Open Council

Council

Open Council

Council

August 10, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:00 PM, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair; it being noted that the following Members attended the meeting remotely: M. van Holst, 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

That it be noted that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

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 (15 to 0)

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

5.1   10th Meeting held on July 6, 2021

2021-07-06 Council Minutes 10-Complete

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Minutes of the 10th meeting held on July 6 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

6.1     Oxford Wonderland Secondary Plan - Terms of Reference, Councillors E. Peloza and S. Lewis;

6.2     400 Southdale Road East (OZ-9261), C. Lumley; and,

6.3     Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (OZ-9367), H. and C. Rhodes, T. and J. Tillman and J.B. Morton.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2021-07-27 CPSC Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 8 (clause 4.4).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 6th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 6th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on July 8, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Middlesex-London Paramedic Service - 2020 Performance Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the communication, dated June 23, 2021, from K. Bunting, Middlesex County, as well as the 2020 Performance Report for the Middlesex-London Paramedic Service, as appended to the agenda, BE RECEIVED. (2021-P16)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual – Deferred Matters File No. 2

Motion made by J. Helmer

That NO ACTION BE TAKEN with respect to the staff report dated July 27, 2021, related to the Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual – Deferred Matters File No. 2 with respect to limiting amplified concerts on weekdays after Labour Day between the hours of 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM for 2021; it being noted that the above-noted staff report, with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-M02)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (4.1) 3rd Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 24, 2021:

a)     a Working Group BE ESTABLISHED, led by T. Khan, to undertake a review of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee (CSCP) and to report back at the August 26, 2021 CSCP meeting; it being noted that the CSCP held a general discussion and heard verbal updates from C. Smith, Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, B. Westlake-Power, Deputy City Clerk and M. Schulthess, Deputy City Clerk, with respect to the Advisory Committee Review - Interim Report VI;

b)     a Working Group BE ESTABLISHED consisting of B. Fragis, D. Luthra and B. Madigan, relating to two components of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee (CSCP) Terms of Reference, as follows:

i)     developing, encouraging and promoting activities and education programs for Londoners of all ages on safety in the community, such as (but not limited to) injury prevention, pedestrian safety, traffic safety, bicycle safety, water safety and fire prevention; and,

ii)    developing, encouraging and promoting activities and education programs for Londoners of all ages on the prevention of crime in the community;

it being noted that the contact and coordination with departments, agencies, community associations and boards and commissions BE POSTPONED to the August 26, 2021 CSCP meeting;

c)     Councillor Jesse Helmer, Chair, Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) BE REQUESTED to attend the August 26, 2021 Community Safety & Crime Prevention Advisory Committee (CSCP) meeting to discuss various initiatives of the CPSC and to recommend how CSCP may contribute as a resource for the CPSC as described in the CSCP Terms of Reference; and,

d)     clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 4.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (4.2) 6th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 24, 2021:

a)     the following actions be taken with respect to E-Scooters in the City of London:

i)     the revised comments, outlining the opinions of the Accessibility Advisory Committee with respect to E-Scooters in the City of London BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; and,

ii)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to engage in external feedback acquisition in a public forum to solicit feedback on this matter;

b)     the comments, outlining the opinions of the Accessibility Advisory Committee with respect to Accessibility Advisory Committee Terms of Reference, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration to be considered as part of the Advisory Committee Review; and,

c)     clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 to 3.3 and 4.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (4.3) Property Standards By-laws CP-16 and A-35

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the communication, dated June 8, 2021, from M. Lalaberte, Neighbourhood Legal Services and J. Thompson, Life*Spin, with respect to Property Standards By-laws CP-16 and A-35, BE RECEIVED. (2021-C01)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (4.5) Business Case Request for Agricultural Transitional Housing Project

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the communication, dated July 15, 2021, from Councillor M. van Holst, with respect to a Business Case Request for Agricultural Transitional Housing Project, BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration with the Housing Stability Plan. (2021-D04)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at July 19, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (4.4) Recognizing the Impact of Hosting the COVID-19 Assessment Centres at Oakridge Arena and Carling Heights Optimist Community Centre

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated July 6, 2021, from Councillors S. Lehman and J. Helmer and Mayor E. Holder, related to Recognizing the Impact of Hosting COVID-19 Assessment Centres at Oakridge Arena and Carling Heights Optimist Community Centre:

a)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult residents, especially those close to the COVID-19 assessment centres, about priorities for new recreational amenities or upgrades to existing recreational amenities in the general area; and,

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore potential provincial and federal funding opportunities for recreational infrastructure and to report back with recommended new or upgraded recreational amenities in the general area of both testing centres, along with a recommended source of financing;

it being noted that the above-noted communication, with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-S08)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.2   13th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-07-26 CSC Report 13

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 13th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 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

8.2.2   (2.1) Optional Small Business Subclass Summary and Analysis

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated July 26, 2021 with respect to the optional small business subclass BE RECEIVED for information, and that no further action BE TAKEN with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Corporate Asset Management Plan 2021 Review

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated July 26, 2021 with respect to the Corporate Asset Management Plan 2021 Review BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) 2020 Annual Parkland Reserve Fund Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken:

a) the 2020 Annual Parkland Reserve Fund Report BE RECEIVED for information in accordance with section 7 of the O. Reg. 509/20: Community Benefits Charges and Parkland, 2020, as well as section 42 (17) of the Planning Act, 1990, which require Municipal Council to provide an annual financial statement on special accounts for the conveyance of land for park purposes; and,

b) the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE DIRECTED to make the 2020 Annual Parkland Reserve Fund Report available to the public on the City of London website to fulfill Municipal Council’s obligation under section 7 of the O. Reg. 509/20: Community Benefits Charges and Parkland, 2020.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) Declare Surplus – City-Owned Property – 2 Saunby Street

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property, located at 2 Saunby Street, further described as Part 1, Plan 33R-20979, the following actions be taken:

a) the subject property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and,

b) the subject property (“Surplus Lands”) BE SOLD, in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) 2020 Investment Report (Relates to Bill No. 333)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2020 Investment Report:

a)  the above-noted staff report, providing a summary of the performance of the City of London’s investment portfolio in 2020, BE RECEIVED for information; and,

b)  the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on August 10, 2021, to amend By-law CPOL.-39(a)-371 being a by-law to amend By-law CPOL.-39(a)-371 being “Investment Policy”.

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) Council Policy Manual Review 2021 (Relates to Bill No.’s 315, 316, 317, 327 to 332 and 334 to 362)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the “Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Polices”:

a) the proposed by-laws, as appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendices B1 to B34, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021, to amend the following Council Policies:

  1. “Access and Privacy Policy” to be amended to:

  • apply grammatical corrections and gender-neutral language;

  • remove references to “Managing Director” and replace with “Deputy City Manager”

  • add the definition of “Privacy Impact Assessment”, and “Project” as it relates to a privacy impact assessment in section 2;

  • add “reporting and investigating privacy breaches” to the responsibilities of the City Clerk in section 4.2;

  • add paragraph related to the Transmitting of Personal Information to External Parties in section 4.8;

  • provide clarity related to the City Clerk’s role and responsibilities related to privacy breaches in section 4.9; and

  • add a new section 4.10 outlining the requirement for staff to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment if a project or initiative if, in the City Clerk’s opinion, one is required.

  1. “Accountability and Transparency to the Public Policy” to be amended to reflect Council’s current Values.

  2. “Appointment of Council Members to Standing Committees of Council and Various Civic Boards and Commissions Policy” to be amended to redefine the Council Year to reflect changes to section 6 of the MEA.

  3. “Assessment Growth Policy” to be amended to provide for strengthened eligibility criteria and for the prioritization of requests.

  4. “Capital Budgets and Financing Policy” to be amended to update the definitions and policy sections.

  5. “City of London Community Suite Policy” be amended to clarify wording in liability section.

  6. “Code of Conduct for Members of Council” to be amended to:

  • apply grammatical corrections; 

  • delete section 3.5 as it is duplicated in section 9; 

  • reference current Respectful Workplace Policy in section 7; and 

  • delete duplicate wording in section 6.1 as it is reflected in section 6.5.

  1. “Debt Management Policy” to be amended to update objectives for the addition of intergenerational equity and maintaining a strong credit rating, and to update the policy section for clarity.

  2. “Dedication of Fire Stations” policy be amended to update applicable Fire Stations and service area title.

  3. “Discretionary Benefits” to be amended to address the intent of Discretionary Benefits and the new Provincial model towards life stabilization.

  4. “Financial Assistance for Program Activity Fees” to be amended to update and clarify language, to add a new section 4.11 concerning applicants receiving financial assistant from the province, and to renumber the sections accordingly.

  5. “Flags at City Hall Policy” to be amended to clarify that flags at the back entrance of City Hall are to be removed over the winter.

  6. “Gender Equity in Recreation Services” policy be amended to modernize language in three definitions (2.2 to 2.4), to add a section 4.iii under Policy to address removing barriers, and to update position and service area titles.

  7. “Grants to Centennial Hall” to be amended to remove outdated language.

  8. “Hiring of Employees Policy” to be amended to update references and numbering, and to add the phrase “or harassment” to updated section 4.2.

  9. “Identification of Operating Surpluses – Boards and Commissions” to be amended to align wording in applicability and policy sections with the budget monitoring process.

  10. “Leasing and Licensing of City Owned Land” to be amended to incorporate wording from repealed policy, “Leasing Parkland”

  11. “Legal Services and Accounts” to be amended to change the claim amount to align with thresholds in the Procurement Policy.

  12. “Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses” to be amended to change the title to “Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses – Centennial Hall” to reflect the scope of the policy.

  13. “London Community Grants Policy” to be amended to delete reference to Housing Development Corporate, London (HDC) in section 4.3(b)(v).

  14. “Mayor – Contracted Staff” to be amended to add clarifying language about benefits.

  15. “Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy” to be amended to clarify eligibility criteria for nomination.

  16. “Multi-Year Budget Policy” to be amended to update definition and policy sections, and to clarify applicability to the property tax supported as well as water and wastewater budgets.

  17. “Notices of OPA and ZBA Received From Other Municipalities” to be amended to clarify 4(a) that where there are no municipal concerns identified by the Director, Planning & Development no response or further action is required.

  18. “Objectives of Centennial Hall” to be amended to add clarifying language in section 4(b).

  19. “Policy for waiving or reducing fees for use of city owned community centres and recreation facilities” be amended to change the policy title to “Request to Waive or Reduce Facility Rental Fees” and to update position and service area titles.

  20. “Promotion of Corporate Products to City Staff” to be amended to add clarifying language.

  21. “Public Notice Policy” to be amended to:

  • reflect Council’s current Values and apply minor grammatical corrections;

  • remove references to the “Committee of the Whole” and “Board of Control”; 

  • delete references to the “annual” budget and replace with “multi-year”; and

  • remove the reference to “shall” and replace with “may” with regards to notice being published in the newspaper advising of a new or amended procedure by-law; and

  • add a requirement to provide notice of intent to implement a new municipally managed private commercial parking lot. Notice of intent shall be posted on the City’s website and may also be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of London at least seven days in advance of the committee meeting.

  1. “Real Property Acquisition Policy” to be amended to incorporate changes to legislation.

  2. “Reduced Rental Rates for Non-Profit Groups” to be amended to update staff titles and reference to the Fees and Charges By-law.

  3. “Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy” to be amended to update policy section to ensure policy directive for external loans and refinements to principles to be considered if Council approves external loans.

  4. “Respectful Workplace Policy (Anti-Harassment/Anti-Discrimination)” to be amended to add clarifying language.

  5. “Surplus Deficit Policy” to be amended to clean up the policy section.

  6. “Urban Design Award” to be amended to include the use of virtual methods for nominating and evaluating nominees, and to clarify the process for selecting the winner of the People’s Choice Award.

b) the proposed by-laws, as appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendices C1 to C4, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1. “Leasing Parkland” to be repealed because language is being incorporated into the Council policy “Leasing and Licencing of City-Owned Land”.

  2. “Parkland Accounts” to be repealed because the policy is redundant and no longer required.

  3. “Siting of Safe Consumption Facilities and Temporary Overdose Prevention Sites in London” to be repealed because London Plan Policies 1099A-1099F are now in force.

  4. “Value of Parkland Dedication” to be repealed because the information it contains is currently duplicated in the Council Policy titled “Parkland Dedication Cash in Lieu”;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated July 22, 2021 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (4.1) Consideration of Applications to the London Hydro Inc. Board of Directors

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That interviews BE ARRANGED with the following applicants for consideration of appointment to the London Hydro Inc. Board of Directors for the current Board vacancy:

Tania Goodine

Margaret Parks

Steven Stefanko

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Bullying Elimination Week

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated June 14, 2021 from Bullying Elimination Week, May 23 - 30, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Bullying Elimination Week.

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - October is Caribbean Heritage Month in Canada

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That based on the application dated June 18, 2021 from Caribbean Women’s Society, October 1-31, 2021 BE PROCLAIMED as October is Caribbean Heritage Month in Canada.

Motion Passed

8.3   10th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2021-07-27 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 10th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 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) 6th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 6th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 29, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No.’s 363, 364 and 365)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the three proposed by-laws as appended to the staff report dated July 27, 2021 as Appendices A, B, and C, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021, to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”. (2021-T02/T08)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Greenway Organic Rankine Cycle Project - Connection Agreement with London Hydro (Relates to Bill No. 313)

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 July 27, 2021, related to the execution of a Connection Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and London Hydro for power generation at the Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a)         the proposed by-law, as included on the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021, to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement; and,

b)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any additional documents, if required, to give effect to the Agreement. (2021-E06)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) RFT 21-51 Supply and Delivery of Steel Guiderail and Accessories

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 July 27, 2021, related to tender RFT 21-51, Supply and Delivery of Steel Guiderail and Accessories:

a)         approval hereby BE GIVEN to enter into an eight-month contract, with four (4) one-year options for the Supply and Delivery of Steel Guiderail and Accessories to Royal Fence Limited at the quoted price of $478,840.00; it being noted that this is an irregular result where pricing exceeds the budget but award can proceed in accordance with Section 8.10 (a) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Service Policy;

b)         the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, as required, to give effect to these recommendations; and,

c)         the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this contract. (2021-T04)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Emergency Purchase of a MagnaDrive Adjustable Speed Drive

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 July 27, 2021, related to the emergency, non-competitive purchase of a MagnaDrive Adjustable Speed Drive for the Southeast Reservoir and Pumping Station:

a)         the purchase order for the purchase of a MagnaDrive Adjustable Speed Drive from SCG Process at a total price of $94,382.00, excluding HST, BE CONFIRMED, in accordance with Section 14.2 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

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. (2021-E03)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) Renewal of the Lead Service Extension Replacement Loan Program (Relates to Bill No. 314)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law as included on the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on August 10, 2021, to amend By-law No. A.-6123-196 entitled “A By-law to provide for a Lead Service Extension Replacement Loan Program Pilot Project for owner-occupied dwellings of three or less dwelling units”.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.8) RFT 21-03 Rental of Winter Maintenance Equipment with Operator, Sander and Salters with Plow and Wing

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 July 27, 2021, related to tender RFT 21-03, Rental of Winter Maintenance Equipment with Operator, Sander and Salter with Plow and Wing:

a)         the bids submitted by Mobil Services Inc., S&B Construction Ltd., B and A Davies Paving and Construction Inc., Ferrari Concrete Ltd. and CH Excavating (2013) at their tendered prices BE ACCEPTED;

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

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 subject matter of this approval. (2021-V01)

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (2.7) Participation in the South London Air Monitoring Network Pilot Project

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the staff report dated July 27, 2021 with respect to the South London Air Monitoring Network Pilot Project BE DEFERRED to the next Civic Works Committee meeting for consideration. (2021-E05)

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at July 19, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4   11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-07-26 PEC Report - Full

Motion made by P. Squire

That the 11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 11 (2.1), 19 (3.5), 20 (3.6) and 22 (3.8).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by P. Squire

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.2) 3343 Morgan Avenue - Removal of Holding Provisions (Relates to Bill No. 372)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Old Oak Properties, relating to the property located at 3343 Morgan Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R5/R6/R7/R10 (hh-54h-71*R5-7/R6-5/R7.D100.H45/R10-3.H45) Zone TO a Residential R5/R6/R7/R10 (R5-7/R6-5/R7.D100.H45/R10-3.H45) Zone to remove the “h”, ‘h-54” and “h-71” holding provisions.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.3) 1750 Finley Crescent - Exemption of Part-Lot Control

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., to exempt Block 101, Plan 33M-733 from Part-Lot Control:

a)        pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Block 101, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to a registered subdivision agreement and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-4(4)) which permits street townhouse dwellings; 

b)        the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 101, Plan 33M-733 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xii)         the applicant shall provide a draft transfer of the easements to be registered on title; 

