road. That's where the facing is. And while I appreciate the residents have quieter neighborhoods in behind, we're talking about a roadway with more than 24,000 vehicle trips a day on it. So that an apartment building is going to radically change the traffic flow is just an idea that statistically uh I cannot accept uh as a logical opposition to this application. So I will be supporting it because I support our staff recommendation. I support the work that they've done on this. Again I recognize the neighborhood doesn't like it. Change is hard but neighborhoods do change. And I do think that this has met all the the requirements under the planning act and under our London plan evaluation by our staff. >> Uh I'll turn the chair over to councelor Ramen. >> Just grabbing my timer just a moment. Okay, please go ahead. Uh so thanks uh councelor and and thanks to the deputy mayor for your articulation of of this matter and I also want to thank councelor Troau as the ward counselor for um uh what I and I mean this with all due respect council one of your um one of your best um contributions uh to council on I think a development uh intersection of development and community issues um uh this term u and and I say that because I I remember being a ward counselor in um in W 7 and and I think some of the best work that I'm most proud of is when um there was a difficult uh discussion to have uh and as the ward counselor you got to play bit of a mediator to try to come to a reasonable conclusion with the community on something that uh allows the community to recognize that there is something going to happen here. um there is development going to happen here and along S your road deputy mayor is right this is this is a place where intensification is is going to happen and and to have worked towards a compromise that the community may not be perfect with but led to a decision that wasn't appealed uh didn't have a lot of negative feedback uh I I think is is a good example of a community coming together in a way that allows for uh progress to happen and and absolutely right this is this is a busy road intensification will happen here but there. You know, the Heights review is is pretty important to the city to be able to grow um and make use of existing infrastructure. If we're going to try to to to manage the city's finances and keep taxes down, we're going to have to intensify in different areas of the city to make this work. But if that's going to be successful, you know, we cannot have applications that are going to undermine the public's uh confidence in in the work that we're doing by ignoring reasonable compromises when they've when they've come together. And and I think the six-story building, which is an, let's make no mistake, is an intensification on this site that is relatively dramatic, is a reasonable compromise that that the community has gotten behind and made. And to try to push that envelope to to eight stories after that, I I think undermines some of the good work that's been done uh between the council, the community, the developer to get to a compromise in the first place. I I frankly don't think it it's good planning on our part uh as a council. And on the staff recommendations, like listen, we know that we've had applications come before this council where staff has done done excellent and thorough work like they have in this case and council has said or the ward counselors have said in some cases, I don't like that this application was rejected. I remember councelor Cuddi speaking very articulately about his area needing some density and council overturning a staff recommendation to give that in an area. In this case, councelor Troau saying, "Hey, we need some density here, but let's not push the envelope to the point where the community is offside with it. Let's go with that reasonable compromise of six stories and let's uh let's move on and and and work on the next application and the next application with community members and partnerships." So, uh I'm going to not support the intensification to eight stories. I will support um uh the original application as it was approved at six. I know there is a risk uh of appeal um with that to the the OOLT, but I think that that's you know that's a fair process to be litigated in that court should the developer want to do that. But but remember this is a developer who actually came to a compromise and my hope is that they will see council's decision. It sounds to me like it's going to be a fairly lopsided vote and would proceed with that community partnership in making the six-story development the best they possibly can that works very well for the community. So, I'm not going to support the recommendation coming out of planning committee today. I I appreciate the the words of the ward counselor on this file. I recognize the important work that staff did to get us here, but I think, you know, we have to recognize when there's good community collaboration coming together to find a compromise. You know, we need to do everything we can to support that and and in the absence and turning our back on that in my opinion is not is not good planning um by this council and the city of London. >> Thank you. returning