Open Council

Council

Open Council

Council

December 7, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:03 PM; it being noted that the following members were in remote attendance: Councillors M. van Holst, M. Salih, J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Turner and S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest with respect to the 17th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, specific to any budget items that may relate to the London Public Library (LPL), by indicating that his spouse is employed by the LPL.

Councillor S. Turner discloses a further pecuniary interest with respect to item 15 (4.10) of the 18th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with the London Public Library (LPL) Board of Directors, by indicating that his spouse is employed by the LPL.

Councillor M. Salih discloses a pecuniary interest with respect to item 7 (2.3) of the 16th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with an Agreement for London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, by indicating that he is employed by the federal government.

2.   Recognitions

His Worship the Mayor presents the 2021 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Awards to the Rights and Responsibilities Awareness Initiative and to NEST - the Network for Economic and Social Trends.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

That pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Council Agenda BE APPROVED to provide for Stage 4, Council, In Closed Session, and Stage 9, Added Reports, to be considered after Stage 13, By-laws.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

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

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Minutes of the 15th Meeting held on November 16, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

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

1.     G. Pearson and J. Roy;

2.     L. Thorne;

6.2     99 Southdale Road West (Z-1962)

1.   S. Vergiris;

2.   P. McInnes;

3.   K. Kulchycki;

4.   W. Pol;

6.3     1453 - 1459 Oxford Street East and 648 - 656 Ayreswood Avenue

1.  C. Kulchycki;

6.4     New Sidewalks in Established Neighbourhoods

1.   Sherwood Forest Delegation 2021;

6.5     Governance Working Group Membership

1.   Councillor M. Cassidy;

2.   Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar;

6.6     City of London Procurement Process Assessment Review

1.   Inclusive Economy London and Region Team.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   17th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-11-22 PEC Report - Full

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 17th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Items 17 (3.3) and 21 (3.7).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 8th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee from its meeting held on October 27, 2021:

 

a)  the City BE REQUESTED to use the new Municipal Climate Lens tool to explore the implications of varying hydro lines in new developments or developments particularly as it relates to reducing the impact of severe storms on the electrical systems as well as on improving the ability to plant much larger trees along sidewalks in order to make walking a more attractive form of transportation; and,

 

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

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) 9th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 9th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on November 3, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Parking Standards Review

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Parking Standards Review Information Report appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021, which is the process to review and update the current City of London Parking requirements in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 BE RECEIVED and BE CIRCULATED for public review and feedback. (2021-T02)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) 915 Upperpoint Avenue (H-9362) (Relates to Bill No. 28)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Ltd., relating to the property located at 915 Upperpoint Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential Special Provision R4 (hh-54h-209R4-6(11)), a Holding Residential Special Provision R5 (hh-54h-209R5-7(9)), a Holding Residential Special Provision R6 (hh-54h-209R6-5(61)), and a Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (hh-54h-209R8-3(5))  Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R4 (R4-6(11)), a Residential Special Provision R5 (R5-7(9)), a Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-5(61)), and a Residential Special Provision R8 (R8-3(5)) Zone.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) 235 Kennington Way (H-9375) (Relates to Bill No. 29)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the northern portion of the property located at 235 Kennington Way, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R5 Special Provisions and R6 Special Provision (hh-100h-198*R5-4(23)/R6-5(51)) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provisions and R6 Special Provision (R5-4(23)/R6-5(51)) Zone.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) 1790 Finley Crescent (P-9371) (Relates to Bill No. 16)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to exempt Block 100, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.7) Summerside Subdivision Phase 18 - Special Provisions (39T-92020-18)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

a)    the Special Provisions to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Holdings Inc., for the Summerside Subdivision, Phase 18 (39T-92020_18) appended to the staff report dated November 22, 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 November 22, 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 November 22, 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

8.1.9   (2.8) 1478 Westdel Bourne (H-9412) (Relates to Bill No. 30)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Townline Orchard Property Limited, relating to lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 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 R1 (h-R1-4) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 (h-R1-5) Zone, a Holding Residential R6/R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-209-R6-5(77)/R8-4(64)) Zone, and a Holding Residential R4/R5/R6/R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-209-R4-6(11)/R5-7(9)/R6-5(61)/R8-3(5)) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone, a Residential R1 (R1-5) Zone, a Holding Residential R6/R8 Special Provision (h-54-h-209-R6-5(77)/R8-4(64)) Zone, and a Holding Residential R4/R5/R6/R8 Special Provision (h-54-h-209-R4-6(11)/R5-7(9)/R6-5(61)/R8-3(5)) Zone to remove the holding (h) provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (2.9) 370 South Street - Heritage Designation - Health Services Building and War Memorial Children’s Hospital

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the designation of the property at 370 South Street, that the following actions be taken:

a)    Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c.O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the staff report dated November 20, 2021 as Appendix D and Appendix E; and,

b)    should no objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 370 South Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D and Appendix E of this report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared; and,

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (2.10) 466-468 Queen’s Avenue - Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP21-076-L)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c.O. 18, seeking retroactive approval for alterations to the heritage designated properties at 466-468 Queens Avenue, in the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED with the following terms and conditions:

a)   the existing wood windows on the 466 Queens Avenue portion of the property be retained; and,

b)  the London Doorway on the 466 Queens Avenue portion of the property be retained. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (2.11) 10 Bruce Street - Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP21-073-L)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c.O. 18, seeking approval for alterations to the porch of the heritage designated property at 10 Bruce Street, located within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District BE PERMITTED as submitted with the following terms and conditions:

a)  the porch be reconstructed using the salvaged brick and concrete block materials;

b)  the porch and railing system be reconstructed as previously constructed according to photographic documentation;

c) the new columns consist of concrete with fluting and ornamental capitals to be replicated in kind based on the porch’s previous construction;

d)   the Heritage Planner be circulated on the Building Permit to ensure the railing and columns are consistent with design of the previous porch;

e)  the proposed alterations to the porch be completed within six (6) months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

f)  the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

8.1.13   (2.12) 1595 Capri Crescent (1600 Twilite Boulevard) (H-9389) (Relates to Bill No. 31)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Foxwood Developments, relating to the property located at 1595 Capri Crescent (1600 Twilite Boulevard), the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R5 and R6 (hh-54h-71h-100R5-6/R6-5) Zone TO a Residential R5 and R6 (R5-6/R6-5) Zone to remove the “h”, “h-54”, “h-71” and “h-100” holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.14   (2.13) 2313 and 2373 Callingham Drive (P-8830) (Relates to Bill No. 17)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Town and Country Developments (2005) Inc., the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to exempt Blocks 2 and 3 of Registered Plan 33M-664 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P. 13, for a period not exceeding six (6) months. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

8.1.15   (3.1) 3103 Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road (Z-9383) (Relates to Bill No. 32)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2831570 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 3047 White Oak Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 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 TO a Holding Residential R1/Residential R6 Special Provision Residential R8 Bonus (hh-100h-161h-227R1-10/R6-5(59)/R8-4(46)*B60) Zone;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with and will serve to implement the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 which encourage infill and intensification and the provision of a range of housing types, and efficient use of existing infrastructure;

  •    the proposed residential uses and scale of development are consistent with the policies of the London Plan, the 1989 Official Plan, the Southwest Area Secondary Plan and the North Longwoods Area Plan policies; and,

  •    the subject lands are of a suitable size and shape to accommodate the development proposed. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.16   (3.2) City Wide - Encouraging the Growing of Food in Urban Areas (OZ-9332) (Relates to Bill No.’s 14 and 33)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law relating to policies and regulations for the growing of food in urban areas:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend The London Plan by ADDING a new subsection in the Food Systems Chapter to allow for the growing of food in urban areas on lands, in greenhouses and shipping containers; and ADDING a new policy in the Our Tools part of the Plan to allow for a scoped site plan approval process for greenhouses; and

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with The London Plan), by REVISING Section 4.26 (Uses Permitted in All Zones) to include Urban Agriculture and ADDING a new Section 4.38 (Urban Agriculture) to provide regulations for greenhouses and shipping containers used for growing of food;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated November 18, 2021, from J. Cordes, Chair, Middlesex London Food Policy Council; and,

  •    a communication dated November 17, 2021, from Members of the Urban Agricultural Steering Committee - 2021;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with these matters;

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

  •    the recommended amendments to the London Plan and Zoning By-law Z.-1 are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020);

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with three of Councils goals in the 2019-2023 Strategic Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendments to the London Plan and Zoning By-law provides more opportunities to allow for the growing of food within the City’s Urban Growth boundary (UGB).   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.18   (3.4) 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street (OZ-9418) (Relates to Bill No.’s 12, 13, 15 and 35)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Vision SoHo Alliance, relating to the properties located at 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan, to add policies to Section 19.15.4 Vacant Land Condominiums;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend The London Plan, 2016 to add policies to Policy 1709 Vacant Land Condominiums;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan to change the designation of a portion of the subject the subject lands FROM a Low-Rise Residential designation TO a Mid-Rise Residential designation and amend policies pertaining to the Mid-Rise Residential designation and The Four Corners designation;

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 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 a portion of the subject lands FROM R8 Special Provision (hh-5 R8-4(56) Zone; Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (hh-5 R8-4(57); and, a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (hh-5R8-4(58)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision/Residential R8 Special Provision (hh-5R4-6(13)/R8-4(59)) Zone, with amendments to the associated special provisions of the Residential R8-4 zones applicable to the subject lands;

e)    the requested amendment to the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan to remove policy from 20.6.4.1(iii) regarding commercial at the ground floor BE REFUSED given the goals and objectives for the designation within the secondary plan;

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 proposed amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020 by providing a mix of residential uses including affordable housing in an appropriate location and at a time of defined need;

  •    the proposed amendments conform to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi Family High Density Residential designation which applies to the subject lands;

  •    the proposed amendments conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place type which applies to the subject lands;

  •    the proposed amendments conform to the policies of the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the amendment to the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan recommended for refusal is recommended as such because it is not consistent with the vision for the area set out within the objectives of the plan. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.19   (3.5) 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street (SPA21-081)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Vision SoHo Alliance, relating to the property located at 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to permit the construction of five new apartment buildings and the redevelopment of two existing buildings on the subject lands; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council has no issues with respect to the Site Plan Application, and the Municipal Council supports the Site Plan Application;

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

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

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which directs development to designated growth areas and that development be adjacent to existing development;

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to the applicable policies of The London Plan with the exception of the Vacant Land Condominium policies subject of the application OZ-9418;

  •    the proposed Site Plan is in conformity with the applicable policies of the Official Plan (1989) with the exception of the Vacant Land Condominium policies subject of the application OZ-9418;

  •    the proposed Site Plan is in conformity with the policies of the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan (2014) with the exception of the designation and design policies subject of the application OZ-9418;

  •    the proposed Site Plan will conform to the regulations of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law subject to the approval of the requested Zoning By-law amendment under consideration as OZ-9418; and,

  •    with the exception of minor drawing amendments required, the proposed Site Plan conforms to the regulations of the Site Plan Control By-law.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.20   (3.6) 3095 & 3105 Bostwick Road (39T-21502 / Z-9322) (Relates to Bill No. 36)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to the property located at 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve UR3 Zone TO a Holding Residential R2 Special Provision (hR2-3(_)) Zone; a Holding Residential R2 Special Provision (hh-R2-3(_)) Zone; a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (hh-198*h-*R4-4(2)) Zone; an Open Space OS1 Zone, and an Urban Reserve UR3 Zone;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to the property located at 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road; and,

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision as submitted by Southside Construction Management Ltd., prepared by Zelinka Priamo (Project No. SPE/LON/12-02), certified by Jason Wilband O.L.S., dated November 11, 2021, as red-line revised, which shows a total of 168 single detached residential lots, three (3) street townhouse residential blocks, three (3) park blocks, two (2) urban reserve blocks, three (3) future road block served by the extensions of Frontier Avenue, Regiment Road, Raleigh Boulevard and four (4) new local streets, SUBJECT TO the conditions appended in the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

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

  •    the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents;

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

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

  •    the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential; Medium Density Residential; and the Open Space and Environmental Review designations. The proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the vision for the North Talbot Neighbourhood that new development will reflect the existing character of the neighbourhood, provide a walkable environment with a pedestrian scale, and incorporate street-oriented development on public right-of-ways.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.22   (4.1) 11th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (Relates to Bill No. 20)

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 11th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on November 10, 2021:

a) the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) 2022 membership with the Community Heritage Ontario BE APPROVED; it being noted that the LACH has sufficient funds in its 2021 Budget to cover the $75.00 renewal fee;

b) on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, seeking approval for alterations to the porch of the heritage designated property located at 10 Bruce Street, located within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District BE PERMITTED, as submitted, with the following terms and conditions:

  • the porch be reconstructed using the salvaged brick and concrete block materials; - the porch and railing system be reconstructed as previously constructed according to photographic documentation; - the new columns consist of concrete with fluting and ornamental capitals to be replicated in kind based on the porch’s previous construction; - the Heritage Planner be circulated on the Building Permit to ensure the railing and columns are consistent with design of the previous porch; - the proposed alterations to the porch be completed within six (6) months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and, - the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed;

c) the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, seeking retroactive approval for alterations to the heritage designated properties located at 466-468 Queens Avenue, in the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED with the following terms and conditions:

  • the existing wood windows on the 466 Queens Avenue portion of the property be retained; and, - the London Doorway on the 466 Queens Avenue portion of the property be retained;

d) 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 November 10, 2021, related to the Designation of the Health Services Building and War Memorial Children’s Hospital, located at 370 South Street, under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act:

i) notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c.O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the above-noted property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D and Appendix E of the above-noted report; and, ii) should no objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to

designate be received, a by-law to designate the property located at 370 South Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D and Appendix E of the above-noted report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal; and,

it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage encourages that effort be put into locating and using the original memorial plaque, as appended to the above-noted staff report in Appendix C, in the development of the property; and,

e) clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1 and 4.4, BE RECEIVED for information.

8.1.23   (5.1) 8th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 18, 2021:

a)    S. Levin, Chair, Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) BE DIRECTED to speak on behalf of the EEPAC at the Planning and Environment Committee public participation meeting relating to Environmental Management Guidelines; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.4, inclusive, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.8   Reports

8.8.1   17th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2021-11-22 PEC Report - Full

8.8.1.17   (3.3) 99 Southdale Road West (Z-9162) (Relates to Bill No. 34)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Southdale West Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 99 Southdale Road West:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) and Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision Zone (R9-5(_) Zone and Open Space (OS4) 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)    ensure that the development provides adequately sized and located enhanced outdoor amenity and recreation area(s) to support healthy and livable environment for the number of residents. This can be achieved by providing a central amenity space and smaller compatible amenity areas serving individual buildings;

ii)    provide for a safe network of internal streets with convenient and direct pedestrian connections throughout the site (North- South and East- West) connecting building entrances, amenity areas, parking spaces, open spaces and the city sidewalk along Southdale Road East;

iii)    ensure an active building façade along Southdale Road by including principal building entrance(s), lobbies, common amenity areas and street-oriented residential units with front porches/courtyards and individual unit entrances connected to the public sidewalk along that frontage. Provide direct walkway connections from ground floor units to the sidewalk to create a pedestrian scale rhythm and activation;

iv)    explore opportunities to minimize the visual impact of surface parking by reducing the expanse of surface parking and drive aisles to the required minimum and accommodate majority of the parking underground to provide adequate amenity and recreational areas and in turn reduce the heat island effect;

v)    ensure the design of the proposed building(s) offer variation in appearance and massing to add character throughout the development and promote wayfinding;

vi)    ensure an EMP (Environmental Management Plan) is completed through the site approval process; and,

vii)    consider the comments made at the public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting by the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Community of London and Vicinity;

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 to Zoning By-law Z.-1 is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 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, which contemplates a range of residential uses including stacked townhouses, fourplexes, and low-rise apartments within the Neighbourhoods Place Type where the property has frontage on a Civic Boulevard;

  •    conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan including, but not limited to the Policies for the Multi-Family Medium Density Residential and Open Space designations. The recommended amendment would permit development at an intensity that is at the upper range of the maximum density for residential intensification within the Multi-family, Medium Density Residential designation but still ensures the nature of development is suitable for the site and the immediate neighbourhood. The recommended amendment would help to reach the objective of supplying housing choices and options for all residents;

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with the Southwest Area Secondary Plan. The subject lands represent an appropriate location for residential intensification, along a higher-order street at the fringe of a developing neighbourhood, and the recommended amendment would permit development at a magnitude that is suitable for the site and the adjacent neighbourhood; 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 made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That clause 3.3 BE AMENDED to read as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Southdale West Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 99 Southdale Road West:

a)    the proposed attached, revised, by-law (including the attached revised map) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) and Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision Zone (R9-5(_) Zone and Open Space (OS4) 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)    ensure that the development provides adequately sized and located enhanced outdoor amenity and recreation area(s) to support healthy and livable environment for the number of residents. This can be achieved by providing a central amenity space and smaller compatible amenity areas serving individual buildings;

ii)    provide for a safe network of internal streets with convenient and direct pedestrian connections throughout the site (North- South and East- West) connecting building entrances, amenity areas, parking spaces, open spaces and the city sidewalk along Southdale Road East;

iii)    ensure an active building façade along Southdale Road by including principal building entrance(s), lobbies, common amenity areas and street-oriented residential units with front porches/courtyards and individual unit entrances connected to the public sidewalk along that frontage. Provide direct walkway connections from ground floor units to the sidewalk to create a pedestrian scale rhythm and activation;

iv)    explore opportunities to minimize the visual impact of surface parking by reducing the expanse of surface parking and drive aisles to the required minimum and accommodate majority of the parking underground to provide adequate amenity and recreational areas and in turn reduce the heat island effect;

v)    ensure the design of the proposed building(s) offer variation in appearance and massing to add character throughout the development and promote wayfinding;

vi)    ensure an EMP (Environmental Management Plan) is completed through the site approval process; and,

vii)    consider the comments made at the public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting by the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Community of London and Vicinity;

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 density was included in the Notice;

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 to Zoning By-law Z.-1 is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 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, which contemplates a range of residential uses including stacked townhouses, fourplexes, and low-rise apartments within the Neighbourhoods Place Type where the property has frontage on a Civic Boulevard;

  •    conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan including, but not limited to the Policies for the Multi-Family Medium Density Residential and Open Space designations. The recommended amendment would permit development at an intensity that is at the upper range of the maximum density for residential intensification within the Multi-family, Medium Density Residential designation but still ensures the nature of development is suitable for the site and the immediate neighbourhood. The recommended amendment would help to reach the objective of supplying housing choices and options for all residents;

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with the Southwest Area Secondary Plan. The subject lands represent an appropriate location for residential intensification, along a higher-order street at the fringe of a developing neighbourhood, and the recommended amendment would permit development at a magnitude that is suitable for the site and the adjacent neighbourhood; 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 (14 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That item 17, clause 3.3, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 17, clause 3.3, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Southdale West Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 99 Southdale Road West:

a)    the proposed attached, revised, by-law (including the attached revised map) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) and Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision Zone (R9-5(_) Zone and Open Space (OS4) 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)    ensure that the development provides adequately sized and located enhanced outdoor amenity and recreation area(s) to support healthy and livable environment for the number of residents. This can be achieved by providing a central amenity space and smaller compatible amenity areas serving individual buildings;

ii)    provide for a safe network of internal streets with convenient and direct pedestrian connections throughout the site (North- South and East- West) connecting building entrances, amenity areas, parking spaces, open spaces and the city sidewalk along Southdale Road East;

iii)    ensure an active building façade along Southdale Road by including principal building entrance(s), lobbies, common amenity areas and street-oriented residential units with front porches/courtyards and individual unit entrances connected to the public sidewalk along that frontage. Provide direct walkway connections from ground floor units to the sidewalk to create a pedestrian scale rhythm and activation;

iv)    explore opportunities to minimize the visual impact of surface parking by reducing the expanse of surface parking and drive aisles to the required minimum and accommodate majority of the parking underground to provide adequate amenity and recreational areas and in turn reduce the heat island effect;

v)    ensure the design of the proposed building(s) offer variation in appearance and massing to add character throughout the development and promote wayfinding;

vi)    ensure an EMP (Environmental Management Plan) is completed through the site approval process; and,

vii)    consider the comments made at the public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting by the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Community of London and Vicinity;

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 density was included in the Notice;

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 to Zoning By-law Z.-1 is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 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, which contemplates a range of residential uses including stacked townhouses, fourplexes, and low-rise apartments within the Neighbourhoods Place Type where the property has frontage on a Civic Boulevard;

  •    conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan including, but not limited to the Policies for the Multi-Family Medium Density Residential and Open Space designations. The recommended amendment would permit development at an intensity that is at the upper range of the maximum density for residential intensification within the Multi-family, Medium Density Residential designation but still ensures the nature of development is suitable for the site and the immediate neighbourhood. The recommended amendment would help to reach the objective of supplying housing choices and options for all residents;

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with the Southwest Area Secondary Plan. The subject lands represent an appropriate location for residential intensification, along a higher-order street at the fringe of a developing neighbourhood, and the recommended amendment would permit development at a magnitude that is suitable for the site and the adjacent neighbourhood; 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)

8.8.1.21   (3.7) 1453-1459 Oxford Street East and 648-656 Ayreswood Avenue

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Red Maple Properties, relating to the property located at 1453-1459 Oxford Street East and 648-656 Ayreswood Avenue:

a)    the request to amend The London Plan by ADDING a new policy the Specific Policies for the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of The London Plan, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available.

ii)    the proposed development does not conform to The London Plan (2016), including, but not limited to, the Key Directions, City Design, Intensity and Form policies of the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSA) policies, and Near Campus Neighbourhoods policies.

iii)    the existing sanitary sewer servicing the site does not have sufficient capacity to support the proposed density.

b)    the request to amend the Official Plan for the City of London (1989) to change the designation of the subject lands FROM a Low Density Residential designation TO a Multi-Family, High Density Residential designation, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

ii)    the proposed development does not conform to the Official Plan (1989), including, but not limited to, the Permitted Uses, Density and Scale, Bonusing, Residential Intensification, Urban Design, and Policies for Near Campus Neighbourhoods;

iii)    the proposed development represents an over-intensification of the site and does not satisfy the criteria of the Planning Impact Analysis;

iv)    the existing sanitary sewer servicing the site does not have sufficient capacity to support the proposed density.

c)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone and Residential R1/Office Conversion (R1-6/OC4) Zone TO a Residential R9 Bonus/Neighbourhood Shopping Area (R9-7B-_H77/NSA3) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

ii)    the proposed development does not conform to The London Plan (2016) as the requested Specific Policy is not recommended for approval;

iii)    the proposed development does not conform to the Official Plan (1989) as the requested Multi-Family, High Density Residential designation is not recommended for approval;

iv)    the proposed development and requested zoning represent an over-intensification of the site and do not satisfy the criteria of the Planning Impact Analysis;

v)    the existing sanitary sewer servicing the site does not have sufficient capacity to support the proposed density.

vi)    the facilities, services, and matters identified through the proposed bonus zone are not commensurate for the requested height and density;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated November 16, 2021, from P. Lombardi, Partner, Siskinds; and,

  •    a communication from C. Kulchycki and H. Froussios, Senior Planners, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., and P. Champagne, Owner, Red Maple Properties;

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-D09)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the application by Red Maple Properties, relating to the properties located at 1453 to 1459 Oxford Street East and 648 to 656 Ayerswood Avenue BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration to undertake the following actions and to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to:

a)    work with the applicant to ensure the appropriate framework is in place for the provision of affordable housing units at 70% of the average market rate for fifty years;

b)    work with the applicant to determine options to resolve the sanitary sewer capacity issues;

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

The motion to approve item 21, clause 3.7, is put.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.8.2   16th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2021-11-23 CPSC Report

At 5:24 PM, His Worship Mayor Holder places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 5:26 PM, His Worship Mayor Holder resumes the Chair.

