May 1, 2012, at 5:04 PM

Original link

The Council meets in Regular Session in the Council Chambers this day at 5:04 PM

I.   RECOGNITIONS

1.   The El Sistema

Aeolian Orchestra performed for Council in recognition of National Youth Arts Week

2.   His Worship the

Mayor presented a plaque for “London’s Featured Company” to Edge Automation Inc.

3.   His Worship the

Mayor recognized Safety Patroller Ross Jones of Sir George Etienne Cartier Public School for his remarkable achievement and leadership

4.   His Worship the

Mayor acknowledged that “The Million Tree Challenge” website is an Official Honouree of the 16th Annual Webby Awards

II.   DISCLOSURES

OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

Councillor P. Hubert discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4 of the 13th Report of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee, having to do with the 2011 Compliance Report in Accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, by indicating that he is the Executive Director of one of the social services agencies listed which has a purchase service agreement with the City of London.

VIII.   REPORTS

Moved by Councillor J.L. Baechler

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Approve that, pursuant to section to section 7.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, the order of business be changed as follows:   a)            to permit consideration of clauses 5  and 9 of the 13th report of Finance and Administrative Services Committee, having to do with an Agreement between The City of London and The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, respectively,  to be heard prior to the 6th Report of the Community Services Committee;   b)            to permit consideration of the 11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with an Application by Ayerswood Development Corp. re property located at 940 Springbank Drive,  to be heard at 5:30 p.m.; and,     c)            to permit the consideration of clause 3 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with Drinking Water Fluoridation in London, to be heard  at 7:30 p.m.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

5.   Agreement Between The City of London and

The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Approve that, on the recommendation of the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the attached proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to:   a)         approve an amending agreement between The Corporation of the City of London (City) and  Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology (Fanshawe), attached as Schedule “A” to the by-law; and   b)         authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the amending agreement approved in a), above. (2012-L15-01/L03-00)

Motion Passed

9.   Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

with the European Union

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Approve that the Federal and Provincial Governments BE ADVISED that The Corporation of the City of London wishes to “opt out” of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union (CETA) so it can determine whether or not to support the Agreement in future, based upon an assessment of how the Agreement would affect this municipality; it being noted that the Finance and Administrative Services Committee received a report dated April 16, 2012, from the Director of Intergovernmental and Community Liaison, with respect to this matter. (2012-M16-00)

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan

Amend by deleting clause 9 in its entirety and replacing it with the following new clause 9:   That the Federal and Provincial Governments BE ADVISED that The Corporation of the City of London wishes to “opt out” of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union (CETA) in order to determine whether or not to support the Agreement in future, based upon an assessment of how the Agreement would affect this municipality, which would take into consideration:   a)            a sector-by-sector analysis by the Government of Canada, in collaboration with FCM, of the potential impacts on municipal functions and powers of the procurement regime that the European Union is seeking;   b)            timely and objective assessments of both the costs and benefits of the CETA agenda to municipalities, also to be provided by the Government of Canada;   c)            details provided by the Government of Canada and the Province as to which sectors are most likely to be the principal beneficiaries of CETA and how the benefits of CETA will be distributed;   and noting that the City would also expect:   d)         the Government of Canada and the Province to consult with municipalities with the above-referenced analyses in hand before any Agreement is finalized with the EU; and;   e)         the Government of Canada and the Province to solicit comments from all the parties that will potentially be affected by the proposed Agreement before finalizing any such Agreement;   it being noted that the Finance and Administrative Services Committee received a report dated April 16, 2012, from the Director of Intergovernmental and Community Liaison, with respect to this matter.  (2012-M16-00)

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Approve clause 9, as amended.

Motion Passed

2.   Property located at 940 Springbank Drive

Motion made Councillor P. Polhill to Approve that, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the site plan approval application of Ayerswood Development Corp. relating to the property located at 940 Springbank Drive: a)         the attached development agreement and schedules for a twelve-storey apartment building with 165 units BE RECEIVED for final approval;   b)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to meet with the applicant to discuss the potential for the purchase of the land or the potential for a land swap, prior to the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012; and,   c)         the applicant BE REQUIRED to accept the risks and costs of the risk management aspects of the project, such as slope stability;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications:   -                    an information report from the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services; -                    A. Papmehl, dated April 23, 2012; and, -                     W. Dickinson, The Woodfield Community Association, dated March 19, 2012; (Secretary’s Note: A petition signed by approximately 11 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk’s Office.); -                     S. Shillington, dated April 22, 2012; and, (Secretary’s Note: A petition signed by approximately 382 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk’s Office.);   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:   -                     Alan R. Patton, Solicitor for Ayerswood Development Corporation – introducing John Camara, Manager, Ayerswood Construction and Richard Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; reading page 5, paragraph three of the Conclusion section of the staff report; noting that it is a concise and accurate summary; reading lines from the top of page 5 of the staff report; advising that the map (that was placed on the screen during the meeting) shows the height limit of the building at 40 metres; noting that the building can only contain 165 units; advising that the proposed building has more underground and surface parking than is required; indicating that there has been more public consultation on this file than any he has heard of in 30 years of practice; indicating that the Civic Administration has repeatedly met with the neighbours; indicating that Zelinka Priamo Ltd. has also met with the neighbours and kept them informed every step of the process; advising of the public dialogue that the building must be the same size as one of the two originally proposed buildings in the application that was before the Ontario Municipal Board in 2000; advising that in March, 2010, an appeal to the site plan was taken to the Ontario Municipal Board; indicating that Mr. J.P. Barber advocated for one building, the same size as one of the original buildings; noting that the Ontario Municipal Board decided that one apartment building does not align with the facts of the Rosenberg decision; noting that the decision does not use the words “revise” or “amend”, but uses the word “new”; indicating that the Ayerswood proposal has merit; reading from a “Save Reservoir Hill” flyer; advising that the “Save Reservoir Hill” group hoped to make the building uneconomical to build; advising that the applicant has followed the Planning Act process, a basic fundamental proposition, which meets the rule of the law; noting that the site plan by-law is a matter of law; advising that staff has followed through; advising that staff has been more rigorous on this application than any other application; requesting that the site plan application be approved; advising that Rosenberg had every opportunity to reduce the footprint of the building; advising that the setbacks from the Hopkins and Howells property is in excess of the R7-9 Zone; advising that the building could be larger and that they are saving a lot of the trees; advising that there is no confusion on the Rosenberg decision; advising that the differences between the Snezak decision and this site plan are that the first site plan had a different slope, with a proposal for terraced areas for the residents to use and that the cut line was different; advising that the application is geotechnically sound; advising that Rosenberg did not set out parameters; advising that the building has not moved and that the footprint is still the same; and noting that the Urban Design Panel concurs with this application -                     Paul Wilton, 84 Summerside Crescent – see attached presentation. (Secretary’s Note:  A petition signed by approximately 630 individuals is on file in the City Clerk’s Office). -                     Anna Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – providing the attached communication to Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; indicating that she has been involved in the process since 1999; advising that she requested that the February 1, 2001 Ontario Municipal Board decision be provided to the Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; advising that she was told that the City needs to abide by the Ontario Municipal Board decision; advising that one building, in the middle of the five acre site, is what was approved; indicating that every effort should be made to reduce the impact on the two neighbours; advising that the City fought for no building to be built on that site; noting that the City took the fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada; advising that the developer submitted a site plan application in 2004 and when the City refused it, he went to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the developer needed to review the site plan; advising that the proposed building in the 2009 site plan was 40% larger; noting that the City went to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the application did not meet the requirements of the Rosenberg decision; advising that the current proposed building is 47% larger and that the building is now closer to their property; advising that this would have a similar impact to the two buildings that the Ontario Municipal Board turned down; advising that if the developer is not satisfied with the City’s decision, he can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; noting that the residents can not; advising that their concerns are many and their fears are great; and encouraging the Council Members to refuse the site plan application. -                     Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road – indicating that in one decision, reference was made to the building being 65 x 125; advising that if he understood Mr. Patton’s comments, the proposed building is larger; enquiring as to