April 13, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:03 PM, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair and all Members participating; it being noted that the following Members attended the meeting remotely:  M. van Holst, M. Salih, J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, J. Morgan, S. Lehman, A. Hopkins, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Turner, E. Peloza, A. Kayabaga, and S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in the following matters:

Item 17 (2.14) of the 5th Report of the Civic Works Committee, having do with the 2020 Ministry of the Environment , Conservation and Parks Inspection of the City of London Water System, by indicating that he is an employee of the Middlesex London Health Unit.

Item 7 (4.3) of the 7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with a request for research on the effects of public health restrictions in London during the COVID-19 emergency, by indicating that he is an employee of the Middlesex London Health Unit.

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 15 (4.5) of the 6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with the Capital and Operational Needs of Municipal Golf Courses in London, by indicating that his father is employed by the National Golf Course Owners Association.

Mayor E. Holder discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 22 (5.1) of the 5th Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with Item 4 of the Deferred Matters List, related to the properties at 745 and 747 Waterloo Street, by indicating that his daughter owns a business located at 745 Waterloo Street.

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 2 (2.1) of the 6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with the 1st Report of the Childcare Advisory Committee, by indicating that his spouse owns and operates a day care.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That pursuant to section 6.5 of the Council Procedure By-law, the following changes in order BE APPROVED:

a)      Stage 4 – Council, In Closed Session be considered after Stage 13- By-laws, with the exception of Bill No. 133, being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 13th day of April, which will be considered, prior to Stage 14 – Adjournment; and

b)      Stage 9 – Added Reports –Item 9.1 – 6th Report of Council, In Closed Session be considered after Stage 4 – Council, In Closed Session.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

5.   Confirmation and Signing of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting(s)

5.1   5th Meeting held on March 23, 2021

2021-03-23 Council Minutes 5-Complete

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Minutes from the meeting held on March 23, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the following communications BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED as noted on the Added Agenda:

6.1      Public Notice policy (refer to Item 4 (4.1) of the 5th Report of the Corporate Services Committee).

6.2      Dundas Place - Temporary Bicycle Lanes (refer to Item 18 (2.17) of the 5th Report of Civic Works Committee).

6.3      Old East Village Community Improvement Plan - Performance Measures and Indicators of Success (refer to Item 16 (3.2) of the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee).

6.4      Application - 1414 Dundas Street (Z-9276) (refer to Item 17 (3.3) of the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee).

6.5      Application - 101 Meadowlily Road (refer to Item 19 (3.5) of the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee).

6.6      Masonville Draft Secondary Plan (O-8991) (refer to Item 25 (3.11) of the 5th Report of Planning and Environment Committee).

6.7      London’s Housing First Emergency Youth Shelter (refer to Item 10 (3.1) of the 6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee).

6.8      Affordable Housing Units in London (refer to Item 14 (4.4) of the 6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee).

6.9      (ADDED) Operation of City Council (refer to Item 8 (4.4) of the 7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   5th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-03-29 CSC Report 5

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 5th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 6 (4.3) and 8 (4.5).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 2020 Compliance Report in Accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2020 Compliance Report, in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

a)      as per the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 8.11 (c), an annual report of total payments where a supplier has invoiced the City a cumulative total value of $100,000 or more in a calendar year, BE RECEIVED for information, attached to the above-noted staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”;

b)     the administrative contract awards for Professional Consulting Services with an aggregate total greater than $100,000, as per Section 15.1 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, decentralized from Purchasing and Supply that have been reported to the Manager of Purchasing and Supply and have been reviewed for compliance to the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE RECEIVED for information, attached to the above-noted staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

c)      the list of administrative contract awards for Tenders with a value up to $3,000,000 that do not have an irregular result, as per Section 13.2 (c) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE RECEIVED for information, attached to the above-noted staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “C”; and,

d)      the City Treasurer, or delegate, BE DELEGATED authority to:

i)      at any time, refer questions concerning compliance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to the           City’s internal auditor; and,

ii)     ratify and confirm completed awards or purchases between $15,000 and $50,000 where the City Treasurer or           delegate is of the opinion that the awards or purchases were in the best interests of the Corporation.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Procurement in Emergencies Update 3 – COVID -19

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, as per section 14.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, a report of Emergency non-competitive individual purchases which exceed $50,000 (pre-taxes), that the City has made from the date of September 9, 2020 to January 31, 2021 due to COVID-19, appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (4.1) Public Notice Policy - AnnaMaria Valastro

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back, as a part of the scheduled Council Policy review, with respect to the addition of a notice provision related to the establishment of city-management of newly created private parking lots in the Public Notice Policy; it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication from AM Valastro with respect to the Notice Policy.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (4.2) Application – Issuance of Proclamation – Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and Chronic Inflammatory

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated March 1, 2021, from GBS-CIDP Foundation of Canada, the month of May, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) Awareness Month.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (4.4) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Intersex Awareness Day

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated March 12, 2021, from Intersex London Canada, October 26, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED Intersex Awareness Day.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (4.3) Application – Issuance of Proclamation – Southwestern Ontario Film Week

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated February 3, 2021, from Forest City Film Festival, the week of October 17-24, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED Southwestern Ontario Film Week.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.8   (4.5) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - World Press Freedom Day 2021

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to World Press Freedom Day:

a)      based on the application dated March 17, 2021, from ink-stainedwretches.org, May 3, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED World Press Freedom Day;

b)      the London City Council RECOGNIZE that a healthy, professional news media is essential to the proper functioning of democracy in the region and urges other municipal councils within the region and across Canada to recognize that a robust news media is essential to the proper functioning of democracy in their jurisdictions; endorses legislation and regulations to support and rejuvenate news outlets across Canada; and supports the federal government in passing legislation to ensure an ecosystem for a healthy news media to serve all Canadians; and,

c)      this resolution BE FORWARDED to local M.P.s and M.P.P.s, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2   5th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2021-03-30 CWC Report - Full

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 5th  Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 14 (2.8), 16 (2.13), 17 (2.14), 18 (2.17) and 22 (5.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

Mayor E. Holder discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 5.1 of the 5th Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with Item 4 of the Deferred Matters List, related to the properties at 745 and 747 Waterloo Street, by indicating that his daughter owns a business located at 745 Waterloo Street.

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 2.14 of the 5th Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with the 2020 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Inspection of the City of London Drinking Water System, by indicating that he is an employee of the Middlesex London Health Unit.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee from its meeting held on February 23, 2021:

a)     the following actions be taken with respect to the Annual New Sidewalk Program:

i)      the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to reinstate putting the Annual Warranted Sidewalk Program document and application on the City of London website; and,

ii)     the presentation, dated February 23, 2021, from J. Bos, Technologist II, with respect to the Annual New Sidewalk Program, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)     clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.4, 3.6, 3.7 and 4.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) 1st Report of the Waste Management Working Group

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Waste Management Working Group, from its meeting held on March 16, 2021:

a)     the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 16, 2021 with respect to the Proposed Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Expansion of the W12A Landfill:

i)      the release of the above-noted staff-report for review and comment by the Government Review Team, Indigenous Communities and the general public, BE SUPPORTED; it being noted that minor changes/revisions to the report may be made prior to the release; and,

ii)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)     clauses 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.2 and 4.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) Public Transit Stream: Approval of Transfer Payment Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 134)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to:

a)     authorize and approve the Transfer Payment Agreement (TPA) for the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP): Public Transit Stream, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, represented by the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario, and The Corporation of the City of London;

b)     authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement; and,

c)     delegate authority to approve further Amending Agreements to the Agreement. (2021-F11)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Municipal Asset Management Program Grant Application

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Municipal Asset Management Program Grant Application:

a)     the Civic Administration be directed to apply for a grant from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ (FCM) Municipal Asset Management Program (MAMP) to assist with expenditures related to a watermain risk evaluation project; it being noted that, should the City of London be successful with its grant application, an external consultant, CANN Forecast Software Inc., will lead the project based on their workplan proposal, as appended to the above-noted staff report, and the City commits to undertake the activities and associated costs proposed in its application to FCM; and,

b)     the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-F11)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) Contract Award: Tender RFT21-12 - 2021-2022 Infrastructure Renewal Program Contract 10 - Brydges Street, Swinyard Street, Muir Street Project (Relates to Bill No. 146)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to Contract Award Tender RFT21-12 for the 2021-2022 Infrastructure Renewal Program Contract 10 Brydges Street, Swinyard Street, Muir Street Project:

a)     the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited, at its tendered price of $5,843,421.36 (excluding HST), for Contract 10, Brydges Street, Swinyard Street, Muir Street, Infrastructure Renewal Program BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited was the lowest of five bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)     the engineering fees for resident inspection and contract administration for Archibald, Gray and McKay Engineering Ltd. (AGM) BE INCREASED by $181,874.00 due to increased working days and contaminated soil conditions discovered during detailed design, in accordance with the estimates on file, to an upset total amount of $741,774.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)     the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021, to amend By-law No. PS-113, being “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London” to remove parking on Brydges Street to allow the introduction of new bike lanes on Bridges Street between Ashland Avenue and Highbury Avenue North;

d)     the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

e)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

f)     the approval given, herein, 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 (RFT21-12); 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. (2021-T10)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) Contract Award: Tender RFT21-16 - 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program - English Street and Lorne Avenue Reconstruction (Relates to Bill No. 147)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to Contract Award Tender RFT21-16 for the 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program English Street and Lorne Avenue Reconstruction:

a)     the bid submitted by CH Excavating (2013), at its tendered price of $3,773,382.95 (excluding HST), for the English Street and Lorne Avenue Infrastructure Renewal Program Project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by CH Excavating (2013) was the lowest of six (6) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)     AECOM Canada Ltd., BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the above-noted project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $389,141.50 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)     the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021, to amend By-law No. PS-113, being “A By-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”, to reflect the proposed changes to the English Street on-street parking limits;

d)     the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

e)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

f)      the approval given, herein, 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 (RFT21-16); 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. (2021-T10)

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (2.7) 2021 Renew London Infrastructure Construction Program and 2020 Review

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the staff report dated March 30, 2021, with respect to the 2021 Renew London Infrastructure Construction Program and 2020 Review, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from C. Butler, with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-T04)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (2.9) Contract Award: RFT21-11 - 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program - Burlington Street and Paymaster Avenue 

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to Contract Award RFT21-11 for the 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program Burlington Street and Paymaster Avenue:

a)     the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited, at its tendered price of $3,620,251.92 (excluding HST), for the Burlington Street and Paymaster Avenue project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited was the lowest of eleven bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)     AECOM Canada Ltd, BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the Burlington Street and Paymaster Avenue project, in accordance with the estimate on file, at an upset amount of $276,894.20, including 10% contingency (excluding HST), 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, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

d)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

e)     the approval given, herein, 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 (RFT21-11); 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. (2021-T04)

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (2.10) Appointment of Consulting Engineer for Construction Administration Services - 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program - Talbot Street

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineer for Construction Administrative Services for the 2021 Infrastructure Renewal Program Talbot Street:

a)     R.V. Anderson Associates Limited, BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the Talbot Street project in accordance with the estimate on file, at an upset amount of $309,524.60, including 10% contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)     the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)     the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; 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. (2021-T04)

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (2.11) Adelaide Street Underpass Project: Subway Construction Agreement and Crossing and Maintenance Agreement (Relates to Bill No’s. 135 and 136)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental & Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to the Adelaide Street Underpass Project: Subway Construction Agreement and Crossing and Maintenance Agreement:

a)     the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021, to:

i)     authorize and approve the Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, being a Subway Construction Agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and The Corporation of the City of London, for the construction of the Adelaide Street Subway located at approximately Mile 113.73 of the Galt Subdivision, Ontario, within Adelaide Street; and,

ii)     authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement; and,

b)     the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021, to:

i)      authorize and approve the Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, being a Crossing and Maintenance Agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and The Corporation of the City of London, for the crossing and maintenance of the Adelaide Street Subway located at approximately Mile 113.73 of the Galt Subdivision, Ontario, within Adelaide Street; and,

ii)     authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement. (2021-T10)

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (2.15) Proposed Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Expansion of the W12A Landfill

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, and with the support of the Waste Management Working Group, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to the Proposed Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Expansion of the W12A Landfill:

a)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)     the above-noted staff report BE CIRCULATED for review and comment by the Government Review Team, Indigenous Communities, stakeholders and the general public from April 20, 2021 to May 19, 2021 or longer;

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider the feedback from the above-noted consultation and revise the report Draft Environmental Assessment of the Proposed W12A Landfill Expansion, City of London as appropriate; and,

d)     in accordance with Council Policy, the revised report, noted in part c), above, BE POSTED on the City of London’s website at least 30 days prior to a public participation meeting to be held by the Civic Works Committee, to consider the revised report. (2021-E07)

Motion Passed

8.2.13   (2.16) Proposed Expansion of the W12A Landfill Site - Updated Environmental Assessment Engineering Consulting Costs

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to the Proposed Expansion of the W12A Landfill Site and Updated Environmental Assessment Engineering Consulting Costs:

a)     Golder Associates Ltd. BE APPOINTED to carry out additional technical analyses and engagement with stakeholders including addressing technical questions from the Government Review Team as part of the Individual Environmental Assessment process for the proposed expansion of the W12A Landfill, in the total amount of $189,085 including a contingency of $50,000 and excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)     AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED to carry out additional technical analysis and engagement with stakeholders, including addressing technical questions from the Government Review Team, as part of the Individual Environmental Assessment process for the proposed expansion of the W12A Landfill, in the total amount of $17,769 including a contingency of $4,000 and excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)     the financing for the above-noted work BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

d)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these purchases; 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. (2021-E07)

Motion Passed

8.2.15   (2.12) Cycling and Transportation Demand Management Upcoming Projects

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, the on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to Cycling and Transportation Demand Management Upcoming Projects:

a)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to set a minimum of 250 e-scooters to be placed in the Request for Proposals for an e-scooter Pilot Project as part of a potential combined bike share and e-scooter share micromobility project; and,

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a plan and initiate a process to determine how a Cargo e-Bike Pilot Project might be undertaken in London including the advantages and disadvantages of a program, key stakeholder input, potential restrictions on where cargo e-bikes may be used and parked, other operating and safety parameters, amendments that would be required to City by-laws, and seek community input. (2021-T05)

Motion Passed

8.2.19   (4.1) 2nd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 17, 2021:

a)     the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Revised Application and Notice of Public Meeting, dated March 11, 2021, from L. Davies Snyder, Planner II, related to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for the property located at 1153-1155 Dundas Street:

i)      the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consider adding a provision for 10 covered bicycle parking spaces in a corral format; and,

ii)     the above-noted Notice BE RECEIVED;

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to the Public Meeting Notice, dated March 10, 2021, from S. Wise, Senior Planner, related to an Official Plan Amendment for the Masonville Secondary Plan:

i)     S. Wise, Senior Planner or delegate, BE REQUESTED to attend the next CAC meeting, to provide additional details on the above-noted Notice; and,

ii)    the above-noted Notice BE RECEIVED; and,

c)   clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 to 2.3, 3.1 to 3.4, 5.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.20   (4.2) Imperial Road Sidewalk 

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee with the results of the photometric study on Imperial Road and the detailed design of the proposed sidewalk on the east side of Imperial Road prior to tendering or commencing work; it being noted that a communication, dated March 24, 2021, from Councillor M. Cassidy, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.2.21   (4.3) Reallocation of Sidewalk Construction Funds

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to transfer any budgetary savings resulting from proposed sidewalk infrastructure being removed from the related 2021 road reconstruction projects to the new sidewalk construction program; it being noted that a communication, appended to the Added Agenda, from Councillor M. van Holst, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.2.14   (2.8) Automated Speed Enforcement - Spring 2021 Update

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with the implementation of the Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) program; it being noted that the staff report, dated March 30, 2021, with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-T08)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.2.16   (2.13) Green Bin Program Design - Community Engagement Feedback

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to the Green Bin Program Design and Community Engagement Feedback:

a)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake a Request for Proposals procurement process to:

i)     select a company or companies to supply a kitchen container for indoor use to recover organics;

ii)    select a company or companies to supply and deliver to London homes a Green Bin curbside container (approximate size 45 litres); and,

iii)   select a company or companies to supply and deliver a larger Green Bin curbside container (approximate size 80 litres or 120 litres), potentially for use in some townhome complexes where a smaller Green Bin is not practical;

c)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake the Request for Proposals procurement process for a Green Bin material processor(s) that can compost and/or anaerobically digest:

i)     mix #1 - food waste, non-recyclable/soiled paper, cooking oils and grease, and household plants; and/or,

ii)    mix #2 - food waste, non-recyclable/soiled paper, cooking oils and grease, household plants and pet waste (e.g., dog, cat, other);

it being noted that processors will have to clearly state what types of products will be created (e.g., compost categories AA, A, B, digestate, renewable natural gas, electricity, etc.) as well as describe the final end uses for these products;

d)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to design a Green Bin program that permits the use of the following liners, if a liner is deemed necessary by the household:

i)     newsprint/household paper;

ii)    purchased paper liners/bags; and,

iii)   purchased certified compostable bag liners;

it being noted that should mix #2 be selected, all pet waste must contained inside a purchased certified compostable bag (leak free and tied tightly) to be an eligible item for the Green Bin;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee on the outcome of the procurement processes and provide details on the preferred mix of materials to collect in the Green Bin and any final design adjustments based on new information; and,

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Civic Works Committee by September 2021 on municipal programs options, advantages, disadvantages and estimated costs to address bi-weekly garbage concerns (2021-E07)

Motion made by E. Peloza

The motion to approve part a) is put:

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to the Green Bin Program Design and Community Engagement Feedback:

a)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Item 16 (2.13) of the 5th Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with the Green Bin Program Design – Community Engagement Feedback BE REFERRED to the May 11, 2021 meeting of the Civic Works Committee for further consideration.

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Motion made by E. Peloza

The motion to approve the balance of the Item is put:

b)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake a Request for Proposals procurement process to:

i)     select a company or companies to supply a kitchen container for indoor use to recover organics;

ii)    select a company or companies to supply and deliver to London homes a Green Bin curbside container (approximate size 45 litres); and,

iii)   select a company or companies to supply and deliver a larger Green Bin curbside container (approximate size 80 litres or 120 litres), potentially for use in some townhome complexes where a smaller Green Bin is not practical;

c)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake the Request for Proposals procurement process for a Green Bin material processor(s) that can compost and/or anaerobically digest:

i)     mix #1 - food waste, non-recyclable/soiled paper, cooking oils and grease, and household plants; and/or,

ii)    mix #2 - food waste, non-recyclable/soiled paper, cooking oils and grease, household plants and pet waste (e.g., dog, cat, other);

it being noted that processors will have to clearly state what types of products will be created (e.g., compost categories AA, A, B, digestate, renewable natural gas, electricity, etc.) as well as describe the final end uses for these products;

d)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to design a Green Bin program that permits the use of the following liners, if a liner is deemed necessary by the household:

i)     newsprint/household paper;

ii)    purchased paper liners/bags; and,

iii)   purchased certified compostable bag liners;

it being noted that should mix #2 be selected, all pet waste must contained inside a purchased certified compostable bag (leak free and tied tightly) to be an eligible item for the Green Bin;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee on the outcome of the procurement processes and provide details on the preferred mix of materials to collect in the Green Bin and any final design adjustments based on new information; and,

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Civic Works Committee by September 2021 on municipal programs options, advantages, disadvantages and estimated costs to address bi-weekly garbage concerns (2021-E07)

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.2.17   (2.14) 2020 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Inspection of the City of London Drinking Water System

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the staff report dated March 30, 2021, with respect to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Inspection of the City of London Drinking Water System, BE RECEIVED. (2021-E13)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.18   (2.17) Dundas Place - Temporary Bicycle Lanes (Relates to Bill No’s. 148 and 149)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to Temporary Bicycle Lanes on Dundas Place:

a)     Option 1, being Bi-directional Bicycle Lanes, BE FORWARDED to Municipal Council for consideration at the meeting to be held on April 13, 2021; it being noted that the draft by-law will implement this option; and,

b)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the following items, as appended to the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, were received:

  • a communication, dated March 25, 2021, from A. Walsh;

  • a communication from D. Hall, London Cycle Link; and,

  • a communication, dated March 29, 2021, from J. Cameron. (2021-T05)

At 4:56 PM, Mayor E. Holder places Deputy Mayor J. Morgan in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

At 4:57 PM, Mayor E. Holder resumes the Chair and Deputy J. Morgan takes his seat at the Council Board.

Motion made by E. Peloza

The motion to approve part a) is put:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to Temporary Bicycle Lanes on Dundas Place:

a)     Option 1, being Bi-directional Bicycle Lanes, BE FORWARDED to Municipal Council for consideration at the meeting to be held on April 13, 2021; it being noted that the draft by-law will implement this option; and,

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Squire

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the necessary by-laws to the May 4, 2021 meeting of Municipal Council to operationalize Option #3, Traffic Diversions, with respect to Dundas Place temporary bicycle lanes, with components of physical barriers being included in the plan.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Squire

The motion to approve the motion, as amended, is put.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 18 (2.17), as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to Temporary Bicycle Lanes on Dundas Place:

a)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the necessary by-laws to the May 4, 2021 meeting of Municipal Council to operationalize Option #3, Traffic Diversion, with respect to Dundas Place temporary bicycle lanes, with components of physical barriers being included in the plan; and,

b)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the following items, as appended to the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, were received:

  • a communication, dated March 25, 2021, from A. Walsh;

  • a communication from D. Hall, London Cycle Link; and,

  • a communication, dated March 29, 2021, from J. Cameron. (2021-T05)

8.2.22   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List, as at March 22, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3   5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-03-29 PEC Report - Full

At 5:28 PM, Councillor M. Salih leaves the meeting.

Motion made by P. Squire

That the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluded items 17 (3.3), 19 (3.5) and 26 (4.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by P. Squire

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 24, 2021:

a)       the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Planning Application, dated February 10, 2021, from S. Meksula, Senior Planner, related to a Draft Plan of Subdivision Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment for the properties located at 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West:

i)        the above-noted Notice BE DEFERRED to the next Trees and Forests Advisory Committee (TFAC) meeting; and,

ii)       S. Meksula, Senior Planner or delegate, BE INVITED to attend the next TFAC meeting, to give clarification and provide additional details on the above-noted Notice; and,

b)       clauses 1.1 and 1.2, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4, 5.1 to 5.4, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 2nd Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on March 3, 2021:

a)       the revised Discussion Primer for the Climate Emergency Action Plan - 2020 document, approved by the members of the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE), as appended to the ACE Report, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review; and,

b)       clauses 1.1 and 1.2, 3.1 to 3.3, inclusive, 4.1 and 5.2, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) 1st Report of the Agricultural Advisory Committee

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 17, 2021:

a)       the Urban Agricultural Steering Committee BE ADVISED that Steve Twynstra will act as the Agricultural Advisory Committee representative on the Urban Agricultural Steering Committee; and,

b)       clauses 1.1 and 1.2, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.5, inclusive, 5.2 to 5.5, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Bill 229 and Ontario’s Flooding Strategy

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and City Planner, the staff report dated March 29, 2021 entitled “Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), 2020, and Ontario’s Flooding Strategy” BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-S08/D03)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan – Loan Agreements – Delegated Authority By-laws (Relates to Bill No’s. 139 and 140)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan:

a)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 20201 as Appendix “A”, being “A by-law to approve and authorize the use of the Affordable Housing Development Loan Agreement template between The Corporation of the City of London (the “City”) and Registered Owner of a property providing affordable rental units (the “Borrower”) to provide for a loan for the creation of new affordable rental housing units and to delegate the authority to enter into such Agreements to the City Planner or delegate”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021; and,

b)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “B”, being “A by-law to approve and authorize the use of the Additional Residential Unit Loan Agreement template between The Corporation of the City of London (the “City”) and Registered Owner of a property providing affordable rental units (the “Borrower”) to provide for a loan to address affordability of home ownership and to create more long-term, stable rental housing supply to help address low rental vacancy rates, and to delegate the authority to enter into such Agreements to the City Planner or delegate”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021. (2021-S11)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) Application - 122 Base Line Road West (H-9306) (Relates to Bill No. 155)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Housing Development Limited, relating to the property located at 122 Base Line Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 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 Bonus Residential R8 (h-5 R8-3B-69) Zone TO a Bonus Residential R8 (R8-3*B-69) Zone to remove the “h-5” holding provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.7) Application - 2725 Asima Drive (33M-699, Block 53) (P-9282) (Relates to Bill No. 141)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with respect to the application by Rockwood Homes, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to exempt Block 53, Plan 33M-699 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, for a period not exceeding three (3) years. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (2.8) Application - 335 Kennington Way and 3959 Mia Avenue (33M-765, Block 1, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 and 3) (P-9304) 

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Prosperity Homes, to exempt Block 1, Plan 33M-765, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 & 3 from Part-Lot Control:

a)       pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at a future Municipal Council meeting, to exempt Block 1, Plan 33M-765, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 & 3 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act, it being noted that these lands are subject to registered subdivision agreements and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6(10)) in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, which permits street townhouses, with special provisions regulating lot frontage, front yard setback, garage front yard setback and garages shall not project beyond the façade of the dwelling or façade (front face) of any porch, and shall not occupy more than 50% of lot frontage;

b)       the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 1, Plan 33M-765, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 & 3 as noted in clause a) above:

i)        the applicant be advised that the costs of registration of the said by-laws are to be borne by the applicant in accordance with City Policy;

ii)       the applicant submit a draft reference plan to the Development Services for review and approval to ensure the proposed part lots and development plans comply with the regulations of the Zoning By-law, prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

iii)      the applicant submits to the Development Services a digital copy together with a hard copy of each reference plan to be deposited. The digital file shall be assembled in accordance with the City of London’s Digital Submission / Drafting Standards and be referenced to the City’s NAD83 UTM Control Reference;

iv)      the applicant submit each draft reference plan to London Hydro showing driveway locations and obtain approval for hydro servicing locations and above ground hydro equipment locations prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

v)       the applicant submit to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office; any revised lot grading and servicing plans in accordance with the final lot layout to divide the blocks should there be further division of property contemplated as a result of the approval of the reference plan;

vi)      the applicant shall enter into any amending subdivision agreement with the City, if necessary;

vii)     the applicant shall agree to construct all services, including private drain connections and water services, in accordance with the approved final design of the lots;

viii)     the applicant shall obtain confirmation from the Development Services that the assignment of municipal numbering has been completed in accordance with the reference plan(s) to be deposited, should there be further division of property contemplated as a result of the approval of the reference plan prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

ix)       the applicant shall obtain approval from the Development Services of each reference plan to be registered prior to the reference plan being registered in the land registry office;

x)        the applicant shall submit to the City, confirmation that an approved reference plan for final lot development has been deposited in the Land Registry Office;

xi)       the applicant shall obtain clearance from the City Engineer that requirements iv), v) and vi) inclusive, outlined above, are satisfactorily completed, prior to any issuance of building permits by the Building Controls Division for lots being developed in any future reference plan;

xii)      that on notice from the applicant that a reference plan has been registered on a Block, and that Part Lot Control be re-established by the repeal of the by-law affecting the Lots/Block in question. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (2.9) Application - 3964 Mia Avenue (33M-765, Block 2) (P-9305) 