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 16th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding item 7 (2.3).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.8.2.1   Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that Councillor M. Salih disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 2.3 of this Report, having to do with an Agreement for London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, by indicating that he is employed by the federal government.

Motion Passed

8.8.2.2   (2.1) 6th Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 6th Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on October 28, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.8.2.3   (2.2) 9th Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 9th Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 10, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.8.2.4   (2.4) RFT21-112 People and the City Monument Restoration and Source of Financing

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 23, 2021, with respect to RFT21-112 related to People and the City Monument Restoration and Source of Financing: 

a)    the bid submitted by 818185 Ontario Inc., P.O. Box 1660 Brantford, Ontario N3T 5V7, at its tendered price of $474,000 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by 818185 Ontario Inc. was the lowest bid received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

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

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

d)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for this purchase; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract, statement of work or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-F11)

Motion Passed

8.8.2.5   (2.5) Sports Court Donation by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Foundation

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 23, 2021, related to a Sports Court Donation by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Foundation:

a)    the donation of a multi-use sports court by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Foundation BE ACCEPTED, as per the City’s Donation Policy; it being noted that the value of the donation is estimated to be $250,000;

b)    the hiring of ERA Architects to design and carry out contract administration for the construction of the project by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Foundation, at their expense, BE APPROVED, as per Section 14.4 (i) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy as a Single Source contract, SS21-45;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into a formal agreement with Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Foundation and establish a capital project budget based on the final amount of the donation, subject to the approval of the above-noted donation and determining a location for the multi-use court; and,

d)    Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Foundation BE THANKED for their generous donation to support London’s youth and their physical and mental health and social engagement. (2021-M12/R05)

Motion Passed

8.8.2.6   (2.9) Parking Services - Services Integration and Digital Modernization Review

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report, dated November 23, 2021, with respect to Parking Services – Service Integration and Digital Modernization Review, BE RECEIVED. (2021-H08/T02)

Motion Passed

8.8.2.8   (2.6) Housing Stability Services - Social Services Relief Fund Phase Four Allocations (Relates to Bill No. 2)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 23, 2021, related to Housing Stability Services and Social Services Relief Fund Phase Four Allocations:

a)    for COVID-19 operating agreement extensions, a funding increase extension BE APPROVED for the existing Purchase of Service Agreements at a total estimated increase of $987,165 (excluding HST), for the period of January 1, 2022 to March 31, 2022, to administer Housing Stability Services COVID-19 Response programs, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e.ii, to the following existing agreements:

  •    The Ark Aid Street Mission, WISH to Be Home (SS21-29)

  •    London Cares Homeless Response Services COVID-19 Resting Spaces (SS21-29)

  •    The Salvation Army Centre of Hope Emergency Shelter (SS21-29)

  •    Services and supports through various providers (SS21-29), including minor retrofits at the YOU shelter;

b)    with respect to capital retrofits and upgrades, that the proposed revised attached by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held December 7, 2021, to:

i)    approve the standard form Loan Contribution Agreement, substantially in the form as appended to the above-noted by-law, as the standard form of agreement between the city and organizations to provide capital funding under the CHPI Social Services Relief Fund – Phase 4 to improve, retrofit, upgrade or acquire property for emergency shelters, transitional housing, congregate living spaces and supportive housing or other activities approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing;

ii)    delegate discretionary power to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designates, to:

A)    insert the applicable required information into the above-noted standard form Loan Contribution Agreement;

B)    approve the agreement with the above-noted details; and,

C)    execute agreements which employ the above-noted form; it being noted that the exercise of such powers is consistent with the CHPI SSRF Program Guidelines and applicable agreements with the Province, and that the exercise of such powers does not require additional funding or is provided for in the City’s current budget, and that does not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the Manager of Risk Management;

iii)    delegate discretionary power to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designates, to authorize, approve and execute such further and other documents, including amending agreements, that may be required in furtherance of the City of London’s agreements with organizations that are consistent with the CHPI SSRF Program Guidelines and applicable agreements with the Province and requirements contained in the above-noted standard form Loan Contribution Agreement and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the Manager of Risk Management;

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

d)    capital grant funding BE APPROVED for retrofits and upgrades for The Ark Aid Street Mission in the amount of $725,000;

e)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into and/or amending Purchase of Service Agreements and/or Contribution Agreement with Agencies outlined in Schedule 1 of the above-noted report, and is subject to a commitment of funding by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing under Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative and the Social Services Relief Fund Phase 4 Guidelines; and,

f)    Schedule 1 – Overview of SSRF Phase 4 Funding Allocations, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE RECEIVED. (2021-S11/F11A)

Motion Passed

8.8.2.9   (2.7) Proposed Implementation of the “Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units” (Roadmap) Action Plan

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 23, 2021, related to the Proposed Implementation of the “Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units” (Roadmap) Action Plan:

a)    the “Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units” (Roadmap), as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE RECEIVED and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to advance on the implementation action plan as outlined within the above-noted staff report;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with any applicable policy changes for Council approval that will aide in the delivery of the action plan;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to carry out all necessary actions to establish a capital budget and corresponding funding sources for the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units for the City of London for 2022 through 2026, as summarized in the above-noted report;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to release $5.0 million currently earmarked in the Economic Development Reserve Fund for the Back to the River – Forks of the Thames project and use this funding to support the implementation of the Roadmap action plan; and,

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to temporarily fund the 2022 operating costs of this plan from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve, and to bring a budget amendment business case to the 2023 Annual Budget Update and 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget that establishes a permanent funding source for the portable benefits/rent supplements and ongoing resources required to support the Roadmap implementation plan; 

it being noted that specific program design considerations will be further clarified through future reports to Committee and Council;

it being further noted that the presentation, dated November 23, 2021, as appended to the Added Agenda, and the verbal delegation from M. Wallace, London Development Institute, with respect to this matter, were received. (2021-S11)

Motion Passed

8.8.2.10   (2.8) Request for Funding from Vision SoHo Alliance for the Housing Development Project at the Old Victoria Hospital Lands (Relates to Bill No. 3)

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 23, 2021, related to the Request for Funding from Vision SoHo Alliance for the Housing Development Project at the Old Victoria Hospital Lands:

a)     a conditional grant for $11,200,000 ($28,000/unit) BE APPROVED to provide up to 400 affordable housing units in the proposed development, subject to confirmation of the other sources of project financing, closing of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Vision SoHo Alliance and the City of London for the subject lands and development of suitable Contribution Agreements between the parties;

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop Contribution Agreements with Vision SoHo Alliance members, subject to submission of additional financial and project information from Vision SoHo Alliance;

c)     the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021, to:

i)    authorize and approve the City Treasurer and City Solicitor to approve the Contribution Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Vision SoHo Alliance members in an amount not to exceed $11,200,000.00 in the aggregate; and,

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

d)     the financing for the conditional grant BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Harris, Indwell/Vision SoHo Alliance, with respect to this matter, was received. (2021-F11/S11)

Motion Passed

8.8.2.11   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at November 16, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.8.2.12   (5.2) 10th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 10th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 18, 2021:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) Budget request related to Coyote Signs on City Parks:

i)     the transfer of $1,000.00 from the 2021 Animal Welfare Advisory Committee Budget allocation to the Parks Operations Fund BE APPROVED in order to procure new signs related to wild canids to be installed in City parks; and,

ii)    the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED;

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to the Clear Your Gear Initiative:

i)     the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to explore the best methods to empty and maintain the recycling receptacles to be placed at areas for recreational fishing; and,

ii)     the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee will continue to engage with the Civic Administration with respect to the implementation of this initiative;

c)    clauses 1.1 to 4.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.8.2.7   (2.3) Agreement for London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the staff report, dated November 23, 2021, with respect to an Agreement for London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada BE DEFERRED to the next meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee. (2021-S15)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.8.3   19th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2021-11-22 CSC Report 19-Complete

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 19th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.8.3.2   (2.1) Single Source – Furniture and Wall System Contracts Extensions

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 extension of existing contracts for the provision of furniture:

a)     in accordance with Section 14.4 (d) of the Procurement of Good and Services Policy, the extension of existing contracts with POI Business Interiors and Raven Studios, formally known as Facility Resources, as well as the wall system contract with Verto360 BE ACCEPTED for one (1) year, with four (4) additional one (1) year extensions;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the approval set out in part a) above; and,

c)    the approval set out in a) above BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into formal contracts or having a purchase order, or contract records relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

8.8.3.3   (2.2) Authorization for Temporary Borrowing (Relates to Bill No. 5)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021, to authorize the temporary borrowing of certain sums to meet current

Motion Passed

8.8.3.4   (2.3) City of London Procurement Process Assessment Review

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 Spend Analysis and Procurement Maturity Assessment report:

a)     the report of Ernst & Young LLP (EY), as appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED for information;

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake pilot projects to test the hypotheses set out in the above-noted report by EY and validate potential opportunities; 

c)     as part of the 2024 to 2027 Multi-Year Budget, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a business case for consideration to provide additional resourcing to the Purchasing & Supply Services to enable further advancement of the City’s procurement processes; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.8.3.5   (2.4) Signing Authority and Banking Services By-laws - Amendments Due to Corporate Restructuring (Relates to Bill No.’s 6, 9 and 10)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to various by-law amendments to implement organizational changes:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A”, being “A by-law to amend By-Law A.-7955-83, entitled “A by-law to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Resolution Regarding Banking and the Master Client Agreement for Business Client Authorization and any contract or document with the Royal Bank relating to the Ontario Works Royal Bank of Canada Right Pay Reloadable Payment Card Program and to authorize the signing of cheques and the withdrawal or transfer of funds” to reflect the current organizational structure”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “B”, being “A by-law to amend By-Law A.-8047-15, entitled “A by-law to approve an Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Corporation of the City of London”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021; and,

c)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “C”, being “A by-law to authorize the signing of cheques and electronic funds or wire transfers on certain bank accounts of The Corporation of the City of London, and to repeal By-law No. A.-7473-288 entitled, “A by-law to authorize the signing of cheques and electronic funds or wire transfers on certain bank accounts of The Corporation of the City of London”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received the attached revised page to “Schedule 1” to the Royal Bank of Canada Resolution Regarding Banking”.

Motion Passed

8.8.3.6   (2.5) Amendments to Council Policies - Reorganization (Relates to Bill No.’s 8 and19)

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-law as appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “B”, being “A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-275(a)-159, being “Free of Fear Services for All Policy” by deleting and replacing Schedule “A””, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021; and,

 

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “C”, being 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 “A”, being “Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021.

Motion Passed

8.8.3.7   (2.6) Human Resources Information System Software Acquisition – RFP21-09 (Relates to Bill No. 7)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the selection of a vendor for the Human Resources Information System (‘HRIS’) for The Corporation of the City of London (the ‘Corporation’): 

a)    in accordance with section 12.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the proposal submitted by SAP Canada Inc, 22 Bay St. Suite 1800, 1900, 2000, P.O. Box 41 Toronto On, M5K 1B7 for the HRIS software for the City of London BE ACCEPTED; 

b)    the price submitted by SAP Canada Inc. at the proposed first year cost of $103,000 (excluding H.S.T.), and subsequent years annual cost of $217,000 (excluding H.S.T), for five (5) years as the initial term, and the optional renewal term of five (5) additional one (1) year terms, at sole discretion of the City, BE ACCEPTED, it being noted that the financing for this acquisition is contained within the Council approved operating budget;

 

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the approval set out in parts a) and b) above;

d)    the approval set out in parts a) and b) above, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal agreement or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval; and,

e)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” being “A a by-law to authorize the Director, People Services to approve the agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and SAP Canada Inc. for a Human Resources Information System and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021.

Motion Passed

8.8.3.8   (2.7) Report of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Board of Directors -Virtual Meeting - September 21 - 24, 2021

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the communication from Councillor J. Morgan regarding the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) update on board activities from the virtual meeting held on September 21-24, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.8.4   15th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2021-11-23 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 15th Report of the Civic Works Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.8.4.1   Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.8.4.2   (2.1) Traffic and Parking By-law Process Improvement and Consolidation (Relates to Bill No.’s 11, 18 and 21) 

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 November 23, 2021, related to the Traffic and Parking By-law consolidation and process improvement:

a)        the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix A, being a by-law to repeal and replace By-law No. PS-113 with a new Traffic and Parking By-law, to consolidate the multiple amendments which have been made to By-law PS-113 since its enactment and to implement the new administrative amendment process for routine matters, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021;

b)        the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix B, being a by-law to amend By-law No. A-54 entitled, “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021; and,

c)        the proposed by-law, as appended to the Civic Works Committee Added Agenda, being a by-law to repeal By-law No. CPOL.-222-474, as amended, being a By-law with respect to the Council Policy entitled “Traffic and Parking By-law Amendments”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021; it being noted that a new administrative procedure will be put in place instead. (2021-T08/P01)

Motion Passed

8.8.4.3   (2.2) RFT 21-101 Springbank Reservoirs Cell 1 and 2 Chlorination Modifications - Irregular Result

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 23, 2021, related to the Springbank Reservoir Cells 1 and 2 Chlorination Modifications:

a)        the proposal submitted by Straightline Group Incorporated, 3030 Balmoral Avenue, Burlington, Ontario, L7N 1E2, in the amount of $305,000.00, including contingency ($30,000), excluding HST, BE AWARDED in accordance with Section 19.4 (b) and (c) and 8.10 (b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

Motion Passed

8.8.4.4   (2.3) Revised Joint Occupancy and Use Agreement for Elgin-Middlesex Pumping Station (Relates to Bill No. 4) 

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Water, Wastewater and Stormwater, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 23, 2021, related to a revised Joint Occupancy and Use Agreement between Partner Municipalities and the Elgin Area Primary Water Supply System with respect to the Elgin-Middlesex Pumping Station:

a)        the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021, to approve a revised Joint Occupancy and Use Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London, the Elgin Area Primary Water Supply System, the Aylmer Area Secondary Water Supply System, and the St. Thomas Secondary Water Supply System with respect to the Elgin-Middlesex Pumping Station;

b)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Agreement, substantially in the form as appended to the above-noted by-law, and satisfactory to the City Solicitor, and all documents required to fulfill its conditions; and,

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

it being noted that the Boards of Management for the Elgin Area Primary Water Supply System and both Secondary Water Supply Systems are concurrently undertaking similar actions to enter into this Joint Occupancy and Use Agreement. (2021-E03)

Motion Passed

8.8.4.5   (2.4) Contract Award: Tender No. 21-98 - Downtown Loop and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 23, 2021, related to the award of contracts for the Downtown Loop and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2 Project:

a)        the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited at its tendered price of $17,170,499.96, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited was the lowest of 3 bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)        Dillon Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,532,614.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the Civic Works Committee Added Agenda;

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

e)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender 21-98); and,

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

Motion Passed

8.8.4.6   (2.5) Commemorative Naming of City Assets - Terms of Reference

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 23, 2021, related to the Commemorative Naming of City Assets – Terms of Reference:

a)        the proposed Terms of Reference, as appended to the above-noted staff report, for reviewing the City’s commemorative naming process(es) BE APPROVED; and,

b)        any further requests to change the names of facilities, parks, streets or other City assets BE DEFERRED until a public engagement process is complete, a tool for selecting names has been developed, and administrative process(es) have been updated;

it being noted that funding for physical changes to signage or other re-naming costs must be considered as part of the Multi-Year Budget process through business case submissions, pending Council approval of the new policies and procedures. (2021-T00/R05)

Motion Passed

8.8.4.7   (2.6) Contract Award Amendment - RFP 21-37 Supply and Delivery of CNG Split Stream Rear Loading Waste Collection Trucks

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 23, 2021, related to the contract award amendment for RFP 21-37 – Supply and Delivery of CNG Split Stream Rear Loading Waste Collection Trucks:

a)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake a contract award amendment in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy as follows:

i)         the award of RFP 21-37 to London Machinery Inc. (LMI) 15790 Robin’s Hill Road, London, Ontario N5V 0A4, at a total purchase price of $10,755,520.00, excluding HST, BE CANCELLED;

ii)        the next highest scoring submission from Team Truck Centre, 795 Wilton Grove Road, London, Ontario N6N 1N7, at a total purchase price of $10,705,210.00, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED;

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

c)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval; and,

d)        the funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2021-V01)

Motion Passed

8.8.4.8   (4.1) New Sidewalks in Established Neighbourhoods

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a Neighbourhood Sidewalk Connectivity Plan approach, including a community engagement strategy, for new sidewalks on neighbourhood road and underground reconstruction projects as proposed in the staff report dated November 23, 2021, on a trial basis in 2022 to inform the 2023 Renew London Construction Program. (2021-T04)

Motion Passed

8.8.4.9   (4.2) New Sidewalk Project List 2022

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 23, 2021, related to the New Sidewalk Project List 2022:

a)        the installation of the sidewalk on Imperial Road BE REFERRED BACK to Civic Administration for consideration of including Imperial Road as part of the Neighbourhood Sidewalk Connectivity Plan; and,

b)        the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2021-T04)

Motion Passed

8.8.4.10   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at November 15, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.8.4.11   (5.2) 10th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 10th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 17, 2021:

a)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Public Information Centre #2, dated October 28, 2021, from P. Yanchuk, City of London and K. Welker, Stantec Consulting Ltd., related to the Windermere Road Improvements, City of London - Municipal Class Environment Assessment Study:

i)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consider including a southbound bicycle lane on the west side of Richmond Street, north of Windermere Road to the Thames Valley Parkway south of the bridge, to facilitate uni-directional bicycle lanes and to allow for easy access to the properties located on the west side of Richmond Street; and,

b)        clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.6 and 3.1 to 3.3, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.8.5   17th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2021-11-29 SPPC Report 17

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 17th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest with respect to any items related to the London Public Library (LPL), by indicating that his spouse is employed by the LPL.

Motion Passed

8.8.5.2   (3.1) 2022 Budget Public Participation Meeting

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following written submissions for the 2022-2023 Multi-Year Budget 2021 Public Participation Meeting BE RECEIVED for consideration by the Municipal Council as part of its 2021 Multi-Year approval process:

  • a communication dated November 15, 2021 from A. Oudshoorn, Associate Professor, Arthur Labatt Family Chair in Nursing Leadership in Health Equity, Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing;

  • a communication dated November 24, 2021 from S. Franke, President, Urban League of London;

  • a communication dated November 23, 2021 from B. Morrison;

  • a communication dated November 23, 2021 from M. Larsen;

  • a communication dated November 24, 2021 from C. Butler;

  • a communication from S. Levin;

  • a communication dated November 26, 2021 from London Environmental Network;

  • a communication dated November 26, 2021 from Antler River Rally;

  • a communication from Z. Fakirani, President and E. Oladejo, Vice President, External Affairs, Western University Students’ Council;

it being noted that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions regarding this matter:

  • D. Devine - speaking with respect to the need for increased investments for housing and homelessness;

  • E. Oladejo, Vice President, External Affairs, Western University Students’ Council - supporting increased work for the inclusion of gender considerations in decision making;

  • AM Valastro - requesting that property taxes not be increased;

  • R. Hope, Volunteer, Antler River Rally - supporting the proposed wastewater and treatment budget amendment (Case WWT-1);

  • S. Levin - addressing the submission included on the agenda, specifically a request to increase funding the the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority; and,

  • S. Franke, President, Urban League of London - speaking to the submission on the public agenda, specifically addressing the Neighbourhood Decision Making program.