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

xiv)        in accordance with condition v), the applicant provide servicing drawings of municipal servicing to each of the blocks created within 1750 Finley Crescent to indicate that all municipal servicing can be provide to each property/block created without conflict. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.4) 1820 Finley Crescent - Exemption from Part-Lot Control

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., to exempt Block 99, Plan 33M-733 from Part-Lot Control:

a)        pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Block 99, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to a registered subdivision agreement and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-4(4)) which permits street townhouse dwellings; 

b)        the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 99, Plan 33M-733 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xii)       the applicant shall provide a draft transfer of the easements to be registered on title; 

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

xiv)       in accordance with condition v), the applicant provide servicing drawings of municipal servicing to each of the blocks created within 1820 Finley Crescent to indicate that all municipal servicing can be provide to each property/block created without conflict. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.5) 1790 Finley Crescent - Exemption of Part-Lot Control

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., to exempt Block 100, Plan 33M-733 from Part-Lot Control:

a)        pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Block 100, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to a registered subdivision agreement and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-4(4)) which permits street townhouse dwellings; 

b)        the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 100, Plan 33M-733 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xii)       the applicant shall provide a draft transfer of the easements to be registered on title; 

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

xiv)      in accordance with condition v), the applicant provide servicing drawings of municipal servicing to each of the blocks created within 1790 Finley Crescent to indicate that all municipal servicing can be provide to each property/block created without conflict. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.7) 1738, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road - Phases 1 and 2 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 Thames Village Joint Venture Corporation, for the subdivision of lands located at 1738, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road, north side, south of the Thames River, legally described as Part of Lots 7 & 8, Concession 1; Part of Lot 7, Broken Front Concession “B”; Part of the Road Allowance Between Lots 6 & 7, Broken Front Concession “B” and Concession 1 (Closed by Unregistered By-law 276, dated April, 1875) (Geographic Township of Westminster); all of Lot 1 and Part of Lot 6, and all of the one foot reserve abutting Bobolink Lane Registered Plan No. 747 in the City of London, County of Middlesex:

a)        the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Thames Village Joint Venture Corporation for the Thames Village Joint Venture Subdivision, Phases 1 and 2 (39T-17502) appended to the staff report dated July 26, 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 July 26, 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 July 26, 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 fulfill its conditions. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.8) 613 and 629 Sovereign Road - Deeming By-law (Relates to Bill No. 318)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Spriet Associates London Limited, relating to the properties located at 613 and 629 Sovereign Road:

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to deem Lot 26 and Lot 27, Registered Plan No. 33M-251, save and except part of Lot 27, Registered Plan No. 33M-251 designated as Part 1, Plan 33R-17747, City of London, County of Middlesex, not to be a registered plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13;   

b)        the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the by-law passing and undertake registration of the Deeming By-law, in accordance with the provisions in subsections 50(28) and 50(29) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13; and,

c)        the applicant BE REQUIRED to pay for any costs incurred to register the deeming by-law at the Land Registry Office. 2021-D12)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.9) 2120 Kains Road (Relates to Bill No. 319)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, to exempt the following lands from Part Lot Control: 

a)    pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021, to exempt part of Block 6 on Registered Plan 33M-429, more accurately described as Parts 3 to 6, inclusive, on Plan 33R-19849, from the Part Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; and,

b)    the applicant BE ADVISED that the cost of registration of the above-noted By-law is to be borne by the applicant, in accordance with City policy. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.11) 1284 Sunningdale Road West - Foxhollow North Kent Phase 3C - Removal of Holding Provisions h and h-100 (Relates to Bill No. 374)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Ltd., relating to the property located at 1284 Sunningdale Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (hh-100R1-3(8)) Zone, a Holding Residential Special Provision R4 (hh-100R4-6(14)) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 (hh-100R1-3) Zone, and an Open Space (OS1) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R1 (R1-3(8)) Zone, a Residential Special Provision R4 (R4-6(14)) Zone, a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone, and an Open Space (OS1) Zone to remove the h and h-100 holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (2.12) 50 Southbridge Drive - Removal of Holding Provisions h, h-100 and h-198 (Relates to Bill No. 375)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Ltd., relating to the property located at 50 Southbridge Drive, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential Special Provision R5 (hh-100h-198R5-4(22)) and a Holding Residential Special Provision R6 (hh-100h-198R6-5(50)) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R5 (R5-4(22)) and a Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-5(50)) to remove the h, h-100 and h-198 holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (2.6) 704 and 706 Boler Road (Relates to Bill No. 373)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, based on the application by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to a portion of the property located at 704 and 706 Boler Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h*R6-1(18)) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-1(18)) Zone to remove the “h” holding provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (2.13) 704, 706 and 720 Boler Road - Removal of Holding Provision “h” (Relates to Bill No. 376)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to the properties located at 704, 706 and 720 Boler Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (h*R1-9(8)) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R1 (R1-9(8)) Zone to remove the “h” holding provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.14   (2.10) Proclamation of Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 385/21, and draft Ontario Heritage Toolkit

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the staff report dated July 26, 2021 entitled “Proclamation of Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 385/21, and draft Ontario Heritage Toolkit” BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the communication dated July 23, 2021 from A.M. Valastro, 133 John Street, was received; it being further noted that the request for delegation status was withdrawn. (2021-L11)

Motion Passed

8.4.15   (3.1) 450 Wharncliffe Road South (Relates to Bill No’s. 320 and 377)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Plaza Retail Reit and The Corporation of the City of London, relating to the property located at 450 Wharncliffe Road South: 

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to DELETE policy Section 4.6.7 iii) – “Specific Service Commerical Areas- Wharncliffe Road South, between Devonshire and Baseline and 425 Wharncliffe Road South”;

b)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to ADD a policy to Section 4.4.2.11 – “Specific Service Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridors- Wharncliffe Road South, between Devonshire Avenue and Baseline Road West and 425 Wharncliffe Road South” to to provide for an expanded range of uses, including automobile sales and service establishment uses to the property located at 425 Wharncliffe Road South; and,

c)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part b) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Highway Service Commercial (HS2) Zone TO a Highway Service Commercial Special Provision (HS2 (*) Zone to permit the additional uses of Office, Medical/Dental Office, Clinic, Laboratory, Retail Store and Liquor, Beer and Wine Store;

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 this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 which promotes an appropriate range and mix of uses in a settlement area;

  •    the recommended uses conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to, Our City, Key Directions, and City Building, and will facilitate a wider range of uses in an existing building in the Urban Corridor Place Type;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to, Chapter 4 – Policies for Specific Service Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridors, which allows Council to apply specific policies where the change in land use is site specific and located in an Auto-Oriented Corridor where Council wishes to maintain the existing land use designation while allowing for a site-specific uses; and,

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment implements an appropriate use and intensity for the site which is compatible with the surrounding area. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.16   (3.2) 360 Callaway Road - Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium (39CD-21504)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Wastell Development Inc., relating to the property located at 360 Callaway Road:

a)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 360 Callaway Road; and,

b)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 360 Callaway Road;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated July 22, 2021, from E. Abbott, 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 this application for the following reasons:

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, which directs new development to designated growth areas and areas adjacent to existing development;

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to Our Tools, Key Directions, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies; and,

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential Designation and will implement an appropriate form of residential development for the site. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed

8.4.17   (3.3) 355 Middleton Avenue - Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium (39CD-21509)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 355 Middleton Avenue: 

a)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to a property located at 355 Middleton Avenue; and,

b)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 355 Middleton Avenue;

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 this application for the following reasons:

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, which directs new development to designated growth areas and areas adjacent to existing development;

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to Our Tools, Key Directions, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies; and,

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential Designation and will implement an appropriate form of residential development for the site. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed

8.4.18   (3.4) 915 UpperPoint Avenue - Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium (39CD-21508)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 915 Upperpoint Avenue: 

a)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to a property located at 915 Upperpoint Avenue; 

b)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 355 Middleton Avenue:

i)         a request for the installation of a barrier or vegetation;

ii)        the increase in traffic and the speed of the traffic;

iii)       the dirt and dust from the ongoing construction to the north of the proposed development;

iv)       the vibration from the excavation; and,

v)        the accumulation of garbage from the ongoing construction;

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 this application for the following reasons:

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, which directs new development to designated growth areas and areas adjacent to existing development;

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to Our Tools, Key Directions, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies; and,

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential Designation and will implement an appropriate form of residential development for the site. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed

8.4.21   (3.7) 180-186 Commissioners Road West (Relates to Bill No’s. 323 and 380)

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 180 Commissioners Road Inc., relating to the property located at 180 – 186 Commissioners Road West:

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan by ADDING a policy to Section 3.5. – Policies for Specific Residential Areas to permit a maximum residential density of 105 units per hectare to align the 1989 Official Plan policies with the Neighbourhood Place Type policies of The London Plan;

b)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-4(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the following site plan matters were raised during the application review process:

i)        the provision of a built form that is located along both the Commissioners Road West and Viscount Road frontages, with units oriented to the street;

ii)        the provision of a building design for both street-facing facades that includes a high level of architectural detail and a variety of materials and articulation; individual front door style entrances to ground floor units; amenity spaces for individual units at ground level that create a pedestrian-oriented streetscape; and direct walkway connections from ground floor units to the public sidewalk;

iii)        the provision of an appropriately sized common outdoor amenity area for residents;

iv)        the provision of enhanced landscaping in the exterior side yard along Viscount Road, including consideration of such items as a seat wall, arbour, masonry columns and planting or other enhanced features;

v)        the provision of mitigation measures to address privacy issues/conflicts between grade-related patios and the public realm on Commissioners Road West, and between grade-related patios and the surface parking area, exploring opportunities for creating grade separation to better preserve the amenity of the porches/patios and the usability of those spaces for residents;

vi)       the provision of privacy fencing along the east and south property boundaries, where possible when co-ordinated with any tree retention on or adjacent to the property lines, noting the retention of existing trees may be less desirable than the provision of privacy fencing in combination with new enhanced landscaping for screening;

vii)      the provision of enhanced, robust landscaping along the east and south property boundaries for screening, taking into account possible compensation for trees removed from the site prior to the preparation of the Tree Preservation Report; discussions between the applicant and the neighbouring property owners; and the submission of a final Tree Preservation Report;

viii)      the location and design of snow storage areas to retain snow-melt on site;

ix)        possible external updates/modifications on Viscount Road, which may include a pavement marking exercise to implement a left turn lane into the site, and/or signal timing revisions;

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 this application for the following reasons:

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, and Neighbourhoods Place Type; 

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-family, Medium Density Residential designation and the criteria for Policies for Specific Areas which allow Council to address development opportunities through specific policies that provide additional guidance to the general Multi-family, Medium Density Residential policies; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.4.23   (3.9) Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (OZ-9367) (Relates to Bill No’s. 324, 325 and 326)

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan:

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to adopt the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan, appended to the aforementioned staff report, in accordance with London Plan policy 1421;

b)        that NO ACTION BE TAKEN with respect to implementing the Green Acres Drive connection to the Medway Valley trail and pathway system at this time;

c)        the portion of the pathway and trail system from Gloucester Road (Access A11) to its connection with the pathway in the Valley shown on “Appendix B” of the Medway Valley Heritage Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan BE DEFERRED to be considered at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee following further consultation and review with the adjacent neighbours, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee and the Accessibility Advisory Committee:

d)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021  as Appendix ‘E’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the London Plan:

i)         change Policy 1719_11 FROM Medway Valley Heritage Forest Site Planning Study TO Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan;

ii)        change the Green Space Place Type and Neighbourhoods Place Type on Map 1 – Place Types in conformity with the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA (South) Conservation Master Plan adopted above; and,

iii)       change the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area on Map 5 – Natural Heritage, in conformity with the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA (South) Conservation Master Plan adopted above:

It being noted that The London Plan Map 1 will come into full force and effect concurrent with Map 1 of the London Plan;

e)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021  as Appendix ’F’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to:

i)         change the Low Density Residential, Multi-family Medium Density Residential, Regional Facility, and Open Space land use designations on Schedule “A”, Land Use in conformity with the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan adopted above; and,

ii)        change the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area on Schedule “B1”, Natural Heritage Features, in conformity with the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan adopted above; and,

iii)        change Policy 19.2.2. ii) to add the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan to the list of guideline documents; and,

f)         the members of Accessibility Advisory Committee, Environmental Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, UTRCA and local First Nations Communities BE THANKED for their work in the review and comments on the Sustainable Trail Concept Plan;

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

●    a communication dated July 26, 2021 from G. and S. Sinker, 1597 Gloucester Road;

●    the staff presentation; and,

●    revised pages of the maps included in the staff report;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters.   (2021-E18/E20)

Motion Passed

8.4.24   (4.1) 5th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

Motion made by P. Squire

That the 5th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 23, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.25   (4.2) 7th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Motion made by P. Squire

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on July 14, 2021:

a)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Planning Application, dated June 16, 2021, from C. Maton, Senior Planner, with respect to a Zoning By-law Amendment for the properties located at 551-555 Waterloo Street:

i)         C. Maton, Senior Planner, BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage is satisfied with the research, assessment and conclusions of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) included with the above-noted Notice of Planning Application and is in support of this development; and,

ii)         the above-noted Notice of Planning Application BE RECEIVED;

b)        on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 14, 2021, related to an application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to alter the heritage designated property located at 329-331 Richmond Street, located within the Downtown Heritage Conservation District:

i)         the alterations BE PERMITTED, as submitted, with the following terms and conditions:

  •    the cast iron columns be braced and protected in situ, as described in the Conservation Plan (Cornerstone Architecture and VanBoxmeer & Stranges, dated June 1, 2021), as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

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

ii)        direction BE GIVEN to the Site Plan Approval Authority to include a clause regarding the following within the Development Agreement (DA) For the Site Plan Approval:

  •    alterations to the property shall conform to the Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP21-049-L); and,

the approach, methods, and process of the in situ conservation of the cast iron columns and arched entryway feature of the property at 329 Richmond Street, before, during, and after construction, shall conform to the Conservation Plan (Cornerstone Architecture and VanBoxmeer & Stranges, dated June 1, 2021), appended to the Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

c)        clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.5, inclusive, 2.7, 3.2, 4.1 and 4.2 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (2.1) Oxford Wonderland Secondary Plan - Terms of Reference

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prioritize the development of the secondary plan for the Wellington Gateway corridor and BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to the timing of future secondary plan development that prioritizes the “transit village” place types identified in the London Plan; it being noted that the draft Terms of Reference for the Oxford Wonderland Secondary Plan, as outlined in the staff report dated July 26, 2021, would be included in the aforementioned report back.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.4.19   (3.5) 414-418 Old Wonderland Road (Z-9293) (Relates to Bill No. 378)

Councillor A. Kayabaga leaves the meeting.

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Four Fourteen Inc. relating to the property located at 414-418 Old Wonderland Road: 

a)        the proposed, revised, attached by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 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 Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone and an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone TO a to a holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-5*R5-7(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

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

i)         board on board fencing along the east, north and south property boundaries that not only exceed the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law but also has screening/privacy qualities;

ii)        ensure naturalization with feature restoration and compensation is required to be completed by the landowner in accordance with the mitigation measures in the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Assessment and City Ecologist;

iii)       ensure that in the development agreement it is clear that the restoration and compensation areas are to be protected in a natural state and not manicured; and,

iv)       a small berm should be created along the edges of the storage area to direct flows back to the road surface and not towards the pond feature to the north; and,

b)        pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning implements the site concept submitted with the 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 this application for the following reasons:

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family Medium Density Residential designation and Environmental Policies;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of development; and,

  •    the subject lands represent an appropriate location for intensification in the form of townhouses, at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding neighbourhood. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

8.4.20   (3.6) 400 Southdale Road East (OZ-9261) (Relates to Bill No’s. 321, 322 and 379)

Councillor A. Kayabaga returns to the meeting.