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Prosperity Homes to exempt Block 2, Plan 33M-765 from Part-Lot Control:

a)       pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed revised by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at a future Municipal Council meeting, to exempt Block 2, Plan 33M-765 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to registered subdivision agreements and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6(10)) in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, which permits street townhouses, with special provisions regulating lot frontage, front yard setback, garage front yard setback and garages shall not project beyond the façade of the dwelling or façade (front face) of any porch, and shall not occupy more than 50% of lot frontage;

b)       the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 2, Plan 33M-765 as noted in clause a) above:

i)        the applicant be advised that the costs of registration of the said by-laws are to be borne by the applicant in accordance with City Policy;

ii)        the applicant submit a draft reference plan to the Development Services for review and approval to ensure the proposed part lots and development plans comply with the regulations of the Zoning By-law, prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

iii)       the applicant submits to the Development Services a digital copy together with a hard copy of each reference plan to be deposited. The digital file shall be assembled in accordance with the City of London’s Digital Submission / Drafting Standards and be referenced to the City’s NAD83 UTM Control Reference;

iv)       the applicant submit each draft reference plan to London Hydro showing driveway locations and obtain approval for hydro servicing locations and above ground hydro equipment locations prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

v)        the applicant submit to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office; any revised lot grading and servicing plans in accordance with the final lot layout to divide the block should there be further division of property contemplated as a result of the approval of the reference plan;

vi)        the applicant shall enter into any amending subdivision agreement with the City, if necessary;

vii)       the applicant shall agree to construct all services, including private drain connections and water services, in accordance with the approved final design of the lots;

viii)      the applicant shall obtain confirmation from the Development Services that the assignment of municipal numbering has been completed in accordance with the reference plan(s) to be deposited, should there be further division of property contemplated as a result of the approval of the reference plan prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

ix)        the applicant shall obtain approval from the Development Services of each reference plan to be registered prior to the reference plan being registered in the land registry office;

x)         the applicant shall submit to the City, confirmation that an approved reference plan for final lot development has been deposited in the Land Registry Office;

xi)        the applicant shall obtain clearance from the City Engineer that requirements iv), v) and vi) inclusive, outlined above, are satisfactorily completed, prior to any issuance of building permits by the Building Controls Division for lots being developed in any future reference plan;

xii)       that on notice from the applicant that a reference plan has been registered on a Block, and that Part Lot Control be re-established by the repeal of the bylaw affecting the Lots/Block in question. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (2.10) Application - 3087 White Oak Road, Block 73 (H-9271) (Relates to Bill No. 156)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application of Whiterock Village Inc., relating to the property located at 3112 Petty Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of 3112 Petty Road (formally known as 3087 White Oak Road) FROM a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-71h-100h-161h-227*R6-5(58)) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(58))Zone to remove the h, h-71, h-100, h-161 and h-227 holding provisions. (2021-D29)

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (2.11) Application - 3493 Colonel Talbot Road – Silverleaf Subdivision Phase 2 – Special Provisions 

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and 2219008 Ontario Limited for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot 75, West of the North Branch of the Talbot Road (Geographic Township of Westminster), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the south side of Pack Road, west of Colonel Talbot Road, municipally known as 3493 Colonel Talbot Road.

a)       the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and 2219008 Ontario Limited for the Silverleaf Subdivision, Phase 2 (39T-14504-2) appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b)       the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “B”; and,

c)       the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.(2021-D12)

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (2.12) 2021 Post-Development Environmental Impact Study Monitoring

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Development & Compliance Services and Chief Building Official, the staff report dated March 29, 2021 entitled “2021 Post-Development Environmental Impact Study Monitoring” BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed

8.3.14   (2.13) Building Division Monthly Report for January 2021

Motion made by P. Squire

That the Building Division Monthly Report for January 2021 BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-A23)

Motion Passed

8.3.15   (3.1) Downtown Community Improvement Plan - Performance Measures and Indicators of Success (O-9286) (Relates to Bill No. 142)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and City Planner, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021, as Appendix “A”, being “A by-law to amend the Downtown Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to add an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the CIP”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated March 25, 2021 from C. Butler, by email, with respect to this matter;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS encourages the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas as critical to the long-term economic prosperity of communities, and, where possible, enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets;

● the recommended amendment conforms with the Planning Act, as the loan and grant programs meet the requirements set out in Section 28 related to community improvement;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including the Key Directions, Urban Regeneration, and Community Improvement; and,

● the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan and the Downtown Community Improvement Plan. (2021-D19)

Motion Passed

8.3.16   (3.2) Old East Village Community Improvement Plan - Performance Measures and Indicators of Success (O-9285) (Relates to Bill No. 143)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and City Planner, the proposed by-law, appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021, as Appendix “A”, being “A by-law to amend the Old East Village Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to add an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the CIP”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated March 25, 2021 from C. Butler, by email, with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS encourages the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas as critical to the long-term economic prosperity of communities, and, where possible, enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets;

● the recommended amendment conforms with the Planning Act, as the loan and grant programs meet the requirements set out in Section 28 related to community improvement;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including the Key Directions, Urban Regeneration, and Community Improvement; and,

● the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan and the Old East Village Community Improvement Plan. The recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS encourages the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas as critical to the long-term economic prosperity of communities, and,

● the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan and the Old East Village Community Improvement Plan. (2021-D19)

Motion Passed

8.3.18   (3.4) Application - 1870 Aldersbrook Gate 39CD-20514 

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 1870 Aldersbrook Gate;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters. (2021-D07)

Motion Passed

8.3.20   (3.6) Application - 1153-1155 Dundas Street (O-9207 / Z-9198) (Relates to Bill No’s. 144 and 158)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 1153-1155 Dundas Street:

a)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM a Light Industrial (LI) designation TO a Main Street Commercial Corridor (MSCC) designation; and,

b)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial 2 (LI2) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)) Zone; and,

c)       it being noted that Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a staff presentation with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves these applications for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) which encourages the following: accommodating an appropriate range and mix of employment; promoting economic development and competitiveness; supporting long-term economic prosperity; promoting the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas; supporting and promoting active transportation, transit-supportive land uses; supporting energy conservation, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and climate change adaptation; supporting and promoting intensification and redevelopment to utilize existing services; and, conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes;

● the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the Main Street Commercial Corridor policies of the 1989 Official Plan;

● the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the in-force policies of the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type polices of The London Plan and implements Key Directions of the Plan;

● the adaptive re-use of the subject lands supports Council’s commitment to reducing and mitigating climate change by making efficient use of existing infrastructure, focusing intensification and growth in already-developed areas, and re-using/adapting an existing structure;

● the adaptive re-use of the existing building supports the conservation and enhancement of a listed heritage building in an area identified in Heritage Places 2.0 as having potential to be a Heritage District; and,

● the subject lands are an appropriate location for a mixed-use development. The recommended amendments are consistent with and appropriate for the site and context and will support with developing opportunities for cultural and economic activity both on the site and in the area and will provide a transit-supportive development. (2021-D08)

Motion Passed

8.3.21   (3.7) Temporary Outdoor Patio Expansion (Z-9300) (Relates to Bill No. 159)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and City Planner, based on the application by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to seasonal outdoor patios, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend the Zoning By-law Z.-1 to add regulations related to Seasonal Outdoor Patios;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated March 23, 2021 from D. Szpakowski, CEO & General Manager, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association, with respect to this matter;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas as critical to the long-term economic prosperity of communities;

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the 1989 Official Plan, which encourages the management of land and resources to promote economic development; and,

● the recommended amendment is consistent with The London Plan, which encourages economic revitalization and enhancing the business attraction potential of urban main streets. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.22   (3.8) Application - 1478 Westdel Bourne 39T-20503 (Z-9278) (Relates to Bill No. 160)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Townline Orchard Property Ltd., relating to the lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne:

a)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve UR3 Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 (h-R1-4) Zone; a Holding Residential R1 (h-R1-5) Zone; a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision / Residential R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-209-R6-5( )/R8-4( )) Zone; a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision / Residential R5 Special Provision / Residential R6 Special Provision / Residential R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-209-R4-6(11)/R5-7(9)/R6-5(61)/R8-3(5)) Zone; and an Open Space OS1 Zone;

b)       the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Townline Orchard Property Ltd. relating to the lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne:

i)        traffic control,

ii)       noise and lighting concerns;

c)       the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision as submitted by Townline Orchard Property Ltd., prepared by Stantec (Project No. 161413921 Drawing No. 1), certified by Robert Wood O.L.S., dated October 13, 2020, as red-line revised, which shows a total of 39 low density residential single detached lots, 2 medium density residential blocks, 1 future development block, 1 park block, 1 road widening block, and 2 reserve blocks, served by 2 new streets being the extensions of Fountain Grass Drive and Upper West Avenue, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix “B” appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated March 25, 2021 from H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, as it achieves objectives for efficient and resilient development and land use patterns. It represents development of low and medium density forms of housing, including single detached dwelling lots, townhouse and cluster forms of housing, and low-rise apartment buildings taking place within the City’s urban growth area and within an area for which a secondary plan has been approved to guide future community development. It also achieves objectives for promoting compact form, contributes to the neighbourhood mix of housing and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities, supports the use of public transit, and increases community connectivity;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential, Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential, and Open Space designations;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the Riverbend South Secondary Plan, its vision and its principles of connecting the community (through a multi-use pathway, pedestrian connections and street network), providing a range of residential housing types and densities (from single detached dwellings to townhouses and low-rise apartment buildings), promoting healthy living and active transportation (neighbourhood park for passive recreation and a highly connected cycling and pedestrian network), and promoting environmental sustainability (diversity of uses, density and street pattern to facilitate viable public transit); and,

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning represents the third and final phase of the Riverbend South community. In terms of use, form and intensity the proposed subdivision plan is considered appropriate and consistent with the Council-approved plan for guiding community development. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.23   (3.9) 3080 Bostwick Road - 39T-18502 (Z-8931) (Relates to Bill No. 161)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 731675 Ontario Limited (York Developments Inc.), relating to the lands located at 3080 Bostwick Road:

a)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix ‘A’, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve UR4 Zone and an Environmental Review ER Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Bonus (h-h-100-h-221-h-222-R9-7-B-( )-H45) Zone; a Holding Residential R9 Bonus (h-h-100-h-221-h-222-R9-7-B-( )-H45) Zone; an Open Space OS2 Zone; an Open Space OS4 Zone; and an Urban Reserve UR Special Provision (UR4( )) Zone;

the Bonus Zone applying to Block 2 in the proposed plan of subdivision shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a 189 unit residential apartment building with a maximum height of 18 storeys, and sixteen (16) stacked townhouse dwelling units with a maximum height of 15 metres, and a maximum overall density of 205 units per hectare, which generally implements in principle the site concept and elevation plans appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law, with further refinements to occur through the site plan approval process, in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

i)       high quality architectural design (building/landscaping) including a common design theme applied to street boulevards. Design elements are to have regard for the Urban Design Guidelines prepared for 3080 Bostwick Road;

ii)      underground parking to reduce surface parking requirements. Surface parking spaces are to be largely dedicated for visitor parking;

iii)     large caliper boulevard tree planting with a minimum 100 mm caliper and a minimum distance of 10 m between tree planting for the extent of the site frontage for Bostwick Road and both sides of Street A as early as site construction allows;

iv)     construction of one accessible electric vehicle charging station located on the Bostwick Community Centre lands or in a publically accessible location of Block 2;

v)      construction of one transit shelter along the Bostwick Road frontage, or the commensurate financial equivalent for the feature;

vi)     construction of ten (10) publicly accessible bicycle share facilities/spaces;

the Bonus Zone applying to Block 6 in the proposed plan of subdivision shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of two (2) residential apartment buildings having a total of 387 dwelling units, with a maximum height of 17 storeys, and a maximum density of 320 units per hectare, which generally implements in principle the site concept and elevation plans attached as Schedule “2” to the amending by-law, with further refinements to occur through the site plan approval process, in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

A)       Provision of Affordable Housing

i)        the affordable housing shall consist of a total of thirty (30) rental apartment dwelling units, which shall include nineteen (19) one-bedroom units and eleven (11) two-bedroom units;

ii)        rents shall be set at 85% of the CMHC Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London CMA at the time of occupancy;

iii)       the period of affordability will be identified as being thirty (30) years from the point of initial occupancy;

iv)       the Proponent shall enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement (TPA) with the City of London to align the nineteen (19) one-bedroom units and eleven (11) two-bedroom units with priority populations;

v)        these conditions shall be secured through an agreement registered on title with associated compliance requirements and remedies;

B)        high quality architectural design (building/landscaping) including a common design theme applied to street boulevards. Design elements are to have regard for the Urban Design Guidelines prepared for 3080 Bostwick Road. Underground parking to reduce surface parking requirements;

b)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting held with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Townline Orchard Property Ltd. relating to the lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne;

c)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision relating to the lands located at 3080 Bostwick Road as submitted by 731675 Ontario Limited (York Developments Inc.), prepared by MHBC Planning (File No. 1094 ’B’ Drawing No. 1 of 1), certified by Terry Dietz O.L.S., dated July 25, 2018 and updated March 27, 2020, as red-line revised, which shows 2 multi-residential development blocks, 1 park block, 1 open space block, 1 walkway block, 5 road widening blocks, and 1 reserve block, served by 3 new streets; SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix “B” appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, as it achieves objectives for efficient and resilient development and land use patterns. It represents development taking place within the City’s urban growth area and within an area for which a secondary plan has been approved to guide future community development. It also achieves objectives for promoting compact form, contributes to the neighbourhood mix of housing and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities, supports the use of public transit, and increases community connectivity;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, High Density Residential and Open Space designations;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, and the intent, purpose and function for high intensity, transit oriented forms of development within the Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood; and,

● the provision of facilities and matters in consideration of the proposed height and density bonus are considered reasonable, result in a benefit to the general public and/or an enhancement of the design of the development, and are considered warranted. The height and density bonuses received will not result in a scale of development that is incompatible with adjacent uses or exceeds the capacity of available municipal services. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.24   (3.10) 611-615 Third Street (Z-9268) (Relates to Bill No. 162)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Prince Antony, relating to the property located at 611-615 Third Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Facility (NF) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (R8-4()*B-) Zone;

the Bonus Zone shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high quality residential apartment building, with a maximum height of 4-storeys, 20 dwelling units and a maximum density of 96 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan and Elevations appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

i)        Provision of Affordable Housing

The affordable housing shall consist of:

i)        a total of three (3), three-bedroom units and one (1), one-bedroom unit, including one (1) accessible three-bedroom unit and one (1) accessible one-bedroom unit;

ii)       rents for the three (3), three-bedroom units and one (1), one bedroom unit be set at 80% of the CMHC Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London CMA at the time of occupancy;

iii)      that the period of affordability be identified as being thirty (30) years from the point of initial occupancy; and,

iv)      that the Proponent enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement (TPA) with the City of London to align the three (3), three-bedroom units and one (1), one-bedroom unit with priority populations;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation and Near-Campus Neighbourhoods; and,

● the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.25   (3.11) Masonville Draft Secondary Plan (O-8991) 

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, the draft Masonville Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the draft Masonville Secondary Plan will serve as the basis for further consultation with the community and stakeholders, and that the feedback received through this consultation process and the outcomes of supporting studies will result in a revised Masonville Secondary Plan and implementing Official Plan Amendment that will be considered at a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

● a communication dated March 23, 2021 from R. MacFarlane, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Rock Developments;

● a communication dated March 24, 2021 from R. MacFarlane, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Choice Properties; and,

● the staff presentation;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters. (2021-D08)

Motion Passed

8.3.27   (4.2) 2nd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 18, 2021:

a)       the 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West Working Group comments, appended to the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b)       the Victoria on the River, Phase 6 (1934 Commissioners Road East) Working Group comments, appended to the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

c)       the 435-451 Ridout Street Working Group comments, appended to the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

d)       the following actions be taken with respect to the Kelly Stanton Environmentally Significant Area Ecological Restoration Plan Working Group comments:

i)        the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) commends both the City of London and the report authors for their liaising with and involvement of local naturalists in the initial field work and community groups as part of follow-up plans; and,

ii)        the Working Group comments, appended to the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

e)        a Working Group BE ESTABLISHED consisting of R. Trudeau (lead), L. Banks and S. Levin, with respect to the properties located at 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road; it being noted that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee reviewed and received a Notice of Draft Plan of Subdivision Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment dated March 10, 2021 from M. Corby, Senior Planner and the associated Environmental Impact Study;

f)         the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee is supportive of the revised, Medway Valley Conservation Master Plan Phase 2 mapping, as appended to the EEPAC Report; and,

g)        clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.3, inclusive, 4.4, 5.2 and 5.5, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

At 5:29 PM, Councillor M. Salih enters the meeting.

8.3.17   (3.3) Application - 1414 Dundas Street (Z-9276) (Relates to Bill No. 157)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Humane Society London & Middlesex, relating to the property located at 1414 Dundas Street:

a)       the request to amend Zoning-By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Commercial Recreation (CR) Zone and a Regional Facility (RF) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial (RSC2) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)        the site layout depicting a surface parking lot between the proposed building and the treed allée, does not conform to the form and urban design policies found within the Council approved London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan (LPHSP);

b)       the proposed revised, by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2020 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (1989), the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan and The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Commercial Recreation (CR) Zone and a Regional Facility (RF) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC2(_)) Zone; it being noted that the revised by-law will provide for parking to be permitted between the treed allée and any building and the provision of a 10.0 metre wide landscaped buffer;

it being noted that the following heritage mitigation measures and recommendations were raised during the application review process:

i)         landscaping treatments be implemented for areas between the treed allée and the building to minimize impacts;

ii)        further consideration to enhance the gateway function of the treed allée where it intersects with Dundas Street by the Humane Society London & Middlesex;

iii)        vehicular access routes to the new Humane Society London & Middlesex facility should be sensitively planned to protect the treed allée; and,

iv)        staging and construction activities should be planned to ensure protection of all trees which form the treed allée and appropriate tree preservation measures are in place to that the root systems are fully avoided within the tree protection area;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a staff presentation with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

c)        pursuant to section 34(17) of the Planning Act, RSO, 1990, c.P. 13, the Municipal Council DETERMINES that no further public notice is to be given with respect to this application as the changes to the proposed by-law are minor in nature;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) which direct municipalities to ensure development provides healthy, liveable and safe communities, and encourages settlement areas to be the main focus of growth and development to provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands Secondary Plan that promotes the evolution of the area incorporating elements of sustainability, mixed-use development, heritage conservation, walkability and high quality urban design;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to, Our City, Key Directions, and City Building, and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the objectives of the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands Secondary Plan policies which encourages redevelopment in this specific Transit Oriented Corridor;

● the recommended amendment will facilitate an enhanced form of development in accordance with the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands Secondary Plan Urban Design policies;

● the recommended amendment is appropriate for the site and surrounding context and will assist with the revitalization of a portion of the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands; and,

● the recommended amendment to the Zoning By-law with special provisions will provide for an appropriate development of the site. (2021-D09)

Motion made by S. Turner

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Item 17 (3.3) regarding the application related to 1414 Dundas Street BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to continue to work with the applicant to address various concerns that have been raised, including parking and the landscaped buffer.

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Item 17 (3.3) BE AMENDED by adding the following to part b):

The amount of surface parking between the treed allée and the proposed building be minimized as much as possible, through consideration of relocating some of the proposed parking towards the rear of the site.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Squire

That Item 17 (3.3), as amended BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Item 17 (3.3), as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Humane Society London & Middlesex, relating to the property located at 1414 Dundas Street:

a)       the request to amend Zoning-By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Commercial Recreation (CR) Zone and a Regional Facility (RF) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial (RSC2) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)        the site layout depicting a surface parking lot between the proposed building and the treed allée, does not conform to the form and urban design policies found within the Council approved London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan (LPHSP);

b)       the proposed revised, attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2020 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (1989), the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan and The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Commercial Recreation (CR) Zone and a Regional Facility (RF) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC2(_)) Zone; it being noted that the revised by-law will provide for parking to be permitted between the treed allée and any building and the provision of a 10.0 metre wide landscaped buffer;

c)       the Site Plan Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following heritage mitigation measures and recommendations during the Site Plan Review process:

i)        landscaping treatments be implemented for areas between the treed allée and the building to minimize impacts;

ii)       further consideration to enhance the gateway function of the treed allée where it intersects with Dundas Street by the Humane Society London & Middlesex;

iii)       the amount of surface parking between the treed allée and the proposed building be minimized as much as possible, through consideration of relocating some of the proposed parking towards the rear of the site;

iv)       vehicular access routes to the new Humane Society London & Middlesex facility should be sensitively planned to protect the treed allée; and,

v)        staging and construction activities should be planned to ensure protection of all trees which form the treed allée and appropriate tree preservation measures are in place to that the root systems are fully avoided within the tree protection area;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a staff presentation with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the  public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters; and,

d)        pursuant to section 34(17) of the Planning Act, RSO, 1990, c.P. 13, the Municipal Council DETERMINES that no further public notice is to be given with respect to this application as the changes to the proposed by-law are minor in nature;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) which direct municipalities to ensure development provides healthy, liveable and safe communities, and encourages settlement areas to be the main focus of growth and development to provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands Secondary Plan that promotes the evolution of the area incorporating elements of sustainability, mixed-use development, heritage conservation, walkability and high quality urban design;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to, Our City, Key Directions, and City Building, and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the objectives of the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands Secondary Plan policies which encourages redevelopment in this specific Transit Oriented Corridor;

● the recommended amendment will facilitate an enhanced form of development in accordance with the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands Secondary Plan Urban Design policies;

● the recommended amendment is appropriate for the site and surrounding context and will assist with the revitalization of a portion of the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands; and,

● the recommended amendment to the Zoning By-law with special provisions will provide for an appropriate development of the site. (2021-D09)

8.3.19   (3.5) Application - 101 Meadowlily Road South 39CD-20502 (OZ-9192)

At 6:41 PM, Mayor E. Holder places Deputy Mayor J. Morgan in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

At 6:44 PM, Mayor E. Holder resumes the Chair and Deputy Mayor J. Morgan takes his seat at the Council Board.

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2690015 Ontario Inc. relating to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South:

a)       the application to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve Community Growth designation, TO a Low Density Residential designation and Open Space designation, BE REFUSED;

b)       the application to amend The London Plan to change the Place Type on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Neighbourhood Place Type, TO a Green Space Place Type, BE REFUSED;

c)       the application 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 subject property FROM a Holding Urban Reserve (h-2*UR1) Zone, TO a Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-5(_)) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone, BE REFUSED;

d)       the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South;

i)        increased traffic on Meadowlily Road South and lack of street parking;

ii)       design and spacing of the units;

iii)       minimal buffering on the east and west side of the area facing Meadowlily Road South and Highbury Woods;

e)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South:

i)         lack of bird-friendly lighting approaches in the design;

f)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) with any recommendation and continue to consult with the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) on HIA matters;

it being noted that the Municipal Council refuses these applications for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;

  • the proposed amendment does not conform to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential and Open Space policies;

  • the proposed amendment does not conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhood Place Type and Green Space policies.

  • the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium application is not considered appropriate and does not conform with The London Plan and the (1989) Official Plan as recommended and is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

● a presentation from S. Shannon, Dillon Consulting;

● a communication dated March 16, 2021 from N.J. Small, by e-mail;

● a communication from Lorraine, by e-mail;

● a communication from S. Nichols, by e-mail;

● a communication from E. Sweitzer, by e-mail;

● a communication dated March 21, 2021 from G. Smith and S. High, 141 Meadowlily Road South;

● a communication dated March 14, 2021 from A. Swan, by e-mail;

● the staff presentation; and,

● a communication dated March 26, 2021 from D. Koscinski, Acting Executive Director, Thames Talbot Land Trust;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters. (2021-D08)

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Turner

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2690015 Ontario Inc. relating to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South:

a)       the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 13, 2021 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve Community Growth designation, TO a Low Density Residential designation and Open Space designation;

b)       the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 13, 2021 to amend The London Plan to change the Place Type on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Neighbourhood Place Type, TO a Green Space Place Type; it being noted the amendments will come into full force and effect concurrently with Map 1 and Map 7 of The London Plan;

c)       the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 13, 2020 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 subject property FROM a Holding Urban Reserve (h-2*UR1) Zone, TO a Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-5(_)) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone;

d)       the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South;

i)        increased traffic on Meadowlily Road South and lack of street parking;

ii)       design and spacing of the units;

iii)      minimal buffering on the east and west side of the area facing Meadowlily Road South and Highbury Woods;

e)       the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South:

i)        lack of bird-friendly lighting approaches in the design;

f)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) with any recommendation and continue to consult with the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) on HIA matters;

it being noted that the Municipal Council approves these applications for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;

  • the proposed amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential and Open Space policies;

  • the proposed amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhood Place Type and Green Space policies.

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized property and encourages an appropriate form of development;

  • the subject lands are located in close proximity to arterial roads, surrounding services and access to the Meadowlily Trail and Thames Valley Parkway which provides pedestrian movements from East London to the City core;

  • the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium application is considered appropriate and in conformity with The London Plan and the (1989) Official Plan as recommended and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;

  • the proposed residential use is also consistent and permitted under the subject recommended Zoning By-law amendment application. Application for Site Plan Approval has also been reviewed and has advanced to the drawing acceptance stage.

