Open Council

Council

Open Council

Council

July 6, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:02 PM, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair and all Members participating except Councillor M. van Holst. It being noted that the following Members attended the meeting remotely: M. Salih, J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, A. Hopkins, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Turner, E. Peloza, A. Kayabaga and S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Mayor E. Holder discloses a pecuniary interest in Items 10 (2.9) and 15 (5.1) of the 9th Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with the Waterloo and Piccadilly Area Traffic Study Recommendations and the Deferred Matters List as it relates to 745 - 747 Waterloo Street, by indicating that his family owns and operates a business located in the subject area.

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in Items 3 and 4 of the 10th Report of the Council In Closed Session, and the associated Bill No.’s 306 and 307, having to do with property acquisitions related to the Wellington Gateway Project, by indicating that he owns property nearby.

2.   Recognitions

None.

At 4:08 PM, Councillor S. Turner leaves the meeting.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the change in order to move Stage 4. Council, In Closed Session and the 10th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, to after Stage 13. By-laws, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

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

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Minutes of the 9th Meeting held on June 15, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

None.

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   11th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-06-21 CSC Report 11

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 11th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 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) Issuance of Proclamations – Pilot Program Review

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated June 21, 2021 entitled “Issuance of Proclamations Policy – Pilot Program Review”:

a) the above-noted pilot BE CONSIDERED completed;

b) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to bring forward proposed amendments to the Issuance of Proclamation Policy to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee for consideration, that would include:

i) application process refinements to require a specific local contact in the City of London;

ii) an expanded promotion plan for proclamations, through Corporate social media;

iii) revisions that would permit multiple, distinct proclamation requests from the same organization;

c) the above-noted report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Respectful Workplace Policy and Workplace Violence Prevention Procedure Annual Report - March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, People Services, and the concurrence of the City Manager, the Annual Report regarding the Respectful Workplace Policy (Anti-Harassment/Anti-Discrimination) and Workplace Violence Prevention Procedure BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Expropriation of Lands – Dingman Drive Improvements Project (Relates to Bill No. 296)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, approval BE GIVEN to the expropriation of land as may be required for the Dingman Drive improvements project, and that the following actions be taken in connection therewith:

a) application be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving authority for the approval to expropriate the land required for the Dingman Drive improvements project;

b) The Corporation of the City of London serve and publish notice of the above application in accordance with the terms of the Expropriations Act;

c) The Corporation of the City of London forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer any requests for a hearing that may be received and report such to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London for its information; and,

d) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Schedule “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting on July 6, 2021 to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (4.1) Application – Issuance of Proclamation – World Patient Safety Day

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated June 10, 2021 from Patient for Patient Safety Canada, September 17, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED as World Patient Safety Day.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (4.2) Standing Committee Membership – Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Standing Committee(s):

a) Councillor M. Cassidy BE ENDORSED to serve on FCM Standing Committees, for the 2021/2022 term; and,

b) subject to Councillor M. Cassidy’s successful application to serve on the FCM Standing Committee(s), all associated cost to attend the Board of Directors meetings, the Sustainable Community Conference and Trade Show and the Annual Conference and AGM for the 2021/2022 term BE APPROVED for reimbursement by The Corporation of the City of London outside of her annual expense allocation.

Motion Passed

8.2   12th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-06-28 Special CSC Report 12

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 12th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3   9th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2021-06-22 CWC Report - Full

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 9th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 10 (2.9) and 15 (5.1).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 5th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 5th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 25, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Mud Creek Phase 2 Detailed Design

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the appointment of consulting services for the Mud Creek Phase 2 project:

a)        AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design for the Mud Creek Phase 2 project, in accordance with the estimate on file, at an upset amount of $564,198.00 (including contingency), excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (e) 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-T06)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Pottersburg Sanitary Trunk Sewer Re-Alignment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment - Notice of Completion

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Pottersburg Sanitary Trunk Sewer Re-Alignment Environmental Assessment:

a)        the Pottersburg Sanitary Trunk Sewer Re-Alignment Environmental Assessment Executive Summary, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE ACCEPTED;

b)        a Notice of Completion BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,

c)        the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Schedule B Project File for the Pottersburg Sanitary Trunk Sewer Re-Alignment BE PLACED on public record for a 30-day review period. (2021-E05)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Contract Award: Tender RFT21-68 - Mud Creek Flood Reduction and Channel Rehabilitation Phase 1b

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the award of contract for the Mud Creek Flood Reduction and Channel Rehabilitation Phase 1b Project:

a)        the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited at its tendered price of $3,556,553.50, excluding HST, for the Mud Creek Flood Reduction and Channel Rehabilitation Phase 1b Project, 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 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 that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)        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 (Tender RFT21-68); 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-T06)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Dingman Creek Subwatershed Stage 2 Lands: Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the appointment of consulting services for the Dingman Creek Subwatershed Stage 2 Lands Municipal Class Environmental Assessment project:

a)        Kontzamanis Graumann Smith MacMillan Inc. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design for the Dingman Creek Stage 2 EA project, in accordance with the estimate on file, at an upset amount of $698,529.20 (including contingency), excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (e) 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-E21)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the appointment of consulting engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program:

a)         the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Infrastructure Renewal Program funded projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)          Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design and construction administration of Assignment B, Victoria Street Reconstruction from west limit to Lombardo Avenue and Victoria Street Pumping Station Replacement, in the total amount of $504,180.60 (including contingency), excluding HST;

ii)         Archibald, Gray and McKay Engineering Ltd. (AGM) BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design and detailed design of Assignment G, Quebec Street Reconstruction Phase 1 from Oxford Street East to the CP railway tracks in the total amount of $418,000.00 (including contingency), excluding HST;

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

8.3.8   (2.7) Appointment of Consulting Engineering - Hyde Park Pumping Station Upgrades

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the appointment of consulting services for the detailed design and contract administration of the Hyde Park Pumping Station Upgrades project:

a)        the proposal submitted by AECOM Canada Ltd., 410-250 York Street, Citi Plaza, London, Ontario N6A 6K2, in the amount of $130,456.00, including contingency in the amount of $20,000.00, excluding HST, BE AWARDED in accordance with Section 15.2 (d) 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; and,

d)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E03)

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (2.8) Arva-Huron Water Transmission Main Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Master Plan - Notice of Completion

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the Arva-Huron Water Transmission Main Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Master Plan:

a)        the Arva-Huron Water Transmission Main Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Master Plan Executive Summary, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE ACCEPTED;

b)        a Notice of Completion BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,

c)        the Project File for the Arva Pumping Station to Huron Street Water Transmission Main Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Master Plan BE PLACED on public record for a 45-day review period. (2021-E05/E08)

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (2.10) 2021 Large Diameter Watermain Inspection Phase 2

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the Large Diameter Watermain Inspection Phase 2:

a)        the contract value for Pure Technologies Ltd., 3rd Floor, 705-11 Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2R 0E3, in the amount of $582,867.00, excluding HST, BE APPROVED, in accordance with Section 14.4 (e) 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; and,

d)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E08)

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (2.11) 2021 At-Grade Rail Crossing Improvements RFT 21-54 - Irregular Result

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the tender RFT21-54, 2021 At-Grade Rail Crossing Improvements:

a)         the irregular bid submitted by Dufferin Construction Company, a division of CRH Canada Group Inc., at its tendered price of $489,889.20, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with Section 8.10 (b) and Section 13.2 (b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)         the financing for this work 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, to give effect to these recommendations; and,

d)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, as required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-T10)

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (2.12) Single Source Additional Ravo Street Sweeper

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the single source additional Ravo street sweeper purchase:

a)        the Single Source negotiated price BE ACCEPTED to purchase one (1) 2018 Ravo 5 iSeries Vacuum Street Sweeper for a total estimated price of $239,333.00, excluding HST, from Cubex Ltd., 189 Garden Avenue, Brantford, Ontario N3S 0A7;

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these purchases;

c)         the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the above-noted matter, in accordance with Section 14.4 (d) and Section 14.5 (a) (ii) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

d)         the funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2021-V00)

Motion Passed

8.3.14   (2.13) RFP 21-33 Supply and Delivery of CNG Front Loading Waste Disposal Trucks

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the supply and delivery of CNG Front Loading Waste Disposal Trucks:

a)        the submission from Vision Truck Group, for the supply and delivery of two (2) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Front Loading Waste Disposal Trucks at a total purchase price of $811,970.00, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED, in accordance with Section 12.2 (b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these purchases;

c)        the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the above-noted matter; and,

d)        the funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2021-V00)

Motion Passed

8.3.16   (5.2) 5th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 16, 2021:

a)        the Sub-Committee Report related to the Draft Masonville Secondary Plan, BE FORWARDED to Civic Administration for consideration; and,

b)        clauses 1.1 to 3.8 and 5.1 to 6.1, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (2.9) Waterloo and Piccadilly Area Traffic Study Recommendations

Motion made by E. Peloza

That items 10 and 15 BE APPROVED:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the Waterloo and Piccadilly Area Traffic Study:

a)        the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement the improvements within the Piccadilly Area Neighbourhood as set out in Section 2.4 of the above-noted staff report;

c)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider the recommendations of the study as part of any future planning applications for non-residential uses in the study area; and,

d)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to monitor the study area as identified the above-noted staff report;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the added agenda, from C. Butler with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-T08)

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.3.15   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That items 10 and 15 BE APPROVED:

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at June 14, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.4   10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-06-21 PEC Report-Full

Motion made by P. Squire

That the 10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 14 (2.2) and 16 (3.2).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

8.4.2   (2.3) SoHo, Hamilton Road and Lambeth Community Improvement Plans: Performance Measures and Indicators of Success

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Economic Services & Support, the following actions be taken with respect to amending Community Improvement Plans to add performance measures and indicators of success:

a) the staff report dated June 21, 2021 entitled “SoHo, Hamilton Road and Lambeth Community Improvement Plans - Performance Measures and Indicators of Success”, with respect to potential changes to the Lambeth, SoHo, and the Hamilton Road CIPs’ financial incentives programs. These programs are the Tax Grant (SoHo), Façade Improvement Loan (Lambeth, Hamilton Road, and SoHo), the Upgrade to Building Code Loan (Hamilton Road and SoHo), and the Forgivable Loans to Upgrade to Building Code and Façade Improvement Loans (Hamilton Road) for BE RECEIVED for information; and,

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate the staff report noted in a) above, for public review;

it being noted that input received through the circulation of the report will assist in informing a recommendation on changes to the grant and loan programs that will be presented at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. (2021-D19)

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.4) Draft Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (O-9299)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the draft Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP):

a) the draft Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021, BE RECEIVED:

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate the draft Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan, noted in a) above, to receive public input from the Argyle Business Improvement Area, Argyle Community Association, the London Small Business Centre, the Urban League of London, all City Advisory Committees and stakeholders who have participated in the process to date and post the draft Plan on the City’s Get Involved webpage; and,

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with any recommended revisions to the draft Plan resulting from the public input received, to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee for consideration. (2021-D19)

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.5) Encouraging the Growing of Food in Urban Areas (OZ-9332)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the background report, including draft proposed London Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to implement directions contained in the Council-approved Urban Agriculture Strategy appended to the staff report dated June 21 2021, BE CIRCULATED for public review and comment in advance of a public participation meeting to be scheduled at a later date. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.6) Summerside Subdivision Phase 17 - Subdivision Special Provisions

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Holdings Inc., for the subdivision of land over Concession 1, Part of Lots 15 and 16, situated east of Highbury Avenue North, southwest of Meadowgate Boulevard and north of Bradley Avenue:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Holdings Inc. for the Summerside Subdivision, Phase 17 (39T-92020_17) appended to the staff report dated June 21, 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 June 21, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

c) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as as Appendix “C”; and,

d) 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

8.4.6   (2.7) 751 Fanshawe Park Road West - Vista Woods Subdivision Phase 3 - Special Provisions

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Vista Wood Estates Ltd. for the subdivision relating to a portion of the property located on the southwest corner of Wonderland Road North and Sunningdale Road West (formerly 751 Fanshawe Park Road West):

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Vista Wood Estates Ltd. for the Vista Wood Subdivision, Phase 3 (39T-03505_3) appended to the staff report dated June 21, 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 June 21, 2021 Appendix “B”;

c) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “C”; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.8) 600 Sunningdale Road West - Sunningdale Court Subdivision Phase 1 - Special Provisions - 39T-18501

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Sunningdale Golf and Country Ltd., for the subdivision of land legally described as RCP 1028 PT Lot 16 RP 33R13891, PT Part 1 RP 33R16774 Parts 3 to 10 IRREG), municipally known as 600 Sunningdale Road West, located on the south side Sunningdale Road West, between Wonderland Road North and Richmond Street:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Sunningdale Golf and Country Ltd. for the Sunningdale Court Subdivision, Phase 1 (39T-18501_1) appended to the staff report dated June 21, 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 June 21, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

c) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “C”, noting the Capital Budget adjustments; and,

d) 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

8.4.8   (2.9) 355 Marconi Boulevard - Marconi Court Subdivision - Special Provisions - 39T-20501

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and JNF Group Inc., for the subdivision municipally known as 355 Marconi Boulevard:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and JNF Group Inc. for the Marconi Subdivision, (39T-20501) appended to the staff report dated June 21, 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 June 21, 2021 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

8.4.9   (2.10) Parker Jackson Subdivision - 39T-06507

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Holdings Inc. for the subdivision relating to the lands located on the east side of Jackson Road between Commissioners Road East and Bradley Avenue, municipally known as 1635 Commissioners Road East and 2624 Jackson Road:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Holdings Inc. for the Parker Jackson Subdivision, Phase 1 (39T-06507_1) appended to the staff report dated June 21, 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 June 21, 2021 Appendix “B”;

c) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 Appendix “C”; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (2.11) 1620 Noah Bend (Relates to Bill No. 295)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 2021 to exempt Block 95, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (2.12) 135 Villagewalk Boulevard (H-9050) (Relates to Bill No. 300)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2560334 Ontario Ltd. (York Developments), relating to a portion of the property located at 135 Villagewalk Boulevard, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (hh-99BDC(25)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(25)) Zone to remove the “h and h-99” holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (2.13) Building Division Monthly Report for April, 2021

Motion made by P. Squire

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

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (2.1) ReThink Zoning

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated June 21, 2021 entitled “ReThink Zoning - Update Report and Background Papers”, BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.15   (3.1) 915 - 919 Commissioners Road East (Z-9334) (Relates to Bill No. 301)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2781033 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 915-919 Commissioners Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity to the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Restricted Office/Highway Service Commercial (RO2/HS) Zone TO a Restricted Office Special Provision/Highway Service Commercial Special Provision (RO2()/HS()) Zone;

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;

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 energy conservation, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and climate change adaptation; and, supporting and promoting intensification and redevelopment to utilize existing services;

  • the recommended amendment to Zoning B-law Z.-1 conforms to the Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor policies of the 1989 Official Plan;

  • the recommended amendment to Zoning B-law Z.-1 conforms to the in-force policies of the Commercial Industrial Place Type of The London Plan;