Motion Passed

8.8.6   18th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2021-11-30 SPPC Report 18-Complete

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Items 1 through 13, inclusive, of the 18th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest with respect item 4.10, having to do with the London Public Library (LPL) Board of Directors vacancy, by indicating that his spouse is employed by the LPL.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.2   (2.1) Strategy to Reduce Core Area Vacancy

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to a proposed strategy that sets out potential tools that may assist in reducing core area land and building vacancy: 

a)    the staff report dated November 30, 2021 entitled Terms of Reference to Address the Council Resolution from July 6, 2021 BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Terms of Reference described in the staff report as Appendix “A”: Terms of Reference: Scope of Work to Address the Council Resolution from July 6, 2021 BE APPROVED;

c)    the integration of the work to address the Council Resolution from May 25, 2021 with respect to parking in the core into this Terms of Reference BE APPROVED;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the LEDC to develop a business case for consideration from the $10 Million funding previously authorized to be contributed to the Economic Development Reserve Fund to support social and economic recovery measures; and,

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to move forward with the Implementation Plan described in the report dated November 29, 2021.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.3   (2.2) November 2021 Semi-Annual Progress Report and 2021 Report to the Community

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated November 30, 2021 including the November 2021 Semi-Annual Progress Report and 2021 Report to the Community BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.4   (2.3) 2021 Resident Satisfaction Survey

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated November 30, 2021, including the 2021 Resident Satisfaction Survey, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.5   (3.1) 9th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee from its meeting held on November 18, 2021:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Policy and Planning Sub-Committee:

i)    the final DIAAC 2021 Year End Report BE FORWARDED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee and the Civic Administration for their consideration; and,

ii)    the verbal update from K. Arnold, with respect to the Policy and Planning Sub-Committee report, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee (DIAAC) held a general discussion with respect to the following Council Policies: Flags at City Hall, Illumination of City of London Buildings and Amenities, and Issuance of Proclamations Policy; 

it being further noted that the Policy and Planning Sub-Committee will report back to DIAAC with potential recommendations for amendments with respect to the above-noted policies;

b) the following actions be taken with respect to the River Road Golf Course Arson Incident:

i)    B. Hill, member of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee (DIAAC), BE AUTHORIZED to speak on behalf of DIAAC with respect to this matter, at the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee (SPPC) meeting to be held on November 30, 2021; and,

ii)    a Sub-Committee BE ESTABLISHED to prepare a communication, with respect to this matter, to be presented at the above-noted SPPC meeting;

c) clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2,4.4 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a verbal report from B. Hill with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.6   (4.1) Committee Appointment Preferences submitted by Council Members

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following appointments BE MADE to the Standing Committees of the Municipal Council for the term December 1, 2021 to November 14, 2022:

a) Planning and Environment Committee

Councillor A. Hopkins (Chair)

Councillor S. Lehman

Councillor S. Lewis

Councillor S. Hillier

Councillor S. Turner

b) Civic Works Committee

Councillor E. Peloza (Chair)

Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar

Councillor M. van Holst

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

Councillor J. Helmer

c) Community and Protective Services Committee

Councillor M. Cassidy (Chair)

Councillor M. Hamou

Councillor J. Helmer

Councillor M. Salih

Councillor S. Hillier

d) Corporate Services Committee

Councillor S. Lewis (Chair)

Councillor J. Morgan 

Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar

Councillor M. Cassidy

Councillor M. Hamou

Motion Passed

8.8.6.7   (4.2) Consideration of Appointment to the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar BE APPOINTED to the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.8   (4.3) Consideration of Appointment to the London & Middlesex Community Housing

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken:

a)  Councillor S. Lewis BE APPOINTED to the London and Middlesex Community Housing for the term ending November 14, 2022; and,

b) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to bring forward applications to be considered to fill the tenant vacancy at a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 22, 2021 from P. Chisholm, Chief Executive Officer, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.9   (4.4) Consideration of Appointment to the London Transit Commission

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Councillor A. Hopkins BE APPOINTED to the London Transit Commission for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.10   (4.5) Consideration of Appointment to the Middlesex-London Health Unit Board of Directors

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Councillor M. Hamou BE APPOINTED to the Middlesex-London Health Unit Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.11   (4.6) Consideration of Appointment to the Tourism London Board of Directors

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Councillor S. Hillier BE APPOINTED to the Tourism London Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2022; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated September 23, 2021 from C. Finn, General Manager, Tourism London regarding this matter.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.12   (4.7) Consideration of Appointment to the Western Fair Association Programming Council

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Councillor S. Hillier BE APPOINTED to the Western Fair Association Programming Council for the term ending November 14, 2022; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated October 14, 2021 from R. Ash, CEO, Western Fair District with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.13   (4.8) Consideration of Appointment to the Committee of Adjustment

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Antonio D. Santiago BE APPOINTED to the Committee of Adjustment for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.8.6.14   (4.9) 4th and 5th Reports of the Governance Working Group

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th and 5th Reports of the Governance Working Group from its meetings held on November 8 and 15, 2021, respectively:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the November 15 meeting of the Governance Working Group with respect to draft information related to the following potential amendments to the Council Members’ Expense Account Policy, prior to moving any recommendations to the SPPC:

i)     an amendment to the Councillor Expense Account that would provide for one annual ward-wide mail out per year, including printing and distribution by Canada Post, to be covered by the Office budget, not individual expense accounts; it being noted that this opportunity would provide for a more equitable opportunity for outreach with citizenry between wards of various size and population;

ii)     an amendment to the Councillor Expense Account (and related policies) that would remove the ability to claim home internet costs for reimbursement;

iii)     an amendment to 4.2 c) iii) to add additional permissive wording for community and/or ward events, including but not limited to prizes, rental or other “sponsorship” while maintaining the annual $1,200 maximum value and include some potential examples of these uses;

iv)     an amendment to 4.2 c) vi) to add more permissive wording for advertisements that would reduce limitations on use and types including to not be limited to newspaper publications, permit various media opportunities and while maintaining the annual $1,000 maximum;

v)     an amendment to 4.2 a) to include conference registration for FCM and AMO as an expense that is excluded from the expense account, and to be covered by the general office budget; it being noted that any associated travel expenses would continue to be covered by c) i);

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to the general operations of Municipal Council:

i)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make the necessary changes to facilitate Council meetings to be held starting at 1:00 PM, beginning with the 2022 term of Council, while still being based on the current meeting schedule; it being noted that the 2022/2023 meeting calendar will reflect this change when it is brought forward to a future Corporate Services Committee meeting for consideration; and,

ii)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the GWG with respect to recommendations related to the survey results and other feedback related to the staff support model in the Councillors’ office, in terms of the themes of increased resources and more flexibility in support duties;

it being noted that the Governance Working Group received the Councillor survey results with respect to this matter;

c)     that consideration of clause 3.1 of the 5th Report of the Governance Working Group, related to the Advisory Committee Review Final Report BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group (GWG) in order to invite all members of the current advisory committees to have a discussion with the GWG with respect to this matter;

d)    the attached revised Council Members’ Expense Account Policy BE FORWARDED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for approval; it being noted that the proposed changes would come into effect for the next term of Council; and

e)     clauses 1.1 and 3.3 from the 4th Report of the Governance Working Group and clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 4.2 from the 5th Report of the Governance Working BE RECEIVED:

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 25, 2021 from S. Franke, President, Urban League of London with respect to the City’s Advisory Committees.

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve part a):

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th and 5th Reports of the Governance Working Group from its meetings held on November 8 and 15, 2021, respectively:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the November 15 meeting of the Governance Working Group with respect to draft information related to the following potential amendments to the Council Members’ Expense Account Policy, prior to moving any recommendations to the SPPC:

i)     an amendment to the Councillor Expense Account that would provide for one annual ward-wide mail out per year, including printing and distribution by Canada Post, to be covered by the Office budget, not individual expense accounts; it being noted that this opportunity would provide for a more equitable opportunity for outreach with citizenry between wards of various size and population;

ii)     an amendment to the Councillor Expense Account (and related policies) that would remove the ability to claim home internet costs for reimbursement;

iii)     an amendment to 4.2 c) iii) to add additional permissive wording for community and/or ward events, including but not limited to prizes, rental or other “sponsorship” while maintaining the annual $1,200 maximum value and include some potential examples of these uses;

iv)     an amendment to 4.2 c) vi) to add more permissive wording for advertisements that would reduce limitations on use and types including to not be limited to newspaper publications, permit various media opportunities and while maintaining the annual $1,000 maximum;

v)     an amendment to 4.2 a) to include conference registration for FCM and AMO as an expense that is excluded from the expense account, and to be covered by the general office budget; it being noted that any associated travel expenses would continue to be covered by c) i);

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve part b) i):

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to the general operations of Municipal Council:

i)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make the necessary changes to facilitate Council meetings to be held starting at 1:00 PM, beginning with the 2022 term of Council, while still being based on the current meeting schedule; it being noted that the 2022/2023 meeting calendar will reflect this change when it is brought forward to a future Corporate Services Committee meeting for consideration; and,

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by J. Morgan

ii)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the GWG with respect to recommendations related to the survey results and other feedback related to the staff support model in the Councillors’ office, in terms of the themes of increased resources and more flexibility in support duties;

it being noted that the Governance Working Group received the Councillor survey results with respect to this matter;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve part c):

c)     that consideration of clause 3.1 of the 5th Report of the Governance Working Group, related to the Advisory Committee Review Final Report BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group (GWG) in order to invite all members of the current advisory committees to have a discussion with the GWG with respect to this matter;

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part c), as amended.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Part c), as amended, reads as follows:

c)     that consideration of clause 3.1 of the 5th Report of the Governance Working Group, related to the Advisory Committee Review Final Report BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group (GWG) in order to invite all members of the current advisory committees to have a discussion with the GWG with respect to this matter with specific dialogue to include discussion related to the proposed pause of populating some committees and the associated discussion with respect to the proposed committees/task forces for the Master Mobility Plan and the Climate Emergency Action Plan;

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve part d):

d)    the attached revised Council Members’ Expense Account Policy BE FORWARDED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for approval; it being noted that the proposed changes would come into effect for the next term of Council; and

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Motion to approve the balance of the clause:

e)     clauses 1.1 and 3.3 from the 4th Report of the Governance Working Group and clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 4.2 from the 5th Report of the Governance Working BE RECEIVED:

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 25, 2021 from S. Franke, President, Urban League of London with respect to the City’s Advisory Committees.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Clause 4.9, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th and 5th Reports of the Governance Working Group from its meetings held on November 8 and 15, 2021, respectively:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the November 15 meeting of the Governance Working Group with respect to draft information related to the following potential amendments to the Council Members’ Expense Account Policy, prior to moving any recommendations to the SPPC:

i)     an amendment to the Councillor Expense Account that would provide for one annual ward-wide mail out per year, including printing and distribution by Canada Post, to be covered by the Office budget, not individual expense accounts; it being noted that this opportunity would provide for a more equitable opportunity for outreach with citizenry between wards of various size and population;

ii)     an amendment to the Councillor Expense Account (and related policies) that would remove the ability to claim home internet costs for reimbursement;

iii)     an amendment to 4.2 c) iii) to add additional permissive wording for community and/or ward events, including but not limited to prizes, rental or other “sponsorship” while maintaining the annual $1,200 maximum value and include some potential examples of these uses;

iv)     an amendment to 4.2 c) vi) to add more permissive wording for advertisements that would reduce limitations on use and types including to not be limited to newspaper publications, permit various media opportunities and while maintaining the annual $1,000 maximum;

v)     an amendment to 4.2 a) to include conference registration for FCM and AMO as an expense that is excluded from the expense account, and to be covered by the general office budget; it being noted that any associated travel expenses would continue to be covered by c) i);

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to the general operations of Municipal Council:

i)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make the necessary changes to facilitate Council meetings to be held starting at 1:00 PM, beginning with the 2022 term of Council, while still being based on the current meeting schedule; it being noted that the 2022/2023 meeting calendar will reflect this change when it is brought forward to a future Corporate Services Committee meeting for consideration; and,

ii)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the GWG with respect to recommendations related to the survey results and other feedback related to the staff support model in the Councillors’ office, in terms of the themes of increased resources and more flexibility in support duties;

it being noted that the Governance Working Group received the Councillor survey results with respect to this matter;

c)     that consideration of clause 3.1 of the 5th Report of the Governance Working Group, related to the Advisory Committee Review Final Report BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group (GWG) in order to invite all members of the current advisory committees to have a discussion with the GWG with respect to this matter with specific dialogue to include discussion related to the proposed pause of populating some committees and the associated discussion with respect to the proposed committees/task forces for the Master Mobility Plan and the Climate Emergency Action Plan;

d)    the attached revised Council Members’ Expense Account Policy BE FORWARDED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for approval; it being noted that the proposed changes would come into effect for the next term of Council; and

e)     clauses 1.1 and 3.3 from the 4th Report of the Governance Working Group and clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 4.2 from the 5th Report of the Governance Working BE RECEIVED:

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 25, 2021 from S. Franke, President, Urban League of London with respect to the City’s Advisory Committees.

8.8.6.15   (4.10) London Public Library Board of Directors Vacancy

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Library Board of Directors vacancy notification:

a) contact current applications on file, to confirm that those individuals remain interested in consideration for appointment;

b) seek additional applications to fill the vacancy on the Board; and,

c) bring forward applications, noted in parts a) and b), above for consideration at a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.8.6.16   (5.1) Governance Working Group Membership

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following members of Council BE APPOINTED to the Governance Working Group for the remainder of the term:

Councillor Cassidy

Councillor Fyfe-Millar

Councillor Hamou

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That the Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 6:40 PM, and resumes at 6:56 PM.

8.10   Deferred Matters

None.

8.11   Enquiries

None.

8.12   Emergent Motions

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lewis

That pursuant to section 20.2 of the Council Procedure By-law leave be given for the introduction of a motion for reconsideration of a decided matter of Council.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. van Holst

That reconsideration of the vote for Item 14, clause 4.9, part b)i), of the 18th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED; it being noted that a voting error was identified.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by J. Morgan

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

Motion to approve part b) i) of clause 4.9:

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to the general operations of Municipal Council:

i)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make the necessary changes to facilitate Council meetings to be held starting at 1:00 PM, beginning with the 2022 term of Council, while still being based on the current meeting schedule; it being noted that the 2022/2023 meeting calendar will reflect this change when it is brought forward to a future Corporate Services Committee meeting for consideration; and,

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

8.13   By-laws

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That introduction and first reading of Bill No.’s 1 to 36, including the revised Bill No. 34, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Hamou

That second reading of Bill No.’s 1 to 36, including the revised Bill No. 34, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Lehman

That third reading and enactment of Bill No.’s 1 to 36, including the revised Bill No. 34, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4   Council, In Closed Session

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       Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regards to one of the Corporation’s unions including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and direction to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/19/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; and pertains to personal matters about an identifiable individual with respect to employment-related matters and advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.2/19/CSC)

4.3       Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation with respect to the expropriation of property located at 600 Adelaide Street North; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, in connection with the expropriation of property located at 600 Adelaide Street North; and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality regarding settlement negotiations and conduct of litigation or potential litigation in connection with the expropriation of a property located at 600 Adelaide Street North. (6.3/19/CSC)

4.4       Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individual with respect to employment-related matters and advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.4/19/CSC)

Motion Passed

The Council convenes, In Closed Session, at 7:06 PM; the Council reconvenes, in public session, at 7:50 PM.

8.9   Added Reports

8.9.1   1st Report of Council in Closed Session

At 7:57 PM, His Worship the Mayor places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 8:00 PM, His Worship the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lehman

  1.    SEIU RN – Tentative Agreement

    

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports the attached Memorandum of Agreement and Agreed To Items dated September 20 and 21, 2021 concerning the 2021-2023 Collective Agreement for Service Employees International Union Local 1 (Registered Nurses Bargaining Unit Full Time and Part Time Bargaining Units) representing full-time and part-time Registered Nurses at the Dearness Home BE RATIFIED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That introduction and first reading of Added Bill No. 37 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Helmer

That second reading of Added Bill No. Bill No. 37 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Hillier

That third reading and enactment of Added Bill No. 37 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

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

Bill No. 1

By-law No. A.-8191-1 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 7th day of December, 2021. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 2

By-law No. A.-8192-2 - A by-law to authorize and approve a standard form Loan Contribution Agreement for capital funding under the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) Program – SSRF 4. (2.6b/16/CPSC)

Bill No. 3

By-law No. A.-8193-3 - A by-law to delegate authority to the City Treasurer and City Solicitor to approve Contribution Agreements between The Corporation of the City of London and Vision SoHo Alliance members and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Contribution Agreements. (2.8c/16/CPSC)

Bill No. 4

By-law No. A.-8194-4 - A by-law to approve a Joint Occupancy and Use Agreement between the Corporation of the City of London, the Elgin Area Primary Water Supply System, the Aylmer Area Secondary Water Supply System, and the St. Thomas Secondary Water Supply System with respect to the Elgin-Middlesex Pumping Station. (2.3/15/CWC)

Bill No. 5

By-law No. A.-8195-5 - A by-law to authorize the City Treasurer or Deputy Treasurer of The Corporation of the City of London to borrow certain sums to meet current expenditures of the Corporation for the year 2022. (2.2/19/CSC)

Bill No. 6

By-law No. A.-8196-6 - A bylaw to authorize the signing of cheques and electronic funds or wire transfers on certain bank accounts of The Corporation of the City of London, and to repeal By-law A.-7473-288 entitled “A bylaw to authorize the signing of cheques and electronic funds or wire transfers on certain bank accounts of The Corporation of the City of London, and to repeal By-law no. A.-7473-288 (2.4c/19/CSC)

Bill No. 7

By-law No. A.-8197-7 - A by-law to authorize the Director, People Services to approve the agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and SAP Canada Inc. for a Human Resources Information System and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2.6e/19/CSC)

Bill No. 8

By-law No. A.-6151(ad)-8 - 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 “A”, being “Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy”. (2.5b/19/CSC)

Bill No. 9

By-law No. A.-7955(a)-9 - A by-law to amend By-law A.-7955-83, “a bylaw to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Resolution Regarding Banking and the Master Client Agreement for Business Client Authorization and any contract or document with the Royal Bank relating to the Ontario Works Royal Bank of Canada Right Pay Reloadable Payment Card Program and to authorize the signing of cheques and the withdrawal or transfer of funds.” (2.4a/19/CSC)

Bill No. 10

By-law No. A.-8047(a)-10 - A by-law to amend By-law A.-8047-15, “A bylaw to approve an Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and The Corporation of the City of London”. (2.4b/19/CSC)

Bill No. 11

By-law No. A-54-22008 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London”. (2.1b/15/CWC)

Bill No. 12

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wm)-11 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street. (3.4a/17/PEC)

Bill No. 13

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wn)-12 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street. (3.4c/17/PEC)

Bill No. 14

By-law No. C.P.-1512(au)-13 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016. (3.2a/17/PEC)

Bill No. 15

By-law No. C.P.-1512(av)-14 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street. (3.4b/17/PEC)

Bill No. 16

By-law No. C.P.-1573-15 - A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 1790 Finley Crescent, legally described as Block 100 in Registered Plan 33M-733. (2.6/17/PEC)

Bill No. 17

By-law No. C.P.-1574-16 - A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 2313 and 2373 Callingham Drive, legally described as Blocks 2 and 3 of Registered Plan 33M-664. (2.13/17/PEC)

Bill No. 18

By-law No. CPOL.-408-17 - A by-law to repeal By-Law No. CPOL.-222-474, and related amendments thereto, being        “A by-law to revoke and repeal Council policy related to Traffic By-law Amendments and replace it with a new Council policy entitled Traffic & Parking By-law Amendments” (2.1c/15/CWC)

Bill No. 19

By-law No. CPOL.-275(b)-18 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-275(a)-159, being “Free of Fear Services for All Policy” by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (2.5a/19/CSC)

Bill No. 20

By-law No. L.S.P.-3495-19 - A by-law to designate 44 Bruce Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest. (4.1/13/PEC)

Bill No. 21

By-law No. PS-114 - A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London, and to repeal By-law No. PS-113, as amended, entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”. (2.1a/15/CWC)

Bill No. 22

By-law No. S.-6154-20 - A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Summerside Subdivision Phase 12B, 33M-699) (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

Bill No. 23

By-law No. S.-6155-21 - A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Foxwood Subdivision Phase 1, 33M-685)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

Bill No. 24

By-law No. S.-6156-22 - A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Stoneycreek Subdivision Phase 1, 33M-701)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

Bill No. 25

By-law No. S.-6157-23 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Southdale Road East and Wellington Road)  (Chief Surveyor - for road widening purposes registered as ER1387576, pursuant to SPA20-038 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 26

By-law No. S.-6158-24 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Wonderland Road North, north of Fanshawe Park Road West)  (Chief Surveyor - for road widening purposes registered as ER1399708, pursuant to SPA20-040 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 27

By-law No. S.-6159-25 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume certain reserves in the City of London as public highway. (as part of Turner Crescent)  (Chief Surveyor - registration of 33M-790 requires 0.3m Reserves on the abutting Plans, being 33M-699 and 33M-772, to be dedicated as public highway for unobstructed legal access throughout the Subdivision)

Bill No. 28

By-law No. Z.-1-222972 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 915 Upperpoint Avenue. (2.4/17/PEC)

Bill No. 29

By-law No. Z.-1-222973 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 235 Kennington way. (2.5/17/PEC)

Bill No. 30

By-law No. Z.-1-222974 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove the holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne. (2.8/17/PEC)

Bill No. 31

By-law No. Z.-1-222975 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 1595 Capri Crescent (1600 Twilite Boulevard). (2.12/17/PEC)

Bill No. 32

By-law No. Z.-1-222976 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 3047 White Oak Road. (3.1/17/PEC)

Bill No. 33

By-law No. Z.-1-222977 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to make changes to allow the growing of food within the City’s urban growth boundary. (3.2b/17/PEC)

Bill No. 34

By-law No. Z.-1-222978 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 99 Southdale Road West. (3.3a/17/PEC)

Bill No. 35

By-law No. Z.-1-222979 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street. (3.4d/17/PEC)

Bill No. 36

By-law No. Z.-1-222980 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 3095 & 3105 Bostwick Road. (3.6/17/PEC)

Bill No. 37

By-law No. A.-8198-26 - A by-law to appoint Michael Schulthess as the City Clerk of The Corporation of the City of London and repeal By-law No. A.-6429-315 being “A by-law to appoint Catharine Saunders as the City Clerk of The Corporation of the City of London” and By-law A.-8088-120 being “A by-law to appoint Michael Schulthess as Deputy Clerk”. (City Clerk)

8.9.9   Added Reports

8.9.14   Adjournment

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting be adjourned.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourns at 8:31 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 (3 hours, 46 minutes)

[1:48] Colleagues, can I ask you please to turn your screens on for verification, absolute identity check, and just to say greetings and hello. Present. With your worship, we have a forum, thank you. Thank you very much.

[2:26] I’d like to welcome council members and the public to the December 7th meeting of city council, virtual meeting held during the COVID-19 emergency. We would invite you to check the city’s website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts and meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request.

[2:59] To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 516-661-249 extension, 2425. Colleagues all look for any disclosures of your particular interest, please. Councillor Turner. Thank you, Your Worship, with respect to item 8.5 or 17th report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. The budget for public participation meeting not disclosed any interests associated with the London Public Library as my spouse is an employee of the London Public Library, as well for number 8.6, number 18th report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, number 15 or 4.10, which is with respect to London Public Library Board of Directors vacancy.

[3:43] I’ll reiterate the same conflict. Thank you very much, any other disclosures? I see none. Colleagues, we have a couple of recognitions that we would like to deal with. And firstly, if I might, it’s my honor, it’s my honor on behalf of council to introduce and to award the London Diversity Race Relations and Inclusivity Recognition Awards.

[4:34] Today, to colleagues and friends, we are celebrating this year’s recipients of the London Diversity Race Relations and Inclusivity Award. We recognize each group’s unique contribution in promoting public awareness of diversity, anti-racism, inclusivity, inclusivity and human rights here in London. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted on December 10, 1948. The date has since served to mark human rights today worldwide. The City of London Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Awards are scheduled, always on the council meeting closest to December 10th.

[5:12] The awards began 20 years ago to recognize achievements to promote public awareness and encourage ongoing initiatives relating to diversity, race relations, inclusivity and human rights and to promote London as a welcoming city. It recognizes those who help make London safe place for everyone. It reminds us that we are the ones who will strengthen the community within our city. I’d like to acknowledge all nine of this year’s nominees. And now let me congratulate the exceptional 2021 recipients of the London Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, of which we are acknowledging two recipients.

[5:54] In the category of social community services, not for profit, with fewer than 50 members, the award recipient is Rights and Responsibilities Awareness Initiative. This award acknowledges all that you do in our city, providing legal, financial and cultural awareness programs to the London and Middlesex community, including to newcomers and refugees via online sessions. So far, the RRAI has presented 22 information sessions on very important legal, social and financial topics.

[6:30] It is interesting that RRAI was established during the application of a proposal created as a response to the neighborhood decision-making initiative here in our city of London, so bravo to them. And accepting the award on behalf of Rights and Responsibilities Awareness Initiative is Dr. Hatem Abu-Karki. Congratulations, and I invite Dr. Abu-Karki to say a few words, please. Thank you, Your Worship, and thank you, the city of London for recognizing the important work that we are doing with the individuals, helping them to be a better citizens and better community members, which will reflect to this great community and prove that this great country could be a better place for everyone.

