January 25, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:00 PM; it being noted that the following members attended remotely: Councillors M. van Holst, M. Salih, J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, M. Hamou, J. Morgan, S. Lehman, A. Hopkins, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Turner, E. Peloza, J. Fyfe-Millar, and S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councilor S. Turner disclosed a pecuniary interest in items 4 (4.1) and 5 (4.2) of the 2nd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with both appointments to the London Public Library Board, by indicating that his wife is an employee of the London Public Library.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

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 (14 to 0)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

4.1.    Solicitor-Client Privilege / Litigation or Potential Litigation        

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.5.    Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual / Labour Relations        

A personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees and labour relations; and

4.6.    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations        

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council convenes in closed session at 5:31 PM with all Members participating.

The Council resumes into public session at 5:55 PM with all Members participating.

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

That the Minutes of the 2nd Meeting held on December 21, 2021, BE APPROVED.

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

6.3.  Amendments to Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination

Policy - Refer to Item 12 (4.3) of the 2nd Report of the Corporate Services Committee, including communications.

6.4. Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Public Transit Stream Intake

3 - Refer to Item 10 (4.1) of the 2nd Report of the Civic Works Committee, including communications.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.1   Expropriation of Lands - Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project (As the “Approving Authority”)

2022-01-25 Expropriation Southdale Road - Approving Authority - P-2558

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Council convene as the Approving Authority pursuant to the provisions of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.26, as amended, for the purpose of considering Communication No. 1 from the Deputy City Manager, Environmental and Infrastructure, with respect to the expropriation of the lands as may be required for the Project known as the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environmental and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, on the advice of the Director of Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of land as may be required for the project known as the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road improvements project:

a)    the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as Approving Authority pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended, HEREBY APPROVES the proposed expropriation of land, as described in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report dated January 25, 2022, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, it being noted that the reasons for making this decision are as follows:

i)    the subject lands are required by The Corporation of the City of London for the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road improvements project;

ii)    the design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along the corridor;

iii)    the design is in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Recommendations for the Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road improvements project approved by Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee at the meeting held on February 20, 2019; and,

b)    subject to the approval of a) above, a certificate of approval BE ISSUED by the City Clerk on behalf of the Approving Authority in the prescribed form.

It being noted that no requests for Hearings of Necessity were received.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the meeting of the Approving Authority BE ADJOURNED and that the Municipal Council reconvene in regular session.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.2   Expropriation of Lands - Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project (As the “Expropriating Authority”)

2022-01-25 Council Expropriation Southdale Road - Expropriation Authority - P-2558

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environmental and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of land as may be required for the project known as Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 25, 2022 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements Project BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022;

 

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take all necessary steps to prepare a plan or plans showing the Expropriated Lands and to register such plan or plans in the appropriate registry or land titles office, pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, within three (3) months of the Approving Authority granting approval of the said expropriation;

c)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign on behalf of the Expropriating Authority, the plan or plans as signed by an Ontario Land Surveyor showing the Expropriated Land; and.

d)    the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED to execute and serve the notices of expropriation required by the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26 and such notices of possession that may be required to obtain possession of the Expropriated Lands.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.   Reports

8.1   2nd Report of the Planning and Environment Commmittee

2022-01-10 PEC Report Full

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the the 2nd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 14 (4.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   (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) 1761 Wonderland Road North (H-9407) (Relates to Bill No. 78)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by 1830145 Ontario Limited (York Developments), relating to the property located at 1761 Wonderland Road North, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022, 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 Neighbourhood Shopping Area NSA3 and NSA5 Special Provisions Bonus (h-17h-103NSA5(3)/NSA3B-71) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area NSA3 and NSA5 Special Provisions Bonus (NSA5(3)/NSA3B-71) Zone.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East (H-9393) (Relates to Bill No. 79)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Stackhouse Developments (London) Inc., relating to the property located at 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Restricted Office/Convenience Commercial/Residential R8 Special Provision (h-5/h-18/RO2/CC5(1)/R8-4(60)/B-70) Zone TO a Restricted Office/Convenience Commercial/Residential R8 Special Provision RO2/CC5(1)/R8-4(60)/B-70) Zone to remove the h-5 and h-18 holding provisions.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) 3924 Colonel Talbot Road (H-9366) (Relates to Bill No. 80)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Ironstone, relating to the property located at 3924 Colonel Talbot Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1/Residential R1 Special Provision/ Residential R4 Special Provision/Residential R6 (hR1-3(7)) and (hR1-3/R4-6(16)/R6-5) Zone TO a Residential R1/Residential R1 Special Provision/ Residential R4 Special Provision/Residential R6 (R1-3(7)) and (R1-3/R4-6(16)/R6-5) Zone to remove the “h” holding provision.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) 660 Sunningdale Road East (39T-17502)