  • the use of an existing developed site supports Council’s commitment to reducing and mitigating climate change by making efficient use of existing infrastructure and by focusing intensification and growth in already-developed areas;

  • the subject lands are an appropriate location for a small-scale retail use and a reduction in required parking. The recommended amendments are consistent with and appropriate for the site and context and will support opportunities for economic activity and employment. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.17   (3.3) 1830 Adelaide Street North (1810, 1820, 1840 and 1850 Adelaide Street North) (Z-9312) (Relates to Bill No. 303)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Stoney Creek Commercial Centre c/o York Developments, relating to the property located at 1810, 1820, 1840 and 1850 Adelaide Street North, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 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 Shopping Area (NSA1/NSA2/NSA5) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NSA1/NSA2/NSA4(_)/NSA5) Zone;

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;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas by accommodating employment to meet long-term needs. The amendment also supports long-term economic prosperity by promoting economic development that takes into account the needs of existing and future businesses;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force polices of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhood Commercial Node designation;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Shopping Area Place Type; and,

  • the recommendation amendment implements an appropriate intensity for the site which is compatible with the surrounding area and facilitates the viability of the commercial area for current and future uses. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.18   (3.4) 1146-1156 Byron Baseline Road (SPA21-009)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 21816121 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 1146-1156 Byron Baseline Road:

a) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that issues were raised relating to the development agreement at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to facilitate the construction of the proposed residential development; and,

b) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Council expressed concerns with respect to the Site Plan Application relating to the following:

  • the proximity of the proposed three storey building to the neighbouring properties;

  • potential lighting impacts on neighbouring properties;

  • privacy; and,

  • parking concerns;

c) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Council supports the Site Plan Application;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the staff presentation with respect to these matters;

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;

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

  • the Site Plan, as proposed, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it provides for development within an existing settlement area and provides for an appropriate range of residential uses within the neighbourhood;

  • the proposed Site Plan conforms to the policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

  • the proposed Site Plan conforms to the policies of the Low Density Residential designation of the 1989 Official Plan;

  • the proposed Site Plan conforms to the regulations of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law; and,

  • the proposed Site Plan meets the requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law. (2021-D11)

Motion Passed

8.4.19   (4.1) 183 and 197 Ann Street

Motion made by P. Squire

That the request for delegation status with respect to the heritage and planning applications relating to the properties located at 183 and 197 Anne Street BE REFERRED to the public participation meeting to be held at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee regarding these matters;

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

  • a request for delegation status from A-M. Valastro;

  • the evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for the property located at 183 Ann Street;

  • the evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for the property located at 179 Ann Street; and,

  • a request for delegation status dated June 17, 2021, from A Soufan, York Developments. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.20   (4.2) 5th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on June 2, 2021:

a) clause 2.1 BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that clause 2.1 reads as follows:

“That the City of London Municipal Council BE ASKED to request that the Government of Ontario place an interim cap of 2.5 megatonnes per year on the greenhouse gas pollution from Ontario’s gas-fire power plants and develop and implement a plan to phase-out all gas-fired electricity generation by 2030 to help Ontario and the City of London meet their climate targets; it being noted that 28 other municipalities have previously made this request of the provincial government; it being further noted that the presentation, as appended to the Agenda and a verbal delegation from J. Gibbons, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, with respect to Ontario’s Growing Climate Crisis, were received.”; and,

b) clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.4, inclusive, 4.1 and 4.2, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.21   (4.3) 6th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Motion made by P. Squire

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on June 9, 2021:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Arva Pumping Station to the Notice of Study Commencement and Resident Townhall, dated June 5, 2021, from S. Romano, City of London and J. Haasen, AECOM Canada Ltd., the Final Report, dated April 2021, from AECOM Canada Ltd., the Cultural Heritage Report, dated May 2021, from AECOM Canada Ltd. and the presentation, dated June 9, 2021, from T. Jenkins, AECOM Canada Ltd., related to the Huron Street Transmission Main Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Master Plan:

i) the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on the Heritage supports the cultural heritage mitigation measures presented in the above-noted documents; and,

ii) the above-noted documents and the verbal presentation from T. Jenkins, AECOM Canada Ltd., BE RECEIVED;

b) the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Planning Application, dated May 19, 2021, from I. de Ceuster, Planner I, with respect to a Zoning By-law Amendment, related to the property located at 496 Dundas Street and the Heritage Impact Assessment, dated December 15, 2020, from MHBC with respect to the property located at 496 Dundas Street:

i) I. de Ceuster, Planner I, BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage is satisfied with the research, assessment and conclusion of the above-noted Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 496 Dundas Street and supports the mitigation and conservation recommendations within the HIA; and,

ii) the above-noted documents BE RECEIVED;

c) the following actions be taken with respect to the Public Meeting Notice, dated May 12, 2021, from B. Debbert, Senior Planner, with respect to a Zoning By-law Amendment related to the properties located at 1634-1656 Hyde Park Road and other properties:

i) B. Debbert, Senior Planner, BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage believes that this project is a good example of heritage conservation as part of a development application; and,

ii) the above-noted Public Meeting Notice, BE RECEIVED;

d) on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, seeking retroactive approval for the removal and replacement of the windows and front door on the heritage designated property located at 827 Elias Street, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED;

e) on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval and retroactive approval for alterations to the heritage designated property located at 330 St James Street, in the Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

  • the porch skirt be painted to minimize the plastic and faux wood appearance of the material;

  • the property owner be encouraged to plant and maintain vegetation, such as coniferous shrubs, to minimize the visibility of the porch skirt; and,

  • the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed;

f) on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, seeking approval to alter the heritage designated property located at 2096 Wonderland Road North BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

  • prior to any alteration or construction, full documentation of the building including photo-documentation and a set of as-built drawings be provided to the City;

  • prior to any alteration or construction, Heritage Planning Staff be consulted and the following details be provided:

o double hung vinyl replacement windows with simulated divided lites to be installed throughout, and replicate current muntin patterning;

o vinyl replacement entry door surround with simulated divided lites to be installed, and replicate current surround details and muntin patterning; and,

o proposed fieldstone finish for the exterior surface of exposed new concrete foundation walls and on the new concrete entry porch and steps;

  • prior to building permit approval, an addendum to the Conservation Plan be submitted, to the satisfaction of the City, which includes:

o a monitoring program; and,

o a detailed strategy to conserve the chimneys;

  • direction be given to the Site Plan Approval Authority that the following clauses be added to the Development Agreement (DA) for Site Plan Approval (SPA20-022):

o during pre-construction, construction, and post-construction activity, the assessment, stabilization, bracing, and monitoring of the building must be consistent with the Conservation Plan prepared by a+LiNK Architecture Inc. (dated March 26, 2021);

o if the building or any of the identified heritage attributes are accidentally damaged during the raising and final setting onto the new foundation, or during ongoing construction of the surrounding townhouse development, construction will cease immediately, and the City will be notified; qualified experts will be contacted to conduct an assessment of the damage and determine an appropriate course of action; damaged heritage attributes will be assessed to determine if repairs can be made; if repairs are possible, the applicant will retain, at their cost, the appropriate professionals to conduct repairs; if repairs to damaged heritage attributes are not possible, the applicant will replace the heritage attribute in kind, at their cost, based on information contained in the as-built drawings and photographs; if irreparable damage is done to the building or heritage attributes, such that none can be salvaged, the applicant will reconstruct the building with sympathetic materials; this shall include using salvaged buff bricks or appropriate new materials from other sources and reconstructing heritage attributes identified in the designating by-law; reconstruction will be based on the as-built drawings and photographs of the building and heritage attributes; should this situation occur, reconstruction plans will be prepared for the City’s review and approval; and,

o the applicant will provide the City with a security in the form of an irrevocable Letter of Credit, in order to secure the applicant’s obligations related to the heritage alteration permit (HAP21-031-L); the amount of the Letter of Credit is the full estimated cost for raising and holding the building, demolition of the existing foundation and construction of the new foundation; the Letter of Credit will be released when the applicant has completed the work outlined in the heritage alteration permit to the satisfaction of the City; and,

  • the Heritage Alteration Permit shall be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed;

it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) appreciates the efforts of the developer and the City of London staff to come to a solution for this project and the LACH supports the reuse of materials of the existing property in the new development; and,

g) clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.7, inclusive, 3.9, 4.1 and 5.4 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.22   (5.1) 5th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 17, 2021:

a) the following recommendations of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, with respect to the Advisory Committee Review and draft Terms of Reference Report dated May 17, 2021, BE PROVIDED to the Governance Working Group for consideration:

i) the reduction in membership to 19 is supported;

ii) quorum as a requirement for committee business be maintained;

iii) the existing Terms of Reference be maintained with one alteration highlighted below:

Add to the existing mandate:

“to provide advice on any global (e.g climate change), regional or local issue related to the long-term sustainability of the Natural Heritage System.”;

iv) the existing name be maintained;

v) as the technical expertise needed is sometimes hard to obtain, term limits may not be suitable; this could be addressed by one or more of the following:

A) no term limits;

B) three council cycles (12 year limit); and,

C) current limit be continued but extensions be permitted on the advice of the Chair;

vi) given the specialized knowledge required for membership:

A) the City be asked to circulate application information to the relevant Department Chairs at Western University and Course Coordinators at Fanshawe. The Chair and Vice Chair can provide assistance in identifying the appropriate contacts; and,

B) the information circulated include a contact name from EEPAC so that potential applicants can ask questions about membership prior to applying;

vii) in the selection process, consideration be given to asking the current Chair and Vice Chair for assistance;

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

c) a Working Group BE ESTABLISHED consisting of A. Boyer, S. Hall, B. Krichker, K. Moser, B. Samuels and I. Whiteside, with respect to the Climate Emergency Action Plan; it being noted that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee reviewed and received the Discussion Primer for the Climate Emergency Action Plan - 2020; and,

d) clauses 1.1, 2.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.14   (2.2) Memorandum of Understanding for Development and/or Planning Act Application Review Between the City of London and UTRCA

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to updating the Memorandum of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of London and the Upper Thames Conservation Authority with respect to processes undertaken by both parties in the review of Planning Act applications:

a) the proposed updated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between The Corporation of the City of London and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE APPROVED substantially in the form appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “A”:;

b) subject to the approval of a) above, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary to finalize the MOU noted in a) above, including, potential revisions resulting from discussions between the two parties that relate to improved level of service that reduces duplication of actions and incorporates the pillars of continuous improvement; and,

c) subject to the approval of a) and b) above, the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development BE DELEGATED the authority to execute the final MOU noted in a) above, and make any further revisions that may be necessary to reflect legislative and/or regulation changes and amendments in response to Municipal Council’s direction on planning related matters, or to recognize resource constraints. (2021-E20)

At 4:21 PM, Councillor S. Turner enters the meeting.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Item 2.2 of the 10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE AMENDED by adding the following new part d):

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the final DMOU to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Item 14, clause 2.2, as amended BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Item 14, clause 2.2, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to updating the Memorandum of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of London and the Upper Thames Conservation Authority with respect to processes undertaken by both parties in the review of Planning Act applications:

a) the proposed updated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between The Corporation of the City of London and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE APPROVED substantially in the form appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “A”:;

b) subject to the approval of a) above, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary to finalize the MOU noted in a) above, including, potential revisions resulting from discussions between the two parties that relate to improved level of service that reduces duplication of actions and incorporates the pillars of continuous improvement;

c) subject to the approval of a) and b) above, the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development BE DELEGATED the authority to execute the final MOU noted in a) above, and make any further revisions that may be necessary to reflect legislative and/or regulation changes and amendments in response to Municipal Council’s direction on planning related matters, or to recognize resource constraints; and,

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the final DMOU to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.(2021-E20)

8.4.16   (3.2) 193 Queens Avenue (Z-9327) (Relates to Bill No. 302)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application of Farhi Holdings Corporation, relating to the property located at 193 Queens Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 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 Holding Downtown Area (h-3DA1D350) Zone and a Holding Downtown Area (h-3DA2D350) Zone TO a Holding Downtown Area/Temporary (h-3DA1D350/T-) Zone and a Holding Downtown Area/Temporary (h-3DA2D350/T-) Zone;

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;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS, 2020 as it ensures that sufficient parking is provided in the Downtown, promoting economic development by supporting existing economic activities and businesses that currently rely on this parking supply for workers;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to, the Temporary Use By-law Policies;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to, the Temporary Use Provisions;

  • the recommended Temporary Use (T-_) Zone does not compromise the ability to achieve the long-term goals of Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan;

  • the recommended amendment is appropriate to help maintain an adequate supply of parking to service businesses in the Downtown pending the gradual transition away from the use of surface commercial parking lots as transit ridership increases and as alternative parking spaces are provided;

  • the recommended amendment supports the intent of the Downtown Parking Strategy; and,

  • the parking lot has existed for several years and has achieved a measure of compatibility with the surrounding land uses. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

8.5   10th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2021-06-22 CPSC Report

Motion made by S. Hillier

That the 10th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Hillier

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 5th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 27, 2021:

a)     R. Wilcox, Director, Strategy and Innovation BE ADVISED that N. Judges, D. Ruston and K. Pereyaslavska have been appointed by the Accessibility Advisory Committee to sit on the Safe Cities London Advisory Committee; and,

b)     clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.3, 3.1 to 3.6 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) 2nd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Hillier

That the 2nd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee (DIAAC), from its meeting held on May 20, 2021, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that this Report and all future reports of the DIAAC will be considered by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) Single Source SS21-27 Procurement of Learn to Swim, Lifeguard Qualifications, Literature and Associated Fees

Motion made by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the Single Source Procurement SS21-27 for Procurement of Learn to Swim, Lifeguard Qualifications, Literature and Associated Fees:

a)     the proposal from Lifesaving Society, 400 Consumers Road, Toronto, ON, for the provision of Learn to Swim Programs and Lifesaving Certification for the City of London, at an estimated annual purchase value of $87,000 (HST excluded), for a five (5) year period BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this is a single source contract as per the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 14.4 e), as the required goods and/or services are being supplied by a particular supplier(s) having specialized knowledge, skills, expertise or experience in the provision of the service;

b)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this contract; and,

c)     the approval and authorization provided for in a) and b) above, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a Purchase Order or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2021-R05C)

Motion Passed

Motion made by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 2021, to approve the demolition of an abandoned building at the municipal address of 120 Weston Street, City of London; it being noted that the property shall be cleared of all identified buildings, structures, debris or refuse and left in a graded and levelled condition, in accordance with the City of London Property Standards By-law and Building Code Act. (2021-P10D)

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.5) Single Source Approval – Open Space Solutions Incorporated

Motion made by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to a Single Source Approval for Open Space Solutions Incorporated:

a)     the contract for the construction of the play area in South-west Optimist District Park BE AWARDED to Open Space Solutions Incorporated, 1561 Moser-Young Road, Wellesley, ON, as a single source procurement (SS21-30) with a total value of $186,868.74 plus HST, in accordance with Sections 14.4 (e), and (i) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)     the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with 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 approvals 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-R04)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (2.6) Homeless Prevention COVID-19 Response (SSRF Phase 3) – Single Source Procurement (SS21-29)