[7:23] I am so honored, and I am so grateful to be here. Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you, Dr. Abu-Karki. And this reads the plaque that you will be receiving on behalf of the city of London, the Municipal Council on the recommendation of the Corporation of the City of London’s Diversity Inclusion and Anti-oppression Advisory Committee presents Rights and Responsibilities Awareness Initiative with the 2021 Diversity, Race Relations, and Inclusivity Award, Social Community Services category with less than 50 members, and recognition of your initiative providing legal, financial, and cultural awareness programs to the London Middlesex community, including to newcomers and refugees via online sessions.

[8:09] And to them, we offer our deepest and serious congratulations. Congratulations to them. And colleagues, it’s my privilege in the category of social community services, not for profit, larger than 50 members. The award recipient is NEST, the network for economic and social trends, Western University. This award is in recognition of your partnership work in and with the community to mobilize research, education, awareness, and outreach for positive policy impact and social change for your community university partnerships to mobilize research, education, and awareness for equity, diversity, inclusion, and decolonization.

[8:56] NEST is a leader in bridging the university community divide and works with London and surrounding community on issues regarding racism and discrimination and provides an evidence-based for needed work in the community. This work involves NEST faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students together with community partners. NEST partnerships elevate the key messages of the university, research, education, and awareness, and outreach by taking aim at positive policy impact and social change.

[9:32] Importantly, an ongoing goal is to further develop expertise among community partners, accepting the award on behalf of the network for economic and social trends, Western University is Dr. Vicki Esses, and I’d say to Dr. Esses, congratulations, and we invite you to say a few words, please. Thank you very much for recognizing the work of the network for economic and social trends, known as NEST at Western University. NEST has been in existence for close to four years, and it’s the flagship research and policy alliance in the Faculty of Social Science.

[10:08] As mentioned, we provide an evidence-based for work on diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, and human rights with partners in London throughout Southwestern Ontario and across Canada. For example, we recently partnered with the London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership and seven other local immigration partnerships across Southwestern Ontario to conduct surveys of local experiences of discrimination by immigrants, racialized individuals, and indigenous peoples, and our goal was to develop a deeper understanding of the impact of discrimination in our region and how to counteract it.

[10:48] Based on this work, a major project on the horizon engaging more than 20 partners across Southwestern Ontario is equity in action, focusing on counteracting racism and discrimination in London and throughout the region. This award motivates us as we continue with our many partners to fight racism and discrimination where we live and where we work. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Esses. Lisa Jumpman, please help me congratulate NEST, the Network for Economic and Social Trans Western University in receipt of the 2021 Diversity Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, Social Community Services Category 50+ members.

[11:35] Congratulations, Dr. Esses, and to your team. I will make sure colleagues at those plaques go appropriately to these organizations, these outstanding organizations with the city. So colleagues, we have two additional recognitions we would like to acknowledge the first if I might as I will call on Dr. on Councillor Homou, please. Over the weekend, we had not one, but two London football teams competing for national championships.

[12:16] The London beef eaters fresh off and an Ontario Football Conference Championship hosted the Langley Rams at Western Alumni Stadium located in Ward 6 in the Canadian Junior Football League final. While the beef eaters came up short, they remain OFC champions and represented London with honour in their first ever Canadian Bowl appearance. And we know that they’ll be back. On that same day, just one hour later, the Western Mustangs went head-to-head against Saskatchewan in the Vannier Cup, hosted in the beautiful Quebec City.

[12:50] The Mustangs overcame a half-time deficit, delivering a clutch performance on route to a 27 to 21 win, capturing their first national championship since 2017 and their eighth all-time, and it definitely won’t be their last. On behalf of Council and all Ward 6 constituents, I’d like to recognize this remarkable achievement while extending congratulations to all Mustang players, coaches and staff. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Homou.

[13:23] Colleagues, I’d like to take a moment now to recognize our first responders and our London Health Sciences Centre, Pediatric Emergency Department. As you all know, 2021 has been a particularly difficult year and we appreciate all that they do. Providing specialized pediatric care for babies, children and teens, up to 18 years of age, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is an incredible commitment. The Pediatric Emergency Department cares for approximately 36,000 children per year, and serves as the Regional Pediatric Trauma Centre.

[14:03] In addition to doctors and nurses, your team of social workers and child life space specialists truly make a difference during a child’s emergency. And so, to the London Health Sciences Centre, Pediatric Emergency Department, we’d like to thank you for your caring, for your compassion. We say on behalf of all the London City Council, thanks for what you do. You know exactly, exactly one week ago, last Tuesday night on November 30th, 10 people were struck by a vehicle on Riverside Drive near Wonderland Road, tragically an eight year old girl, Alexander Stemp was killed, as a result of that horrible crash.

[14:45] Described by her parents as brilliant and vivacious little girl with the terrific sense of humor, talented artist who loved her older brother with Oliver Hart, Alexander’s loss has played heavily on the hearts and minds of her family and all Londoners. We’ve seen such an outpouring of support for the Stemp family, both emotionally and financially, along with solemn tributes over the weekend, as countless homes, municipal and other prominent buildings throughout our city were let up and girl guide blue.

[15:19] Colleagues, I’d like to ask you now to stand and pause for a moment of silence in honor of Alexander, her family, and also all of those of those who continue to recover from their injuries. Would you pause with me, please? Thank you very much.

[16:12] Colleagues, I’m not aware of any confidential matters to be considered in public, but I am going to ask for a change in order to move item four, council in closed session, intent to report a council in closed session to after stage 13 bylaws, something we typically do. Do I have a mover, please? I see Councilor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councilor Hilliard, thank you very much. Let’s call the question. Councilor Van Holst?

[17:19] No, yeah. Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed. Thank you very much. And Colleagues, I’ll look for a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held on November 6th, 2021 that are on the floor. I’ll look for a mover, please. Moved by Councilor Fyfe Miller. Seconded by Councilor Hopkins. Thank you, comments or questions? Then let’s call the vote.

[18:17] Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed. 15. Thank you very much, communications and petitions. 6.1, dealing with encouraging the growth of food in urban areas. 6.2, dealing with 99 Southdale Road West, 6.3, dealing with 1453, 1459 Oxford Street East and 648. 656 Arieswood Avenue, 6.4, which is new sidewalks and established neighborhoods. 6.5, the Governance Working Group Membership. 6.6, the City of London Procurement Process Assessment Review.

[18:52] What I’d be looking for is a motion to refer those items to the appropriate committees where they can be considered Councilor Van Holst. Second by Councilor Lewis, any comments or questions? I see none. Let’s call the question, please. Mr. Mayor, my button won’t, it wouldn’t let me submit. Mr. Castee, perhaps if you could give us a verbal, I’ll do the same, yes?

[19:33] Yes. Thank you through the chair. All of the votes have come in, closing the votes, the motion’s carried 15 to zero. Councilor Castee, me with the verbals, thank you very much, colleagues. There are no motions to which notices can be given. So I wonder if we can turn our attention colleagues to our various reports. And the first is the 17th Report of Planning Environment Committee, may I turn this over to Councilor Hopkins, please? Thank you, Your Worship.

[20:05] I would like to bring forward the 17th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee. I will be pulling a number 17, and I have been asked to pull number 21. Which is the 1453, 1459 Oxford Street East and Airswood Avenue application as well as the 17, which is the Southdale Road West. Thank you very much, does anyone wish to have any other item built separately?

[20:47] Two, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship has always been very busy agenda with numerous holding provisions and parking standards review going out for consultation and a number of public participation meetings that were held. One in particular was the proposed amendments to the London Plan and zoning by-law when it comes to encouraging growing food in urban areas. So with that, I would also just add we received a delegation from Cindy Levin, the Chair of EPEC as well as the lots report.

[21:24] And with that, I will put all these items on the phone. So all the items with the exception of item 17, 3.3 and 21, 3.7 are for consideration. Any other comments or questions with respect to those items? I see none, we’ll call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero.

[22:09] Yeah, I would like to put number 17, 3.3, which is the application for 99 Southdale Road West. On the floor, there are a number of amendments, administrative amendments and housekeeping considerations. So I want to bring that to Council’s attention as well as the word Councillor, Councillor Van Mereberg and has asked to speak to this as well. So I’m not sure how to proceed, I’ll probably start off with the housekeeping amendments.

[22:46] I wonder if you’d like to put those on the floor, those amendments, those are the ones that were presented to Council. We received that in our communications earlier. I wonder if you could identify them and that might help colleagues. Yeah, one of them is the pre amendment sheet with the recommendation if you can see the changes as it relates to be from the previous recommendation. The other housekeeping is the reference to CP instead of set and the other one is the reference to density as well. I may go through your worship to the clerk just to get clarification.

[23:30] Let’s go to the clerk. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just before Council, another item came to attention and we have, we just as you went into Council circulated, it revised map to you with respect to the same application. There is a stormwater management pond included and it was the wrong zoning for that area. Perhaps Mr. Barrett could explain it a little better than I am.

[24:04] Mr. Barrett, can you enlighten us please? Thank you, Chair Worship. Yes, we apologize. There were a few housekeeping technical errors with this. Maybe if I could just clear up the density one first just to help the Council understand the base zone that had been applied to the zone came with a density greater than in fact, was approved and was discussed at the planning committee meeting. So with the consent of the applicant, that amendment was made whereby the base zoning is shown as a hundred units per hectare and that’s the number that was discussed at the public meeting.

[24:39] The other matter is a matter of mapping. There’s a stormwater management facility associated with the site that’s going to be included. It can’t be shown in the OS4 area because that’s the area to be conserved. So the line work is amended to show where the stormwater management facility would be located, would be under the same zoning as the rest of the development. And then the OS4 would go on the remainder of the lands of the woodland area to be preserved. To do colleagues have any questions for Mr. Barrett with respect to the amendments and the reference to the, well, all the reference that he has made with respect to this amendment she put forward by the chair.

[25:28] So we have on the floor, the amendments as put forward by the chair. I’ll need a seconder for that, please. I see Councillor Cassidy, thank you, comments, questions. Then let’s call the question. Opposing the vote and the motion carries 14 to one.

[26:15] Yes, I know the word Councillor would like to make a few comments, but I would like to add to the public participation meeting that we received a delegation from the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox community as well. And it was a conversation at the planning committee that they would continue to work with the applicant and to continue further conversations through the site plan process as well.

[26:52] I think that was really important to note from the public participation meeting. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we open this up for either any debate or other additional comment, I will require that this motion is amended be put on the floor and seconded. Chair, are you willing to do that? And do I have a seconder? I see Councillor Fyfe another, thank you. Any comments or questions? Councillor van Riberg, your name has come up more than once. I’m not trying to go due to talking, but if you’d like to say something with respect to this, you’re welcome.

[27:28] Yes, thank you very much, Chair and Mayor. I did want to, sorry, one second is getting my. I did want to bring forward some positive news as came up at the planning committee meeting. There was some concern from the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox community about the proposed development. I was happy to attend a meeting earlier this afternoon, face-to-face meeting between the applicant and the Greek Orthodox community.

[28:05] They were able to come to terms, reach a compromise and right now the applicant either has already submitted or is in the process of submitting a letter agreeing to what was stated. In summary, it’s basically moving the blocks that are proposed, there’s six of them around so that the ponderance of the floors, if you will, higher buildings are further away from the church community itself, for example, along the Woodlot line and more towards the commercial properties.

[28:47] So all in all, very successful. And I would ask colleagues to support this. Thank you, any other comments or questions with respect to item 3.3 as amended. Councillor Van Halst, please. Thank you, Your Worship. There was say, I believe a letter requesting a referral to the next meeting, is that a next council meeting? Is that no longer necessary? I don’t want to presume it would seem not, but I will go back to the chair for that.

[29:29] Just to give council members further information, I think it’s really important to understand all these policies that have come into effect here. And I understand that the base zoning regulation of the density provision of the R9-5 zone permits 125 units per hectare, whereas the swap secondary plan restricts the density to 100, and units per hectare through the zoning by-law. Therefore, to rectify the zoning and the swap secondary plan, the by-law to be considered by council includes a special provision that restricts the density to 100 units per hectare.

[30:12] This application is under that. Thank you, any other comments, Councillor and Halst? No, thank you. Thank you, any other comments, Colleagues? Councillor van Revergen, please. You’ve already spoken, I’m sorry. And since you’re unmuted, it doesn’t seem to matter anyway. It was just a point of information for the councilor’s question. You correctly answered it, Your Worship. Thank you. Okay, good. Thank you, any other comments or questions? Seeing none, let’s call the question as a matter.

[31:07] 15, motion carries 15. Thank you. I’m not sure Colleagues heard that 15 to zero, according to the clerk, it was carried. Thank you. Back to Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. So the next one that I’ve been asked to bold is number 21, which is the application at 1453, 1439 Oxford Street East and 648, 656 Ayreswood Avenue. This was a public participation meeting that was held at the planning.

[31:45] The staff recommendation was to refuse it. There was a discussion for referral. It did not pass. The committee did support staff’s recommendation. I know we have subsequently received further information. And one of the concerns was about the process of holding the public participation, if it was fair. And I have spoken with city clerks to make sure that we did undertake the correct procedure when it came to the public participation meeting.

[32:24] And from what I understand, we did allow the applicant the five minutes that was allowed. And the applicant did suggest that if there were any questions from the committee that he would be available. I think it’s important to make sure that council is aware that we did undertake the correct process. And with that, I will put this on the floor. Thank you. Any comments or questions colleagues?

[32:58] I see Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And on this one, we have indeed received additional information and I don’t at all disagree with Councillor Hopkins in terms of the public participation process. I think we followed our standard procedures correctly. But we’ve also heard from the applicant directly between PEC and today that they are open to continuing to work with our staff to find a way, a path forward here, including working with HDC to formalize affordable housing agreements, including working with them on height and density.

[33:36] So it’s my intention to ask council to consider a referral. The language will not be really that much different than what I raised at PEC, which was that the application by Red Maple Properties, relating to the properties at 453 and 459 Oxford Street East and for 648, 656, errors would Avenue be referred back to civic administration to undertake the following actions and report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. And those would be clause A to work with the applicant to ensure the appropriate framework is in place for the provision of affordable housing units at 70% of the average market rate for 50 years.

[34:19] B, to work with the applicant to determine options to resolve the sanitary sewer capacity issues. And C, to work with the applicant to revise the application to consolidate the subject properties as being within the rapid transit corridor. It being noted that this is not withstanding the 100 meter policy guideline adjacent to a rapid transit station. For the purpose of developing height and density suitable to such locations and by such locations, that’s referring to the rapid transit corridor. So that’s the referral that I’m asking for.

[34:54] Well, I guess I believe Councillor van Mirberg and has indicated he’ll second that for me and then we can perhaps have some discussion on that. Well, why don’t we find that out to Councillor van Mirberg and are you seconding? All right, thank you very much. I have a speakers list. I’ll start with Councillor Hilliard, please. Oh, I’m sorry. Sorry, I haven’t actually yielded the floor. I was yielding for you, but go ahead, Councillors. I just wanted to provide a little bit of context around the reason to ask for this referral again. I do think that there’s value in letting our staff talk to the applicant further on this rather than just ending it out right.

[35:33] I’d hate to send this back to a square one stage with a brand new pre-consult for both the applicant and our staff spend that time over again on items they’ve already discussed. Colleagues may not be aware that the application that came before us was actually a revision of an earlier application that was at a lower height in having heard from the applicant that they’re certainly recognizing. And I would say, if we were discussing the application as presented tonight, I would be a no as well because I do think that the height is excessive for this location.

[36:06] But I think that we’ve heard from the applicant they’re willing to work with our staff on this. I think there is an opportunity to shorten the process in terms of instead of sending it back to square one that we send it back and give them another try here. It wouldn’t be the first time that we’ve referred an application back for further discussion with staff. And I think the indications we’ve got from the applicant is they’ve heard loud and clear that we don’t really have support for anyone on the existing application. And so they’re willing to revise it and come back with something new.

[36:39] So I hope that folks will consider that and we’ll see what other folks have to say now. I will yield the floor. Consider yourself yielded. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Councillor Hilliard, please. Yes, thank you very much. Just a question for staff. When the corner of Oxford and Highbury’s developed, what will the height restrictions be right across the road from Rio Hampton Avenue in that corner by Fanshawe? ‘Cause that’s a large parcel that’s gonna be developed. I just wanna know what the height restrictions on that parcel will be.

[37:13] Why don’t we start with Mr. Cotsmith? You can direct it if you need to, sir. Yeah, I think there is a, I’m assuming you’re talking with the London psychiatric plans that were. So there is a secondary plan for that. I will defer to Mr. Barrett. He might have a bit more detail in terms of the types of heights that you might see on that property. Thanks, go ahead, Mr. Ripp. Thank you for your worship and I apologize. I’m starting to try to pull up that information.

[37:46] As Mr. Cotsmith’s indicated, there is a secondary plan on those lands and they also are within a portion of them or within the transit village. So there’s a different set of height permissions that go with that. I’m just trying to quickly find what those are. If I could come back, perhaps once I get that information rather than trying to fill airtime, as I scroll through to try to find the correct answer, if I may.

[38:18] Okay, thank you very much. Councillor, go ahead, please. Yeah, the reason I’m asking is obvious. If we’re going to restrict development, right next door to this location and then all of a sudden the 30-store building pops up, we’re going to look very bad. All right, thank you. Any other questions that you might have, Councillor Herr, if not, I’m going to send this over to Councillor Cillier depending on, but by the way, I’ll reserve the right that should, as Mr. Barrett comes back with some response, if you want to follow up on that, there’s still time within your allotment here.

[38:50] Councillor Cillier, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I just appreciate the motion of them. Councillor Lewis, I’ll be supporting the referral. I think it’s a great opportunity for the applicant to staff to work out some of the challenges that we’ve heard at the planning environmental committee, planning environment committee. I appreciate the feedback that I heard. I know I got an email as well from the applicant as well today. So I guess I’d encourage everyone to support the referral. I think there’s a need for more housing in this area, especially with the students and just residents in the area.

[39:25] So I think this is warranted. And I think hopefully, I hope to see more development and more three. It doesn’t really happen often. I think this is probably a third or fifth time since my entire term on council could be wrong, but so I think there’s always a need in the East End and I think this is something so I continue to welcome developers to come towards the East End because there’s housing needs and hopefully, we can figure out something in the long term to fill the demand. Thank you very much, Councillor Slee.

[39:59] Any other comments or questions before I ask if Mr. Burds had the opportunity? Councillor Turner, go ahead, please. Thank you, Worsha, just for you to staff. What would be the impact of the referral back and recognizing we do this from time to time, but there’s a fairly unequivocal recommendation for refusal here. Is there a prospect of success in a referral back or is this kind of irreconcilable? I wonder if we give that to Mr. Burd.

[40:35] Well, I can jump in, Worsha, well, Mr. Burds. Mr. Potsmith, you two are really mixing me up today, but you go ahead, please. So there’s a couple of things I think you may want to consider as council. One is the, we’ve been working with the applicant, I believe since September 2020. So it’s been, there’s been a lot of discussions on this. The timeline for the applications lapse. So it is within the purview of the applicant to appeal for lack of decision. So not having a decision and having referral back would not benefit the city at this point.

[41:14] The other part as well is that the referral back is really a direction to staff. It’s not necessarily a direction to the applicant. And although we’d love to try to negotiate and try to get down to something that we would be much more comfortable with, we’ve been having a lot of these discussions for some time and it’s not come to fruition. So that could be problematic. The other third part I would mention would be is the part C to the resolution or the direction. I think we had some discussion about that at Planning Environment Committee as well.

[41:52] And Mr. Barrett might want to speak to that one a little bit as well or add to my comments. I’m almost nervous to ask Mr. Barrett, but why don’t you try please? Thank you, Thier Warship. To the first question that was asked related to the heights. So within the transit village, the heights are permitted from 15 to 22 stories. So this ask is actually even greater than what that ask is or then what the permissions would be there. And as was indicated, there’s also a secondary plan on these lands and I’m just rapidly scrolling through that and how to find there was a table of heights, but it would have been consistent or probably less than the 15 to 22 stories.

[42:37] As it relates to the referral, I believe that Mr. Cotsfus perhaps hit the biggest issue, which is it’s a referral to staff. It’s not a referral to the applicant. And certainly, while I understand the council has said the applicant has expressed some desire to work with it and made mention of a revised application. Certainly, we’d be more than happy to look at a revised application, but the position of working from, as was noted, an established staff position with something that we know the applicant has not been sort of in favor of makes, I guess, a referral a little bit difficult.

[43:23] We’re not too sure what, in fact, we’re bringing to the table. As it relates to the clause C and working within the context of the rapid transit corridor, certainly as part of the consideration of the application, that interpretation can be made as to whether or not the land should be included within and based on the nature of the application, that would be making that recommendation to you as part of their recommendations to whether or not these lands should be considered. The reason, quite honestly, in this instance, why it was not done was because the positions were so far apart that we, in fact, couldn’t recommend that you interpret the entire parcel of land to be within the RTC or the rapid transit corridor, if, in fact, we were not supporting the notion in the first instance.

[44:17] So that, quite honestly, is the reason why, so with all due respect within the referral, I don’t know that we need the direction to consider making that determination because that would be part of the determination on the review of the application. It was our position and I believe that we brought this forward at the public participation meeting at the Planning and Environment Committee that it’s just a cleaner process to start over again with a new application and these matters can be addressed and certainly the applicant has heard the concerns of council, has heard the concerns of staff and heard the concerns of public as it relates to this application and those I would suggest to you, the issues of centric capacity, the issue of the appropriate level of intensity, the issue of the appropriate amount of bonusing that might support any increase in that level of intensity and the appropriateness of the consolidation of the parcels as it would relate to the rapid transit corridor would all be part of that consideration of an application.

[45:21] Thank you, Councillor Turner. Thanks, that was a lot of really important information in that response. I certainly appreciate that from both Mr. Barrett and Mr. Costafis. I think for those reasons, I think we should really take caution in such a referral back. Most importantly there was the item that by not having a decision of council, should this get appealed to LPAT, then there’s not a reference from council by which to anchor any of the city’s position in our case when we go forward there.

[46:02] And I think Mr. Barrett said it well, that the opportunity, and it just becomes cleaner to start the process over again. It sounds like for a wide number of reasons, this is a fair departure from anything that would be supported in our planning documents and in our process. So I urge that you defeat the referral. I think the refusal is appropriate on its own. And the process can continue.

[46:38] It doesn’t mean it’s the end of the process. The applicant still owns the lands. The applicant still has an interest in developing on the lands. The applicant still will place density on those lands consistent with what they’re allowed to do. But they need to work with staff to get their referral is one path towards it, but it has, as you heard, it’s fraught with a lot of perils and really complicates the city’s ability to work with the applicant in the appropriate way. The applicant’s not walking away from this property.