Motion made by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Manager, Planning Implementation, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by LJM Developments, relating to the property located at 400 Southdale Road East: 

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to ADD a policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” that would modify the ‘Neighbourhood Commercial Node’ designation to permit residential units on the ground floor and an increased density of 462 units per hectare on the subject lands located at 400 Southdale Road East;

b)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend The London Plan to create a special policy area in the Neighbourhoods Place Type at 400 Southdale Road East to permit an apartment building with residential uses on the ground floor, a height of 7-storeys (29.2m including the mechanical penthouse) and a density of 462 units per hectare and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of The London Plan;

c)        the proposed revised, attached, by-law (Appendix “C”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in parts a) and b) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Service Station (SS2) Zone TO holding Residential R9 (h-5R9-1B-  ) Zone;

 it being noted that the following Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process to be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process:

i)         enhanced provision of boundary landscaping and board on board fencing along boundaries that not only exceed the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law but also has screening/privacy qualities;

ii)        consideration of more surface parking for visitors; and,

iii)       address an existing license agreement and the existing private sanitary sewer and PDC that bisects the subject property that services adjacent lands, namely servicing in favor of 456 Southdale Road East, through updates to the Sanitary Study and through detailed design that ensures this existing service in favour of the adjacent lands will be maintained or rerouted and uninterrupted connecting to the municipal sewer on Dundalk.  A clause in the future development agreement will be included regarding an easement agreement between 400 Southdale Road East and 456 Southdale Road East and all servicing details are to be included in the engineering site servicing drawings;

d)        the Bonus Zone shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high quality residential apartment building, with a maximum height of 7-storeys with mechanical penthouse, 181 dwelling units and a maximum density of 462 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan and Elevations appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

A)    Exceptional Building Design 

the building design shown in the various illustrations contained in Schedule “1” of the amending by-law is being bonused for features which serve to support the City’s objectives of promoting a high standard of design;

i)        the building oriented to the corner of Southdale Road East and Dundalk Street providing a well-defined built edge and creating a positive public interface and human scale at street level;

ii)       the inclusion of building step backs, from 7-storeys to 6-storeys and 5-storeys with a variety of building materials and building articulation to break up the massing of the building; and,

iii)       purpose-designed amenity space on top of the apartment building and/or parking structure; 

B)    Underground Parking

C)    Provision of Affordable Housing by requiring that LJM Developments enter into an agreement with the Corporation of the City of London (“the City”) to facilitate the transfer of ownership at no cost of four (4) new one-bedroom condominium units constructed within the development for the purposes of affordable housing, in a form prescribed by the City;

it being noted that a future development agreement will provide for the four new one-bedroom units and will include the following through further agreements as necessary:

  •    assurances of the specific location, size, fixtures, and features of the bonus units are defined as to the City’s satisfaction. This includes any common and general attributes, (such as storage lockers, parking, or other building resident amenities) for each bonus unit;

  •    a purchase agreement, inclusive of securities as applicable, reflecting the process for the no-cost transfer of the 4 new one-bedroom units and any associated services and features upon condominium plan registration, in a form satisfactory to the City; and,

  •    confirmation that the associated condominium declaration and by-laws shall in no way limit the use and function of the units for affordable rental housing in accordance with applicable residential rental laws;

it is further recognized that, upon ownership, the City will retain and maintain the units within the function and business of affordable rental housing as managed through the City’s Housing Stability Services. The City, as owner, would therefore be required to address costs associated with condominium and other standard fees. These factors have been considered within the bonus provisions and will be subject to separate reporting and details;

d)        pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning implements the same range of uses for which public notification has been given albeit at a lower intensity;

it being noted 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 this application for the following reasons:

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

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

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

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan and 1989 Official Plan upon approval of the recommended amendment.

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of four (4)affordable housing units that will help in addressing the growing need for affordable housing in London. The recommended amendment is in alignment with the Housing Stability Action Plan 2019-2024 and Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.4.22   (3.8) 1047-1055 Dearness Drive

Councillor A. Kayabaga leaves the meeting.

Motion made by P. Squire

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Leo, Maria and Christine Viglianti relating to the property located at 1047 – 1055 Dearness Drive:

a) the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on August 10, 2021 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London Planning Area – 1989 to change the designation of the subject lands FROM a Low Density Residential designation TO a Multi-family, Medium Density Residential designation and by ADDING a policy to Section 3.5. – Policies for Specific Residential Areas to permit a maximum residential density of 134 units per hectare to align the 1989 Official Plan policies with the Neighbourhood Place Type policies of The London Plan;

b) the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London as amended in part (a) above, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-4) and a Residential R2/Office Conversion (R2-2/OC5) Zone, TO a Residential R9 Bonus (R9-1()H19B-) Zone;

The Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high quality residential apartment building, with a maximum height of 6 storeys and a maximum height of 26 metres, 55 dwelling units and a maximum density of 134 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan, Renderings, Elevations and Views, attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law and provides for the following:

  1. Exceptional Building and Site Design

i) a built form located along Bradley Avenue and Dearness Drive that establishes a built edge with street-oriented units and active uses along those frontages;

ii) an architectural feature/massing/building articulation that addresses and emphasizes the intersection of Bradley Avenue and Dearness Drive;

iii) an active edge along the Bradley Avenue frontage including a well-defined principal entrance and individual front entrances to the ground floor apartment units;

iv) lockable “front door” style ground floor doors that open into ground floor private amenity spaces designed to extend into setbacks as front porches or courtyards;

v) ground floor patio enclosures using semi-transparent materials with a height of no more than 1 metre to provide views and passive surveillance into the public streetscape;

vi) a step-back above the 5th storey for a portion of the building along both street frontages providing a human-scale along the streets;

vii) articulated facades including recesses, projections, balconies and terraces to provide depth and variation in the built form to enhance the pedestrian environment;

viii) a variety of materials, textures and articulation along building façade(s) to highlight different architectural elements and provide interest and human-scale rhythm along the street frontages;

ix) a significant setback from the property to the north aiding smooth transition from the mid-rise building to the low-rise residential to the north;

x) common outdoor amenity space at ground level and using rooftop terraces located to protect the privacy of adjacent properties.

xi) an enhanced landscape buffer for the length of the north property line, between the parking ramp and the properties to the north, as well as an enhanced buffer to screen parking where it is visible from the street, noting that the Access Management Guidelines will require that the location of the proposed driveway, parking area and ramp will deviate from the locations shown on Schedule “1”; and,

xii) limited surface parking located away from the major street frontage and providing most of the parking within an underground structure.

  1. Provision of Affordable Housing

i) A total of two (2) one-bedroom units and two (2) two-bedroom units will be provided for affordable housing;

ii) Rents not exceeding 85% of the Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London Census Metropolitan Area as determined by the CMHC at the time of building occupancy;

iii) The duration of affordability set at 50 years from the point of initial occupancy;

iv) The proponent enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement (TPA) with the City of London to align the affordable units with priority populations;

v) These conditions to be secured through an agreement registered on title with associated compliance requirements and remedies.

c) IT BEING NOTED that the following site plan matters were raised during the application review process:

i) ensure the site is configured to provide an adequate buffer between ground floor units and the public streets and rear parking area to accommodate a landscape buffer and minor grade separation (i.e. steps to porch or courtyard) to provide residential amenity and ensure a reasonable level of privacy;

ii) consideration during the driveway realignment required to comply with the Access Management Guidelines, of the potential to preserve existing trees located on/near the Dearness Drive property line. That as part of those considerations, a tree preservation report be required at the site plan stage to inform the final co-ordinated driveway design and landscaping plans,

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of

uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, and Neighbourhoods Place Type;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-family, Medium Density Residential designation and the Policies for Specific Residential Areas which allow Council to address development opportunities through specific policies that provide additional guidance to the general Multi-family, Medium Density Residential policies;

  • the recommended amendment secures units for affordable housing through the bonus zone; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.5   11th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2021-07-28 SPPC Report 11

At 5:36 PM, Councillor A. Kayabaga returns to the meeting.

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 11th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 7 (5.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 2020 Performance Report and May 2021 Semi-Annual Progress Report

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated July 28, 2021 including the 2020 Performance Report, May 2021 Semi-Annual Progress Report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Municipal Accommodation Tax - Required Annual Report

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, Tourism’s London annual report on the expenditure of Municipal Accommodation Tax revenues BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) Diversity Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd and 4th Reports of the Diversity Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee from its meetings held on June 17 and July 15, 2021, respectively:

a) clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1 and 4.2, inclusive of the 3rd Report of the Diversity Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee BE RECEIVED;

b) the following actions be taken with respect to the Election of Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (CDIS) Leadership Table Representative:

i) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the next Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee to provide an overview of CDIS; and,

ii) the election of the representative BE POSTPONED to the next meeting;

c) clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 and 6.1 of the 4th Report of the Diversity Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (4.1) Roula Hawa, Mischa Mackie (Schlemmer) and Reeti Chopra - Housing and Homelessness Crisis

Motion made by J. Morgan

The following actions be taken with respect to the delegation from Roula Hawa, Mischa Mackie (Schlemmer) and Reeti Chopra related to the Housing and Homelessness Crisis in London:

a)   the above-noted presentation BE RECEIVED: and,

b)   the recommendations forming part of the presentation BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration, for consideration and potential implementation, including but not limited to participation in the knowledge-exchange activities related to this report.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.2) Consideration of Appointment to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Board

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Councillor J. Morgan BE APPOINTED to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Board for the term ending November 15, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (5.2) Regional Transportation and Mobility Across Southwestern Ontario

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated July 27, 2021 from Mayor E. Holder and Deputy Mayor J. Morgan regarding the Regional Transportation and Mobility across Southwestern Ontario:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a conceptual framework for a Regional Transportation/Mobility Hub in downtown London, including working with London Transit to explore potential connections between a regional transportation/mobility hub and local City of London transit routes, including the proposed bus rapid transit system, for Council’s consideration; and,

b)   the Mayor BE REQUESTED to engage with the Southwest Ontario Transportation Task Force membership on the opportunity of positioning the City of London as a Regional Transportation/Mobility Hub for consideration by the Province of Ontario under the Connecting the Southwest: A Draft Transportation Plan for Southwestern Ontario.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (5.1) Consideration of Vaccine Mandates

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication dated July 26, 2021 from Councillor M. van Holst BE RECEIVED and no further action BE TAKEN.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No’.s 312 to 380, excluding Bill No. 378, and the Added Bill No.’s 385 to 386, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Bill No’.s 312 to 380, excluding Bill No. 378, and the Added Bill No.’s 385 to 386, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No’.s 312 to 380, excluding Bill No. 378, and the Added Bill No.’s 385 to 386, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 378  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Second Reading of Bill No. 378  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 378  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Released in Public - Aug. 10 For Council Minutes-Complete

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

4.1 Personal Matters / Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to personal matters about identifiable individuals, including municipal or local board employees, with respect to the Awarding of the 2021 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships. (6.1/11/CPSC)

4.2 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. (6.1/13/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. (6.2/13/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. (6.3/13/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.4/13/CSC)

4.6 Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation with respect to litigation currently before the Superior Court of Justice, Court file No. 2278/18 and 2278/18-A1 affecting the municipality in relation to the Bradley Avenue West Extension and Wharncliffe Road South Improvements. (6.1/10/CWC)

4.7 Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation with respect to litigation currently before the Superior Court of Justice, Court file 783/19 affecting the municipality in relation to the 2016 Sarnia Road Improvements. (6.2/10/CWC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council rises and convenes, In Closed Session, from 5:58 PM to 6:19 PM.

At 5:58 PM, Mayor E. Holder places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair, and leaves the meeting.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   11th Report of Council in Closed Session

2021-08-10 Released in Public Attachments

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

  1. Awarding of the 2021 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships

That the following actions be taken in connection with the awarding of the 2021 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships:

a) in recognition of achieving the highest scholastic achievement in their graduating year, the following student BE AWARDED the 2021 Queen Elizabeth Scholarship, in the amount shown:

Cindy Sun London Central Secondary School (99.67% average) - $2,000

b) notwithstanding Council Policy 1(3), which provides for Queen Elizabeth Scholarships in the amount of $2,000 each, to be granted by the City of London in each school year, for admission to any University, to the two students with the highest scholastic achievement, the following four students BE AWARDED the 2021 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships, in the amounts shown:

Caitlyn Pringle H.B. Beal Secondary School 99.50% - $2,000

Mia Scherba H.B. Beal Secondary School 99.50% - $2,000

Anlun Guo London Central Secondary School 99.50% - $2,000

Nadeen Shilbayeh Oakridge Secondary School 99.50% - $2,000

c) the additional $6,000 Scholarships BE FUNDED through the City’s 2021 Operating Budget.

  1. Settlement Agreement - 1679 Richmond Street - Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond Street Intersection Improvements Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, and the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 1679 Richmond Street, further described as Part of lot 33, Registrar’s Compiled Plan 1029, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, described as Parts 1,2, 3 and 4, Plan ER-1383810, being part of PIN 08066-0183 (LT), as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements for the project known as the Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond Street Intersection Improvements Project, as follows:

a) the Settlement Agreement, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by Suncor Energy Inc., as full and final compensation for the market value of the land expropriated from the subject property, for the sum of $126,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, and subject to the following conditions:

i) the City agreeing to pay the Vendor’s reasonable legal, appraisal costs, disbursements and applicable taxes, as incurred to complete this transaction;

ii) the City agreeing to pay a further sum of $20,000.00 as disturbance damages for the loss of any and all trees, shrubs and landscaping located within the Property; 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 – 19 Dingman Drive

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Parks and Forestry, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 19 Dingman Drive, further described as Part South 1/2 Lot 19, Concession 3 as in 496032; LONDON/WESTMINISTER, being all of PIN 08204-0131 (LT) and all of PIN 08204-0132 (LT), located in the City of London, County of Middlesex, Province of Ontario, with an area of approximately 33.5 acres as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of a future south west district sports park, the following actions be taken:

a) the offer submitted by Julia Cox, John Cox, Sarah Morton, Gregory Morton, Rita Hazelwood, Simon Hazelwood, Zsofia Sefcsik (the “Vendors”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $1,750,000.00 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 – 1710 Wilton Grove Road, London

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, and with the concurrence of the Interim Director, Economic Services and Supports, with respect at 1710 Wilton Grove Road, containing an area of approximately 64 acres, legally described as being Part of Lot 12 Concession 2; Designated Part 1, 33R9191 Formerly in the Town of Westminster now in the City of London, County of Middlesex being all of PIN 081990006 together as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “C”, the following actions be taken:

a) the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), submitted by Karen Auzins and Eric Auzins (the Vendors) to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $4,160,000.00 BE ACCEPTED which the Agreement is attached as Appendix “B”; and,

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

5 Property Disposition – Surplus Land – East Side Purser Street

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 surplus land located south of east side of Purser Street, an area of approximately 0.08 acres, and legally described as Part of Roadway, Closed by By-law S-5030-63 as in ER488782, Plan 91(C), London Township, designated as Part 7 on 33R-17289 & Block 60, Plan 33M-443 in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being part of PIN 08146-0786 and all of PIN 08146-0243 as outlined on the Location Map attached hereto as Appendix “A”, and the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”) attached as Appendix “B”, as submitted by Drewlo Holdings Inc. (the “Purchaser”), to purchase the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $125,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of the Added Bill No.’s 381 to 384  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Second Reading of the Bill No. Added Bill No.’s 381 to 384 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Third Reading and Enactment of the Bill No. Added Bill No.’s 381 to 384 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

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

Bill No. 312

By-law No. A.-8145-216 – A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 10th day of August, 2021. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 313

By-law No. A.-8146-217 – A by-law to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the local power distribution company (London Hydro) with respect to the connection of power generation at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant. (2.3/10/CWC)

Bill No. 314

By-law No. A.-6123(e)-218 – A by-law to provide for a Lead Service Extension Replacement Loan Program for residential properties of three or less dwelling units. (2.6/10/CWC)

Bill No. 315

By-law No. A.-6151(z)-219 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001”, by deleting and replacing Schedule “B” – “Hiring of Employees Policy”. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 316

By-law No. A.-6151(aa)-220 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001” by deleting and replacing Schedule “E”, being “Public Notice Policy”. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 317

By-law No. A.-6151(ab)-221 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001” by deleting and replacing Schedule “F”, being the Accountability and Transparency to the Public Policy. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 318

By-law No. C.P.-1566-222 – A by-law to deem a portion of Registered Plan No. 33M-251 not to be a registered plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P13. (2.8/11/PEC)

Bill No. 319

By-law No. C.P.-1567-223 – A by-law to exempt from Part-lot Control lands located on the east side of Kains Road, north of Shore Road; being composed of Part of Block 6 on Registered Plan No. 33M-429, more accurately described as Parts 3 to 6, inclusive, on Plan 33R-19849, in the City of London, County of Middlesex. (2.9/11/PEC)

Bill No. 320

By-law No. C.P.-1284(vy)-224 – A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 450 Wharncliffe Road South. (3.1a&b/11/PEC)

Bill No. 321

By-law No. C.P.-1284(vz)-225 – A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 400 Southdale Road East. (3.6a/11/PEC)

Bill No. 322

By-law No. C.P.-1512(al)-226 – A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to relating to 400 Southdale Road East. (3.6b/11/PEC)

Bill No. 323

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wa)-227 – A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 180 – 186 Commissioners Road West. (3.7a/11/PEC)

Bill No. 324

By-law No. C.P.-1568-228 – A by-law to adopt the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan. (3.9a/11/PEC)

Bill No. 325

By-law No. C.P.-1512(am)-229 – A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 for the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South). (3.9d/11/PEC)

Bill No. 326

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wb)-230 – A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 for the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South). (3.9e/11/PEC)