Motion made by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the Homeless Prevention COVID-19 Response (SSRF Phase 3) for a Single Source Procurement (SS21-29), as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.5 a. ii, requiring Committee and City Council approval for single source procurements greater than $50,000:

a)     extensions to the existing Purchase of Service Agreements BE APPROVED as set out in the Housing Stability Services COVID-19 Response Allocations, as appended to the above-noted staff report, with a combined total funding amount of $2,658,850 in 2021-2022 to provide a COVID-19 Response, and additional Housing and Support Services;

b)     the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this matter; and,

c)     the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into and/or amending Purchase of Service Agreements with the Agencies outlined in Schedule 1 of this report. (2021-S14/S08)

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (2.7) London Homeless Prevention Housing Allowance Program – Single Source Procurement (#SS 21-36)

Motion made by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following action be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 22, 2021, related to the London Homeless Prevention Housing Allowance Program for a Single Source Procurement (#SS 21-36):

a)     the funding increase to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with St. Leonard’s Community Services BE APPROVED, at a total estimated increase of $381,000 (excluding HST), for the period of August 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 to administer London’s Homeless Prevention Housing Allowances, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3.e.ii, requiring City Council approval for contract amendments greater than $50,000 and where funds are available; and,

b)     single source approval for administration of London Homeless Prevention Allowances BE APPROVED with London Cares Homeless Response Services (London Cares), at a total estimated cost of up to $63,000 (excluding HST), for a period between August 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 to administer London’s Homeless Prevention Housing Allowances, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 for Single Source approval. (2021-S14)

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (3.1) Strategy for High Acuity Homelessness

Motion made by S. Hillier

That the presentation, as appended to the Agenda, and the verbal delegation from S. Campbell, Ark Aid Mission, with respect to homes for those who have been deprived of housing and the importance of low-barrier options for stabilization and moving towards home, BE RECEIVED. (2021-S14)

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (4.1) 5th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 3, 2021:

a)     the following actions be taken with respect to the Sub-Committee Update:

i)     the attached document, with respect to the proposal to limit the number of animals in foster homes, BE FORWARDED to Civic Administration for their review and consideration; and,

ii)     E. Williamson, Ecologist, BE INVITED to a future Animal Welfare Advisory Committee meeting to provide information with respect to the City of London’s Bird Friendly Designation; and,

b)     clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1 and 4.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.11   (4.2) School Planning

Motion made by S. Hillier

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide an information report at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to the roles and responsibilities of the local school boards and how the City of London interacts with the boards related to the items listed in the communication, as appended to the Agenda, from Councillors S. Lewis and P. Squire; it being noted that the above-noted communication, with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-S13)

Motion Passed

8.5.12   (4.3) London’s Climate Emergency Declaration - Fireworks - REQUEST FOR DELEGATION STATUS

Motion made by S. Hillier

That the communication from R. Amendola, as appended to the Agenda, and a verbal delegation from R. Amendola with respect to London’s Climate Emergency Declaration and Fireworks, BE RECEIVED. (2021-E00)

Motion Passed

8.5.13   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Hillier

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at June 14, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6   10th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2021-06-23 SPPC Report 10

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 10th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 6 (3.3).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (2.1) London Economic Development Corporation Activity Update 2020

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the London Economic Development Corporation Activity Update 2020 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (2.2) London Community Grants Program Innovation and Capital Funding Allocations (2021)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the report dated June 23, 2021, titled “London Community Grants Program Innovation and Capital Funding Allocations (2021)”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (3.1) Housing Development Corporation, London - 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Housing Development Corporation, London:

a) the presentation by S. Giustizia, President and CEO, Housing Development Corporation, London BE RECEIVED;

b) the financial statements of the Housing Development Corporation, London year ended December 31, 2020 BE RECEIVED; and,

c) the staff report dated May 11, 2021 titled “Housing Stability for All Plan 2020 Update and Priorities for 2021” BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (3.2) London Hydro Inc. - 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions (Relates to Bill No. 292)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with to the London Hydro Inc. 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions:

a) the by-law appended to the staff report dated June 23, 2021 entitled “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc.”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held July 6, 2021; it being noted that the by-law will include an appointment for only one “Third Class” Director, A. Hrymak; and

b) the consideration of the remaining Third Class Director vacancy BE REFERRED to the Corporate Services Committee, in order to consider applications (following a call for applications), conduct interviews, and make a recommendation to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, as the Shareholder.

Motion Passed

8.6.7   (4.1) 3rd Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on May 17, 2021:

a) on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the Advisory Committee Review:

i) the report dated May 17, 2021 entitled Advisory Committee Review - Interim Report VI”, BE RECEIVED; and,

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group with respect to the feedback related to the draft Terms of Reference appended as Appendix A to the above-noted staff report; and,

b) clause 1.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.8   (4.2) Strategy for Core Area Land and Vacant Buildings - Councillor M. Cassidy

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on a proposed strategy that sets out potential tools that may assist in reducing core area land and building vacancy, including, but not limited to:

a) a review of existing incentive programs and any recommended changes to them;

b) a review of existing planning processes / permissions and any recommended changes that would allow for the conversion of vacant commercial/industrial land/space into residential, including affordable housing;

c) an assessment of the related strategies in Our Move Forward – London’s Downtown Plan, and the Downtown Parking Strategy for any recommended updates or changes;

d) any recommendations that build on the Core Area Action Plan to support increased safety and security of person and property in the core area; and,

e) an assessment of how a new strategy could be integrated with the work of the London Community Recovery Network.

Motion Passed

8.6.9   (4.3) Confirmation of Appointment to the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, Mark Simpson BE APPOINTED to the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area for the term ending November 15, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.6.10   (4.4) Consideration of Appointment to Eldon House (Requires 1 Voting Member)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Megan Halliday BE APPOINTED to Eldon House Board of Directors for the term ending November 15, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.6.11   (4.5) Consideration of Appointment to the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority (Requires 1 Voting Member)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That JJ Strybosch BE APPOINTED to the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority for the term ending November 15, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.6.6   (3.3) London & Middlesex Community Housing - 2020 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions (Relates to Bill No. 293)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2020 Annual General Meeting of the London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.:

a) the presentation from London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. BE RECEIVED;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 23, 2021 as Appendix “A” entitled “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 2021 to:

i) ratify and confirm the Annual Resolution of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.; and,

ii) authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Annual Resolution of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.;

c) London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. Audit Findings Report for the year ended December 31, 2020 BE RECEIVED;

d) the financial statements of the London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. year ended December 31, 2020 BE RECEIVED; and

e) the following BE APPOINTED to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.:

Aynsley Anderson, term ending December 31, 2021 (First Class);

John Millson, term ending December 31, 2021 (First Class);

Tammy Brooks (Tenant) and Shellie Chowns, term ending December 31, 2024 (Second Class);

Maria Manno (Tenant) and Gary Bezaire, term ending December 31, 2025 (Third Class);

Michael van Holst and Phil Squire, City of London, and Adrian Cornelissen, County of Middlesex, term ending with the term of Municipal Council (Fourth Class);

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from R. Wilcox, Vice-Chair, Board of Directors, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion made by J. Morgan

The motion to approve clause 3.3, excluding the Council Member appointments included in part e) is put, as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2020 Annual General Meeting of the London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.:

a) the presentation from London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. BE RECEIVED;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 23, 2021 as Appendix “A” entitled “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 2021 to:

i) ratify and confirm the Annual Resolution of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.; and,

ii) authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Annual Resolution of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.;

c) London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. Audit Findings Report for the year ended December 31, 2020 BE RECEIVED;

d) the financial statements of the London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. year ended December 31, 2020 BE RECEIVED; and

e) the following BE APPOINTED to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.:

Aynsley Anderson, term ending December 31, 2021 (First Class);

John Millson, term ending December 31, 2021 (First Class);

Tammy Brooks (Tenant) and Shellie Chowns, term ending December 31, 2024 (Second Class);

Maria Manno (Tenant) and Gary Bezaire, term ending December 31, 2025 (Third Class);

Adrian Cornelissen, County of Middlesex, term ending with the term of Municipal Council (Fourth Class);

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from R. Wilcox, Vice-Chair, Board of Directors, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

The motion to approve the Councillor Members appointments included in part e) is put, as follows:

e) the following BE APPOINTED to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.:

Michael van Holst and Phil Squire, City of London, term ending with the term of Municipal Council (Fourth Class);

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the City of London Elected Official appointments to the London & Middlesex London Community Housing Board of Directors BE REFERRED to the next meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration.

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Pursuant to section 12.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, a separate vote on each of the individual Council Members to be appointed is requested.

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following appointment be approved:

e) the following BE APPOINTED to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.:

Michael van Holst, City of London, term ending with the term of Municipal Council (Fourth Class);

Motion Failed (6 to 8)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following appointments be approved:

e) the following BE APPOINTED to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.:

Phil Squire, City of London, term ending with the term of Municipal Council (Fourth Class);

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lehman

That consideration of the City of London Council Member vacancy on the London Middlesex Housing Board BE REFERRED to the next meeting of the SPPC.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.7   2nd Report of the Audit Committee

2021-06-16 Audit Report 2-Complete

At 5:34 PM, His Worship the Mayor places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 5:35 PM, His Worship the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 2nd Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.7.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.7.2   (4.1) 2020 Financial Audit

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken:

a) the 2020 Financial Report of The Corporation of the City of London, BE RECEIVED, it being noted that the Audit Committee received a presentation from the Director, Financial Services with respect to this matter; and,

b) the Audit Findings Report 2020 as prepared by KPMG for the year ending December 31, 2020, BE RECEIVED, it being noted that the Audit Committee received a presentation from KPMG with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.7.3   (4.2) Request for Proposal Internal Audit Services

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the following actions be taken with respect to internal audit services:

a) the report dated June 16, 2021 titled “Request for Proposal Internal Audit Services” which outlines the scope of work including timelines and general parameters included in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for internal audit services BE RECEIVED;

b) the striking of an Internal Audit Services Evaluation Committee BE APPROVED consisting of: Audit Committee Chair; Audit Committee Vice Chair; a representative from the City Manager’s office and from the Finance Supports Service Area; Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports; with support by appropriate members of the Civic Administration including Purchasing & Supply; and,

c) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to establish an additional meeting of the Audit Committee in October 2021 to complete the RFP evaluation process.

Motion Passed

8.7.4   (4.3) Internal Audit Summary Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication dated June 16, 2021, from Deloitte, with respect to the internal audit summary update, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.5   (4.4) Internal Audit Dashboard as at June 4, 2021

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication from Deloitte, regarding the internal audit dashboard as of June 4, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.6   (4.5) Revised Internal Audit Plan - 2021

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the Revised Internal Audit Plan - FY 2021 from Deloitte dated June 16, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.7.7   (4.6) Audit Committee Observation Summary as at June 4, 2021

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the revised attached Observation Summary from Deloitte, as of June 15, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor S. Turner enquires with respect to an update on why the family swim pass was cancelled this year and if any measures are being considered to ensure recreational swimming is affordable and accessible for families this summer?  The Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services provides information to the Council with respect to this matter.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No’.s 292, 294 to 303, excluding Bill No. 302, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Second Reading of Bill No’.s 292, 294 to 303, excluding Bill No. 302, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No’.s. 292, 294 to 303, excluding Bill No. 302, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of the revised Bill No. 293 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of the revised Bill No. 293 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of the revised Bill No. 293 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 302 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No. 302 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 302 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

4.1 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. (6.1/11/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. (6.2/11/CSC)

4.3 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. (6.3/11/CSC)

4.4 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. (6.4/11/CSC)

4.5 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. (6.5/11/CSC)

4.6 Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation with respect to various personal injury and property damage claims against the City. (6.6/11/CSC)

4.7 Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individual with respect to employment-related matters and advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.7/11/CSC)

4.8 Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to an identifiable individual; employment-related matters; advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.8/11/CSC)

4.9 Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individual with respect to employment-related matters and advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/12/CSC)

4.10 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. (6.1/10/CPSC)

4.11 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. (6.2/10/CPSC)

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

The Council rises and convenes In Closed Session at 5:50 PM, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair and all Members participating, except Councillor M. van Holst.

At 6:05 PM, Councillor S. Turner leaves the meeting.

At 6:09 PM, Councillor S. Turner enters the meeting.

At 6:12 PM, Councillor S. Hillier leaves the meeting.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   10th Report of Council in Closed Session

2021-07-06 Council Minutes 10-Attachments

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Items 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the 10th report of the Council, In Closed Session, BE APPROVED:

  1. Offer to Purchase Industrial Land - 2842613 Ontario Ltd. - Innovation Park, Phase II

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Innovation Park, Phase II, containing an area of approximately six acres, located on the west side of Innovation Drive, more specifically described as Part of Block 1, Plan 33M-592, designated as Parts 14 and 17, Plan 33R-20884, being Part of PIN 08197-0307, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by 2842613 Ontario Ltd. (the “Purchaser”) to purchase from the City, six acres of the subject property, at a purchase price of $420,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, reflecting a sale price of $70,000.00 per acre.

  1. Industrial Land Sale, Option Agreement Amendment – Cakerie Holdings Limited Innovation Park, Phase I

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Innovation Park, Phase I, containing an area of approximately 9.79 acres, on the west side of Veteran’s Memorial Parkway, more specifically described as Parts 2, 3 and 4,Plan 33R-17213, save and except Parts 1 and 2, Plan 33R–19042, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Option Agreement Amendment (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Cakerie Holdings, Ltd. (the “Purchaser”) to purchase from the City 9.79 acres of the subject property, at a purchase price of $719,565.00 BE ACCEPTED, reflecting a sale price of $73,500.00 per acre.

6.  Lease Amending Agreement – Citi Plaza – 355 Wellington Street, Suite 248

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the Lease Amending Agreement for the lease of office space located at 355 Wellington Street, known as the Citi Plaza, the Lease Amending Agreement between the City and Citi Plaza London Inc. (the “Landlord”) attached as Appendix A, for lease of approximately 61,029 square feet of deemed rentable area, located at 355 Wellington Street, Suite 248, for a term of five (5) years BE APPROVED.