whether or not the Ontario Municipal Board decision entails a 1.8 metre privacy fence for the adjacent neighbours; indicating that the staff report makes reference to the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports prepared by Golder; however, it does not make it clear whether or not the reports were peer reviewed by TerraProbe; indicating that, with the current site plan, it will take the trees 20 to 25 years until they are fully grown and become part of the canopy; enquiring as to whether or not the other trees are within the tree preservation zone; and advising that job creation is not the only screen; noting that 10 years ago, the City decided not to take Toronto’s garbage and the City’s landfill now has twelve years of capacity left. -                     Rosemary Dickinson, 1118 St. Anthony Road – expressing appreciation to the Council Members who are not on the Planning and Environment Committee for being at the meeting tonight; advising that there have been a lot of good comments made to reject the site plan; advising that the Councillors can vote to reject the site plan even though they made a motion to accept it last year; advising that an argument against the supersizing of the building was made to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the applicant was requested to submit a site plan that is smaller than the original application; and advising that the Ontario Municipal Board got us into this situation, but that Council could get us out of it. -                     Gavin Moore, 58 Blackburn Street – enquiring as to whether or not ecological studies have been done as there are endangered species living in the area; and enquiring as to how the endangered species will be affected. -                     Kristina White, 828 Commissioners Road West – enquiring as to where the springwater is located; enquiring as to how this development will affect the well water in the area; and enquiring as to which property it is on. -                     Beverley McCall, 106 Chalet Crescent – advising that she is new to this process; advising that she is here on an emotional appeal; indicating that she has taken her daughter to the park every year to watch the changes of the seasons; enquiring as to why London cannot keep its parks; advising that there used to be cows on the property behind them and now they have houses; advising that it is 2012 and all anyone talks about is development; and requesting that parks be kept. -                     Gwen Doddy, 18 Wyndhurst Place – expressing appreciation to everyone who attended the meeting tonight; advising that they pay the Councillors salaries; advising that Mr. Graat had vacant land on Windsor Avenue and he wanted to build a high-rise; advising that the community had to come out to these meetings; advising that in the end, Mr. Graat did not get his  way and did not get to build his awful high rises with people looking down at you; and advising that in the United States, they are refurbishing old buildings for people to move into instead of building new high rises. -                     Anne Papmehl, 3 Southfield Crescent – advising that Mr. Patton seemed irked that this application has taken so long; advising that the public has never supported this application; indicating that the neighbours would prefer not to see a building at this site; advising that there are many negative impacts such as privacy, aesthetics, noise, dust from construction and water run-off; advising that there is the potential for flooding or for the hill to collapse; and advising that she has no objection if the builder chooses to build somewhere else. -                     Richard Licastro, 369 Griffith Street – advising that the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports have been discussed, but the issue of whether or not this is proper planning has not been discussed; advising that environmental, aesthetics and slope issues have not been discussed; and enquiring as to whether or not this is good land use planning.   -                     Dr. Helen Polatajko-Howell, 929 Commissioners Road West – advising that she has never gone by the name Mrs. Howell; indicating that this is an emotional time as her husband suddenly passed away last November; advising that this issue was dear to her husband, who was a smart man, who spent many hours looking at slopes and plans; advising that a peer review of the issues of water and slope by TerraProbe was asked for; indicating that she was advised that the issues are not real; advising that it was recommended that the City conduct a one-year investigation with three bore holes; advising that she is nervous that she may one day be living at the bottom of the hill instead of the top of the hill; and advising that the Municipal Council has changed its position in the last ten years. -                     Bill Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – indicating that he has learned so much over the last 12 years; indicating that he has met some great people; advising that City staff are doing their jobs; advising that he is appalled that the approval authority was ripped out of staff’s hands; advising that with enough money, you can build whatever you want at the top of the hill, including the CN Tower; advising that the form and fit are not suitable for the location; indicating that most of the previous speakers have spoken to points he wanted to voice; acknowledging that being a Councillor is a difficult and frustrating job; expressing that this is obviously a strong issue, making front page news and receiving CTV news coverage; advising that he has been here from square one; advising that he assumed they would win the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing hands down as they had a leading London historian, environmental representatives and Wayne Gretzky’s uncle, who found shells from a re-enactment of the War of 1812; advising that he loves the area, which is why he moved there; indicating that he has worked hard to be able to afford to live where he does; advising that the shade study was ignored; advising that there is public misconception and a statement by the Mayor, that if they don’t like the decision, they can go to the Ontario Municipal Board; however, he can not appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, only the developer can; indicating that he can only speculate as to why they lost the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing; indicating that, with all due respect to the fluoride issue, which has received a lot of debate, this is a different issue; noting that he gathered petitions for one building in the middle, not for no building; advising that he did not receive any objections from people to sign the petition; indicating that this is a strong consensus for not wanting this to happen; stating that another misconception is that the developer is going to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board if the City turns down the application; advising that the last proposal was larger and closer to his property; wondering if the developer is going to purchase the little garage and build another apartment building; advising that people from all over the City have signed the petition; advising that their Ward Councillor has voted for this application in previous decisions so the area residents are on their own, without the support of their Ward Councillor; and indicating that he was advised by a Toronto professor that red flags would go up if Councillors received two to five e-mails or calls on an issue. -                     Steve Shellington, 504 Griffth Street – advising that most of his points have been covered; advising that there is some misunderstanding as many people don’t realize the history; advising that Mr. Graat purchased the property knowing it was zoned Open Space; expressing no sympathy for the developer; advising that the 2010 Ontario Municipal Board decision is clear; advising that the Rosenberg decision was not specific enough; advising that he is hard pressed  by the horrible idea to put the building there; enquiring as to why the developer should get more consideration; expressing curiosity as to why the Municipal Council reversed its last vote; advising that they have every reason to stick to what they believe is right; advising that their online petition has over 400 signatures on it; enquiring as to why this application has to keep coming back with a proposal for a larger building to be built on it; advising that TerraProbe was hired by the Civic Administration to review the Golder report; expressing confusion over what was ultimately approved; advising that the issues have not been addressed and encouraging the Council to refuse this application. -                     Jan Shellington, 504 Griffith Street – advising that the traffic is constantly backed up at the corner of North Street and Base Line Road; indicating that when they were out on the street with their signs about tonight’s meeting, they received a lot of thumbs up and horns honking in support; requesting the Council Members to please listen to them; advising that she realizes that a building has been approved on this site but they are doing what they can to not make it happen; advising that Facebook is their recourse; and advising that if you travel to the top of Reservoir Hill in the evening, it is the most beautiful sight in London. -                     Ray Callestine – advising that valid points have been raised; indicating that the geotechnical reports are not final; advising that the outstanding environmental and traffic issues are serious and complex; indicating that the stretch of Commissioners Road from Springbank Drive to Boler Road, with the exception of one high rise, are all four or five storey apartment buildings; and indicating that this development should fit in with the lower apartment building heights. -                     Gerry Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that John Carroll was killed on the slopes of Reservoir Hill; indicating that he was fighting for Canada, even if he did not know it at the time; and asking the audience to raise their arms if they are opposed to the proposed development. -                     Tim Quinlan, 128 Raywood Avenue – advising that he grew up in the area; enquiring as to whether or not the possibility of a land swap has been discussed; if so, when and to what extent; advising that it is apparent why the developer would want the land and indicating there is significant opposition to the development. -                     Elsa Lobos, 38 Tobin Court – advising that her house is on approximately the same level as the proposed apartment building; indicating that she is pro-development; and advising that the developer had to go down 30 feet to find stable ground to build her house. -                     Betsy Odegaard, 462 Jarvis Street – expressing curiosity as to what is happening with the enquiries that have been raised tonight; advising that  Springbank is the jewel in London’s crown; advising that the Hopkins’ and Howells’ have accepted that a building is to be built on the property but have fought the developer to get the development to the right size; advising that traffic is horrendous, with the most traffic in the morning and evening rush hours; enquiring as to the effect of people trying to get onto Springbank Drive; requesting that a new solution be contemplated; asking if negotiations could happen; and indicating that a land swap is a great idea. -                     Jason DeShane – enquiring as to why the open space parcel is not donated to the City if it is not to be used for future building. -                     Margaret Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that Reservoir Hill is the only place in London where a historic battle was fought; indicating that the Americans were lying in wait; advising that this is a historical site; indicating that she has completed a lot of research on this site; and advising that Mr. John Carroll’s widow received a pension from his death on Reservoir Hill.   (2012-D25-00)