Bill No. 327

By-law No. CPOL.-18(d)-231 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-18-214, as amended, being “Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy”, to clarify eligibility criteria for nomination. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 328

By-law No. CPOL.-29(a)-232 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-29-225, as amended, being “Grants to Centennial Hall”, to remove outdated language. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 329

By-law No. CPOL.-30(a)-233 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-30-226, as amended, being “Reduced Rental Rates for Non-Profit Groups”, to update staff titles and reference to the Fees and Charges By-law. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 330

By-law No. CPOL.-31(a)-234 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-31-227, as amended, being “Objectives of Centennial Hall”, to add clarifying language in section 4(b). (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 331

By-law No. CPOL.-33(a)-235 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-33-229, as amended, being “Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses”, to change the title to “Lessee Protection and Non-Competitive Clauses – Centennial Hall” to reflect the scope of the policy. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 332

By-law No. CPOL.-38(a)-236 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-38-234, as amended, being “London Community Grants Policy”, to delete reference to Housing Development Corporate, London (HDC) in section 4.3(b)(v). (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 333

By-law No. CPOL.-39(b)-237 – A by-law to amend By-law CPOL.-39-235 being “Investment Policy”. (2.5/13/CSC)

Bill No. 334

By-law No. CPOL.-43(a)-238 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-43-239, as amended, being “Identification of Operating Surpluses – Boards and Commissions”, to align wording in applicability and policy sections with the budget monitoring process. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 335

By-law No. CPOL.-45(b)-239 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-45-241, as amended, being “Multi-Year Budget Policy”, to update definition and policy sections, and to clarify applicability to the property tax supported as well as water and wastewater budgets. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 336

By-law No. CPOL.-46(b)-240 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-46-242, as amended, being “Surplus/Deficit Policy”, to add clarifying language in the policy section and renumber accordingly. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 337

By-law No. CPOL.-47(a)-241 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-47-243, as amended, being “Assessment Growth Policy” to provide for strengthened eligibility criteria and for the prioritization of requests. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 338

By-law No. CPOL.-48(a)-242 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-48-244, as amended, being “Debt Management Policy”, to add intergenerational equity and maintaining a strong credit rating to objectives, and to add clarifying language in the policy section. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 339

By-law No. CPOL.-52(a)-243 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-52-248, as amended, being “Capital Budget and Financing Policy”, to update the definitions and the policy sections. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 340

By-law No. CPOL.-71(b)-244 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-71-303, as amended, being “Appointment of Council Members to Standing Committees of Council and Various Civic Boards and Commissions Policy” to redefine the Council Year to align with the Council Term as set out in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as amended. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 341

By-law No. CPOL.-77(b)-245 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-77-309, as amended, being “Legal Services and Accounts”, to change claim amount to align with thresholds in the Procurement Policy. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 342

By-law No. CPOL.-80(a)-246 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-80-312, as amended, being “Dedication of Fire Stations”, to update applicability by changing the number of fire stations from seven to six. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 343

By-law No. CPOL.-114(d)-247 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-114-366, as amended, being “Flags at City Hall Policy”, to clarify that flags at the back entrance of City Hall are to be removed over the winter. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 344

By-law No. CPOL.-123(b)-248 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-123-375, as amended, being “Promotion of Corporate Products to City Employees” to change the policy title to “Promotion of Corporate Products or Services to City Employees”, and to update general guidelines. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 345

By-law No. CPOL.-139(a)-249 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-139-391, as amended, being “Gender Equity in Recreation Services”, to modernize language in three definitions (2.2 to 2.4), and to add a section 4.iii under Policy to address removing barriers. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 346

By-law No. CPOL.-140(a)-250 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-140-392, as amended, being “Financial Assistance for Program Activity Fees”, to update and clarify language, to add a new section 4.11 concerning applicants receiving financial assistant from the province, and to renumber the sections accordingly. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 347

By-law No. CPOL.-145(a)-251 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-145-397, as amended, being “Policy for waiving or reducing fees for use of city owned community centres and recreation facilities” to change the policy title to “Request to Waive or Reduce Facility Rental Fees”. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 348

By-law No. CPOL.-156(b)-252 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-156-408, as amended, being “Mayor – Contracted Staff”, to add clarifying language about benefits. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 349

By-law No. CPOL.-167(b)-253 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-167-419, as amended, being “Urban Design Awards”, to add language to include virtual processes and to clarify selection process for People’s Choice Award (Student). (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 350

By-law No. CPOL.-170(a)-254 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-170-422, as amended, being “Notices of OPA and ZBA Received From Other Municipalities”, to clarify that where there are no municipal concerns identified by the Director, Planning & Development, no response or further action is required. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 351

By-law No. CPOL.-185(b)-255 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-183-435, as amended, being “Leasing and Licencing of City-Owned Land”, to incorporate wording from policy to be repealed “Leasing Parkland”. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 352

By-law No. CPOL.-188(b)-256 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-188-440, as amended, being “Real Property Acquisition Policy”, to incorporate changes to legislation. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 353

By-law No. CPOL.-193(c)-257 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-193-445, as amended, being “City of London Community Suite Policy” by deleting and replacing Schedule A. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 354

By-law No. CPOL.-202(b)-258 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-202-454, as amended, being “Discretionary Benefits”, to address the intent of the policy and the new provincial model towards life stabilization. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 355

By-law No. CPOL.-368(a)-259 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-368-372, being “Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy”, to update policy section to ensure policy directive for external loans and refinements to principles to be considered if Council approves external loans. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 356

By-law No. CPOL.-378(a)-260 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.- 378-473, being “Access and Privacy Policy” by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 357

By-law No. CPOL.-383(a)-261 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-383-90, being “Code of Conduct for Members of Council” by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 358

By-law No. CPOL.-396(a)-262 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-396-7, being “Respectful Workplace Policy (Anti-Harassment/ Anti-Discrimination)”, to add clarifying language. (2.6a/13/CSC)

Bill No. 359

By-law No. CPOL.-403-263 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-131-383, as amended, being “Leasing Parkland”, as this Policy has been incorporated into the Policy titled “Leasing and Licensing of City Owned Land”. (2.6b/13/CSC)

Bill No. 360

By-law No. CPOL.-404-264 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-138-390, being “Parkland Accounts”, as the Policy is redundant as the information is contained in other legislation or other policies. (2.6b/13/CSC)

Bill No. 361

By-law No. CPOL.-405-265 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-233-50, as amended, being the Policy titled “Siting of Safe Consumption Facilities and Temporary Overdose Prevention Sites in London”, as the Policy is redundant as the London Plan policies 1099A-1099F are now in force and effect. (2.6b/13/CSC)

Bill No. 362

By-law No. CPOL.-406-266 – A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-132-384, as amended, being the Policy titled “Value of Parkland Dedication”, as the Policy is redundant as the information is contained in the Policy titled “Parkland Dedication Cash in lieu”. (2.6b/13/CSC)

Bill No.363

By-law No. PS-113-21071 – A by-law to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.2a/10/CWC)

Bill No.364

By-law No. PS-113-21072 – A by-law to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.2b/10/CWC)

Bill No. 365

By-law No. PS-113-21073 – A by-law to amend By-law PS-113 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.2c/10/CWC)

Bill No. 366

By-law No. S.-6131-267 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Chesterfield Avenue and Veronica Avenue) (Chief Surveyor - for road widening purposes, registered as ER1362973, pursuant to B.015/19 and in accordance with Z-1)

Bill No. 367

By-law No. S.-6132-268 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Adelaide Street N, south of Ross St)  (Chief Surveyor - for road widening purposes, registered as ER1368539 on April 19, 2021, pursuant to SPA19-063 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 368

By-law No. S.-6133-269 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Sarnia Road, west of Oakcrossing Gate)  (Chief Surveyor - for road widening purposes, registered as ER1102153 that require dedication)

Bill No. 369

By-law No. S.-6134-270 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Wickerson Road and Byron Baseline Road)  (Chief Surveyor – lands that require dedication at the present time)

Bill No. 370

By-law No. S.-6135-271 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Horn Street, south of Beecher Street)  (Chief Surveyor - for road widening purposes registered as ER1373220, pursuant to B.054/19 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 371

By-law No. S.-6136-272 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to High Street, south of Grand Avenue)  (Chief Surveyor - road widening purposes, registered as ER1258435, pursuant to SPA18-063 and in accordance with Z.-1, that require dedication at the present time)

Bill No. 372

By-law No. Z.-1-212947 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from an area of land located at 3343 Morgan Avenue. (2.2/11/PEC)

Bill No. 373

By-law No. Z.-1-212948 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 704 & 706 Boler Road. (2.6/11/PEC)

Bill No. 374

By-law No. Z.-1-212949 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 1284 Sunningdale Road West. (2.11/11/PEC)

Bill No. 375

By-law No. Z.-1-212950 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 50 Southbridge Drive. (2.12/11/PEC)

Bill No. 376

By-law No. Z.-1-212951 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 704, 706 & 720 Boler Road. (2.13/11/PEC)

Bill No. 377

By-law No. Z.-1-212952 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 450 Wharncliffe Road South. (3.1c/11/PEC)

Bill No. 378

By-law No. Z.-1-212953 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 414-418 Old Wonderland Road. (3.5/11/PEC)

Bill No. 379

By-law No. Z.-1-212954 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 400 Southdale Road East. (3.6c/11/PEC)

Bill No. 380

By-law No. Z.-1-212955 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 180 – 186 Commissioners Road West. (3.7b/11/PEC)

Bill No. 381

By-law No. A.-8147-273 – A by-law to authorize and approve a Settlement Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Suncor Energy Inc., for the partial acquisition of property located at 1679 Richmond Street, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement (6.1/13/CSC)

Bill No. 382

By-law No. A.-8148-274 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Julia Cox, John Cox, Sarah Morton, Gregory Morton, Rita Hazelwood, Simon Hazelwood, and Zsofia Sefcsik for the acquisition of the property located at 19 Dingman Drive, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/13/CSC)

Bill No. 383

By-law No. A.-8149-275 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Karen and Eric Auzins for the purchase of land located at 1710 Wilton Grove Road, an area of approximately 64 acres, legally described as being Part of Lot 12 Concession 2; Designated Part 1, 33R9191 Formerly in the Town of Westminster now in the City of London, County of Middlesex Being all of PIN 081990006, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.3/13/CSC)

Bill No. 384

By-law No. A.-8150-276 – A by-law to authorize and approve the Agreement of Purchase and Sale as submitted by Drewlo Holdings Inc. for the sale of City owned surplus lands, described as Part of Roadway, Closed by By-law S-5030-63 as in ER488782, Plan 91(C), London Township, designated as Part 7 on 33R-17289 & Block 60, Plan 33M-443 in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being part of PIN 08146-0786 and all of PIN 08146-0243 in the City of London, County of Middlesex, and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to executed this Agreement. (6.4/13/CSC)

Bill No. 385

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wc)-277 – A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 1047-1055 Dearness Drive. (3.8a/11/PEC)

Bill No. 386

By-law No. Z.-1-212956 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1047-1055 Dearness Drive. (3.8b/11/PEC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Turner

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 6:33 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, 21 minutes)

[7:33] Colleagues, I’ll ask for screens on, please. Are you a good looking crew? I’m missing anyone. We may be, but I’ll ask the clerk to confirm quorum. Through you, your worship, you have quorum. Thanks very much. Welcome to the 11th Meeting of City Council. It’s a virtual meeting held during the COVID-19 emergency.

[8:07] We would invite watchers 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’s website. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-249 extension 2425. Colleagues, I’ll look for any disclosures of the current interest.

[8:49] Seeing none, we have four recognitions and to start I’d like to call on, please, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, worship. I would like to recognize that the city of London this year will be hosting virtually the AMO conference and it’s gonna be starting on Monday for two days, but this is a really exciting time for our city to host the conference, but also to support and pass on all the good things that are happening in our city.

[9:29] And also taking on opportunities to work with the provincial government for funding that’s also needed. So I wanna thank the Councillors that have signed up for the conference. I know we have today almost over a thousand participants and we have by delegations that we have set up to meet with the ministers. But as the virtual conference is going to be going on, we’re also gonna be showcasing a number of the musical events throughout the city and acknowledging all the great arts and music that is in the city.

[10:09] But we will also be showcasing and doing city tours of the Boswick Community Center, RBC Place. In fact, this year, what they are going to be doing is showcasing when we’re at the conference, it’s gonna be like we’re going to be inside the RBC Place. So I think it’s gonna be an exciting time for that. The Greenway wastewater plant as well, there’ll be a study tour there as well as Covenant Market. I wanna take this opportunity though to thank staff, not only the AMO staff, putting on a conference, especially virtually to me, it’s just almost overwhelming.

[10:43] But I wanna thank city staff, the governmental relations department in particular, Nick Steinberg and Adam Thompson. Without them, I don’t know how I would be able to, and their support do the work that I do on the board, representing the city of London. I am honored to do so, but they have been able, especially through COVID and especially through the challenging times that municipalities have had to stay as whole as possible. They’ve been there, I’ve seen it firsthand, they’re supporting me and I personally wanna thank them and all the city staff for being there.

[11:24] So again, just recognizing the AMO conference in the city of London this coming weekend. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Your Worship. Today I wanted to recognize one of my ward seven constituents, Sheila Hogarth spends her days from morning tonight picking up litter and debris along Gainesville, Wonderland, Hyde Park, Fanshawe, and a number of other community streets. Many have seen her as she travels up and down these streets in her motorized chair, meticulously gathering up all of this discarded materials.

[12:01] She does this because she feels it’s her small way of making her community better and taking action to do so. She’s never sought any expected recognition or even thanks for what she does every day. And this isn’t the first time. Before moving to the West End, she had the same daily routine in East London for many years. But then a local resident decided she needed to be recognized. Ashley McLean, who moved to the neighborhood just last year, decided to rally the community through Facebook posts that she made just recently. The response was tremendous and the community is currently organizing a wonderful recognition of this lovely community contributor.

[12:36] In Ashley McLean’s own words, quote, “personally, I’ve never met a lady so caring and passionate about what she does to make our community look absolutely amazing. I had to reach out to her to assure her that so many people see her. We appreciate her and we are so thankful. Everyone needs to meet Sheila, say hi to her, thank her, and tell her how much we appreciate what she does. I wanted to express our sincere thanks to Sheila for her inspiring daily effort to make our community better in her own way. I also want to thank Ashley McLean for choosing not to just pass by, but take the time to recognize Sheila’s work and organize a community to help thank her.

[13:12] Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, yesterday August 9th is recognized in Canada as National Peace Keepers Day. August 9th was chosen to recognize the single greatest day loss of Canadian lives on a peacekeeping mission, which occurred on August 9th, 1974, when a Canadian military transport aircraft was shot down by Syrian missiles during a regular resupply mission in the Middle East, which claims the lives of nine Canadian peace keepers.

[13:47] Over 125,000 Canadian forces members have served in dozens of deployments in over 35 countries as peace keepers, from Korea to Cyprus, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Congo, Sudan and many more. Often observed on the closest Sunday to the official day. This past Sunday, I joined with my friend and member of Parliament for London Fanshawe, Lindsey Mathison, local veterans and the November 11th Association at Remembrance Park, located on Veterans Memorial Parkway and River Road for a service of remembrance in honor of those peace keepers who have fallen in service to our country.

[14:29] Their bravery continues to be reflected in the selfless work of peace keepers, in missions around the globe and today we honor the memory of the approximately 130 Canadian peace keepers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service of peace over the past six and a half decades. And colleagues, I would ask you to just bow your heads for a moment and observe a moment of silence. Thank you.

[15:12] Thank you. Colleagues, I have the honor to present the fourth recognition. It’s been a few days now since the Olympic Games in Tokyo officially came to an end. And yet for Londoners, the memories created over those two weeks will last a lifetime. 14 athletes with ties to London competed in these Olympics. And literally from the very beginning they put the rest of the country and the entire world on notice. One Londoner, Miranda Yim was the flag bearer for the opening ceremonies. Four of our country’s seven gold medals were won by London athletes.

[15:44] Maggie McNeil, Jesse Fleming, Chilina Zadorski, Suzanne Granger and Damien Water. As if that wasn’t enough, Damien, now known as the world’s greatest athlete was our country’s flag bearer for the closing ceremonies. When you put it all together, this kind of success by local athletes on the world’s biggest stage is nothing short of incredible, historic and inspiring. After some of the most trying times in our city’s history, these athletes, all of them brought Londoners together instilling pride, renewed pride in our city. They gave us reason to cheer and they provided individuals and families with memories that will live on forever.

[16:23] We are still the forest city. However, we are also known now from coast to coast as Canada’s Golden City. To their coaches and the families of our Olympians, your commitment to them was the difference. All of our local athletes, including those who did not reach the podium, represented our city and our country with honor, with grace, with determination. We will honor them all in the very near future as part of a community-wide celebration being planned by Tourism London. But for now, I felt it appropriate on behalf of City Council and all residents of the Golden City to express our appreciation for their exceptional efforts in Tokyo.