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

● a presentation from S. Shannon, Dillon Consulting;

● a communication dated March 16, 2021 from N.J. Small, by e-mail;

● a communication from Lorraine, by e-mail;

● a communication from S. Nichols, by e-mail;

● a communication from E. Sweitzer, by e-mail;

● a communication dated March 21, 2021 from G. Smith and S. High, 141 Meadowlily Road South;

● a communication dated March 14, 2021 from A. Swan, by e-mail;

● the staff presentation; and,

● a communication dated March 26, 2021 from D. Koscinski, Acting Executive Director, Thames Talbot Land Trust;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters. (2021-D08)

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.3.26   (4.1) 3rd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on March 10, 2021:

a)      the following actions be taken with respect to the 101 Meadowlily Road South Working Group Report, from its meeting held on February 23, 2021 related to the Revised Notice of Application, dated December 17, 2020, from M. Corby, Senior Planner, with respect to a Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South:

i)       the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), dated December 13, 2019, from T. Dingman BE RECEIVED and the recommendations, contained therein, BE ACCEPTED;

ii)      the revised Conceptual Development Plan, dated November 11, 2020, from Dillon Consulting, as appended to the London Advisory Committee on Heritage Report, BE RECEIVED and the revisions made in keeping with the mitigation measures in the HIA BE SUPPORTED as follows:

● removal of all direct access from Meadowlily Road from the townhouse blocks;

● a minimum of 6 metre setbacks from the road widening, together with internal block in front of townhouse blocks, on the west side of Meadowlily Road; and,

● a maximum building height of 2.5 metres;

iii)     the following matters BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for further review during the Site Plan Approval process:

● a Landscape Plan for a naturalized buffer to be located on the proposed block within the condominium plan on the west side of Meadowlily Road;

● entrance feature design and location; and,

● fencing, walls and stormwater facilities, if any, along the west side of Meadowlily Road;

iv)      the developer BE ENCOURAGED to revisit the townhouse block elevation for the units facing Meadowlily Road in order to achieve a design more harmonious with the rural setting as recommended by the HIA; it being noted that this appears to have been achieved by the conceptual elevation facing Meadowlily Road for the single units (units 1 and 36);

v)      the above-noted Working Group Report BE FORWARDED to M. Corby, Senior Planner; and,

vi)     the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) on future approvals for this matter and to consult with the LACH on HIA related matters;

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by E. Peloza

The motion to approve Item 26 (4.1), as amended is put.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Turner

That the Council recess until 7:15 PM.

Motion Passed

The Council recessed at 6:54 PM, and resumed at 7:18 PM.

8.4   6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee Report

2021-03-30 CPSC Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 2 (2.1), 7 (2.6), 8 (2.7), and 15 (4.5).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 7:20 PM, Mayor E. Holder places Deputy Mayor J Morgan in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

At 7:25 PM, Mayor E. Holder resumes the Chair and Deputy Mayor J. Morgan takes his seat at the Council Board.

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Helmer

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 4.5 of the 6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with the Capital and Operational Needs of Municipal Golf Courses in London, by indicating that his father is employed by the National Golf Course Owners Association.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) 1st Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that the 1st Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 25, 2021, was received.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) Homeless Prevention COVID-19 Response April to June Extension - Single Source Procurement (#SS21-15)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Managing Director of Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, with the concurrence of the Director, Financial Services, that the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021 related to the Homeless Prevention COVID-19 Response April to June Extension Single Source Procurement SS21-15:

a)     single source procurements BE APPROVED, with existing agreements, with various hotels and motels within the City of London at a total estimated cost of $685,000 (excluding HST) for a period between April 15, 2021 to June 30, 2021, with two (2) one (1) month options to extend, subject to funding, in accordance with section 14.4d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)     single source procurements with Impact London, Canadian Mental Health Association Elgin-Middlesex, Atlohsa Family Healing Services, and Mission Services of London BE APPROVED for isolation space, monitoring space and social distancing space staffing support with a total estimated cost of $550,000 for a period between April 15, 2021 to June 30, 2021, with two (2) one (1) month options to extend, subject to funding, in accordance with section 14.4e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)     single source procurement BE APPROVED for The Salvation Army to provide meals to various hotels and motels within the City of London with a total estimated cost of $82,500 for the period between April 15, 2021 to June 30, 2021, with two (2) one (1) month options to extend, subject to funding, in accordance with section 14.4 e) of the Procurement of Goods and Service Policy; and,

d)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take all necessary steps to allocate funding to extend the Homeless Prevention COVID-19 Response by continuing to fund the operation of the isolation Space, monitoring Space and social distancing space, and continuing staffing support by Impact London, Canadian Mental Health Association Elgin-Middlesex, Atlohsa Family Healing Services, and Mission Services of London until June 30, 2021. (2021-S08/S14)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) Proposed Implementation of the Giwetashkad Indigenous Homelessness Strategic Plan

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Managing Director, Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, related to the Proposed Implementation of the Giwetashkad Indigenous Homelessness Strategic Plan:

a)     the proposed Giwetashkad Indigenous Homelessness Strategic Plan, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE ENDORSED and BE APPROVED for implementation, in principle;

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary to seek sources of funding from federal and provincial funding Partners to support the implementation of the Giwetashkad Indigenous Homelessness Strategic Plan, including supporting the City of London in accessing new funding by becoming a designated Indigenous Community Entity for Indigenous homelessness under the Reaching Home federal funding program;

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary to return to the appropriate standing committee with a financial plan for any available municipal funding to support the Giwetashkad Indigenous Homelessness Strategic Plan; and,

d)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary to fulfill the submitted business case, including supporting Atlohsa Family Healing Services in acquiring an appropriate location for an Indigenous Housing Hub, with the advice and support of Realty Services. (2021-S14)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.5) Single Source SS21-12 - Architect to act as Prime Consultant for Dearness Home Auditorium Expansion

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Managing Director, Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, and the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021 related to Single Source SS21-12 for an Architect to Act as Prime Consultant for the Dearness Home Auditorium Expansion:

a)     the fee proposal submitted by MMMC Architects, 127 Brant Ave. Brantford, ON, N3T 3H5, for the provision of Consulting Services for the Dearness Home Auditorium Expansion in the amount of $211,000 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 14.4 (d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy BE ACCEPTED;

b)     the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with this project;

d)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract, statement of work or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-S02)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.8) Invasive Species Management Update and Funding Plan

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Parks and Recreation the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021 related to an Invasive Species Management Update and Funding Plan:

a)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)     the financing for the continuation of the invasive species management program in 2021 BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a budget amendment case during the 2022 Annual Budget Update to establish funding from 2022 to 2024 for the further continuation of the invasive species management program;

it being noted that a communication, dated March 25, 2021, from S. Levin, Nature London, with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-E18)

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (3.1) London’s Housing First Emergency Youth Shelter

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the verbal delegation from T. Gillis, S. Cordes and M. Doucet, Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU), with respect to an update on the funding awarded to YOU in 2017 and the Housing First Emergency Youth Shelter, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (4.1) Update on Housing Issues from Mission Services of London

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to a request for delegation status from P. Rozeluk, Mission Services of London, related to an update on housing issues:

a)     the above-noted request for delegation BE APPROVED; and,

b)     the verbal delegation, the communication dated February 25, 2021, and the presentation, as appended to the Agenda, from P. Rozeluk, BE RECEIVED. (2021-S14)

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (4.2) 2nd Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 25, 2021:

a)     the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to undertake a review of City of London planning related documents and by-laws, in particular the City’s Zoning By-law, to ensure that terminology used in the documents is reflective of current language and terminology related to accessibility; and,

b)     clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.6 and 5.1, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (4.3) 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 4, 2021:

a)     the revised “Recommendation to promote the Trap, Spay, Neuter and Release Program” BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for implementation or action, where appropriate; and,

b)     clauses 1.1 and 3.1, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.14   (4.4) Affordable Housing Units in London

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the creation of affordable housing units in London:

a)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to expedite the development of needed 3,000 affordable housing units as set out in “Housing Stability Action Plan” (HSAP) to be in place in five years, instead of ten years as set out in the Plan; and,

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with an implementation plan, inclusive of financial impacts, that sets out the best supports for the development of affordable housing units;

it being noted that a communication from Mayor E. Holder, with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-S14)

Motion Passed

8.4.16   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at March 22, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Childcare Advisory Committee

At 7:26 PM, Councillor P. Squire leaves the meeting.

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that the 1st Report of the Childcare Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on February 22, 2021, was received.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.4.7   (2.6) Application to UNESCO for London to be Designated a “UNESCO City of Music”

At 7:28 PM, Councillor P. Squire enters the meeting.

At 7:30 PM, Mayor E. Holder places Deputy Mayor J. Morgan in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

At 7:32 PM, Mayor E. Holder resumes the Chair and Deputy Mayor J. Morgan takes his seat at the Council Board.

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Parks and Recreation, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 30, 2021 related to an Application to UNESCO for London to be designated a “UNESCO City of Music”:

a)     the above-noted initiative BE APPROVED;

b)     the Mayor BE DIRECTED to provide the required letter of formal introduction and support of the application, on behalf of the Municipal Council; and,

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the application process with respect to this matter. (2021-R08/M18)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.8   (2.7) Film Update - Moving Forward (Relates to Bill No. 137) 

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Parks and Recreation, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 30, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to:

a)     authorize and approve the Amending Agreement to the 2020 Purchase of Service Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, entered into between The Corporation of the City of London and the London Economic Development Corporation; and,

b)     authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Amending Agreement. (2021-R08/M18)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.4.15   (4.5) Capital and Operational Needs of Municipal Golf Courses in London

Motion made by S. Hillier

That the communication from Councillor M. van Holst, as appended to the agenda, with respect to the capital and operational needs of municipal golf courses in London, BE RECEIVED.  (2021-R05D)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Item 15 (4.5) BE AMENDED by adding the following:

That, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with a plan to address both the capital and operational needs of municipal golf courses in London.

Motion Failed (3 to 11)

Motion made by S. Hillier

The motion to receive the communication is put.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5   7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2021-04-06 SPPC Report 7

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 7 (4.3) and 8 (4.4).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 7:53 PM, Mayor E. Holder places Deputy Mayor J. Morgan in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

At 7:56 PM, Mayor E. Holder resumes the Chair and Deputy Mayor J. Morgan takes his seat at the Council Board.

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in item 4.3, having to do with a request for research on the effects of public health restrictions in London during the COVID emergency, by indicating that he is an employee of the Middlesex London Health Unit.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.2) London Community Recovery Network – Current Status and Next Steps

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken regarding the London Community Recovery Network (LCRN):

a)      the approach to develop a community recovery framework through the continued efforts of the London Community Recovery Network BE ENDORSED;

b)      the Civic Administration INVITE community partners to bring forward business cases relating to Ideas for Action identified in the January 12, 2021 meeting of City Council that seek funding from the City of London to the May 18, 2021 Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for decision; and,

c)      the staff report titled London Community Recovery Network – Current Status and Next Steps BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.3) London and Middlesex Community Housing Inc. Meeting of the Shareholder - Resolutions Regarding Board Composition (Relates to Bill No. 138)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.:

a)      the “Terms of Reference Board of Directors London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.” as appended to the staff report dated April 6, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE ADOPTED;

b)      the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 6, 2021 as Appendix “B” being “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Special Resolution to the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. to provide for a new Board composition”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on April 13, 2021;

c)      the proposed “Recruitment Process for Director Appointments”, as appended to the staff report dated April 6, 2021 as Appendix “C”, BE ADOPTED; and,

d)      two (2) members of the Interim Board of Directors BE APPOINTED as Directors for a period not to exceed one year to provide for support for board and organizational continuity, stability, and knowledge transfer.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.1) London Small Business Centre – Board Governance Structure Updates

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, and as requested by the Small Business Centre, Councillors S. Hillier and P. Van Meerbergen BE APPOINTED to the Small Business Centre for a special meeting (date to be determined) to undertake the actions required to amend the governance structure of the Small Business Centre; it being noted that the actions required are described in the correspondence from the Small Business Centre as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (4.1) Nomination of a New Budget Chair

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Councillor E. Peloza BE APPOINTED as the Council lead for the Budget process, acting as Budget Chair with duties including coordination of all Budget activities with the Civic Administration and the Chairing of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meetings where discussion and consideration of the Budget takes place.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.2) Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Membership

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the current membership of the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority allocating one (1) member each to the Municipality of Central Elgin, the Municipality of Middlesex Centre, the Municipality of Thames Centre, the Township of Malahide, and the Township of Southwold; and two (2) members to the City of St. Thomas and three (3) members to the City of London be maintained; and further the membership of the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority be re-evaluated based on population data available prior to member appointments following the municipal elections in 2022.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (4.3) Request for Research on the Effects of Public Health Restrictions in London

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication dated March 29, 2021 from Councillor M. van Holst with respect to a request for research related to the effects of COVID on the local citizens and economy, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.5.8   (4.4) Operation of City Council

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the Governance Working Group BE DIRECTED to consider, in consultation with the Civic Administration, how the operations of council may be changed to potentially realize efficiencies in line with the corporate reorganization, while better serving London, including but not limited to: hours of council and standing committee meetings, standing committee structure, expense accounts, and support staff; it being noted that all Members of Council are encouraged to submit ideas for consideration.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No’.s 134 to 147, inclusive, 150 to 162, excluding Bill No. 157 and 164 to 168, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Second Reading of Bill No’.s 134 to 147, inclusive, 150 to 162, excluding Bill No. 157 and 164 to 168, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Turner

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No’.s 134 to 147, inclusive, 150 to 162, excluding Bill No. 157 and 164 to 168, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 157 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Second Reading of Bill No. 157 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 157 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

At 8:09 PM, Councillor S. Salih, leaves the meeting.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Council rise and go into Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

4.1     Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/5/CSC)

4.2     Land Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/5/CSC)

4.3     Land Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/5/CSC)

4.4     Land Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.4/5/CSC)

4.5     Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individual with respect to employment-related matters, advice which is subject to solicitor-client privilege and advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.5/5/CSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council convenes, In Closed Session at 8:10 PM, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair and all Member participating, except Councillor M. Salih.

At 8:29 PM, Council resumes into public session, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair and all Members participating, except Councillor M. Salih.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   6th Report of Council in Closed Session

At 8:41 PM, Councillors M. van Holst and S. Hillier leave the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Morgan

1.      Property Acquisition - 4545 Scotland Drive – Wonderland Road Improvements Project, Phase l Settlement Agreement

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, with the concurrence of the Director, Roads and Transportation, on the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 4545 Scotland Road, further described as Part Lots 23 and 24, Concession 6, Geographic Township of Westminster, designated as Part 1 on PLAN ER 1060851, being all of PIN 08207-0186 (LT), containing an area of approximately 1.551 acres, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wonderland Road Improvements Project, Phase I, between Highway 401 and Highway 402, the following actions be taken

a)      the Settlement Agreement submitted by London Gateway Development Corporation (the “Expropriated Owner”), for a full and final settlement for land taken by the City through expropriation, for the sum of $402,500.00, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Settlement Agreement attached as Appendix “C,” BE ACCEPTED; and,

b)       the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed (9 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Morgan

2.      Sale of City-Owned Property – Tender 21-25 - 3047 White Oak Road

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, on the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned surplus land located on west side of White Oak Road, containing an area of approximately 0.39 acres and legally described as Part Lots 4 and 5, Plan 643, as in 302417, being all of PIN 08209-0084 (LT) in the City of London, County of Middlesex, as outlined on the location map attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”) submitted in the Request for Tender 21-25 which is attached as Appendix “B”, as submitted by Maged Eissa, in trust for a company to be incorporated under his full control c/o Incon Industrial Limited (the “Successful Bidder”), to purchase the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $150,000.00, BE ACCEPTED subject to the terms and conditions set out in the above-noted Agreement.

3.      Offer to Purchase Industrial Land - 2030830 Ontario Limited - Skyway Industrial Park

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, on the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Skyway Industrial Park, containing an area of approximately 4.7 acres, on the west side of Robin’s Hill Road, being composed of Part Block 3, Plan 33M-615, designated as Parts 9,10,11,12,13 and 14, Plan 33R-20724, being all of PIN 08151-0265 (LT), as outlined in red on the location map attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by 2030830 Ontario Limited (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 4.7 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $329,000.00, reflecting a sale price of $70,000.00 per acre, BE ACCEPTED subject to the terms and conditions set out in the above-noted Agreement.

4.      Offer to Purchase Industrial Land - Bosco and Roxy’s Inc. - Innovation Park, Phase III

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, on the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Innovation Park, Phase III, containing an area of approximately 8 acres, on the south side of Discovery Drive, more specifically described as part of Block 2, Plan 33M-627, being Part of PIN 08197-0209 (LT), as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Bosco and Roxy’s Inc. (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 8 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $465,280.00, reflecting a sale price of $58,160.00 per acre, BE ACCEPTED subject to the conditions and terms set out in the above-noted Agreement.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

9.2   (ADDED) 6th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-04-12 Special CSC Report 6

At 8:46 PM, Councillor P. Squire leaves the meeting.

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 6th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

  1. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

Motion made by J. Morgan

  1. (4.1) 2021 Debenture Issuance Report #2

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2021 Debenture Issuance:

a)      the issuance of serial debentures for a total of $23,000,000 BE APPROVED, noting the average all-in rate is 1.819% over a 10-year term; and,

b)      the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 12, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 13, 2021 to authorize the borrowing upon serial debentures in the aggregate principal amount of $23,000,000 towards the cost of certain capital works of the Corporation of the City of London.

Motion Passed

At 8:47 PM, Councillor P. Squire enters the meeting.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No’.s 173 to 175 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Second Reading of Added Bill No’.s 173 to 175 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by P. Squire

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No’.s 173 to 175 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No’.s 133 and ADDED Bill No.’s 163, 169 to 172, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No’.s 133 and ADDED Bill No.’s 163, 169 to 172 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No’.s. 133 and ADDED Bill No.’s 163, 169 to 172 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

The following are By-laws of The Corporation of the City of London:

Bill

By-law

Bill No. 133

By-law No. A.-8080-100 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 13th day of April, 2021. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 134

By-law No. A.-8081-101 - A by-law to approve and authorize the execution of Transfer Payment Agreement for the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP): Public Transit Stream between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, represented by the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario and The Corporation of the City of London. (2.3/5/CWC)

Bill No. 135

By-law No. A.-8082-102 - A by-law to approve and authorize the Subway Construction Agreement between Canadian Pacific Railway Company and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Road Authority”) for the construction of the Adelaide Street Subway located at approximately Mile 113.73 of the Galt Subdivision, Ontario to be installed by the Adelaide Underpass Project. (2.11a/5/CWC)

Bill No. 136

By-law No. A.-8083-103 - A by-law to approve and authorize the Crossing and Maintenance Agreement between Canadian Pacific Railway Company (“CP”) and The Corporation of the City of London (the “City”) for the crossing and maintenance of the Adelaide Street Subway located at approximately Mile 113.73 of the Galt Subdivision, Ontario to be installed by the Adelaide Underpass Project. (2.11b/5/CWC)

Bill No. 137

By-law No. A.-8084-104 - A by-law to approve the Amending Agreement to the January 1st 2020 Purchase of Service Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and London Economic Development Corporation; and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Amending Agreement (2.7/6/CPSC)

Bill No. 138

By-law No. A.-8085-105 - A by-law to ratify and confirm the Special Resolution to the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.to provide for a new Board composition. (2.3/7/SPPC)

Bill No. 139

By-law No. C.P.-1560-106 - A by-law to approve and authorize the use of the Affordable Housing Development Loan Agreement template between The Corporation of the City of London (the “City”) and Registered Owner of a property providing affordable rental units (the “Borrower”) to provide for a loan for the creation of new affordable rental housing units and to delegate the authority to enter into such Agreements to the City Planner or delegate. (2.5a/5/PEC)

Bill No. 140

By-law No. C.P.-1561-107 - A by-law to approve and authorize the use of the Additional Residential Unit Loan Agreement template between The Corporation of the City of London (the “City”) and Registered Owner of a property providing affordable rental units (the “Borrower”) to provide for a loan to address affordability of home ownership and to create more long-term, stable rental housing supply to help address low rental vacancy rates, and to delegate the authority to enter into such Agreements to the City Planner or delegate. (2.5b/5/PEC)

Bill No. 141

By-law No. C.P.-1562-108 - A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 2725 Asima Drive, legally described as Block 53 in Registered Plan 33M-699. (2.7/5/PEC)

Bill No. 142

By-law No. C.P.-1357(c)-109 - A by-law to amend the Downtown Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to add an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the CIP. (3.1/5/PEC)

Bill No. 143

By-law No. C.P.-1444(c)-110 - A by-law to amend the Old East Village Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to add an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the CIP. (3.2/5/PEC)

Bill No. 144

By-law No. C.P.-1284(vu)-111 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989, relating to 1153-1155 Dundas Street. (3.6a/5/PEC)

Bill No. 145

By-law No. L.S.P.-3490-112 - A by-law to designate 3303 Westdel Bourne be of cultural heritage value or interest. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 146

By-law No. PS-113-21062 - A by-law to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.5c/5/CWC)

Bill No. 147

By-law No. PS-113-21063 - A by-law to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.6c/5/CWC)

Bill No. 148

(NOT PASSED) By-law No. - A by-law to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.17/5/CWC)

Bill No. 149

(NOT PASSED) By-law No. - A by-law to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.17/5/CWC)

Bill No. 150

By-law No. S.-6118-113 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Fanshawe Park Road East, west of Phillbrook Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, registered as Instrument No. ER1349429, pursuant to SPA18-024 and in accordance with By-law Z.-1)

Bill No. 151

By-law No. S.-6119-114 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Hale Street, north of Heather Crescent)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, registered as Instrument No. ER1348237, pursuant to SPA19-009 and in accordance with Zoning By-law Z.-1)

Bill No. 152

By-law No. S.-6120-115 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Wonderland Road South between Highway 401 and Highway 402)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes on Wonderland Road S)

Bill No. 153

By-law No. S.-6121-116 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Hyde Park Road, north of Gainsborough Road; and as widening to Gainsborough Road, west of Hyde Park Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, registered as Instrument No. ER1353803, pursuant to SPA20-043 and in accordance with Zoning By-law Z-1)

Bill No. 154

By-law No. S.-6122-117 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Huron and McNay Streets)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, registered as Instrument No. ER1349446, pursuant to SPA19-017 and in accordance with Zoning By-law Z.-1)

Bill No. 155

By-law No. Z.-1-212915 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 122 Base Line Road West. (2.6/5/PEC)

Bill No. 156

By-law No. Z.-1-212916 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 3112 Petty Road. (2.10/5/PEC)

Bill No. 157

By-law No. Z.-1-212917 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1414 Dundas Street. (3.3b/5/PEC)

Bill No. 158

By-law No. Z.-1-212918 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1153-1155 Dundas Street. (3.6b/5/PEC)

Bill No. 159

By-law No. Z.-1-212919 - A by-law to amend the General Provisions of By-law No. Z.-1 to regulate Seasonal Outdoor Patios. (3.7/5/PEC)

Bill No. 160

By-law No. Z.-1-212920 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne. (3.8/5/PEC)

Bill No. 161

By-law No. Z.-1-212921 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 3080 Bostwick Road. (3.9/5/PEC)

Bill No. 162

By-law No. Z.-1-212922 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 611-615 Third Street. (3.10/5/PEC)

Bill No. 163

(ADDED) By-law No. D.-777-124 - A by-law to authorize the borrowing upon instalment debentures in the aggregate principal amount of $23,000,000.00 towards the cost of certain capital works of The Corporation of the City of London. (4.1/6/CSC)

Bill No. 164

By-law No. A.-8086-118 - A by-law to appoint Leslie Hancock as Administrator for the Dearness Home under the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c.8. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 165

By-law No. A.-8087-119 - A by-law to appoint Barb Westlake-Power as Deputy Clerk. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 166

By-law No. A.-8088-120 - A by-law to appoint Michael Schulthess as Deputy Clerk. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 167

By-law No. A.-8089-121 - A by-law to appoint deputies to the City Clerk and repeal By-law No. A.-7628-510. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 168

By-law No. A.-8090-122 - A by-law to appoint deputies to the City Treasurer of The Corporation of the City of London and to repeal By-law A.-7783-497. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 169

(ADDED) By-law No. A.-8091-125 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Bosco and Roxy’s Inc., for the sale of the City owned industrial land, located on the south side of Discovery Drive, more specifically described as Part of Block 2, Plan 33M-627, being Part of Pin 08197-0209 (LT), containing an area of approximately 8 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.4/5/CSC)

Bill No. 170

(ADDED) By-law No. A.-8092-126 - A by-law to authorize and approve the Agreement of Purchase and Sale as submitted in Tender 21-25 between The Corporation of the City of London and Maged Eissa, in trust for a company to be incorporated under his full control C/O Incon Industrial Limited, for the sale of City owned lands, described as Part Lots 4 and 5, Plan 643, as in 302417, being all of PIN 08209-0084 (LT), municipally known as 3047 White Oak Road, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to executed this Agreement. (6.2/5/CSC)

Bill No. 171

(ADDED) By-law No. A.-8093-127 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Settlement Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and London Gateway Development Corporation, with respect to the property located at 4545 Scotland Drive, in the City of London, for a full and final settlement for land taken by the City through expropriation, for the Wonderland Road Improvements Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/5/CSC)

Bill No. 172

(ADDED) By-law No. A.-8094-128 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and 2030830 Ontario Limited, for the sale of the City owned industrial land, located on the west side of Robin’s Hill Road, being composed of Part Block 3, Plan 33M-615, designated as Parts 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Plan 33-R20724, being all of PIN 08151-0265, containing an area of approximately 4.7 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.3/5/CSC)

Bill No. 173

(ADDED) By-law No. C.P.-1284(vv)-129 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 101 Meadowlily Road South. (3.5a/5/PEC)

Bill No. 174

(ADDED) By-law No. C.P.-1512(ai)-130 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 101 Meadowlily Road South. (3.5b/5/PEC)

Bill No. 175

(ADDED) By-law No. Z.-1-212923 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 101 Meadowlily Road South. (3.5c/5/PEC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 8:54 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (4 hours, 48 minutes)

I’ll ask colleagues to light up their screens, please. Welcome to the Sixth Media City Council, virtual meeting held during the COVID-19 emergency. Please check the city website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website.