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Amend clause 2 by deleting the clause in its entirety and replacing it with the following new clause 2:   That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services, the following actions be take with respect to the site plan approval application of Ayerswood Development Corp. relating to the property located at 940 Springbank Drive:   a)            the plans  attached as Schedule “A”  for the development of a twelve-storey apartment building with 165 units, BE APPROVED;   b)         that the Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services BE DIRECTED to formalize the approval, including the execution of, the development agreement, substantially in the form attached as Schedule “B”, that includes a requirement that the owner accept the risks and costs of the development, including slope stability;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications:   -                    an information report from the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services; -                    A. Papmehl, dated April 23, 2012; and, -                     W. Dickinson, The Woodfield Community Association, dated March 19, 2012; (Secretary’s Note: A petition signed by approximately 11 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk’s Office.); -                     S. Shillington, dated April 22, 2012; and, (Secretary’s Note: A petition signed by approximately 382 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk’s Office.);   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:   -                     Alan R. Patton, Solicitor for Ayerswood Development Corporation – introducing John Camara, Manager, Ayerswood Construction and Richard Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; reading page 5, paragraph three of the Conclusion section of the staff report; noting that it is a concise and accurate summary; reading lines from the top of page 5 of the staff report; advising that the map (that was placed on the screen during the meeting) shows the height limit of the building at 40 metres; noting that the building can only contain 165 units; advising that the proposed building has more underground and surface parking than is required; indicating that there has been more public consultation on this file than any he has heard of in 30 years of practice; indicating that the Civic Administration has repeatedly met with the neighbours; indicating that Zelinka Priamo Ltd. has also met with the neighbours and kept them informed every step of the process; advising of the public dialogue that the building must be the same size as one of the two originally proposed buildings in the application that was before the Ontario Municipal Board in 2000; advising that in March, 2010, an appeal to the site plan was taken to the Ontario Municipal Board; indicating that Mr. J.P. Barber advocated for one building, the same size as one of the original buildings; noting that the Ontario Municipal Board decided that one apartment building does not align with the facts of the Rosenberg decision; noting that the decision does not use the words “revise” or “amend”, but uses the word “new”; indicating that the Ayerswood proposal has merit; reading from a “Save Reservoir Hill” flyer; advising that the “Save Reservoir Hill” group hoped to make the building uneconomical to build; advising that the applicant has followed the Planning Act process, a basic fundamental proposition, which meets the rule of the law; noting that the site plan by-law is a matter of law; advising that staff has followed through; advising that staff has been more rigorous on this application than any other application; requesting that the site plan application be approved; advising that Rosenberg had every opportunity to reduce the footprint of the building; advising that the setbacks from the Hopkins and Howells property is in excess of the R7-9 Zone; advising that the building could be larger and that they are saving a lot of the trees; advising that there is no confusion on the Rosenberg decision; advising that the differences between the Snezak decision and this site plan are that the first site plan had a different slope, with a proposal for terraced areas for the residents to use and that the cut line was different; advising that the application is geotechnically sound; advising that Rosenberg did not set out parameters; advising that the building has not moved and that the footprint is still the same; and noting that the Urban Design Panel concurs with this application -                     Paul Wilton, 84 Summerside Crescent – see attached presentation. (Secretary’s Note:  A petition signed by approximately 630 individuals is on file in the City Clerk’s Office). -                     Anna Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – providing the attached communication to Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; indicating that she has been involved in the process since 1999; advising that she requested that the February 1, 2001 Ontario Municipal Board decision be provided to the Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; advising that she was told that the City needs to abide by the Ontario Municipal Board decision; advising that one building, in the middle of the five acre site, is what was approved; indicating that every effort should be made to reduce the impact on the two neighbours; advising that the City fought for no building to be built on that site; noting that the City took the fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada; advising that the developer submitted a site plan application in 2004 and when the City refused it, he went to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the developer needed to review the site plan; advising that the proposed building in the 2009 site plan was 40% larger; noting that the City went to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the application did not meet the requirements of the Rosenberg decision; advising that the current proposed building is 47% larger and that the building is now closer to their property; advising that this would have a similar impact to the two buildings that the Ontario Municipal Board turned down; advising that if the developer is not satisfied with the City’s decision, he can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; noting that the residents can not; advising that their concerns are many and their fears are great; and encouraging the Council Members to refuse the site plan application. -                     Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road – indicating that in one decision, reference was made to the building being 65 x 125; advising that if he understood Mr. Patton’s comments, the proposed building is larger; enquiring as to whether or not the Ontario Municipal Board decision entails a 1.8 metre privacy fence for the adjacent neighbours; indicating that the staff report makes reference to the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports prepared by Golder; however, it does not make it clear whether or not the reports were peer reviewed by TerraProbe; indicating that, with the current site plan, it will take the trees 20 to 25 years until they are fully grown and become part of the canopy; enquiring as to whether or not the other trees are within the tree preservation zone; and advising that job creation is not the only screen; noting that 10 years ago, the City decided not to take Toronto’s garbage and the City’s landfill now has twelve years of capacity left. -                     Rosemary Dickinson, 1118 St. Anthony Road – expressing appreciation to the Council Members who are not on the Planning and Environment Committee for being at the meeting tonight; advising that there have been a lot of good comments made to reject the site plan; advising that the Councillors can vote to reject the site plan even though they made a motion to accept it last year; advising that an argument against the supersizing of the building was made to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the applicant was requested to submit a site plan that is smaller than the original application; and advising that the Ontario Municipal Board got us into this situation, but that Council could get us out of it. -                     Gavin Moore, 58 Blackburn Street – enquiring as to whether or not ecological studies have been done as there are endangered species living in the area; and enquiring as to how the endangered species will be affected. -                     Kristina White, 828 Commissioners Road West – enquiring as to where the springwater is located; enquiring as to how this development will affect the well water in the area; and enquiring as to which property it is on. -                     Beverley McCall, 106 Chalet Crescent – advising that she is new to this process; advising that she is here on an emotional appeal; indicating that she has taken her daughter to the park every year to watch the changes of the seasons; enquiring as to why London cannot keep its parks; advising that there used to be cows on the property behind them and now they have houses; advising that it is 2012 and all anyone talks about is development; and requesting that parks be kept. -                     Gwen Doddy, 18 Wyndhurst Place – expressing appreciation to everyone who attended the meeting tonight; advising that they pay the Councillors salaries; advising that Mr. Graat had vacant land on Windsor Avenue and he wanted to build a high-rise; advising that the community had to come out to these meetings; advising that in the end, Mr. Graat did not get his  way and did not get to build his awful high rises with people looking down at you; and advising that in the United States, they are refurbishing old buildings for people to move into instead of building new high rises. -                     Anne Papmehl, 3 Southfield Crescent – advising that Mr. Patton seemed irked that this application has taken so long; advising that the public has never supported this application; indicating that the neighbours would prefer not to see a building at this site; advising that there are many negative impacts such as privacy, aesthetics, noise, dust from construction and water run-off; advising that there is the potential for flooding or for the hill to collapse; and advising that she has no objection if the builder chooses to build somewhere else. -                     Richard Licastro, 369 Griffith Street – advising that the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports have been discussed, but the issue of whether or not this is proper planning has not been discussed; advising that environmental, aesthetics and slope issues have not been discussed; and enquiring as to whether or not this is good land use planning. -                     Dr. Helen Polatajko-Howell, 929 Commissioners Road West – advising that she has never gone by the name Mrs. Howell; indicating that this is an emotional time as her husband suddenly passed away last November; advising that this issue was dear to her husband, who was a smart man, who spent many hours looking at slopes and plans; advising that a peer review of the issues of water and slope by TerraProbe was asked for; indicating that she was advised that the issues are not real; advising that it was recommended that the City conduct a one-year investigation with three bore holes; advising that she is nervous that she may one day be living at the bottom of the hill instead of the top of the hill; and advising that the Municipal Council has changed its position in the last ten years. -                     Bill Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – indicating that he has learned so much over the last 12 years; indicating that he has met some great people; advising that City staff are doing their jobs; advising that he is appalled that the approval authority was ripped out of staff’s hands; advising that with enough money, you can build whatever you want at the top of the hill, including the CN Tower; advising that the form and fit are not suitable for the location; indicating that most of the previous speakers have spoken to points he wanted to voice; acknowledging that being a Councillor is a difficult and frustrating job; expressing that this is obviously a strong issue, making front page news and receiving CTV news coverage; advising that he has been here from square one; advising that he assumed they would win the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing hands down as they had a leading London historian, environmental representatives and Wayne Gretzky’s uncle, who found shells from a re-enactment of the War of 1812; advising that he loves the area, which is why he moved there; indicating that he has worked hard to be able to afford to live where he does; advising that the shade study was ignored; advising that there is public misconception and a statement by the Mayor, that if they don’t like the decision, they can go to the Ontario Municipal Board; however, he can not appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, only the developer can; indicating that he can only speculate as to why they lost the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing; indicating that, with all due respect to the fluoride issue, which has received a lot of debate, this is a different issue; noting that he gathered petitions for one building in the middle, not for no building; advising that he did not receive any objections from people to sign the petition; indicating that this is a strong consensus for not wanting this to happen; stating that another misconception is that the developer is going to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board if the City turns down the application; advising that the last proposal was larger and closer to his property; wondering if the developer is going to purchase the little garage and build another apartment building; advising that people from all over the City have signed the petition; advising that their Ward Councillor has voted for this application in previous decisions so the area residents are on their own, without the support of their Ward Councillor; and indicating that he was advised by a Toronto professor that red flags would go up if Councillors received two to five e-mails or calls on an issue. -                     Steve Shellington, 504 Griffth Street – advising that most of his points have been covered; advising that there is some misunderstanding as many people don’t realize the history; advising that Mr. Graat purchased the property knowing it was zoned Open Space; expressing no sympathy for the developer; advising that the 2010 Ontario Municipal Board decision is clear; advising that the Rosenberg decision was not specific enough; advising that he is hard pressed  by the horrible idea to put the building there; enquiring as to why the developer should get more consideration; expressing curiosity as to why the Municipal Council reversed its last vote; advising that they have every reason to stick to what they believe is right; advising that their online petition has over 400 signatures on it; enquiring as to why this application has to keep coming back with a proposal for a larger building to be built on it; advising that TerraProbe was hired by the Civic Administration to review the Golder report; expressing confusion over what was ultimately approved; advising that the issues have not been addressed and encouraging the Council to refuse this application. -                     Jan Shellington, 504 Griffith Street – advising that the traffic is constantly backed up at the corner of North Street and Base Line Road; indicating that when they were out on the street with their signs about tonight’s meeting, they received a lot of thumbs up and horns honking in support; requesting the Council Members to please listen to them; advising that she realizes that a building has been approved on this site but they are doing what they can to not make it happen; advising that Facebook is their recourse; and advising that if you travel to the top of Reservoir Hill in the evening, it is the most beautiful sight in London. -                     Ray Callestine – advising that valid points have been raised; indicating that the geotechnical reports are not final; advising that the outstanding environmental and traffic issues are serious and complex; indicating that the stretch of Commissioners Road from Springbank Drive to Boler Road, with the exception of one high rise, are all four or five storey apartment buildings; and indicating that this development should fit in with the lower apartment building heights. -                     Gerry Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that John Carroll was killed on the slopes of Reservoir Hill; indicating that he was fighting for Canada, even if he did not know it at the time; and asking the audience to raise their arms if they are opposed to the proposed development. -                     Tim Quinlan, 128 Raywood Avenue – advising that he grew up in the area; enquiring as to whether or not the possibility of a land swap has been discussed; if so, when and to what extent; advising that it is apparent why the developer would want the land and indicating there is significant opposition to the development. -                     Elsa Lobos, 38 Tobin Court – advising that her house is on approximately the same level as the proposed apartment building; indicating that she is pro-development; and advising that the developer had to go down 30 feet to find stable ground to build her house. -                     Betsy Odegaard, 462 Jarvis Street – expressing curiosity as to what is happening with the enquiries that have been raised tonight; advising that  Springbank is the jewel in London’s crown; advising that the Hopkins’ and Howells’ have accepted that a building is to be built on the property but have fought the developer to get the development to the right size; advising that traffic is horrendous, with the most traffic in the morning and evening rush hours; enquiring as to the effect of people trying to get onto Springbank Drive; requesting that a new solution be contemplated; asking if negotiations could happen; and indicating that a land swap is a great idea. -                     Jason DeShane – enquiring as to why the open space parcel is not donated to the City if it is not to be used for future building. -                     Margaret Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that Reservoir Hill is the only place in London where a historic battle was fought; indicating that the Americans were lying in wait; advising that this is a historical site; indicating that she has completed a lot of research on this site; and advising that Mr. John Carroll’s widow received a pension from his death on Reservoir Hill.    c)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to meet with the applicant to discuss the potential for the purchase of the land or the potential for a land swap, prior to the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012. (2012-D25-00)