[17:09] Ladies, I’m not aware of any confidential matters to be considered in public. So I will move to item four, which is Council on closed session. I’ll look for a change in order to move item four and the 10th report of Council on closed session to after stage 13 bylaws for that. I’ll look for a mover, please. Councilor Layman, seconded by Councilor Van Mirbergen, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero.

[17:57] Call you in front of you. The minutes from the meeting held on July 6th, 2021. And I’ll look for a mover and seconder to put it on the floor. Moved by Councilor Palosa, seconded by Councilor Hillier. Thank you. Any discussion? Then let’s call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero.

[18:54] Thank you, colleagues. We have communications. One dealing with the Oxford Wonderland secondary plan. Second to do with 400 Southdale Road East and the third to do with the Medway Valley Heritage Force Environmentally Significant Area. So what I’ll be looking for is a motion to refer those items to the appropriate noted sections of our agenda and for that, I will for motion moved by Councilor Palosa, seconded by Councilor Lewis. Thank you. Let’s call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero.

[19:49] Thank you. There has been given. So I’ll turn to the reports. The first being the 11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. Call on Councilor Homer, please. I haven’t been made aware that anyone would like any of these items pulled separately. So I’m happy to put the whole report from the committee on the floor. We had a good discussion at the committee about a number of these matters.

[20:22] Sorry, I’ll just bear with me a moment to Councillor, I believe that Councillor Squires, one he wants to have voted on separately. Yes, item 8, 4.4, 4.4, thank you. Thank you. 4.4, that’s the, recognizing the impact of hosting the assessment centers at Oak Ridge and Carling Heights. I’ll put everything else on the floor. And I would just draw Council’s attention to the performance report for the Paramedic Service, a Middlesex on a Paramedic Service.

[20:54] You’ll see that was a very difficult year for a lot of organizations, working through the pandemic. And I wanted to commend as I did at community, the work of the chief and the Paramedics who are serving our community, for the work that they did during a very difficult time. You can see the report in front of us actually quite good in terms of their performance, both from a financial perspective and in terms of service to the community, just wanted to recognize that. And then there was an important letter from Lifespin and Mr. La Libertay, near the legal services about some of the issues we’ve been working through at the property standards level.

[21:28] And that was a receive for the letter, but I do think there’s a lot in there for council members to consider. And I think we’ll be dealing with some of those matters at future committee meetings. Any other comments on all items with the exception of 4.4 in the CAHPS report? Do you know what we’ll call the question? Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero.

[22:21] Councillor Elmer. Okay, I’ll put item 4.4, number eight foundation from the committee was brought forward by Councillor Layman, the mayor and myself and support that committee just to get started in the process of talking to the communities and around the Carlin Heights and Oak Ridge centers where we had the assessment centers up and running. And there’s still one still going in Carlin Heights to see what we could do in terms of recreation upgrades to recognize the impact of having hosted those assessment centers for such a long period, especially at the beginning when there’s a lot of traffic and lineups and very heavy usage of that facility.

[23:03] Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak? Councillor Square. I respect the approach and the motion is not one that I share. I’m more in favor of city-wide approach to COVID impacts that benefit the entire city. I think I’ve said that in the past. So not here to prompt any debate. I just want the opportunity to vote contrary. Any other comments? So you know, we will call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to one.

[23:56] Councillor Hummer. Thank you very much. For the 13th report of the corporate services committee, I’ll call on Councillor Casket to present the report, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I would put the entire report on the floor. I have not yet heard from anybody about pulling any items. So let’s ask that question. Does anyone wish any item voted on separately? Councillor Cassidy. And I will move the entire report, Your Worship. Thank you.

[24:29] Comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll make a brief comment on the staff report on the optional small business subclass summary and analysis. First off, I was at the committee. So obviously I support the committee’s recommendation to receive the report and take no action on this. Although it sounds like a nice idea to be able to support small business, there was no funding assigned from this from the province. There were no details on how we would delineate small businesses from others.

[25:02] And because of that, all we would have before us is an option to shift the tax burden for an undefined group drawn with an arbitrary line to other tax classes within the city. And to me, that is not a solution that is viable at this time. And so taking no action on this for a period of time, I think is appropriate. Other cities may pursue it. If they find a way to delineate the small business tax class and find a way to do this efficiently, we can always revisit it down the road. But for now, I see this as a non-starter. And I think the staff report was very thorough.

[25:36] I thank them very much for that. And I think the committee’s made a good recommendation here. Thank you. Any other— Councilor Van Halst. Thank you. I did want to recognize staff for a great deal of work on the Council policy manual review. And also for the 2020 investment report. So we’ve had some changes and strategies due to interest rates, et cetera. And I did have a question through you to staff that came up.

[26:15] If interest rates are really low, then will we get to a point where spending some of the money in the reserves is a better idea? For instance, just advancing some projects. For instance, the warranted sidewalk program or our sidewalks program, just moving some of those things into capital expenditures, since those are going to eventually get more expensive anyway. So I wonder if there’s some savings we had if we did something like that.

[26:50] Thank you. Can we take that to Ms. Barbara? Please. Sure. Thank you. Through the chair. So essentially, the city looks at the capital plan that is projected and submitted an appropriate for the budget. So essentially, we look at the financing strategies, then, to support the existing capital plan. It doesn’t typically work that because we have more investments that we would do more capital work. If the capital work wasn’t approved by council and put through the budget process. Certainly, as interest rates change, you’re going to have some ups and downs.

[27:24] That’s why we’re looking to diversify the strategy so that with the investments that are there for money that is not readily used or needed as part of the capital plan or in our daily operations that we have some greater alternatives to consider to maximize our resources. But certainly, it would be the capital plan and the needs to provide the service delivery that would be the key driver and not the other way around. Councilor? OK. Thank you very much. And again, thanks for that work. And I think a very wise shift in our approach. Thank you.

[27:58] Any other comments or questions with respect to anything on the corporate services report? Seeing none, we’ll just not get in there. Councilor Turner, please go ahead. Very sneaky. Thank you, Your Worship. Just really quickly on the corporate asset management plan. Just wanted to point out the increase in the projected infrastructure gap. I think it’s really important that that’s highlighted. We’ve made some decisions, budgetary decisions, as a council that did not address or walked away from a little bit in terms of the funding that we would be putting into addressing the infrastructure gap, but it’s increased further than the projected at its last report.

[28:43] This is important. We need to be on top of it, and we need to continue to monitor it at every budget cycle. Thank you. Any other comments or questions, colleagues? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Seeing the vote, the motion’s passed. 15 to 0.

[29:14] Councilor Cassidy. That’s my report, Your Worship. Thanks very much. I appreciate the 10th report of the Civic Works Committee. We’ll call on Councilor Ploza. Please do present the report. Thank you, Your Worship. I have not gotten noticed to pull anything for Senate items. And just for Council to note, I’m 2.7. Ended up being to defer to the next committee cycle, as staff is not ready to move forward to report this time. But outside that, I have not had any request to pull anything. Does anyone wish to have any of these items voted on separately? Councilor Ploza?

[29:49] Worship, all items are before you then. Recognizing 2.7, we will hear the next Civic Works cycle for the South London Air Monitoring Network Pilot Project. All the other items on consent were unanimous votes of committee and nothing overly irregular. And it was a efficient meeting. Thank you. Any other comments or questions on the Civic Works Committee report? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed.

[30:42] 15 to 0. Councilor Ploza, that’s it for your Councilor Ploza then. Thank you very much. I will now look through the 11th report of the Planning and Environment Committee, Councilor Parker. The two matters that need to be pulled are 11, 2.1. There was nothing. No recommendation came out of the committee. And item 20, which is 3.6. Councilor Ploza wanted to vote on that separately.

[31:16] Those are the two matters, the rest of it. I haven’t heard anything else. Councilor Turner looks like he wants to pull. Does anyone wish anything voted on separately? Councilor Turner. Thank you, Your Worship. And thank you, Planning Committee Chair. Just with respect to 19 or number 3.5. Just I have some questions about it, but probably best to pull separately just in case. Thank you. Any other items to be dealt with separately? Voted on separately? Councillor Lewis. Oh, sorry.

[31:52] Thank you, Your Worship. I just did want to draw to the chair’s attention item 22, which was 3.8 on the committee agenda. Dearness Drive, it’s my recollection that the committee forwarded that to council for a decision as we were hoping to get an update from staff on the Veterans Land Act implications on that one before. So the committee did not make a recommendation either way on that one. We referred it to this meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Any other items, please? Be voted on separately.

[32:25] Thank you. Over to you, Councillor Square. I put the balance of the items on the floor. Any comments or questions on any of the items not pulled? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote.

[33:42] The motion’s passed. 15 to 0. Councillor Square. The first item to pull is item 11, 2.1, which is the Oxford Wonderland Secondary Plan. The motion approved out of committee. I know there is a proposed motion that’s coming forward from Councillors Lewis and Palosa. So perhaps that’s Mr. Chair. You could have Councillor Lewis present his motion. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, you will see in your council agenda a proposal from Councillor Palosa and myself, recognizing that we have a proposed rapid transit corridor approved for the Wellington Gateway corridor.

[34:26] Our motion is really one vote on order of operations. And it’s our intent that the Oxford and Wonderland Secondary Plan that was brought forward by staff actually be referred into the second part of our proposal, which is for staff to bring forward a future report to us on timing of secondary plans. But I’m going to put the motion on the floor that civic administration be directed to prioritize the development of the secondary plan for the Wellington Gateway corridor. And that staff be directed to report back at a future meeting of PEC regarding the timing of a future secondary plan development that prioritizes the transit village place types identified in the London plan.

[35:09] And in consultation with the clerk, I would just like to add it being noted that the draft terms of reference for the Oxford Wonderland Secondary Plan as outlined in the staff report would be included in the previously mentioned report back at a future date. Thank you. I believe you have Councillor Close’s seconder. Seconder, comments or questions? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So just to continue on before I yield the floor. Colleagues, we have development pressures all over the city. But one of the things that’s really important to me is that we utilize our staff bandwidth and time appropriately.

[35:46] And as I noted in sort of my preamble to the motion, we have an approved rapid transit corridor for the Wellington Gateway. We actually have a development proposal tonight that was deferred to this meeting so that more information could be brought forward to staff. That would fall in that corridor. And that’s the item on Deerness Drive that’s coming up. So there are pressures happening in wards all over the city around development. But I feel it’s important that we have an order of operations that recognizes where we have approved rapid transit because we’ve heard time and time again that these rapid transit corridors will really stimulate growth and development.

[36:25] Well, if that’s the case, then that to me, personally should be our priority for the development of secondary plans. Through you, I have had the opportunity to speak with our staff about this, your worship. And so I know that Mr. Costifis and I had a good conversation about this. I’m sure he or other members of his team would be happy to answer colleagues’ questions. But through you to him, I will just ask very briefly if Mr. Costifis can confirm that shifting the order of operations here is something that staff are able to adjust to.

[37:03] Mr. Costifis? Through your worship, yes. Obviously, we’d like to get all the secondary plans done and we’ll do them as time permits, but shifting the order does not ever see effect our business. We’re simply responding to development pressures, but there are also development pressures down the lines in the gateway as well. So we’re comfortable if this is the direction of council to do the Wellington one first and come back and give you an order of priority with the remaining secondary plans.

[37:39] I’ll leave it at that, thank you. Pastor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m just gonna wrap up and say, obviously all the secondary plans have some values in the neighborhoods where we’re implementing them. They provide some important guidelines, although they’re certainly not carved in stone, but they do provide some important guidelines around how development happens. And I think that they should move forward, but I think order of operations is important and we can only do so many at a time. And so that’s why I’m pleased to put this forward and having councilor Plosas support, obviously, the Wellington gateway impacts her ward significantly.

[38:16] And I’m pretty sure that she might share. I won’t put words into her mouth that certainly her constituents have concerns about development pressures there too. So I’ll leave it at that and look to see what colleagues have to say. Thank you, Councilor Plosas. Thank you, Your Worship. And to colleagues looking for your support on this tonight as others around this horseshoe have had development being a longstanding occurrence in the rewards that you have well-established practices and residents are accustomed to it. It’s not the case for Ward 12 and in South London. We have drastic amounts of sprawl, lots of opportunity for infill.

[38:54] And just wanna make sure that as we move forward with these plans, ‘cause developers gonna apply regardless if we’re ready for it or not. And we’re already seeing that, that residents have a peace of mind, knowing that we have a well thought out plan that as development opportunities come forward, we are making the most of them. Recognizing the city has an infill target around 45%. And we are seeing that 400 Southdale later this evening that we’ll discuss is an infill project. Having not come to committee yet as a proposal for 1200 units within four towers, right at the corner of Wellington and Bradley to support a transit village.

[39:30] That is what we would like to see for development. But the residents around these areas have huge concerns wondering if we actually discuss and thought things out well. And that the areas will be able to support their current needs in future ones as we welcome residents into our neighborhoods. So I just wanna make sure that we have the best practices, most thought out practices in place as these development applications keep coming forward. Every week I seem to be in conversations behind the scenes with developers asking questions about South London and some coming new to the city, which is great.

[40:01] I just really wanna make sure that our order of operation is set as the Wellington Gateway is already approved by Council moving forward and developers have turned their focus to this area that we are set up for success. Thank you, thank you. I have Councilor Hopkins please. Yeah, thank you, worship. And thank you, Councilor Palosa. I hear you loud and clear out in the west part of the city. All those concerns are relevant to the west part. And I supported the recommendation at planning committee.

[40:36] I know no one else did, but I am very supportive of all secondary plans. We know the London plan is gonna call for all these four areas to have secondary plans. So I would like to see the amendment. I know I have a different motion in front of me, but I am glad to hear that we are going to be receiving the secondary plan for the Oxford and Wonderland area. And this is why I think it’s important. It is about planning. And we know the development is out towards the west part of this city.

[41:12] And it is really important as a committee member of PEC that I have some tools in front of me when it comes to balancing the intensification and balancing our policies with the needs of our neighborhoods. And I rely on policies. So my secondary plans, I have are very important as we make decisions moving forward for the city, for the future, not so much now, but as we look into the future, we need to be able to develop.

[41:47] And I am all about putting resources into secondary plans. So I am glad to see that we’re gonna be receiving the Oxford Wonderland plan, but it’s important that all areas of our city are looked at when it comes to inclusionary zoning, when it comes to economic development, supporting our businesses, supporting our neighborhoods, how we develop our neighborhoods. Councilor Palosa just spoke about intensification and the challenges that they are and how we look at that.

[42:19] Secondary plans can help us with that. But the most important thing to me is secondary plan. We’ll do as well as the London plan. It will assist us in having a plan and supporting our neighborhoods and not doing this on-the-fly development, which will result if we don’t have policies and plans in place. And of course, they can all be flexible. I’m challenged many times how a project and an info will happen. And I, again, have to look at our policies, how their transportation is supported.

[42:55] We had nine PPMs at our planning committee. And again, I was really relying on our policies to help assist me in supporting intensification or not. So I’m really interested in hearing other comments from my colleagues. But again, I would like to just get an update on what the motion exactly is. Again, I want to make sure I understand that we are going to be receiving the Oxford Wonderland secondary plan as we move forward with the plan to the south.

[43:31] Thank you with that. I’ll then ask the clerk just to repeat that back. So it’s clear to us, but it should also be, it should be on your computer screen too. But go ahead, clerk, if you would please. Thank you through the chair. Yes, it is available in eScribe. So if you refresh your screen and hit your current item, you should see the motion there. And in addition to what is reflected on the council agenda is the additional it being noted that the draft terms of reference for the Oxford Wonderland secondary plan as outlined in the staff report dated July 26th, 2021 would be included in the aforementioned report back.

[44:19] Thank you. Councillor Hopkins, I didn’t want to cut you off. You’d ask for that as a reference. Anything else you’d like to add? No, I appreciate the clerk’s report back. And again, I’m interested to hear from my colleagues, but I’m glad to support any secondary plan moving forward. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. And I’m glad that something is being brought forward rather than just a rejection of the staff recommendation that was on the planning environment committee agenda.

[45:01] I just have a little bit of caution because I know that staff don’t just pull things out of a hat. They would not have just picked Oxford and Wonderland for no reason. So I trust what Mr. Krausevus has said and I trust that staff see the high priority in both of these areas, but again, staff didn’t just pick Oxford and Wonderland for no reason. The transit village is less to do with rapid transit and everything to do with a coming together of high transit activity, a large commercial node, a high concentration of jobs and residential development as well, including interest in developing more residential units.