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 Peter Sergautis, for the subdivision of land over Concession 6 S, Part Lot 13, situated on the north side of Sunningdale Road, west of Adelaide Street North, municipally known as 660 Sunningdale Road East:

a)    the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Extra Realty Limited, for the Applewood Subdivision, Phase 3 (39T-09501) appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 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 January 10, 2022 as Appendix “B”; and,

c)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.   (2022-D12)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) 1738, 1742, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road (39T-17502)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Thames Village Joint Venture Corp., relating to the lands located at 1738, 1742, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing a three (3) year extension to Draft Plan Approval for the residential plan of subdivision SUBJECT TO the previously imposed conditions  contained in Appendix “A” (File No. 39T-17502) appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022.   (2022-D12)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) Strategic Plan Variance Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report dated January 10, 2022, entitled “Strategic Plan Variance Report” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-C08)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.7) Building Division Monthly Report - November 2021

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Building Division Monthly Report for November, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-A23)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (3.1) 1389 Commissioners Road East (Z-9446) (Relates to Bill No. 81)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the City-initiated zoning by-law amendment relating to lands located within the Summerside Subdivision – Phase 17, known municipally as 1389 Commissioners Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-2) 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 zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

  •    the recommended 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 recommended zoning conforms to the policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential designation; and,

  •    the zoning will permit single detached dwellings which are considered appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area, and consistent with the planned vision of the Neighbourhoods Place Type.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (3.2) 150 King Edward Avenue (Z-9398) (Relates to Bill No. 82)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 1767289 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 150 King Edward Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Shopping Area (NSA1) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NSA3()) Zone and a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5()) Zone;

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

i)    orient the ground floor active uses, including commercial units and primary entrances to residential units, towards the King Edward Avenue frontage;

ii)    ensure the public entrance(s) of commercial unit(s) are easily distinguished from residential entrances. Consider locating commercial signages above the commercial units to provide distinction between type(s) of entrance and consider incorporating weather protection (e.g., canopies) above entrances;

iii)    provide direct walkway access from ground floor units (Commercial and Residential) to the public sidewalk along King Edward Avenue frontage;

iv)    ensure that the design of any fourplex end units with elevations flanking the public street are oriented to the street by providing enhanced architectural details, such as wrap-around porches, entrances and a similar number of windows, materials, and articulation as is found on the front elevation; and,

v)    provide safe, convenient, and direct pedestrian connections throughout the site between unit entrances, amenity spaces, parking areas and the city sidewalk;

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

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the redevelopment of an underutilized parcel of land within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (3.3) 100 Kellogg Lane (Z-9408) (Relates to Bill No. 83)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by E. & E. McLaughlin Ltd., relating to the property located at 100 Kellogg Lane, the proposed attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1/BDC2(12)) Zone TO a revised Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1/BDC2(12)) 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 the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Main Street Commercial Corridor designation; and,

  •    the recommended amendment provides for further compatible adaptive reuse of a large industrial site located within a community in transition, comprised of legacy industrial uses and existing residential and commercial uses.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (3.4) 1140 Sunningdale Road East (Z-9405) (Relates to Bill No. 84)

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 2839069 Ontario Inc. c/o Royal Premier Homes, relating to the property located at 1140 Sunningdale Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022 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 Convenience Commercial Special Provision (CC(14)) Zone, TO a compound Convenience Commercial Special Provision/Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (CC4()/R8-4()●H16●B(_)) Zone;

the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a mixed-use apartment building, with a maximum density of 100 units per hectare, in general conformity with the Site Plan, Elevations and Renderings attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law, and provides for the following:

  1.    Exceptional Site and Building Design 

i)    a building placement that is street-oriented and which reinforces the existing window-street context along Sunningdale Road East to provide for continuity of the built street-wall;

ii)    the provision of a pedestrian walkway across the front of the subject lands that functions as a continuation of the city sidewalk located west of the subject lands on the north side of Pleasantview Drive, and connecting to the city sidewalk located east of the subject lands on the north side of Sunningdale Road East;

iii)    the provision of yard depths along all edges of the proposed development to accommodate a landscaped buffer able to support tree growth and screen the proposed development from adjacent residential uses;

iv)    the provision of enhanced landscaping along Sunningdale Road East to screen any surface parking areas located in the front yard from the city-owned boulevard;

v)    a well pronounced, street-oriented principal building entrance for residential uses;

vi)    a well pronounced, street-oriented unit entrance for commercial uses with large expanses of clear glazing, a wrap around canopy and signage;

vii)    individual ground-floor residential unit access and private individual courtyards on the street-facing (south) elevation;

viii)    inset balconies to screen views from the proposed development to the existing single detached dwellings to the west; and,

ix)    a high-level of articulation and architectural detailing on the street-facing front facade for visual interest;

  1.    A minimum of 80% of the required parking spaces provided underground

  2.    A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces fitted with electric vehicle charging stations

  3.    Provision of Affordable Housing

i)    a total of two (2) 1-bedroom units will be provided for affordable housing;

ii)    rents not exceeding 80% of the Average Market Rent for the London Census Metropolitan Area as determined by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation at the time of building occupancy;

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

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

it being noted that the following site plan matter(s) was (were) raised during the application review process to be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process: 

i)    the noise recommendations and warning clauses contained in the Environmental Noise Assessment Report – 1140 Sunningdale Road East prepared by Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. dated May 2021 assessing predicted noise levels resulting from road traffic volumes (Sunningdale Road East) on the proposed development be considered by the Site Plan Approval Authority for inclusion in any Site Plan and Development Agreement;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it will contribute to the mix of residential types and housing options (including affordable housing) available to address diverse housing needs; is a compact form of development that will use land, infrastructure, and public service facilities efficiently; and provides for infill and residential intensification at an appropriate location identified and supported by municipal policy directions;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan that contemplate low-rise apartment buildings as a primary permitted use on lands identified as Neighbourhoods and located on major streets. The proposed convenience commercial use will be scaled appropriately for the in-force policies that aim to achieve an appropriate range of commercial uses, including retail, service, and office uses, within the Neighbourhoods Place Type. The proposed development will provide for residential intensification in a form that can minimize and mitigate the impacts of the development on adjacent properties thereby being sensitive, compatible and a good fit with its context;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan that contemplates low-rise apartment buildings as primary permitted uses and convenience commercial uses as secondary permitted uses on lands identified as Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential on major streets. Convenience commercial uses are contemplated as stand-alone uses or on the ground floor of apartment buildings. The proposed development will provide for convenience commercial uses that are appropriately sized and neighbourhood-oriented serving the needs of the surrounding residents;

  •    the proposed development is eligible for bonus zoning under the bonus zoning criteria in the 1989 Official Plan and will secure public benefit and site and building design elements that are commensurate to the additional building density;

  •    the use of bonus zoning will secure two (2) affordable housing units within the proposed development in support of Municipal Council’s commitment to the Housing Stability Action Plan, Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock to meet current and future needs for affordable housing; and,

  •    the use of bonus zoning will secure electric vehicle charging stations for residents in support Municipal Council’s commitment to minimizing and mitigating climate change.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.13   (3.5) 257-263 Springbank Drive (O-9354/Z-9355) (Relates to Bill No.’s 71 and 85)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Anast Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 257-263 Springbank Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the revised staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022 to amend the Official Plan (1989) to ADD a policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” to permit a residential apartment building with a maximum building height of 5-storeys - 20 metres (northerly half)/6-storeys - 23 metres (southerly half) and with a maximum density of 137 units per hectare within the Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor designation to align the 1989 Official Plan policies with the Neighbourhood Place Type policies of The London Plan; and,

b)    the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “B”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Arterial Commercial Special Provision (AC2(2)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-5*R9-7(  )) Zone;

it being noted that the h-5 holding provision being included in this recommendation is for a public site plan meeting to include the following issues raised at the public participation meeting, but not limited to fencing, tree preservation, garbage storage and garbage collection and snow removal and snow loading;