The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility in London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. And with that, I’ll look for any disclosures of opinion or interest. Councillor Turner.

Thanks, Your Worship. With respect to the Fifth Report of the Civic Works Committee, trying to find the right item number. It’s with respect to a water report. I’ll declare a conflict of interest of that as my agency of the Mill Six Line Health Unit as the legislative responsibility for oversight of water quality.

I think that’s item 17, 2.14 on the agenda, Councillor. You’re very fast, I appreciate that, thank you. Mr. State, you may have one on SPPC 27, item 7, 4.3.

Thank you very much, that one as well. Thank you very much. Any other conflicts? Councillor Halmer.

Thank you, I’ll declare a pecuniary interest on item 15, 4.5 of the Community Protective Services committee report. This is related to the municipal operating and capital budgets for golf. And since my father’s employed by the National Golf Course Owners Association and the City of London as a member, I’ll declare a pecuniary interest on that. So noted, any other declarations?

I would like to, excuse me, declare a conflict relating to item 22, 5.1 of the Fifth Report of Civic Works, having to do with item four of the deferred matters list relating to the properties at 7.45 and 7.47 Waterloo Street as my wife and daughter own a business located at 7.45 Waterloo Street. Any other disclosures? Seeing none, I am not aware of any recognitions and there are no confidential matters to be considered in public. So colleagues, as we now do, we would like to refer the confidential matters and change the order of motion required to move item four to closed session after stage 13 bylaws that will require a mover and a seconder please.

Move by Councillor Hilliard. Seconded by Councillor van Mirbergen. All those in favor, we will turn your attention to the screen. Councillor Van Halst, closing the vote and the motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you, colleagues. I will require a mover and seconder to approve the minutes from the meeting held March 23, 2021. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Any discussion?

Seeing none. Councillor Halmer, closing the vote and the motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. We have an item six.

These can all be moved in one motion. I’m just for the benefit of the public. I’ll quickly read them through. 6.1 is related item four, 4.1 of the Fifth Board of the Corporate Services Committee, public notice policy.

6.2, two with one added, related to item 18, 2.17 of the Fifth Report of Civic Works Committee having to do with Dundas Place temporary bicycle lanes. 6.3, one related to item 16, 3.2 of the Fifth Report of the Planning and Environment Committee related to the old East Community Improvement Plan. 6.4, one related to item 17, 3.3 of the Fifth Report of the Planning and Environment Committee having to do with 14, 14 Dundas Street. 6.5, six related to item 19, 3.5 of the Fifth Report of the Planning and Environment Committee having to do with the, to do with 1101 Middle Lily Road South.

6.6, five related item 25, 3.11 of the Fifth Report of Planning and Environment Committee related to the Masonville draft secondary plan. 6.7, one related item 10, 3.1 of the sixth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee having to do with London Housing’s first emergency youth shelter. 6.8, one related to item 14, 4.4 of the sixth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee having to do with affordable housing units in London. And 6.9 added, one related to item 8, 4.4 of the seventh report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee having to do with the operation of city councils.

So for all of that, I will, for a mover, please. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Palose, any discussion? Opposing the vote and the motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues.

I’m not aware of any of which notice is given. So I’ll turn this to item eight, the reports, 8.1, the fifth report of the Corporate Services Committee. May I call on the Chair, Councillor Cassidy, present the report, please. Thank you, Your Worship, I will put the entire report on the floor, except for item six on the council agenda, which is 4.3, the issuance of proclamation for Southwestern Ontario Film Week and item eight on the council agenda, which is 4.5 on the committee report, issuance of proclamation for world press freedom day.

And I have not heard of any other items to be pulled. Thank you. Does anyone wish any other item be dealt with separately? Seeing none, back to you, Councillor Cassidy.

I’ll put the remainder of the report on the floor. Comments or questions with the exception of those two items? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Opposing the vote and the motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Put items six on the floor, Your Worship. Thanks very much, comments, colleagues. Councillor Redholst.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’m happy to make some comments and that I’m pleased to see that on October 17th to 24th, we’re gonna celebrate all things film in Southwestern Ontario, particularly the Forest City Film Festival, the Ontario Screen Creators Conference and the Forest City Youth Film Festival where high school filmmakers across all of Southwestern Ontario are showcased. So there will be more and more momentum building with the film industry in London and that’s great. Thanks very much, any other comments, call the question.

Seeing the vote and the motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. And I will put items with Councillor Randholz that also wanted this one pulled. Councillor Randholz.

Okay, thank you, Your Worship. And I’m sorry, actually, I just hope to make some comments on these two items, but this one is World Press Freedom Day. Of course, I’m in support of this and Freedom in general. In the last year, we’ve seen real problems for the press with big tech taking a free ride in the backs and news outlets, YouTube, Deep Platform and demonetizing news outlets and the latest attack on the world press where sledgehammers were taken to the printing presses and computers of news outlet in China, so we can’t take our freedoms for granted.

And I think promoting this is one way to keep those top of mind. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, make a comment. I wanna thank Councillor Cassidy and the committee for this recognition.

I do think it is very important. It is timely since May the third is World Press Freedom Day. It’s also important that we as a city recognize the importance of a healthy news media and that it be reliable and accurate and responsible. And this is one way that we can support good journalism.

I think it’s very important to our democracy. So it’s also an opportunity for us to say that we do value journalism, good journalism in particular. So again, thank you to Councillor Cassidy and the committee. Thank you, any other comments or questions?

Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries, 15 to zero. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, 8.2 is the fifth report of the Civic Works Committee. I’ll turn this to chair and Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Your Worship. Another robust civic works meeting was had.

I’ve been given notice to pull item 14 being 2.8, the automated speed enforcement, item 16 being 2.13, the green bin program design, 17 being 2.14, the Ministry of Environment Drinking Water 1 due to a conflict. Item 18 being 2.17 does place temporary bicycle lanes and item 22 being 5.1, the deferred matters list. So noted, does anyone wish have any other item to be dealt with separately? Seeing none, any comments or questions with regard to those items with the exception of, for the purpose of us, 14, 16, 17, 18, excuse me, did you say 19 as well, Councillor Palosa?

I did not. Thank you, and then item 22. Councillor Palosa. - Your Worship, yes.

I will put those items on the floor, just also thanking the incoming chair and vice chair of the Waste Management Working Group being Councillor Vanholst and Councillor Turner. And there was some transfer payment agreements in this and grant applications that came through committee and the tendering for Adelaide Street underpass were the ones of note that have not been pulled. Any other discussion on the non-pulled items? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote.

And the motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. Thank you, I’m being 2.8, the Automaid Speed Enforcement on the floor, recognizing we took a different direction than staff’s recommendation, and Councillor Van Rivergan asked for this one to be pulled. Comments or questions, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And again, I’d like to thank the committee for this. I know this has come to us before, and it was deferred back. And one of the things I find really important to me as a Councillor of Ward 9 is the importance of safety in our neighbourhoods.

And this is an opportunity where we can start that process and make it even better creating that safety aspect. It’s, I think also important that we, other municipalities, I know are looking at it as well, but we can also sort of set the example here in our city, declaring the importance of the amps, and hopefully the provincial government will take heed of the importance of this in municipalities. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Squire.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate that automated speed enforcement sounds really exciting in terms of safety in neighbourhoods. But I think we have to remember this is a really costly program, one, and two, the enforcement is going to be very, very limited in terms of what areas it would cover.

So as a representative of a ward where I get speed concerns all of the time, I want to be really careful to make sure that people understand that this is not a citywide, even when it’s rolled out a citywide program that’s going to have automatic speed enforcement in every area. And I think we have to make that clear to certainly the people we represent. Thank you, other comments or questions? Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. Like Councillor Hopkins, I’m very pleased with the direction the committee chose to take on this particular item. And I want to thank Councillor Helmer for putting this option forward. To me, this is, and I agree with Councillor Squire, this is certainly not the magic wand.

It is not going to solve all of our speeding concerns across the city. But in those community safety zones, particularly in our school areas, I think it’s going to be a valuable tool in the toolbox and hopefully free up police resources that are being used in enforcement in those zones for other uses. I certainly hope to see an opportunity to have these deployed in my ward on Wavell Street, where two schools side by side are a regular source of speeding concerns. I know that other Councillors will have areas in their wards that they’ll want to see it deployed to.

I’m also very, very encouraged to hear that in having had an opportunity to talk to some other municipalities that the pilot projects there have gone ahead without the issuance of warning notices, which I think are really something I wouldn’t support. I’d like to see us move ahead with enforcement. And I’ve said this at the committee meeting and I’ve said it in the media and I’ll say it again tonight. For those concerned that they’re going to get an unwarranted speeding ticket, the solution is very simple.

Don’t speed in our community safety zones. Thank you. I next have Councillor Venerberg on the list. Thank you, Mayor.

As I brought up at the last committee meeting and on previous occasions and further to Councillor Squire’s point, I believe the information that I gleaned at the last committee meeting was such that we will perhaps attain three to five cameras for a million dollars for the contract for that. And yet, as memory serves, there’s well over 300 areas that could be monitored for school safety zones in the city of London across the entire municipality. So clearly, this is a very expensive, in my view, inefficient way to try and enforce safety when we could be using something as, well, certainly a lot less expensive like speed humps, well-placed speed humps and other traffic calming measures that are proven to work for a fraction of the cost. And therefore, we could have them spread out through a far greater number of school zones than simply three to five for a million dollars.

So I think all things considered, we have to look at this in realistic terms, thanks. Thank you, Councillor Morgan, Deputy Member. Yes, thank you, I’ve been doing some reading since the committee meeting on this. Certainly, I’ll just express my support for automated speed enforcement in certainly in school zones, as well as community safety zones.

I do have a question for our staff. I know we awarded a contract back in 2019 on this. And I’m just curious on, you know, as we move forward, have we committed to that contract? Is it being extended out into the future because obviously we delayed a couple of years?

So I’m wondering at what point, you know, what is the length of time that the contract will be now? Are we two years off of it? And the reason why I ask that is because I’m aware that through AMO and their local authority services, they’re in the process of putting together a solution for municipalities as well. And I think they’ll be issuing their own RFPs on this.

And I’m not sure if that’s something that we would pursue. Obviously, we’ve signed a contract for a period of a time. But obviously, there are more players getting into this, try to bring the costs down. And I’m just curious on how the existing contract works given the delay we’ve had.

And at what opportunity do we have to look at other vendors down the road? Again, emphasizing that I am committed to doing this. I just had a few questions that I wanted to answer before I vote on this tonight. Mr.

Chair. Thank you, Your Worship. So the city of Toronto operates the joint processing center for all ASE infractions. And the participation in that program development that we’ve been a part of, provide us with capacity to continue to enter into the contract that was previously discussed by signed agreement by the end of May.

And it would reduce the overall term of service by the time of delay. There are absolutely some opportunities on the horizon that we’re aware of through AMO and through the working group around automated speed and other types of automated traffic enforcement. But our best bet if we wish to proceed at this time would be to proceed with the execution of those agreements prior to May 25th. After that, the city of Toronto’s council has new requirements for us to enter into the joint processing center.

Deputy Mayor. All right. Well, I think that’s really valuable information to know and I appreciate Mr. being able to provide it.

So I’ll be supporting this. And I look forward to the further discussion from colleagues. Thank you, Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, Your Worship.

And just through you to staff, again, we think that these technologies will pay for themselves in this contract. It was pointed out it was expensive, but I believe the question was asked at committee, but I’d just like to get that answer again. Mr. Chair.

Your Worship, our automated speed enforcement as well as our automated red light camera running programs are intended to be self-funding. Part of that will depend on the recovery rate that we have when courts adjudicate whether or not a ticket is protested. That is the intent. We are hearing from some of our neighboring municipalities that initial costs are tracking a bit higher with some of the changes to the provincial requirements.

That said, that’s often a startup thing and it will sort of taper out in the longer term. Councillor Vanholst. Thank you very much, Your Worship. I think companies providing these technologies know that councils are under tremendous pressure to make sure things are safe in their communities.

And I think the prices are reflective of that. I really hope to see some more affordable technologies come forward as more players enter into to compete for the business. Thank you. Any other comments with respect to this item?

Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to one. Mr. Palosa.

Thank you. We’re extending 2.13 the Green Bend Program to design community engagement feedback. This was a report that came forward in regards to all the community feedback that we’ve been gathering in regards to the implementing the community’s Green Bend Program and next steps for potential procurement for what kind of food waste will be collected, what kind of liners, size of containers and whatnot. And this report is already divided up in items A through F and I’ll put them all on the floor.

Thanks very much. Comments or questions? Councillor and member. Thank you, Mayor.

We can vote on A separately. So noted. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

Councillor and member. Okay. Seeing none, Councillor and host. Yes, thank you Your Worship.

So we’re planning an RFP for Green Bins and when we get the bids, we’re certainly gonna look at all of them to make sure that the city gets the best deal. But I think in the same spirit of getting the best for London, we should wait on this item until we see next week’s update on the mixed waste and report on any unsolicited offers. Because I think that mixed waste as we’ve seen has some greater potential in terms of diversion, reducing greenhouse gases, costs potentially. And that may be worth holding off a little bit to pursue.

So that’s what I refer is that we have a look at that since it’s coming so soon. We can get a look at that. So, and especially since that’s the technology we wanna end up with anyway. So we know that’s our ultimate goal.

It looks like there may be a chance for us to get that. I’d like to hear about that first before we make this decision. So for that reason, I’d like to move that we refer this item number 16 to the May 11th CWC meeting. And in that way we can, the council can deal with the potential for mixed waste.

So I’d like to put that on the floor and hoping there might be a seconder. Is there a seconder for that? Councilor Van Merberg in discussion. Seeing none on the referral, we will call the question.

Mr. Hillier, closing the vote in the motion is lost four to 11. Thank you, back to the main motion. Other comments or questions?

Seeing none, we, oh, Councillor Soleil, thank you. Councillor Soleil, you’re on mute. Councillor Soleil, you’re still on mute if you wish to comment on this. Councillor Soleil is trying to reckon that component, any other comments or questions?

Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Go ahead, Councillor Soleil, please. Sorry, it kicked me out of the meeting for a second there.

I was just gonna say that there was something wrong with my voting. So it voted in the opposite, voted against Councillor, Councillor Paulson’s motion. As for reconsideration by just one of the record to show that I just didn’t support Councillor Vanholz’s motion. So noted, thanks very much.

We will deal with that internally, thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, we will call the questions. Oh, excuse me, Councillor Vanholz, did you have your hand up?

Okay, we will, yes, sorry, we’re gonna deal with A and then we’re gonna deal with the rest of the items. So on A, to receive the report, we’ll call the question. Those in the vote in the motion carries, 15 to zero. To colleagues now, we’re dealing with the balance of the right minutes or questions.

Dean Dunne, we will call the question. Councillor Silly and Councillor Van Mereberg. Oh, sorry, I’m not able to vote, but I’ll vote manually, yay, Councillor Silly. Turner, seeing the vote in the motion carries, 13 to two.

Thank you, colleagues, Councillor. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll now put item 17 being 2.14 on the floor, being the 2020 Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks Inspection of the City of London Drinking Water System. It was just receiving report that had no items of concern in it, just it was pulled due to a conflict with Councillor Turner.

Any comments or questions colleagues? Dean Dunne, we’ll call. Opposing the vote in the motion carries, 14 with one recuse. Councillor Palazzo.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll put item 18 on the floor, being 2.17, the Dundas Place temporary bicycle lanes. Committee also had a presentation when we started Mr. McCray outlining the city’s options that were considered and why things would or wouldn’t work.

And we had a robust discussion at committee. And as you’ve noted, there was several additional correspondence within this package and the added package in regards to this. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

First through you, if I could, I’d like to ask staff, do you have any recent data on the traffic volumes and speeds on Dundas Place? Because I think that’s relevant to our decision here today, Mr. Chair. I have received new data from the police earlier this week, actually, last week, sorry.

The average daily traffic volume is just over 3,000 vehicles per day. The average speed is 31.4 kilometers per hour and the 85th percentile speed is 39 kilometers per hour. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

And thank you, Ms. Chair, for that information. I think it’s really valuable to hear that in a community safety zone that we’ve designated as a 30-kilometer zone, we actually have fairly good compliance to that quite low speed limit in that particular area. And I think that really speaks to the design of Dundas Place itself.

The way that the street and the sidewalks and the parking sort of blend together and create a space that can be very versatile for us. And of course, the traffic volume is something that’s been low, not something that would be unexpected for us given the pandemic situation. And of course, we have a lot of construction already starting on King Street. Colleagues, the reason I actually asked to have this pulled is because of the robust discussion that happened at committee.

And because I would actually like to encourage colleagues tonight to vote down the committee recommendation of option one so that we can get option three on the floor. And I know that option three, we’ve had it labeled the traffic diversion option. We’ve had it described as the filtered permeability option. It was the second choice of quite a number of members of committee when they were discussing this issue.

And we’ve since committee received the communication from the LDBA that it’s also the preferred option of businesses in the area. And not that they reached that decision easily or unanimously, but likewise, the option one that’s been recommended is not unanimously supported by the cycling community either. And in fact, we’ve had members of the cycling committee say it doesn’t go far enough. And I raised this after attending the cycling advisory committee where there was a lot of concern about the lack of, you know, full barriers along the Dundas Place street length.

And that’s why I raised the design of Dundas Place because staff have been very clear with us that more permanent sorts of barriers along that stretch are not desirable and would be harmful to the infrastructure that we just completed building. What option three offers us is a compromise solution that is not perfect for anyone, but it is something that strikes a balance that businesses, the cyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles can all enjoy. It also means that the confusion that would be generated by switching to Dundas Place as one way only traffic for this summer would be avoided because we would still have bi-directional traffic there. We would just be decreasing the cut-through traffic and using that space as access only from the side streets so that people visiting the businesses can still access them by car, but that cut-through traffic coming through from east to west, west to east is eliminated.

So I hope that committee will consider supporting this. I think it’s really important that we note as we move into the summer season and the patio season, but I think that this also offers the best option for businesses who want to use patios and activation spaces for things like sidewalk sales and that kind of thing this summer, an opportunity they very, very badly need. This is not a space that is specifically for any one stakeholder. It’s meant to be shared by all members of the community.

So I hope that the committee will or that colleagues will actually a council tonight support the LDBA recommendation for the filtered permeability. I’ve had a chance to talk to some members of the cycling advisory committee, some avid cyclists in the city as well, and they would be comfortable with this too. The one thing that I did want to ask through you, your worship, before I wrap up to our city engineer, is the one concern that the cycling community had was barriers at Rideout and Wellington, in particular to help make sure that signage alone wasn’t ignored for cut-through traffic. So I wonder if Ms.

Sherry could comment about the option to include barriers there. Ms. Sherry? Thank you, Your Worship.

We certainly would have to take a look at the detail design about what sort of barriers could be put into place, particularly at the Wellington and Rideout locations through traffic. The important thing will be though, that we’ll have to make sure that right-turning vehicles off the north-south streets could still execute those turns, including larger delivery vehicles, which might minimize the ability to use some barricades. That said, we would be open to using them wherever we can make them work and still allow that circulation, otherwise we’d be using a combination of signing and other streets gave the elements. So, Ms.

Sherry? Briefly, Your Worship, two follow-ups to that. If we went with the bi-directional versus the filtered permeability, what is the impact for parking spaces for those patronizing downtown businesses? I’m sure.

Your Your Worship, I’m just flipping through my notes here. It would eliminate the parking and loading on the north side of Dundas place between Rideout and Wellington, which currently includes 23 spots or loading parking or accessible parking. Councillor? Thank you, so my final question, Your Worship, is through you to our staff.

When the King Street construction is completed and the construction for the downtown loop moves to Queens, what is the plan at that point to address the cycling? Because I feel like the filtered permeability is something that could just be left in place, whereas I’m not sure what the plan is when Queens becomes the construction zone and King reopens. For sure. Thank you, Your Worship.

King has been of a special circumstance because we did have a protected bike line in place that was being removed as work on the downtown loop proceeded. We are still working on the staging planning for construction management for Queens for the next phase. So that work is underway now and we would report back on any necessary accommodations for cycling. Right now, however, there is no specific accommodation on Queens that we would be displacing from construction.

That said, yes, the filter permeability could work for both essentially all of the work that would be done on the downtown loop, but we will be looking at some more detail in a coming weeks and months. Thank you. So I’m just gonna conclude by saying hearing that it’s something that can work ongoing as the downtown loop construction continues. Whereas if we choose option one, we will end up at some point reversing it and creating a different scenario for people to get in and out of the downtown.

I hope the colleagues will let the option three get on the floor by defeating option one. I think we all want to provide some opportunity for cyclists, but I’d like to provide a balance that suits everybody’s requirements. Thank you, other comments or questions? Councilor Ann Mirberg.

Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to call a separately on this. So noted, thank you. Other comments or questions?

I’m sorry, colleagues, Councilor Halmer, please. Thank you. Thank you. As I said at committee, my first preference is the bidirectional lanes, but I do think the traffic diversions as long as there’s some barriers could also work at certain, that’s my second preference, in terms of what we do to protect cyclists during the construction season.

I want to make sure I understand exactly what Mr. said about the Wellington and Rideout entry points. So I wonder if there were going to be barriers, for example, the kind of planters that have been suggested by the LEBA, something that looks good, but also discourages people from coming into the street in a vehicle. How would that be set up at Rideout, do we think?

And how would it be set up at Wellington? I think those are the key points. Left turns off of Rideout, headed eastbound. I know that that’s how it functions now, but I don’t think that’s actually necessary if we were to have barriers and try and divert traffic away from Dundas.

And the right turn from Wellington westbound onto Dundas, I also don’t think that that one is necessary, but that one has a lot more potential impact. And I just want to make sure I understand those particular movements, the west turning onto Dundas, headed east from Rideout and the eastbound turn during Ride from Wellington onto Dundas Wellington. Are you sure? Thank you, Your Worship.

We have a bit of work to do about which movements can be permitted at the two terminal points of Dundas place. We do need to provide some access to those blocks for circulation, for delivery, for accessible parking. So we have not designed where barricades can be put at this time. We would go through that process very quickly now and implement that as soon as we click should this be counsel’s direction.

There would be some challenges in blocking the through movements and allowing those turns, but by removing those turns, we would also be restricting access to that local block for local purpose. So we do need to spend some time on this. I don’t have the detailed layout of where those barricades would go or not go at this point. The focus, as I’d mentioned, would be though on precluding the eastbound through movement.

I apologize, I have a mouse in my office and my dog is very excited about it. So precluding the eastbound through movement and the westbound through movement. So we need some time to work on that design and what appropriate bearing case we can put in place. Clearly your dog has a strong opinion on such things, Councillor Hummer, please.

Okay, that’s helpful. As long as there’s gonna be barricades that are gonna prevent the through movement from coming across the bridge, going straight through on Dundas and then a similarly coming westbound on Dundas straight through the intersection at Wellington into Dundas, as long as there’s barricades there. I’m not sure how we manage the right turn, but I just, I wanna emphasize that traffic diversion by sign is not going to result in traffic diversion and it won’t be good enough. And so we need some kind of barriers to actually deter people.

We designed the street to have these barriers pop up to prevent people from coming into this space. And I know we can do it. So I’m confident that we can, but I don’t wanna just see signs because that’s not gonna work, I don’t think. Were you looking for confirmation from Mr.

Councillor? I got what I need from her, that was a great answer. Thanks very much, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, thank you, Your Worship.

So I’m going to join Councillor Lewis in voting against option one as a preference with option three. And I would say and encourage the Councillor if he’s gonna move that motion to include in the motion of the components of physical barriers. Obviously that adds a little bit of cost. And I think it’s important direction to our staff that physical barriers instead of just signage be used to restrict the traffic.

I’ll mention a couple of reasons why I support this option. First, I’ve had similar conversations to some of my colleagues that this seems to be an option that overlaps both the business community as well as some members of the cyclist community, knowing that there are still people in both of those groups who are not going to be satisfied. Frankly, there is no perfect solution to this temporary navigation of Dundas Street. But I do like option three for a couple of reasons.

First, I actually see it as flexible. So if it is not achieving the desired outcomes, staff can measure that and they can make adjustments to the other access points along the way in a variety of options. And our staff could certainly monitor that and ensure that it’s effective. The second main reason is I actually think that this, if we’re going to pilot something, this seems to me to be a strong option for a permanent mechanism on Dundas Place if it’s successful.

And I’m interested in seeing this opportunity to get some information on how it works to let our staff try a few things. And then we can assess whether or not we keep it as an option moving forward after all the construction is done. Obviously the traffic flows will change downtown, but I like the way that this has some flexibility to it. I like that it covers a variety of groups and I like the potential it has as a permanent solution, obviously with some further investigation.

So I’ll be voting against the committee’s recommendation of option one to be able to support option three. Thank you, Councillor Squar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and through you.

I will also be taking the same position that I will be voting against option one and supporting option three. I think this is one of those instances where a compromise solution is the proper solution on an interim basis. And I stress that this is an interim solution that it looks like will be in place for seven to eight months. What might follow that is a different matter, but I think in this particular circumstance, and given all of the talking we have done about the downtown and investing money in the downtown and how fragile the downtown is right now in terms of doing business, I think it’s incumbent on us to look for a solution that provides something for both parties for cyclists and certainly for the downtown businesses.

And clearly if you look at the report, option one was not one that the downtown business community from what I can see was supportive. So I will again be supporting option number three. Thank you. Other comments or questions?

Councillor Turner. Thanks, Your Worship. Just to advise some caution with the data that was presented at the beginning, the 85th percentile of speed was, I believe at 38 kilometers an hour, which is almost 30% above the posted limit. So I wouldn’t say we have good compliance with speeds.

That’s a pretty significant increase over what the posted limit is there. I appreciate the discussion here. I think it’s important that we listen to the parties involved. I think it’s also important for us to make sure that as we go through construction and there’s a significant increase in traffic volume in the core, that we do what we can to address cyclist safety and that connectivity.