7.  Lease Extension and Amending Agreement – 785 Wonderland Road South – Life Stabilization – West Office

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the Lease Extension and Amending Agreement for the lease of office space at 785 Wonderland Road South, known as Westmount Shopping Centre, the Lease Extension and Amending Agreement between the City and 785 Wonderland Road Inc. (the “Landlord”) attached as Appendix A, for the lease of approximately 16,946 square feet of Rentable Area, located at 785 Wonderland Road South, at a net rent of $19.00 per square foot for five (5) years BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 3 and 4 of the 10th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, BE APPROVED:

  1. Property Acquisition – 166 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 166 Wellington Road, further described as Lot 1, Plan 467 (4th), Except Part 1, 33R-11032, being all of PIN 08358-0080 (LT), containing an area of approximately 7,028 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a) the offer submitted by David Schleihauf and Nikesha Schleihauf (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $685,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and,

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

  1. Property Acquisition – 178 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 178 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lots 16, 17, 18 and 26, Plan 467 (4th), being all of PIN 08358-0084 (LT), containing an area of approximately 2,744.79 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a) the offer submitted by Crystal Faith Miller and Robert Bruce Ryding (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $442,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; 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 (11 to 1)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That item 5 of the 10th Report of the Council in Closed Session, BE APPROVED:

5 Partial Property Acquisition – 1349 Southdale Road West – Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, and Division Manager, Transportation Planning and Design, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the acquisition of a portion of property from 1349 Southdale Road West, further described as Part Lot 79 WTR; London / Westminster, being part of PIN 08224- 0301, designated as Parts 18 and 21 on a draft reference plan to be deposited, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project, the following actions be taken:

a) the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by Mary Maclean and Alfred Donald Maclean (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $132,600.00be BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, 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 (12 to 1)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 291 and Added Bill No.’s 304 to 311, excluding Bill No.’s 306, 307 and 308 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Second Reading of Reading of Bill No. 291 and Added Bill No.’s 304 to 311, excluding Bill No.’s 306, 307 and 308 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of Reading of Bill No. 291, and Added Bill No.’s 304 to 311, excluding Bill No.’s 306, 307 and 308 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 306 and 307 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 306 and 307 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 306 and 307 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 308 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Bill No. 308 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 308 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

The following are enacted as by-laws of The Corporation of the City of London:

Bill

By-law

Bill No. 291

By-law No. A.-8133-199 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 6th day of July, 2021. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 292

By-law No. A.-8134-200 - A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc. (3.2/10/SPPC)

Bill No. 293

By-law No. A.-8135-201 - A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. (3.3/10/SPPC)

Bill No. 294

By-law No. A.-8136-202 - A by-law to approve demolition of abandoned building with municipal address of 120 Weston Street under the Property Standards provisions of the Building Code Act. (2.4/10/CPSC)

Bill No. 295

By-law No. C.P.-1565-203 - A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 1620 Noah Bend, legally described as Block 95 in Registered Plan 33M-733. (2.11/10/PEC)

Bill No. 296

By-law No. L.S.P.-3492-204 - A by-law to authorize and approve an application to expropriate land in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, for the Dingman Drive Improvements Project. (2.3/11/CSC)

Bill No. 297

By-law No. S.-6130-205 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish, and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Hamilton Road and Highbury Avenue North) (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes on Hamilton Road and Highbury Ave North, registered as ER1364107, pursuant to SPA20-094 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 298

By-law No. W.-5658(a)-206 - A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5658-89 entitled, “A by-law to authorize project TS1335 – Intersection – Sunningdale-Hyde Park Roundabout”. (2.3/8/CWC)

Bill No. 299

By-law No. W.-5677-207 - A by-law to authorize White Oak Upgrades – Exeter Road to 400m South (project TS1366) (2.5/8/CWC)

Bill No. 300

By-law No. Z.-1-212943 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 135 Villagewalk Boulevard. (2.12/10/PEC)

Bill No. 301

By-law No. Z.-1-212944 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 915-919 Commissioners Road East. (3.1/10/PEC)

Bill No. 302

By-law No. Z.-1-212945 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 193 Queens Avenue. (3.2/10/PEC)

Bill No. 303

By-law No. Z.-1-212946 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1810, 1820, 1840, and 1850 Adelaide Street North.  (3.3/10/PEC)

Bill No. 304

By-law No. A.-8137-208 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and 2842613 Ontario Ltd. for the sale of the City owned industrial land, located on the west side of Innovation Drive, more specifically described as Part of Block 1, Plan 33M-592, designated as Parts 14 and 17, Plan 33R-20884, being Part of Pin 08197-0307, containing an area of approximately six acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/11/CSC)

Bill No. 305

By-law No. A.-8138-209 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Amended Option Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Cakerie Holdings, Ltd., for the option to purchase the City owned industrial land, located on the west side of Veteran’s Memorial Parkway, more specifically described as Parts 2, 3 and 4, Plan 33R-17213, save and except Parts 1 and 2, Plan 33R-19042, containing an area of approximately 9.79 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/11/CSC)

Bill No. 306

By-law No. A.-8139-210 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and David Schleihauf and Nikesha Schleihauf for the acquisition of the property located at 166 Wellington Road, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.3/11/CSC)

Bill No. 307

By-law No. A.-8140-211 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Crystal Faith Miller and Robert Bruce Ryding, for the acquisition of the property located at 178 Wellington Road, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.4/11/CSC)

Bill No. 308

By-law No. A.-8141-212 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Mary Maclean and Alfred Donald Maclean for the acquisition of a portion of the property located at 1349 Southdale Road West, in the City of London, for the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.5/11/CSC)

Bill No. 309

By-law No. A.-8142-213 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Lease Amending Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Citi Plaza London Inc., for the commercial space located at 355 Wellington Street, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/10/CPSC)

Bill No. 310

By-law No. A.-8143-214 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Lease Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and 785 Wonderland Road Inc., for the Lease Extension and Amending Agreement of commercial space located at 785 Wonderland Road South, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/10/CPSC)

Bill No. 311

By-law No. A.-8144-215 - A by-law to appoint Jacqueline Davison as Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports. (6.1/12/CSC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Squire

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourns at 7:19 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 (2 hours, 29 minutes)

[12:11] colleagues will be starting just a few moments. Colleagues, welcome to the 10th meeting of City Council.

[14:41] For the benefit of the public, this is a virtual meeting held during the COVID-19 emergency. We’d ask you to 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 your every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing or advisory committees and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-249 extension 2425.

[15:17] So just to confirm that we have quorum, may I ask for everyone to have screens on, please, or confirm quorum. Okay, Vaga, I’m here. I’ve been advised that Councillor Vanholst is not available for today’s meeting and is this our direction we advise colleagues porting Leia’s individuals are in a position where they must leave a meeting or return.

[16:10] So with that, I’ll look for any disclosures of continuing interest. Might declare one to get us started under civic works, items 2.9 and five, dealing with Waterloo Street, Piccadilly Street issues, as my family has a small retail business in that area. Any other disclosures? Seeing none, before we get into recognitions, I’d like to do one thing if I can, which is a little out of the ordinary.

[16:49] We have a new member from staff who is here today. I was introduced just recently, and I’m gonna ask Mr. Carte if he would make an introduction of this person, just so we know some of the players who are on the screen from staff. I wonder, Mr. Carte, could I impose on you? Well, thank you, Your Worship. I am pleased to introduce Benisha R, who is completing her time as an articulating student with us. In fact, she was called to the bar on Saturday because of the pandemic.

[17:23] We followed an unconventional practice. Ms. R received an email item from the Law Society informing her of her call to the bar. So we join in congratulating Benisha on her call to the bar. She will be joining us after a brief vacation as a solicitor assisting Ainslie Anderson and Sasha Teddavardi with their work. And we’re pleased to welcome Benisha back. And thank you, Your Worship for the opportunity. And Benisha, on behalf of council, we welcome you to our larger family and we’re sure that you will enjoy this as much as I’m sure we’ll have the honor to work with you as well.

[18:05] Welcome aboard. Probably ‘cause we have two points of recognition that I’ve been advised of. I’d like to first call on councilor Hillyer, please. Thank you very much. I’m just here to let everyone know that Bob Usher has given his notice and will be retiring this fall. And we have started the process of finding another person to fill his position. And I’d like to also say a special thanks to Bob from the board of myself because what you may not realize when COVID started, Bob had actually spoken to us just previously about talking with retirement and he decided to stay on it, help out.

[18:41] And this is a very big thing for us because I don’t know how we would have replaced him during COVID. So a big hats off to Bob Usher and thank you for 18 years of amazing service. I know we all echo that. Thank you very much, councilor Hillyer. I also have recognition from councilor Lewis, if you would please. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, I rise tonight to recognize an important anniversary in the fabric of Canada’s cultural and historic heritage. Many look to the battle of Vimy Ridge and the following contributions to the efforts of World War I where Canadian forces fought for the first time together as a moment of our nation’s coming of age on the world stage.

[19:23] But we all know that that contribution came at a great cost. Following the war, a grateful French woman, Madame Anna Guerin, later christened the Poppy Lady from France was inspired by Canadian John McCrae’s home in Flanders Fields and had an idea to adopt the distribution of the Poppy on Armistice Day as a way to raise money for veterans of the Great War. On July 5th of 1921, the Great War Veterans Association, which in 1925 would unify with other veterans groups to form the Royal Canadian Legion, adopted the Poppy as the flower of remembrance.

[20:07] Since then, the Legion and its members have upheld this tradition of remembrance. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the annual Poppy campaign, supported by generations and generations of Canadians. And tonight, I’m wearing a recreation of the first Poppy pin distributed by veterans associations. And each of you will find one for you to wear in your city hall offices courtesy of the Royal Canadian Legion. While Council will be receiving a proclamation request later this year to mark 2021 as the year of the Poppy, on this 100 years and one day anniversary of its adoption as the symbol of remembrance, I want to recognize the generations of Canadians who have done their Poppy each and every year.

[20:54] Less do we forget? Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Colleagues, I’m advised that Councillor Turner is excused himself from the medium, but looks to be returning a little bit later on. I’m not aware of any confidential matters to be considered in public, but Colleagues under item four, what I’m looking for is a change in order motion, which is required to move this item, which is our confidential matters in closed session and 10th report of council in closed session after stage 13 bylaws.

[21:27] So for that, I would look for a mover. Councillor Van Reibergen, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Let’s call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 13 to zero.

[22:02] Thank you, Colleagues. Approved the minutes from the medium held on June 15th and that they be put on the floor. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call that question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 13 to zero.

[22:44] Thank you, Colleagues. I have not read patients nor petitions, nor emotions to which notice is given. That puts us right to the reports, the 11th report of the corporate services committee, calling Councillor Cassie. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m not aware of items to be pulled, but I will wait to see if there are any items that Colleagues would like to pull. Does anyone wish anything to be dealt with separately? Seeing none, we’ll review Councillor Cassie. I’m happy to put the entire report on the floor and then Your Worship.

[23:19] Thank you. Any comments or questions? Councillor Squire. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I reviewed the, in particular item, issuance of Proclamation’s pilot program review. My understanding is that this matter will be coming back to committee for review. So I just want to make it clear at this point in time that I don’t feel the necessity of taking a position on what’s going to come back at this point in time and belabor the point tonight, but I’m certainly going to reserve my rights to see what the final draft is and what this looks like when it comes back.

[23:56] And I may or may not support it then, but I don’t want to not go on record of taking that position. Thanks very much. Any other comments? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion is passed, 13 to zero.

[24:38] Thanks very much. And that then moves us to back to you, Councillor Cassie. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. We had a brief meeting, a special meeting of corporate services with one confidential item. So I will put that, that report, the 12th meeting of corporate services on the floor. Appreciate it was confidential. I will ask if there’s any comments. Dean, we’ll call the question. Councillor Helmer.

[25:45] The voting is not coming up. I’m voting the favor. Opposing the vote, the motion is passed, 13 to zero. Councillor Cassie. Your Worship. Thanks very much. Then I’ll turn this now to the ninth report of civic works. Councillor Palazzo, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I have given, given notice to poll items 10 being 2.9, the Waterloo and Piccadilly area traffic study, as well as 15 being 5.1, the deferred matters list, as requested by yourself. I’ve been not been given notice by other, any other members of council for anything to be pulled.

[26:21] Does anyone wish to have anything voted on separately? Seeing none, I might just suggest this is appropriate that 2.9 and 5.1, if you wish, can be voted on as a package because I’ll be abstaining from both, Madam Chair. Comments then in questions then with regard to all items with the exception of items 10 and items 15. Your Worship, I’ll just say that, as I put the remainder of the items on the floor, that everything was unanimous to vote at committee.

[26:57] There was a couple of requests from the cycling advisor committee that was granted by the civic works committee and everything else was just regular tenders and no regular contracts. Thank you very, thanks for that clarity. Any other comments or questions with respect to the items that are on the table? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. I believe Councillor Cassidy has her hand up. Oh, sorry, Councillor Cassidy. That’s a faded hand in the corner, but I see you now. Go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I just want to comment on 2.5 from the civic works report, which is the appointment of a consulting engineer for the Dingman Creek sub watershed project.

[27:43] I just wanted to say that we got some federal funding for that project, about $300,000 and wanted to comment that that’s great news for the city of London and I’m pretty grateful to the federal government for that funding. This will go towards a really good project there. So just want to point that out, thanks. Thank you very much. Any other comments on those items? Is your hand still up, Councillor Cassidy?

[28:16] ‘Cause I’m paying attention now. I thought I took it down, but somebody must have taken it down for me and I ended up putting it up again. So my apologies. Thank you. Any other comments? And let’s call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion is passed 13 to zero.

[28:52] Councillor Plaza. Thank you. I’ll now put items 10 being 2.5.1 together on the floor for Council’s consideration. Any comments for questions, colleagues? I see none. We’ll call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion is passed 12 to zero with one recused.

[29:52] Councillor Plaza. Thank you, worship, that concludes the report. And staff had just noted that item 2.8, being the Arva here on water transmission main, it’s an EA. Is it going to be available on the Get Involved London website or the public wishes to provide feedback? That’s how they can do so. Thank you. Thank you very much. For the attention reported plan environment committee, Councillor Squire. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know the number 14 will have to be pulled. That’s 2.2, Councillor Hopkins has a motion. I’m not aware of any other matters at this time.

[30:26] Councillor Hopkins, oh, perhaps I should add number 16, 3.2, there was a split vote on that matter. I apologize, Councillor Hopkins. You did vote opposite to the rest of the members of the committee. Colleagues do. - Where are any other matters? I’m sorry, Councillor Squire. Does anyone wish anything else to be dealt with separately? Councillor Squire. Put all the other matters on the floor. Thank you. Comments for questions on the balance of the agenda with the exception of 2.2 and 3.2. I see none.

[31:03] We’ll call the question. The vote, the motion’s passed, 13 to zero.

[31:56] Thank you, Councillor Squire. Item 14 or 2.2 is a memorand of an understanding for development and/or planning issue between the city of London and UTRCA. This is a proposed agreement between us and the UTRCA with regard to roles to be undertaken with regard to these matters. Councillor Hopkins has brought a motion to have the final agreement brought back to the planning committee. I think that is the motion. And I have had a chance to talk to staff and they have no difficulty in doing that.

[32:29] So if that’s of any assistance as we move forward with the motion, but that’s all I have to say. I think we would require something put officially or appropriately on the floor, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, I have passed the, I hope Council will see this as a friendly amendment, but it is a clause D which reads that civic administration be directed to bring forward a final DMOU to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

[33:09] I would like to put that on the floor. I know I did have a seconder. I’m hoping that there’s someone on council that will second this for at least a debate. Seconded by Councillor Palosa, thank you. Comments or questions, colleagues? Seeing, oh, thank you, oh, and pardon me, and Councillor Turner’s back. So the practice we have in Councillor Turner is not just to send her anyone out, just let folks know when people had to leave the meeting which we’re appreciative that you advised the clerk and then we advise colleagues.