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

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

ii)    ensure the tree preservation report has been updated, consent has been granted from Forestry Operations to remove any boulevard trees and vegetation, and a risk assessment of trees prior to construction and anticipated with construction is conducted;

c)    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-laws as the recommendation implements the same number of proposed units of 38 for which public notification has been given;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to, the Urban Corridor Place Type policies. It also conforms with the in-force policies but not limited to the Key Directions, and City Design policies;

  •    the recommended amendment meets the criteria for Specific Area Policies and will align the 1989 Official Plan with The London Plan;

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

  •    the subject lands represent an appropriate location for intensification in the form of an apartment building, at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding neighbourhood.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.1.15   (4.2) 1st Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 22, 2021:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the Green Roofs Update:

i)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include a discussion paper, as a part of the ReThink Zoning process, that is dedicated to the issues of environmental sustainability and climate change; and,

ii)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide a clear definition of Green Roofs for the ReThink Zoning process;

it being noted that G. Barrett, Director, Planning and Development, provided a verbal update with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Civic Administration will engage with the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee as part of the consultation process for ReThink Zoning;

b)    the amended document appended to the 1st Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, with respect to the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee (TFAC) Draft Comments Regarding the Tree Planting Strategy Update, BE REFERRED to Civic Administration for their consideration;

it being noted that A. Valastro will submit an additional recommendation, with respect to this matter, at the next TFAC meeting; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.14   (4.1) 1st Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning AdvisoryCommittee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 16, 2021:

a)    the Working Group report relating to the property located at 952 Southdale Road West BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b)    the proposed “London’s Bird-Friendly Skies” brochure BE AMENDED to include images of bird friendly residential windows and an explanation of why the markers are important; it being noted that the Environmental and Ecological Advisory Committee held a general discussion with respect to this matter; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.4, inclusive, and 4.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Item 14(4.1) BE APPROVED, as amended:

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 16, 2021, as amended as follows:

a)    the Working Group report relating to the property located at 952 Southdale Road West BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consider the inclusion of images of bird-friendly residential windows along with an explanation of why the markers are important;; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.4, inclusive, and 4.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Clause 4.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 16, 2021, as amended as follows:

a)    the Working Group report relating to the property located at 952 Southdale Road West BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consider the inclusion of images of bird-friendly residential windows along with an explanation of why the markers are important;; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.4, inclusive, and 4.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

8.2   2nd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2022-01-11 CPSC Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following clauses of the 2nd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED: Items 1 through 5, inclusive.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   (1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Strategic Plan Variance Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services and the City Manager, the staff report, dated January 11, 2022, with respect to the Strategic Plan Progress Variance Report, BE RECEIVED. (2021-C08)

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (4.1) 1st Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 8, 2021:

a)    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:

i)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend a future meeting of the London Housing Advisory Committee to provide an update on the status of the implementation of the plan; and,

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

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.2 and 4.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (4.2) 1st Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 9, 2021:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the Budget Request - Coyote Signage:

i)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to issue a Public Service Announcement with respect to the placement of the updated coyote signs in City parks; and,

ii)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to issue a Public Service Announcement during the spring and fall seasons as part of an awareness campaign to inform residents of the seasonal milestones for canids;

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to undertake an awareness campaign following the installation of the recycling receptacles for the Clear Your Gear program;

it being noted that the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee will continue to engage with Civic Administration with respect to the placement of the recycling receptacles;

c)    the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) will compile and provide information with respect to pet safety tips for inclusion on the Fireworks By-law brochure;

it being further noted that AWAC will continue to conduct research on the effects of fireworks on wildlife and pets in order to provide a formal recommendation to Council with respect to potential changes to the Fireworks By-law; and,

d)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 4.1 and 5.4 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at December 15, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3   2nd Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-01-10 CSC Report 2

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following clauses of the 2nd Report of the  Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED: Items 1 through 13, inclusive, except Item 12(4.3).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Report of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Board of Directors -Hybrid Meeting - November 24-25, 2021