I’m with Councillor Halmer. My preferred option is by directional cycling line provides that protection, avoids the risks of being dored, which is a pretty big risk, especially in a high pedestrian volume area where people are getting out of their cars and going on to the street. So those turnover on those spots, those parking spots should be relatively short, fine. The filter permeability is an important strategy for the long-term for Dundas place, I think.

And I think it probably should have been one of those things that was put in place at the outset, but here we are. So that said, if Council is going to vote this down, then I really hope that you honor your commitment to support number three. I think that’s essential, but I hope that you’ll support number one in the meantime. I don’t think there’s any reason why both can’t exist.

So those are my thoughts, but I’ll be supporting one and I can recognize the thoughts of behind number three as well. Thanks very much, other comments for questions. I might ask the deputy mayor to take the chair. Yes, and I’ll go to the mayor.

Excuse me, before I do, I didn’t realize I see Councillor Caiobaga had her hand up first. I apologize, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for letting me go before you.

I just wanted to ask a question on what deputy mayor Morgan said about including in this number three, as we see that Council is going to be voting option one down, is it possible to make sure that there is physical protection for cyclists with option number three? And can this issue your comment on what that would look like instead of signage? And can we, I don’t know if that would be a friendly amendment, but I’m happy to explore that being part of the motion. Let’s see what Ms.

Chair has to say, go ahead, please. Worship, so staff will be providing some sort of barricade at the East and West terminal points of Dundas place to dissuade through traffic. The precise design of those we do still need to work on, but option three does not include any lateral barriers between biking space and driving spaces. So we under this option, we would try to remove as much through traffic as we could and save that traffic space for local access, but cycling would occur in mixed use in the current driving lens.

Councillor Karygiannis. So I will then again go back to what deputy mayor Morgan was proposing, adding an amendment that includes physical barriers that would be profession for cyclists. Thank you for that. For us to get to that stage, we would, if you’re looking to consider an amendment, we would have to vote down option one and then consider three and then deal with it with whatever that looks like, should we get to that point?

Thank you. In the meantime, then I’ll be supporting option one until I know that there’s reasonable reasons to believe that there’s going to be protection, physical barrier protection for us. Thank you, other comments or questions? I’d like to over to you, Deputy Mayor.

Yes, and now I have the mayor. Thanks very much colleagues. I was part of the committee that supported the first option, but I recall very well the discussion that we had in terms of what the various options were and we reviewed those. And as we did, I recall Councillor Hummer saying one, three and it wasn’t a flip of a coin, but both would serve certain purposes.

So while I did vote in favor of option one as did the committee, I will say to you, I will be voting it down in favor of option three. I think that what we all try to do is to try to find that balance and what’s the balance? It’s the balance associated with accommodating vehicular traffic, accommodation and safety associated with pedestrians and safety associated with cyclists and you try to find those balances. And the needs of all three are paramount.

And I think that option three does give us that option. So in that respect, I’ve made a determination that I will vote down option one and we’ll support option three. So with that, I’ll turn it back to you Deputy Mayor. Yeah, and I don’t have anyone else on the speakers list, but I’ll turn the chair back to you to check.

Any other comments or questions? Councillor Cassidy. Thank you Your Worship. And I actually made a comment at the committee that I would’ve supported option three, but I meant option three in addition to option one or two.

So, and the reason, even with the reduced volume of traffic that would come with the barriers at the end of the street and preventing the through traffic, you still will have bicycles and users, cyclists using the street who are much more vulnerable users of the street sharing the lane with automobiles. And even those that are following the speed limit, and I do note that the average speed is at the speed limit, but average means there are many above the speed limit as well as some below the speed limit. So I do feel like a separate lane for cyclists is the safest option for cyclists. And it’s the safest option for all levels and all ages of cyclists, which is what we should be designing our cycling infrastructure for.

We don’t think of someone like Steven, Councillor Turner, who is an adult male in cycles, avidly and is an experienced cyclist, we should be building our cycling infrastructure for Councillor Turner’s daughter, or even someone younger than Councillor Turner’s daughter. That’s who our cycling infrastructure is supposed to be designed for, the safest option for the most vulnerable road user. I wanted to address the comment about having festivals in the summer when Dundas Place is closed to vehicular traffic. I asked this question at committee.

If it’s closed to vehicular traffic, it’s close to cycling traffic as well. So if Dundas Place is open for a festival and there are cafes spilling out into the street or sidewalk sales, cyclists would be expected to dismount. They are vehicles on the road under the Highway Traffic Act and therefore it’s closed to traffic, whether it’s a car or a cyclist. I also want to address the concerns that some businesses have raised, study after study after study, chose that cyclists spend money in downtown shops, whether it’s in London downtown or any other downtown.

Cyclists are Londoners too, cyclists are shoppers too. And in fact, I would say that a cyclist traveling slowly down the street is more likely to notice something in a shop window and park the bike and pick that up. Using Dundas Place as a commuting route in a vehicle, in a car going 30 kilometers or more. Dundas is generally just a road like any other road.

And as I said, there are numerous studies in cities around the world that show that cyclists even tend to spend more money in a local shop than somebody using their car. So I will support the recommendation that’s coming from committee. It doesn’t sound like it’s got widespread support on council, but I did want to dispel those myths that we couldn’t shut down Dundas Place if we had a cycling lane or that cyclists are bad for business somehow. The opposite is true.

And paramount in any of our cycling infrastructure should always be the most vulnerable road user on our streets. Thank you. To be clear, I did not just as I will always clarify, I didn’t hear references to myths in that in any of the commentary of council tonight, but thank you for your comments. Any other questions or comments?

Vice-president Holst. Thank you, worship. So I think I’ll support the initiative, Councillor Lewis. The utopian ideal of us being able to share a street like Dundas Place safely is attractive to me, but I see that we should be doing something.

However, I think there’s also some expectations of how we should be driving on this that maybe should be articulated. So maybe I could go to you through you to miss share to just say explicitly how we hope drivers will be using this street if we’re using the permeability strategy and cyclists as well. Because of course, I hear pedestrians complaining about cyclists as well. Thank you.

I cut you off. I thought you were done with your question, Councillor Mischa. Thank you, Your Worship. The intent to under traffic diversion or the filter permeability would be to remove traffic that is not intending to stop within the extensive Dundas place, but to allow circulation from the side streets for traffic that wishes to access those businesses for deliveries, pickups, loading, or potentially parking to patronize them.

Cycling would occur in the two traffic lanes, pedestrians would remain in the designated pedestrian spaces. That’s generally how that principle would work. You’d be removing the traffic that’s trying to shortcut through to get more else and keeping some circulation to support the operational needs of those businesses, access to accessible parking, those sorts of things. Councillor, does that answer that?

It does. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other final comments or questions?

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I wasn’t going to say anything, but it has been a very interesting conversation. I do appreciate it very much.

I did not see the committee meeting and I have heard though from a number of residents about the importance of wanting to go downtown, to experience downtown. They’re not avid cyclists. The residents that have reached out to me, they want to be in the safest environment as possible, but they want to support the downtown. And for that reason alone, I will, from what I’ve heard, option number one is the safest option.

And I think that is really important when we make these decisions that we do look at the vulnerable of us. I ride a bike, I’m not an avid biker, but I do want to be able to use the streets in a safe manner because if not, I’m not going to bike and I’m not going to go downtown as often as I would like to. So it is important that we provide the safest option and for that reason I’ll be supporting option one. Thank you.

Any other comments? So colleagues, it looks like we’ve been asked to split A and B, A being option one as the consideration for the first vote, voting in favor of option one deals with that is the issue, turning it down, may open up other options. So with respect to that, I will call the question on A. Closing the vote in the motion is lost, seven to eight.

Thank you, your worship with that. I would like to move a motion that option three, be approved with the addition of direction to staff to implement physical barriers at the appropriate entrance points. Do you have a seconder for that? Councillor Squire comments or questions?

Councillor Layman. Thank you, y’all way in here. I didn’t speak to the first motion. The reason I’m supporting this is the merchant saw on Dundas Street have had to put up with a lot of construction over the last number of years.

First it was building the flex street and now construction all around them. First with them with King Street and now with the rapid transit. I spoke to the cycling advisory committee head and there was no clear consensus there. I spoke to the LDBA and it wasn’t unanimous.

Science has been mentioned. However, there was a definite preference for option three. Coming from ward eight, my residents do, as Councillor Hopkins said, want to support downtown. But the biggest concern for coming downtown is parking and also confusion on how to get around downtown with years of construction.

I think there’s a tendency to just avoid it entirely. I think this option is the least confusing option for people coming downtown and getting directly to the merchants that they want to support. You know, we put a lot of time and effort in designing a flex street. And I think this option as well kind of goes closer to the original design of the flex street and how it was intended to be used.

So I will support this motion and in reference to the merchants through their LDBA as their supported sworn option to go on this. Thank you, Councillor Closely. Thank you, Your Worship. Obviously, I’m aware of the discussion at committee.

Wondering through you to staff, recognizing one had many feedbacks from the cycling community in regards to protected bike lanes, concerns about being doored and recognizing these parking spots in this area will be one hour parking versus two hours to help with the higher rate of turnover, allowing for more parking to businesses and recognizing permanent barriers will stop us from actually using the Dundas flex street as intended as purposely built COVID parameters pending. The estimated cost of option three is 5,000. We’re talking about different barriers, more planters. Could staff give an estimate of what they think they would need in order to do option three, but with more barriers, moveable barriers to allow for cycling safety?

Sure. Thank you, Your Worship. I may ask for clarification. If the council were looking for more barriers to reduce through traffic or barriers between, because the option three would not include any specific lanes designated for cycling, so we wouldn’t be looking for barriers to separate them from traffic moving in the same direction.

Okay, thank you. So my question specifically would be, barriers are there in the streets and also recognizing we’re hearing from cyclists with visual proof that there’s vehicles taking opportunities to park on the sidewalks as well, and they’re looking for more definition of the space. So I know we do have some planters, just perhaps not enough. So looking to see what your opinion would be on cost to do the filter permeability, and more money that you would need for that, as well as some enhancements to recognize the cycling safety questions that are already raised of the space of how it’s being used improperly by motorists.

Mr. Chair. Thank you, that’s very helpful. So the $5,000 estimate is probably in the ballpark for the range for the signing and some endpoint barriers at Wellington and Rideout in particular, it might be a little bit more, but it’s certainly less than the 30,000 we have associated with the unidirectional bike lanes.

So something we can easily accommodate within budget. With respect to some of the behavior we’ve seen for parking, the double parking, the parking and pedestrian spaces that’s been happening on Dundas place, we are working with our colleagues in parks and recreation and in parking services to address that. We have implemented another nine designated spots for short-term parking and loading on the south side of Dundas place throughout its length to hopefully focus some of that behavior where it ought to be and instead of where it ought not to be. We do have some funding available within our existing budgets for Dundas place as well that we could be using to provide some more planters or physical barriers.

The work on what that looks like is just underway right now, but I would expect it’s in the last than $25,000 range. Councilor Palosa. No, that was perfect, thank you kindly. Thank you, any other comments or questions?

I have no one else on the speakers list. We will call the question. Councilor Cai-Bava. Thank you.

I’d like to just ask if the current motion on the floor with Councilor Lewis mentioned. I’ll ask the clerk perhaps to read the motion. Motion is that the civic administration be directed to bring forward the necessary bylaws to operationalize option three traffic diversions with respect to Dundas place temporary bicycle lanes with components of physical barriers being included in the plan. Thank you, and we are in the voting process.

Closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to one. Colleagues, I think we are now at, oh, excuse me. So then we would be including the option just to prove with B, all of that as amended. Comments or questions?

Councilor Cai-Bava, do you have your hand up again? I see it, or is that from before please go ahead? No, I don’t. Thank you.

So as amended, we will call the question. Councilor Squire. Closing the vote in the motion carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much, Councilor Plaza.

I’ll now put, I am 22 being five part one to four as so it was a conflict declared by the mayor and this is my final item. Thank you, comments or questions? Do you know what we’ll call the question? Councilor Vanholst, closing the vote in the motion.

Thank you, Councilor Plaza. Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you very much. And now, under 8.3, the fifth report of the Planning Environment Committee, I’ll call on the Chair and Councilor Squire.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I know that I will be pulling item 17, which is 14, 14 Dundas Street, item 19, which is 101, Meta-Lily Road South and number 26, which is the third report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, as they had some matters that related directly to the Meta-Lily Development. Other than that, I have not heard from any other Councillors of matters, they wish that pulled.

Thank you, does anyone wish any other items we dealt with separately? Seeing none, with the exception of 719 and 25, those are on the floor, any comments or questions? 26. Excuse me, 1719 and 26, I apologize.

Comments or questions? Professor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I just would like to make a comment on 2.12, which is the 2021 post-development environmental impact study monitoring.

I just wanna thank staff for bringing this report to us. We were just receiving it, but I am really pleased that we are going to be undertaking and evaluating some of our subdivisions that we assume and comparing them to pre-development. Obviously, we have to try to, we’re trying to achieve enough benefit to our natural heritage area. So I think this is just another way that we can monitor and make sure that the studies and assessments pre-development and then comparing them after that we are achieving the importance of developing around natural heritage areas and really looking forward to getting some data coming back from staff.

So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hummer. I think it’s 2.13, the Building Division Monthly Report. I wanted to just ask through the mayor to staff how things are going in terms of the demand and being able to keep up with the demand for residential construction in particular.

I’m quite concerned that the building levels and the demand for housing is so high that we’re gonna have a very hard time keeping up and not just this year, but over the next couple of years. And I wanted to check in through the mayor to see perhaps Mr. Kostas wants to comment on that, how it’s looking and what kind of steps might be taken in the short term if we’re finding that there is a really tight capacity constrained to alleviate it. Mr.

Kostas. Through his worship, I hope you can hear me. We are fine. So it has been very challenging.

We’ve had significantly high volumes over the last year and we’ve had significant challenges in recruiting appropriate resources to deliver those services. But withstanding that we have been able to manage and actually stay within our legislative timeframes. It’s been, but it does not go with saying that staff have really stepped up above and beyond in order to do that. We will be bringing forward to you in the upcoming committee cycle, an update on the building stabilization reserve fund.

We are currently recruiting for additional staff and we could have a conversation about the appropriate staffing levels at that time if Councilor Wishes. Councilor. Thank you very much. And I did want to commend the staff in this area for the work that they have done to keep up with the demand.

It’s difficult job in the normal circumstances. It’s a lot harder when demand goes up and COVID restrictions make everything harder. And I think the staff in the area are doing the best they can. And it’s certainly noticed.

I’m glad to see that we’re having a report coming forward at the next cycle. I’ll save my questions for that come to the committee meeting to talk about it. Thanks very much, Mr. Kostas.

Thank you, Councillor. I have Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, your worship. I just wanted to comment on item 25, which is 3.11 on the committee report.

It’s the Masonville area draft secondary plan. It keeps moving through the process. I want to thank staff so much for this report and the presentation they gave. They did a really good job.

It was very clear. There always is a lot of trepidation, maybe some nervousness from the public. When we come up with these secondary plans, they tend to think that the city is the developer and is creating all of this and building all of these hypothetical developments that show up in a secondary plan. So it’s always an opportunity for discussion and conversation with our constituents.

I know Councillor Morgan also spoke at the planning committee meeting and we had constituents because it’s sort of, it’s the Masonville area is in both of our wards. So it was a really good plan. And again, brought forth some concerns from the area. It was great to hear staff listen to and address those concerns.

And I’m sure the plan will continue to be refined as they go forward and will continue to consider all of the discussion and input that they’ve received from the area resident. So I just want to say thank you again for this really good plan and looking forward to seeing it keep going down the road. Thank you, Councillor Turner. Thanks, Your Worship.

A few comments and a few of these things. Number one with respect to bill 229 and Ontario’s flooding strategy at a 2.4 on the committee agenda. I appreciate the report. I think it’s important for us to recognize the impact that the legislative changes have had in municipalities relationship and provinces relationship with conservation authorities.

Conservation authorities are important partners to municipalities. Some municipalities see conservation authorities as barriers to some of the functions of the municipality. I think we need to take a look at them as close partners. And they provide us very important research and information, especially with respect to the watershed and to how we develop and grow as a community in a way that’s ecologically responsible and recognizes the impacts that our growth have on that water course and that water system.

The ability to maintain strong watersheds is essential for us to be able to have a strong ecosystem as well as just for human sustainability with respect to drinking water and agriculture and all of that. So it’s important to have an update to see what those impacts are. It’s disappointing that the province moved ahead with a number of these changes. And so I just wanted to highlight that.

I thought it was very important here. The second was as Councillor Hopkins identified in 2.12 post-development environmental impacts, study monitoring. For you, Your Worship, I just had a question. I couldn’t find it in the reports and perhaps I missed it.

What’s the period of post-development EIS monitoring that will be taken, is it just the year or is it a little more longitudinal than that? Councillor, are you responding to that? I think Mr. Yeomans is on the line and he could provide the time for you.

Good, Mr. Jones. Thank you, Your Worship, through you. So it’s an excellent question and what we do is we take the recommendation from the EIS for the amount of monitoring, depending on the feature and what’s been studied.

Generally it ranges from three to five years, three years being the most common. So that’s what we’ll be undertaking the monitoring for as part of this program. Councillor? That’s for Your Worship, thank you.

That’s helpful and great to see. I think this is a win on two sides. One, this is something that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee has been advocating for for a long time. It’s incredibly important because the environmental impact studies identify those sensitivities of jacencies to our environmental features, such as environmentally significant areas.

And knowing what the impact is to make sure that the projected impacts or mitigation measures that were identified in the EIS actually come to fruition and that there’s an opportunity to intervene if the engineering or the design had some limitations or dysfunctions. So this is a huge win and this on the second front is that it’s coming from development charges. So it’s part of the development charge system. I think that’s quite appropriate as it’s new growth and through DCs as well.

The third one I wanted to highlight was just with respect to the number 2.5 affordable housing community improvement plan loan agreements. This is good news. This is just a further to interaction that Council has already given with respect to these loans but the ability to delegate the authority to staff will help us be more nimble and be able to issue those loans faster too. So good news on a few of these fronts and one not so good news but I appreciate all the reports and information that are coming through the planning committee.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? I see none and we’ll be then dealing with what is on the floor with the exception of item 17, 19 and 26 we’ll call the question. Councillor Celine and Councillor Van Mierberg.

Councillor Celine. Councillor Celine. I will mark him as absent on this vote. Those in the vote in the motion carries 14 to 0.

Thank you Councillor Squire. The first matter on the agenda is item 17 3.3 which was an application related to 1414 Dundas Street. Just very briefly that’s one of the first developments on the lands that used to be the London psychiatric hospital certainly when I started going out there and practicing law. It’s a development for the London Humane Society.

There wasn’t objection really to the development itself but an issue is and was before the committee and now for council with regard to a parking lot adjacent to the feature called the Tree LA and staff’s recommendation was that the parking could not be located where it was and the committee went in a different direction. So put that matter on the floor for debate. Thanks very much, comments or questions? Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I did not support this, the committee’s direction committee. This is a good news story. The Humane Society’s new home in London, I think is a great opportunity for being part of this development but I did support staff’s recommendation which was to refuse it.

And one of the, when it came to the parking and we did a committee try to refer it back to have the applicant and staff work on the parking and do some more work around the landscaping part that that was for me unfortunately it was not supported at committee. So to be consistent, I think I will still not be supporting the committee’s direction. One of the reasons I didn’t support this at committee was that there’s a secondary plan on these lands and to me it is going to set a precedent as much as we want to be able to provide opportunities for the Humane Society. There are other opportunities there and the precedent that we’ll be setting here is how we work around the LA, the Cultural Heritage LA and Design Parking.

There’s going to be more development in this area. So to be consistent with our secondary plan I think it is important not to set that precedent. So again, I’ll be not supporting the committee’s direction even though this is a good development moving forward with the exception of the parking next to this cultural heritage area. Thank you, other comments, questions?

How’s for those? Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m rising to encourage colleagues to support the committee recommendation on this. Well, I certainly respect Councillor Hopkins concerns about secondary plans.

The reason that these things come to us is because there are times when the plan doesn’t necessarily fit the ideal use of the land and we heard from a non-staff planner on behalf of the applicant. And the reason that I supported this and moved it opposite the staff recommendation is there is room for interpretation here. And when we are talking about a 10 meter buffer, landscaped buffer by the applicant between the tree LA and the parking area, to me, I agree with the outside planner’s interpretation that that is not adjacent, that there is a division there with a landscaped space. This is in ward four, it is in Councillor Helmer’s ward.

It’s right next to mine. This land has been vacant for a long time. This is a great use of the land and it’s also a difficult piece of land to work with. The way it is sandwiched between two rail lines, the tree LA and the Dundas Street corridor, with only one possible safe point of entry from Dundas Street, which is an auto oriented retail and commercial corridor, which means vehicle traffic does need a parking space.

And that is why the Humane Society has the parking laid out the way it does. However, we also heard from the applicant during the meeting that they are more than happy to continue to work with staff during the site plan portion of the application moving forward and may actually be able to reduce the number of parking spots that they need when the plan is finalized. So I believe the applicant’s working in very good faith here. I think the plan is reasonable.

And I respectfully disagree with staff’s interpretation of what adjacent to the tree LA is in the secondary plan. So that’s why I moved it at committee and that’s why I’m encouraging people to support it now so that the Humane Society can go ahead with their application and start building their new home. Thank you, I have Councillor Turner. Your worship, I agree with the Councillor Hopkins assessment on this.

If we can’t follow our plans, they’re not worth the paper they’re printed on and we’ve seen this happen a few times. So I think it’s quite reasonable to ask, to do the referral back to staff so that they can work through the, any of the challenges associated with section A here. The remainder, I think we could probably pass, but we could probably refer A back. Perhaps if I could through you to staff to figure out if that decoupling challenges the rest of the application and passing B and C.

If that’s a question for staff, let’s ask staff. Thank you, your worship through you. I would suggest that it’s all a package that must be taken completely together, given that A is affecting the actions from B and C. That’s true.

Fair enough, that’s why I asked, which is helpful. So then I would move a referral back to staff. A referral provides that direction to allow staff to continue to work with the applicant to resolve the conflict here. I don’t see it as insurmountable and provides the applicant with understanding what council supports staff and finding that resolution as well.

Do you have a seconder for that referral, Councillor Turner? I see Councillor Hopkins. Comments or questions on the referral? Councillor Hummer, you had your hand up on the main motion, you want to speak to the referral?

I do, I’ll try and be brief. I did suggest the idea of a referral at Planning Committee, I think my thinking was very much in line with Councillor Turner. Since the Planning Committee meeting, I had an hour and a half long discussion with the applicant about their plans. And I would say the possibility of finding a different design that would not be in conflict with this policy is very low based on that discussion.

We cover a lot of ground. I don’t think they’re willing to move and I don’t think the referral other than causing a delay would result in a different outcome, unfortunately. I had hoped that it would be possible then. So I’m not going to support the referral.

I do think back in time when I was at Planning Committee, I thought it was a good idea. Since then having spent some time talking to them, I don’t think that there’s anything fruitful that’s going to come out of it. And so I think you should just deal with the motions in front of us instead of the referral. Thank you, Councillor Halst.

Thank you, Your Worship. I won’t be supporting the referral. Thank you. Other comments or questions?

Seeing none on the referral, we will call the question. Click it, click on it. We’re working? Councillor Cassidy.

I voted. Did it not come through? You still have the voting— It came up again, so I’ll do it again. Thank you.

The vote in the motion is lost, six to nine. So we are now back to the main motion. We see anyone else wish to speak to this. I saw Councillor Van Holst and then Councillor Helmer.

Thank you, Your Worship. So this is a very well thought out plan that will have an important services to Londoners. So the secondary plan is a secondary consideration for me. I think the 10 meters of landscape space is superior to having buildings right up against the trees.

And I also know that the applicants are offering some of their internal space for community use. And I see this as a potential way for Londoners to access the tree LA, the walkway that’s going to be there. Now, most of the other buildings I believe are intended to be residential. I think there’s going to be some commercial.

But in those cases, I can see where having the building front doors and the commercial access right up against the tree LA, which would make it a wonderful, wonderful place to walk. And however, and for this purpose, I think it’s better the way it is. So that’s why I’ll support that. I don’t see it as precedent setting.

And I think deeper into the tree LA, we should keep to that secondary plan. One advantage about having the buffer and the parking lot is that from the street, you’ll be able to see, you’ll be able to see better the environmental feature, which if we had buildings right up against it, you would drive along and only be able to see right down the corridor, but it wouldn’t be as visible and less attractive. So I’m in support of this for a number of reasons and very thankful for the applicants to choose this place. I think it’s gonna be a great addition to the area.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hummer. Thank you. So I’m gonna move an amendment to the recommendation from committee and then speak to that.

I’d like to just reserve my comments about the main motion until we deal with the amendment. So I’d like to add a direction to the site plan approval authority that they consider moving as much of the parking to the rear as possible. I’m just assuming that we’ll go against the secondary plan policy and allow the parking between the building and the cultural heritage landscape feature. And if that is gonna happen, I’d like to have a direction to say plan approval authority to have as much parking as possible moved, either reduced or moved to the back.

So that’s my amendment. I think that that’s mitigating some of the problems that will come from allowing parking between the building and the cultural heritage landscape. I think you have a seconder, Councillor Lewis, comments or questions. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll just say I’m happy to support Councillor Helmer on this as I spoke to him personally. I said, let’s do what we need to do to work through any significant barriers through site plan. And that’s what’s being proposed here.

So I’m happy to support that. Thanks very much. Other comments or questions? Councillor Vanholst.

Thank you, Your Worship. I have a question to the mover as to what he sees is the problem with having the parking where it is. What challenges do you see there that the buffer isn’t addressing? Will have you answered Councillor Hummer’s wish?

I’m gonna save my comments about the problem with the parking to the main motion. I will tell you that in my discussion with the applicant, they’re pretty open to the idea of relocating some of the parking. And so I think that that’s a reasonable thing that they’re willing to look at. And that’s why I’m moving it.

Thanks very much, Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, Madam, that doesn’t really, I’m sorry, I didn’t get the answer to my question. But so I’ll decide from any other conference whether they’re not to support the motion. Thanks very much.