[33:54] So with that, we have a mover and a seconder. I see no comments, call the question. No, Councillor Hopkins, yes, did you want to comment? If I may. Oh, absolutely, just let me know. I appreciate that. I know it was a discussion at planning. I had pulled it. I did have a number of questions and concerns on this and the recommendation for my colleagues, it addresses the MOU. This is not the MOU that will be coming to us.

[34:27] This is the DMOU, which is the development memorandum of understanding. And I do also sit on the Upper Thames Conservation Board. And I know there’s a number of changes that are about to happen. And like a colleague of mine said, we have to start somewhere. So I want to first of all, thanks staff for reaching out to me and having the conversation on the DMOU. I think it was appreciative and I am hoping that Council will at least address the concerns that I’ve had with not having the information.

[35:11] As you know, the provincial government has not set out the regulations for conservation authorities or section 28. But I do understand that staff and Upper Thames are in the process of working together to come about with this contract and all contracts, regardless if they are, you know, our substantial, substantially complete or not are signed by two parties.

[35:43] And I have two hats here that I am wearing. I do appreciate the Chair, Councillor Squire, for mentioning that he did follow up with staff. But through you, Your Worship, I would like to ask staff if they have any concerns that the final DMOU should be brought to Council. Well, let’s take it back to staff for a response. Go ahead, please. Through you, Mr. Worship Council, it’s no, we don’t have any concerns coming back to pack with the final MOU and a subsequent approval by Council.

[36:19] Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that. So I’m hoping my colleagues will support the D clause. I am not going to be supporting A to C just because I do think there’s a number, a bit more work to be done. I’d like to see a little bit more work before I do approve something. There’s a number of reviews. And as we know, this is just the DMOU just relates to planning services only. So I hope my colleagues will be supportive of this amendment. Thanks very much, Councillor.

[37:00] Mr. Worship, thank you, Your Worship. So I certainly have no problem with the information coming back, although through you to staff, we’re delegating authority so the staff can work with upper Thames to finalize this and execute it. Would this not be information that any Councillor or for that matter, a member of the public would be able to access it as a matter of public record once it’s executed? Let’s take that back to staff for response.

[37:37] Through you, through you, Worship, I think ultimately it would be, I’ll defer to Mr. Barrett or Mr. Fallberry here, both on the line to help with the specifics of the MOU. Mr. Barrett, do you want to give that a try? Thank you, through you, through you, Worship. Certainly it’s generally an administrative matter, but it would also be something that the public could see, but we would have no issue in bringing it back. As the Councillors noted, we’re asking the delegated authority that we would pursue the agreement and then we can come back and report out to a committee and council as to what changes there might have been to the agreement and what it now says and what the nature of the relationship is going to be with the upper Thames.

[38:20] Councillor Loose, thank you, Your Worship. And through, through you, again, to our staff, I want to be clear with all members of council present, what we heard at planning committee is that if there are substantive changes to this draft version, I believe that committee, Mr. Barrett, indicated he would be bringing this back to planning committee anyway, if there were substantive changes, I just want to make sure that that is in fact correct. Mr. Barrett? Through you, Worship, yes, that is correct. We would be bringing it back. Councillor Loose.

[38:53] Thank you. So as I said at the beginning, I don’t have a problem supporting Councillor Hopkins’ request to have a report come back to planning committee, although I’m not sure what really we’re going to accomplish other than adding a few more pages of a report to a planning committee agenda. We’re going to send our staff out with delegated authority to negotiate this with upper Thames based on what was in the agenda previously. And then once that’s done and executed, they’ll come back to us and provide us with a final version. But I think it’s really important that we don’t get bogged down in the weeds here.

[39:27] It’s just going to come back to us. This isn’t asking for council’s endorsement in the future. This is just to come back with a finalized report for us to see. So, and I do understand Councillor Hopkins’ concern about provincial regulations changing. But I think when this is with regard to planning services, this is pretty straightforward for me. I will say that I will disagree with Councillor Hopkins that we can even have a D if there isn’t an A, B, and C supported. But that may just be a matter of difference of opinion between her and I.

[39:59] So, I’ll leave it at that. So noted, any other comments or questions, colleagues? So this is, to be clear, we’re now voting on the amendment. And I will ask the clerk to bring them up. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 13 to one.

[40:47] Councillor Skar? No, we’ve got, sorry, I didn’t mean to do that. Yeah, so the main motion is amended. Thank you very much. Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Cassidy, thank you. Comments or questions that haven’t been covered? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 13 to one.

[41:42] 3.2, which is a approval of an extension of a temporary parking lot at one and put my glasses on. 193 Queens Avenue, we had a report from staff on this and the committee supported the extension, save and accept for Councillor Hopkins. So, I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. Thanks very much. Comments or questions, colleagues? Those are Turner. Thank you, worship. With respect to this person, I recognize in the downtown traffic study, this is one of the higher areas for demand.

[42:17] However, along the BRT corridor, these different areas that are identified for a prioritization of development. At what point do we start to have conversations with these landowners and say that we don’t routinely renew the temporary parking exemptions allowed for these service parking supplies? Sorry, was that a question to staff? Yeah, it’s a question for you to staff, thank you.

[42:49] All right, thank you, just to be clear. Thank you, staff, we’d like to respond to that, please. Through is worship. So, we do have conversations with applicants and we do advise them that in many instances the temporary parking lot extensions are not something that are greatly supported. We have in the past, so council has in the past either refused or reduced the timelines and have had clauses in the approvals or in the recommendation to just highlight the fact that future extensions or prolonged extensions may not be considered.

[43:35] That could be also another indicator to the applicants that were council wishes these matters to go in the future. I recognize and you can’t bind a future council, however, some of these clauses could be written away that so as not to do so. That’s your turn. Thank you, worship. But Mr. Cossifus raises the right point is that we can’t find a future council, which is why I’m not going to be routinely supporting any of these motions as they come forward as we’re in our last year and a half of the term.

[44:12] And most of these are for three year extensions. One of the challenges I have, especially with this site is that when the demolition permit was requested, there was a promise that in short order a building would go up in its place and that was a long time ago and it was over two terms council will go. So I don’t have much faith that without discontinuing those permissions that we would see anything in any short order or anytime soon develop on that site, especially as this applicant has decided to move forward to another site for development instead and priority.

[44:50] So I’m not going to support the recommendation as it comes. I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, worship. So there’s a paragraph in the committee agenda where it says this application does not represent an extension of an existing temporary use bylaw. So my question to staff is, has this been operating as a parking lot in contravention of the bylaw?

[45:23] Councillor. Through you, I’m going to pull on Mr. Barrett to help us with some of the specifics of this file. Mr. Barrett, go ahead. I do believe they have been operating as a parking lot. Initially they were designed to be, it was a use for their tenants in the area, but I will ask Mr. Barrett to go ahead and speak. Thank you, Chair Worship. I believe Mr. Cuts has actually gave the answer I was going to, which was when it was initially opened.

[45:57] It was, I believe, identified as an accessory parking lot for another operation. And it, I think, morphed over time to the commercial lot. And it’s now in to have that recognized to the temporary zoning. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I have a couple of other questions through you to staff. I see that the utilization rate is in the zone. This zone has a utilization rate of around 81%. Is that, are we, and I recognize that 2020 and 2021 are different because of COVID, but we did the downtown parking strategy some time ago.

[46:38] Have we been updating these utilization rates, or are we still using the same figures that we came up with back when the downtown parking strategy was created? Mr. Baer. Thank you, Through Your Worship. There hasn’t been an update done. And these are the utilization rates from that original study, I believe 2018. Councillor Cassidy. Through you, Your Worship, is there a plan to update these utilization rates? Good, Mr. Baer. Thank you, Through Your Worship. This has come up and it is something that I believe the committee has asked us to look at.

[47:12] And I think as the council are also noted, 2020 and 2021 are odd years, which is the reason we’re not looking at it now, because we really wouldn’t get a sense of what the utilization rates are within the parking areas in the downtown. So at this point, we can only rely on those numbers that we did have from the previous study. As we find ourselves on the, hopefully the backside and the downside of this pandemic, we’ll be getting into periods where we will move you back to some sort of regularity, where we will be able to do an assessment on what the parking needs are.

[47:50] The council, though, did note something else that I just wanna perhaps point out that might just assist in this, which was, and we did grapple with this, but it is because things are different. There is the work that’s going on downtown. There is the, as we know, the support that we’re looking to provide for Dundas Place, and we have the limited access to Dundas Place now because of traffic restrictions. So that did figure much into staff’s recommendation on this was that given the nature of not knowing what our future needs were, but knowing what our needs were with respect to providing as much opportunity and support to Dundas Place as we could, that was something that very much factored in the recommendation that’s before you this evening.

[48:35] Councilor? Thank you, Your Worship. So my final comments and questions have to do with the landscaping requirements. So I know it’s noted in the report that there’s some soft landscaping on adjacent lands, but if anybody just has to look at the parking lot itself, it’s not very attractive. It’s definitely not an asset to our downtown. It doesn’t make our downtown better other than providing parking. My question through you to staff is in the criteria laid out number, whatever it is.

[49:14] It talks about the requirement that this contribute to the tree canopy and provide a 30% tree canopy. Obviously, this does not comply with that. So my question to staff is if we were, if somebody were building a brand new parking lot, if we were allowing this, if it was an accessory parking lot to a development, not just downtown, anywhere in the city, would we not have landscaping requirements? Would we not impose landscaping requirements, pedestrian islands, et cetera, et cetera, to a developer that is looking to build a brand new parking lot.

[49:56] That’s one question. Number two is, why aren’t we imposing those same kinds of criteria here? And third question is, can we not please do something like that if we are going to continue to have these rolling three year extensions? If we don’t want these surface parking lots to take away from our downtown, why are we not imposing the same kinds of criteria that we would on a brand new development? So those are three questions Mr. Barrett, do you think you can handle them all?

[50:31] I know you can, go ahead. Thank you, Thierworship. Would we apply these standards to do parking lots as the council answered that question? Yes, we would. Why not here and could we possibly do that? There are some issues around this and it’s certainly something we can pursue further in conversation with the applicant and the owner. Part of the problem is the applicability of site plan and it’s a combination of both our own site plan control by-law and also prohibitions that exist within the legislation and what constitutes development.

[51:11] And in some places and in some reading, the establishment of the parking lot itself might not meet that test for what constitutes development, but there are things that we can look at through our own site plan control by-law. So it is something we are aware of and something that we are looking at rectifying and perhaps providing a little bit more certainty, but with this conversation and with knowing where council stands on these matters, it’s certainly something we can go back and speak with on the applicant ‘cause there will be further work that’s required on this. Thank you, anything else, Councillor?

[51:44] No, I’m done, Your Worship. I won’t be supporting this. I think that the owner has not done enough to have this extension going on. I think they could do so much better in helping with the downtown. And so I can’t support this, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Squire. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I’m not going to try to convince anybody to vote a certain way. I voted in favor of this. What I do want to point out is there’s been a lot of discussion I know in the past couple of months in the community and elsewhere that council just sort of routinely approves, re-approves surface parking lots.

[52:17] And I have to admit that I take issue with that somewhat, particularly where there are a number of criteria that are in place in the current official plan and the London plan in the downtown plan with regard to the criteria that are to be applied if you are going to allow a continuation of a surface parking lot. And those should be carefully reviewed by staff and by council and a determination should be made if those criteria have been met and a vote should be taken. So that’s what I do.

[52:52] And in this particular case, I read the report, I saw that there was a high utilization rate in that area of 81%. In that particular zone, there will actually be a deficit supply of parking spaces of 65 by 2034, even when one considers BRT is going to be in place. And so mode share is projected to change somewhat from cars to other things. And I’m also was persuaded by whether there’s actually a frustration of the development of this land. And this was an area that was going to be— and I understand 10 proposals were being put forward for this to be a downtown parking development.

[53:33] And that was frustrated by the city itself deciding not to do that. So the idea that there had been some kind of frustration and development in this particular case was the fault of the city, if you want to call it fault. I’m not sure it’s fault. But it’s just a change of evaluation by the city. But as we go forward, I really think it’s incumbent on council to go along with what the London plan says, which is we generally discourage surface parking lots downtown. That’s the starting point. And if we are going to allow their continuance, we have to look at these criteria.

[54:09] And I was satisfied that the criteria were met in this particular case. So I’m not going to be routinely approving anything. If anybody— I would think people would think, no, I’m the last person that routinely approves things. I go deep into them. I look in the criteria. But I think it’s important that we don’t sort of isolate this to— well, there’s people who like surface parking lots. And there’s people who don’t like surface parking lots. Because that shouldn’t be the discussion. The discussion should be whether the criteria have been met in this particular case. And I’m speaking more to the public who in the last few weeks come to us and said, on a particular development, well, we don’t want development here.

[54:45] We want it on a surface parking lot somewhere. Fair enough. But as a council, we have to make the evaluation on those surface parking lots as the applications come forward. That’s all we should be doing. We have the tools to do it. And I’m entirely in favor of us saying, yes, to some surface parking lots, and no to other ones that don’t meet the criteria. And I’m sure, Councillor, when you said frustrated, you met that in the legal sense of the term. So thank you for that. Always, Councillor Hopkins, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

[55:18] I did not support this at committee. And I haven’t been convinced here at council that this should go forward. I appreciate Councillor Cassidy’s questions around this parking lot being a new parking lot. That’s more or less how I view this parking area, even though it has been a parking spot since 2007. But we are right now approving a commercial parking lot. And in an area that is of critical importance.

[55:56] And I would think that having some kind of development, even a parking structure or development with parking, this would be an ideal spot. And the fact that we are, I wouldn’t say routinely, this is a new parking lot, encouraging parking lots and downtown and not encouraging development. So I will not be supporting staff’s recommendation coming to us tonight. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

[56:33] I’m not gonna take the time to repeat everything Councillor Squire said, but like him, to me, it’s important that we’re reviewing these based on the criteria. And that criteria is actually not who owns it. It’s about does the parking lot meet its criteria for need. And it was referenced that the utilization rate is about 81% right now, both for this lot and for this zone that this lot is in. I think it’s important that folks understand and both to the public and to other members of council who may not have read the full report.

[57:05] 90% is considered practical maximum capacity, not 100%. So you’re only within 9% of maximum capacity anyway. You know, we spent a great deal of time over the past year as we’ve dealt with the impacts of COVID and the plan to start recovering from COVID on the importance of downtown and investment in the downtown. Well, if we really want Dundas place to succeed, the reality is BRT is still years away. People need a place to park if they’re going to visit those shops and be customers of those restaurants and bars and places where we’re letting put out patios right now.