XIII

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA

XIII.   COMMITTEE

OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Approve that Council rise and go into Committee of the Whole, in camera for the purpose of considering a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, with respect to the site plan application for the property located at 940 Springbank Drive.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

The Council rises and goes into the Committee of the Whole, in camera, at 6:30 PM with Mayor J. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present.   The Committee of the Whole rises and Council resumes at 7:16 PM.

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor D. Brown

Approve that part c) of clause 2 be referred to later in the meeting to provide for an opportunity to receive further information from the Civic Administration with respect to the discussion related to the potential for the purchase or the land or the potential for a land swap.

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Approve parts a) and b) of clause 2, as amended.

Moved by Councillor N. Branscombe

Seconded by Councillor B. Polhill

Approve that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor J.L. Baechler be permitted to speak longer than 5 minutes with respect to Clause 2 of the 11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Motion to Approve Parts a) and b) of clause 2, as amended, is put.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Parts a) and b) of clause 2, as amended, read as follows:   That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services, the following actions be take with respect to the site plan approval application of Ayerswood Development Corp. relating to the property located at 940 Springbank Drive:   a)            the plans  attached as Schedule “A”  for the development of a twelve-storey apartment building with 165 units, BE APPROVED;   b)         that the Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services BE DIRECTED to formalize the approval, including the execution of, the development agreement, substantially in the form attached as Schedule “B”, that includes a requirement that the owner accept the risks and costs of the development, including slope stability;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications:   -                    an information report from the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services; -                    A. Papmehl, dated April 23, 2012; and, -                     W. Dickinson, The Woodfield Community Association, dated March 19, 2012; (Secretary’s Note: A petition signed by approximately 11 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk’s Office.); -                     S. Shillington, dated April 22, 2012; and, (Secretary’s Note: A petition signed by approximately 382 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk’s Office.);   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:   -                     Alan R. Patton, Solicitor for Ayerswood Development Corporation – introducing John Camara, Manager, Ayerswood Construction and Richard Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; reading page 5, paragraph three of the Conclusion section of the staff report; noting that it is a concise and accurate summary; reading lines from the top of page 5 of the staff report; advising that the map (that was placed on the screen during the meeting) shows the height limit of the building at 40 metres; noting that the building can only contain 165 units; advising that the proposed building has more underground and surface parking than is required; indicating that there has been more public consultation on this file than any he has heard of in 30 years of practice; indicating that the Civic Administration has repeatedly met with the neighbours; indicating that Zelinka Priamo Ltd. has also met with the neighbours and kept them informed every step of the process; advising of the public dialogue that the building must be the same size as one of the two originally proposed buildings in the application that was before the Ontario Municipal Board in 2000; advising that in March, 2010, an appeal to the site plan was taken to the Ontario Municipal Board; indicating that Mr. J.P. Barber advocated for one building, the same size as one of the original buildings; noting that the Ontario Municipal Board decided that one apartment building does not align with the facts of the Rosenberg decision; noting that the decision does not use the words “revise” or “amend”, but uses the word “new”; indicating that the Ayerswood proposal has merit; reading from a “Save Reservoir Hill” flyer; advising that the “Save Reservoir Hill” group hoped to make the building uneconomical to build; advising that the applicant has followed the Planning Act process, a basic fundamental proposition, which meets the rule of the law; noting that the site plan by-law is a matter of law; advising that staff has followed through; advising that staff has been more rigorous on this application than any other application; requesting that the site plan application be approved; advising that Rosenberg had every opportunity to reduce the footprint of the building; advising that the setbacks from the Hopkins and Howells property is in excess of the R7-9 Zone; advising that the building could be larger and that they are saving a lot of the trees; advising that there is no confusion on the Rosenberg decision; advising that the differences between the Snezak decision and this site plan are that the first site plan had a different slope, with a proposal for terraced areas for the residents to use and that the cut line was different; advising that the application is geotechnically sound; advising that Rosenberg did not set out parameters; advising that the building has not moved and that the footprint is still the same; and noting that the Urban Design Panel concurs with this application -                     Paul Wilton, 84 Summerside Crescent – see attached presentation. (Secretary’s Note:  A petition signed by approximately 630 individuals is on file in the City Clerk’s Office). -                     Anna Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – providing the attached communication to Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; indicating that she has been involved in the process since 1999; advising that she requested that the February 1, 2001 Ontario Municipal Board decision be provided to the Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; advising that she was told that the City needs to abide by the Ontario Municipal Board decision; advising that one building, in the middle of the five acre site, is what was approved; indicating that every effort should be made to reduce the impact on the two neighbours; advising that the City fought for no building to be built on that site; noting that the City took the fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada; advising that the developer submitted a site plan application in 2004 and when the City refused it, he went to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the developer needed to review the site plan; advising that the proposed building in the 2009 site plan was 40% larger; noting that the City went to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the application did not meet the requirements of the Rosenberg decision; advising that the current proposed building is 47% larger and that the building is now closer to their property; advising that this would have a similar impact to the two buildings that the Ontario Municipal Board turned down; advising that if the developer is not satisfied with the City’s decision, he can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; noting that the residents can not; advising that their concerns are many and their fears are great; and encouraging the Council Members to refuse the site plan application. -                     Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road – indicating that in one decision, reference was made to the building being 65 x 125; advising that if he understood Mr. Patton’s comments, the proposed building is larger; enquiring as to whether or not the Ontario Municipal Board decision entails a 1.8 metre privacy fence for the adjacent neighbours; indicating that the staff report makes reference to the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports prepared by Golder; however, it does not make it clear whether or not the reports were peer reviewed by TerraProbe; indicating that, with the current site plan, it will take the trees 20 to 25 years until they are fully grown and become part of the canopy; enquiring as to whether or not the other trees are within the tree preservation zone; and advising that job creation is not the only screen; noting that 10 years ago, the City decided not to take Toronto’s garbage and the City’s landfill now has twelve years of capacity left. -                     Rosemary Dickinson, 1118 St. Anthony Road – expressing appreciation to the Council Members who are not on the Planning and Environment Committee for being at the meeting tonight; advising that there have been a lot of good comments made to reject the site plan; advising that the Councillors can vote to reject the site plan even though they made a motion to accept it last year; advising that an argument against the supersizing of the building was made to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the applicant was requested to submit a site plan that is smaller than the original application; and advising that the Ontario Municipal Board got us into this situation, but that Council could get us out of it. -                     Gavin Moore, 58 Blackburn Street – enquiring as to whether or not ecological studies have been done as there are endangered species living in the area; and enquiring as to how the endangered species will be affected. -                     Kristina White, 828 Commissioners Road West – enquiring as to where the springwater is located; enquiring as to how this development will affect the well water in the area; and enquiring as to which property it is on. -                     Beverley McCall, 106 Chalet Crescent – advising that she is new to this process; advising that she is here on an emotional appeal; indicating that she has taken her daughter to the park every year to watch the changes of the seasons; enquiring as to why London cannot keep its parks; advising that there used to be cows on the property behind them and now they have houses; advising that it is 2012 and all anyone talks about is development; and requesting that parks be kept. -                     Gwen Doddy, 18 Wyndhurst Place – expressing appreciation to everyone who attended the meeting tonight; advising that they pay the Councillors salaries; advising that Mr. Graat had vacant land on Windsor Avenue and he wanted to build a high-rise; advising that the community had to come out to these meetings; advising that in the end, Mr. Graat did not get his  way and did not get to build his awful high rises with people looking down at you; and advising that in the United States, they are refurbishing old buildings for people to move into instead of building new high rises. -                     Anne Papmehl, 3 Southfield Crescent – advising that Mr. Patton seemed irked that this application has taken so long; advising that the public has never supported this application; indicating that the neighbours would prefer not to see a building at this site; advising that there are many negative impacts such as privacy, aesthetics, noise, dust from construction and water run-off; advising that there is the potential for flooding or for the hill to collapse; and advising that she has no objection if the builder chooses to build somewhere else. -                     Richard Licastro, 369 Griffith Street – advising that the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports have been discussed, but the issue of whether or not this is proper planning has not been discussed; advising that environmental, aesthetics and slope issues have not been discussed; and enquiring as to whether or not this is good land use planning. -                     Dr. Helen Polatajko-Howell, 929 Commissioners Road West – advising that she has never gone by the name Mrs. Howell; indicating that this is an emotional time as her husband suddenly passed away last November; advising that this issue was dear to her husband, who was a smart man, who spent many hours looking at slopes and plans; advising that a peer review of the issues of water and slope by TerraProbe was asked for; indicating that she was advised that the issues are not real; advising that it was recommended that the City conduct a one-year investigation with three bore holes; advising that she is nervous that she may one day be living at the bottom of the hill instead of the top of the hill; and advising that the Municipal Council has changed its position in the last ten years. -                     Bill Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – indicating that he has learned so much over the last 12 years; indicating that he has met some great people; advising that City staff are doing their jobs; advising that he is appalled that the approval authority was ripped out of staff’s hands; advising that with enough money, you can build whatever you want at the top of the hill, including the CN Tower; advising that the form and fit are not suitable for the location; indicating that most of the previous speakers have spoken to points he wanted to voice; acknowledging that being a Councillor is a difficult and frustrating job; expressing that this is obviously a strong issue, making front page news and receiving CTV news coverage; advising that he has been here from square one; advising that he assumed they would win the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing hands down as they had a leading London historian, environmental representatives and Wayne Gretzky’s uncle, who found shells from a re-enactment of the War of 1812; advising that he loves the area, which is why he moved there; indicating that he has worked hard to be able to afford to live where he does; advising that the shade study was ignored; advising that there is public misconception and a statement by the Mayor, that if they don’t like the decision, they can go to the Ontario Municipal Board; however, he can not appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, only the developer can; indicating that he can only speculate as to why they lost the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing; indicating that, with all due respect to the fluoride issue, which has received a lot of debate, this is a different issue; noting that he gathered petitions for one building in the middle, not for no building; advising that he did not receive any objections from people to sign the petition; indicating that this is a strong consensus for not wanting this to happen; stating that another misconception is that the developer is going to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board if the City turns down the application; advising that the last proposal was larger and closer to his property; wondering if the developer is going to purchase the little garage and build another apartment building; advising that people from all over the City have signed the petition; advising that their Ward Councillor has voted for this application in previous decisions so the area residents are on their own, without the support of their Ward Councillor; and indicating that he was advised by a Toronto professor that red flags would go up if Councillors received two to five e-mails or calls on an issue. -                     Steve Shellington, 504 Griffth Street – advising that most of his points have been covered; advising that there is some misunderstanding as many people don’t realize the history; advising that Mr. Graat purchased the property knowing it was zoned Open Space; expressing no sympathy for the developer; advising that the 2010 Ontario Municipal Board decision is clear; advising that the Rosenberg decision was not specific enough; advising that he is hard pressed  by the horrible idea to put the building there; enquiring as to why the developer should get more consideration; expressing curiosity as to why the Municipal Council reversed its last vote; advising that they have every reason to stick to what they believe is right; advising that their online petition has over 400 signatures on it; enquiring as to why this application has to keep coming back with a proposal for a larger building to be built on it; advising that TerraProbe was hired by the Civic Administration to review the Golder report; expressing confusion over what was ultimately approved; advising that the issues have not been addressed and encouraging the Council to refuse this application. -                     Jan Shellington, 504 Griffith Street – advising that the traffic is constantly backed up at the corner of North Street and Base Line Road; indicating that when they were out on the street with their signs about tonight’s meeting, they received a lot of thumbs up and horns honking in support; requesting the Council Members to please listen to them; advising that she realizes that a building has been approved on this site but they are doing what they can to not make it happen; advising that Facebook is their recourse; and advising that if you travel to the top of Reservoir Hill in the evening, it is the most beautiful sight in London. -                     Ray Callestine – advising that valid points have been raised; indicating that the geotechnical reports are not final; advising that the outstanding environmental and traffic issues are serious and complex; indicating that the stretch of Commissioners Road from Springbank Drive to Boler Road, with the exception of one high rise, are all four or five storey apartment buildings; and indicating that this development should fit in with the lower apartment building heights. -                     Gerry Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that John Carroll was killed on the slopes of Reservoir Hill; indicating that he was fighting for Canada, even if he did not know it at the time; and asking the audience to raise their arms if they are opposed to the proposed development. -                     Tim Quinlan, 128 Raywood Avenue – advising that he grew up in the area; enquiring as to whether or not the possibility of a land swap has been discussed; if so, when and to what extent; advising that it is apparent why the developer would want the land and indicating there is significant opposition to the development. -                     Elsa Lobos, 38 Tobin Court – advising that her house is on approximately the same level as the proposed apartment building; indicating that she is pro-development; and advising that the developer had to go down 30 feet to find stable ground to build her house. -                     Betsy Odegaard, 462 Jarvis Street – expressing curiosity as to what is happening with the enquiries that have been raised tonight; advising that  Springbank is the jewel in London’s crown; advising that the Hopkins’ and Howells’ have accepted that a building is to be built on the property but have fought the developer to get the development to the right size; advising that traffic is horrendous, with the most traffic in the morning and evening rush hours; enquiring as to the effect of people trying to get onto Springbank Drive; requesting that a new solution be contemplated; asking if negotiations could happen; and indicating that a land swap is a great idea. -                     Jason DeShane – enquiring as to why the open space parcel is not donated to the City if it is not to be used for future building. -                     Margaret Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that Reservoir Hill is the only place in London where a historic battle was fought; indicating that the Americans were lying in wait; advising that this is a historical site; indicating that she has completed a lot of research on this site; and advising that Mr. John Carroll’s widow received a pension from his death on Reservoir Hill.