[47:10] It’s valuable. It does need to be developed. I agree with my colleagues. It just needs to be done right. Thank you. I’d like to circle back if I can, before I go to our next speaker, to Councillor Iler who had a question answered by staff and wonder if that prompts any other questions in terms of your time. No, I’m good with that. I’m just concerned what the end result looks like. That’s all. Thanks very much. Let me call then on Deputy Mayor Morgan, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

[47:43] I have a question for Mr. Barrett, and then I’ll make some comments. Going along the lines of what Councillor Turner asked about and something that was said by our staff, I want to understand, I want to confirm my understanding of the process on what happens. If we refuse it, the applicant could appeal that and the basis of the staff position would be Council’s position of refusal. If we were to refer it back and the applicant appealed, they would be able to appeal under the grounds of non-decision by passing the statutory 120 days, I believe it is.

[48:22] And then I believe our staff, instead of not having a position, you would come back to Planning Committee to get a position to take to the defense at the tribunal. In other words, we would end up at the same spot if Council confirmed staff’s position at that point when there was that check-in, knowing that that’s obviously up for debate. But I want to understand that that’s the process, that we still have the opportunity to carve out a position at PEC on this to be the basis of the city’s defense.

[48:56] Mr. Mayor. Through you worship. Yes, if there is an appeal on the decision, then it’s that decision that would be the basis of the appeal and the positions that would be taken before the OLT. If the appeal is based on a lack of decision, then Councillor Morgan is correct, then we would, as a matter of course, be coming back to get a position that we would then take to the OLT, to put forward as Council’s position on the matter, because there wouldn’t be a position.

[49:34] The basis of the appeal would be the lack of a decision. You wouldn’t have had a decision. So we would have to come back and find out what the position of Council would be before the OLT. Deputy Mayor. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. And I understand that adds a step to the process, but I know we’ll have a chance to carve out a position. So all my thoughts on this, and I appreciated the area Councillor’s weighing in on this as well, is our staff had said a couple of times that they’d worked with the applicant and they hadn’t come to anything that was close.

[50:10] And I agree, the applicant application as it currently stands is not close to what we should be approving. But I think the difference here is, you had the Planning Committee give them a big fat no, and that probably got their attention, and they’ve written a letter now. And in the first line of that letter, it says they’re requesting that the application be referred back to planning staff for further discussions in order to bring forward a development proposal with bonus provisions more in keeping in line with the plan function of the subject lines. In other words, the recognizing that their application is off base here.

[50:45] They said all matters relating to this proposal are open for meaningful review and an endorsement of referral back to staff would not be considered an endorsement of the current 24 story, 381 hectare proposal. And it sounds to me like they’re trying to be genuine in recognizing that this is not close to being approved, that there’s an opportunity here to have discussions. And I think that they may be highly motivated now knowing that the Planning Committee had no interest in supporting this moving forward. So I’m inclined on this not to necessarily make them start the application over, especially given the local councilors’ feedback on this.

[51:25] And have this opportunity to go back to them through this process and see where it goes. But I will say, and I know we can’t direct the applicant, that from my perspective, I think that the Planning Committee made a good decision with the application as it currently stands. I don’t think this is even close to what’s done. It needs to happen in the area. I think there are significant issues related to the sanitary sewer capacities that need to be dealt with. And there are certainly, there’s certainly, this applicant will need to come into line with our staff’s position or very close to it, respecting the parameters of the referral.

[52:04] And I’m hoping that they’re listening to this debate and they hear that because certainly a referral back for me is not in any way, as they’d said, an endorsement of their current application, which I think Planning Committee made a good decision on. That being said, I’m willing to give them another go at this. And if it turns out that they want to choose to appeal it on non-decision, well, we’ll have our opportunities to support what our staff have said and carve out a position for municipal council, if necessary. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. Thank you, Chair.

[52:39] At committee, I support a staff recommendation. It was primarily because the applicant had come back a second time and did not come close to addressing concerns with staff at that time, primarily around density, a number of levels. So here we are. I have listened to the debate and put great weight on the local Councillor Sleeze words tonight.

[53:13] So I guess I want to go through you, Chair, to staff with a question. What would be the delay? So if we went down Avenue 1, where we rejected this proposal and they had to start from scratch, versus if we referred it back and the developer was able to properly address the concerns of the staff, to satisfy staff on these contentious issues, what would be the timeline?

[53:49] Estimate, I know you don’t know, you can’t have a crystal ball, but approximately, just delay the project by a year or more if they had to start back and scratch compared to if they could go down the route that’s being proposed tonight with the amendment. Mr. Barrett. Recognizing that my crystal ball is cloudy, if it was referred back, we’ve got 120 days to get it back in front of you. So it’s not a year long process.

[54:25] How long it takes on a referral on the back and forth and a discussion before there’d be something to bring back before the committee, we don’t have a control over that. So I don’t know if that would be three months or if it would be the six months, the same as 120 days, that would be the timeline under a brand new application. Councillor Lammon. Thank you. So I’m seeing both sides here and I’m having in my mind right now where I’m gonna go. But what I have to look at is I believe that my mind we need housing to, I believe that going to route B with this amendment would be a quicker way to get that housing built.

[55:14] I see affordable housing here. I’m not keen to give this developer more leeway but given the words of the local Councillor Slee, I will support this with a caveat that this comes again before planning and I don’t see a great movement on areas of density here. I will not be supporting it going further. Thank you.

[55:46] Any other comments from colleagues? I see Councillor Cassidy, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I have a question to staff. So part of the reason for the refusal is the size of this property and the fact that a good chunk of it is not within the rapid transit quarter. So simply because it’s in this referral to consolidate, is that would staff see that as a requirement to revise a policy that’s on the books and then therefore revise your recommendation to council at a future meeting notwithstanding what the policies are of the rapid transit corridor?

[56:36] Mr. Mayor. - Through the chair, sorry, through the worship to the mayor, it would perhaps be best if that wasn’t there at all because it in fact is directing, it could be implied to be directing an interpretation as I indicated to you the notion of whether or not, and sorry, let me start. The consolidation of properties along the rapid transit corridor is supported by policy in the London Plan. So it’s not an untoward notion. And through that consolidation, as part of our recommendation to you where we would support that, we would be recommending that the interpretation be made such that it would include those properties that have been incorporated.

[57:21] So the notion of consolidation is not bad and it’s not contrary to the policies. And certainly there are instances where we’ve looked at that and we’ve applied those policies where we have amalgamated parcels to support a more intense form development. And we’ve asked that that interpretation be made. So this is not contrary. My fears is that one could construe that the way it’s constructed within the referral is that the direction is there first to just make that interpretation anyway. And so if this is to come back, personally, I would be more comfortable that it not be making that explicit reference and providing for some direction on the interpretation of the RTC policy, but allow that to come through through any revised or amended application.

[58:13] Well, we may, it may be considered that the mover and seconder want to consider that, but let’s stay with Councillor Cassidy, please. Okay, so this is, that was part of the problem with the referral for me. I thought that the planning committee did a good job in your deliberations on this file. I felt like this exact referral was refused by the committee. And now I’m here in a couple of committee members speaking in favor of the exact same motion, without really a lot of new information.

[58:56] So we have a letter from the developer who’s promising to do better this time, even though they’ve been talking to staff since September 2020 and had ample opportunity to do better. They’ve had ample opportunity to change their position to compromise and they chose not to. So I’m not really buying their letter and I really don’t think that this is new information. I think that there is a secondary plan in place and we’ve dealt with a number of secondary plans this year and I’m gonna go back to the thing that I always, always, always say.

[59:33] A secondary plan is in place to protect when there is a conflict between a higher density area and a lower density residential area. The secondary plan protects that lower density residential area and provides for that transitioning so that we would see the higher densities and the biggest heights along the arterial roads and further away with some buffering and transitioning of heights down as you get closer to the residential area. When you see the residential, the aerial map of this area consolidating these properties and treating it all as rapid transit corridor is eliminating all of those protections from the secondary plan.

[1:00:21] I hear what the, I agree that we do need housing. We talk about it all the time. I agree that we do need to provide incentives and a little bit of pressure on developers to provide more affordable housing. But we did have also, when I’m disputing the notion of the student housing, we had a letter from Fanshawe College, not in favor of this development as it was presented. And I do know that our post-secondary institutions have been affected by the pandemic and I do know that there are empty spots in the area where students would normally be residing.

[1:01:09] That doesn’t mean we’re not gonna need more spaces for students and other people down the road. But right now in this particular area, student housing is not in a crisis. I think staff have been extremely clear in their position with this developer. And as I said already, the developer is the one that does not seem to be interested in adjusting their position. I think that the planning committee made a very clear message, gave a very clear message to the developer.

[1:01:48] And I think that this council needs to follow through and continue with that clear message. And that will be the incentive for this particular applicant to work with staff in a meaningful way. I won’t be supporting the referral and I absolutely will not support part three. Sorry to see. Thank you very much. You made reference to C and I do have, Councillor Lewis has gotten my attention with respect to, as the mover of this to provide some wording based on some of the advice from staff.

[1:02:26] And I wonder if I could look to Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I think to make this simple for everyone, I’m prepared to withdraw C from the referral and hearing Mr. Barrett say that they would be taking that into consideration as an option anyway. I think it’s clear that that is on the table for staff to consider that interpretation on a revised application. So I’m prepared to withdraw C from that referral. Do you have Councillor Van Mereberg and support for that?

[1:03:01] You do now recognize Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And thank you to my colleagues for your comments. I’m always interested in what everyone’s opinions are around the horseshoe and in particular this referral, which I was going to say is the same referral that we discussed at planning. So nothing has changed. And the concerns for me still remain. I understand C is gonna be taken off the table, but the one thing that I think is really important to understand with this referral is that we’re asking staff to do the work, not the applicant, and that is a concern for me.

[1:03:47] That’s not going to, staff are gonna have 120 days here to do what? I’m not sure if they’re gonna come up with a result of the sanitary source with this application. I have seen no change from the planning committee meeting to where we are today. I won’t be supporting the referral. I do appreciate though, Councillor Sillie’s comments. He has been consistent as long as I’ve known him on council that housing is really important in the East End.

[1:04:26] We’ve heard that we can get density, we can get up to 22 stories even in this area. But this application is far removed from what is allowed in this area. And for that, I won’t be supporting the referral and we’ll be supporting again, staff’s recommendation to refuse. Thank you, any other comments? You’re worship, if I may. Oh yeah, please. Just to continue my thought process of planning, I would also encourage the applicant to work with city staff moving forward.

[1:05:07] I think that still is available to the applicant and really would encourage the applicant to work with city staff. Thank you. And thank you. I’m sure I thought you were done there, Councillor Hopkins, or I would never have cut you off, especially as chair. Any other comments or questions, colleagues? I see Councillor Hummer and then Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, just through the mayor. I wonder if some of the engineering staff or perhaps planning staff can answer about the servicing constraint.

[1:05:43] There’s two things that have been identified in the report. One is that the existing sanitary sewer is really close to capacity and this proposed development would put it over. So that’s one of the reasons suggested for refusal. The second idea is that the applicant could pay at their costs to upgrade the infrastructure. And I wonder, without getting into a lot of the details, what would be involved in upgrading that infrastructure? I mean, how much of it are we talking about that needs to be enlarged? I don’t know if I start with Mr. Bader or Mr. Cott’s Fist for reference, but let’s start there.

[1:06:25] Through your worship, you don’t start with me, but I will, if Mr. Cott’s Fist doesn’t have the answer, I will see if I can find something for you. Mr. Cott’s Fist, have you got something in there for us? I threw your worship, I wish I did, but I don’t know the exact amount of type that would need to be upgraded, my apologies. But we could certainly try to find out, as debate continues. Perhaps, Councillor Amore, we’ve got some other questions or comments or if it’s all based on that, then we may have to wait a bit.

[1:06:58] We’ll call on Councillor van Hose to bring you back as you wish. I’m just gonna raise another related question, and perhaps the same person who will be answering. This site is just near the intersection of three drainage areas. So you’ve got the area to the north that drains to Adelaide, the area to the southwest that drains to Vauxhall, and then the area to the east and southeast, which drains down to Pottersburg in terms of the wastewater treatment plants.

[1:07:33] And I wanted to just ask, because the site that’s to the west of this, the large area that is owned by Bluestone, they are proposing to redevelop a lot of that into higher density. Is there anything that’s going on in the East London servicing study that would fundamentally change where this site that we’re talking about now would be draining too? Like is it possible that it’s gonna start draining towards Vauxhall instead of down 2nd Street to Pottersburg? Mr. Crossfist, are you able to respond to that?

[1:08:11] Do you worship, unfortunately, no. I’m not sure if Ms. Shear has any information on that, so recognizing this is just on the floor, but I don’t at this point in time. Do I try, Ms. Shear? Do you have, can you shed some light? Thank you, Your Worship. Unfortunately, I can’t at this time. We’re not in a position to be able to provide that information yet with where we are on the East London servicing study. Sorry, Councillor Hummer, we’re not getting the answers you’re asking, but I appreciate that these are, to be fair, it’s other folks that I’m sure would have those answers and anything else for you.

[1:08:51] Yeah, I’m just gonna weigh in on the issue of the referral. And I’ve supported a referrals in the past where something has been recommended to be refused, but it seemed like we were relatively close to working something out. I think sometimes we wanna think about what is gonna be the most effective decision at this particular point, the applicant initially proposed the 18th story building in the pre-consultation on that idea. They would have definitely heard from planning staff that that was too intense and too tall.

[1:09:28] And despite that, they came back with a 24 story building that’s even larger and even more intense. And it’s no surprise that it’s being recommended to be refused. I think they can see the writing on the wall based on the discussion at planning committee. And at this point, it’s this albage operation to try and save the fees that they have to pay for an official plan amendment and it’s only amendment, but if you refuse it, they’ll have to pay those again to come in for another amendment. They could have avoided this problem by just proposing a shorter building.

[1:10:02] And I’m sure planning staff would have supported it. And planning committee would have supported it and we’d be approving a 12 story or 14 story building. It’s very easy, I think, to look at the heights that are allowed in the rapid transit corridor in the London plan between 12 and 16 stories, depending on where you are in those rapid transit corridors, even higher in the transit villages, to kind of guess where the right level is. And unfortunately, there’s been a lot of time wasted on this application, the applicant’s time, planning staff’s time, because they proposed something that was much too big.

[1:10:40] And so I think that probably the most decisive thing we could do is just say no, and they can apply again. They’ll have to pay the fee again. They’ll have to revise their plans, which they’d have to do either way. And they’ll be on the new clock. And they’ll probably get back to us faster than if we were to refer it. If we refer it, Mr. Barrett said, you got 120 days when we received the new application, we have to come back to you with a recommendation. It could actually be longer with a referral. It could take longer. Now, I’m as keen as anyone else to see a high density building on the site.

[1:11:15] It looks like it can accommodate a 12 story building with the servicing that’s in place right now. So I guess that the question is, what’s the quickest pathway to get to that kind of outcome? I actually think a refusal is probably the most decisive and quickest way to get to that applicant. We’ll be back in with a new application, probably in that range. And we can deal with it in short order. So I hear where Councillors to Lee is coming from. I hear what Councillor Lewis is coming from. They’re trying to get a slightly less intense proposal in front of us, but I think refusal, rather than referral, is probably the best way to do it, given how things are unfolded so far.

[1:11:54] Thank you, Councillor Van Halst. Thank you, I wish I have some of my question through you to our staff is with regard to solving the sewer capacity dilemma. I think that’s definitely gonna be work that needs to be done internally. And I wanted to ask, how long will that take? Sorry, how long will what take, please? All I want to say is to come up with a solution if the applicant is going for something larger than 12 stories and we need to take some action.

[1:12:36] How long will that require us? Mr. Barrett, any thoughts? We worship, I can’t give you an exact timeline. And while I don’t have the exact information, I’m recalling some of the discussion that was held. The issues with respect to the century of servicing is related very much to the intensities development that’s proposed. So certainly a lower level of intensity is something that could be worked. And I think where we land on what that amount is, could address whether or not there are alternative solutions or alternative solutions that could be done.

[1:13:16] So my understanding, the longer term solution for these lands has not yet been as Mr. indicated, there’s still work that has to be done on the ultimate servicing strategy and the ultimate servicing plan for these areas. But my understanding was that there was some information provided that could provide for some interim solutions based on the level of the intensity. So that’s a long convoluted way of saying, it could go relatively quickly based on what’s there and what alternative solutions could be come up with and what, how much capacity in fact exists. I would also add that in fact that work, a lot of that work has to be done by the proponent, not by us.

[1:13:56] So again, the timing on that is again, very much going to be driven by the applicant and not by the city. Thank you, Councillor Halston. Okay, thank you. I think that’s helpful. The, my next question, the density, is that driven solely by the height that’s being requested? Mr. Verde. It’s related to the height only in as much as that’s the number of units.

[1:14:29] The density is calculated by the number of units that they’re proposing on the land area occupied by what it is that’s being proposed. So the height is including or bringing more and more units and that increase in units is increasing the density on the side. Councillor Halston. All right, thank you. Now if this were to be included, if they were consolidated and considered to be in the rapid transit corridor, then is it, it’s, what’s, just remind me what the maximum height would be there? Is it the 22?

[1:15:06] That’s right. No, in the RTC, it’s not the 22. It’s, it’s, it’s the lower height. It’s the, gosh, the, I believe it’s up to 16, up to 15 with the, with the bonus thing. The building next door is 14. So it’s up to 15 with the bonus thing within the RTC. The consolidation has already been considered for that level of density that’s been done. That level of density in the intensity that’s proposed is over that entire site. It’s, it’s not based on a call of whether or not it was in the RTC or not. It’s how much they’ve actually proposed in the application.

[1:15:41] Councillor Halston. Okay, thank you. I guess the observation I would make is that many, many times developers are coming and asking us for heights greater than, than we seem to have contemplated previously. Is there, and we are in a position where we need more housing and height is an easy way to get more if something’s being developed, add a number of more stories and then there’s an increase in housing that happens quite quickly.

[1:16:18] Is there, do we need to do some reconsideration of heights? Maybe that, let’s, I’ll put the, I’ll provide that question, but, you know, I realize that the answer may be difficult. That may be a broader question for another time. I’m not certain, but Mr. Barrett, it’s been asked. Very quickly through your worship. The, the height permissions that are providing the land plan are actually in most instances greater than the heights that exist in the current planning framework in the city.

[1:16:54] So it’s not an issue of do we have enough height. It’s an issue of where this height is being asked for and where it’s being applied. So I would suggest to you that a broad stroke brush, do we need to look at, at our heights tables? I think our heights are, are appropriate. It’s whether or not those heights are in the right location and the land plan actually provides a much broader location for where these heights can occur. Any else then, Casar? No, thank you, your motion. Thank you. I have no other speakers on the list. You’ll note that we’re dealing with a pearl related to A and B, which if you refresh your screens, you’ll see that motion there.

[1:17:38] This is on the referral. And with that, we will call the question. Councillor Turner, motion is lost, seven to eight.

[1:18:34] Thank you very much, Councillor Hopkins, back to you. I think that is my report, thank you. I’d like to put the staff’s recommendation on the floor. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions? Call the question. Motion carries, 13 to two.

[1:19:45] Point, thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate the very much now. Colleagues, 8.2, the 16th report of the Community and Productive Services Committee for the calling Councillor Homer, please. Thank you. I’m not aware of anybody wanting to pull anything. Separately, so I think I can put the entire report on the floor, who will draw your attention to the item. Before I ask you to comment, I wonder if there is, I appreciate the Councillor Homer, if anyone does wish to do with something separately, and then I’ll get you to comment, please, in case we’re going to comment on something that someone wishes to have pulled.

[1:20:22] Councillor Homer. Good to go. Good to go. Okay, great. I just wanted to comment on two items, one of which is the grant for the Visions O’Hoe development of affordable housing and market housing on the old Victoria Hospital lands. Obviously, this is being recommended by committee, and it’s a wonderful idea. I hope it receives support at council. I wanted to say to the people who have been working on that project, the various agencies that are involved, the city staff, keep up the great work.

[1:20:58] This is exactly what we need to see. If we’re going to reach the next item, which I’m going to talk about, which is the 3,000 units, the roadmap to 3,000 affordable units, is exactly what we need to see happening in the city. And it’s really trying to work to get it to this point. I can’t wait to see it come to fruition. The second one I wanted to comment on, is I’m nine, number 2.7, the roadmap. And you’ll see colleagues, there’s a lot of details in there about how we’re going to get to the 3,000 affordable units, broad strokes, where they’re going to come from, and how we’re going to get there.

[1:21:32] And I think it’s really starting to sketch out a path to get to this vision that the mayor had mentioned in the city address. And then we endorsed just a little while after that, to say we need to get to 3,000 units over the next five years. To mix, obviously, of building new things, subsidizing the construction of new housing units, doing things like rent supplements, to make sure that we can make existing units more affordable for people, without having to wait for the time it takes to build them. And I think it’s a really comprehensive approach to the issue of affordable housing.

[1:22:04] So, happy to put the whole thing on the floor. I wanted to draw your attention to those two, which are obviously very important, when it comes to affordable housing in our city. Thank you, any other comments or questions, with respect to the CAHPS report? Turn the chair then over to the deputy mayor. Thanks very much, and colleagues, there’s two items that I would like to bring to your attention. One that Councillor Helmer already has, brought to your attention, which is the roadmap to 3,000 affordable units.

[1:22:44] You’ll note that in committee, this received unanimous support. But to the credit of this council, this has gotten strong, strong support, every step of the way. And I’d like to acknowledge all of you. This is such an important leadership role, that all members of council are playing, to take care of those who sometimes just need a hand up, or are less able to care for themselves by, or just by being able to provide additional supports that are in place and necessary. So I want to say thank you for what you’ve done in the past. I look forward to your continued support for this, for every good reason, the calls to London, the great caring community that it is.

[1:23:22] And I just want to say from my heart, thank you very much to all members of council. And to all the staff that have put tremendous work into this effort as well, this hasn’t happened by accident, of the great work of staff to make this, to make this what it is today. And we will be looking at senior levels of government for support, and those discussions are taking place, even now. Colleagues, the other one is a little different, but it’s 2.5, the sports court donation, by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. You’ll recall, it was some weeks back, that we had both the Toronto Raptors and the Toronto Maple Leaf Soul Timers alumni play at the Budweiser Gardens.

[1:24:04] And I have to tell you, it was not only a great success to have those two terrific teams in our city, but Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Foundation made a point of contributing $250,000 to be able to provide a sports court right here. Their expense, their engineering, the location to be confirmed, but let me tell you how generous of them. And I just wanna say on behalf of our city, how grateful we are for their tremendous contribution. It reminds me what Holly Gully did not so long ago as well, when they made a decision to upgrade a number of parks in this community.