Any other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, I’m gonna support the amendment as well. That aligns with the conversations I had with the applicant too.

They certainly through the site plan process, they’re willing to see what they can do. And I think this is a reasonable direction to our staff as the site plan authority to work with them on this. So I’ll support the amendment. Thank you, any other comments or questions?

So on the amendment, we will call the question. Councillor Vanne, Mayor Morgan, closing the vote in the motion carries 14 to 1. So now we have the main motion as amended. We will look for a mover for that.

I saw, I’ve got a couple of folks here, but Councillor Hummer, you had your hand up right away. Was that to move this or was that to, for in line for discussion on this? Just wanna speak to the main motion, I won’t be moved. Okay, I’ve got a mover and Councillor Lewis, the seconder and Councillor Squire.

Comments, questions? Councillor Hummer. Thank you. So having moved the amendment, I wanna encourage colleagues, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be working out any kind of compromise, really, to follow the policy and have this kind of development happen.

So I would ask you to vote it against it. What’s being recommended by the committee is to ignore the secondary plan policy that says no parking between the buildings and the cultural heritage landscape features throughout the entire secondary plan. So it’s not just the treat LA, it’s all the cultural heritage landscape features, that’s the policy that’s at issue. The secondary plan was passed back in 2011.

And actually the council for this one, dealt with some minor amendments, we had to put in some language from the 89 official plan to make sure it was current. Once the London plan came into effect, we didn’t have a problem there. It’s actually been passed by two councils. It obviously is impacting a very large part of the city.

It’s probably the biggest residential opportunity. And it’s very important that it’s done well. The landscape itself is unique. A lot of it has fallen into disrepair from being vacant over a long period of time and being neglected.

And it’s very important that we get this right. And the policy framework that was put in place was really heavily focused. The secondary plan you read through it, it’s 90 pages long, very focused on protecting the heritage features of this property. And they’re not just the buildings, it’s what the overall property looks like and the street LA is really an important part of that.

Now, obviously it’s over time, really falling into neglect. It’s overgrown in some places. I’ve been out to that property more times than I’d like to count to help pick up garbage that’s blown on to the, we used to be the lawn bowling area, caught in the weeds by the train tracks. But it’s not gonna be like that in the future.

And there’s lots of great developments that are gonna happen on this property and the property to the north and the secondary plan covers it all. So the issue with the parking is that putting parking beside the cultural heritage landscape feature is going to make it worse. It’s not gonna make it like a great place where you wanna walk. It’s gonna be walking beside a parking lot.

And that’s just not a great design. So one of the reasons that the buildings are designed to be oriented to the tree LA is so that the whole thing, the whole cultural heritage landscape feature feels like it’s still the focal point of the overall site and that the buildings that come that are new are fitting into that existing cultural heritage landscape. So this is a relatively small part of the overall project, the redevelopment. But I think it’s an important thing that we follow the policy that is in place and that we don’t let parking be between the building and the tree LA.

I do think the applicant has done a lot to try and have parking and still have a buffer and create the views and keep it better. The buffer makes it a lot better than putting the parking lot directly beside the tree LA. But the policy is no parking between the buildings and the tree LA, not no parking beside the tree LA. And so I wanted to discuss with them how it could be accommodated, but it can move the parking to the rear.

And unfortunately, I don’t think that that’s possible given what they’re wanting to do on the site. So I think the application needs to be refused. Something else can be built here, mixed use commercial building with residential, something else that would fit within the secondary plan and the Humane Society could find another location for their new building, which I think looks like a great idea. And with the exception of this one issue, I think it’s a great development proposal.

I want to say that’s the substance of this issue. We had it not too long ago, a council that used to ignore staff advice and pass, recommend their own ideas, eight, seven, all the time. And what happens when you substitute your own personal preferences for the official plan policy or the secondary plan policy, is that we end up with a lot of LPAT appeals, either developers appeal them or the citizens come to meetings and appeal them. And what happens is everything is delayed and people feel like they can’t get a fair shake because no one knows what the policy framework actually is until they show up at the meeting.

And so separate from this specific matter, which I would like you to vote against, I also want to caution us as strongly as I possibly can, that doing planning this way is going to result in a lot of really long planning meetings, a lot of really long drawn out council meetings, a lot of LPAT appeals on all different sides of the issue, which is going to grind development to a standstill on a lot of these important projects, including this one. If they come in with parking that’s adjacent to the cultural heritage all throughout the rest of the site, it’s going to delay things. And these are not short delays. There was an appeal on this very site back in 2011 when the secondary plan came in, the lawn-bullying club appealed it.

It took in a year almost to have a hearing about it. And then another year it actually reached a settlement. That was just over the secondary plan. And those delays really cost.

And so there’s lots of developments where I think the parking is totally accessible. There’s lots of developments where I think, we need to have more intensification in the core, not outside, but the policy framework doesn’t support that. And so I support those developments even though I don’t really like them. 30 seconds.

So I just want to caution us that just coming up with our own policy preferences, ‘cause sometimes they can interact in ways that there’s no majority because for these reasons, somebody doesn’t support it and for these other reasons, somebody else doesn’t support it. And nobody finds that out until they come to the planning meeting. And that’s not a fair way of doing planning. It’s not a way that’s going to result in even planning decisions in the long run.

And it’s going to take us down a road we should not be going down. So this specific issue is small, I would say. It has a potential to become very big. And I would really caution us to think very carefully about whether this is a good idea or not.

Thank you, Councillor Lehman. Thank you. I guess I have a different opinion that Councillor Hummer, you know, this piece of land, it’s a very unique piece. I think it’s limited for development.

There’s train tracks that come across the north end of it. Am I here? Is that so? They’ve taken for another 10 years.

The Humane Society has come up with a really good looking plan and it’s a gorgeous building that’s going to really enhance the services that the Humane Society wanted. It also provides the opportunity for the Humane Society to be in a more accessible location. Usually, operators of this nature and the outskirts of town, now you have something that’s more intel, that will allow more people to interact, which is kind of the idea behind the Humane Society is provide more neighborhood interaction, not just as a place to drop off pets or pick up pets, but to actually learn more about what they’re doing. Unfortunately, the way the land is, the outdoor site for the animals and for the neighborhood interaction is on the east side.

So that leaves only one side for the parking. Trees aren’t going to be removed here. They’ve increased the elated for more distance for consideration of concerns. And they also provided willingness to work within the site plan.

And I think that that’s why I supported Councilor’s Halmerism Amendment to recognize that fact that they’re willing to work as much as they can to make this project a good project. And to stick with the plan and lose this opportunity to bring in this service at this location, it’s desperately needed. The current Humane Society is in a state where it can’t continue much longer. Like I said, this is a really good project.

It’s going to enhance the area. It’s going to provide a use for that land that’s not vacant for quite a while. So I encourage my colleagues to support this. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you, Your Worship. I won’t be supporting it. We just talked about the Masonville Secondary Plan. Secondary plans are extremely, extremely important.

And they generally involve a whole lot of community engagement. So when you have a large area like the Masonville area or like this area or the Southwest area plan or all of these other especially old brownfield sites where we are at the McCormick site where we’re looking at doing huge developments in an area that’s either been sitting vacant for a while or now it’s time to rejuvenate and create a new use. The Byron gravel pits as well. We’ve been working for years on these different secondary plans.

And people come out, people have concerns. People have interests and they want their voice to be heard and we spend an inordinate amount of time discussing these secondary plans. And so then the very first developer that comes along and says, yeah, notwithstanding all of that community input, notwithstanding everything that’s been created and this vision and that’s the thing with a secondary plan is it is a vision. It’s not just a policy that we can decide in this instance, let’s make an exemption.

It’s a secondary plan is completely different animal. It is a vision and a for a holistic approach to an area. And we run into, as counselor Homer said, we run into all sorts of trouble. And the 2000, anybody that said in the last term of council will remember the Southwest area plan and that enterprise corridor, how many times did that come back to our council because the council before had ignored staff’s recommendations and made a whole bunch of changes.

There was an OMB hearing involved in there. There were trade off made and all it did was create extreme problems down the road and that holistic vision was lost. So a secondary plan is extremely important. We use them in London in areas of great public interest where we need to have that holistic vision for how the development will take place.

And I always tell word five residents when we talk about the Masonville plan, this is good for you. A secondary plan is good for you because it gives you some kind of level of certainty for how that development in that area is going to take place. So when we go ahead and just throw out the secondary plan at the first application that comes our way, then we’re being dishonest to the residents that we’ve already said, this is certainty for you. So now you have— Can I caution on the word dishonest, Councillor Cassidy, I think that’s a word you might want to change and— Sorry, for your worship.

I don’t mean that in that somebody is being dishonest, it’s a perception. So there’s a perception from the residents that they weren’t, they didn’t hear the whole truth. And I know that that’s their perception and it’s not necessarily the case, but it’s important if we’re making these secondary plans and people want that kind of certainty in place. I think we need to follow through.

Thank you, I have Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. You know, I’m hearing a lot of, oh, we’re gonna have appeals from the community. We’re gonna have objections from the community.

Colleagues, the fact is this notice was circulated and there were zero objections from the public to this development. Respectfully, we heard from warehouse guys who was the immediate next door neighbor and we heard from the Yargal BIA that they are supportive of this application moving forward. You know, the idea that we may have mixed, you know, some future potential use of mixed commercial and residential. Well, I’m not sure how much interest there is in building residential immediately beside a railroad track, there may be, but it’s certainly not going to be the most desirable location.

But I keep hearing the secondary plan. And Councillor Cassie is right, it is a vision, but it is a vision subject to change. It is not carved in stone. And the very reason we have a planning and environment committee is to consider when things need to be looked at through a different lens.

And that’s exactly what we have done here. We’ve looked at the situation and we have the committee recommended that we go ahead. You know, if we want to really talk about the number of LPAT appeals and things like that, well, you know, then voting to reject this, I guarantee you will generate an LPAT appeal. And if that fails, then what we will probably do is lose the Humane Society in London.

You know, it’s not easy for a not-for-profit or charitable organization to raise the kind of funds to acquire land to build a new building. And they have done this without asking us for a nickel of public dollars. A lot of organizations come to us asking for matching funds. We remember in the budget debate that we had in the multi-year budget process about Fanshawe College’s request for money.

And I’m just using that as an example. I’m not centering out Fanshawe College, but it is actually our role to decide when the vision doesn’t fit the reality. That’s why we exist as a planning and environment committee and it’s why we exist as a council. So let’s not turn our back on a good community partner on somebody who has done their homework, who has worked with our staff to do everything that they can to bring forward.

And I point out, with all these concerns on the secondary plan, the staff supported every other single piece of this application, except the adjacent to the tree LA parking. Every other single piece. So the variation here is small. Councilor Helmare alluded to that.

The variation here is small. And I agree with him on that. But I don’t agree with what I’m hearing about the secondary plans can never be varied or altered. That is our job as policy makers and decision makers.

So I encourage colleagues to support this. This is gonna be good for the East End. It’s going to be good for the redevelopment of the larger old Oak project. It’s gonna have the Humane Society within transit and driving and walking distance for a number of new people who are going to call that part of the city home.

It’s going to be just a couple of blocks away from a rapid transit corridor when the East London link gets built. It is going to be an ideal situation. And this is the Humane Society of London in Middlesex. Just being off of Highbury Ave, it’s gonna provide an excellent location for those coming into the city to use the Humane Society services.

And we heard from the applicant that a lot of Humane Societies actually locate outside of the municipal boundaries because of the nature of their work. But here they found a spot that they can use in the city. They want to continue to be the London and Middlesex Humane Society. And I think we should afford them the chance to do so.

So again, I encourage colleagues to support this while I understand your concerns. This is a good application. And this is actually our job. Thank you, Councillor Squire.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t necessarily want to deal specifically with this application and what I feel about this application. But I certainly do want to address some of the broader issues as chair planning.

I certainly want to address them. And certainly it appears to me that we are now entering into a period where when we have honest disagreements on policy that they’re characterized as Councillors using their own personal opinions to make decisions, those sort of things. And I just want to really strongly reject that idea. And I am not going to talk about what another council did or what a council did to councils ago, but I will stand behind the decisions I make and how I make them and why I make them.

In this particular case, let me tell you that Mr. Thomas Inzick, who was speaking for the planning staff, clearly recognized the right of the planning committee to approve this application with the parking outside of the secondary plan. He recognized that. In fact, told us, well, if you want to do that, here’s what you need to do.

And it was done based on, I thought, a difference of opinion. And first of all, some of us thought, as Councillor Lewis did, that there was a real issue is whether with the buffering and the excess buffering that was provided, whether you could even say anymore the parking was adjacent to the tree LA or whether sufficient buffering now. You may not agree with me and I respect that. But it’s not my personal opinion and it’s not dishonest.

It’s what I actually decided after considering the matter. It is also the role of Council and we all know this. Part of the reason we sit here is to look at particular cases and decide when we will provide exemptions to a policy. We will change a by-law.

We will do those sort of things. And we also know that people often come to us and say, well, the by-law says, you can only put this kind of building here. Why are you even considering changing the zoning? And we say to them, I think that is our role.

And I can honestly say that no citizen has ever just said to me that that’s a dishonest approach. They may disagree with me, but they certainly don’t use the word dishonest. So I think it’s great to disagree. I don’t have a problem with disagreeing, but I do have a problem when people disagree and then insist on putting a label on that disagreement and saying, well, you’re doing it because of your personal opinion.

Well, your decision is going to be interpreted as being dishonest. I don’t really accept hearing that from my colleagues. I’ve sat here as a counselor now for six years and I have been on the short end of votes on any number of occasions. And I have never cast dispersions on my colleagues’ intent on what they voted for and their honest disagreement.

And to be fair, I didn’t hear casting dispersions as a reference point, but I do have Councilor Turner on the list. I took my hand down your worship, not much point. Thank you, any other comments or questions? This is on the motion as amended.

Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Councilor Palosa, closing the vote and the motion carries, eight to seven. Thank you, colleagues. It’s my intention to items in plan environment to take a refreshment pause, I think, is the expression.

So what we’ll do is now turn this back to Councilor Square. My wife always says I’m loud enough that I do not need a mic, but I’ll have one in any event. This is a matter that’s familiar to, I think, to most of my colleagues. I thought, quite frankly, that there was some misunderstandings coming out of the planning committee meetings and that matters were not sufficiently clear.

So I have, I’m not going to advocate. I take the role of Chair seriously. I’m not going to jump into the debate about this matter in particular. But Mr.

Chair, I would like to start by just asking some questions of staff that may help the Council in terms of clarifying and shorten the debate if that is all right. And Mr. Yeoman is actually aware of these questions. So my first question is, Mr.

Yeoman, I wonder if you might comment on how the buffering of this property compares to the actual requirement that we have in place for buffering. In other words, is it less or more than is normally required by our rules and regulations, Mr. Yeoman? Through your worship.

So there’s two buffering that are actually occurring as part of this application. One is the natural heritage buffering that’s occurring adjacent to the hybrid woods that is at the rear of the property. It is consistent with our policies. It was recommended based on a scientific study through the environmental impact statement has been accepted by the city’s ecologist as well.

It equals 45 meters from the drip line of the trees all the way to the property line, which is quite considerable. The second buffering for this property is on the fronting middle of the road. That’s a landscape buffer that’s being proposed. That’s actually not a requirement in city policy.

It has been something though that we’ve been able to work through with the applicant and the revised submission in order to provide a better interface with the area and sort of improve the character and the fit with the surrounding community as well to lessen the urban feel of the area as it moves forward, recognizing though that the lands are designated for urban uses. Thank you. My second question is whether you could comment on how the buffering and zoning for this particular development compares to other developments that are also been approved adjacent to this particular ESA. And by that, I mean the meadow lily ESA, Mr.

Chairman? Through you, Mr. Chair. So in the middle, or sorry, through your worship, in the meadow lily road area, we actually haven’t had very much development to date.

The area is designated for urban uses as I mentioned. It currently has urban reserve zoning that’s in place for the entire area. So as applications would come in, they would be evaluated using the same framework that it’s applied. We would anticipate similar setbacks being proposed for any natural heritage feature in the area.

Thank you. And lastly, I wonder if you might, one of the issues that came up was the density of this development and whether, why the particular zoning was put in place for this particular property. And I just wanted you to comment on that, Mr. Johnson.

Yes, thank you through your worship. So the zoning that’s recommended is an R6 zone. That’s a cluster form of zoning, which provides opportunities for a vacant land condo such as this for both singles and for townhouses as well. The zoning that’s in place or that’s proposed for the with the original staff recommendation would implement the London plan neighborhoods place type, as well as the 89 official plan, low density residential land use designation, recognizing the low density residential and land use designation does contemplate townhouses and a maximum of 30 units per hectare for the site.

This is coming out at about 25 units per hectare from the proposal. Thank you very much. I just wanted to clarify those matters and now I’ll turn it back to your worship. Thanks.

I’ll look for comments or questions from colleagues. Councillor earlier. Thank you very much. Well, a few comments and then a motion.

First of all, this is not about a single development. It’s about protecting the buffer areas around our ESAs. So what do we do? Sorry, I wonder, Councillor, I wonder this so that we know exactly what it is that we’re going to be talking about.

What I am looking for is a motion to go on the floor. And then I think we have something we can respond to. So I will look to colleagues for that, Councillor. I don’t think I can move it because of my voted committee.

So someone else would have to move that, right? So, Councillor, if you have a motion, we’ll hear that, please, go ahead. Yes, just a motion to reject the development at one-on-one middle of the drive. Do you have a seconder for that?

I believe I do. I see Councillor Lewis seconding that comments or questions on rejecting the staff recommendation. Comments or questions? Councillor Hopkins.

If I may, your worship, I’m a little confused here with this motion to reject. Usually there should be an explanation why before I make comments and I don’t want my five minutes to be taken away from me, just asking that question, just to give you a heads up, but just— So noted, it won’t impact on your five minutes. I wonder if Councillor Hill here has some thoughts around that since he moved the motion. If that’s what you’re looking for, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead, Councillor Hiller.

I have started, but we went in reverse, so that’s okay. So like I said before, this is not about a single development. It’s about protecting the buffer areas around our ESAs. So what do we do?

The developer brought forth a plan. It’s checked off all the boxes of the London Plan, the strategic plan, they’ve done everything correctly. But still, Londoners don’t want this. This type of density in the middle of the woods.

And if we say no, it probably will get appealed and we could lose. It’s difficult for us all. We need the infill development and no one seems to want it in their area. Now, what do we do?

We have to set the example for future development in these buffer areas. Now, these buffer zone might be addressed in a year or so through the three things, London zoning, of three things, the zoning program. But we need to let the development community know now how we’re going to address these areas. Personally, I can’t support this development because my constituents don’t.

But I can understand why my colleagues might. And I’m looking forward to hearing the rest of the discussion on this because I think we’re in a pickle. I feel a rock hard place. Not so much way to go.

All right. Was to cancel your thoughts, opening thoughts on that? Councillor Hopkins, are you ready to make some comments yourself, your hand is up? I might as well go for it.

I did leave the committee being totally open to being convinced that I got it wrong. So I’m open to hearing reasons why I supported staff’s recommendation for this development. And I just want to start off for those of you who may not be aware that this was referred back with the previous committee to look at the entrances onto Meadow Lily and to also look at the height. I think that was when the first application came to us last term.

And here we are looking at the application again with 88 units of residential houses and townhouses. And like Mr. Yeoman said, the zoning does allow for some kind of development here. And I hear Councillor Hellier’s concerns around the buffering.

That’s something I’ve always tried to really understand the importance and the need for protection around our ESAs. This committee a month ago supported an application in my ward on Hamlin, my next 20 ESA. And it wasn’t even a conversation of the 30-metre buffering that was put in. I know Meadow Lily is very close and dear to everyone.

I am very familiar with this area. I am, you know, if I had my wish, I wouldn’t want any development around an ESA that our policies allow for it. I also want to bring your attention to the zoning that is on here. It’s an urban reserve and the urban reserve is for vacant land, condo, freehold.

It’s low impact, it’s low density. And I know that was a conversation with the secondary here on this motion at PAC about the medium density and trying to understand our policies. And I get very confused. There are two forms of zoning here and this was considered the best zoning possible.

It was, this Council approved another similar zoning of vacant land, condo, freehold lands in my ward. Again, it was on Clayton Walk and the development still hasn’t happened. But again, it was the same zoning that allows up to 30 units per hectare. I understand this is 25, 27 units per hectare.

So it does allow for this low impact development. I wish we could just have a few houses on here and have little impact on Meadowlily Road, which is an important road heritage feature. The previous committee made sure that we asked for a heritage impact assessment. There was an archeological assessment done through that process as well.

And I understand with this new application coming back to us, there’s going to be more buffering along that road to allow for that protection of that heritage road. And I tried a committee to get that heritage impact assessment. If you look at the latch report and I think that is being pulled because there are a number of comments and suggestions through that that I would like that staff and the applicant have regard for latch’s comments and the heritage impact assessment. We’re going through the site plan process as we undertake this application.

I would encourage staff to make sure they have that regard for the heritage impact. I’ve heard from the community, allowed and clear, the public’s concern of the importance of this road and how it will be maintained and protected throughout. But I think it’s really important as we proceed here that we understand what our policies can allow for. And I as a committee member and as a counselor of this municipality want to have as much control about what kind of development happens here and not have it go through an appeal process, which I think may happen if this is refused.

So those are my comments. I’m always open to being convinced somehow I’ve got it wrong. I hope everyone will be making comments here because I know we received a lot of feedback from the public at planning committee. 30 seconds counselor.

And since then, so again, looking forward to everyone’s comments. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And Councillor Hopkins is right.

The zoning designations and the two blended recommendations here were a concern of my net committee because our six, if you go on our own city website is a medium density designation, despite the fact that the application continually refers to low density. And it seems to me from what I’ve heard and kept my mind open and listening to folks on both sides, that one of the reasons the medium density is being zoning is being recommended is because under the new plan for the cluster town housing, you need to have the medium density. It doesn’t fit. Despite the fact that the person’s per hectare number fits, the form doesn’t fit the low density.

The form only fits the medium density. So we’re putting in an R6 designation. But what it all comes down to for me is this is not a low density, low impact development. This is a medium density development.

I took the opportunity to meet with the applicants as well. I listened to their point of view. I listened to the residents. I visited the site again on the weekend.

And I just cannot, in good conscience, square, a medium density R6 designation on this site. It’s not appropriate for the road. We’ve heard about future potential road windings, future potential infrastructure that has to be considered to come in there. And in the interim, the developer will provide pumping stations and that sort of thing.

I think that raises a lot of red flags for me as well. It is very close to an environmentally significant area as well as the south branch of the Thames River. Gravity and physics are a real thing. The pumping requirements, while I believe that the applicant has done everything that they can to meet the requirements and probably would, is still a concern.

So I am going to support the rejection of this application. I hope colleagues will as well. I know that there is concern about, you know, well, the developer may just take this to Alpat and we may lose. I think whatever we do tonight, there’s a good chance.

And again, all of us are speculating on this. But I think that there is a good chance that the community takes it to Alpat as well. So it may end up there regardless of our decision tonight. But for me, it comes down to this site would be appropriate for some low density infill.

Yes, it’s urban reserve. Yes, some development would and should happen there. But I would like to see that be low density. And that’s not what I’m seeing in this application.

So that’s the reason for me to support the rejection tonight. I see Councillor Cassidy on the list. Thank you, Your Worship. So I know we’re talking about speculation.

And I know there are certain counselors that don’t think we should even consider it the possibility of an appeal when we’re dealing with a planning application. But the fact of the matter is, as Councillor Hoffman’s pointed out, this has already been referred back. And I believe that the developer has done a lot to listen to the community, to listen to the concerns that have been brought forward, to listen to city staff, and to make adjustments, quite a few adjustments, and quite a few compromises on this development. The fact of the matter is, we’re past the date for appeal.

The developer could have appealed already for a lack of decision by Council. If this does go to appeal, the applicant does not have to honor any of these compromises that have been made. The applicant could put forward their original proposal. So all of the work that’s being done with the community, all of the work that has been done with city staff could be lost.

And if we want to talk about protecting the ESA, all of the compromises that have taken place, this 45-meter buffer, that’s huge. A two-story building is 12 meters or something like that. So imagine what 45 meters looks like. That is a very substantial buffer and an area for protection for the ESA.

Going to LPAT, it would mean a decision made by people that are not necessarily Londoners that don’t have the same connection to London and desire to see London’s natural areas protected the way we all want to see London’s natural areas protected. The other thing, and I would look to staff through you, Mr. Mayor, for confirmation. But if this does go to appeal, it is my understanding, because the council decision would be opposed to the staff recommendation that city staff could not defend city council’s position at the hearing.

City council would have to hire an outside planner and outside legal council to represent city council’s position, and the applicant could and would most likely call on city planners as witnesses on their behalf. That’s my understanding of how it would work. And I just would like confirmation from city staff. Well, let’s ask city staff, Mr.

Omen’s— I’m not sure we bring Mr. Carter into this, but Mr. Omen, do you want to start? Yes, thank you, through you, Mr.

Ball. I’ll start briefly, and then I’ll turn things over. Mr. Carter, if you’d like to add more, the councilor is correct in her assessment of the hypothetical of an appeal on this situation.

Mr. Carter, is it helpful for you to add anything else to this? No, Mr. Omen’s answer is correct.

We would be able to represent the city internally, because the lawyers have not taken a position on the matter, but they would be using outside experts, because city staff would not be available. Councillor CASSIDY. And would city staff be potentially called as witnesses against city council? Mr.

Carter. Your worship, yes, I’ve done that many times myself in my past life. Thank you, Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you.

I will be voting against Councillor Hillier’s motion, and I urge city council as well to vote against this motion. If this motion fails, I would be interested in moving the staff recommendation. Thanks very much. Other comments or questions?

Mr. Turner. Thanks, Your Worship. It’s an interesting debate.

I have worked about nine years on the environmental and ecological planning advisor committee prior to getting onto council in the six years on the planning and environment committee. So about 15 years of looking at specific environmental features, environmental impact studies, how development should be appropriately cited next to environmental features. I recognize the concerns that are associated here. It’s in an area that has some sensitivities, but it’s been noted a few times already.