Moved by Councillor S. Orser

Seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan

Approve that Council recess.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 7:55 PM and reconvenes at 8:45 PM with Mayor J. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present.

Moved by Councillor Councillor H. L. Usher

Approve clause 3.

Moved by Councillor M. Brown

Seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan

Approve that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor P. Hubert be permitted to speak longer than 5 minutes with respect to clause 3 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee.   Motion  Passed

Motion  Passed

Moved by Councillor D. Brown

Seconded by Councillor M. Brown

Approve that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor J.L. Baechler be permitted to speak longer than 5 minutes with respect to clause 3 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee.   Motion Passed   At 9:50 PM His Worship the Mayor places Councillor P. Hubert in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor J.L. Baechler

Seconded by Councillor M. Brown

Approve that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Mayor J.F. Fontana be permitted to speak longer than 5 minutes with respect to clause 2 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee.   Motion Passed   At 10:02 PM His Worship the Mayor resumes the Chair and Councillor P. Hubert takes his seat at the Council Board.

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor N. Branscombe

Seconded by Councillor J.L. Baechler

Approve that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor H.L. Usher be permitted to speak longer than 5 minutes with respect to clause 2 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee.   Motion Passed   The motion to Approve Clause 3 is put.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor W.J. Armstrong

Seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan

Approve that clause 3, be amended by adding the following part b):   b)         that the Province of Ontario BE REQUESTED to undertake legislative changes to assume the responsibility for determining drinking water fluoridation, so as to ensure a uniformed Provincial approach.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor W.J. Armstrong

Seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan

Approve  that clause 3 be further amended by adding the following part c):   c)         that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide updates with respect to fluoride levels in the City of London’s water. (2012-W13-00)   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor J. Baechler

Seconded by Councillor P. Hubert

Approve that pursuant to section 2.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, section 11.10 of the said by-law be suspended for the purpose of permitting the meeting to proceed beyond 11:00 PM.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor S. Orser

Seconded by Councillor P. Hubert

Approve that Council recess.   Motion Passed   Council recesses at 10:37 PM and reconvenes at 10:45 PM with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and all Members Present except Councillors B. Polhill, S. Orser and S.E. White.

Motion Passed

7th Report of the Civic Works Committee

3.   Drinking Water Fluoridation in London

III.   CONFIRMATION

AND SIGNING OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING HELD ON APRIL 10 AND 11, 2012

Moved by Councillor D. Brown

Seconded by Councillor J.P. Bryant

Approve the Minutes of the Seventh Meeting held on April 10 and 11, 2012.

Motion Passed

IV.   REVIEW

OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC

V.   COMMUNICATIONS

AND PETITIONS

Moved by Councillor D. Brown

Seconded by Councillor M. Brown

Receive the following communications:   B. Dennison, 3380 Georgeheriot Lane; G.W. Cooper, People for Safe Drinking Water; H. Gingerich, University of Guelph, S. Thomas, Clean Water Legacy; C. Gupta, 919 Plantation Road; K. Miller, 19-925 Lawson Road; M. Burden, 316 Griffith Street and R.J. Fleming, President, Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation (all relating to Clause 3 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee;  S. Craig, 281 Blackacres Boulevard (relating to Clause 19 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee); M. Barlow, National Chairperson, The Council of Canadians (relating to Clause 9 of the 13th Report of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee;  and B. Barnes, 425 Griffith Street (relating to Clause 1 of the 11th Report of Planning and Environment Committee).

Motion Passed

VI.   MOTIONS

OF WHICH NOTICE IS GIVEN

VII.   ADDED

REPORTS

1.   12th Report of the

Planning and Environment Committee

2.   7th Report of the Investment and Economic

Prosperity Committee

VIII.   REPORTS

(CONTINUED)

6th Report of the Community Services Committee

Moved by Councillor M. Brown

Approve Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive.

Motion Passed

Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, read as follows:

No pecuniary interests are disclosed.

That the 3rd Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 11, 2012, BE RECEIVED.

3.   Goodwill Project

Update

That the presentation from M. Quintyn, CEO, Goodwill Industries, with respect to the City’s investment in the new Horton Street facility, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that an invitation to the official opening of the new facility on May 11, 2012, was extended to all Members of the City Council.

4.   Middlesex London

Health Unit Orientation

That the following actions be taken with respect to the orientation presentation by Dr. G. Pollett, Medical Officer of Health, Middlesex-London Health Unit:   a)         the Mayor BE REQUESTED to liaise with the Middlesex-London Board of Health and the County of Middlesex with respect to exploring the feasibility and benefits of potential Board of Health amalgamations in the area, particularly in consideration of the Capacity Review Committee report following SARS, and the recent Drummond Report, both of which suggested the amalgamation of various Boards of Health; and,   b)         the presentation, including the attached additional funding information, BE RECEIVED.

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Child Care Advisory Committee (CCAC) from its meeting held on March 28, 2012:   a)         the Partners Promoting Importance of Early Childhood Education BE INVITED to a future meeting of the Community Services Committee (CSC), to provide information on the initiatives being undertaken to educate the public on the importance of early childhood education and the benefits of licensed child care;   b)        the request for Civic Administration to consult with the CCAC with respect to the 2012 City website update BE REFERRED to Corporate Communications; it being understood by the CSC that such consultation was already being undertaken, and there was some potential for duplication; and,   c)         clauses 3 to 6, inclusive, of the Report BE RECEIVED.

6.   London &

Middlesex Housing Corporation Annual General Meeting (AGM)

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2011 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the London & Middlesex Housing Corporation:   a)         the 2011 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the London & Middlesex Housing Corporation BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee as part of the Municipal Council meeting on June 12, 2012, for the  purpose of receiving the report from the Board of the London & Middlesex Housing Corporation in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and,   b)         the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2011 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for London Middlesex Housing Corporation and to invite the Chair of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of London Middlesex Housing Corporation to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with Article 7.1 of the Shareholder Declaration.

12th Report of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Approve Clause 1.

1.   Disclosures of

Pecuniary Interest

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

13th Report of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee (Continued)

Moved by Councillor J.L. Baechler

Approve clause 4.     Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Approve clauses 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Approve clauses 10 to 18, inclusive.     Pursuant to section 17.2 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor D. Brown calls for a separate vote on clause 12.   At 10:53 PM Councillor S. Orser enters the meeting.   At 11:00 PM Councillor S.E. White enters the meeting.

4.   2011 Compliance Report in Accordance with

the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy

1.   Disclosure

of Pecuniary Interest

2.   Green

Municipal fund - Combined Loan and Grant Agreement Update

3.   City

Initiated Assessment Appeals

6.   Land

Acquisition from Old Oak Properties Inc. for Sugar Creek Park

7.   1st

Quarter Report - Information Technology Strategy: Enabling Growth and
Service Excellence

8.   Association of Municipalities of Ontario

(AMO) Annual General Meeting, Conference and Trade Show 2014

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Approve clauses 10 to 18, except clause 12.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

10.   Amendments to Council Procedure By-law

11.   Tax Adjustment Agenda

13.   Request for

Delegation Status with Respect to Funding for the Argyle Business Improvement Association

That the request of the Argyle Business Improvement Association (ABIA) for funding in the amount of $55,240 BE REFERRED to the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer to review and report back on whether or not a suitable funding agreement could be put in place to accommodate the request. (2012-F12-00)

That the Fall Fest to be held August 31 – September 3, 2012 in Victoria Park BE DESIGNATED a Municipally Significant Event in the City of London. (2012-M09-00)

15.   Report of the

Federation of Canadian Municipalities of Directors Meeting - Kitchener, Ontario - March 7-10, 2012

That the communication dated March 19, 2012 from Councillor H.L. Usher and Councillor J.L. Baechler regarding the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Board of Directors meeting held on March 7 – 10, 2012 in Kitchener, Ontario BE RECEIVED. (2012-A02-02)

That the communication dated March 26, 2012, from Councillor J.B. Swan, regarding complaints to the Ombudsman’s Office BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, to which the Ombudsman is being invited to discuss the role of his office.