[45:55] Staff went ahead really as quickly as they could with the Masonville area, secondary plan, knowing that it was not a leg that went through for funding from the other levels of government, knowing that development of a rapid transit line would not be happening anytime soon on the Richmond leg. But despite that, there is an amazing amount of interest in development there. And in fact, this very city council approved a 15-story apartment building on 230 North Center Road.

[46:30] If you wanna see what a secondary plan does, how it offers protection for existing residential areas, look at the Masonville draft secondary plan. On page 10, it shows the 230 North Center Road site. This is where this city council approved a 15-story apartment building. If the secondary plan had been in place, the maximum height on that site would have been eight stories. And I invite you to knock on any door in the single story townhouses on the south side of North Center Road that are directly across from this new development that hasn’t taken place yet.

[47:07] Ask them if they wish the secondary plan had been in place and they will say yes. The second part of the Masonville area secondary plan is Cadillac Fairview were in preliminary talks with staff and actually brought a development application forward, which has since been put on hold. And they were looking at multiple buildings, three of them, I believe 22 stories in height. So this is what a secondary plan does. It helps through policy, it helps us to guide where that development will take place. Because right now at these transit villages, heights of 22 stories are allowed.

[47:43] So if an application comes through tomorrow at Oxford and Wellington, anywhere in this zone that’s currently zoned this way, they could possibly see a 22-story building go up. Whether it’s something that makes sense in that particular location or not, it’s the zone, it’s allowed. So these secondary plans offer protection because it helps us to guide the development in a more holistic way. I am a big fan of secondary plans. They have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and the City of London has been successful in defending those appeals.

[48:19] So I always will trust the staff when they give us their expert opinion on how they think we should proceed. Having heard from Mr. Cotsufus, I am inclined to support this motion that is on the floor. But this has nothing really to do with rapid transit per se. And it’s more about that combination of transit, commercial activity, residential, and the high demand for increased and intense residential development. It’s about controlling how that development happens.

[48:53] Thank you. Any other comments? Councillor Square. I’ve listened to Councillor Cassidy and Councillor Hopkinsa. They’re absolutely right. That’s the purpose of a secondary plan. That’s why we want to have secondary plans. The unfortunate thing, and I’ll be blunt, that was not what was conveyed to the committee by staff on the last meeting. So I would urge staff to listen to what the Councillors said, what other Councillors said, and take it to heart. Councillor Turner.

[49:31] Thanks, Your Worship. Griefly through you to Mr. Cotsufus. When you described development pressures, what exactly were you talking about? Through Your Worship, it had been identified that there were development pressures that led to the need of a secondary plan at this location first, as opposed to the Wellington and Southdale area. Could you characterize a bit of those demands that we might be seeing from industry and how we might be able to respond to that best?

[50:08] Mr. Cotsufus. - So through Your Worship. So there were, in both locations, actually even in the Walton Gateway area, there are development applications, development interests, I guess, when I speak about development pressure that we just want to stay ahead of the curve on. Councillor Palosa mentioned some of the interests that’s in South. We’ve had interest in the Oxford, Wellington or Wonderland area. York development has some interest and it has an application in as well.

[50:41] So there are, in both areas, I would characterize them. They’re very similar in terms of the, they use the term, reducing the development pressure, development applications, development interests. So that’s why I think we felt initially that the Wonderland Oxford was the first study we would do, the first sector that I would do, but we’re given that the direction council would like to go. And also that there is a lot of interest in the Walton Gateway area.

[51:17] We’re quite comfortable in shifting from the Wonderland Oxford to the Wellington Gateway. Councillor Chen. - Councillor Chen. Thank You Your Worship. Through to Mr. Cotsufus, I appreciate the response. And at this point, there is no direction from, from council as to which one is preferred. There’s the discussion at committee, but it’s being discussed now. The West London development pressures, we had some discussion recently about award boundaries, for example, and the growth in the West End.

[51:52] And we’re probably, as especially in the Northwest, in that corner of the city, seen the largest growth plans happening right now in the largest, I would argue probably those largest pressures. So I am a little curious in terms of those prioritizations, I recognize both need to be done. And we’ll have to do all four at some point. I’m not completely seen the logic at this point of moving away from the Oxford and Wonderland one.

[52:27] In terms of traffic congestion, I would say it’s probably the highest traffic congestion point in the city. In terms of high density, it’s probably one of the highest density places in the city outside of the core. We have significant amounts of towers, especially when you add the proud foot area into there. And we’ve seen a significant amount of commercial development there, which we aren’t seen in the Southwest or in the South at this point right now to the same degree. The development of the Northeast corner of Oxford and Wonderland has gone by leaps and bounds in a very short period of time in terms of an infill parcel.

[53:08] I’m not seen that in the South. So I’m struggling a little bit to see the logic. I do concur that all of them will need to be done. But I guess I look back to you, Mr. Cosifist, through your worship to assuage those concerns that I might have that we’re walking away from the higher intensity and the more rapidly evolving situation on the ground right now. And perhaps accompanied with that is the second question of when would the secondary plan development come forward for Oxford and Wonderland, if not now, if it’s being referred?

[53:48] Mr. Cosifist. Through your worship and my apologies. Yes, you’re quite right. You’re right here. This is on the second matter of council. This is just a discussion at this point. So we would probably be coming back. We’d have to come back to you with a report. I think I’d be safer to say that we will come back to you with a report first with all the timing of the proposed secondary plans because each one does take quite an undertaking. They do take a long time to go through and say minimum year to two years, I guess.

[54:24] So I’d like to probably consult the staff and prepare the report and come back to you with the proposed items. Councillor Chen, you were absolutely right. We did, the reason we did bring back Wonderland and Oxford first was because of the significant growth in the West End, but that’s not to downplay what’s happening at the Wellington Gateway area as well. Thank you, Councillor Chen. I think we appreciate those answers. And given that, I’m not supportive of the shift. I think we should be proceeding with the Oxford and Wonderland first and then we can proceed to the Wellington South.

[55:04] I recognize the desire of Councillor Ploza and Councillor Lewis recognizing that we are proceeding with the South leg of VRT into the Wellington Gateway. However, a secondary plan, a transit village secondary plan is not predicated on rapid transit. It’s predicated on intensification and how we coordinate commercial and residential development and traffic patterns and make sure that adjacencies are done thoughtfully and done in a stepwise manner.

[55:43] So in terms of order of operations, for me, there’s no question that the order of operation that’s needed is Oxford and Wonderland before the South and the incorporation of the terms of reference from Oxford and Wonderland into the South that doesn’t mean that we’re moving on the Oxford and Wonderland at this point to Councillor Hopkins inquiry. It means it’s being set aside for right now and it’s just taking those terms and putting them into the Southern in terms of reference instead.

[56:16] 30 seconds, Councillor. So I’d encourage my colleagues not to support this and to support the staff recommendation instead. Thanks. Thank you and any other comments or questions? Councillor Almond. Thank you through the mayor. I think I know the answer I can anticipate what the answer might be, but I think it’s important to ask, is it possible to do both at the same time or close or together?

[56:48] I know that planning staff have a lot of work on the agenda. They’ve got to take on a lot of projects. These two secondary plans are both important in terms of focusing intensification in the transit villages. And the sooner I think we start talking to the property owners and the residents who live in those areas now, but what exactly they want to see both in the south and in the west, the better. And so I think it’s worth asking about, can we do them sort of overlapping or concurrently rather than one after another? Scottish.

[57:22] Through your ship, although I’d love to see yes, I think it might be a bit challenging. And I’m going to actually maybe ask Mr. Barrett to weigh in ‘cause it is his staff that would be undertaking that work just to make sure there is capacity for that to be done. Good, Mr. Barrett. Thank you. For your worship, just to echo Mr. Koczas, certainly to run them concurrently at this point would be a challenge. We are having some staffing issues also, as was also referenced by Councillor Hopkins, who are nine PPMs for planning applications at the last pack.

[57:59] So there’s a high application load on and we’ve actually been redeploying staff resources to help address those demands. So trying to pick up two of these significant studies concurrently would be a challenge. We do see some light at the end of the tunnel. We do see some brightness on the horizon. And I think that we could probably address or give a better indication of timing and our ability to address these as part of the council’s direction that’s being discussed tonight that’s asking us to come back with some comments on the timing of these reports and these projects.

[58:36] Sure. - Thank you, yeah. So I thought the answer would be ‘cause I know that there’s a short-handed a little bit in planning and a big workload to begin with. A great problem to have, I guess, fell into all of an interest in the city and keeping up with the applications on its own is a lot. I guess maybe through the mayor to Mr. Barrett, when do we think is the earliest reasonable time? We might get a report back about the timing of those other secondary plans.

[59:10] Do we think it’s later like next cycle or do you think it’s a couple of months down the road? Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Chair Worship. We could probably be back on the whole timing issue and also looking at a draft terms of reference for the Wellington gateway in the next quarter, sometime later in the fall after the summer. And certainly as we start to, that would also give us a better opportunity to see what opportunities we see opening on the horizon with respect to resources and where we are on other big things on the work plan.

[59:48] Councilor Omer? Okay, well, based on that, I’m comfortable supporting the motion that’s in front of us. I’m in favor of accelerating the work on the secondary plan in the south. I think the sooner we get going on that, the better. I think there is lots of development potential and potential possibilities in around the transit village place types in the south. And I think we’re kind of behind the eight ball in terms of getting going on that secondary plan now. So anything we can do to accelerate that, I think is good. I’m very keen, similarly to see the Oxford Wonderland secondary plan go ahead right away.

[1:00:26] I was just talking with York developments about their plans for that area last week. And they’re ready to go. They got lots of ideas about what can be built out there. And what I’d like to avoid is dealing with a whole bunch of individual applications over the next couple of years and then starting a secondary plan and finishing it after half the area has already been built out. This is already an area that is very intense. It’s one of the highest intensity residential areas of the entire city at Oxford and Wonderland. And the part that is going to be unlocked, the development potential that will be unlocked just east of there on the East Amlands is tremendous.

[1:01:04] And so it’s already very congested. It’s already very intense. There’s lots of development pressure. And we’re going to have a lot more housing built on the north side of Oxford and the not too distant future. And so I think the secondary plan there is like urgent. It’s not just like needed, it’s urgently needed. And the sooner we talk to the property owners about that and the residents in that area about what they want to see exactly what kind of heights that we’re comfortable with and where and what kind of uses. I think that’s going to be really great for that area. It’s going to help make the growth that’s going to happen one way or the other much more successful. Then if we wait, if we wait too long, we’re going to really miss the opportunity.

[1:01:39] We’ll be coming in for a secondary plan after everything’s already built. And if people are going to look at it, so the kind of funny look. So I’m keen to see them both happen. And if it’s a matter of a couple of months to get a report back, get going on the South one. I’m supportive of that. Thank you. Councillor Ann Holst. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m thankful for and inclined to support the motion and the next cycle I was actually considering coming forth and asking staff to take a look at the gateway because there’s special opportunities there in light of the fact that we own now so much of the property.

[1:02:19] Having bought up much of the Wellington Road already and we’re pursuing more purchases there. That gives us some opportunities. And in terms of perhaps affordable housing, maybe an extension of the Thames Valley Parkway. But I think there’s some interesting possibilities that were there, be nice to be looking at those too. I think a secondary plan would address some of those things. So I’m happy to see that go forward.

[1:02:54] Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Your Worship. So I want to echo what Councillor Cassidy said. And I probably echo what she said because obviously one of the secondary plans that has been worked on already is shared by our two wards. And it has been advantageous for us to work with the community over a couple of years. And these plans do take time. The West plan and the draft terms of reference were scheduled to come back for consideration and final decision for the next council in Q1, 2023. So they do take time.

[1:03:28] They do take a lot of community engagement. But I concur with what Councillor Cassidy said and that is through that community engagement, really one of the key issues that arises is development and how that development can be organized within the existing space, particularly when you have single family homes abutting and near the area. When I look at the, what I’m going to say first actually is, I’m not surprised Councillor Palosa has written the letter in conjunction with Councillor Lewis. I’d be wanting a secondary plan too if I represented the south end of the city as well.

[1:04:04] It has the potential to have a significant amount of development there. I’m not surprised the council wants to engage in the secondary planning process and try to get that organized in a way in conjunction with the community because as Councillor Cassidy said, we had a few headaches and combative situations with community partners up there who wanted to grow the city and those who wanted to ensure that the growth was organized in a way that they could accept. I think we’re landing in a good spot on the north plan at Masonville. And I’m supportive of secondary plans in all of the different corners of the city that they’re needed, including the west.

[1:04:45] That being said, I do support the council’s desire to both shift this and have staff report back on the order of operations for the remaining secondary plans and what that will look like. When I look at the west, it is a very intense and densely populated area within the planning construct already. And there isn’t a lot of land left for increased intensification unless you take down some of the existing increased density. There are certainly areas to develop, absolutely 100%. But the York property and others where you’re existing on, or potentially building on existing parking lots is not gonna have the same sort of conflicts that I think Councillor Cassidy and I faced where it’s immediately abutting neighborhoods.

[1:05:29] So I am interested to hear what Councillor Layman says as well. It seems to me that it’s his ward that has the properties that abut the single family density. But I hear what Councillor Palose is saying but her desire to have this. Frankly, I think we’re gonna end up doing all of them. And I think we’re gonna have to do all of them as quick as we can. I understand the staff resource restraint question. And I know that we can only pace it as a certain way. And I also need to know we have to be careful and cautious and considerate of the public engagement. The feedback we got in the most recent draft of the Mesaville secondary plan, I think, was very positive.

[1:06:06] And that is because of the level of engagement the staff had the opportunity to do with that community. So we’re gonna have to get started on a bunch of them. We’re gonna have to be conscious of staff’s resources and their capacity to move forward. But I support the Councillor’s option because it allows all of them to proceed at some point. And I see the staff is not immediately and strongly in opposition of proceeding with the South first. I think both could have happened. The order could be one way or the other.

[1:06:39] There’s probably strong arguments for both ways. And I’m happy to proceed this way. But I am interested in hearing what Councillor Layman says as well. Well, then let’s ask Councillor Layman. Thank you. I think what has bubbled to the surface here is the importance of secondary plans. And I absolutely think that that is key to planning development. Important areas in our city, which of course the Oxford and Wonderland is one of them. As it was mentioned, it is the busiest intersection right now.

[1:07:16] There’s been a lot of development in the West, but especially in the Northwest. And this is precisely why I think we need to be very clear in the terms of reference for the secondary plan to come forward for, to have a good, honest debate and discussion with residents and Councillors and all those interested parties, developers, et cetera. You know, in the London plan, Transit Village is directly referred to BRT, which this council did not approve that West Lake.

[1:07:52] So I think terms of reference needs to be adjusted. This will give time for staff to make those adjustments. And also to recognize other things. The population growth in the Northwest has been tremendous over the last few years and will continue to be so. And I want to remind council that the North-South along Wonderland is becoming more important as that’s the last crossing of the river before we get to Byron.

[1:08:24] So I think in that discussion of the secondary plan that has to be acknowledged as well. You know, we’re about to undertake one of the biggest construction projects in London on the Wellington Gateway. I think it’s crucial that we have a secondary plan in place to proceed expeditiously on that and with the development that’s sure to follow from which I hear transit supporters talk about a lot, we will be in a good place to properly see that project be successful, which I’m looking forward to.

[1:08:59] That’s why I supported that road of transit. And then as we look at the other areas of the city, I think it’s good that council looks at priorities of where we need to go. Of course, I will be pushing for a secondary plan priority for the West End as well. ‘Cause while I’ve heard tonight, I agree with there’s a lot of, it’s an important area of town where there is potential to develop, but that’s coming forward. So I’m gonna support this motion. I encourage my colleagues too as well.

[1:09:33] Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Dean Nunn will call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to one.

[1:10:08] Thank you, Councillor SRI, 19, 3.5, 414 to 14 old Wonderland Road. I think Councillor Turner wanted to ask some questions with regards to that. Councillor Turner, we’d like to ask some questions. I’d love to ask some questions, Your Worship. Thank you, it’s for you. Thanks for the opportunity. This is an application in Ward 11, and it’s an infill development. I’ve had to number conversations with the residents trying to identify what concerns are.

[1:10:42] Sounds like my apologies for not being able to attend the meeting. I was on vacation in an area without internet access, otherwise I would have been there for sure. But it seems like the neighborhood residents were able to articulate some of the concerns and that they were captured in items to be referred through a site plan to the site plan authority. But my question, though, was the choice of the subclass within the zone. The zone itself seems appropriate to put towns and stacked towns within the area, but the density and intensification in the zoning by-law identifies that the subclass in the zone is reserved for the highest order of neighborhoods where in core development along major corridors and things like that.

[1:11:43] And this doesn’t seem quite consistent with that. So perhaps through Your Worship, why was that zone subclass chosen rather than a lower density one within the zone? Mr. Cotsmith, do you want to direct that? I think I’m going to ask Mr. Barrett to follow the specifics of the file. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m just trying to pull up the zoning by-law now. Off the top, I can’t answer. That’s a pretty technical.