This is vacant land. It’s designated as urban reserve. The application is at one of the lowest forms of density that’s being applied. It’s under 30 units per hectare.

So it is a low density application. So there’s not much further in terms of lower density that you get to single family homes, perhaps. Probably the worst use of land from an environmental impact. If that’s what you’re worried about, single family homes are the largest consumer of land in the city by class.

You could look at factories and stuff like that. But single family homes are really, poorly using space. So here we have a little bit of density, an application that reflects and respects the buffers as identified through the scope TIS. Yet at our meeting last time back in October, we asked it to be referred back to staff so that they could work with the applicant to address a few of the issues that were identified.

Height is one of them. It’s interface and the driveways coming into Meadowland Road. And it’s setting. And I think those were the substantial issues that could be resolved and addressed.

And in good faith, the applicant did so. That motion to send it back or refer it back was unanimously. Sorry, it was passed by the majority of council. I can’t see the vote on the council agenda record.

But I would think that in that same vein that as council sending it back to have those amendments made and sought by staff and having them fixed and being brought back to us, that you should support it going forward now. And to do so otherwise is— well, it takes us back to our last debate. It is just supplanting our judgment on the policy framework that is quite clear and really lays out how development can occur in situations like this. Thank you, Councillor Humber.

Your worship was that— I’m sorry, Councillor Turner, were you done? I apologize. Did I cut you off? That was my pause for dramatic effects.

OK, sorry. It was very dramatic. Go ahead, please. I thank you, Your Worship.

Anyway, I will finish up. The environmental impacts on this are addressed. That’s why we do environmental impact studies. That’s why we identify buffers and separation distances.

Those are all addressed in a circumstance. It is on a road. It is in a populated area. There are single family houses there already.

This is low density. Basically, rejecting this application, as has been said a couple times already, is a pass directly to Alpat. And frankly, I think we get our posterior’s handed to us, and we deserve it if that’s what happened. We’ve got to stop just ignoring our policies.

So I encourage you to reject the motion that’s been put forward. And then I would entertain and support some motion to accept the staff recommendation. Thank you. I next have— was that another dramatic pause, or were we good, Councillor Turner?

OK, thank you. Councillor Almer, please. Thank you. So here’s a great example of what I was talking about earlier.

I said this to the applicant quite directly when I spoke with him. This is not my preferred kind of development. It’s outside the built area boundary. It’s outside the primary transit area.

It’s kind of like the last place I’d like to see us build new housing. But it is designated in the Official Plan as urban reserve. What they’re proposing is in line with the low density residential designations under the 89 Official Plan. It’s consistent with the London Plan.

This is about the least intense form of development, you can imagine, for the site other than even fewer single detached homes. Most of this development is single family houses. They’re just in a condo form, which is why we need the R6 zoning. That’s the only reason.

This is a low density development. It’s 52 units of housing. So I could say, well, I don’t want development to be outside. I’d rather it be somewhere else.

And I could vote against it. And it’s politically popular to vote against things like that. Say, hey, if you don’t like it, I’m going to vote against it. And what happens is it goes to LPAT, and nobody cares of what Council decided.

They just want to know what is the policy framework say. Because that’s the LPAT we’re stuck with. We actually briefly had one that actually did care to what Council decided. But we don’t have it anymore, thanks to the provincial government.

And now, though, just hear all the evidence brand new, and they’ll look at the Official Plan, and they’ll look at the policies, and they’ll say, this, no, it’s fine. So what’ll happen is we’ll get a development like this, or maybe worse, maybe more intense, because they won’t have to go for this particular version. They can come for something else. And it’ll happen later.

So it’ll be more expensive. It’ll take longer. It might be a worse development. But what we have accomplished, some people will be happy with me.

My ex-wife would be happy with me. She would really like to see no development happen in the site at all. Lots of people would, because they use the trail. They drive their cars over there, and they walk in the middle of the sea, and they don’t want any development at all on that site.

And I understand why, because they really like this natural area. But we’re the Councillors, and we have to make fair decisions that are in line with our policies. And if we stop doing that, we’re going to be making fair, bad decisions. So I don’t particularly like this development.

I would prefer that it happened later. I know it would be more politically popular for me to vote against it. But it’s in line with our policies. It’s a reasonable development.

It’s low density. And I’m going to support it. Thank you. I now have Councillor Sallie.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to speak to just that kind of say that I won’t be supporting the recommendation in front of us here today. But I’ll be— if it’s defeated, I’ll be supporting the applicant’s application.

I think everything’s pretty much better than said. To me, it makes sense to check off all the boxes the applicant has worked with the community. To me, it seems like the applicant has been patient. I think I haven’t heard any compelling reasons why not to support this application here today.

So I mean, I would probably encourage everyone to consider the facts in front of us. And kind of what we need to do to continue to create an environment where more development comes forward and where we have more opportunities to move our city forward. I mean, the environmental concerns have been addressed. And I think, you know, I recognize that there’s some perspectives outside of the community and concerns.

But I think the right thing to do here today would be to support the applicant and their application here today. So I’ll be supporting against the motion that’s on the floor right now. And hopefully that’s defeated so that we can support the applicant’s application. Thank you.

Councillor Squire. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I also would not— would have not— would have liked to see not— this development not coming forward.

I’m in agreement with Councillor Helmer in that regard. But I think this is different for me than the previous instance where we were dealing with the Humane Society. I think there was a valid reason to allow the parking in that particular case. In this particular case, although I oppose the development at committee, I indeed think it’s the applicant complies with everything that we’ve set out as a requirement to build in this particular area.

So I think I’m going to be supporting it now. And I was persuaded certainly by Councillor Helmer’s— sorry, I was persuaded by Councillor Helmer’s comments. But also Councillor Turner. I’m not sure about his posterior comment as long as he wasn’t referring to me specifically.

So I’ll let him get away with that one. But a lot of what he said was very convincing to me. And I appreciated those comments. Something made in what I thought was an intellectual planning mode, and that’s what I certainly want to hear from my colleagues, so I appreciate that.

Thank you. I have Councillor Unhost. Thank you, Your Worship. And I have a few questions, though, first let me say I do appreciate the Councillor for bringing forward a very unambiguous motion in support of his constituents.

And I wanted to ask a few questions about some issues that came up. First was the archaeological assessment not being made public. Could I just ask through you to staff why that’s generally the case? And maybe they have some other comments about this one in particular.

I typically refer that to staff, but the chair has gotten my attention and has indicated he’d like to respond to that, Councillor. Yes, that was a question that was actually asked as part of questions after the application, and staff did answer it. The reason the archaeological study in staff can follow up is it made public that once it becomes public, then people will become aware of some of those valuable archaeological features that are on a site, and they may do something about that. They may take them, they may interact with them, they may do something that they shouldn’t be doing.

So that’s my understanding of why it is kept confidential so that those activities cannot happen. Through your comments, did you want to add anything to that? Through your worship, the Councillor’s spot on and I have nothing to add. Councillor Rannholst.

Okay, thank you. And I mentioned, I asked that because there was yet some questions about that. So it’s interesting, this is a place that I often walk by with my wife. We live in the area, so we cross the river and take a walk up metal lily.

It’s the area is an empty field for the large part with some smaller and a few larger trees on it. The question I have is that this scene, the motion as it is, essentially seems like a challenge to take us to court. And I think we’ve heard what will likely happen if we lose, that we could lose. And then also with that, lose the concessions that we asked for and were given the last time.

So I do appreciate the developers are very cooperative in trying to make accommodations to what the residents are asking. My question is through you to our planners. Press the path forward or the path forward for the developers. If we just simply turn this down with Mr.

Chairman, through your wish of all, I’ll get my best on the hypothetical. One of two things would happen either the applicant would come back with a revised application and new application because it’d be a completely restart of the process or they would submit an appeal. Actually, it could be three things they could submit an appeal or they could just take no action and choose to move on. So I can’t speculate on what the outcome would be from those three options.

Fair enough. Councillor. Okay. Well, thank you.

That’s very helpful. If we hope to see a different application, we might be better off trying to provide some direction for that. We might have a lower chance of being taken to LPAT. And my question, the next one is if Council simply designated this say R1, how might that make the development different or would it be substantially different in terms of the density that we could end up with?

Mr. Chairman. Through your worship, I’ll maybe speak not just in terms of an R1 zone, R1 zones for a particular existing situation and a former built community, but I think with the Council is indicating for a single family residential type community, that would be sort of outside the application that’s before you hear that would have to be sort of a policy review that we do to look at that and apply that. It would mean that the development, of course, couldn’t proceed.

It wouldn’t permit townhouses and it wouldn’t permit the cluster form of housing that’s proposed. We’d also potentially run into some issues then associated with the servicing solution given that the condo board is going to be owning the private pumping station and force me and be taking care of the maintenance as well too, which is definitely something that is informing us as well. Councillor. Okay.

Thank you. Would it be likely if we said it could only be single family homes that we’ve got a lower density? Mr. Chairman.

Through your worship, if a lower density zone was applied, yes, the lower density form of housing would materialize on the site. Back to you, Councillor. Okay. Thank you.

I’m not sure. This is a difficult decision. Again, like everybody else, I think people would like to see a very large space left for the environment and the comment has been made that it’s in the middle of an ESA. I don’t know if that’s quite true.

Our ESA’s don’t come in squares. They have these strange shape with fingers and then we say there has to be a buffer before the development and these developers have allowed quite a large buffer and a place for a future path between the ESA and their property as well. So that’s a good accommodation for us. I might comment that on the other side of the road, there’s a bit of a berm.

Maybe it’s eight feet tall and when you’re walking, you can’t really see over the shrubs to what’s behind it and I also think that maybe people just don’t want to see a development or just want to feel like they’re in the wilderness. 30 seconds, Councillor. Thanks. So I wonder if putting something like that would be helpful in that in that buffered area.

But again, I think I’ll likely support the development simply because they have accommodated as much as possible. Thank you. I’d like to ask Deputy Mayor to take the chair. Yes, I have a mayor on this.

Thanks very much. I have to start by acknowledging the passion that we heard in terms of the substantial public input on this particular proposal. It was to me almost unprecedented. You know, it made me review the file literature that we’ve all been given and try to understand better the importance of the mobility ESA to both the local area of the residents of our city and certainly from some of the folks who are beyond.

I was also in particular impressed with the level of cooperation and flexibility shown by the developers as they were required to not require it but did respond to the earlier public input and work that they did with city planning staff. They tried to find a solution that would result in a development that’s compatible. And there were several things they did, as you know, in terms of that discussion colleagues. They eliminated 14 driveways.

I just got some numbers here, a few dwelling units provided the 35-meter buffer between the development lands and the ESA. I think the developer has done all that has been asked and within reason to address the status concerns. And I think it’s for all of those reasons that what did we hear? We heard that city staff has supported this development proposal because it aligns with the London plan and the provincial policy statement.

Staff are convinced from everything I’ve read that based on their training and experience that this is compatible with the ESA and for these reasons and by the way, I’ll just turn our attention if you will. When you look at page 315 of our package, which talks about the rationale for the recommended actions, this developer has done everything that they can do. And I was actually quite moved by Councillor CASSIDY’s comments in this as well. I thought she made tremendous sense in her rationale for not supporting going ahead with the motion to reject staff’s recommendation.

So I will be voting against the motion that is currently at hand and depending on the outcome of that, we’ll be pleased to look forward to whatever is determined by colleagues with respect to going forward here. I don’t think there is evidence that I have seen to the contrary that would justify our support and refusal, which I believe, and we’ve heard discussion amongst us all, would certainly land us at NALPAD with unnecessary costs for everyone and significant delays that are not needed. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thanks.

I’ll return the chair to the mayor. Any other final comments from anyone that we’ve not heard from that would like to speak to this? We’re voting on motion to reject the staff recommendation. In your right, Councillor Hopkins, it was very clear and concise.

I think you made that comment. I see no other comments, so this is on rejecting the staff recommendation. I will call the question. Your worship.

If I can. Hello. Yes, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I thought we were voting on the motion presented by Councillor Hillier.

That is correct. So I just want to see it because I don’t see that here. I’ll go to the clerk. Before I vote.

Sorry. I just want clarification. Councillor Hopkins, if you hit the arrow at the top of the voting screen, it’ll pull the motion down, which is to refuse the application. Posing the vote in the motion is lost for two 11.

Thank you. I do. Councillor. I’d like to move this staff recommendation.

Your worship. Thank you. Is there a seconder for that? Happy to second.

Sorry. I know I’m going to recognize Councillor Turner, Councillor Slee, because he’d indicated in his comments and raised his hand just before you spoke. So that’s seconded by Councillor Turner. Is there any other discussion needed colleagues on this?

So open as you wish. He’ll give the clerk a chance to prepare that. Councillor Van Hose, please. Yes.

Thank you. Your worship. And I just may have some questions through you to staff. If there’s still concerns about this or the proximity to the ESA, I think we’ve determined that having it across the road is fine, but there’s a couple of houses that are there.

Is there anything from stopping the city from offering to purchase some of that property? And I guess my other question is, would it be feasible for us to try to arrange a right of first refusal on some of the other properties closer to the trails? Because I see this issue coming up again where there to be another purchase and another development schedule. I’m not sure that the second part of your question relates to the motion that’s at hand, Councillor Van Hose.

But Mr. yeoman, did you want to add anything to the Councillor’s query? Yes. Through your worship, parks has not indicated a need for municipal ownership associated with this beyond the open space lands that are being secured as part of the environmental review, should council wish to proceed with further acquisition?

I encourage a conversation with Mr. Warner, because that would be a realty matter outside of the planning discussion here. Thank you. Councillor Van Hose.

Thank you. I think that satisfies me. Any other questions with respect to the motion? Do you know what we’ll call the question?

Closing the vote in the motion carries, 13 to 2. Last item with the Planning and Environment Committee, and with your indulgence, we’ll deal with that before we would ask for a brief recess, Councillor Squire. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The third report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, the recommendation that we made regarding that has to be amended based on the decision we made tonight. I know the clerk has some wording, and I’m prepared to move that. Clerk, are we going to see that wording then? She can also explain the rationale.

Good, Clerk. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Swiss-like power does have the wording, and she’ll have it up shortly.

The Planning Committee passed the report correctly, however, the planning report that was printed with the agenda was missing part B to D of that clause, so we’re correcting it by ensuring that the incomplete latch report is included. I’m prepared to move that to get it on the floor. That will require a seconder. Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you. Comments or questions? Councillor Van Hose. Thank you, Your Worship.

I was looking through this report, and I had meant to ask the question earlier, but in this one, they, the latch recommended a maximum building height of 2.5 meters, and I’m wondering was that, should that have been 2.5 stories? Let’s take that back to staff. Thomas? Sorry, three-year Your Worship.

We would interpret that as 2.5 stories, and that’s consistent with our recommendation that you just approved for the zoning portions of the property are 2 meters, others are 2.5, sorry, 2 stories and 2.5. Councillor. Okay, thank you very much. I was surprised by the, by meters being written in there.

That’s a very short house. Thank you. The clerk’s advice as well, that she’ll make that correction to reflect the 2.5 stories, which is somewhat taller than 2.5 meters. Thank you, Councillor.

Those are comments or questions, then let’s call the question. Sir Lewis and Councillor Helmer, closing the vote in the motion carries, 15 to 0. Councillor Square. I now move it as amended.

Is there a seconder for this as a measure very much? Let’s call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries. That’s the end of my report, Mr.

Chair. Thank you very much. I’m wondering this. It is by, by my watch, 6.53.

I wonder if we might take a pause till 7.15, give us a chance to wash our hands and do what we need to do. Could we get screens on? I’d like to get a motion to to recess till 7.15, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Turner. Thanks very much.

By a show of hands. Let’s do it this way. All those in favor? Motion carries.

Do you back at 7.15? Thank you all. Oh, your video is on. My colleagues, I wonder if we could get screens on, please.

Thanks very much. Now we are resuming our council meeting. We are now item on item 8.4, the sixth report of community and protective services. I’ll call on Chair and Councillor Jesse Helmer.

Thank you very much. I’ve declared a pecanary interest on item number 15, which is related to the Gulf. So I’ll ask Councillor Hill here to present that part when we get to it. I’ve been advised by colleagues that number 7, which is 2.6, related to UNESCO Music City designation, number 8, which is 2.7, that the film update, they’d like to pull before discussion separately.

And let me know if there’s anything else. Councillor Rehmeber. Yes. Thank you.

I’d like to have 2.1 pulled separately as I have a conflict as my wife operates on daycare. So I think I’ll move everything else. I don’t see anyone else flagging any items. So if I understand that correctly, Councillor, we are getting separately with 2.1, 2.6 and 2.7.

Is that correct? And 4.5. That’s your conflict there. So noted.

Just briefly, I wanted to say we have a lot of very important reports from staff about homelessness prevention and especially the indigenous homelessness strategy. And I want to commend them for those reports and the work that it’s taken, extending the motel space, especially it’s going to be very important as we’re working through the pandemic. We continue to do so. I know there’s a lot of great work that’s been happening.

It’s great to see the other levels of government helping us out with the financial side, which was uncertain for a while and I’m glad that it landed in the right place. Thank you. On the items that we’re voting on, does anyone wish to make any separate comments? If I could call on Deputy Mayor, then take the chair.

Yeah, and I’ll go to the Mayor. Thanks very much, colleagues. I’d like to talk about briefly about item 14, 4.4, affordable housing units in London. Your recall, we started this discussion when I presented the State of the City through the Chamber of Commerce to the community at large.

And what we affectionately call the big idea, but it’s extremely serious, is the issue around affordable housing in our community. Let me say that one of the things I was very proud to announce that day, and it was supported by the federal government later that morning, was that we had moved Veterans’ homelessness to functional zero. It doesn’t mean we’re not going to find a veteran who isn’t on the street from time to time. But when that person’s been identified and we’re grateful for all of our city staff and community groups and Veterans Affairs amongst others and the Legion that have helped us so dramatically on this.

But when we do discover there is someone, we put them into a situation where we provide them with housing in pretty quick order. One of our seniors’ residences, residents of Talliana had one particular building residence or TONA where they dedicated units for homeless veterans in the double digits. And for that, we’re very grateful. Because we are grateful to everyone else.

The challenge I said then was that if we could do this for Veterans’ homelessness, why can’t we do this for Indigenous people living in London? Why can’t we do this for women and children leaving homes in distress and in dire circumstances? Why can’t we do it for all of London’s chronic homeless? So that’s the challenge.

That number, according to our municipal staff, is 3,000 units. And as a result of that, city staff have been working behind the scenes. We average somewhere between 125 or so units per year that we make ready. To get to 3,000, that’s 20 years.

So the question is why can’t we do it in 10? The next question is then why can’t we do it in 5? It means quadrupling the initiative. And I was broached by developers in this community who said we want to help in a huge way.

Whether it’s just with the will of Council and the will of staff, as critically important as that is, you need our community partners, our not-for-profits, our development community. You need senior levels of government to make this work. And everyone. And I mean to a person that we’ve spoken to that’s been incredibly enthusiastic.

So as we go forward with this project colleagues, I think this will be, to me, the legacy of this Council. That what we started tonight with this approval is something that will revere bait throughout the community in such a positive way in many years to come. So I’m really excited about this. I think it’s critically important.

It was passed unanimously at committee. And I look forward to your support here tonight as we move forward. Make no mistake, it’s a tremendous amount of work. But together, because I think if there’s one issue that truly defines this Council in terms of our caring, it’s this particular thing.

When you give people a home, you give them dignity, and you know you give them a chance. So Chair, I want to make those comments, thank colleagues in advance for their support. And the support that they’ve shown, me and they’ve shown staff all the way along as we’ve been dealing with various aspects of this, it works only starting. That’s what we’re starting tonight.

And the real work is going forward. So thank you all for your commitment to making this just a better limit. Thank you, Deb. Thank you.

I will return the chair to the mayor. Thank you. Any other comments with respect to the non-pulled items? Councillor CASSIDY.

Thank you. Your worship. And thank you, especially for your words just now, this is a whole of London responsibility, and it takes a whole of London approach, and I’m especially happy with the homeless prevention single source procurement report that came through. And you know, we see we have community partners at LOSA and Salvation Army working with us on this.

We had an individual reach out to me and say, you know, with the pandemic and all of the exacerbating effects of the pandemic, I hope that City Council is re-examining all their plans and making changes to the response to people living without shelter and things like that. And I assured him that we were, and this is an example of this report, especially when we read that the aim of this particular program is to wind down, but also to ensure that individuals are paper and document ready to secure permanent housing. So I like that staff are looking to the future that this is not just a short-term thing that we have a problem. There’s a pandemic and let’s deal with that.

And once the pandemic’s over, we go back to status quo. So I’m so pleased to see that that is not what’s happening. I never would have expected that that would be what’s happening, knowing the staff that we have working in these areas. But I’m really pleased with this report, and as Councillor Hummer said, you know, the following report as well, the Indigenous Homelessness Strategic Plan, seeing the number of people in London that are waiting for secure, stable housing.

We don’t always see them apparently in front of our eyes, people that don’t have secure stable housing aren’t necessarily living out on the streets. They have temporary plans in place, but everybody deserves, as you said, Mr. Mayor, the dignity of a safe place to lay their head at night. And so I’m really pleased to see all of these initiatives moving forward, and I’m looking forward to a time when we have functional zero homelessness across the board, no matter what sector you belong to.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, Councillor Hummer has put these on the floor. Let’s call the question.

Councillor Van Mereberg, closing the vote in the motion carries, 15-0. Thank you. Councillor Hummer. I’ll put this as the child care advisory committee report, which Councillor and Mayor, we’re going to declare a key to your interest on.

Any comments or questions with respect to the second? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries, 13-0 with 1-0. Thank you.

Councillor Hummer. Item 2.6-0. On the floor, Councillor Van Moles indicated he wanted this poll, this to deal with UNESCO, what designation as a music city. Thank you.

Any comments or questions? Councillor Van Moles. Thank you, Your Worship. I guess I’m not against us getting a badge from the United Nations for being a music city.

That’s our goal. I’m wondering, though, about the ongoing reporting, just how onerous was that? Will that be to us? Maybe I could get some information from staff about that.

Let’s ask Mr. Stafford. Thank you. And through your Your Worship, Mr.

McGonigal here with us tonight, so he’ll be able to elaborate on some of the specific questions. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr.

McGonigal. Thank you. And through Your Worship, from our perspective, as noted in the report, we don’t find the reporting to be onerous music city designation plans. And we believe work that we’ve done in the music sector well positions us for those four year plans moving forward.

Councillor. Okay. Well, thank you very much. And that’s fine.

That satisfies me. I don’t have further questions to ask because of that. So I’m happy to support this then. Any other comments or questions?

Briefly, I’d like to ask then the deputy mayor to take the chair, please. Yeah. And I’ll go to the mayor. We have a new Chamber of Commerce CEO, Graham Anderson has a strong music background in addition to his work with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

He joined our London community just weeks ago. I know that he has strong views in a very positive way about London being designated a Nesco city of music because he believes the economic opportunities are endless. But you know all of us understand and recognize the great role the music has in this community. And we do all we have to do is look at the tremendous work and concerts and shows and local entertainers that we have seen through Bud Gardens, Sunfest, Aioli and Hall, let a music hall, music hall of fame in London, just to name several.

And we have tremendous talent in this city. So to be able to make, to have an economic opportunity to build on, I think this is exciting for us and I would look forward to us building on this. It’s one thing to have a designation, but then you just need to do a little work on that. I think that’s the development opportunity that we will have as well.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thanks. And I’ll return the chair to the mayor. Any other comments, colleagues?

I see none. Let’s call the question. Sir Spar closing the vote in the motion carries 15 to 0. Councillor Elmer.

Yeah, I’ll put item 2.7 on the floor. This is the update on the film office and Councillor Rehnholst also pulled this one. Any comments or questions, colleagues? Councillor Unholst.

Thank you, Your Worship. And sorry, there’s a couple of items that I just indicated I wanted to make comments on, but they seem to have been pulled as well as the ones I’d like to pull. So if I’ve slowed things down a little bit, I apologize for that. However, I’m excited about this.

We’re now moving forward about to implement the film strategy. And we’re passing that on to the LEDC to look after. And I think this is a great home and the community also thinks this is a good place for. We’ll see how closely the ideas that were presented by the community kind of match the vision of the LEDC and work through that, but I think there’s tons of potential here.

And I look forward to some filming happening this year. There’s interest and I think we’ll see some exciting results soon. So thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Dean Numb will call the question. Both in the motion carries 14 to 1. We have one last item, I believe, Councillor Hummer, that you wish to have Deputy Mayor Morgan, Chair.

Vice Chair Hill here, I think. Oh, excuse me. Vice Chair Hill here. Please go ahead.

No problem. Thank you. Yes. I’ll put the 4.5 capital and operational needs and London on the floor.

Any comments or questions? Councillor Venolsky. Thank you, Your Worship. So I had sent a communication to the committee asking for us to request that staff report back with a plan to make golf more sustainable when we ended up selling the River Road golf course in that communication or in that meeting.

We seem to determine that we weren’t out of the woods in terms of golf and our operational and capital requirements. So since there’s been some residual concern about that in any communications to myself and I think others, I think it would be nice for us to see what plan is on the table. To make sure that it’s more sustainable. So I’d like to put that motion on the floor.

And maybe I’ll look to Councillor Hill here as a seconder. I’m sorry as chair. I cannot second, but I could rescind the chair. If required, if you cannot find a seconder.

You are able to second the motion. Sorry. I will second. Thank you.

And now I’m now I’ve been, I might be upended by the clerk. Give us some wisdom, clerk, please. Okay, we were right. You can second, Councillor.

I second the motion. Okay, that motion has been circulated colleagues. I’ll look for any comments or questions. Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you. Worship, just a question to staff was knowing that we’ve had multiple reports in the past. Was there a plan that we would hear back from staff in any case? Even without Councillor Benholz bringing this forward, did they have a plan to update at some point?

Thank you. And through your worship. Golf system is reported on annually through the budget process. It also comes forward as part of the annual user fee process.

I should counsel wish us to report back. We’re happy to do so. We believe the reports and the recommendations that were just passed about river road. Provided a sustainable path forward for council for golf page for golf.

So thank you. Councillor Cassidy. No, thank you for that for answering my question. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you. You worship and a quick question through you to staff as well about the motion that’s before us. And I am not exactly sure what can be reported at this moment in time. Is that a fair question for you?