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication from Councillor J. Morgan regarding the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Board of Directors update on board activities from the virtual meeting held on November 24-25, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Argyle Business Improvement Area 2022 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy (Relates to Bill No. 66)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Argyle Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Argyle Business Improvement Area proposed 2022 budget submission in the amount of $283,000 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2022 fiscal year for the purposes of the Argyle Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $215,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law A.-6873-292 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Schedule “C” with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Argyle Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 25, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area 2022 Proposed Budget –Municipal Special Levy (Relates to Bill No. 67)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area proposed 2022 budget submission in the amount of $121,414 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report;

 

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2022 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $70,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above,  by a levy in accordance with By-law C.P.-1528-486 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Schedule “C” with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 25, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Hyde Park Business Improvement Area 2022 Proposed Budget –Municipal Special Levy (Relates to Bill No. 68)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area proposed 2022 budget submission in the amount of $553,810 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2022 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $484,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1519-490 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Schedule “C” with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 25, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) London Downtown Business Association 2022 Proposed Budget –Municipal Special Levy (Relates to Bill No. 69)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the London Downtown Business Association:

a)    the London Downtown Business Association proposed 2022 budget submission in the amount of $1,845,838 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report;

 

b)    the amount to be raised by the Corporation of the City of London for the 2022 fiscal year for the purposes of the London Downtown Business Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $1,905,238;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-2 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Schedule “C” with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the London Downtown Business Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 25, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) Old East Village Business Improvement Area 2022 Proposed Budget –Municipal Special Levy (Relates to Bill No. 70)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Old East Village Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Old East Village Business Improvement Area proposed 2022 budget submission in the amount of $240,350 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2022 fiscal year for the purposes of the Old East Village Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $42,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Schedule “C” with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Old East Village Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 25, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.7) Strategic Plan Variance Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated January 10, 2022 regarding the Strategic Plan Progress Variance BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (2.8) Election Sign By-law Update

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as  Appendix ‘C’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022 to repeal By-law No. E-185-537, being the “Election Sign By-law” and to replace it with a new Election Sign By-law.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the draft by-law BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration in order to consider the following changes to the draft by-law:

a)    maintaining the setback distance at the current at 3 metres (section 4.5 b); 

b)    maintaining the current removal period at 96 hrs (section 3.4);

c)    incorporate clarification around signage of a campaign office, that allows signs on the property without being physically attached to the building; 

d)    maintaining the current height restriction of 1.8m in the 5-8m of the roadway regulation (section 4.6 a); 

e)    amend the distance between election signs of the same candidate to 100 metres (section 4.5 i); and,

f)    change the Election Sign permission to be placed no earlier than 1 week prior to nomination day for nominated candidates; 

it being noted that there will be a report back to the Corporate Services Committee with respect to the above-noted proposed changes, as well as information related to impacts of any proposed changes.

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (4.1) 1st Report of the County/City Liaison Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to 1st Report of the County/City Liaison Committee from its meeting held on December 16, 2021:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to Land Ambulance Dispatch:

i)    the Council of the County of Middlesex and the Council of the City of London BE REQUESTED to send letters to Minister Christine Elliott in support of the following Land Ambulance Dispatch Project Pilot program as proposed by Middlesex County, substantially in the following form:

“The Council of the [County of Middlesex / City of London] supports Middlesex County’s proposal from 2019 to the Ministry, to assume responsibility for dispatching and managing deployment of ambulance resources within the County of Middlesex, City of London, County of Huron and surrounding area.

We support the notion that Middlesex County would provide the services better, faster and more safely than the status quo. Further benefits from adopting Middlesex’s proposal include:

  •    upgrade of technology to allow for better communications and tracking of ambulances;

  •    demonstration of innovation and providing the Province with an opportunity to assess new dispatch models; and

  •    addressing numerous local concerns regarding the quality of ambulance dispatch.

The [County of Middlesex / City of London] stands to benefit from the innovation and leadership demonstrated through this proposal.”

ii)    the verbal update provided by B. Rayburn and attached presentation from N. Roberts with respect to the Middlesex London Paramedic Services dispatch business case, Middlesex London Paramedic Service Communication Centre Pilot, BE RECEIVED; and

b)  clauses 1.1 and 4.4 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (4.2) Application – Issuance of Proclamation - Black History Month

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated December 20, 2021 from Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (CDIS) Implementation Body, the month of February 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Black History Month.