17.   Food and Beverage

Access for Public Attending Council and Committee Meetings

That the City Clerk BE REQUESTED to look at alternatives for providing access to “Grab and Go” food and drink for members of the public who are attending Council and Committee meetings over the dinner hour, and to report back on this matter.

18.   Input Regarding

Notice Provisions by Community Engagement Task Force

That the Director of Corporate Communications, in consultation with the City Clerk, BE REQUESTED to seek the input of the Community Engagement Task Force with respect to the City of London’s public notice provisions.

Motion Failed

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

12.   8th Report of the Governance Working Group

7th Report of the Civic Works Committee (continued)

Moved by Councillor H.L. Usher

Approve clauses 1 to 10, except clause 3.

Motion Passed

1.   Disclosures of

Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   5th Report of the

Transportation Advisory Committee

That the 5th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee from its meeting held on April 3, 2012, BE RECEIVED.

4.   Amendments to the

Traffic and Parking By-law Related to Changes in the Various Fees and Charges By-law

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the attached proposed by-law (Appendix “A”), BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012, for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (P.S. 111) with respect to parking fees.  (2012-S09-00)

5.   Hyde Park Road

Closing

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the closing of part of the Hyde Park Road allowance between Lots 24 and 25 in Concession 5, and part of Lots 24 and 25 in Concession 5 in the geographic Township of London now in the City of London, being the triangular portion of land measuring approximately 80 metres long by 25 metres wide lying on the east side of the road immediately north of Firehall No. 14 at 2225 Hyde Park Road, BE APPROVED.  (2012-S06-00)

6.   Water Technology

Centre Pre-Design and Design Consultant Appointment

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to appointing the pre-design and design components of the Southern Ontario Water Consortium (SOWC) London Wastewater Facility (LWF) (ES1721) to Stantec Consulting, under section 15.2(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:   a)         the proposal submitted by Stantec Consulting for engineering services, totaling $497,320, excluding H.S.T., BE ACCEPTED;   b)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;   c)         the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts which are necessary in connection with this project; and,   d)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2012-A03-00/W10-00)

7.   Highway 401 /

Wonderland Road Interchange - Ministry of Transportation Provincial Class Environmental Assessment

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the technical aspects of the Provincial Transportation Environmental Study Report for the New Interchange at Highway 401 and Wonderland Road South, BE ENDORSED.

8.   Veterans Memorial

Parkway South Extension - Environmental Assessment Consultant Assignment Scope Change (TS1325)

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the approval of additional engineering fees for the Veterans Memorial Parkway South Extension Environmental Assessment Study (TS1325), to increase the scope of work to include preliminary design:   a)         the value of the McCormick Rankin Corporation assignment for the environmental assessment BE INCREASED by $316,292 to $606,142, excluding H.S.T., for the said project; it being noted that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation is committed to funding 100% of this cost increase; and,   b)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012.

9.   2012 Infrastructure

Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #3: Centre Street / Centre Crescent Reconstruction (Tender No. T12-09)

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the 2012 Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #3, for Centre Street and Centre Crescent reconstruction project (ES2414-12, EW3765-12):   a)         the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Limited (Bre-Ex), 247 Exeter Road, London Ontario, N6L 1A5, at its corrected tendered price of $1,481,873.15, excluding H.S.T., for the 2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #3 project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex was the lowest of ten (10) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;   b)         R.V. Anderson Associates (RVA), 557 Southdale Road E., Ste. 200, London, Ontario, N6E 1A2, BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $161,491.00, excluding H.S.T.; it being noted that this firm completed the engineering design, based upon the Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services, recommended by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;   c)         minor future additional annual operating costs of $250.00 BE RECOGNIZED as a result of this project; it being noted that these costs are a result of new infrastructure installation and will be considered and accommodated within future Wastewater and Treatment operating budgets;   d)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;   e)         the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;   f)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 12-09); and,   g)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.  (2012-S07-00)

10.   2012 Infrastructure

Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #1: Maitland Street North Reconstruction (Tender No. T12-10)

Moved by Councillor H.L. Usher

Approve clauses 11 to 20, except clause 19.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

11.   Replacement of

Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter and Hot Mix Asphalt (Tender 12-21)

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award the replacement of sidewalks, curb and gutter and hot mix asphalt:   a)         the bid submitted by Coco Paving Inc., 1865 Clarke Road, London, Ontario, N5X3Z6, at its tendered price of $3,728,382.50, excluding H.S.T., BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Coco Paving Inc. was the lowest of five (5) bids and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;   b)         the funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Finance Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;   c)         the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all of the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this contract; and,     d)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into formal contract or issuing a purchase order relating to these matters of this approval.

12.   Fanshawe Park Road

and Highbury Avenue Intersection Widening (Tender No. 12-28)

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the Fanshawe Park Road and Highbury Avenue intersection widening (TS1475):   a)         the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited, 31 Exeter Road, London, Ontario, N6L 1B6, at its modified tendered price of $7,281,047.30, excluding H.S.T., for the Fanshawe Park Road and Highbury Avenue intersection widening project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited was the lowest of five (5) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;   b)         Delcan Corporation, 1069 Wellington Road South, Suite 214, London, Ontario, N6E 2H6, BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers for the contract administration and resident supervision of the said project in the amount of $432,608, excluding H.S.T., in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;   c)         the consulting fee for the project identified in (b), above, which is in accordance with the estimate on file, and which is based upon the Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services recommended by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers BE APPROVED;   d)         future additional Transportation annual operating costs of $12,550, Water annual operating costs of $1,800, and Sewer annual operating costs of $1,000 BE APPROVED, as a first priority commitment from available assessment growth in 2013, subject to final budget approval;   e)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;   f)         the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;   g)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract and issuing purchase order(s) for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 12-28);   h)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to the above recommendations.  (2012-S09-02)

13.   2012 Infrastructure

Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #5: Talbot and Barton Streets Reconstruction (Tender No. 12-33)

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the 2012 Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #5, for the Talbot Street and Barton Street reconstruction project (ES2414-12, EW3787-11, TS1446-12, TS4067-12):   a)         the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Limited (Bre-Ex), 247 Exeter Road, London, Ontario, N6L 1A5, at its corrected tendered price of $3,021,916.27, excluding H.S.T., for the 2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #5 project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex was the lowest of eight (8) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;   b)         Spriet Associates London Limited, 155 York Street, London, Ontario, N6A 1A8, BE AUTHORIZED to complete the remainder of design and to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $267,399.00, excluding H.S.T., it being noted that this firm completed the engineering design, based upon the Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services, recommended by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;   c)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;   d)         the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;   e)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 12-33); and,   f)          the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2012-S07-00)

14.   A.J. Tyler

Water and Sewer Building Interior Fit Out - Project No. TS6200-12/ES2071/ES5164/EW3105 (Tender No. 12-34)

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Assets and the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the A.J. Tyler water and sewer building interior fit out project:   a)         the bid submitted by Cobrell Company Ltd., 4837 White Oak Road, London, Ontario, N6E 3V7, at its tendered price of $1,007,588.00, excluding H.S.T., for the A.J. Tyler water and sewer building interior fit out BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Cobrell Company Ltd., was the lowest of six (6) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;   b)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;   c)         the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts which are necessary in connection with this project;   d)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the contractor for the work; and,   e)         future additional annual operating costs of $22,000 BE CONSIDERED as a first priority from available assessment growth in 2013 subject to final budget approval.  (2012-A09-00)

15.   2012 Infrastructure

Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #9: Burnside Drive Reconstruction (Tender No. 12-49)

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the 2012 Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #9, for the Burnside Drive reconstruction project (ES2414-12, EW3765-11, TS3014-12 & TS3037-12):   a)         the bid submitted by Robuck Contracting, 2326 Fanshawe Park Road East, London Ontario, N5X 4A2, at its tendered price of $1,480,000.00, excluding H.S.T., for the 2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #9 project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Robuck Contracting was the lowest of eight (8) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;   b)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;   c)         the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;   d)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 12-49); and,     e)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. 2012-S07-00)

16.   2012 Infrastructure

Lifecycle Renewal Program, Phase ll Horton Reconstruction (Tender No. 12-29)

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the 2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, for Phase II of the Horton Street reconstruction project (TS1446-12, TS1444, ES2464-11, ES2414-12, EW3787-12):   a)            the bid submitted by Tri-Con Excavating Incorporated (Tri-Con), 113-4023 Meadowbrook Drive, London, Ontario, N6L 1E7, at its tendered price of $4,675,170.55, excluding H.S.T., for Phase II of the Horton Street reconstruction project, BE ACCEPTED; it being pointed out that the bid submitted by Tri-Con was the lowest of seven (7) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;   b)            Archibald, Gray and McKay Engineering Limited (AGM), 3514 White Oak Road, London Ontario, N6E 2Z9, BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $413,820.00, excluding H.S.T.; it being noted that this firm completed the engineering design, based upon the Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services, recommended by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;   c)         minor future additional annual operating costs of $1,100.00 BE RECOGNIZED as a result of this project; it being noted that these costs are a result of new infrastructure installation and will be considered and accommodated within future Wastewater and Treatment operating budgets;   d)         future additional annual operating costs of $37,000.00 BE RECOGNIZED as a result of this project; it being noted that these costs are a result of new infrastructure installation and will be considered and accommodated within future Parks Operations operating budgets;   e)         the SoHo Community Improvement Plan recommendations for streetscape improvements on Horton Street BE APPROVED for implementation with this infrastructure project; it being noted that on June 20, 2011, the Municipal Council resolved that streetscape enhancements, consistent with the SoHo Community Improvement Plan, be included in the scope of the pending Horton Street reconstruction project and that funding enhancements given a high priority for approval;   f)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;   g)         the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;   h)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 12-29); and,   i)          the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations; and,   it being noted that the Civic Works Committee heard the attached presentation from J. Yanchula, Manager, Community Planning and Urban Design, M. Tomazincic, Planner II and U. DeCandido, Environmental Service Engineer, and received the following communications with respect to this matter:  

W. Russell, 285 Simcoe Street, dated April 19, 2012; M. D. Woodward, 142 Waterloo Street, dated April 20, 2012; E. Innes, Simcoe Street, dated April 20, 2012; A. Gibb, 19-374 Simcoe Street, dated April 22, 2012; N. Hamm, by e-mail, dated April 20, 2012; and, J. Verdam-Woodward, 142 Waterloo Street, dated April 23, 2012. (2012-S07-00)

17.   Solid Waste

Management Updates

That the report dated April 23, 2012, from the Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste, with respect to solid waste management updates BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Civic Works Committee heard the attached presentation from the Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste, with respect to this matter.