[1:12:16] My sense is that probably because it provided for both of the forms of housing, the towns and the stacked towns, that would be my first cut. And I’m trying to sort of parse the zoning by-law now. If there’s another question that somebody else, or that you’ve got and I can try to think about this one. Let’s stay with Councillor Turner for the moment. Go ahead, please. Thanks, my apologies. I would have it up for you for chapter and verse, but I’m running off of one computer in one screen today.

[1:12:49] So I’m a little limited. The property itself, I think the concerns are more ones of adjacency. They’re the ones we typically hear when we see infill development within neighborhoods. I’ve chatted with the residents and I’ve identified that there are a couple other condo developments in close proximity on teapal terrace that are similar in nature. But the question of lot lines and setbacks from those lot lines are the same ones that we’ve heard up on one bench, a park road or other places in the city.

[1:13:28] And I think the question is appropriate to what level of density and intensification. This isn’t a high, high density, but to go for the highest density opportunity within the zone was one that popped out at me when I was reading the zoning by-law and seemed to kind of challenge and be a little bit inconsistent with what our zoning by-law had indicated for that subclass. So was that just trying to give Mr. Barrett buying time to look for his information or did you have a question in there, sir?

[1:14:06] Well, no, I was kind of like the draw it out to you, since I’m not sure if I was successful in that though. Mr. Barrett, does that give you sufficient time? Still scrolling your worship, but my sense is again, and I’m looking at this within the R5 zone variations, the R5-7 does provide for the highest level of intensity as the counselor has indicated. The whole R5 family provides for the town and the stack town.

[1:14:42] So that would be the reason for it. For the R5-7 itself, again, I apologize, I’m gonna have to go back and do a little bit more parsing through the report, but the family is the reason because it allows for both of those forms, but for the R5-7 as the recommended zone that provides for the 60 units per hectare, I’m gonna have to apologize, continue to do a bit of digging. Does it turn any other comments? Perhaps just a general comment, one of the other places that we find ourselves nosing up against the neighborhoods and concerns, or when we do these, we increase the intensity further.

[1:15:28] And on top of that, we grant special provisions. So we shorten the side yard and the rear yard setbacks. And part of our zoning by-law and the way it’s constructed is to provide adequate separation between adjacent properties. And so when we not only go to the highest density within the class, but then on top of it, we grant special conditions on setbacks. That ends up creating a bit of a, I think we’ve granted the highest density already in recognition that there’s the ability to put more density on there, but then we go one step further.

[1:16:15] And I guess perhaps my question through your worship is, why do we do that not just to say, okay, you’ve got the density that you’re looking for, and let’s abide by the general requirements of the zoning. Mr. Barrett. Thank you. Through your worship, with respect to the setback, the special provisions on the setbacks, as it relates to this site, there are changes in topography, there are changes in elevation between the way that these units would interact with the existing units.

[1:16:56] And so one of the side yard relief is from six meters to three meters. And in that instance, it was seems appropriate. The other relief that was sought, the other special provision is the setback from the open space limit. And it’s my understanding that the open space limit that was done was done in consultation with the city’s ecologist. And there was satisfaction with respect to how that limit was described. And then the setbacks from the structures to that limit. So with respect to that one, there wasn’t a concern. The councilor is correct, when these provisions come in, they do provide for a level of intensity that is greater than it is contemplated by the day zone.

[1:17:44] But again, these special provisions relate to the decks and not the structures themselves. And in many instances, when we’ve got these forms of development, particularly where there’s topographical change, there is the desire to have the decks and the decks are included for the purpose of zoning, the same as the structure. And that’s what these special provisions relate to. So these setbacks, in fact, aren’t increasing the intensity, they’re dealing with the decks and the encroachment of the decks into those yards. With respect to the overall density again, and I apologize, I didn’t have the heads up on this one to be able to try to parse this, but again, it’s my sense that the development that has proposed the way that it is configured on the site, the separation from the adjacent units and recognize that in fact there are undeveloped lands to the west, to the south is another cluster development that the intensity that was provided for with this increase, with the R57 as the base zone will seem to be appropriate in this instance, with respect to the forms of development and the configuration of the site.

[1:19:09] Thank you, anything else, Council Chair? Yeah, thanks, my apologies to Mr. Barrott, I spent a busy couple of weeks, so I haven’t been able to hop in front and get some information out to folks beforehand, just pulling up the information on the zone there. It just disappeared on me, there we go. It’s right at section nine, it’s 9.1, general purpose of the R57, I just managed to pull it up at the same time, so it’s not at the bottom, it’s right at the top.

[1:19:45] It, the state’s density provisions range from 25 units per hectare, designed to accommodate town housing development adjacent to lower density areas, which I would describe this to 60 units per hectare for inner city areas and locations near major activity centers. So, I don’t know if you’d characterize this location as inner city areas and locations near major activity centers. I think that’s the crux of my concern with what’s identified here versus designated to accommodate the town housing development adjacent to lower density areas, which this seems more descriptive of.

[1:20:25] Perhaps that might be helpful to Mr. Barrott through you, Rasha. Mr. Barrott, is that helpful? It is, and I thank the Council for that reference. This is something that will be addressed when we go through the rethinking zoning project. The general purpose intent, I think one must understand, for these own variations, are written to reflect the policy basis of the 1989 Official Plan, because that’s what this zoning implements.

[1:20:58] And I know that Councillor Lewis has expressed concern for some of the families of zone variations that have been identified and recommended in recent planning reports for intensification, where we have used zone variations that are appropriate in implementing land and plan policies and appropriate for the application that’s brought before you, but are using language in the preambles that speaks to the policy basis of the ‘89 plan.

[1:21:37] And that is part of something that we will be looking at. And I know that I’ve had this conversation with Councillor Councillor Lewis, because he does raise it a number of times and appropriately so when he says, but this is what this zone says, this is where this is supposed to be used. And that is because these are making references back to the ‘89 plan and the policy rationale around those. So the Councillor is correct, that is what that narrative says, but we have to work with the regulations of the zone. And that is what we’re applying in this instance, but I appreciate the Councillor’s comment.

[1:22:16] And that is something we are looking to address to the zoning project. Thank you, Councillor Turner, 30 seconds, if you’d like. I’m good, thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, please. Thank you, your worship and thank you to the ward Councillor. I so much appreciated your questions because that was a concern I had at planning committee. I didn’t support the application. I still think that high order of density is a concern, as well as this development being to me in the heart of it. If you have gone down and seen the side, it is in that middle and infills are challenging.

[1:22:56] I think as a ward Councillor that has a number, how do you balance? And I need to obviously see the policies, but why did we go to that high order? I thought the questions and staff’s response where we’re kind of stuck in the middle and I still wasn’t convinced. I do think if this was on an arterial road, it would be a different conversation for me as it would allow for that high order of transportation. And I again, I’m not convinced right now to change my vote.

[1:23:33] I will not be supporting the application, but encouraging the community to be part of the process as it goes forward to the site plan. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. Thank you. I want to thank the Councilor Turner for raising us. It’s been my mind lately as we look to increase intensification obviously to address our housing situation that we’re in right now. I see the danger there of developers buying up some houses in a neighborhood and putting up a structure that dramatically alters that neighborhood.

[1:24:14] So I’m going to be talking to staff and exploring what are the protections that we have in place for this. But I hear what, you know, Councillor Hopkins is saying and Councillor Turner is saying and I’m inclined right now not to support the specific request. Councillor Cashi. Thank you, Your Worship. And I think Councillor Choir is Councillor Choir.

[1:24:48] Councillor Turner is singing from my song book. I’m thinking of being in the choir. This is, as Councillor Hopkins says, she and I have gone through a lot of infill development applications in our respective wards over the last seven years. So it is the frustration, especially when we have residents that do their homework and really delve into the zoning bylaw and learn what it says and then present that to committee and council as rationale for maybe not supporting an infill development application.

[1:25:28] It is very frustrating and I recognize one of the responses from staff at a public participation meeting not too long ago was that we’re dealing with an antiquated zoning bylaw. That really didn’t sit well with residents because what else are they supposed to do? They’re doing their homework. And the feeling from residents like that that work hard to try to meet council and staff where we are, meet us with our policies and work within our policies and see how they can make that work for their neighborhood.

[1:26:08] And it’s very frustrating for them to hear that. It’s like, you know, working on quicksand when the ground is always changing for them, how do they work within our policies if the policies change constantly? And that idea of fine, I went through a development in the R5 dash, I think it was R5-8 that staff recommended and that passed at council and that was frustrating because again, all of the rules that were written out about what R5-8 means and where it should take place and that sort of thing.

[1:26:44] And then again, to have the special provisions where the project, the development footprint is expanded so that it becomes closer and closer. And, you know, our policies say when it comes to infill that it should not, it should not intrude on the neighboring adjacent sites. And yet when we allow for those lower setbacks, it creates the fear that it will infringe on the enjoyment of their personal amenity space, things like that.

[1:27:19] So I’m hoping when we do the rethink zoning process, I hope when we go through that, that we don’t just throw out everything and that we do really take a thoughtful approach about what these infill projects mean to surrounding neighborhoods. I don’t personally agree that the sky’s falling every time there is an infill project, but I do think we have to try our very best to make the developers put something in place that will be complementary to the neighborhood that will not cause too much intrusion.

[1:27:58] Looking at this site here, seeing the residences all around it, it’s actually ripe for an infill development, absolutely. I think we have to do a better job of pushing back on the applicants, pushing back and saying, this is the zoning by-law. This is what you have to work with and not necessarily offer special provisions here, there and the other place, but say, this is our zoning by-law and you must work with that. I think that’s the place where we need to go. Thank you, any other comments or questions?

[1:28:39] Dean Nunn, we’ll call the question. Councillor Caiabaga, Councillor Caiabaga, posing the vote, the motion is passed eight to six.

[1:30:06] Thank you, Councillor Square. Next item is 3.6, 400 Southdale Road East. I think Councillor Close wanted to pull this because it’s in her ward and she wanted to speak to it and vote possibly contrary to the committee. Councillor Close. Thank you, Your Worship. And I did have this one pulled as the word Councillor as residents are not in favor of it and I will need to vote no as their word Councillor. We’re back to what we discussed earlier that South London hasn’t seen this kind of development and residents have many concerns as this process is new to many of them in the South end.

[1:30:45] Some of their concerns encompassed schools, children walking safely to school, which is in our purview and I’m happy to work with school board trustees to address those. Other ones such as frosted balconies, parking, street enforcement and traffic concerns at intersections will be addressed by staff. And I think the committee for adding on a holding provision, recognizing many of these concerns will be addressed through site plan. This application had a donation of four units to the city’s housing stock, which would be of assistance as residents are mindful of the housing needs within the city.

[1:31:25] So as word Councillor, I will need to vote no on this. And that’s my comments, Mr. Chair. Thank you, other comments or questions? Dean Nunn, we will call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed, 13 to 1.

[1:32:32] Last item to be pulled as item 22, 3.8, 1047 to 1055 during this drive. No decision was made on this matter was put over to for council to make decision after receiving legal advice on the Veterans Land Act. I would suggest that that advice should be given in camera. Third, could you just comment about the appropriateness within camera?

[1:33:08] We will ultimately make that decision, but what would your advice be? Your worship, I’m content to provide advice in public session or in camera as the council wishes. The question is fairly straightforward and relatively easy to answer. Councillor Squire? I’m fine with Mr. Carve then giving the advice in public session. I won’t bring a motion to go into private and to in camera. Okay, Councillor Squire, we’re back in your hands then. Mr. Carke could give the advice that was requested by the committee as to whether the Veterans Land Act has any impact on the development of this property.

[1:33:52] Mr. Carke? Thank you, Your Worship. The simple answer is that the Veterans Land Act is not an impediment to zoning. The council is able to zone the land as it sees fit. There is a regulation under the Veterans Land Act that clarifies the application of the act and regulations in face of zoning. And what it says is that the laws of the province or the municipality as it may be apply to land in a veteran subdivision except to the extent that these laws conflict with the Veterans Land Act and its regulations.

[1:34:36] I have no reason to believe that this would be the case. Certainly when veterans subdivisions were established many decades ago, there were restrictions that would have applied until the amount that was owing to the federal government was repaid. It seems unlikely that any of those restrictions would apply today, but even if they do, those restrictions apply to the owners of the land and do not impair the zoning. So somebody who wishes to develop or wishes to assemble properties will have to deal with this issue, but it is not a present concern of the council.

[1:35:17] Thank you, I’ll take it then back to the chair. That was the advice to us that by the committee and now that we’ve received it, I’m happy to put the matter on the floor. So you’re putting the staff recommendation then on the floor, Richard? I am happy to do that. Do you have a seconder, Councillor Hopkins? Thank you, comments or questions? Councillor Hiller. Thank you very much. This is another one of those that we all have, we all face, I have 95% of the neighborhood saying no, but it does check off all the boxes again on the London plan.

[1:35:57] My issue is the neighborhood would probably be okay with the four stories proposed in London plan, but once we include the ownership, it changes it to six stories and it changes the neighborhood dramatically. Now I cannot support this myself and in a future planning meeting, I will be asking staff to create some sort of a formula that we can use as a metric to measure our rentals and our own properties that are being used for affordable. So we know we’re getting a deal ‘cause on this property, we are getting 40 units with only a 15% reduction. And on the one just before this, which was an own property, we’re getting a donation of four full units.

[1:36:32] So I won’t be voting for this, for this, sorry, but I hope we can go forward and create a formula so we can actually have something to measure these projects against. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hiller. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you Your Worship. I did was happy to support the application at committee and I’ll be doing so. So this is where infill should happen, arterial roads. There is affordable housing. There is a transitional component to this.

[1:37:07] I know I heard there was a lot of residents coming out to the public participation meeting, but the fact of the matter is, this is where intensification should and can happen. So very supportive of this going forward. Thank you, Councillor Turner. Thanks Your Worship. I recognize the concerns of the word Councillor. I’m glad he has the same concerns about ensuring that we get the best value for monosene as possible. It was the issue that I raised when we took a look at the Bankers Road development and was the reason I voted against it in that circumstance.

[1:37:47] In this case, I think the monosene is probably appropriate. It’s a small development. So the opportunities are limited as compared to a larger development to achieve those monosene and achieve deep contributions into the public good here. The question I had actually through your worship is just, if I might, I guess I’m a little perplexed as how the Veterans Land Act question came into play here. And I wasn’t at the committee, so I don’t quite have the background on why that was even a concern.

[1:38:26] This is the first time in seven years that I’ve ever heard that come up. All I can, well, I’ll start with that, Councillor Turner. I know that there was discussion around it, which is why it was referred for reference in terms of whether the Veterans Land Act did apply. And there was some dialogue that took place in the committee where they came up. I’m not sure if any committee member recalls or wants to speak to that. But I know I did, when I heard that as a reference, I thought it was appropriate that we acknowledge and verify that this had no impact.

[1:39:03] So that’s, I can tell you the process by which it was referred, but the actual specific of how we came up with the issue of the Veterans Land Act, just I don’t recall right at this moment. But if anyone else from committee wants to, Councillor Squire, go ahead. It was raised by at least one of the Councillors on the committee, why they raised it. I can’t say, I don’t know why. But at that point, legal was in the same position where they hadn’t considered it as an issue, so they didn’t have an answer at that time. So I think it was out of an abundance of caution that the committee agreed to get that legal advice at council and make a decision today.

[1:39:42] So I think that’s probably the appropriate legal and correct term out of an abundance of caution. But I think that was, I think that’s an accurate statement. Any other comments, Councillor Turner? Thank you. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions? Seeing no more, call the question. Posing the vote, the motion’s passed, 13 to one.

[1:40:30] Councillor Squire. That’s the committee report. The colleagues will now turn to 8.5, 11 to 14. This is a strategic priorities and policy committee. I’ll call the Deputy Mayor Morgan, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I do know that one colleague would like number seven, which is 5.1, consideration of vaccine mandates pulled the vote on separately. I’d like to see if there’s anyone else who would like something voted on separately. Does anyone wish to have any of the items voted on separately beyond 5.1?

[1:41:08] Deputy Mayor. And I’ll be happy to put all of the items with the exception of number seven on the Council agenda, 5.1 on the committee agenda on the floor for consideration. I have a comment on one of them, but I’ll see if there are other committee comments first. Other comments or questions on all but 5.1? Deputy Mayor. Yes, my comment is on the letter that the Mayor and I are routing committee supported on regional transportation and mobility across Southwestern Ontario and the idea of regional transportation hub.

[1:41:46] I had mentioned during the committee debates that there was interest from some of our regional colleagues on county councils. And I wanted to update council and let you know that even though it’s for us tonight, Deputy Mayor Elliot took a motion of support for this idea to her council and Thames Centre and that passed unanimously. As part of the discussion, they have micro transit that comes in and out of London. They’re very interested in seeing how that can integrate with the regional transit hub system and provide access and mobility to many of the rural communities that surround London.