[1:24:40] And that’s about corporations, corporate Canada, corporate London, doing things for the greater good of the city for our kids. And I just wanted to give them all a shout out for their great work. Thanks very much, back over to you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, I put myself on the speaker’s list while I had the liberty to do so, but I’ll turn the chair back to you. So noted, go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, further to the comments that Councillor Halmer made. I wanna just say a couple of things on the road to 3000, the road map to 3000. And I wanna compliment the mayor for his vision on this.

[1:25:15] As Councillor Halmer said, this was something that came up in the state of the city address. Up until that point, I think Council had been, very united on funding the housing portfolio, housing homelessness, helping the most vulnerable. Our multi-year budget had a historic amount of investment. And I think what the mayor did is he took that and he went all in on it. And he said, we got up the bar here, we got to set some targets, and we got to find a way to do that. And so kudos to him for having the vision to set the direction for Council, something that we could all rally behind, something that we have all gotten behind, and something that we now have the framework of a plan to try to bring to fruition.

[1:26:02] And I wanna thank the incredible amount of work that our staff have done to pull this plan together. It’s bold, there are certainly risks associated with it, but the risk of doing nothing I think is much greater. And so kudos to the mayor for his vision on this, and many thanks to all members of Council who have been so supportive of our file. People often like to talk about the things we disagree on. This is something that we are 100% united on moving forward. Thank you, other comments or questions colleagues?

[1:26:38] Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I had the privilege of speaking with the late Pam McConnell, who was the deputy mayor of Toronto. She actually gave me an entire day. And if anyone knew Ms. McConnell, that was a precious commodity. And I’m always very grateful for that time she spent with me. We were talking about London. We were in the midst of working on the London For All report that eventually was endorsed by Council.

[1:27:13] And she was talking to me about the Toronto poverty reduction strategy that was a two year project. And specific to the idea of dealing with issues around poverty, she said something to me, which I always think about when I’m looking at all the things that has been happening in the area of housing and homelessness. She said a wave like this comes along about once every 10 years.

[1:27:45] And the wave she was talking about was where all levels of government were in alignment to deal with a specific problem. And it feels like we are on a wave where we’re talking about housing and homelessness and how we deal with that across the country and not just in these isolated responses in a local region. So we’re riding a wave right now. And I think there is a real desire, ambition, push to solve this problem across the country.

[1:28:20] So I’m really grateful to all the levels of government that have made it possible for us to be ambitious. And I wanna thank city staff because they are, as always, when opportunities come up, especially funding streams from other levels of government, our city staff are ready, willing and able to, they’ve already got the plans in place. They’ve already done the thinking and they’re ready to just move forward.

[1:28:54] And I’m extremely grateful for how flexible and nimble and thoughtful and everything you already said to Mr. Mayor, how much our city staff are able to just hit the ground running with such a huge problem. I also wanna remind council that not only did we put in an historic investment in our multi-year budget for housing and homelessness that we had never done previously, not to that level, we also found money or brought money back in from the medical innovation and research network that wasn’t being used.

[1:29:33] And with Mr. Hayward’s recommendation, we put that money towards this as well. So every level of government, including our own, has made significant investments in this. I’m really pleased with this plan. I’m really hopeful with this plan. And I’m happy and anxious to see how it plays out and how to move it forward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you too for your vision and setting that goal for us, for this council and for the city.

[1:30:07] Thank you. Any other comments or questions? I’d like to just a general reminder to councilor Saleh, I note here that you had, you recuse yourself and I’m 2.3 in committee. You may wish to acknowledge that again, can I turn it over to you for a moment, please? Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. On 2.3, I have to work for the federal government and locations to be in partnership with Immigration Refugee Association of Canada. So I’ll declare a conflict on that, my apologies. Okay, so we will call all the 2.3 if we can through you, Chair, at the right time.

[1:30:40] Any other comments or questions? Back to you, Councilor Elmer. Thank you. And sorry for not catching that, that’s it. So then we’ll call all the 2.3, let’s call the vote, please. Closing the vote, the motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:31:20] Councilor Elmer. That in about 2.3, which is number seven in the agenda tonight, the agreement for London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership on the floor. Councilor Saleh’s declared of community interest. Thank you, let’s call the question. Closing the vote and the motion carries 14 with one recuse.

[1:31:58] That it, Councilor Elmer. Thank you. I’ll call it Councilor Cassidy. Thank you, your worship. And it was the final meeting of the corporate services term. And I did not remember to thank the committee for their service and to thank city staff for all the good work they did for the year. So I’ll do that now. I’ll put the entire report on the floor. I have not been told that anyone would like anything pulled. Does anyone wish to have anything dealt with separately? Back to you, Councilor Cassidy.

[1:32:34] I have no comment, your worship, I’ll just put the whole report on. So noted. Any other comments or questions for this report? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote and the motion carries. Councilor Cassidy.

[1:33:09] Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. For the 15th report of civic works, we’ll call it Councilor Palosa, please. Thank you, your worship. I have not been given notice of anything be pulled separate. Well, let’s ask that question. And anyone wish to have any of these items dealt with independently? Back to you, Councilor Palosa. Thank you. I will be putting items one through 11 on the floor. I want to start off by thanking the members of the Civic Works Committee, being Councilor Helmer, Councilor Cassidy, Councilor Bamer, Brigand, Councilor Turner, myself and the Mayor.

[1:33:44] It’s been great work for this last year and lots to be done. The main highlights of this report is item 2.1. It’s not our normal traffic by-law amendments. This is a complete change and different ways and consolidations to how we do some of these processes, putting an amendment focus on it and making things faster to be a service to Londoners. Item six being 2.5 is the commemorative naming of city assets. This is an expansion of the street naming. This city is recognized that we have different naming policies for recreation complexes, park benches, streets and a consolidation of that.

[1:34:22] Recognizing our policies have been not updated since 1994. And item eight being 4.1 is the new sidewalks in the established neighborhood. Looking at doing things differently as we move forward, as we’ve had some trouble in the past. So staff has been working hard behind the scenes to rectify that. And a special thank you to staff on item 2.6 which doesn’t look overly exciting from the outside. But this was essential services we need to bring in for split stream rear loading waste collection trucks. The city is starting to have encountered some different supply chain issues.

[1:34:58] And this one staff went above and beyond behind the scenes to bring together different vendors to make the project still happen on budget and on time to service Londoners. So that is the highlights of Civic Works from the 15th meeting. Thank you, I didn’t realize that split stream rear loading waste collection was the highlight, but it’s all good. I think, frankly, there we go. Comments, other comments or questions for Civic Works. Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, I would like to make a comment on 4.2, number nine and 4.1, number eight.

[1:35:38] And I’d like to start off, first of all, with 4.2, which is the new sidewalk project list for 2022. And I wanna pass on my personal thanks to staff for getting a number of sidewalks in the Byron community area. I think we all know as Councillors, how residents cherish their neighborhoods and moving around safely is very important. And putting in sidewalks and connectivity is going to keep this certain area in Byron, a lot safer as residents move to inform schools.

[1:36:16] And back in the ’50s, it was suburbia and we built, we didn’t build sidewalks. We built wide roads and accommodated a lot of cars. And now we are seeing the challenges of those wide roads and opportunities to put sidewalks in and for residents to move safely is very much appreciated. So thanks to staff for a number of sidewalks happening in the Byron area. I would also like to make a comment on 4.1, which is the new sidewalks in established neighborhoods. I think that is something I’m really supportive of doing.

[1:36:55] I have for the past couple of years worked with two neighborhoods in the Byron area. And sometimes we get a sidewalk that comes up on a list and it may not be the right sidewalk. And having a discussion in the neighborhood has become a valuable tool to use where it allows the community to give the input to staff, staff to listen to the neighborhood concerns and then come up with the plan that it’s going to do, it’s going to work for the community. And of course, it’s never going to be perfect.

[1:37:31] There’s always going to be some concern but the information and that community engagement is so important. So I’m really looking forward to when I saw this, come forward, it was like, when can I get Lambeth in the, on the list? And I hope really look forward to further community engagement with this new way of establishing how we’re going to look at sidewalks. So thanks very much to the committee for supporting this new way of looking forward. Thank you.

[1:38:06] Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councillor van Merbergen, please. Thank you, Mayor, as well, 4.1 number eight, new sidewalks and established neighborhoods. I mean, we saw firsthand earlier this year, I think it was eight streets, which did not go ahead with proposed sidewalks because it’s a reminder to all of us that we have to actually listen to the people that we serve in our areas. Some of these streets really do not warrant a sidewalk in any way, shape or form, very small crescents, what have you, short streets, very low traffic count, no real safety hazard there.

[1:38:54] And when you’re looking at mature areas, quite often these places were never built contemplating a sidewalk going through a lawn. And in many cases, these roads are so narrow that you can’t extend the sidewalk out into the street even if you wanted to. So you end up cutting that lawn even more. So I mean, several of us went through this earlier in the spring. And some of these people are well into their late seventies, eighties, they’ve raised their families in these areas.

[1:39:35] And it’s devastating in many cases to them to see this come blowing through their properties. And I think this is a step in maybe the right direction to at least listening to see if they’re indeed wanted and needed. Thank you very much. I next have on my list, Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I also want to talk about the new sidewalks and existing neighborhoods proposal and speak in favor of it.

[1:40:10] And I want to take the opportunity in particular to thank Ms. Dan for all the work that she’s put into this. I know that this was quite an undertaking. I know that there’s been some controversial in the neighborhood decisions that have been before council. And I think that this is going to provide a much smoother path forward in having the discussions, not just with the residents on the street, but those on the neighboring streets who are impacted by these decisions as well. During the summer, Ms. Dan came out for a visit to ward two and walked a couple of sidewalks in my neighborhood that are in need of some repair.

[1:40:48] And we had an opportunity to talk a little bit about the sidewalk plans in general. And I see some of the things that we talked about reflected in the recommendations she’s making here. And so I really appreciate her taking the time to come out and see for herself what was happening in a couple of my neighborhoods, but for all the work that went into this, it’s much appreciated. I will share with council, I reflect on Buck and Road in my ward, which had a sidewalk installed in the late summer. And there was not huge amounts of support for it at first, but staff listened.

[1:41:27] And what we had, what eventually came forward, was a design that was not going to impact the boulevard trees. We were gonna preserve those 40 plus year old trees. And we accomplished the sidewalk installation on one side of the road only through road narrowing. A week or so ago, I was out on Wexford Ave, doing a little canvas and chatted with a mom who was walking over to Lord Nelson School to pick up her son. And she’s a resident on Buck and Road. She was using that sidewalk and wanted to thank me and to express to staff her thanks for how it turned out, because she wasn’t so sure at first that she wanted it and she wanted those trees preserved.

[1:42:09] And now she sees the benefit of it. But it was through those neighborhood conversations that the opposition was overcome. And what I see in this report is an opportunity to expand on those conversations. And I think about Buck and Road because it’s not just the residents of Buck and who are impacted. Both on Bonaventure Drive and on Admiral Drive, we have transit service. So we have riders getting on and off of buses and walking into that neighborhood. We have schools on both ends. So we have families walking, whether it’s for an after-school activity. And you know, your after-school activities aren’t always at your home school.

[1:42:45] Sometimes you’re playing the school down the road in your basketball game or your volleyball game or what have you. So there’s a lot of pedestrian activity in the area. And that connector is going to be a really important piece moving forward. But it was done through building some consensus on what was going to work. And that’s what I see in this plan, is working towards building consensus instead of dividing. And so again, I just want to express my full support and my thanks to staff who put in the time on this. Thank you, I have next councilor Turner. Thanks, Your Worship.

[1:43:17] Just to echo some of those thoughts, my colleagues, I think communication is absolutely imperative. This is helpful. Hopefully this will address some of the barriers in terms of sidewalks and mobility within the community. I really hope that it doesn’t impair our ability to ensure mobility for all. And I’d like to just correct something that Councilor Van Merberg instated. The city doesn’t install sidewalks on people’s property. They install sidewalks on city property. And that’s a really important distinction because this is something, a misapprehension that’s been held throughout the communities.

[1:43:56] Every time we go through these discussions, because people think it’s their properties that were incursions occurred. And that’s not true. It’s a very well thought out process and very clearly identified to happen within the city right of way. So anyway, I just wanted to make that comment. I hope that we can, with this, find some peace and start moving forward because this is a very essential component of what and plan of our mobility planning, our ability to make sure that this is a city that’s inclusive and safe for all.

[1:44:35] Because I think the debates we’ve had in the past have been really not productive and have really damaged our ability to provide for residents the things that we need to do. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? No, I see none. So with that, let’s call the vote. Opposing the vote in the motion carries, 15 to zero.

[1:45:29] Thank you. I think Councillor Palose, I think we’re good. Yeah, that concludes the 15th report of the Civic Works Committee. Thank you very much. We’re back on again. We have the 17th report of the Strategic Prairies and Policy Committee. I’ll call on Councillor Palose to present the report. Thank you, Your Worship. This was the meeting we had last Monday, which was the public participation meeting component. This communication receives the written correspondence and the people who attended virtually to present to us. I will put items one and two on the floor. Thank you.

[1:46:02] Any comments or questions? I wish to have these double separately, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, Your Worship. I hope this is the appropriate time. I would like to bring forward a deferral based on the public comments and public comments. First of all, I want to thank everyone for attending the public participation meeting budget. There was an ask from Sandy Levin regarding our ESA’s and I would like just to add that to put, I’m not sure if I need to put the deferral on the floor first and then speak to it, but the deferral would be that…

[1:46:49] Well, I may actually, if I might, I might refer back to the clerk on this because whether you’ve asked the question where this is the appropriate place for this, this was a public participation meeting. I’ve advised that this should be raised when we deal with the issues of the budget in later in December, but I wonder if the clerk can confirm if I’m on the right track with that or not, please. Thank you, Mr. Mary. Yes, the only item before you tonight with respect to the budget is to receive the comments from the public.

[1:47:25] The debate regarding the budget would happen at the December 21st meeting. So Councillor Mayne, if the intent is to raise additional motion for additional funds for a certain matter, that would be more appropriate when you’re debating the budget. Councillor Hutchison. Thank you for that clarification. I think it’s important if I may through your worship to the clerks, when would the appropriate time through the budget process be brought forward, the deferral based on the request at this participation meeting just so I can get clarification ‘cause the budget is quite a long process there.

[1:48:13] Clerk? Through Mr. Mary, I just need clarification referral of what are you asking her for? No, I think at this point we’re not talking referral. I don’t mean to put words in the councilor’s mouth, but I think what you’re saying is if it’s not appropriate this time, when would be the appropriate trying to bring that forward for budget consideration? Is that fair, Councillor Hopkins? Yeah, so the deferral that I was suggesting would have come from Sandy Levin’s request for support for our ESAs through consideration of adding the $100,000 through the reserve fund.

[1:49:01] And that was the request through the public participation meeting and the deferral that I was suggesting would be based on those comments presented at the public participation meeting that we have staff and work with a business case. So it’s the team that has that service agreement and upon conversations with staff, they would like a business case brought forward.

[1:49:35] So I’m not sure if this is the appropriate time to bring that forward or where would it be in the budget process? I think we addressed that this wasn’t the appropriate form, but I wanna come back to the clerk and based on the explanation of the councilors to clarify when in the budget process might be the appropriate time for this to be brought forward and dealt with. Through you, Mr. Mayor, at the December 21st meeting when you’re discussing the budget, you could certainly bring forward a motion to either add that amount to the amend the budget to add that amount, or you could delay the approval of the budget if you want to refer it back to have a business case prepared for upper times and budget to be increased.

[1:50:27] Are you good, Councilor Alkinsch? No, because I’m not being very clear then. This isn’t an upper times UTRCA request. This is coming from Sandy Levin and it’s based on the team. But because it’s a financial issue, the PPM is not the place where it is dealt with and this is the receding of the report of the PPM. So I think what you’re hearing from the clerk is trying to give you an avenue where that can be dealt with for that purpose. But this PPM, this specific and specialist PPC meeting is not the venue for that consideration, but could well be dealt with in December 21st, Councilor Mey.

[1:51:12] Go ahead. - Thank you for that. Your worship and I will hope I’m relying on staff to point that process out and the requests for a business case moving forward. Thank you very much. Any other comments? Just one moment. Oh, go ahead, please, sorry. If I may, your worship, if I can go to the clerk. Through you, Mr. Mary, Ms. Smith’s like power, just I wasn’t at the budget meeting, so I didn’t hear the discussion and I understand that you were provided with advice to raise it tonight at tonight’s Council meeting.

[1:51:48] So I just want to clarify that that’s, I guess, was the advice that was given at the meeting. So and I was not the meeting. So I just want to let you know that. Well, now that’s an interesting little wicket. I wonder if the Deputy Clerk has any other help that she can provide to give us some wisdom here as to why it might be dealt with in this particular section versus what I believe should be a budget item. So, but please, if you’re going to help you and provide, we’d appreciate it. Thank you.

[1:52:19] I will try through the chair. I was contacted with respect to the request that was made at the PPM and whether or not it would be appropriate to raise that during the budget deliberations meeting that was held last week or whether that should be done here at Council and both alternatives were put forward, but this is the first I’m hearing about a deferral. The motion that was provided was an additional direction to civic administration. So I’m not clear on what we’re looking to put on the floor.

[1:52:55] Do you want to clarify what you’re looking to put on the floor and I may deem it appropriate or not, but it’s not a question of ignoring the issue, just trying to find the right spot for it. So go ahead, Councilor Oppensoff. My apologies for confusing the matter by using the word deferral and maybe it’s a directive that I’d like to bring forward with them. So, Clerk, does that mean you got the appropriate wording for this? Because I would deem this is a budget item not for SPPC. But you know what, since we always look for a little bit of wisdom from those with a little more experience than I do on such matters in Councilor Turner, what is your quick thought on this?

[1:53:34] Thank you, worship. You humbled me some days. My thoughts on this, perhaps it might be helpful if we do have this discussion on the 21st. I think the intent was that we couldn’t discuss it at our budget deliberations because we hadn’t received the report from SPPC from the budget and PPM. This is the first time we’re receiving it in Council. It’s important information. So it would be a little off kilter to have brought forward a recommendation during the budget deliberations when we hadn’t formally as a Council received the recommendation from the budget PPM process.

[1:54:11] So now with this, this is kind of a tide with one of the proposals that existed in the budget, one of the business cases amendments, I guess, associated with the invasive species management. I think when we discussed that on December 21st, this would probably be the appropriate time to bring that forward as an amendment or as an additional recommendation. This one is a piece that can be addressed midstream.

[1:54:48] It doesn’t have to be funded during the budget because the source of funding would be reserves. So it doesn’t have any levy impacts. If at some point the upper Thames were to bring forward a business case, we could consider that at any point during the calendar year and look for opportunities there. So I think that’s probably the best, perhaps if that’s helpful, a way to handle it. And we can have that discussion on the 21st. Are we good with that, Council?

[1:55:19] Thank you very much, Councilor Turner. Are we good with that for the moment, Councilor Hopkins? Yeah, thank you for the clarification. That’s the appropriate channel then I will be bringing forward that directive through the budget. So noted, thank you. And thank you very much, Councilor Palose, I think you had the report on the table, the full report of November 17th, or pardon me of the 17th meeting, November 29th. Yes, items one and two are on the floor. Any other comments or questions? Thanks very much, let’s call the question.

[1:56:19] Motion carries 15 to zero. Council Palose, I think that’s it. Please that SPPC report and I will certainly reach out to Councilor Hawkins and make sure that any wording that she wishes to do is circulated ahead of time and I’ll be aware of which items to call for the 21st. Thank you. You make it very easy. Thank you very much for the 18th report of the Strategic Fairies and Policy Committee. I’ll look to the Deputy Mayor to present the report please. Thank you, Your Worship. And before I present the report, I just wanted to say a brief comment. I wanna apologize to my colleagues for being distracted at the time of sharing this meeting.

[1:56:58] I was getting some information about the accident that had happened at Versailles and Wonderland at the time. And as people have subsequently known, both my wife and I know one of the families involved as well as their individuals at the school. She’s principal impacted. So I had a little bit more information than may have been publicly available. It was a very distracting piece of information to have. And I may have presented the governance working report with a little bit of distraction in the back of my mind.

[1:57:33] So I wanted to apologize to colleagues for that and I wasn’t able to share it at the time because I certainly didn’t know what was public and what wasn’t at that time. With that though, I’m happy to present the 18th report of SPPC. And there are three matters, at least three matters I think we should deal with separately. One matter is 4.9, the fourth and fifth reports of governance working group. There was a conflict on 4.10, which was the London Public Library Board, Directors Vacancy.

[1:58:05] And we’ve referred some items to 5.1, the governance working group membership, of which we’ve received some correspondence from colleagues that I’d like to deal with those three separately, which means I’d have numbers one to 13 to present unless any colleagues would like something in that one to 13 range dealt with separately. Colleagues, do you wish any of one through 13 dealt with independently? So that’s what we’ll be dealing with now back to you, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, so I’ll put those items on the floor then. Comments or questions on items one through 13? I see none, we’ll call the question.

[1:59:15] Bosing the vote in the motion carries. Deputy Mayor. Yes, to help with the presentation of this 4.9 is probably best to turn to the SPPC report that’s in colleagues package on pages seven and eight. You’ll see the consolidated recommendations that came from SPPC related to that item. There’s A through E. I know I’ve been asked to deal with C separately. So I guess I would ask colleagues if there’s some comfort level in dealing with the rest and then D separately, or if there are other items in that list that anyone would like to vote on separately.

[2:00:01] So we’ve been asked colleagues to deal with C independently. Does anyone wish to have any other item dealt with discussed voted on separately? Councillor Hummer, please. A. Now is that A, I, all of them, I just want to be clear, Councillor Hummer, please. All of them I think is simplest for everyone in less.

[2:00:34] Yeah, no, I think you’re in. So A and C are being considered to be dealt with separately, anything else, colleagues. So if you’re comfortable, the Mayor has put the balance on the floor and if there’s no discussion, oh, Councillor Turner, sorry. Okay, I think B probably as well. I’m sorry, I’m having a hard time following along between the three different agendas here. So I’m just trying to make sure I’m getting the right clauses. Is B the actions with respect to the general operations municipal council?

[2:01:09] Correct. That’s the one that references in BI, the one PM start of term council in 2022, Councillor Turner. So that one now, it’s up early as well, please. Okay, all of B, so that leaves D and E. Anything else, sir, Councillor or Deputy Mayor Almer? No, I think D and E are easy to deal with, they’ll deal with their rest separately. So maybe for simplicity, let’s just go in order, given, so I’ll put 0.1 A on the floor.

[2:01:44] A is the changes related to the council member expense policy. There are several sub-items are related to that. And so I’ll put all of them on the floor and we can divide up the votes as colleagues see fit unless colleagues just want to vote on the whole thing. So we are colleagues just for the benefit of everyone. We are in page seven of the 18th meeting of the strategic Ferguson Policy Committee report. 4.9 A is now on the floor, comments or questions. Councillor, I’ll go ahead and please.