18.   Request

for Annual General Meeting

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2011 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc.:   a)         the 2011 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc. BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee as part of the Municipal Council meeting on May 22, 2012, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of London Hydro Inc. in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and,   b)         the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2011 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for London Hydro Inc., and to invite the Chair of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of London Hydro Inc. to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with Article 7.1 of the Shareholder Declaration; and,   it being noted that the Civic Works Committee reviewed and received a communication dated March 13, 2012, from P. C. Johnson, Chair, London Hydro Inc., with respect to this matter.  

Central Thames Subwatershed Study Update

  That a verbal report from B. Krichker, Manager, Stormwater, with respect to the schedule for a water resource and slope stability component of the Central Thames Subwatershed Study’s area, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the assignment of the Consultant for this matter will go to the Planning and Environment Committee on May 28, 2012.

20.   Central Thames Subwatershed Study Update

19.   Traffic Concerns in

the Blackacres Boulevard and Yew Tree Gardens Area

That, the request for delegation status from S. Craig, 281 Blackacres Boulevard, with respect to the traffic safety concerns in the Blackacres Boulevard and Yew Tree Gardens area, BE DENIED; it being noted that the Civic Works Committee asked that the Civic Administration meet with Mr. Craig and the neighbourhood group to address this matter.  (2012-S09-00)   Motion Failed

Moved by Councillor M. Brown

Seconded by Councillor P. Hubert

Approve that the Civic Works Committee BE REQUESTED to receive a delegation from Steven Craig on behalf of the Blackacres Boulevard and Yew Tree Garden neighbourhood at their meeting of May 14, 2012, with respect to traffic safety issues; it being noted that delegations shall speak no longer than a 5 minute period, without leave of the Committee.

Motion Passed

10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Approve clauses 1 to 11, inclusive.

Motion Passed

1.   Disclosures of

Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests are disclosed.

That, the 2nd Report of the Agricultural Advisory Committee from its meeting held on March 21, 2012 BE RECEIVED.

3.   Property located at

1878 Highbury Avenue North and 1411 Fanshawe Park Road East (H-8011)

That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner of Development Services, based on the application by Armoclan Engineering, (on behalf of Mac’s Convenience Stores Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1878 Highbury Avenue North & 1411 Fanshawe Park Road East, the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (h-131h-132ASA5(4)) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA5(4)) Zone, to remove the holding provision.  (2012-D11-01)

4.   Building Division

Monthly Report for February 2012

That the Building Division Monthly Report for February 2012 BE RECEIVED.

5.   Emerald Ash Borer -

Tobin Court

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the concerns raised by the Westmount Rate Payers Association with respect to London’s emerald ash borer strategy and implementation of the program:   a)         a moratorium BE PLACED on the cutting of ash trees, unless they pose a safety hazard, until such time as the Civic Administration reports back on the communications dated April 9, March 27 and April 16, 2012, from the Westmount Rate Payers Association; it being noted that the Civic Administration met with the Westmount Rate Payers Association on March 14, 2012 to discuss and respond to the issues and those comments will be included in the Civic Administration’s response back; and,   b)         a special meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee BE HELD on Tuesday, May 1, 2012, to receive a legal opinion on the proposed moratorium on tree cutting;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard the attached presentation and reviewed and received communications, dated April 9 and March 27, 2012, and the attached communication, dated April 16, 2012, from the Westmount Hills Residents Association, with respect to this matter.

6.   Northridge Village

Phase II Subdivision (39T-11501)

That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Tridon Properties Limited, for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot 10, Concession 5, (Geographic Township of London), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the west side of Stackhouse Avenue, on the north side of Fanshawe Park Road West, municipally referred to as 1100 Fanshawe Park Road East:   a)         the attached, revised, Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Tridon Properties Limited for the Northridge Village Phase 2 (39T-11501) BE APPROVED;   b)         the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report” provided as Appendix ‘A’ to the associated staff report, dated March 30, 2012;   c)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the subject Subdivision Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions; and,   d)         the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Estimated Claims and Revenues Report” provided as Appendix ‘B’ to the associated staff report, dated March 30, 2012;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal presentations from P. Hine and D. De Jong, Tridon Properties Limited and J. Ross, 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East, with respect to this matter.   (2012-D26-06)

7.   Shaver-Brockley

Coalition

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the request of the Shaver-Brockley Coalition for the implementation of a South Central Area Plan:   a)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, after meeting with the area residents, regarding the options available, either through a separate area study or as part of the Official Plan review, including the staff resources required to undertake the work; and,   b)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consider options that can be brought forward as part of the Southwest Area Plan to address the community concerns raised by the residents of the Shaver-Brockley Coalition;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal presentations from Roma-Lynn Gillis and David Gillis, 2753 Dingman Drive and Alan Tipping, 2809 Dingman Drive and reviewed and received a communication, dated March 29, 2012, from the Shaver-Brockley Coalition, with respect to this matter. (D-012-D11-09)

8.   Properties located

at 176 and 184 Rectory Street (OZ-7999)

That, on the recommendation of the Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Knutson Development Consultants Limited relating to the properties located at 176 and 184 Rectory Street:   a)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to amend the Official Plan to change the existing “Low Density Residential” designation of the subject lands by ADDING a special policy in Chapter 10 - “Policies for Specific Areas” to permit a ‘rental and repair establishment’, including the repair, maintenance and provision of filters for HVAC equipment; and,   b)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the properties located at 176 and 184 Rectory Street FROM a Residential (R3-2) Zone, which permits single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, triplex dwellings, converted dwellings and fourplex dwellings TO a Residential/Light Industrial Special Provision (R3-2/LI8(  )) Zone, to recognize existing industrial uses and add ‘repair and rental establishment’ to the list of permitted uses;   it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public participation meeting held in connection with this matter.   (2012-D11-04)

9.   Amend Section 4.14

of Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (Z-7891)

That, on the recommendation of the Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change Zoning By-law Z.-1 Section 4.14 as follows:   a)         deleting the last paragraph of Section 4.14; and,     b)         inserting in its place, “In the case of a road widening dedication, the land that will be dedicated shall be included in any calculation for the purpose of determining lot area, coverage, height, parking, landscaped open space, floor area, floor area ratio and density provided any building or structure is located wholly within the boundary of the land remaining after the dedication”;   it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public participation meeting held in connection with this matter.    (2012-D11-02)

10.   Properties located

at 497-499 Central Avenue (Z-8008)

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Filipe Abrantes and Daniel McFadden relating to the property located at 497-499 Central Avenue:   a)         the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-2) Zone, which permits single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, triplex dwellings, converted dwellings, and four-plex dwellings TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-2( )) Zone, to permit the above listed uses and add a multiple dwelling with a maximum of 5-dwelling units as a permitted use and regulations that:  limit the maximum number of bedrooms per unit to 3; permit a maximum of two, 3-bedroom dwelling units; permit a minimum lot area of 600m2; permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.0m; permit a minimum east exterior side yard of 3.6m; permit a minimum rear yard of 6.0m; permit a minimum west interior side yard of 3.0m; permit a minimum landscaped open space coverage of 30%; permit a maximum lot coverage of 44%; permit a maximum height of 12.0m; permit a maximum parking area coverage of 25%; limit the maximum setback from Central Avenue to 1.0m; with a minimum of 1 parking space per dwelling unit as a special provision to the zone;   b)         the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:   i)          the construction of a specified building design which is in accordance with the illustrations included as Appendix “B”; ii)          existing brick to be reused on proposed new building; iii)         existing roof pitches to be replicated (with the exception of the existing front gables); and, iv)        windows to be of a 6 over 6 design with a wood clad finish;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:   -                     Filipe Abrantes, co-owner – expressing support for the application; advising that the owners have worked closely with Mr. Wes Kinghorn, the London Advisory Committee on Heritage and D. Menard, Heritage Planner on this application; and that they are making the building use legal. -                     Barry Francis, 503 Central Avenue – expressing concern with the number of units and the amount of parking; indicating that parking on lawns in this area is a frequent occurrence; and advising that there is not enough parking for the number of units in this building. -                     Gord Hale, 66 Palace Street – advising that parking is a big deal; indicating that there are constantly vehicles parked all over the property; advising that it is an absolute mess; indicating that the property needs more than four parking spots. -                     Wes Kinghorn, President, Woodfield Community Association – advising that Woodfield is in the top 8 of the best neighbourhoods in the country; advising that the house is a hazard; indicating that the saving of houses is a top priority of the Woodfield Community Association; advising that the developer worked with the community; advising that both sides have compromised; indicating that the owners will be using the brick from the current residence; advising that streetscapes are an important part of a Heritage Conservation District; indicating that East Woodfield is one of the best examples of Victorian architecture; indicating that the building is currently a fiveplex; advising that they achieved an answer that is profitable for the developer, satisfies the community and is a win-win situation for everyone. -                     Admar, 555 York Street – indicating that they have five parking spots on the lot as they will be using the garage on the lot; advising that there are three-one bedroom units and two-two bedroom units.   (2012-D11-03)

11.   ReThink London

That the ReThink London event to be held on May 3, 2012 BE NOTED.

11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee (Continued)

1.   Disclosures of

Pecuniary Interest

Moved by Councill B. Polhill

Note that no pecuniary interests are disclosed.

Motion Passed

12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Approve Clauses 1 and 2.

Motion Passed

Clauses 1 and 2, read as follows:  

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

  No pecuniary interests are disclosed.  