[1:42:20] And so this is certainly an issue that is not only top of mind for the city, but also top of mind for our regional councilors in the area as well. I wanted to add that context for councilors. Thank you. Any other comments or questions on all but 5.1? Dean Omel called the question. Councillor Hillier.

[1:43:20] How about yes, it’s frozen, sorry. Councillor Caiabaga. Seeing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero. Deputy Mayor. 5.1 from the committee report is an action that council committee took with respect to a piece of correspondence from Councillor Van Holst.

[1:43:55] The action was that the correspondence be received and no further action be taken. I’ll put that on the floor. Any comments or questions? Councillor Turner. Thanks, Your Worship. So for a bit of time, I’ve had to recuse myself from any discussion about this matter. And I no longer work for the Middlesex London Health Unit. So the gloves are off. I’ve spent the last 18 months fighting COVID and I have heard comments that have come forward and council that have disturbed me quite a bit.

[1:44:32] The threat that COVID-19 poses to our population is significant. And the role of our council and government and all the public officials that are involved with the COVID-19 response is to make sure that there’s appropriate response and safety and measures to be taken to safeguard the public health. And I think it’s appropriate for us to have questions when they arise, but it’s not appropriate for us to bring forward disinformation, information that’s not accurate, that’s not true.

[1:45:15] And this is where I have concerns because in the motion itself here, it talks about and it alludes to some things, those concerned about long-term safety despite its wide acceptance and RNA technology has a very short clinical history. I’ll tell you, I had to go and look for some documents in my basement recently. I was a genetic student in the ’90s. And from 25 years ago, I found class notes that were talking about all the different types of vaccines that existed, all the ways that they acted.

[1:45:48] And at that time, DNA vaccines were cutting edge. I was 25 years ago. 25 years ago, DNA vaccines were cutting edge. We are now 25 years later. mRNA vaccines and DNA vaccines. You don’t see them in very common use in the routine vaccinations, but they’re out there. They’ve been tried and they’ve been tested. The discussion in this motion that talks about a control group, effective long-term evaluation of vaccine efficacy and side effects.

[1:46:25] The approval given by Health Canada to the COVID-19 vaccines is one of the most robust review processes in the world. We have one of the safest vaccine regimes globally. In the US, they provided emergency approval. Health Canada approved and provided full approval to the vaccines. So when these items come forward in a public forum, such as a municipal council discussion, what it does is only to sort of doubt to those because their leaders are questioning the efficacy and the appropriateness of the program.

[1:47:04] There’s a very rigorous and robust discussion that happens in the scientific community. Not all of them will agree, but the overwhelming majority of scientists who have evaluated these vaccines and in the programs are in lockstep with each other, that this is the appropriate course of action. Their significant evidence is overwhelmingly consensus. And on top of that, there’s been an incredible demonstration of efficacy. We don’t see that typically with vaccines in the same way. I mean, the flu vaccine doesn’t have close to the same efficacy as this COVID vaccine.

[1:47:44] So perhaps I’m a little bit worked up about this because I’ve spent the past six months of my life trying to make sure that we can get as many people vaccinated as possible so that we can put this to bed because the council brought forward a similar motion with concerns about public health restrictions. Those public health restrictions need to be in place if we don’t have a population immunity that firewalls further infections. So we’ve really got two paths.

[1:48:18] We can go with vaccination or we can continue public health restrictions or some combination thereof, but we can’t have none. And that seems to be the routine assertion that I’ve heard from a few of these motions so far. So I have concerns about it, I’ve been quiet about it for some time, but now that I have the opportunity to speak, I thought I’d take that opportunity. So I appreciate the opportunity to do so. Thank you very much. I have Councilor Van Holsh and then Councilor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. And allow me to offer my congratulations to Councilor Turner for a new position and say I’m actually thrilled that he’s able to participate in these kinds of discussions because he brings a great deal of experience there.

[1:49:04] I’m gonna make a few comments. The first thing to note is that it seems there’s been a move away from mandates towards passports, but my concerns still apply. So I’ll continue with the comments. There’s no sport for the motion, but I also didn’t give much context and there was no examples of questions for the committee to consider. So I’m gonna provide those to see if it makes difference. First, my context, I tend to parse our experience of COVID out into various layers is what actually happening physically. There’s how much we are able to understand and accurately observe how that gets interpreted and reported and then there’s our responses.

[1:49:46] And in some instances, since there’s a layer of hypervigilance that draws our attention away from what could be important future concerns. So I see a risk of taking actions that we could come to regret beyond the context of a pandemic. So that was the reason for my request. Here’s four questions I think they consider. One, are there legitimate reasons not to get the mRNA vaccine? For instance, I know people have already have trouble with heart inflammation and they’re concerned about their body producing spike proteins.

[1:50:26] So to what lengths can we demand compliance when the vaccines seem to have a limited effectiveness that doesn’t prevent you from catching, transmitting or getting sick from COVID? I have friends who’ve expressed disappointment that they’re with the vaccine because it only prevents the most serious outcomes which were remote possibilities for them anyway. So other private mandates in the city have limited access to housing, employment, recreational activities.

[1:50:58] So what would be the reasonable in light of that efficacy? Now, decisions could be provincial but sometimes they leave things in our hands. So what would the implications of those be? And then finally, how do we implement actions that are helpful but don’t seem discriminatory? And there’s certainly ways to do so. So in conclusion, I thought it would be worthwhile giving the committee a chance to consider the items in advance of potential debates and actions.

[1:51:34] So that’s why I’m voting against the take no action part. Thanks for asking, Cassidy. Audio, please. Thank you, Your Worship and my apologies. So I have voted against the committee emotion simply because I thought that we didn’t need to do the take no action part. And I also thought we don’t know what’s happening. This vaccine or this pandemic has continually shifted.

[1:52:15] The virus continues to mutate and perhaps at some point there may be a time when we do want to refer something to one of our advisory committees. I’ve had since time to reflect and I realize if that does happen, then this council would have no problem reversing its decision when reconsidering that and referring this to an advisory committee. So I’m absolutely in favor of supporting the committee recommendation at this point. I also share Councillor van Holle’s glee at having Councillor Turner able to comment on all of these matters.

[1:52:57] I’ve worked with Councillor Turner in his role at the Middlesex London Health Unit for the past many years. But over the course of the pandemic, as chair of the board, I’ve really relied on Councillor Turner in that role. Sorry, that was my sister’s crickets. So his expertise, his wisdom has been invaluable. And as the Board of Health, we’ve been dealing with this since our board meeting in January of 2020. We knew this was coming.

[1:53:30] We, you know, we were getting regular updates from Dr. Mackie and staff at the Health Unit, including Councillor Turner. And so I’ve seen and witnessed and learned so much over the course of this time period. And I share the Councillor Turner’s and I know you yourself, Mr. Mayor, I see you on the media updates and I see the reports following those updates and you’re urging of people in the community if they are able to get the vaccine.

[1:54:04] And I share your urgency or sense of urgency. I have a sister that’s just still going through cancer treatments who initially was unable to. So there are people that are unable to get the vaccine, absolutely for sure. My sister was unable. She had an allergic reaction to one of the ingredients that was in her chemotherapy. That is also in the mRNA vaccine. And she was just recently given the green light and got her first shot of vaccine. So she’s the last one in my family, 12 and up who, and that’s many, many, many people, dozens of people.

[1:54:40] The last one that’s been able to get her first shot of this vaccine, everybody else is double-backs. And I’m very, very pleased with that. I also know in my own cancer treatment, four, nine years ago, that there was something similar. The kind of cancer that I had was seen as something very severe was seen as something that had a greater likelihood of killing you because of technology, similar kind of thing to this idea of the spike protein that’s in the vaccines. In my cancer drugs that I took, it was blocking these receptors.

[1:55:17] And it conveyed to me like a key and a keyhole. So same idea. The drugs I took blocked the keyhole on my cancer receptors and so that the cancer could not grow in my body. So I see this mRNA technology as something very similar. And as Councilor Turner says, it’s been decades in use in cancer treatment and has saved countless lives, including my own. So I am comfortable, as I said, to support the committee recommendation at this point. I think we can take no action.

[1:55:50] And again, if at some point we need to refer something about this to an advisory committee, I know that Council will have no problem doing a vote of reconsideration. Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you. Unless there are any other comments, we will call the question. But any other comments? Seeing no more call the question. Councillor Silly, closing the vote. The motion’s passed 14 to 1.

[1:56:57] Thank you, colleagues, matters, known queries of which I’ve been made aware, nor emergent motions. So with that, let’s go to the bylaws, which are bills 312-380 inclusive and added bills 385 and 86. I’ll look for a motion to approve. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Van Mirbergen. We’ll call the question. Sorry, sorry. I see several people raising their hands. Let’s start with Councillor Cassidy, since you seem to be the most the first.

[1:57:34] I think I just waved really hard. So I think it’s the same as what the other Councillors are looking at. It’s bill number 378 if I could vote on that separately. Let’s just confirm bill 370. Is that— No, 378. I get 378. Is that the vote that Councillors Turner and Hopkins are the by-law that they’re interested in? I see a yes from Councillor Turner, Councillor Hopkins. I see three yeses.

[1:58:08] All right, so with the exception of bill 378, let’s call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to 0.

[1:59:58] We’re moving on second reading of bills 312-380, including bills 385 and 386. With the exclusion of bill 378, do I have a mover? I have Councillor Helmer, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Comments or questions, colleagues? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to 0.

[2:00:55] Thank you, no. Colleagues for third reading, 12-380, inclusive, and added bills 385 and 386. With the exclusion of bill 378, I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor Helmer, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Thank you. We’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to 0. Thank you very much, no colleagues.

[2:01:48] So with respect to the eight and for the benefit of colleagues, that has to do with the old Wonderland Road project. So with that, I’ll look for a mover and seconder of introduction first reading of bill 378, moved by Councillor Helmer, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Thank you. We’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed nine to six.

[2:02:44] We’re in second reading of bill 378, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you. Any comments or questions? Call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed nine to six.

[2:03:29] For third reading and acumen of bill 378, I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Helmer. Thank you. We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed nine to six. Colleagues, before we go into a closed session, I’ll ask the clerk, as we always do, to advise the public about the issues that we’re going to be dealing with in closed session.

[2:04:26] Thank you through the chair. There are seven matters that are outlined on the council agenda. One matter relating to personal matters and identifiable individuals. Four matters related to property, and two matters related to litigation, and a material that is subject to solicitor client privilege. Thank you. With that, I’ll look for a motion to move, going to closed session. Moved by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Palosa.

[2:05:00] Public question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero. Thank you, Colle, to adjust, and we’ll ask you to stand by.

[2:05:40] Recording and— OK, we’re back in public session.

[2:08:06] We’re now at the 11th report of council in closed session. So these are the items being reported out to the public. I will turn it over to Councillor Layman, who will present the report. Thank you, Chair.

[2:08:55] The heads up to my colleagues. This is a bit of a lengthy report. Please report the 11th report of the council on closed session. Number one, awarding of the 2021 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships. That the following actions be taken in connection with the awarding of the 2021 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships A, in recognition of achieving the highest school asset achievement in their graduating year, following student be awarded the 2021 Queen Elizabeth Scholarship at the amount shown. Cindy Sutton, London Central Secondary School, 99.67% average $2,000.

[2:09:33] Not with standing, Council Policy 1 Bracket 3, which provides for Queen Elizabeth Scholarships in the amount of $2,000 each, to be granted by the City of London in each school year for admission to any university, to the two students with the highest school asset achievement. The following four students be awarded the 2021 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships in the amount shown. Caitlin Pringle, H.B. Secondary School, 99.5%, $2,000. Maya Sherba, H.B. Secondary School, 99.5%, $2,000. Anlon Goh, London Central Secondary School, 99.5%, $2,000.

[2:10:19] Nadine Shilbaya, Oak Ridge Secondary School, 99.5%, $2,000. The additional $6,000 scholarships be funded through the City’s 2021 operating budget. Number two, settlement agreement for 1679 Richmond Street, Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond Street intersection improvements project that on recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, finance supports with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager environment and infrastructure at the concurrence of the Director of Transportation and Mobility on the advice of the Director of Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 1679 Richmond Street.

[2:11:04] Further described as part of lot 33, registers compiled plan 1029 in the City of London County of Middlesex described as parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. Plan ER, 1383, 810 being part of pin 08066-0183 LT. As shown on the location map as Appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements for the project known as the Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond Street intersection improvements project as follows.

[2:11:38] A, the settlement agreement Appendix C submitted by Suncourt Energy as full and final compensation for the market value of land expropriated from the subject property to the sum of $126,000 be accepted and subject to the following conditions. I, the City agreeing to pay the vendors reasonable legal appraisal costs, disbursements, and applicable taxes has incurred to complete this transaction. And two, the City agreeing to pay a further sum of $20,000 as disturbance damages for loss of any and all tree shrubs and landscaping located within the property.

[2:12:14] And B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as Appendix A. Three, property acquisition at 16 Dingman Drive that on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager Finance supports with the concurrence of the Director Parks and Forestry and the advice of Director Realty Services with respect to the property located at 19 Dingman Drive further described as part half lot 19 concession three as in 496032 London Westminster being all of pin 082 04-0131 LT and all of pin 082 04-0132 LT located in the City of London County of Middlesex province of Ontario with an area of approximately 33.5 acres as shown on the location map as Appendix B for the purpose of a future Southwest District Sports part, the following actions be taken.

[2:13:18] A, the offer submitted by Julia Cox, John Cox, Sarah Morton, Gregory Morton, Rita Hazelwood, Simon Hazelwood, Sophia, Sefsick, the vendors to sell the subject property to the City for the sum of 1.750 million be accepted subject to the terms and conditions set out in agreement as Appendix C and B, the finance for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as Appendix A. Number four, property acquisition 1710 Wilton Grove Road London that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager finance supports on the advice of the Director Realty Services and with the concurrence of the interim director of economic services and supports with respect at 1710 Wilton Grove Road containing an area of approximately 64 acres, legally described as part of lot 12 concession to designated part 133R9191 formally in the town of Westminster now in the City of London County of Middlesex being all of pin 08199006 together as outlined on the sketch here to as Appendix C, the following actions be taken.

[2:14:34] A, the agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement submitted by Karen Osins and Eric Osins, the vendor, to sell the subject property to the City for the sum of 4,160,000 be accepted, which the agreement is as Appendix B and B, the financing for the acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as Appendix A. Five, property disposition, surplus land, Eastside Perser Street that 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 on surplus land located south of Eastside on Perser Street, an area of approximately 0.08 acres and legally described as part of roadway closed by bylaw S 5030 63 as in ER 488782 plan 91C.

[2:15:27] London Township doesn’t made it as part seven on 33R-17289 and block 60 plan 33M-443. In the City of London County of Middlesex being part of pin 08146-0786 and all pin 08146-0243 as outlined on the location map, tier two as Appendix A and the agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement as Appendix B is submitted by Drulo holding zinc, the purchaser to purchase the subject property from the city at a purchase price of $125,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement.

[2:16:16] Thank you. So that is moved by Councillor Lehman. I look for a seconder getting applause. Anyone else? Seconder, I need a seconder. No, I don’t need a plug. Seconder by Councillor Lewis. I don’t need a clause, I need a seconder if you guys want to go home. All right, discussion on that report. Seeing none, let me just say part of that was an amazing academic achievement by four London students.

[2:16:48] And certainly they all have our congratulations and significant envy in their academic achievement. Five, sorry, five. So we’re going to vote now. There are no comments. This will open on the system. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to 0.

[2:17:39] Given the report out of our confidential closed session, we now have added bylaws number 381 to 384. Clerk, do you need to identify anything about those before we proceed with the mover and seconder? Through the chair, I’m happy to do that to provide a bit of additional clarity. The four bylaws are related to the property acquisitions and dispositions that were outlined in the enclosed session report.

[2:18:14] Okay, now the colleagues have heard that. I need a mover and a seconder for first reading of additional bills, 381 through 384. Moved by Councillor Van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Hopkins will open the voting on first reading. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to 0.

[2:19:26] I need a mover and a seconder for second reading of bills 381 through 384. Councillor Palosa, Councillor Homer. Any discussion on these bills? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. The vote, the motions passed 14 to 0.

[2:20:05] Reading of added bills 381 to 384. Councillor Lewis and Councillor Cassidy, we’ll open the voting. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to 0.

[2:20:44] At the end of the agenda, thank you for your time tonight. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for adjournment. Moved by Councillor Van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Turner. No discussion. I see none. All those in favor of adjournment by hand. That motion’s carried. All right, thank you for your time tonight, everyone.