the church. She is no one on the speakers list. >> Okay. Any other speakers on this matter? Okay. Then we're going to open this for voting. And this is uh these Oh, councelor closes. Sorry. Go ahead. >> Sorry. Thank you. Uh three to staff. Uh it was approved at 6. They're back for eight. Is eight the maximum? I I feel residents frustration with this as I've had this happen, many of us have as war counselors, that they get approved for one thing. You go through the community engagement and information and sometimes we make it this far before the application's updated and everyone's trying to follow the path. So, is eight the maximum or should this have passed or whatnot that they might come back again with more amendments? I know staff can't stop them from coming back, but just where's the where's the where's the top? >> Go ahead. Thank you. you through your worship. Yes, eight stories is the maximum height permissions under the London plan policy framework. >> Go ahead. >> Uh thank you. Um I appreciate the conversation today and knowing that staff recommended yes and uh grateful for the deputy mayor clarifying this. Uh just really frustrated with some people some people some developmental educations that they come and sometimes it was even that long since we did have that discussion here in resident engagement that they come back with wanting something else. Uh so just really feeling that frustration that uh to me that's not being good community partners and is making it really hard and adding on to a lot of community stress. Thank you. >> Any other speakers? >> Okay. And again the committee's recommendation on the floor. We're going to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion fails. Two to 13. Okay. So I just one sec. um appreciate the expressions, but um we don't usually people get their way or don't get their way. Um we we don't usually uh do um out outward expressions of support or uh against in the council. I appreciate that people have a lot of a passion about this, but like this matter for matters throughout the the the committee, there are people on different sides of the debate. We want it to be a comfortable place for all to express their opinions and so we tend to not express that. Um, I'm sure people appreciate it. Um, but we we try to be relatively neutral in the gallery today. I should have said that at the start, but um uh I'll just say that for the uh reminder for the remainder of the items before us. Thank you. >> We can do staff report. >> We need a motion to receive the staff report. Are you willing to >> I'll make that motion. >> Okay. Seconded by councelor Hopkins. Any >> I don't think there's any discussion on that. No. Okay. We'll open that for voting just to receive the staff report. Motion carries 150. >> Council L. >> Thank you, mayor. I'll put number 12 on the floor. This is regarding 350 to 356 Windmir Road. >> Okay, this one's on the floor. The committee's recommendation. I will look to speakers for this matter. Go ahead, councelor Tosa. >> Um, and and again, uh, mayor, I'm not going to repeat the,uh, arguments that I made at the, um, two, uh, PEC's that we've had on this. I feel that the members of the, uh, community um, made very plausible arguments. I'm not satisfied that the uh that the traffic report uh regarding impacts uh to uh public safety um were adequately dealt with. I'm not going to go into any more detail on that now. I just wanted I wanted to pull this um I again I understand that there's going to be intensification. This is right across the street from campus. But any intensification that we see on Windmir road has to be more sensitive to the already existing congestion that exists in that corridor on Windmir road especially with respect to access to um to to the hospital. So based on the traffic report that we received um and based on my concerns about what happens when people are stuck in traffic in an ambulance, I I cannot support this in good conscience. And yes, I understand there will be um further intensification here. All of the neighbors in the triangle understand that. So with that, I'll thank you and uh I'll be voting no on this. Thank you. >> Other speakers to this one? >> Go ahead, Council Po. Thank you. I'm currently the board counselor for this area. I had numerous uh meetings communication with the neighborhood. I did hear their concerns and I'm not going to say they are not valid. They certainly are valid. We did go back with the three studies that we asked for the reorganization. We received the feedback. We received the traffic study. There will also be the improvement of the widening of the windmir in that area. I do think that our staff uh if this development ends up going forward or when it uh I think there should there needs to be a communication between our staff and the developer to make sure the timing is right for the windm well to address certain issues including the safety. Uh having said that I uh the neighborhood they do know my other concerns which I shared with them based on what's in front of us. I am supporting the application and I do hope that uh if this passes through that this is going to be the only application that's going to come forward and uh if it doesn't