[2:02:17] I just wanted to clarify the content of A2. We dealt with this at SPPC and my understanding was there was an amendment from Councillor Cassidy, which was the opposite of what’s in front of us and that that was passed. So it’s a bit confusing to me why that recommendation, at least when I’m seeing an E-Scribe, A2 is still there. I’ll either go to the Deputy Mayor of the Clerk for that clarification.

[2:02:50] We do recall routers and other things became quite the discussion point, which we don’t need to re-discuss tonight for the record, but I do, I think that is a fair comment that from committee that seemed to be something different than what we see here. I wonder if we get some clarification. Yeah, I’m gonna ask the clerks to clarify the report that came forward from the governance working group had an exclusion from a home internet costs in it. The committee decision was to strike that piece. And so I don’t know if this is worded in the reverse, but I would need the clerks to confirm that indeed, what we would be passing from the committee’s recommendations would be that we struck that chunk out.

[2:03:33] And so home internet expenses would be allowed. Let’s go to the clerk then, please. Thank you through the chair. I believe that the confusion is created because of the combination of the fourth and the fifth reports. It was the fourth report that directed civic administration to report back to the GWG with that proposal. And then in the subsequent report, in the fifth report, it was excluded. So I think that’s where the language is creating the confusion, but the attached draft policy does not include home internet as an exclusion.

[2:04:15] Perhaps I could turn colleagues’ attention to page 11 of that report and the motion moved by Councillor CASSIDY, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, that was passed 12-3 deleting the reference, but excluding home internet costs services or equipment. Deputy Mayor. Well, I understand that Councillor’s confusion. I would look at the clerks on how to properly deal with anybody who would like to vote separately on those components given the way that the report is formatted. It would prove challenging to do so, although I would agree that the attached policy does reflect what we passed at the SPPC meeting.

[2:04:57] Perhaps I could ask before we do that, if there’s anything else in A, that the colleagues would like to have dealt with separately, if in fact that becomes the appropriate way to deal with that, even though it was dealt with by amendment. So it was put in the main motion colleagues and then withdrawn a couple of pages later. And I’m not sure if that is sufficiently satisfactory. Let’s go to the clerk and get some clarity. Thank you, through the chair.

[2:05:29] So again, part A is the direction that civic administration received at the fourth meeting, which we brought back to the fifth meeting. And then at the fifth meeting, there was a recommendation that came forward. And at SPPC, that motion was defeated and the new revised attached council member expense policy is part D of this recommendation. So part A is just the direction to staff to report back at the following fifth meeting of the GWG. So that’s already been done.

[2:06:05] And then that wasn’t adopted by the SPPC as noted in part D. Well, that’s clearer. Deputy Mayor. Yes, so I think it’d be best to go back to Councillor Halmer on how we’d like to deal with that ‘cause that makes sense to me from the clerk’s perspective. But I agree the language would be awkward from putting your vote on the floor perspective. There is some confusion. I appreciate that ‘cause we’re dealing with the fourth and the fifth reports of the government’s working group, Councillor Halmer. So thank you for pointing that out.

[2:06:40] And I feel kind of silly for not catching the thing that I complained about extensively in our SPPC meeting. Of course, it has confused me once again. So for myself anyway, having part A altogether is fine. It’s just the direction to report back. And that’s already happened. It’s kind of ridiculous to vote against it. I mean, I still will vote against it, but it’s not really very meaningful. And then part B, I think deal with that separately. Part C, definitely it needs to be separate.

[2:07:14] And then D also, because that incorporates all the changes that are really articulated in A that made it through SPPC. That’s all I would really need. I don’t need to vote separately on each of the components of A that will just drag it out. Well, the good, yep. So the good news is Councillor, we’re probably 60 minutes ahead of the last committee meeting when we discuss this. So we have A on the table, as is any other comments or questions? I know Councillor Cassie has none. Sorry, of course, if you do.

[2:07:46] All right, seeing that, we’ll call the vote on A. Sorry, Councillor Cassie. Closing the vote, the motion carries, 13 to two.

[2:08:40] Deputy Mayor. The components of part B on separately. There are two pieces. The first one that I’ll put on is B one, which is the direction to civic administration to make the changes to council meetings to be held at one p.m., beginning with the 2022 term of council. There’s an hit being noted clause associated with that too, but I’ll put that item on the floor. Okay, noting that we did discuss this at some length in SPPC, I wonder if I’ll call in so many other comments they wish to make. Councillor Turner, go ahead, please.

[2:09:12] Thanks, Your Worship. I won’t belabor this. I recognize that I was in a substantial minority on this, but I think it still needs to be recognized. What’s being done here basically excludes anybody who’s working full-time shifts or regular days or whatever from being able to really functionally attend council meetings. The SPPCs will continue to be at four o’clock, but council will happen at one. And so it’s going to be hard to have a foot in each land to be able to do that.

[2:09:47] One of a Councillor Van Meerberg and made a good points the other day. The challenge with what we do at council really requires a good understanding of governance, a good understanding of human resources, a good understanding of budgeting, a good understanding of policy, a good understanding of legislation. These are things that a lot of people have and some people don’t. You can either acquire that through work or you can acquire it through life experience, but most of it is usually acquired through work in school. And the people who have those experiences in significant amounts to be able to bring to the table at city council are ones who have that career experience to be able to have those discussions.

[2:10:34] Discounting those would make it really hard to bring good quality candidates to the table. It’s going to, I’ve already spoken to a few people who’ve said this discounts them from being able to run in 2022, which is disappointing. And I recognize the discussions and points of my colleagues who say that council in general right now disqualifies others from being able to run. I recognize that and I understand that too. The people who have the experience in human resources, budgeting, governance, legislation, strategy, those kind of things, are people who make more than what council pays.

[2:11:13] And for those people to leave their careers for four years, for no guarantee of continued employment beyond that, for changing a salary streams by a fairly significant margin would find themselves not really attracted to these positions on city council. So I know the vote will probably go down exactly the way it did last week, but I’d urge you to have some pause and consider what the impact of this decision might be.

[2:11:47] Thank you. Any other comments or questions or colleagues? I see none. We’ll call the question, this is we are dealing with B-I or B-1. It’s in the vote and the motion carries 12 to three. B-I-I on the floor, which is the direction specific administration to report back to the governance working group with respect to recommendations related to the survey results and other feedback related to the staff support model in the council’s office in capturing the themes of increased resources, more flexibility in support duties.

[2:12:57] So I’ll put that one on the floor. Comments or questions, colleagues? I see none. We’ll call the question. Opposing the vote and the motion carries 15 to zero.

[2:13:32] B-I-I. I’ll put C on the floor. C is a referral of clause 3.1 from the fifth report to a future meeting of the governance working group in order to invite all members of current advisory committees to have a discussion with GWG on this matter. If you want to see the items that are in clause 3.1, they are at the bottom of page 10 and kind of go on to page 11.

[2:14:05] So it is a referral of those items into a process that where GWG would consult with the advisor committees on those recommendations that were made. Comments or questions? I see Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship and thank you colleagues. I voted against this referral at committee. I’m rising now because I’d like to propose an amendment to this. I think it’s important if we’re gonna send this back that there’s at least some direction from us to focus not to the exclusion of others, but to focus on a particular item that I heard was a concern for folks and that’s the pausing of and populating of some committees and how that’s going to be handled.

[2:14:59] So I would like to suggest that this be amended by adding at the end of the clause to read, including specific dialogue to include discussion related to the proposed pause populating some committees and the associated discussion with respect to the proposed committees/task forces for the master mobility plan and the climate emergency action plan. And I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for that and then I’d like to offer a little bit more comment on my reason for seeking this amendment.

[2:15:39] Okay, I’m trying to also to see if that’s, well, let’s first see if there’s a seconder for that. I see Councillor Van Merberg in seconding. I’m not sure, Clerk, do you have all of that? They say yes, so we’ll have a chance to review that as discussed Councillor Lassier on deck. Good. Thank you, Your Worship. So I think any discussion that we have with the advisory committees in terms of this governance working group report when those meetings are called by the chair, I think it’s really important that we have a discussion with them, particularly on the pausing of these three committees.

[2:16:21] I know that was one of the things in the recommendations that not everyone was comfortable with. And I’m really mindful of the discussion that was had at GWG by the members around and with our staff about the overlap and redundancy that we may get from the master mobility plan and the integrated transportation advisory committee, as well as the overlap that we might get with the climate emergency action plan, along with the ecological stewardship advisory committee and the name is going to escape me with the new name for EPAC.

[2:17:00] But the two committees that we’ll be dealing with issues around our environment and where the overlap can be there. So I think it’s really important if we’re going to take the time to have a referral back to discuss the report in general, that part of the dialogue is focused around this particular item. I think one of the goals that we were trying to achieve in looking at restructuring of the advisory committees, in fact, I know it was one of the goals was that we were looking to reduce overlap and redundancy in some of the committee work, realize some efficiencies there and get some good advice back.

[2:17:35] And I think that what we’ve seen with the master mobility plan and the climate emergency action plan suggestions that have come forward is once again, we would have a considerable amount of overlap. So if we’re going to take time to consult with the committees, I would really like at least part of that discussion to be focused specifically on this. To me, I see there being an opportunity to discuss with the committee, rather than creating these new task forces, do we direct these two those appropriate committees for them to take on to their work plan?

[2:18:08] I think the master mobility plan, for example, would rightly be the purview of the integrated transportation committee, but I think that there might be a role for the accessibility advisory committee in that consultation as well. I think that, as I mentioned, there are two committees working on environmental issues that I think the climate emergency action plan suggestion that came from EPAC through PEC might also be something that’s assigned to those committees as part of their work plan, rather than creating wholly independent ones, or that we maybe are populating those two items with members to represent a joint committee meeting, where we bring the two committees together to discuss those items at a particular meeting.

[2:18:52] I think it’s worth having the discussion, and we heard from Mr. Hill about how the structures and the formalities sometimes don’t allow the committees to do what they want. I think this is one of those examples where if we discuss with them the potential for a joint committee meeting on a topic like the mobility plan, if we discuss with them these items coming to them as meaningful parts of their work plan, which is consistent with some of the other recommended terms of reference, I think it’s worth having that discussion with them.

[2:19:29] To me, if we’re just going to have a referral, to have a discussion that’s based around the status quo, I’m not interested in doing that, but I am interested in hearing their thoughts on how we can perhaps not pause these three committees, but let them be populated and move forward with some meaningful work too. So I hope colleagues will take that in the spirit as intended and support this amendment. Thank you, I have the comments or questions. Councillor Hummer, please. Just on the amendment through the mayor, I wonder if Councillor Lewis could clarify, it sounds like you’re just adding on a specific topic to a general discussion.

[2:20:11] So this is not narrowing the discussion, it’s just making sure that this particular thing would be discussed when we have the meeting of governance working group. Is that the idea? Let’s ask Councillor Lewis. Thank you, worship, and through you to Councillor Hummer, thanks for the question, yes, that is the idea, that it doesn’t preclude the general side, what I don’t want is for this particular topic to get general discussion. And so putting an emphasis on making sure that this is part of it. Not to the exclusion of all the other topics, but that it’s really focused in that this is going to be an item that is raised and consulted on.

[2:20:49] Councillor Hummer. Great, I support the amendment, good idea. Any other comments? You see none, we’ll call the question. Councillor Cassidy, Councillor Van Merebergen.

[2:21:46] Just reading and trying to digest this was sort of sprung on me at the last minute. Yes. Opposing the vote and the motion carries 15 to zero.

[2:22:20] So a couple of ways we can proceed with this and Deputy Mayor, I’ll get your thoughts on this, whether we now deal with this as amended or whether we deal with that a little later on, your pleasure. Yeah, well, C was amended. So I think I’m happy to move C as amended. I think I need a seconder now that it’s been amended though. Do you have any seconder for that? I see Councillor Lewis, seconding that. I’m not sure if there’s any other new comments or questions on this as a Mad Councillor Cassidy. Again, this was even more confusing than it was at SBBC.

[2:22:57] I don’t see C anywhere on the page. But I’m not sure what we’re voting on is what I’m saying. I’m happy to help clarify if I can. So on page eight of the committee report, there is item C, which is the referral of clause 3.1 to the governance working group to do the things that it says in clause C. The items in clause 3.1 you can find on page 10 of the report if you wanna review them. And then council successfully just passed an amendment, which would include a specific focus that I would say adds to that list of things that we would be consulting on.

[2:23:40] So C as amended is, as it is there, plus the amendment we just passed. Councillor Cassidy, is that helpful? Thank you, then I have Councillor Hopkins please. Yeah, thank you. Your worship and my apologies if I’m a little confused myself. And I know we’re dealing with advisory groups and we’re talking about a public participation meeting in the future. Is this the opportunity to ask a question around advisory groups? It was suggested here that we are gonna be pausing the advisory groups as set up now.

[2:24:17] And I just would like further clarification that we are not pausing. I know I’ve had questions raised by the public. Are we ending our advisory groups as of December 31st, 2021? I’m not exactly sure where we are and if advisory groups are gonna come up further down the line in these amendments that we’re making. I’m not sure, that’s why I’m— Well let’s refer that back to the deputy mayor and see if we can help clarify what’s going on here.

[2:24:59] So the governance working group made a recommendation which included all of those things including the pausing of the committees. None of that was enacted upon by SBPC in order to come to council in that form. All of it was referred back to the advisory committees for another round of consultation with them on that recommendation that came through governance working group with the addition now of the amendment. And so as governance working group chair, I could tell you my intent would be to consult on all of the stuff that was in that item that came before SBPC including the addition today with the existing advisory committees.

[2:25:47] Is that helpful, Councilor Hopkins? Yes, it is very helpful. So in other words, we have not made a decision on advisory groups. So I would ask the question through you, your worship to clerk, are we going to continue with what we’ve been doing with advisory groups until council makes a decision on advisory groups? Is my question. That question’s been directed to the clerk with respect to ongoing supportive advisory groups. Thank you through the chair.

[2:26:20] That is our intention is that they would continue. We would convene the existing members as required until such time as council directs otherwise. Councilor Hopkins, is that helpful? Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilor Van Holst, I see you. Thank you, worship. I’ll just note that we may have to set up another meeting with the governance group and group and the advisory committee members. I don’t know that the items listed here are necessarily the ones that are most important to them to discuss.

[2:27:02] It seemed like there were some other issues that were important that may not be included in these, but we can certainly cover these as an initial consultation. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions from colleagues? So this is the amended C. And with that, we will call the question. Councilor Van Meerberg?

[2:28:19] Oh, yes. Closing the vote in the motion carries 15 to zero. Colleagues, before I turn it back to the Deputy Mayor, my intention to check the pulse, assuming we have pulses. When this particular SPPC reports done, I’m sure we do to determine if you wanna take a brief break. So you’ll consider that we have confidential session as the final item to deal with unless there are any other matters brought forward by colleagues.

[2:28:53] So with that, I’ll turn it back to the Deputy Mayor. Councilor Van Meerberg and has hand up your worship. Councilor Van Meerberg and please. Yes, thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Deputy Mayor as well. I made a mistake, sadly, in voting earlier, 4.9 B small I on the one o’clock start time. The stately vote performed by the clerk that possible reconsideration could happen under emergent motion, so I just wanted to bring that up.

[2:29:48] So yeah, no, I’m conferring with the clerk. I’m sorry, Councilor Van Meerberg and I always get wisdom as I needed from people who are smarter than me, which is pretty much everyone in this room and on Zoom. So with that, you have asked for reconsideration of one particular item. Correct, 4.9 B I, the one o’clock start time. It’s been suggested that you deal with and under emergent motions in the agenda, I’ll call for that and look for you if that’s all right.

[2:30:21] Yes, thank you. Thank you, Councilor, Deputy Mayor. Oh, did someone else have their hand up? I apologize. Back to you, Deputy Mayor. Okay, so the next item in this report is D, which is the consolidated changes to the council members expense policy. It is attached to the report. It includes, I believe, if I remember correctly, all of the changes that were worked on and suggested by the governance working group with the exclusion of one, which was in the original government GWG recommendation, it excluded home internet that was struck.

[2:31:05] And so that would be permissive now in this iteration of the council expense policy. So I’ll put D, which is the approval of that updated and document on the floor for approval. Thanks very much, comments or questions? I have not seen any questions. We will follow the question. All vote no.

[2:31:55] Opposing the vote and the motion carries. Deputy Mayor. A number of clauses that were to be received. There’s also an it being noted. So I’ll put essentially the balance of the report on the floor. This is the balance of the report, colleagues, any comments or questions? I see none. We will call the question. Oh, yes.

[2:32:59] Opposing the vote and the motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, that completes item 15 agenda. Item 15 was asked to be separated due to a conflict. It is an appointment to the London Public Library for the directors, I will put that on the floor. Thank you very much, comments or questions? Seeing none, we will call the question. Oh, yes.

[2:33:48] Opposing the vote and the motion carries 14. Thank you very much, Deputy Mayor. Item 16 is governance working group membership. If colleagues will recall an additional business. I inquired as to the process for adding new members to governance working group. It is down to a committee of four. We earlier in the meeting referred two pieces of correspondence and two different Councillors to this part of the agenda questing to be appointed to the governance working group. I’d like to do two things.

[2:34:23] One is I’d be happy to move the motion of any one interested. This is a working group that does not have a cap on membership. Any member of council can basically ask to be added to it. I would also obviously be interested if there’s any other Councillors at this time who would like to be added. I’d be willing to put their names forward as well. Might be helpful, Deputy Mayor, if you confirm the two individuals that you’re referring to. Yes, both Councillor Cassidy and Councillor Fythmiller wrote correspondence requesting to be on the committee. Okay, and colleagues, I just want to stress again that there’s no limitation on this committee.

[2:34:58] This is open to any and all members of council who wish to participate on the governance working group. So with that, I will open that up if any individual wishes to self-nominate or indicate an interest in participating in the governance working group. So I’ll recognize Councillor Hamou. I’d like to add my name. Thank you, so noted. Anyone else wish to have their name put forward? So we’re acknowledging that we have Councillor Cassidy, Councillor Fythmiller, Councillor Hamou.

[2:35:37] You have a, do you have a seconder for this? I see Councillor Lewis, thank you very much. I hate to say last call ‘cause I don’t mean it sound like we’re down at the seeps, but as I’ve indicated, this is an opening that all members of council can participate in. So with that, I will call the question, I acknowledge in that we have three colleagues who have put their names forward. For Turner.

[2:36:49] Bozing the vote, the motion carries 15 to zero. Something to this. Are you done there, Deputy Mayor? Thank you very much. Councillors, Fythmiller, Cassidy, and Hamou. And the current members of the governance working group, you know, when you do this, you do this for all of us in terms of looking at the interests of council and in this very specific area. So and Councillor’s issues. So we do appreciate and are grateful for all of your contributions, all members of it. And I could generalize and say all members of all committees, but then you’d, I won’t do that.

[2:37:27] So colleagues, we’ve got here a situation that is now 640. We have an emergency motion, which is Councilman Merevergan’s reconsideration. We have confidential session, which we’re dealing with four items. We want us to clarify. I’m not here to presume, and then we’ll go back into public session. I’m not here to presume how long that will all take. I suspect not too long, but I’m at your pleasure whether you want me to carry on with this meeting or do some, does anyone or some wish to have a 15-minute break? I see Councillor Lewis, what’s your thoughts?

[2:38:04] Thank you, Your Worship. I’m gonna move a 15-minute recess. Okay, can I get a seconder for that? Councillor Cassidy, let’s just do a show of hands. Let’s take that for a 15-minute break. It is 640. We will resume at 655 and complete our business. And thank you all for this and to the public, just bear with us a little bit. And our intention is to deal with a couple of small items, I believe, in public session, then go into confidential session. So you’re aware, and then come back into public session, and that is done. Thank you.

[2:53:16] Colleagues, we’re gonna start in just a moment. Colleagues, can I ask for screens on, please?

[2:55:01] Where it can advise us, we have quorum. Colleagues, there are no deferred matters that I’ve been made aware in our inquiries, but I’ve been made aware of an emergent motion, and so we seek leave for same. So for that, I will look for a mover. Councilor Fife Miller, seconder, thank you very much. This is on the Councilor and Mayor Bergen’s motion. So with that, this is to seek leave for the emergent motion with that, we will call the question.

[2:56:04] Councilor Halmer and Councilor Lewis. Councilor Lewis. Just verbally, yes. Using the vote, the motion carries 15 to zero. I’ll turn it over to Councilor Van Bergen.

[2:56:36] You’d like to put a motion on the floor. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, and apologies for this, 4.9 BI. If we could have consideration on that motion, we’d be appreciated. You have a seconder for that, Councilor Van Bergen. I see Councilor Van Hulse, thank you very much. So it’s specific to 4.9, help me clear aye. BI.

[2:57:12] BI, thank you very much. So with that, we will call the question. Oh, Deputy Mayor, just a point of order. I believe Councilor Van Bergen was on the losing side of that vote, so we can’t move the reconsideration. I’d be happy to move it for him. Move. Oh, thank you. You know, he voted the wrong way, so he actually was on the winning side, so my mistake. No, I think we’re okay the first time, but if we want to vote— We’re going to join the losing side. There’s a country song in there somewhere, thank you very much, we’ll call the question.

[2:58:35] Councilor Van Bergen, the motion that’s on the floor is to whether to allow the reconsideration vote. I can’t say that, but I just wanted to— (laughing) Okay, I thought we already vote. Okay, thank you. You may want to— Absolutely. Yeah, the chair doesn’t typically direct votes of Council colleagues. Thank you, thank you. Didn’t have my Wheaties. So you need to change your vote.

[2:59:09] If you wish to do so, let me clarify, that’s up to you. Yes, I wish to change my vote. So click voting and progress button. Thank you very much. You’re very welcome, and the motion carries 15 to zero. Well done, Councilor Van Bergen, so far, we’re getting to a point. This is all good, I’ll ask Clerk then just to clarify that the motion which is now being returned to the table for consideration of a vote is there for your consideration.

[2:59:50] Clerk, I’ll look to you. So we’ll need a move and a second to put the motion back on the table, I see. I’ll take Deputy Mayor Morgan and second by Councillor Lewis, thank you, or if I have another, excuse me. I know there are no comments or questions.

[3:00:23] This is just for reconsideration of a vote. So with that, we will call the question. Opposing the vote and the motion carries 10 to five. Thanks very much, colleagues. I’m gonna turn your attention now to the bylaws.

[3:00:56] We have bills one through 36, and if it’s your pleasure, I’m gonna include the bylaw 34 relating to Southdale and Southdale in that unless you want that pulled separately. Otherwise, we’ll be voting on bills one through 36. With that, then I will look for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Van Bergen, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. Let’s call the question. Opposing the vote and the motion carries.

[3:01:51] Colleagues, second reading of bills one through 36, inclusive, moved by Councillor Hopkins. Seconded by Councillor Hamou, thank you very much. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. Opposing the vote and the motion carries 15.