Sorry, go ahead, Mr. Montgomery. Sorry, I apologize through your worship. I’ll just, if I can look for Councillor Hopkins to repeat that question.

I was just trying to bring up. Would you repeat that Councillor Hopkins, please? Yes, thank you, and through your worship, I think that from our perspective, we’re comfortable the path that we have provided council with difficult decisions that we have had to make in the golf system. And we’re happy to report back on that path to sustainability, which was driven by an infrastructure gap and unfunded infrastructure gap of about $6 million.

And we believe that the decisions that council has already made about the golf system that it is sustainable, but again, happy to report back with any council direction in which council would like to see. Councillor Hopkins. Okay, thank you. Any other comments or questions?

Councillor Morgan. Thank you. So I’m looking at the motion and we’re looking for a report back with a plan that addresses both the capital and operational needs of the municipal golf courses in London. So.

I understand that we, you know, we’re going to take the proceeds of any sort of sale from River Road and meet a part of the capital needs of the rest of the golf system. I will say a plan to address them or meet them completely. There are many areas of the organization that have an infrastructure gap. And I’m not sure, you know, I’m sure we want to be careful about meeting the needs of one specific area over the others.

I have to be dealt with over a long period of time with a, with, with the capital plan and a plan to address the infrastructure gap across the corporation. So I’m unsure on what this report would actually look like. If it’s how far does it get us, you know, if we sell River Road, whatever those are and what’s the remaining gap and the information on that. I’m good with that and then we have a discussion there.

But I will say the gap in golf is much like the gap in dozens of other areas of the corporation. We do not have enough money to fund all of the infrastructure that we need moving forward. We’re working very hard at trying to address that which each and every budget when we sock more away through the plans that we have with surpluses and the way that we’re there deployed. So I’m, I’m, I’m not adverse to getting some information back.

But I would be cautious about, you know, looking at the infrastructure gap as a whole and starting to say, that’s address it here and here and here. We are going to end up doing a lot just with the way that we re allocated the proceeds of River Road whenever and however much that is, is sold for which is still obviously down the road. So those are my comments and I’m just unclear on what additional will be getting with this motion if we’re going to get some sort of, you know, plan to fully address the gap or if it’s just information that if someone could comment on that that’d be helpful to me. Can you comment on that?

Thank you through your worship. I, when we talk about a sustainable path from the golf system. It isn’t to bring the infrastructure gap to zero as I think Council Morgan has noted. So I just want to remind Council the report about River Road had three strategies to reach sustainability.

One was about allocating the proceeds from any disposition. The second was about removing operating losses annually from the system. And the third was to remove some capital requirements that probably took you from, and I’m estimating on this now, but took you from around $6 million to $5 million in capital need because of the avoidance of the capital requirements for River Road specifically so I just want to contact on that pre-pronged approach to sustainability. You just trailed at the very end Mr.

Madam. Can you just repeat that last sentence because it was just trailing off. Yeah, thank you. I apologize for that your worship through you.

I was just trying to finish there by saying that that was the three prone approach that administration brought forward to Council, what municipal golf system back on a path to sustainability. Thank you. Definitely anything else. Yeah, if I could hear through you to the mover of the motion.

What in addition to that is, is he looking for that would be very helpful to me on this because I just want to understand what additional beyond what has been said that he’s looking for. Can we do that in specific terms Council event holes, please. Yes, thank you your worship happy to answer the question. And, of course, golf is a bit of an outlier for us in terms of the infrastructure gap because we’ve said that golf should pay for golf, which means it should be covering that covering that gap.

And so what I’d like to see is the plan for us to to deal with that infrastructure. We’re going to deal with our fee change our fee structures so that we meet that infrastructure gap because if we don’t, then we’ll, we may run into some other situations I certainly don’t want to have us need to sell another golf course, because we haven’t done. We haven’t, we haven’t done that. So there’s a number of residents.

So who have suggested that had we done things different that river road might not have been had to be sold. Any specific sorry Council I’m cutting off I need you to be specific to the question please, as opposed to, as opposed to residents views on this please. Okay. Well, I think I was, I think I was specific.

How, how do we see our fee structures and our operations. changing so that that infrastructure gap is is covered, or what else will we bring in to cover those infrastructure shortfalls. So for instance, there was the, the idea of a multi use for the Thames Valley golf golf pavilion. Those are, those are some of the things that could be there, but I would like to, I would like to see that, that there is, there is a plan that will cover cover.

Okay. Okay. Okay. I’ve got that.

I think that’s clear or deputy mayor. Yeah, my, my challenge with this. Your worship is I’m, I’m still not exactly clear what, what we’re getting beyond what staff would normally be reported on. We do the service review.

There’s a lot of information that came out of that service review, there’s been a report and there’s going to be regular reporting on the impacts of the decisions that we’ve made. I, I’ll be honest with you, decide, we keep saying this idea that golf pays for golf. I know it’s been in reports, but that is, that is not true. There are lots of back end supports that the corporation gives to all parts of our activities, including, you know, legal and human resources.

So, you know, I don’t know if I need to go down that path. I think we’ve made a big decision. I’m willing to support the assets we have in multiple different ways and I’m not sure it needs its own independent, you know, capital plan outside of the regular capital plan that the corporation has for its infrastructure gap. So I’m a little lost on whether I’m going to support this or not, because I’m not really sure what we’re getting in addition.

Thank you. I’ve got now Councillor Square. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that, that what we’ve heard today from staff is that they asked us to make difficult decisions to maintain the sustainability of our golf system. We made those decisions are confident that those decisions are going to allow us to do that. Perhaps down the road, we would get a report updating us on where we are. That would be fine.

But I think if we go down this road of trying to bring new things forward and new streams of income at this point in time, I just, I don’t think we need to do that right now. And I think we also have to get out of this whole debate that, you know, the river road debates over. It’s done. We voted and we made a decision and we’re moving forward with the approach we have.

So I’m not going to look at getting a report at this point in time. I trust staff will in the future keep us updated on golf and how it’s doing. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m Councillor Squire summed up the points I was going to make very well.

I’m just going to add to this. You know, if this was a request coming in conjunction with an annual report for some more information, I might support it. But frankly, we haven’t finished the process of the sale of river road directing those proceeds appropriately. So I will not be supporting this.

I just think we’re getting the cart ahead of the horse here. I know that there are some residents still very passionate about the river road decision, but Councillor Squire is right. The decision has been made. It’s time to look to the future.

And I understand that that’s what Councillor Van Holst is suggesting we do, but I think we need to finish getting our house in order with the decisions that have just been made before we task staff with another report hearing from them already that we will be getting operational reports in the budget and through the annual review. So I’m not prepared to support it at this time. I would encourage the Councillors if they have specific questions about what in particular needs to be addressed in terms of infrastructure to approach our staff and have those conversations one on one because I think they’ll find the staff are more than happy to fill them in on the items that are in urgent need of repair. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments and motions been put on the floor. Seconded duly seconded. We’ll call the question closing the vote. And the motion is lost.

Three to 11 with one. Thank you very much. Councillor Helmer anything else for you, sir. I think that’s it.

We’ll actually just finish that off. We will look for a motion to receive the report and the communication from Councillor Van Holst. Mr. Lewis, seconded by Councillor Helmer.

Would you put that on the floor? That’s sufficient apparently. I won’t, but you can get Councillor Hillier to do. I’ll never listen to the clerk again.

I promise you, Councillor Hill, you’re prepared to put that on the floor. I will put that on the floor. Thanks very much. Any other comments?

We’ll call the question. closing the vote and the motion carries 14 with one. Thank you. I think Councillor Helmer, we’re done now.

Thanks very much. I appreciate your support colleagues. We now have the seventh report of this priorities and policy committee. I’ll call on Deputy Mayor Morgan to present the report.

Thank you. Your worship. This is an eight item report. My intention is to call seven separately, which is 4.3.

The request for research on the effects of public health restrictions in London. If anybody else would like something else called separately, I’d be happy to do that. Looks like Councillor Hopkins does. Councillor Hopkins.

Yes, if you could pull item 8, 4.4. Thank you. Thank you. Any other items colleagues wish to have separate dealt with separately?

Councillor Van Holst. Thank you, worship. I’m not asking that seven be pulled. So at this time.

So if there was somebody else who was was pulling out, that’s fine. Maybe that can just be included. I believe a colleague declared a conflict on it at the meeting. I wanted to give him the opportunity if they felt they needed to do that again to do so.

Oh, of course. Thank you. Okay. If that’s it, then it sounds like I can put one through six on the floor for consideration.

Comments or questions with respect items one through six. That’s your list. I’ll be very brief. Your worship.

I just wanted to take an opportunity to rise and express my support for Councillor plosas appointment as the new budget chair. I reserve my comments at SPPC, but I know she’s going to do a great job. She already does a great job sharing the civic works committee and I’m looking forward to working with her on what I know is going to be a tough budget process, but we’ve got a good chair ready to step up and help lead us through that. So I’ll be supporting that 100% and look forward to working with her on that.

Thank you. Councillor Squire. Just on that same point, Councillor Palosa has a lot of the attributes that will make for a good chair of the budget. I think she’s someone who listens.

And I think she’s she’s certainly been in my dealings with her. She’s been more than happy to look at things from the point of view of my constituents and I really am pleased with this appointment. I wonder, Deputy Mayor, if I might comment on the same then, please. Yes, go ahead.

Thanks very much. Since we’re on the same theme of this particular topic. You know, it’s interesting. I’m going to start actually.

It sounds like some Councillors are really happy to have a new budget chair. I’m not sure what that implies. But I would say this, colleagues, you’ll know that the role of a budget chief was done by appointment in the last administration. It certainly was the purview of the mayor to make that decision.

It was done that way. The good news is that is that Deputy Mayor Morgan was the individual who was chosen to accept to take on that role. And when I became mayor, one of the things that I thought was appropriate was that it takes in front of Council. And I asked you to support the deputy mayor for a four year term, and you were tremendously supportive.

It said two things. So it’s, it spoke to the confidence that we all have in, in Deputy Mayor Morgan, but it also, I think, affirmed. Council’s a prerogative to have input to this process as well. So while it’s still the purview of the mayor, I will tell you that having support of Council members, I think fortifies and solidifies the position of the budget chief.

So acknowledging that the, and I would certainly suggest that if the deputy mayor wants to comment on the subject, he can too. But when he and I spoke of him focusing more of his efforts in the role of Deputy Mayor, one of the things that he said he would provide full support to the nominee for that role as well. And so first, I need to say my deepest and serious thanks to Deputy Mayor Morgan in the role that he’s played for a number of years. He’s helped us through some pretty challenging times and has done it with good grace and class, and he’s a pretty smart person as well.

So with all of that, I would certainly, I know I speak on behalf of Council when I say to the Deputy Mayor, thank you for a great job. And I truly mean that. I would also like to congratulate Councillor Plaza. I think that she will be amazing.

You’ve heard a couple of our colleagues already say some pretty nice things about her. She’s extremely able, very competent and thorough. And we all look forward to working with her as we go forward as well. So, thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan.

Congratulations, Councilor Plaza. We look forward to working with you both in your different capacities. Thank you, Chair. Great.

And I would like to make just a couple of brief comments. First, I want to say to Councilor Squire, it’s okay to use the term upgrade and comment. I know that’s what you’re thinking in your head. But I want to say to my colleagues, I really appreciated my time as, as budget chair, and it was, it was some of the, the, the most enjoyable, as well as I would say the most difficult.

And I want to say, I think I have learned that like just a ton that I will carry with me for the rest of my life through through this role and everything that everybody has taught me in particular, our phenomenal finance staff, and the administrative team at the city of London, and being able to work closely with them on this file has been an incredibly rewarding experience and I think an invaluable learning experience for me. So, to Annalisa Berbal and Mr Hayward and their, their, their teams, you know, thank you for everything that you’ve, you’ve taught me about budgeting. I don’t think, never moved $4 billion motion before so that was kind of cool too. But, but certainly learned a lot about the way that the budgeting works at a, at a municipal level.

I’m not an economics degree, but I’ve never replied it, you know, in this way so mom’s pretty proud to I’ll say so thank you for giving her the opportunity to say that on Council Palosa, like I really do mean what I said, like I think it’s an upgrade. Like I’ve done this for a long time and that means you kind of get stuck in your ways a little bit and you’re going to bring a perspective that we haven’t had in the budget chair and I think that’s going to be just excellent for our city. Excellent for Council in the way that you support them being budget chairs and about getting special access to make decisions on the budget it’s about setting up the rest of us for success in the tough decisions we have to make. And I’ve seen the way that you’ve chaired the meetings, and particularly very difficult meetings I think you’re going to, you’re going to keep us under control and I will say I think.

At best when I apologize in advance, I like making motions on the budget so not being in the chair means I get to be a little more active so I look forward to you keeping me wrangled in during budget debates in the future and anything you need. I’m certainly there to support you like I know all of your, your colleagues are so best of luck and to my colleagues thank you again for the opportunity to serve in this way it was, it was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had so thank you. Thank you any other comments or questions. How’s your proposal.

Thank you worship just thank you to Deputy Mayor Morgan for his prior leadership and offer to help of whatever candidate was that came forward and took this opportunity. And thank you already had a meeting with staff this week just starting to understand what’s coming our way is Council’s getting an update in the near future. And for those who know me I don’t like to say more words than I need and being a good salesperson I will stop before I talk anyone out of potentially supporting me so thank you and good thank you. Any other comments or questions I know we focused for this purpose on item 4.1 there are a number of items one through six or two through six that if anyone wishes to discuss but we’ve been on a nice topic so far, seeing none, we’ll call the question.

So closing the vote in the motion passes 15 to zero deputy mayor. Sorry, congratulations. Yes, thank you. The next item I’ll put on the floor is number seven, which is 4.3 request for research into the effects of public health restrictions on London.

The committee chose to receive the communication. Thank you comments or questions. Dean none, we will call the question, the motion carries 13 to one with one. Item eight or 4.4 is this is a motion to refer a number of items related to the structure and operation of Council to the governance working group.

However, we made some adjustments to the language on this at the committee and it’s there from for you in the report, and I’m happy to put it on the floor. Comments or questions. Yeah, thank you your show pinned I didn’t support this a committee and most likely not supported again. As much as I’m all for finding efficiencies to better serve Londoners.

We’ll be doing it at all times. And given that we’re in this pandemic now I don’t see this as a priority. With extra work going to staff, but I am not going to lie, I’m going to look forward to seeing what the efficiencies are going to be coming back to committee. So, again, just not really this to me is not not a priority at the moment.

Any other comments or questions. Do you know what we’ll call the question? Those in the vote in the motion. Yes, that closes one comment on the last item.

I, as chair of the governance working group. I’ve made arrangements with the clerks to call three meetings over the next couple of months. We’ll make sure that circulated to all of Council as I know the items that the working group will be discussing our interest to everybody. So we’ll make sure everybody knows when those dates are.

Other than that, the SPPC report is done. Thanks very much. I appreciate that colleagues just to explain what we’re going to be doing. Firstly, there are no deferred matters.

I’m not aware of any inquiries and there are no emergency motions of which I’ve been made aware. So there are some bylaws we need to pass now. And as is our custom, then we will move into closed session. This is as much for the benefit of the public as well.

When we move into closed session, when we come out of closed session, we will have the six to four to the corporate services committee. That’s a special committee that was called. Then we will carry on with our bylaws and adjourn for the evening. So just to give you a sense of what it is that we’re dealing with now.

So in front of you now, we are going to be dealing with bills 134 through 147 inclusive and 150 to 162 inclusive and 164 through 168. And with that, I will look to, I will look for a mover and a seconder moved by Councillor Hummer, seconded by Councillor Lehman, we’ll call the vote. Councillor Hummer, did you have a question? I’m sorry.

Did he call the bylaw, the revised bylaw for 1414 Dundas Street separately? Yes, we’ll just get the reference number. So as we get that, Councillor, were you moving or were you asking that is the question. I wanted it separated.

I’m happy to move the rest. That’s bill 157. So in the bills, 153, 162, 157 will be called separately. So again, for those with the exception of 157, you’re comfortable moving.

Councillor Hummer, seconded by Councillor Lehman, and that’s the vote we’ll call. Closing the vote in the motion carries. Now, look for a mover and a seconder, seconder moved by 147, 150 through 162, excluding 157, and 164 through 168. Do I have a mover?

Please, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor van Mirbergen. Any discussion? Let’s call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries, 15.

Thank you. And for third reading enactment of bills 134 through 147, 150 through 162, excluding bill 157, and 164 through 168. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, please. Councillor Palose, seconded by Councillor Turner, will call the vote.

Closing the vote in the motion carries, 15 to 0. Colleagues, I’ll look for a mover and seconder for introduction in first reading. Moved by Councillor Louis, seconded by Councillor van Mirbergen, will call the vote. Closing the vote in the motion carries, 11 to 4.

Colleagues, I’ll look for a second reading of bill 157. Is there a mover? Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor van Holst. Any discussion?

Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries, 11 to 4. Colleagues, for third reading enactment of bill 1 and a seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Louis, seconded by Councillor van Holst.

Call the vote. Closing the vote in the motion carries. Thank you. Just before we go into closed session, we always do just to advise the public about the items that we’re going to be dealing with.

Mr. Mayor, we’re going into closed session to discuss five confidential matters, four of which are property matters and one is a personnel matter. Thanks very much. To do that, we need a mover and a seconder, please.

Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor van Holst. Thank you. We’ll call the question. Councillor Turner, closing the vote in the motion carries, 15 to 0.

Thank you. Colleagues, just give us a couple of moments while we, while we, colleagues, I’ll ask you to put your screens on, please. Thank you, colleagues, and welcome back public session. For the sixth report of council closed session, I’d like to call on Councillor Louis to put the report on the floor.

Thank you, Your Worship, your council in closed session reports that on the recommendation of the managing director, corporate services and city treasurer, chief financial officer, with the concurrence of the director of roads and transportation on the advice of the manager of services, with respect to the property located at 4545 Scotland Road, further described as part lots 23 and 24 concession six geographic township of Westminster designated as part one on plan er 106 0 8 5 1, being all of pin 0 8 2 0 7 dash 0 1 8 6, containing an area of approximate sorry, containing an area shown on the map attached as appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wonderland Road improvements project phase one between the highway 401 and highway 402, the following actions be taking a the settlement agreement submitted by London Gateway Development Corporation, the expropriated owner for a full and final settlement for land taken by the city through expropriation for the sum of $402,500 subject to the terms and conditions set out in the south in the settlement agreement, touched in appendix C be accepted, and that on the recommendation of the managing director, corporate services and city treasurer, chief financial officer on the advice of the manager of realty services, with respect to the city owned surplus land located on the west side of White Oak Road, containing an area of approximately 0.39 acres and legally described as parts lots four and five plan 6 4 3, as in 302 4 1 7, being all of pin 0 8 2 0 9 dash 0 0 8 4 in the city of London county of middle sex as outlined on the location map here into attached as appendix A, the agreement of purchase and sale submitted in the request for tender 21 dash 25, which is attached as appendix B as submitted by Meg Majed, ESA in trust for a company to be incorporated under his control care of income industrial limited, the successful bidder to purchase the subject property from the city at a purchase price of 1.5, sorry, I’ve got a scratch mark on the $1.5 million be accepted subject to the terms and conditions set out in the above noted agreement and that on the recommendation of the managing director, corporate services and city treasurer, chief financial officer on the advice of the manager of realty services with respect to the city owned industrial land located in Skyway industrial park, containing an area of approximately 4.7 acres on the west side of Robin’s Hill Road, being composed of park block three plan 33 M dash 6 1 5 designated as parts 9 10 11 12 13 and 14 plan 33 R dash 2 0 7 2 4, being all of pin 0 8 1 5 1 dash 0 2 6 5 as outlined in the red look in the location map attached here in to as appendix A, the agreement of purchase and sale as appendix B submitted by 2 0 3 0 8 3 0 Ontario limited the purchaser to purchase 4.7 acres of the subject property from the city at a purchase price of $329,000 reflecting a sale price of $70,000 per acre be accepted subject to the terms and conditions set out in the above noted agreement and finally that on the recommendation of the managing director, corporate services and the city treasurer, chief financial officer on the advice of the manager of realty services with respect to the city owned industrial lands located in innovation park phase three containing an area of approximately 8 acres on the south side of Discovery Drive, more specifically described as part of block two plan 33 M dash 6 2 7, being part 6 8 0 8 1 9 7 dash 0 2 0 9 as outlined in the sketch here into attached as appendix A, the agreement of purchase and sale as appendix B submitted by Bosco and Roxy’s Inc, the purchaser to purchase eight acres of the subject property from the city at a purchase price of $65,280 reflecting a sale price of $58,160 per acre be accepted subject to the conditions in terms set out in the above noted agreement. And without your worship, I am happy to table that report. Thanks very much. Do we have a seconder, Deputy Mayor Morgan.

Thanks for much any comments or questions. Then I’ll ask for screens on please as we turn your attention to the screen and we’ll worship counselor, Homer has his hand raised, counselor, Homer, I just like to clarify the purchase price for the second item. I’ll take that back to the mover back to the clerk sale price, I suppose. Mr.

Mayor, I’m item one, which is four, five, four, five Scotland talking about item two, two. Oh, sorry, item two, 150. Oh, there’s a lot of zero there. Mr Warner.

Are you there. Just say I’m through your worship. I apologize. There is an error in the number.

There’s one extra zero. It’s $150,000 is the purchase price. 150,000. Thank you.

Thanks. I just wanted to clarify that because it seemed to be confusing on the sheet that was being read. Could you call the first item separately from the others. Thank you.

Absolutely. So on the first item moved by counselor was seconded by the deputy mayor and the other comments or questions. Then we’ll call the vote. Councilor Hillier.

Councilor Hillier. I’ll mark them as absent. Closing the vote and the motion carries nine. Thank you.

Then we have the second, third and fourth items moved by. Councillor Lewis is seconded by the deputy mayor. Any other public question? Mr.

Mayor, I’m having issues with my each ride. So I will vote. Yes. Thank you.

It’s not loading on my computer. So I don’t see any vote right now, but yes, vote in the motion carries. And thank you, Councillor Lewis. I appreciate the very much colleagues under 9.2, we have the added report, which is the sixth report of the corporate services committee.

And for this, I’m going to call Councillor Van Holst to present the report. Mr. Van Holst, are you on the line? I wonder, Deputy Mayor, I might ask you to fill in on this particular report.

Yeah, I’d be happy to. So this is the corporate services report that was a special meeting. It was on an issuance of the ventures. Um, colleagues can see that we got an excellent rate.

And I know our finance staff is available to answer any questions. I’m happy to put it on the floor. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, pardon me, just, just looking at a clarifying item here. I wonder if Ms.

Barbone, do you have any comments or questions? So Mr. Murray, why don’t you go ahead, please? Your worship.

Happy to be successful. Adventure issuance this year, far as our records go. It looks to be the second lowest rate we’ve achieved on records. So certainly good news and certainly happy to answer any questions that council may have.

Any comments or questions for Mr. Murray? I’d like to make some comments if I could, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, go ahead, Mayor.

Thanks very much. If I can, colleagues, you’ve heard very briefly, Mr. Murray, talk about the great rate. I’d like to add something else.

And that is that I think in no small way. Was this the venture so well received when it was presented simply because of London’s AAA credit rating. And at the same time, what we enjoy is, I think, a great strong financial leadership. So to Ms.

Barbone, Mr. Murray, all your team, thank you for the important work that you’ve done for us in getting this through. This is one of the lower dimensions that that we have put out into the marketplace, but enthusiastically received. And I say well done to the finance team for this.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thanks, Mayor. And yesterday as I was preparing for this meeting, my son asked what the meeting was about. I said the ventures.

He said that was awesome. He thought I had said Avengers. So it was almost the coolest meeting we had ever had. Well, I’m glad that you and the public and your boy are all particularly interested in this topic.

That’s, that’s thoughtful and important. Thank you. Any other comments or questions for Mr. Murray seen on this has been put on the table with that.

We will call the question. Colleagues, we now have some some bylaws to. So we’ve broken them up a little bit here just to deal with them appropriately. First is regarding the metal lily application and those are added bills, 173 74 and 175.

And for that, I will look for a mover and a seconder, please. Is there a mover? Councilor Cassidy, seconded by. Councilor Homer, we will call the vote.

Closing the vote in the motion carries 11 to 1. Thank you colleagues for the bills, 173, 4, and 175. I will look for a mover and a seconder. Please move by Councilor Hopkins, seconded by.

Councillor Halmer. Any comments or discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries 12 to 0.

Thank you colleagues. Reading an act. Bill’s 173, 174 and 175. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder.

Please move by. Councillor Cassidy, seconded by. Councillor Squire, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries 12.

The final bylaws of the 83, the adventure bylaw and added bills 169 through 172 dealing with those matters in closed session and bill 133, the confirming bylaw. I will look for a mover. Seconded by Councillor Layman. We’ll call the vote.

Colleagues for second reading of bills 163 and added bills 169 through 172 and bill 133. I will look for a mover. Please. Councillor Squire, seconded by.

Councillor Lewis. Any comments or questions? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote in the motion carries 12 to 0.

Reading of bill 163 and added bills 169 through 172 and bill 133. I will look for a mover. Please. Councillor Ploza, seconded by.

Councillor Cassidy, we will call the vote. Motion carries 12 to 0. Thanks colleagues. Before we adjourn, I’d like to acknowledge on behalf of council our staff.

You heard the many comments that have been made about how staff have been exceptionally supportive, helpful, answered our questions and just been extremely good to deal with. And Ms. Livingston, I know you’re on the call. I would ask you to pass that through to all of our staff inside and outside for the great work that they do, particularly under these what are less than ideal times.

It is so sincerely appreciated and please, please accept our heartfelt thanks for that as well and to you colleagues as well for your patients and your endurance. We had a lot of important things to cover and we’ve had longer meetings. And we’ve had shorter, but this took what it took and I just want to thank all of you for your support and cooperation as well. With that, I’ll look for a mover to adjourn.

Councillor Squires seconded by Councillor Van Bierberg and by a show of hands. Those in favor of adjournment. I think that’s unanimous. Media adjourned.

Thank you very much.