if there's another one I know that it's going to be I'm not going to be on the seat anymore but I certainly hope the people who will be back will remember this because the way we treated the last application I hope it's going to stay with this one as well. So bottom line is I'm supporting what's in front of us. Thank you. Um, okay. Thank you. Other speakers to this. Go ahead, Council Ramen. >> Thank you. Uh, I am reluctantly supporting this application. Um, I've alongside councelor Purple have had the opportunity to meet with residents in the triangle who again understand intensification is coming uh in the area. Um I think it's just again the conflict between uh the uh proposed uh application or the application that's in front of us and the neighborhood um concerns. Uh so in order to support this, I'm hoping also that there's an opportunity to later bring forward some of those concerns to the appropriate committee which I assume will be ICSC. Uh a lot of their concerns are related to spillover traffic. Uh as this is 48 units. Um and though uh those with those units um there is parking, there isn't adequate parking when you look at the number of potential bedrooms uh associated with this particular property. So that is definitely a concern. Um some of the other concerns that neighbors have raised um again I think can be addressed through uh our other committees. But I do think it speaks to a process challenge that we continue to have in our planning meetings and that is that a lot of the neighborhood concerns really have no place to live except alongside the planning application. And so in this case, like I said, I will be uh looking to bring those forward at a later date as a letter or some communication to uh the appropriate committee. Um but I do think that when residents take the time to share those issues, uh there should be a way to be able to address those issues uh and those potential future concerns by way of just passing that information on to the committee that deals with those. um whether that's through a referral process or something of that sort, a neighborhood shouldn't have to come back and relive the the uh conversation. They've already shared their feedback and it also shouldn't just be housed with ward counselors to take forward, especially as things change uh over time. So just sharing that feedback. Um want I want to thank the residents. I want to thank the uh community for the conversation and um also uh although the study was done, I think we do need to look at how we do traffic studies in the future. Uh this one in particular happened on uh an early May date in uh this this past year. Um, of course that takes a lot of the student drivers and a lot of the university traffic uh away from from the scene and and away from that study. So, um, it does have the opportunity to change the results and I think that's important to consideration to keep for the future. Thank you. >> Uh, other speakers to this. >> Okay, seeing none, then we're going to open it for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to1. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. I'd like to put uh 13 on the floor regarding 767 Vanshaw Park Road East and 679 Dunboy Crescent. Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look to speakers for this one. Sorry. Oh, go ahead, Councelor Tro. >> Yes, I I pulled it. I just did that so I could record my uh vote separately. Thank you. >> Sure. Thank you. Okay. Well, there's no other speaker. Oh, councelor Pribble. >> Thank you. Uh again, this my in uh currently in W five, which is my ward. Uh I just want to uh thanks the staff. This was the one that uh if you remember we had uh five uh uh additional motions towards this. One of them was public site plan that's why it was in front of us again. Uh I do want to thank again uh the neighborhood which again uh had great questions. I want to I want to thank the staff because we actually met the week before and the four members of our staff answered uh uh all the questions and it's really truly saved time at the planning committee meeting. My ask is yes. The council made the decision. We made it in January. We are uh this project is moving forward. Uh the neighborhood is asking now based on the findings based on the communication back and forth to be involved in the other stages. So again I'm asking uh during our meeting the staff agreed to it that this is not going to be just kind of the last meeting that the neighborhood had with us. Uh that the staff during the other building process etc. other steps that they will be involved. So I'm asking this staff publicly to please keep our word and have them involved uh in certain decisions and again I'm not going to go to the details of the retaining wall fence etc but you know exactly what the points are so thank you for that no more comments any other speakers okay see none we'll open that for voting Closing the vote. Motion carries 13-2. >> Councelor Layman. >> Uh thank you, mayor. That concludes the 13th report of the Planning Environment Committee. >> Okay. And based on the change of order, that brings us back to the 14th report of infrastructure and corporate services committee. Uh I will turn it over to the chair to present councelor McAllister. >> Thank you. Sorry, you threw me off there. Uh pleased to present the 14th report of infrastructure and corporate services committee. Um I haven't had any poll requests. Um, but I will look to see if anyone wants something pulled. >> Okay. Would anybody like anything dealt with separately from the infrastructure and corporate services committee? >> Okay. Seeing none, go ahead and make a motion, counselor. >> Okay. I will put items one through eight on the floor. >> So, the entire committee reports on the floor. I'll look for any discussion or comments. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Uh thank you, chair. I just want to share um very very happy to see on this uh report the installation of a new traffic signal at Bradley A and Old Victoria Road. Um as recently as last night uh on a doorstep, I had a request for that. Uh I told them that it was in the works. So hopefully with this uh uh passing today, we will be able to get that done. Um and I think as we uh you know look at the uh other item in the report, the industrial land development strategy, obviously uh that intersection is only going to continue to see traffic growth as industrial land opportunities along Veterans Memorial Parkway uh get uh snapped up uh by new businesses coming to uh locate and expand in our city. So I think those two things kind of go hand in hand and it's a it's a great move. I know people are also waiting for the uh the long- aaited roundabout uh at Old Victoria and commissioners in Hamilton and the other one at Hamilton and Gore. I know councelor Mallister is working with staff on that. Um so we we'll see some dramatic traffic improvements uh in the east end and traffic safety as a result of this item. So just wanted to thank staff for getting this one brought forward. >> Thanks. Other speakers to the report. Okay, we'll open that for voting. >> Marking councelor Traso absent. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. >> Councelor Mallister. That concludes my report. >> Perfect. Thank you. Uh we're on to the uh 13th report of community and protective services committee. Turn it over to chair councelor Roman. >> Uh thank you. I'd like to put the 13th report of the community protective service for services committee on the floor. I have not been asked to pull any items at this time. >> Anybody like anything to deal with separately? Okay. Seeing none, you're putting the whole thing on the floor. >> Yes, I am. Thank you. >> Uh then I'll see if there's any discussion on the matters that are before us. >> Go ahead, Council Mallister. >> Uh thank you and through you. Just quickly again, I want to thank staff in terms of the parks and wreck uh master plan. Um very pleased to date in terms of work we've done in this area, recognizing there's newer parts of the city that still have gaps. We need to work on those, but um I'm very um pleased in terms of the investment I've seen in um some of the aging uh areas uh the facilities. Um so thank you for that. Uh also on um item 5 4.1, I think this is very important topic. uh number of areas are impacted with um the non-compliance in vacant buildings. So, I'm very happy to see that come forward um and see that report. So, thank you, >> Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> Uh thank you, chair. Uh I will echo the councelor's comments uh on the chronic non-compliance in vacant buildings. Glad to see that coming forward. Um, I want to speak to the parks and recreation plan, uh, master plan for a moment. And, uh, I'm going to start by apologizing to Miss Smith because I didn't reach out ahead of time. Um, however, um, as we look to the future of our parks, uh, and if you can't speak to this today, um, I certainly understand. Um, but, uh, we are now well into September. Uh, a lot of our seasonal staff has left and returned to school, and it's noticeable in our parks. the grass cutting, the garbage changing, um the frequency and the um level of service delivery um has noticeably changed and I'm just wondering if staff can comment at all uh through you chair on steps we might be taking uh with local 107 or uh internally uh that might address the need for the fact that parks are functional longer into the season than they typically have been historically. >> Go ahead, Miss Smith. >> Thank you. And through your worship, I appreciate your question. Uh we have been really uh working hard with our parks team. As you know, parks is is new uh to my area, but we have been involved with parks and parks operations for a number of years and rely heavily on it. uh we understand the resources required, the resources we currently have and where we want to go. So coming forward with the parks and recck master plan at this time, coming forward as we prepare for next season and really looking at our current resources, our operations, and where we can see improvements with what we have, looking at the staffing we have, how can we best staff what we have uh with the resources we have now. um working with our community, making public more information so people are aware when grass gets cut, how grass gets cut, know and understanding that I have a neighborhood park versus a premier park. What does