[3:02:32] And seconder of third reading and an act of bills one through 36, inclusive. Moved by Councillor Van Bergen, seconded by Councillor Layman, we will call the vote. Opposing the vote and the motion carries 15 to zero. We’re in a seconder going to, before we do that, I will go to the clerks and just confirm to the public what it is or we will be dealing with it.

[3:03:13] Mr. Mayor, we’re going into closed session to consider four matters. One is a labor relations employee negotiations matter. Second is a swister client privilege advice matter. The third is a litigation potential litigation and swister client privilege matter. And the fourth is a personal matter about a identifiable individual. Thank you. So with that, to go into move, Council on the closed session, I’ll look for a mover. Councilor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Are we good with a show of hands?

[3:03:51] Those in favor? Motion carries. Thanks very much to the public. We will return out of closed session back into public session for some items and work from there. Thanks very much with that. We will now go into closed session colleagues. Just give us a few moments as we make some adjustments. We’re just going through a technical little bump colleagues.

[3:08:31] Colleagues, I’ll ask for screens on please. I’ll look for the clerk to confirm quorum. Clerk’s confirmed quorum. Colleagues, to report out on the first session of Council on closed session, I’ll turn to Councilor Feifft Miller, please.

[3:09:13] Thank you, Your Worship. On the first report of the Council in closed session, your Council in closed session reports, number one, tentative agreement. That as a procedural matter pursuant to section 239, bracket six of the Municipal Act 2001, following recommendation be forwarded to Council in closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in the public. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, enterprise supports the attached memorandum of agreement and agreed to items dated September 20th and 21st, 2021 concerning the 2021-2023 collective agreement for service employees, international union, local one, bracket registered nurses, bargaining unit full-time and part-time bargaining units, closed bracket, representing full-time and part-time registered nurses at the deerness home be ratified.

[3:10:25] Thank you very much. Do you have a seconder for that? I see Councilor Layman. Thank you very much. Comments or questions? Any discussion? I see none. Therefore, we will call the question. Councilor Sallie, voting manually, yay. Thank you. And the vote in the motion carries 15 to zero.

[3:11:01] Thanks very much and colleagues. We’ll now deal with one bylaw, which is added bill 37. And I have a copy of that in front of me here, which I would like to make public. We just absolutely clear what we are voting on here. Number one deals with the appointment of Michael Childus as City Clerk of the Corporation of the City of London and that the bylaw to appoint Catherine Saunders be repealed, that seems so final, but that’s what it says here. And then a bylaw to appoint Michael Childus as Deputy Clerk is repealed and that this comes into force and effect on the 7th of June, 2022.

[3:11:43] So for first reading, June, I thought I would try to slide another six months in here, but the clerk is paying attention as she often does. So it is actually on the 7th day of January, 2022. So with that, I’ll look for a mover for the introduction first reading of added bill 37. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Palosa. We’ll call the vote. Okay, for Councillor Saleh.

[3:12:39] Closing the vote, the motion carries. Colleagues are now second reading of added bill 37. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Halmer. Thank you very much. There will be discussion, I know. So I’m gonna take a Liberty Colleagues, turn this over to the Deputy Mayor. I’m gonna make some comments and then we’ll, if anyone else wishes to speak to this Deputy Mayor. Yeah, I’ll go to the Mayor. So this is Colleagues, one of those very happy and sad moments, all of us on council, along with those who have occupied these seats in prior times, oh, an enormous debt to Kathy Saunders.

[3:13:23] We’ve all leaned heavily on Kathy during her time as clerk for her guidance or wisdom and a seemingly bottomless reservoir of knowledge on how to effectively govern and how to move this city forward in a number of ways. She’s a consummate professional and personally speaking, I can say to you that I’ve benefited so much from her expertise, frankly more times than I can remember. There are so many examples one can use highlighting her enduring brilliance in this role. I think first and foremost of Kathy’s exemplary skill and leadership in helping our city become the first and only Ontario municipality to not only undertake a rank ballot election in 2018, but to do so without even the slightest election hiccup on election night of the days that followed.

[3:14:10] This was a monumental milestone and it’s one that made Kathy a rock star among her colleagues across the country and frankly for us within the city. That kind of success doesn’t happen by accident and it doesn’t happen without an extremely talented and devoted individual at the home. To the clerk, I’m not sure if you’re doing a happy dance or looking in the reflective pool, but either way, can I certainly say on behalf of myself and all members of council, Kathy, thank you from my heart for all of your service and your dedication to this community.

[3:14:46] You deserve the very best in retirement. We’re gonna miss you, although personally, I’m not gonna miss losing our coffee bets, which I have done consistently for the three years I’ve been in this position, but from all our hearts to you, Kathy, thank you. We’ll have more to say on our new clerk later on in terms of his new role, but for today, today, Kathy, from all of us to all of you. Sincere, sincere, thanks. Deputy Mayor. Yes, I put myself on the list and I don’t have anybody else so far.

[3:15:23] Okay, so we’ll take, I believe the deputy mayor wanted to make some comments. I did, thank you, Your Worship, and thank you for your thoughtful comments so far. I wanted to rise in support of Bailah, our sorry, bill number 37, and I wanna talk about two parts of that bill. The first part is the appointment of Mr. Sholtis as the city clerk, and I’m glad that he’s able to join us in the room today, because he can hear the comments from colleagues and of course those in the room can congratulate him in person, the role that through the chair, you’re taking on is of paramount importance to the municipality.

[3:16:11] It is one of the few rules that is very clearly defined in the Municipal Act and has enormous responsibility. Within the act, one of the first items assigned to the duties of the clerk is to record without note or comment, all resolutions, decisions, and proceedings of council. It is the public record in a neutral and fair way that is the responsibility of this office, and it takes a special kind of individual, not only to have to deal with municipal council on a regular basis, but to have that responsibility on behalf of the citizens of London and on behalf of history to accurately support and record the proceedings of this chamber and this body.

[3:16:53] I cannot think of a more qualified individual than Mr. Shultis, and for those in the community who do not know him yet, he is impressive. And if you have a chance to talk to him about his resume and his experiences, you will clearly know why a council is supportive of this decision. So to Mr. Shultis, I wish you all the luck, especially keeping us in order and holding us on track, and for all of the important advice that you will give the chairs and the mayor and councilors. Good luck, and thank you for taking on this role.

[3:17:29] The second part of this by-law is part there where I might get just a little bit personal, and that is the repealing of Clerk Saunders by-law, which I know will come in effect on the seventh, but I wanna say to Clerk Saunders. As a member of council, think some of my best moments, and to be honest, my most difficult moments, have been engaging with you and your support. Whether that’s chairing a very contentious debate with colleagues, putting you on the spot to make a really tough call and the only person in the room that you can get advice from is you and your team and leaning over and listening to that.

[3:18:16] That requires an enormous amount of trust, and I know you have earned that from every member of this horseshoe, and I thank you personally for the advice and guidance that you’ve given me and my time as chairing committees, as chairing the budget, and as a counselor to ensure that I get the best possible advice to make the very difficult decisions that I’ve had to make. It requires a special person, as I said, about Mr. Shultis, and you have not only done this job, but also have that wealth of experience of being a CIO, and then many other positions, a professional planner, that you have, it will be a huge hole to fill.

[3:18:55] Your contributions to the municipality are unparalleled, and whatever you do next, they’re very lucky to have you. Whether that’s retirement and it’s your spouse, and you get to do something more fun, you’re a wonderful individual, an exceptionally talented clerk, and a delight to have had the opportunity to work with. So thank you. I will say, and we’ve joked over the years that I’ve always tried to think of myself as a clerk in training, my love for the procedure by-law and process.

[3:19:33] I’ll say I think it’s really interesting that you get to sign the by-law that repeals your by-law. Probably only me, you and Mr. Barber, maybe, will think that’s interesting, but I was glad to get a copy of the by-law for Mr. Shultis and your repealing of your by-law. I’ll do something up nice with it to share with both of you. And again, thank you for the contributions you’ve made to the city of London. I know the mayor said it very well, but personally, over the past seven years, I couldn’t have imagined being a city councilor without the advice and the guidance that you’ve been able to give.

[3:20:09] And I thank you for that. I know we knew each other before. I know we’ll know each other after, but this special role and relationship that we were able to have professionally, I will value forever. So thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Lehman. Thank you. At the risk of being repetitious with what has been said already, Mr. Shultis, that’s one impressive CV, holy smokes. I think if I had seen that considering candidates, and I didn’t know you and you were applying from the outside, I might be wondering what’s the personality that comes with that resume.

[3:21:01] But I’m more fortunate that you’re within the city and we’ve worked with you. And I can say you have the right temperament personality to take on this very demanding, challenging job. I appreciate your judgment in working with you. And I know you’re going to excel at this position. And the city of London is so fortunate to get a person of your qualifications to fill the shoes of the city clerk that is retiring.

[3:21:41] To the city clerk, it’s funny how the two speakers that preceded me kind of reduce it down to a personal level. Because I think as Councillors, we don’t have a— there’s no party here. It’s a very individual system. And we need a lot of assistance to get through our job as Councillors. For me personally, when I first came on council, there were some challenging things.

[3:22:16] And I really needed your guidance to get through some very choppy waters. And you were able to provide me without at all leading me in any direction, but with for sure making me understand the parameters, responsibilities, legalities of my role as Councillor, that allowed me to get to the right place. And so I will always appreciate that. And then, of course, during my term here, it’s been a pleasure to deal with you and whether it was crafting motions or getting advice on how to handle things and to watch your skill in being in this chamber and handling very challenging guidance and decision on the spot and on the fly.

[3:23:12] There’s a phrase that says, an iron hand and a velvet glove. I won’t go that far, but I’d say you have a strong hand and a suede glove, but put it that way. And without you, of course, we wouldn’t have been able to manage as well as we’ve done, because there’s a lot of very smart and strong individuals on council are blessed with a good council. But with that comes a challenging debate. And your guidance in the heat of battle has been so much appreciated.

[3:23:53] So as the mayor said, bittersweet. I’m really sorry to see you go, but I wish you the best. And thank you so much for the service. Thank you. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m not going to repeat all the eloquent things that have already been said by the three speakers preceding me. But I did want to rise and just personally— and I will be a little personal— first to Mr.

[3:24:31] truthless, Michael, we know you’re going to be great in the role. And as Councillor Lehman said, wow, the CV that you bring is incredibly impressive. And there were things I learned about you through that that I was completely unaware of. And it only adds to my respect and admiration for the work you do. So I look forward to working with you in the future, and I know you’re going to be leading a great team on the repealing of the Bible with Clerk Saunders. Kathy, you are leaving huge shoes to fill.

[3:25:10] But the fact that we are promoting from within says what an incredible leader of your team you have been. And I also just want to share personally how I’m going to miss our conversations, whether it’s in the hallway or during recess and catching up. And I want to share this because I think it’s important for the public to know, at the end of the day, we have roles to fill here. But we’re also human beings. And whether it’s chatting about the Leafs games, and I’m going to miss having another Leafs fan in this chamber.

[3:25:43] I’d have to see what we can do about that. But we did bring in Councillor Hamou, so she’ll help fill that loss. And we are down at Councillor Squire, so that’s one left’s Habs fan I’ve got to deal with. So I guess it balances out in the end. But I’m going to miss those conversations. And I appreciate, through the three years that I’ve been here, all the support, guidance, and personal consideration that you’ve given myself and other members of council. Because you treat us not just in our professional roles, but personally as human beings.

[3:26:16] And that is greatly appreciated, and you will be missed. Thank you. I have Councillor Sallie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everything that could be said has been said. But I just wanted to add, you know, I really want to wish that Clerk Saunders a well-deserved retirement and want to thank her for her many years of service. It’s weird to think that I’ve known her for seven years going on to eight. Time really seems to fly by. But I mean, early on my term, I was very active with motions.

[3:26:52] And Kathy was— sorry, Clerk Saunders was very supportive and very helpful in helping with many of those motions. So I think that many of my successes owe to her. And I thank her for that. I know a lot of people don’t realize, but Clerks seem to work always around the clock, whether it’s responding to me late in the evenings or on the weekends sometimes with emergency emotions that have to come up, have a positive impact in our community and have an impact in the city. So to you and your family, thank you for your service and wishing you a well-deserved retirement.

[3:27:26] Thank you. Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Your Worship. And Mr. Schultz, we are lucky to have you and to our Clerk. I want to just make the statement of how important the Clerk’s Office, the value that you give Council, is imperative to us doing our work, giving us the information, keeping us organized on time.

[3:28:05] I don’t think the public realizes that value. And it is important that we show the public how important the Clerk’s Office is to Council. I personally want to thank you for being there for me, really through challenging times. And it’s personal. But I’ve also watched you be there for all of us as well. So thank you.

[3:28:44] I will miss you. And I’m glad that today is not your last day. So there’ll be other times to have those chats. And hopefully continue to good luck with everything. Thank you for being there for us. Thank you. Any other comments from colleagues? Councillor van Merbergen. Thank you, Mayor. First, a hearty congratulations to Michael.

[3:29:18] And we wish you only the best as we go forward. But I do have to say, when it comes to copy, I remember when she first started, it just seems like yesterday. It’s just blown by. But she helped to write the ship. It was a little unsteady at the time. And she kept that ship upright and steady. She really is unflappable when she has to navigate from the hot sea.

[3:29:54] And she could quite have easily gone insane in this position. But clearly, she hasn’t. And it’s her great sense of humor, her great sense of empathy contributes to her on flappability, to her seemingly boundless talent for that particular role. So clearly, we’re all going to miss her.

[3:30:31] I certainly will. Kathy, we wish you only the best and have a great retirement. Well, if the clerk isn’t insane, I’m sure we tried to contribute. Councillor van Holst, please. Thank you, Your Worship, to Ms. Saunders. As your role comes to an end here, let me say, well done. And also, so much has been said.

[3:31:07] But except I want the chance to extend my own personal gratitude, which is what I’ll feel when you leave. And to Mr. Schultis, again, congratulations. You’re so perfectly qualified for this job. I’d like to go back in time to the first instance where you were asked what do you want to be when you grow up? I’m wondering if it wasn’t this job. So I’m very, very confident that you’ll be doing excellent work for us and look forward to your first year on the job.

[3:31:55] Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments? Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m going to start by saying congratulations to Mr. Schultis. I’ve had the wonderful pleasure of working with Michael over the last few years. And it’s like he was born for this job. So I know what we’re used to with Kathy, the advice, the unflappableness, as others have said.

[3:32:36] I know all of that will continue. And Michael will bring his own added flair to the job, although like Kathy, Michael is very stayed and calm. And even though flair even might be a bit of an overstatement, but I’m sure he will put his imprint on the job. And I’m so looking forward to that. I do want to add my comments about Clark Saunders. And I’m like, Councillor Hopkins. I didn’t want to do this.

[3:33:12] He has been a rock for not just this council, but for the last council and for me personally. I’ve spent so many years playing with her little frozen figurines. She’s got all the figurines from the frozen movie on her desk. And I’ve even talked to my daughter Lucy so many times about the when Lucy was younger about these little dolls and all the little things, just the many times I’ve sat in Kathy’s office, getting advice, bouncing things off her, brainstorming, and I don’t ever recall a time where Kathy was too busy to speak to me, just like Councillor Sully all hours.

[3:34:04] It feels like there’s never time off for the clerk. And I do appreciate her generosity with her time and her wisdom and her expertise. Like Councillor Hopkins, there have been some challenges over the last seven years and a bit. And Kathy was always somebody that I could look to. She was always the calm voice of reason and empathy as Councillor Van Mirberg pointed out, empathy and abundance.

[3:34:39] One thing that I’m getting used to in this job is saying goodbye to people. If you look at the different photographs where that we take at the beginning of every term with Council and staff, there’s so much change from photo to photo. And what the photographs don’t capture are the changes that happen in between the photographs as well. So I know this is not Kathy’s last day. But it— and I know that the retirement has been sort of a long process, which is good because it’s given me a chance to get used to the idea of not seeing Kathy at City Hall anymore, like I’ve grown used to.

[3:35:27] So best of luck to you, Kathy, in your retirement, well-deserved, as others have said. And thank you for everything that you’ve done. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councillor Closely. Thank you, Your Worship. And ever so briefly, thank you to Kathy for all that she has done, for always being a warm smile and an open welcoming door at a moment’s notice as things often happen quite quickly around Council, and for having an ability to turn insurmountable tasks and ask into easy things that we can accomplish, and for her ability to wordsmith convoluted discussions and to opportunities with clear deliverables for Council to consider and vote on and to help us get to the point of what we need.

[3:36:20] Thank you so much for your years of service and your dedication to one and hers, you will be missed, but have a great legacy with us, and a great successor tonight, and Mr. Schultez. And to him, thank you. You’ve been a huge asset on Council already. And I’m looking forward to watching you grow and come into your own space in the years to come. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hillier. I will— come on. I will keep this even shorter.

[3:36:54] Kathy knows how I feel about her. She has helped me quite a bit over the last— and fun before this, but it’s so much advice. And I’m looking forward to the moment when I can bring her a dozen butter tarts, and she will take them. I think we all would, Councillor. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions for the clerk? Or for this question, open question session? Councillor Omer. Thank you.

[3:37:28] A lot of great things have been said. I remember when Linda Rowe retired. I was close because it was earlier on, and I was less used to seeing people retire and new people step up to fill in their roles and do it in a different way. But I was very sad to see Linda go. I thought she did a wonderful job. And one of the things that I saw after she did retire was the depth of the quality of the people in the clerk’s office.

[3:38:02] And it was around that time that Mr. Schulte has stepped into the role of Deputy City Clerk. And for one person here, Kathy, the role is ending. And I hope you have a great retirement. You certainly deserve it. And I wish you all the best. But for Mr. Schulte’s, it’s just the beginning of an opportunity to really show us what he can do as City Clerk. And I think, as many of you have said, really well suited to that role. It’s a tough job, very demanding. And I think that Mr. Schulte’s is going to rise to the occasion.

[3:38:38] I look forward to seeing him in that role. I want to drag it out. I’ve said lots of things in the chambers. I will say one of the things that I appreciate about the clerk, whether it’s Kathy or the Debbie City Clerk’s or a clerk who’s at the particular meeting, is that they always give us their best advice and they tell it to us, honestly. And that’s what we need from the City Clerk. And that’s what we’ve got from Kathy. And that’s what I hope we get from Mr. Schulte’s. I’m very confident that we will.

[3:39:13] Thank you. Any other comments for the added bill 37? Yes, I’m going to allow the clerk to respond, because this is a little unique. But I will invite any of our council colleagues to make any private representations to the clerk, knowing that she still with us a little bit longer. But with that, I think it would be appropriate to hear from the clerk. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[3:39:46] Before I came to the meeting today, my husband made sure that I wrote something down, because he knew I would be crying. So I did want to take this opportunity, because this is the, like, my last meeting that I’ll be at. So I won’t give this opportunity again. So I’m just going to re-read a route so I can hopefully keep it together. And for a person who started out as a bylaw officer in the city, Barry, I’m ending my career with my dream job. Thank you to Vicote and for the council at the time for having the faith and the trust to put me in this role.

[3:40:25] And many thanks as well to Jim Barber, Barry Card, Martin Hayward, and Lynn Livingston for their support over my 12 years with the city of London. Members of council, thank you for the trust you put in me. I know that we may not have always agreed, but I hope that even during those differences of opinion, you understood that my role was to provide the best advice I could in ensuring the protection of everyone involved, including the corporation. I also want to thank members of the public who for the most part, even when they have disagree with me, respect it, that I had a role and a job to do.

[3:41:04] When I started with the city of London, I said I was looking forward to the challenges. Well, those were delivered a lot. But even with those difficulties and challenges, I learned a lot. But what stands out most for me is the kindness and the support shown to me and how rewarding this role has been for me. Like Michael, I mean, I always wanted to be a clerk, so I did the education and worked my way towards this. But those I want to show my most gratitude to is my family, past and present, in the city clerk’s office.

[3:41:45] Councilor’s office, provincial offenses administration, and our newest members of staff in the cafeteria. You will never see, a manager is only as successful as a team that they are working with. You will never see the amount of work that is done behind the scenes by these staff members who make things go so smoothly. The time and care staff take with the public is second to none. They are true, they are the true reflection of what a public service is meant to be. These people will remain supportive of each other, even the most challenging of times.

[3:42:22] I will be forever grateful for the support that they have given me, and I won’t miss them so much. But I am looking forward to joining former deputy city clerk Linda Rowe with the retirement gig. You’re being left in very, very capable hands, and I’m very proud of Michael, and I couldn’t be more proud that I am right now. Your new city clerk will be awesome. And Barb, thank you, and Michael, you will shine in your new roles. Congratulations. Thank you, Kathy, thank you all for your comments.

[3:43:16] Again, we’ll have an opportunity for the next, privately in your own way, if you wish to make any other comments to Kathy, if she’s listening. The thing I would share with you, from what I’ve heard from comments tonight, just a few brief things. I didn’t realize, frankly, the issue of insanity as it relates to the clerk, nor did I realize the issue of the clerk with the iron hand and the velvet glove that she has a fetish for frozen dolls. But you know what I really appreciated colleagues, but what we’ve said is that it’s like that book Tuesdays with Morrie, where we say all these nice things to someone while they’re here to hear it.

[3:43:59] And Kathy, I can tell you the sincerity and depth of comment from all of us is indicative of the commitment that you have made to all of us, and we’ll never forget you for that. So thank you. Colleagues, let’s call the vote. Councillors, just leave voting manually, eh? Thank you. I was in the room.

[3:44:38] The mover and seconder of third reading, an act might have built 37. Do I have a mover, please? Councillor Halmer, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much. We’ll call the question. Voting unanimously. Opposing the vote, and the motion carries 14.

[3:45:15] Before we adjourn, you know, I’ve come to truly appreciate that in this administration, we truly have the dream team. When I think of our clerks, I think of Clerk Kathy Saunders. I think of Deputy Clerk Barr, Westlake Power. I think of Deputy Clerk, Michael Schildes, and Deputy Clerk. I think of the staff that we have, as we’ve heard throughout today, is Livingston and London, Ontario has the dream team. And I just wanna say thank you to all of our staff for the work that they do.

[3:45:53] And the lip syncing that apparently went on today in support of the Food Bank and all that you do. So to all of you, on behalf of City Council, our heartfelt thanks. And with that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn, please. I see Councillor Ploza, and I see Councillor Sean Lewis, who likes to do that sort of thing. So, Clerk, what’s your, as your last meeting here? Do we do a hand vote or do we wanna go really formal? I meant your pleasure. Oh, I’m in for a hand vote. So the clerk demands a hand vote. So with that, by a show of hands, goes in favor of adjournment.

[3:46:27] Councillor Silly, we need you. Last time, I see it. My hand is up. Got it. And motion carries. Thanks very much. Thank you all. Thank you, Clerk, meeting adjourned.