[57:46] And so if we’re not going to provide them parking, the recovery of Dundas place and the businesses around it is not going to be as successful as it could be. So I will support this. I supported it at council or at committee. And is this the highest and best use of the land? Absolutely not. I agree with all of my colleagues on this. But what we have is a three year request. And I think that that’s reasonable considering we’re going to have downtown construction for at least the next three years as the BRT plan moves forward. And we are going to have a long time coming out of the COVID pandemic before we’re in— we’ve recovered to where we were pre-pandemic.

[58:26] So I’m going to support this now. I too would like to see something better developed here. But I’m also mindful of what councilor Squire pointed out. There was an opportunity for proposals to come in for the municipal lot right next door to this site. And then we froze that because of COVID. And in fact, there was a push to have it removed and council recently supported keeping it in the recovery plan. So if we’re supporting keeping it in the recovery plan that we perhaps need a mixed use including a parking structure on the adjacent property next door, then surely we must understand that there’s parking needed in this particular zone right now.

[59:11] Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Pardon me, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, and thank you to my colleagues who’ve spoken already on this. I appreciate the perspective. I just wanted to share my thoughts. I appreciate our staff’s recommendation. In particular, something Mr. Barrett said about the data that they’re working from in the report being very old and also the considerations that he mentioned about the period which we’re working through during COVID. I certainly am very interested in updated data on parking utilization downtown as soon as it’s appropriate to start gathering that data and the situation normalizes to a certain degree.

[59:51] In the absence of having that information, I personally am hesitant and I do align with our staff’s thinking on this in making any sort of significant change until we can get through the current situation and start to think about the next. And the second thing I’ll say is canceling temporary service parking lots certainly could be one way that we support or try to encourage development downtown. But I don’t want the public to think that that’s the only thing that we’re doing to encourage development downtown. We certainly have a number of incentive programs through the CIP program at play that assists in the development of residential capacity downtown and those should continue and I’m certainly supportive of them.

[1:00:37] But at this time, I think renewing this for another three years given the point where in the pandemic is appropriate. I certainly won’t commit myself to doing that indefinitely but I think in this case, I agree with our staff’s assessment on this and we’ll reassess at the next point in the future. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions? That’s wrong. Thank you. I wanted to just return to a specific detail around this application which is making decision harder for me than I think it would be otherwise which is the fact that there isn’t an existing, there’s no existing temporary use for service parking on the existing lands.

[1:01:23] So for me, the difficulty is what I’m trying to resolve is that downtown parking strategy has a policy that says that we shouldn’t issue new temporary use zoning permissions for parking. So there’s on the one hand gradual discontinuation of parking lots according to the utilization numbers that we’ve got also in the areas that are low utilization and stop renewing those ones and then also don’t issue any new temporary use permissions. So I want to just, I guess through the mayor to planning staff, see how you wrestle with that because obviously it has been functionally being used as a parking lot, although accessory to other uses for many years, this is a new temporary use zoning operation that’s being sought that doesn’t exist.

[1:02:16] Now it’s not a renewal. And so how did you resolve that considering what’s in the downtown parking strategy where it says no new temporary use zoning permissions? Mr. Mayor. Thank you through your worship. I guess the way we resolve that was the fact that it has been operating as essentially as that temporary surface parking. It hasn’t been accessory to those uses that has been serving as a commercial parking lot and not just as the accessory parking lot.

[1:02:59] And I, the councilors write it. It’s not completely four square with those policies. But again, I think as I indicated it we really, we did grapple with this and it is, it’s the timing. It’s not knowing what the conditions are not knowing. In fact, and as has been pointed out, we’re working off old data. We don’t know what the downtown parking utilization rates are going to be in the future. We do know that this parking lot has been highly used. And so obviously has contributed to the parking supply whether it was as a commercial surface parking lot or as an accessory surface parking lot.

[1:03:39] It did, it was part of that downtown parking supply. And that quite honestly is the only explanation that I can provide for why we did bring for the recommendation that’s in front of you this evening. Casa. Okay, thank you. So I’m going to support the temporary use for the parking on this particular site. I’m basically going to ignore the fact that it didn’t have a temporary use zone in the past. It’s been a parking lot for a long time.

[1:04:13] And I think the intent behind that policy is don’t allow new surface parking lots to pop up where there’s been a demolition or there wasn’t existing service parking. So I hate to kind of reward somebody for not following the zoning rules in the past. Having something that’s operating outside of the zoning is not good. We don’t want to see that happening in the city, but this seems like kind of a technicality to hold it up. I do support the renewal of service parking in areas where there’s high demand.

[1:04:46] And I voted against the extension of surface parking lots in zones one, two, five and six. And in zones three and four, I don’t think we should be discontinuing those right now. I think eventually we will need to discontinue them. This is the area in the area around the downtown loop and Dundas place where there’s been significant impacts in terms of on street parking. And so I think keeping the surface parking lots in those areas is important. Just across the street and to the west on central, I voted against the renewal of those surface parking lots.

[1:05:20] I didn’t hear a lot of arguments saying we needed to follow the policy from colleagues then talking about utilization rates and so on. But I could tell by looking at the map that that was an area that was relatively low utilization which the Biden vote to support it. This however is an area where there’s high utilization. And so even when we know that there’s going to be on street parking losses that already have been and there will be more in the same area, it’s going to bring the realization probably in the area of 84% or 85% in sub area four which is there we’re talking about.

[1:05:52] So that’s close enough to 90 to say I think it would should leave it alone for now. I do think having a mixed use building on this site and the site beside it would be much better than the sort of parking lots that are there. And hopefully that can happen in the next couple of years if we can see some kind of development of those will happen on the site that’s owned by the city or the site that has decided or both of them that would be a great step forward for this area. So I’ll support the temporary use zoning on this particular site, a difficult decision because it is a new temporary use zone. And I think it would be easy to just follow the letter of the policy and say, well, it’s new, I’m not going to support it.

[1:06:32] But considering it’s an area of high demand, I will support this one. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. Thank you, and thank you to my colleagues for their comments tonight. What we have downtown, it’s a very fluid situation in a lot of areas, including parking. We’re now coming out of COVID and we’re hoping to get businesses and merchants back on their feet. And especially I’ve done that street. We’ve invested a lot of money and planning to get this street back on its feet.

[1:07:09] And I’m very confident. We’re going to see great things. However, now is not the time to cancel a significant parking area, which by reports, it’s fully utilized without a plan to find alternative spots. I was having a conversation with a friend of mine today and we were talking about another planning issue. And he had this saying, he said, you don’t want to jump out of the plane without a parachute.

[1:07:43] We’ve heard a discussion tonight about the city looking at parking garage in that area and some other concepts as well, which I think we should explore, along with a parking plan fully developed, where we are supporting customers’ employees of businesses downtown that we want to see thrive. We don’t know what parking is going to be after BRT’s implemented in that leg, or what parking needs are going to be for offices, et cetera, downtown, with work at home changes.

[1:08:26] We don’t know whether that’s going to be permitted or if it plays or me coming back or how that’s going to look. So I think this is the wrong time to make a significant change in that area. We can’t cut the legs out from under the merchants and businesses along Dundas Street, which needs to support more than ever to get that area up and running. But this discussion should be held at the appropriate time when we have alternatives in place and we fully understand the layout of the land in terms of commerce and transportation needs.

[1:09:04] So I will support this. Thank you. I’m looking to see that if I have any other speakers on the list, I see none. We will call the vote. Councilor Ben Mirbergen.

[1:10:13] Although yes. Thank you, closing the vote. The motion’s passed, 10 to four. Thank you, Councillor Skler. That’s the plan. Thank you very much. For the 10th report of community protective services, we’ll be calling on Councillor Hill here to present the report. Thank you. I haven’t heard from anyone. I present the 10th report of CAHPS in its entirety. Would anyone like anything to pull the map? I’ll even ask that question as well. If anyone would like anyone, any vote to be dealt with or any issue to be dealt with and voted separately.

[1:10:55] Back to you, Councillor Herr there. I’m not seeing anything. I put the entire agenda on the floor. Thank you. Comments or questions? Councillor Helmer. Thank you. First, I wanted to say thank you to Councillor Hill here for stepping in and sharing the meeting from the City Hall. Appreciate it that very much. On item 2.7, the homeless allowance program, there’s some increases in the service agreements with the St. Leonard Society and London Cares and I just wanted to draw colleagues attention to that. And it’s obviously an important program where we help people lower the cost of rent.

[1:11:29] And so there’s more units effectively on the market that they could be renting and good to see an increase happening there. I also wanted to say we had a wonderful delegation from Sarah Campbell representing Wish and also Dan Turner who was a participant at one of the temporary sites of setup as part of the winter response. I answered a number of questions from committee and Mr. Turner in particular did a really great job answering questions and talking about the experience at the temporary shelters. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan.

[1:12:04] Yes, thank you Your Worship. And I will apologize to our staff. Usually I’m very good about giving them a heads up when I’m gonna ask a question and I did not on this one. So I’ll certainly give the out that if the information isn’t available, I’d certainly take it at a future committee meeting instead. It stems from a question I asked at the committee on the delegation related to fireworks. And in response, Ms. Smith gave a very good response about the additional measures that the city was taking to both educate the public as well as provide some proactive enforcement over what was the upcoming candidate day long weekend, which has now passed.

[1:12:42] And I certainly have still had complaints from members of the public about individuals not complying with the bylaw. And I wonder if any sort of stats will be available about the proactive enforcement that we’ve done. And if that could be, if not shared tonight, could it be shared at a future committee meeting? I wonder if we might direct that to Mr. Kotala. Thank you through the chair. At Sheryl Smith, I can start with a response on that one. And then turn it over to George Orst.

[1:13:21] Thank you for the question. And we can speak directly to the London Fire Department because we had enhanced enforcement over the period of the from candidate day until the Saturday, July 3rd. And we undertook about directly about 64 calls regarding fireworks ranging from calls about outside of the allowable hours, calls about outside of the allowable days, and also calls just to complain about the excess noise and garbage related to leaving fireworks.

[1:13:58] And then also about fireworks happening in public places such as parks. So that total was 64. And that’s what we had that came directly to the London Fire Department over July 1st to 4th, I believe. Mr. Kotsmith, anything to add to that? Three years, no, I don’t have anything further to add, but if there’s any traditional statistics that the council is looking for, we can certainly bring something back. Then back to the deputy mayor.

[1:14:31] Thank you. And I appreciate that I did surprise with that question. So thanks to Ms. Smith and Mr. Kotsmith for the answer. I would say there’s certainly been renewed calls for us to consider changes to the fireworks policy. My concern with that is that in the absence of the by-law functioning as it was intended with people actually complying with it and fireworks happening on the days that they’re supposed to, I don’t think the public is getting a good assessment on how the by-law is intended to work. And so I am interested in how this new proactive enforcement went and if Mr. Kotsmith could provide either some information to myself or to the committee members directly in the future, I think that would be helpful for us to assess how that different approach that we took this time around went.

[1:15:16] So I’ll leave it at that. And I appreciate the responses that I got today. Thank you. Any other comments or questions with respect to the report? Councillor Cassidy. Thank you or worship. I just wanted to make a comment on item 2.5 from the committee, no, sorry. Item 2.6, the homeless prevention COVID-19 response because some questions came up at committee. I was observing. And this is also, since that also came up in the community, I received some messages and emails about this.

[1:15:51] So it’s with regard to the York Street temporary shelter that finished at the end of June. Council had approved an extension at that site. It was supposed to finish at the end of March and the extension went through until the end of June. So Mr. Dickens answered some questions at the committee. And I think it’s important for the community to hear if they didn’t see this at committee, but that working with wish and with staff doing the work that they are doing, there is a significant work taking place to transition people that had been living at the York Street site to permanent housing and to permanent housing with supports.

[1:16:40] They were finalizing agreements to house people that were currently living at York. They’re at the time, maybe we could get an update through you, your worship from Mr. Dickens or somebody else that there was a very low chance that people would have to move into hotels, which is not the ideal situation. And there was active work going on to transition people to those permanent housing with supports. There was also an ability for people who didn’t want to go where it was recommended to continue using some day and resting spaces until permanent housing could be found.

[1:17:23] So perhaps your worship if there is an update that is available since the community and protective services committee meeting because January or June 30th has passed and so York Street is off the grid. So wondering if everybody was successful in making that transition through your worship. Okay, there’s the specific question. Thank you, perhaps a refancer for you, Mr. Dickens, please. Thank you and through you, your worship. Thank you very much for the question. We are very excited with the progress that has been made.

[1:17:58] The WISH organization continues to work with the city on finalizing all of the rental agreements and cautiously moving all of the 24 participants from York Street into an apartment program all under the same roof with supports on site. So we continue to collect some important information from our community partners, but those agreements are being finalized as we speak actually. We are in the process of the wind down stage of the York Street site.

[1:18:33] The WISH organization does hold a lease with the property owner that does extend through the end of this week. And we have certainly run into vacation season. So we’ve hit a couple delays just in our wind down process, but outside of those, those hiccups, the individuals are in fact progressing quite nicely towards a place they can call their own with supports on site. And those that may not stay or use that space as permanent housing are certainly offered or afforded the other number of programs that we have brought forward in our CAHPS report.

[1:19:11] Councillor Cassidy. That’s it, your worship and thank you through you to Mr. Dickens for that update. Thank you. Any other comments or questions with respect to the report? Put on the floor by Councillor Hillyer. We’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to zero.

[1:19:56] Anything else, Councillor Hillyer? That’s it, really. All right, thank you very much. So for the 10th report of these strategic priorities and policy committee, I’ll call upon the deputy mayor to present the report. Yes, I’m happy to present the 10th meeting of the SPPC committee. There were no disclosures of interest. So I guess I would look to colleagues to see if there’s anything they would like dealt with separately and then I can arrange the appropriate motions. Well, let’s ask that question. Any issues that colleagues would like to have dealt with separately voted separately? The reason we make the distinction about voted versus talking is because if you’re looking to vote separately, then it needs to be pulled.

[1:20:35] Otherwise, it can be talked to in terms of the broad report. Councillor Hummer. And number six or 3.3, the appointments to the London Middlesex Community Housing Board. Thank you. Anything else that colleagues would wish to have dealt with separately? Deputy Mayor Morgan. Okay, given that, I’m happy to put all items one through 11 with the exception of six, which is the appointments to the London Middlesex Community Housing as well as their AGM report on the floor. So that’s everything except item six.

[1:21:11] Thank you, comments or questions on all but item six? I see none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to zero.

[1:21:52] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Yes, and 3.3, so item six from this agenda, 3.3 from the committee agenda. There are a number of clauses in this. I’ll put the whole thing on the floor and look to Councillor Hummer to see which part he’d like to deal with separately in one way. Councillor Hummer. Thank you, I wanted to deal with the council appointments to the board separately, everything else. I don’t need separated out, but the council appointments in clause E, they’re included along with all the rest.

[1:22:26] So if we could break those out separately, I will say my intention before the meeting started was to have a vote on these directly, but considering that Councilor Van Hollis is not here, instead what I’m going to propose is that we refer these to our next SBPC meeting and then we can vote on it there. So if I understand that item 3.3, we’d be voting on all items with the exception of E for this vote, unless any other colleague would like to have any other comments to that.