that mean? What are those parks? So, we're really looking at uh what other cities are doing too. How do we make public and and hold ourselves accountable for our current services and level service level of services we have? then exploring what does that look like with resources or potentially if there's resources required uh for the next multi-year bud budget. So really looking at both our public washroom availability and our parks operations >> Lewis. Uh so just a quick followup to that. Um would that include uh because one of the questions that comes from the residents all the time. Um the truck and trailer show up, cut the grass, they leave, but none of the whippers snipping has been done around the edges. None of the So would that include looking at a one-stop all the service from one delivery team rather than breaking that up? Like is that something that's being considered moving forward? >> Thank you. and through your worship a very good question. Yes, as you know in many of our parks there's more than one crew required and a specialized vehicles required. So looking at if it's near the end of the day, do we wait until the next day? Do we stay late? What does that look like to make sure we're not just cutting the grass, we're picking up the grass, but we're also going around the trees with with the specialized equipment with what's required. So yes. So when your park is cut, is it fully cut? If there's not, then what is the reasonal and rationale why? Go ahead. Final question. I'm going to be really short. Um, right now given where we are uh with our parks, are we utilizing overtime to catch up on some of the And I know the weather has been against us. The weather's been perfect for the grass to go really really fast at home. >> I I'm going to need you to cuz I get like parks and rec master plan. >> Just keep it linked, please, so I don't have to cut you. >> You know, we expect not just the investment in the capital, but in the standards. And so I'm just asking like are we what are we doing to try and improve our standards right now while these sort of things in the park and rec master plan get rolled out. >> Thank you. And through your worship we're doing the best we can with the resources we have knowing we have a temporary workforce that has gone back to school and has ended. We are looking at making sure that we get what needs to be cut when it needs to be cut and uh to the best we can. But this will be part of what we're reviewing as we roll into 2027. >> All right. Thanks. Other questions for the matters that are before us. >> Okay. Seeing none, we're going to open that for voting. Marking councelor Van Mirburgen absent noted uh council to voting yes closing the vote motion carries 14 to zero >> go ahead >> thank you that concludes my report >> thank you very much uh we'll move to added reports uh councelor McAllister has u an added report about council in close session. >> Okay. Uh and this is from the 14th report of council in close session. Uh number one, the lease extension and amending agreement 164 Elmwood Avenue East, former London Normal School, YMCA of Southwest Ontario, 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 vote in public session. that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports on the advice of the director, realy services with respect to the lease extension by the way of the um by way of the lease extension and amending agreement with YMCA of southwestern Ontario. Uh the tenant as uh in appendix A for a term beginning October 1st, 2026 to March 31st, 2027 for office space located at 165 uh oh, we got two different addresses. cuz we got 165 164 but okay uh 165 Elmwood A West. The following actions be taken. A the extension of tenant the tenants current lease at 165 Elmwood uh West uh for a further term of 6 months beginning on October 1st, 2026 and expiring March 31st, 2027 be approved in accordance with the lease extension and amending agreement in appendix A. B. The mayor and the clerk be authorized to execute the lease extension and amending agreement and C. The civic administration be authorized to undertake all administrative steps necessary in contact or in connection with this lease extension including administering a further six-month option extension if exercised by the tenant that progress was made with respect to items 4.2 4.3 and 4.4 as noted on the public agenda 6.2 2 uh14 IC 6.13 PEC and 6.213 uh for PEC as well. Uh and sorry just looking to the clerks there there are two different addresses. Is that correct? >> Sorry counselor say that again. Um so um it's listed as 164 um at the top and then within it says 165 Elwood >> here. >> I don't know. >> No, we see it. >> Yeah, we got it. >> We're just going to double check that number before we prove it. There's not two addresses for the building, is there? Because there's uh the council's asking. So, it's on the floor by the council. It's asking um in the lease extension amending agreement 164. Later in section A, it says the lease at 165. Go ahead. We just want to make sure we have the right address in both places. your worship. I can confirm it's 165. >> Okay, go ahead. >> It >> Thank you. through the chair. Um 165 Elmwood is the correct address. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. So if that could just be noted then in the the wording just so Yeah. Yeah. So, it's just wrong in the title. It's it's right in the actual motion. The >> clerk couldn't just because it's in the title just administratively fix that. >> Okay. All right. That's on the floor. Uh any discussion or questions, debate? All right. Okay. To the colleagues who um may need to declare a pecunary interest on this matter, this would be the time to do so on the lease extension for the YMCA. Look to any colleagues who need to do that. Do you need to? Does anybody need to declare a conflict on this matter that was in camera and is now in public session? Go ahead, Councelor Ploza. >> I'll start us off then. um declaring conflict for that item we want to close session for as it relates to a potential impact on household income for myself. >> Perfect. And we'll make sure we separate the bylaw. Councelor Verberen. >> Yes. I have a conflict on this one as my wife has her own daycare. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Any others? Okay. No. All right. Then it's on the floor. We've got a couple of colleagues who've declared on this. I'm going to open it for voting. Oh, and just for the colleagues, we're going to there's 6.1 and then progress. We'll do 6.1 first. You're welcome to vote on the ne the next one, which will be progress, but this is the one that you've declared on the one we're going to vote on right now, which we'll open for voting. >> Absent. Just need you to vote, counselor. >> Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero with two recusals. >> Yeah. And we're not going to vote on the progress piece. That's a verbal statement of progress on the other matters which the counselor has already made. So, um, appreciate your presenting of this report. Um, all right. That moves us on to deferred matters. We have none. Inquiries. I see none. Ertent motions. We had none. bylaws. Okay, we're going to separate out bylaws, folks. I'm going to tell you how we're going to do that in just one sec. So, how we've got it separated so far is first we're going to do Notre Dame, then we're going to do Windmir, then we're going to do the one that the colleagues declared on the bylaw related to the um YMCA and then we'll do everything else, but we're happy to separate more things. That's all that we received. your worship. I'm happy to move all bylaws. I'm supportive of all. So, I will be the mover for all. >> Great. Who's willing to >> Sure. Yeah, you can go ahead and second them all. Okay. So, that's uh councelor Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councelor Stevenson are willing to uh move everything and we're going to do it in that order. If no one wants anything separate. Okay, good. I'll remind you of what we're voting on. I'll remind you of what we're voting on. Okay. Yes. Council may ben. >> So you are calling 3:35 separately. >> Yes, that's what we're starting with. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So 335 is moved. >> 335 >> and seconded. This is the bylaw related to 725 uh Notre Dame Drive. And we're going to open the first reading for voting. Motion carried. >> Okay. And second reading on this matter. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we will open that for voting. Motion carries. 123 and third and final reading on this bylaw. We'll open that for voting. >> Motion carries. 123. Okay. Okay, the next one we're doing is uh bill 338, which is uh 350 to 356 Windmir Road. So, we'll open first reading for voting. >> Motion carries 141 and second reading. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Motion carries 141. >> And third and final reading of this bylaw. We will open for voting. Motion carries. 141. All right, the next one we're doing is 339, which is the one from our in camera session that a couple of colleagues declared on. So, uh, that's related to the agreement between the city of London and the YMCA of southwestern Ontario. We will open first reading for voting. Motion carries 13 to zero with two recusals and second reading of this bylaw. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero with two recusals. >> Okay. Third and final reading of this splot. We'll open that for voting. Motion carries 13 to zero with two recusals. Okay. And the rest what will be next is everything that's left. But I will just note since Bill 336 related to Sarnia Road was defeated, it's not actually in this set of bylaws anymore. It's been removed from the vote because there's no bylaw because we we didn't pass the um planning report. So, this is everything else um minus 336 which is uh not relevant anymore. Okay. All right. We're going to open that for voting. Motion carries 15 to zero >> and second reading on this. Any discussion? Okay, see none, we'll open that for voting. >> Motion carries 15 to zero. >> And third and final reading. We'll open that for voting. >> Motion carries. 15 to zero. >> Okay, that's it. So 1252 or 252. I'll look for a motion to adjurnn. Uh councelor Mayor Bergen very excitedly and councelor Hopkins do this one by hand. All those in favor of adjournment. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. We are adjourned.