Emerald Ash Borer Strategy and Issues Related to Tobin Court

  That, the following actions be taken with respect to the Westmount Hills Residents Association’s concerns relating to the emerald ash borer:   a)            the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue with the implementation of the Emerald Ash Borer Strategy that was adopted by the Municipal Council at its meeting held on October 3, 2011;   b)            the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to utilize a temporary signage program to advise neighbourhoods, in advance, that Emerald Ash Borer removal will be occurring in their neighbourhood and directing residents to the Emerald Ash Borer web site; c)              the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to determine the legal and financial impact of property owners injecting infested trees on their properties, at their expense and report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee; and,   the attached presentation from the Westmount Hills Residents Association BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration and to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

1.   Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

2.   Emerald Ash

Borer Strategy and Issues Related to Tobin Court

Moved by Councillor J.B. Swan

Approve clauses 1 to 3, inclusive.

Motion Passed

1.   No pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   “Hire One”

Initiative

3.   Timelines -

Expression of Interest - Economic Development Initiatives

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make the necessary arrangements to hold a Special Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee meeting on Saturday, June 9, 2012 to receive Expressions of Interest from the community with respect to economic prosperity initiatives.

IX.   DEFERRED

MATTERS

X.   ENQUIRIES

XI.   EMERGENT

MOTIONS

1.   Councillor White

and Councillor Swan - Review of Council and Standing Committee Schedule

Moved by Councillor S.E. White

Seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

Approve that pursuant to section 18.2 of the Council Procedure By-law leave be given for the introduction of an emergent motion with respect to the Council and Standing Committee schedule.

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor S.E. White

Seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan

Approve that the City Clerk, in consultation with the Senior Management Team, BE DIRECTED to review the current Standing Committee structure and current meeting schedule and provide possible options to address concerns with respect to the frequency and length of Council and Standing Committee meetings.

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Approve that pursuant to section 18.2 of the Council Procedure By-law leave be given for the introduction of an emergent motion with respect to the scheduling of a Special Council Meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Seconded by Councillor B. Polhill

Approve that the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to make the necessary arrangements for a Special Council Meeting at a date and time to be determined to deal with a matter pertaining to employee negotiations including personal information about identifiable individuals with respect to employment-related matters, advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed

XII.   BY-LAWS

BY-LAWS TO BE READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME:

Moved by Councillor J.P. Bryant

Seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

Approve 1st reading of Bills No.’s 191 to 216, inclusive.

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor J.P. Bryant

Approve 2nd reading of Bill No.’s 191 to 216, inclusive.

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor D. Brown

Approve 3rd reading of Bill No.’s 191 to 216, inclusive.

Motion Passed

The following by-laws are passed and enacted as a by-law of The Corporation of the City of London:

XIII.   COMMITTEE

OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA (continued)

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA SESSION

Moved by Councillor S. Orser

Seconded by Councillor D. Brown

Approve that Council rise and go into Committee of the Whole, in camera for the purpose of considering the following:

Motion Passed

8th Report of the Committee of the Whole                         Councillor D.G. Henderson presents

Motion Passed

XIV.   ADJOURNMENT

Motion Passed

Votes

21 substantive votes at this meeting (8 contested, 13 unanimous). Procedural motions excluded.

1#10. Councillor White

and Councillor Swan - Review of Council and Standing Committee Schedule

Approve that the City Clerk, in consultation with the Senior Management Team, BE DIRECTED to review the current Standing Committee structure and current meeting schedule and provide possible options to address concerns with respect to the frequency and length of Council and Standing Commi…

✅ Motion Passed

View roll call

Yea (13): Paul Van Meerbergen, Matt Brown, Bill Armstrong, Paul Hubert, Harold Usher, Joe Fontana, Joe Swan, Stephen Orser, Dale Henderson, Bud Polhill, Sandy White, Judy Bryant, Denise Brown

Nay (2): Joni Baechler, Nancy Branscombe

1#10. Councillor White

and Councillor Swan - Review of Council and Standing Committee Schedule

Approve that pursuant to section 18.2 of the Council Procedure By-law leave be given for the introduction of an emergent motion with respect to the scheduling of a Special Council Meeting.

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (15-0)

1#10. Councillor White

and Councillor Swan - Review of Council and Standing Committee Schedule

Approve that the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to make the necessary arrangements for a Special Council Meeting at a date and time to be determined to deal with a matter pertaining to employee negotiations including personal information about identifiable individuals with respect to employment-r…

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (15-0)

1#3. Disclosures of

Pecuniary Interest

Motion Passed

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (13-0)

1#7. Disclosures of

Pecuniary Interest

Note that no pecuniary interests are disclosed.

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (15-0)

1#7. Disclosures of

Pecuniary Interest

Approve Clauses 1 and 2.

✅ Motion Passed

View roll call

Yea (14): Paul Van Meerbergen, Matt Brown, Bill Armstrong, Paul Hubert, Harold Usher, Joe Fontana, Joe Swan, Stephen Orser, Nancy Branscombe, Dale Henderson, Bud Polhill, Sandy White, Judy Bryant, Denise Brown

Nay (1): Joni Baechler

III. CONFIRMATION

AND SIGNING OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING HELD ON APRIL 10 AND 11, 2012

Approve the Minutes of the Seventh Meeting held on April 10 and 11, 2012.

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (12-0)

V. COMMUNICATIONS

AND PETITIONS

Receive the following communications:   B. Dennison, 3380 Georgeheriot Lane; G.W. Cooper, People for Safe Drinking Water; H. Gingerich, University of Guelph, S. Thomas, Clean Water Legacy; C. Gupta, 919 Plantation Road; K. Miller, 19-925 Lawson Road; M. Burden, 316 Griffith Street and R.J…

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (13-0)

VIII#2. REPORTS

(CONTINUED)

Approve Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive.

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (13-0)

XII. BY-LAWS

Approve 1st reading of Bills No.’s 191 to 216, inclusive.

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (15-0)

XII. BY-LAWS

Approve 2nd reading of Bill No.’s 191 to 216, inclusive.

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (15-0)

XII. BY-LAWS

Approve 3rd reading of Bill No.’s 191 to 216, inclusive.

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (15-0)

XIII. COMMITTEE

OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA

Approve that part c) of clause 2 be referred to later in the meeting to provide for an opportunity to receive further information from the Civic Administration with respect to the discussion related to the potential for the purchase or the land or the potential for a land swap.

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (15-0)

XIII. COMMITTEE

OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA

Motion to Approve Parts a) and b) of clause 2, as amended, is put.   Motion Passed

✅ Motion Passed

View roll call

Yea (10): Paul Van Meerbergen, Bill Armstrong, Harold Usher, Joe Fontana, Joe Swan, Stephen Orser, Dale Henderson, Bud Polhill, Sandy White, Denise Brown

Nay (5): Matt Brown, Paul Hubert, Joni Baechler, Nancy Branscombe, Judy Bryant

XIII. COMMITTEE

OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA

Approve that clause 3, be amended by adding the following part b):   b)         that the Province of Ontario BE REQUESTED to undertake legislative changes to assume the responsibility for determining drinking water fluoridation, so as to ensure a uniformed Provincial approach.   Motion Pa…

✅ Motion Passed 🔥

View roll call

Yea (9): Paul Van Meerbergen, Matt Brown, Bill Armstrong, Paul Hubert, Joe Fontana, Joe Swan, Bud Polhill, Sandy White, Denise Brown

Nay (6): Harold Usher, Stephen Orser, Joni Baechler, Nancy Branscombe, Dale Henderson, Judy Bryant

5. Agreement Between The City of London and

The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology

Approve that, on the recommendation of the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the attached proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to:   a)         approve an amending agreement between The Corporation of the City of Lond…

✅ Motion Passed

View roll call

Yea (12): Matt Brown, Paul Hubert, Harold Usher, Joe Fontana, Joe Swan, Stephen Orser, Joni Baechler, Nancy Branscombe, Dale Henderson, Bud Polhill, Sandy White, Judy Bryant

Nay (3): Paul Van Meerbergen, Bill Armstrong, Denise Brown

9. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

with the European Union

Amend by deleting clause 9 in its entirety and replacing it with the following new clause 9:   That the Federal and Provincial Governments BE ADVISED that The Corporation of the City of London wishes to “opt out” of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union (CET…

✅ Motion Passed

View roll call

Yea (10): Matt Brown, Bill Armstrong, Paul Hubert, Joe Swan, Joni Baechler, Nancy Branscombe, Dale Henderson, Bud Polhill, Sandy White, Judy Bryant

Nay (5): Paul Van Meerbergen, Harold Usher, Joe Fontana, Stephen Orser, Denise Brown

18. Input Regarding

Notice Provisions by Community Engagement Task Force

That the Director of Corporate Communications, in consultation with the City Clerk, BE REQUESTED to seek the input of the Community Engagement Task Force with respect to the City of London’s public notice provisions.

❌ Motion Failed

View roll call

Yea (4): Paul Van Meerbergen, Harold Usher, Judy Bryant, Denise Brown

Nay (11): Matt Brown, Bill Armstrong, Paul Hubert, Joe Fontana, Joe Swan, Stephen Orser, Joni Baechler, Nancy Branscombe, Dale Henderson, Bud Polhill, Sandy White

18. Input Regarding

Notice Provisions by Community Engagement Task Force

Motion Passed

✅ Motion Passed

View roll call

Yea (11): Matt Brown, Bill Armstrong, Paul Hubert, Joe Fontana, Joe Swan, Stephen Orser, Joni Baechler, Nancy Branscombe, Dale Henderson, Bud Polhill, Sandy White

Nay (4): Paul Van Meerbergen, Harold Usher, Judy Bryant, Denise Brown

19. Traffic Concerns in

the Blackacres Boulevard and Yew Tree Gardens Area

Approve that the Civic Works Committee BE REQUESTED to receive a delegation from Steven Craig on behalf of the Blackacres Boulevard and Yew Tree Garden neighbourhood at their meeting of May 14, 2012, with respect to traffic safety issues; it being noted that delegations shall speak no lon…

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (15-0)

19. Traffic Concerns in

the Blackacres Boulevard and Yew Tree Gardens Area

Approve clauses 1 to 11, inclusive.

✅ Motion Passed

Unanimous (15-0)