[1:23:02] Just as a clarification, your worship, I believe Councillor Hummer said it was only the council appointments that he had an issue with. So ideally we could approve all of the other appointments if he’s okay with that. And so if we could craft a motion that deals with everything, including the parts of E that are not related to the council appointments, I’d like to try to get all of those through and then we could deal with just the council appointments separately if that’s okay, Councillor Hummer. So that’s been put on the floor by the Deputy Mayor with all the appointments with the exception of the council appointments.

[1:23:45] Comments, the clerk wants to weigh in, go ahead, clerk. Thank you through the chair. The clerk doesn’t want to weigh in, she just has a question. I just would like to confirm that it is the city of London appointments and not all of the elected official appointments that we’re going to pull out of there. Yes, I see nods, thank you. Yeah, for the benefit of those who can’t see nods on the screen, it is the intention that we are dealing specifically with the city, the two city of London council appointments, Deputy Mayor? Yeah, I’ll put that on the floor.

[1:24:25] Any comments or questions with respect to what is on the floor? Seeing none, we will call the question. Closing the vote, the motion is passed 14 to zero.

[1:25:27] Yes, and what I will do, ‘cause I think Councillor Hummer said he wants to entertain a motion to refer is I will put the appointments on the floor for consideration of Councillor Van Holstin and Councillor Squire and then look to any other motions that colleagues want to make. All right, so we have a motion to accept the direction through Committee of Councillors and Holstin, Councillor Squire, Councillor Hummer.

[1:26:10] Thank you, I’d like to move a motion that we refer these appointments to our next SPPC meeting. I’m gonna explain why. Before you do, I look, that’s very clear where it is. You need to have a seconder. I see Councillor Hopkins seconded. Go ahead, Councillor Hummer. We have a bit of a problem in my perspective, which is since the, at least since the votes about appointing Councillors to committees last year, we’ve had a couple of times where Councillors are not voting for all the positions to be filled.

[1:26:48] And so there’s a selective abstention. And what that has the effect of is, it sort of privileges the one or two people who are voted or in the case of a committee, four out of five positions, because everyone else essentially gets a no. And what we’re really saying there when we vote on those positions is, I’d rather have a vacancy and the incomplete committee or an incomplete board than any of these other people. And I think because we’re doing them all at once, that may not be obvious to people that essentially the other candidates are being voted against. Now, there’s two ways of resolving that.

[1:27:21] One is people could stop doing that. That we wouldn’t have this problem. Or we could have individual votes once we get to the actual council meeting and people have to force the vote, yes or no, on the people who are being put forward. So that was my intention tonight was I was just gonna separate the votes and people could vote. So these council appointments, yes or no on both of them separately. Since Councillor Benholz is not here, I don’t think that’s really fair to him. And so what I’m suggesting is we refer back to STPC. The selection of abstention is something that you can do, but I’m saying we shouldn’t do that.

[1:27:58] We should just vote. If there’s five positions, we fill the vote for five people. There’s two positions, we fill the vote for two people. And, you know, if there’s some really big problem and you need to go against somebody for some reason, we should probably just have yes or no vote on that person. So, you know, I voted against Councillors to be appointed to things before. Councillor Benholz who is not here will remember, it made strenuous arguments about how he shouldn’t be the chair of the committee one time. It’s not a very comfortable thing to do, but I think the way that we have been doing things here is not working.

[1:28:31] We have some people selectively abstaining and some people not. And it’s making it very hard to get a fair read on what Council wants to do in terms of appointments. So that’s why I’m suggesting we refer it. If we vote on it tonight, I’m definitely going to move that we separate them and have two votes on each of the candidates. I will just for the benefit of colleagues as a refresher and perhaps for the public. That question was asked very specifically in our last meeting about whether we had the ability to vote for one individual or vote for two.

[1:29:07] And it was very clear that that option was given and made available to Council members. So, if that will be the direction that is taken at SPPC, subsequent SPPC meeting, presuming that this passes, then so be it. So, but I just wanted to clarify that everyone who voted voted within the rules the last time and I just want the public to be aware that that was certainly within the rights of the individuals to do that. And that’s not me casting an opinion. That’s just directly through the clerk.

[1:29:40] All right, so with that, any other comments or questions? I have Councillor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. So I won’t be supporting the referral and I voted for two people at the committee selection. But it’s not mine or Councillor Halmer’s or any other member of Council’s role to insist that another Councillor vote for two people. This is the process that we’ve adopted through actually quite a bit of work by the clerks and the governance working group committee and then was accepted by SPPC and Council.

[1:30:16] So this is the process that we accepted. And we accepted this process if memory serves over a year ago now. And frankly, people can abstain again in the next round of voting. I’m not going to continue to refer back a vote that was held. You know, the appropriate time to have referred this would have been at committee itself if people didn’t feel that they were prepared to vote that night. We had a vote. The results of the vote are what they are.

[1:30:50] We have two candidates that were selected and I’m going to not support the referral and I will be supporting those two candidates tonight because that’s how the Democratic process played out at the committee stage. Thank you. I’m going to invite the clerk to make a comment as well. Thank you through the chair. I just wanted to provide a bit of comment with respect to the policy. It is permissive when there’s more than one position to be filled that voters may vote for as many candidates as there are positions to be filled.

[1:31:23] It’s permissive. And I also wanted to note that because the selection process is a selection process and not a vote, it’s not a formal abstention as would be during a vote if a member had a conflict. So I just wanted to provide that additional information. Thank you. Next day of Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. You’re worshiping. I want to thank the Councilor for bringing this forward because I too had grave concerns at SPPC, the way the vote turned out.

[1:31:59] And this has happened to us before and I understand that we have a process in place and this is the process and we can vote for one or two. But I do have concerns that this becomes strategic voting. And to me, that is not the democratic process. And we should revisit it. And I appreciate the Councilor referring this back given that we have one Councilor here missing and he should be part of that conversation.

[1:32:32] So I would encourage each and every one of us to refer this back and look at it again because this has happened to us in the past. And I do think it needs to have a full discussion on what and how we are voting for these positions for Councilors when we support them at committees or at board. So I would encourage everyone to refer this back. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

[1:33:07] Does anyone else wish to comment on this? Do you know what we’ll call the question? Councillor Cassidy, you’re up. Thank you, thank you Your Worship. I think it’s appropriate to refer it back. I was caught off guard with this and I take Councillor Lewis’s comment to heart. I should have referred it back then, but as I said, I was caught off guard and we started into the process.

[1:33:41] And so I voted, but there were two Councillors that were unexpectedly absent from the meeting. It wasn’t, they weren’t planned absences. And so they were not able to participate at number one. Number two, there was nothing in the agenda that prepared us that this vote was going to take place. It’s very clearly said in the SPPC agenda that we would be voting on to four members and from the community, but there was nothing in the agenda that warned us we would be voting for Councillors.

[1:34:18] And so I think it would have been more appropriate to refer it back. I apologize for not doing it at the time. And I think it was necessary to have a full compliment of city Councillors at the meeting when this vote was taking place. That’s why I’m supporting the referral back. Sometimes colleagues, as we know, there are reasons why a council member cannot be in attendance and we always regard that with great respect so that we are aware.

[1:34:49] And that’s why one of the practices that we have implemented of late is to advise colleagues when someone is going to be away or is away and/or when returns. We think that’s appropriate and respectful. So we will continue that practice as well. I have asked the clerk to check on some comment, Councillor Caster, you made about not having an awareness that the council members were being put into consideration for that and I’m just going to have very, very indulgence for a moment.

[1:36:23] Good, clerk. Thank you through the chair. I would like to confirm that although it was not separated out on the agenda cover pages, it is outlined in the staff report the need to make appointments of elected officials to that board. Thank you, Councillor Plaza. Thank you, Your Worship, should this referral back pass? I just want to ensure through the clerks that meeting times and frequency will be provided to Councillors as well that any other Councillor who wishes to put their name forward could do so.

[1:37:02] Just looking for clarification. Thank you through the chair. If the matter is referred back to the committee, it’s up to the committee how they manage the appointment at that time. That’s your pleasure. Okay, and the first part of the question that the meeting time and frequencies will also be provided in the meeting agenda if this is referred back to SPPC. That you’re asking the clerk then? Yes, please. Certainly we can look into that, okay.

[1:37:36] Thank you, Your Worship. Yeah, what the clerk is saying is it’s not a required component of the voting process, but that would be information to be shared. I think that probably makes very practical sense so that we know, and I would suggest if this is referred back that it be, that that be broad information that’s included in what will be directed to. So with that, any other comments or questions, colleagues? So what we’re voting on is the referral back to the next SPPC meeting.

[1:38:11] So with that, we will call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion is lost, seven to seven. Thank you, then back to you then, Deputy Mayor. There’s already a motion on the floor before the referral, so it stands on the floor, which is the appointment of the two counselors who the committee selected.

[1:38:52] Comments or questions? Council Member? So I’m gonna be voting against both these appointments, but I would like them to be separated so we could deal with them individually. So noted, thank you. Any other comments? Are you shares prerogative to them in the appropriate order? Any other comments or questions, colleagues? Do that in the order of votes, Deputy Mayor?

[1:39:41] Yes, if the votes are separated, I’m just gonna go by the way they are in the agenda. And I think that’s the most appropriate. Councilor Van Holst is first, and then Council requires second. Okay, so the motion will be for Councillor True of Councillor Van Holst as one of the representatives. We’ll just wire that up and then turn that over for voting. Ready, we’ll turn your attention to the vote.

[1:40:52] Councillor Kailabaga, Councillor Palosa. Closing the vote, the motion’s lost, six to eight. Councillor Squire’s appointment is next. We’ll give the clerk an opportunity to put that up. Good clerk, we’re ready.

[1:41:45] Colleagues, we’ll turn your attention for the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 12 to two.

[1:42:29] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I would ask the clerk, would the vacant appointment just be dealt with that committee? Or is that dealt with tonight? Through the chair, I’m going to defer this one to the city clerk who’s also on the call. Good clerk. You can do either, but my recommendation would be to just refer that last appointment back to the committee to allow for a more wholesome discussion, but you can do either.

[1:43:12] Deputy Mayor, the advice to the clerk, I guess I would make a motion to refer the filling of the vacant position on the housing board to SPPC committee. Thank you, do you have a secretary for that? You, Councillor Layman. Any comments or questions that this be referred to the next committee meeting? Do you know what we’ll call the question? I’ll ask colleagues if you’re not on mute to mute yourselves, please.

[1:44:35] Councillor Sully, closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 14 to zero. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. I think that’s all of the items on the SPPC report. Thanks very much, before we let you sit down, we now have the second report of the audit committee, we’re calling you to present the report, please.

[1:45:11] Thank you, I have the report of the audit committee. It’s the second meeting of the audit committee. There are seven items, I’ll put all the items on the floor together. This includes financial audits and a number of updates. Does anyone wish to have any of these items voted on separately? Seeing none, any comments or questions? I’ll ask the Deputy Mayor to take the chair to make a comment.

[1:45:47] Sure, I’ll go to the Mayor. That feels a bit strange, but colleagues, I indicated at a recent meeting with senior staff how the audit committee report, which really is the financial heart of what we’re trying to do as a city, as a municipality in terms of things that we need to do, the hard work that goes into this, but the essential work that goes into this from our treasurer and the team. And I just want to say thank you to them for the great work that they do, but also the work of the audit committee as well. And Deputy Mayor, I know you take a real specific interest in this and we appreciate your efforts in this as well.

[1:46:27] So thank you all who are involved in the audit committee, but I’d like to go in a bit behind that and say thank you to our staff who put the hard work into this to make it as comprehensive as it is. Those are my comments, Chair. Turn the chair back to you. I have no one on the speaker’s list. Thanks, any other comments or questions then? Do you know what we’ll call the vote? Closing the vote.

[1:47:27] The motion’s passed 14 to zero. Deputy Mayor Morgan. That’s all the items I have. Thank you. Thanks very much for calling. There are no deferred matters nor inquiries for which I’ve been made aware. We do have an inquiry, excuse me, Councillor Turner. Go ahead. I never want to ignore you, ever. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll just grab it here. My test review, Your Worship, my question for staff is with respect to the family swim pass.

[1:48:06] I’ve had a number of inquiries from residents regarding cancellation this summer of the family swim pass and some concerns about the impacts that that’s had on their family’s and their ability to get swimming in an affordable manner. Through your Your Worship to staff, my question is might they be able to comment a little bit about what the background of that was and if any measures are being taken to ensure that access to swimming and recreation are being done in an affordable and equitable manner for the rest of the season and what the future plans might be as well.

[1:48:48] Thank you for the question. I’m wondering if that might be Ms. Smith that would like to provide some background? Thank you. And through the chair, thank you for the question. So the family swim pass has always been available as an approved user fee for Londoners for our outdoor aquatic facilities. And in 2020, there were several complaints regarding the family pass due to the number of COVID restrictions we had to put in place about available times to swim, capacity, gathering restrictions. Some pass holders felt that they weren’t getting the service level that they got in the previous years for the family pass.

[1:49:26] So therefore we made some changes in 2021 noting that there were still similar COVID restrictions with respect to swimming. And we eliminated the outdoor family pass as there were other options available for customers. However, like a counselor Turner, we have also received complaints again this summer, this time for eliminating the family pass. So in an effort to balance cost and support our community and families to enjoy the city’s outdoor amenities, particularly in the times of COVID, civic administration has reinstated the family pass option.

[1:50:04] So any member of the public who’s reached out to us, we will contact over the coming next couple of days about the availability of this swim pass. And it will be another option, along with many options we have for our outdoor aquatic swimmers. Councilor Turner, any other questions relating to your query? Through your worship that answers it. And I thank staff for their quick and swift attention to the matter and for addressing in a way that addresses the concerns of the community. So thank you.

[1:50:38] Thank you. Now I can say with confidence that there are no other inquiries for which I’m aware, may have been made aware. Nor are there any words of motions. So in a moment, we’re just going to take us through bylaws before we go into closed session. And we’re just taking some clarity around bill 293, which relates to the LMCH board. So just bear with us as we ensure that we have that appropriate for you. All right, so colleagues, what you see under bylaws, section 13 are bills 292 through 303.

[1:51:42] But we will be calling 293 separately. Excuse me, as amended and as I indicated, it’s the LMCH board based on the discussions and support of council as amended. So with that, what I’m going to be doing is looking for a mover and seconder for introduction of first reading of bills 292, 294 through 303. Do I have a mover? I have Councillor Lehman, do I have a seconder? Councillor van Mirberg, and thank you very much. What’s called the vote?

[1:52:16] Councillor Turner. Can we have Bill 302 pulled? I’m not sure if you included that in this week that you put forward there. I absolutely swept it through and buried in and all of the bills that were to be there. Councillor Hopkins was at the same concern. I can’t hear you, please. And I can have the name of that bill. I don’t have all the information in front of me. We’ll pull that up like I’ll get the clerk just to clarify for the benefit of everyone what 302 represents.

[1:52:52] Thank you through the chair. Bill 302 is a bylaw to amend bylaws. Bylaw number Z1 to rezone an area of land located at 193 Queens Avenue. It’s fine, thank you. Thanks very much. So I’m gonna go back to the mover and seconder to see if they’re comfortable with moving. Bill 292, 294 through 301 and 303. So basically all the bills with the exclusion of Bill 293, which is the LMCH Board composition and 302, which is the rezoning references to Queens Avenue.

[1:53:33] Moved by Councillor Layman. Councillor Red Mirbergen is your second still standing. Thank you very much. We’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero. So for second reading, Bill 203 with the exception of 293 and 302, as referenced in the first reading, I will look for a mover, please.

[1:54:16] Councillor Palazzo, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, any comments, discussion? I see none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero.

[1:54:51] Now, colleagues, bills 292 through 303 with the exception of 293 and 302. I will look for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Palazzo, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Thanks very much, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero.

[1:55:37] Thank you very much. Now we’re voted to Bill 293, which is the composition of the Alignmental Sex Community Housing Board. For that, for the introduction of first reading, I’ll look for a mover and seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Palazzo, seconded by. This could sound like an auction if we’re not careful. Councillor Lewis, thank you very much, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motions passed 13 to one.

[1:56:34] So colleagues, I can’t recognize you if I can’t see you. So I would invite you as we go through the bylaws to have screens on, please. And if you wish to either be a mover, second, any of these, then you’re absolutely welcome to do so. So with that colleague for Bill 293, I’ll require a mover and a seconder, second reading. Do I have a mover, please? Councillor Palazzo, Councillor Lewis, thanks very much, any comments, questions? Councillor Cassidy, you have a question. Yes, I know you mentioned it, your worship, but you said it really quickly.

[1:57:09] And I just wanna confirm that this bylaw is amended from the original report. As amended, Councillor, yes. Thank you for the question, the clarity. Any other questions, let’s call the vote. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero.

[1:57:53] The enactment of Bill 293, the LMCH Board as amended. I’ll require a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero.

[1:58:30] Colleagues, I’ll turn it to zero two, which deals with Queen’s Avenue parking discussion that we had and the motion moved. So for introduction and first reading, Bill 29, pardon me, three zero two. I’ll require a mover and a seconder move by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motions passed 11 to three.

[1:59:20] Colleagues, for three zero two, I’ll require a mover and a seconder. Please move by, Councillor Van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Lehman. Thank you very much. Any discussion? I see none, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motions passed 11 to three.

[2:00:13] Colleagues, now for third reading and enactment of Bill 302, I’ll require a mover and a seconder. By Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much, we will call the question. Closing the vote, the motions passed 11 to three.

[2:00:53] Colleagues, for the benefit of the public, we’re just about to go into closed session when we have completed our items. We will come back into a public session report out. But I’d like to call on the clerk as I do, just to advise the public what it is, the items that we’re going in to deal with in closed session. If I could ask the clerk for that, please. Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor. There are five items, six items, seven, eight, nine items from Corporate Services Committee meetings and two items related to the Community and Protective Services Committee, all of which are outlined on the public council agenda.

[2:01:42] Thanks very much, that’s a total of 11 items. We’ll be dealing with, so to go into closed session, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder moved by. Councillor Palazzo, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much. We will call the vote. Councillor Cillier, Councillor Hopkins.

[2:02:25] I vote yes. Councillor Cillier, we’ll mark the Councillor’s absent. That motion’s carried 13 to zero.

[2:03:05] Colleagues, I’ll just ask you bear with us a few moments while we do start off the public viewing. Thank you, go too far away. Thank you, I’d like to welcome the public back to our committee meeting.

[2:04:42] For the 10th report of council closed session report out, I’d like to call in Deputy Mayor Morgan, please. Thank you, worship. I have seven items to report out from council closed session and I’ll read them all. And then I’m gonna divide the vote into two separate pieces after that. That as a procedural matter pursuant to section 239, subsection six of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following seven recommendations be forwarded to council for deliberation and a vote in public session. One, offer to purchase industrial land 2842613 Ontario Limited, Innovation Park phase two.

[2:05:22] But on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports and on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the city owned industrial land located in Innovation Park phase two containing an area of approximately six acres located on the west side of Innovation Drive. More specifically described as part one of block one, plan M33, 592 designated as parts 14 and 17 plan 33R2084 being part of pin 808197-0307 as outlined in the sketch attached here to as in appendix A.

[2:06:00] The agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement as attached to appendix B submitted by 2842613 Ontario Limited, the purchaser, two purchase from the city, six acres of the subject property at a purchase price of $420,000 be accepted reflecting a price of $70,000 per acre. Number two, industrial land sale, option agreement amendment, Kakeri Holdings Limited, Innovation Park phase one. Then on the recommendation of the manager of the deputy city manager, finance supports and on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the city owned industrial land in an Innovation Park phase one, containing an area of approximately 9.79 acres on the west side of veteran memorial, more specifically described as parts two and three and four, plan 33R-17213, save and accept parts one and two, plan 33R-19042 as outlined on the sketch attached here to as appendix A and the option agreement amendment, the agreement as attached as appendix B, submitted by the Kakeri Holdings Limited, the purchaser, to purchase from the city 9.79 acres of the subject property at a purchase price of $719,565 be accepted, reflecting a sale price of $73,500 per acre.

[2:07:22] Three, property acquisition 166 Wellington Road, the Wellington Gateway Project. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager financial supports with the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services and on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the property located at 166 Wellington Road, further described as lot one, plan four, six, seven, fourth, except for part one, 33R-11032, being all of pin 0835H-0080LT, containing an approximate area of 7,028 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as appendix B, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken.

[2:08:09] A, the offer submitted by David Schulhoff and Nikisha Schulhoff, the vendor, sell the subject property to the city for a sum of $685,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement appendix C. B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report attached to you as appendix A. Item four, property acquisition 178 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway Project, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of financial supports with the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services and on the advice of director of Realty Services with respect to the property located at 178 Wellington Road, further described as part of lot 16, 17, 18 and 26, planned four, six, seven, the fourth, being all of pin 0835H-0084LT, containing an area of approximately 2,744.79 square feet as shown on the location map attached as appendix B for the purpose of future road widings to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken.

[2:09:16] A, the offer submitted by Crystal Faith Miller and Robert Bruce writing, the vendor, to sell the subject property to the city for a sum of $442,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement attached as appendix C and the financing for this acquisition be approved as set of the source of financing report attached to you is here as appendix A, item five, partial property acquisition, 1349 Setdale Road West, Setdale Road and Wurkerson Road improvements, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of financial supports with the concurrence of the director of transportation and mobility and the division manager of transportation planning and design and on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the acquisition of a portion of the property, 1349 Setdale Road West further described as part lot 79 WTR London/West Minister being part of pin 08224-0301 designated as parts 18 and 21 on a draft reference plan to be deposited as shown on the location map attached here as appendix B for the purpose of future road widings to accommodate the Setdale Road West and the Wurkerson Road improvements project, the following actions be taken.

[2:10:29] A, the agreement of purchase and sale attached as appendix C submitted by Mary McClellan and Alfred Don McClellan, the vendors, to sell the subject property of the city for a sum of $132,600 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report attached here to you as appendix A, item six, lease amending agreement, city plaza 355 Wellington Street suite 248, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager final supports and on the advice of the directory of realty services with respect to the lease amending agreement for the lease of office space located at 355 Wellington Street known as the city plaza.

[2:11:14] The lease amending agreement between the city and the city plaza London Inc, the landlord, attaches appendix A for the lease of approximately 61,029 square feet of deemed rentable space located at 355 Wellington Street suite 248 for a term of five years be approved. Item seven, lease extension and amending agreement, 785 Wonderland Road South, life stabilization west office. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager financial supports with the concurrence of the deputy city manager social and health development and on the advice of the director of realty services with respect to the lease extension and amending agreement for the lease of office space at 785 Wonderland Road South known as the west mount shopping center, the lease extension and amending agreement between the city and 785 Wonderland Road Inc, the landlord, attaches appendix A for the lease of approximately 16,946 square feet of rentable area located at 785 Wonderland Road South for a net rent of $19 per square foot or four or five years be approved.

[2:12:17] Mr. Chair, I will put of the items I read one, two, five, six and seven on the floor, which is everything except the Wellington Gateway project items. So noted, do you have a seconder? Councillor Layman, thank you. Comments or questions? Councillor Turner. I also have the Southdale Road widening then, voted on separately. So noted, just bear with us a moment.

[2:12:52] Yes, so I’ll just reconfirm that I will do the industrial land items one and two. I will skip the Wellington Gateway projects as well as the Southdale Road ones. I’ll put the lease amending agreement for city plaza and Wonderland Road South. So it’ll be just the lease agreements and the industrial sites, one, two, six and seven. And your seconder is good with that. I see a yes. Thank you very much. Comments, questions on those specific items. Seeing none, we’ll call the question. I’ll vote manually, eh?

[2:13:30] Councillor Slee, you’re slightly ahead of us, but we appreciate your spirit. Councillor Mayor, why don’t you just, again, clarify the four items that we’re going to be voting on.

[2:14:21] Yeah, just so everybody’s aware, the vote that’s coming up is for the office at the offer doing purchase industrial land and innovation park phase two, the option is limited. The lease amending agreement for city plaza and the lease extension amending agreement for Wonderland Road South. Councillor Slee, we’ve registered your vote. Yes, thank you. Any other verbal confirmations? Opposed in the vote.

[2:15:16] The motion’s passed, 13 to zero. Now, Deputy Mayor. Yes, I’ll put two items on the floor now. I’ll put the property acquisition at 166 Wellington Road, which is part of the Wellington Gateway project and the property acquisition at 178 Wellington Road, also part of the Wellington Gateway project on the floor at the same time. Do you have a seconder for that? Councillor Lewis, thank you. Councillor Turner. Yes, I might declare a pecuniary and she’s out of abundance of caution as I owe on property within relative proximity of these two locations.

[2:15:52] So noted, thank you very much. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Either by verbal confirmation or on the screen as we vote. Voting eight. Opposed in the vote. The motion’s passed, 11 to one with one recused. Deputy Mayor Morgan.

[2:16:25] The final item is the acquisition at 1349 Southdale Road West, which is part of the Southdale Road West and Wiggerson Road improvements. Moved by the Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, comments, questions. Seeing none, we will call the vote. Either on your screen or by verbal acknowledgement. Voting eight.

[2:17:28] Opposed in the vote. The motion’s passed, 12 to one. Deputy Mayor. That is the report from Council on closed session. This is a monolithic effort, great job. Thank you very much. We’re just going to confirm the bylaws to be processed right now. Colleagues, just bear with us a moment. So just colleagues, as we’re assessing the bylaws to be considered, just a question.

[2:18:16] Councillor Turner, the Southdale’s Bill 308. Did you wish that dealt with separately? I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you. Sorry, if we could please. Thank you very much. So colleagues, what I’m looking to do is we’re looking to build 291 and added bills 304 through 311, but 306 and seven deal with Gateway. And 308 deal with Southdale. Those are three of the properties as indicated by the Deputy Mayor in the last report out of closed session. So with that, colleagues, I’m going to be looking then for a mover and seconder for the introduction in first reading of Bill 291 and added bills 304 through 311, saving except 306 through 308.

[2:19:04] Do I have a mover for that? Sir Cassidy, second by Councillor Layman. Thank you very much. We’ll call the vote. Yeah. In closing the vote, I just want to make it clear that what the added bylaws are that are being voted on.

[2:20:21] 304, 305, 309 and 310 are property matters out of closed session and the 10th report of council in closed session. And the added bill 311 is the appointment of the Deputy City Manager. Closing the vote and the motions passed, 13 to zero. colleagues, for second reading of bills 291, an added bills 304 through 311, less bills 306 to 308. I will look for a mover, please.

[2:20:58] Moved by Councillor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Palosa. Thanks very much. Any comments? Seeing none, we will call the question. Voting eight. Closing the vote, the motions passed, 13 to zero.

[2:22:02] For a mover and seconder, third reading an act of bill 291 and bills 304 through 311, less 306 through 308. Do I have a mover for that, please? Moved by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by. Councillor Hilliard, thank you very much. We’ll call the question. Yeah. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motions passed, 13 to zero.

[2:22:35] Thank you, colleagues, for now bills 306 and 307. Those are the ones impacting the gateway properties. So for first reading introduction, first reading of bills 306 and seven. I’ll look for mover, Councillor Palosa, seconded by. Councillor Hilliard, thank you very much. We’ll call the question. Yeah, you’re welcome. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motions passed 11 to one with one recused.

[2:23:40] Bills 306 and seven. I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman, thank you. Any comments, discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Yeah. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motions passed 11 to one with one recused.

[2:24:28] Third reading an act of bills 306 and 307. I’ll look for a mover and seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Thank you. We’ll call the, sorry, Councillor Cassidy, I saw your hand go up. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to be certain. We’ll call the question. Yes. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motions passed 11 to one with one recused.

[2:25:22] Bill 308 dealing with Southdale. And for that introduction, the introduction and first reading of bill 308. I will look for a mover and seconder, please. Councillor van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Lewis. Thank you. We’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motions passed 12 to one.

[2:26:12] So colleagues, for second reading of bill 308 and seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hilliard. Thank you very much. Any discussion? We’ll call the question. Yes. Closing the vote, the motions passed 12 to one.

[2:26:51] Thanks very much. And then finally, for third reading an act of bill 308. I’ll look for a mover and seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. We’ll call the question. Yes. One.

[2:27:39] So colleagues, before we adjourn, a little different tonight because we get to welcome Venetia to the fold, working in our legal department. And we set a low door at the very beginning. We hope we’ll have an opportunity to say hello again, but we hope you enjoyed your first council experience. I believe it is. And we wish you every success. We hope we haven’t scared you off. I think that actually around this horseshoe and on the screen are some really super nice people I gotta tell you.

[2:28:13] Ms. Livingston is city manager. I don’t know, as we’re welcoming people, whether it might be appropriate that you, that we turn something over to you. Your worship, thank you very much tonight. Council passed the appointment of our new deputy city manager of enterprise supports, Ms. Davidson. And we look forward to working with her. She will be joining us later this summer. So we welcome, so a couple of welcomes then. Ms. Davidson, Ms. R, and what an opportunity as well to say thanks.

[2:28:50] It’s been a busy early summer already. And I can speak for colleagues when I say that we’ve had a lot going on. And I need to acknowledge as much as we always acknowledge staff, I’d like to acknowledge if I can, our colleagues around the horseshoe for all that you’ve done. It truly matters your commitment. And ‘cause you live and love the city, and that’s really obvious. To our staff, Ms. Livingston, please thank them. Because as we know, we can’t do anything unless we’ve got the great strong support that we have to help support our community with the work that they do.

[2:29:24] So sincerely offered to them. And we will chat as we do about things going forward. But with that, could I look for a mover to adjourn? Please, Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Squire. Buy a show of hands, please. Or verbal accord, those in favor. Motion’s final. Thanks very much, colleagues. Meeting is adjourned.