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (5.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application from Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (CDIS) Implementation Body, January 29, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia.

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (4.3) Amendments to Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy (Relates to Bill No. 72)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy:

a)  on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 to amend the “Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on January 25, 2022; and,

b)  that NO ACTION be taken with respect to the communications dated December 23, 2021 and January 6, 2022 from Councillor M. van Holst.

it being noted that the communications referred from Stage 6 from Councillor van Holst and G. Harper were received.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.4   2nd Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-01-11 CWC Report

At 4:43 PM, Councillor M. Cassidy enters the meeting.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following clauses of the 2nd Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED: Items 1 through 11, inclusive, excluding Item 10(4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   (1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that there were no pecuniary interests disclosed.

Motion Passed

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

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 15, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Award of Engineering Services to Complete Environmental Protection Act and Other Approvals for the Proposed Expansion of W12A Landfill

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 January 11, 2022, related to the studies and documentation required to obtain approval for the Proposed Expansion of the W12A Landfill once the Environmental Assessment Study Report has been submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks:

a)        Golder Associates Ltd. BE APPOINTED to complete the studies and documentation required to obtain Environmental Compliance Approvals for the Proposed Expansion of the W12A Landfill Site under the Environmental Protection Act for Waste and Air and under the Ontario Water Resource Act for the Stormwater Management Ponds, in the total amount of $454,177.80, including a contingency of $75,696.30, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        Dillon Consulting Ltd. BE APPOINTED to complete the studies and documentation required to obtain Environmental Compliance Approvals for the Proposed Expansion of the W12A Landfill Site under the Ontario Water Resource Act for the leachate pumping station, in the total amount of $102,832.00, including a contingency of $17,139.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)        AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED to carry out the studies and documentation required to obtain approvals under the Endangered Species Act for the protection of Species of Risk identified and listed in the Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Proposed Expansion of the W12A Landfill, and to provide the documentation required with respect to preservation of the Natural Environment to obtain Environmental Compliance Approvals, in the total amount of $99,028.73, including a contingency of $14,678.44, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

d)        Comcor Environmental Ltd. BE APPOINTED to carry out preparation of supporting documents as part of the Design and Operation Report for the Environmental Compliance Approval - Waste application, and to carry out detailed design for the initial landfill gas collection system expansion construction, in the total amount of $102,354.00, including a contingency of $17,059.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

e)        the financing for the work, as identified in parts a), b), c) and d) above, BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

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

g)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Kilally Infrastructure Works Detailed Design

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 January 11, 2022, related to the appointment of consulting services for the Kilally Infrastructure Works project:

a)        Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design for the Kilally Infrastructure Works project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $719,535, including 20% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.(2021-T05)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and City of London Flood Protection Projects: West London Dyke - Phase 7 Increase to Consulting Fees

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 January 11, 2022, related to the increasing the existing contract for the Phase 7 West London Dyke project:

a)        the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the added consulting and detailed design works for Phase 7 of the West London Dyke on behalf of the City by increasing the City’s share by $72,174.66, including contingency, excluding HST;

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

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

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

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2021-E21/F11A)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.5) Report on Emergency Repairs to Pumps at Wonderland Pumping Station

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated January 11, 2022, related to emergency repairs to the Wonderland Pumping Station pumps that were undertaken without competitive procurement but in accordance with Section 14.2 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.6) Strategic Plan Variance Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated January 11, 2022, related to the Strategic Plan Progress Variance BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-C08)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.7) Ontario Regulation (O.Reg.) 406/19 - On-Site and Excess Soil Management

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated January 11, 2022, related to the Ontario Regulation (O.Reg.) 406/19 (On-site and Excess Soil Management), BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-E05)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (3.1) Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Environmental Assessment of the Proposed W12A Landfill Expansion

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 January 11, 2022, related to the Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Environmental Assessment of the Proposed W12A Landfill Expansion

a)        the Environmental Assessment Study Report BE APPROVED; and,

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to submit the Environmental Assessment Study Report to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks for approval by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks;

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

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at December 23, 2021, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (4.1) Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Public Transit Stream Intake 3

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit the projects identified in the staff report dated January 11, 2022 to Intake 3 of the Public Transit Stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP);

it being noted that the communication from A. Oudshoorn, with respect to this matter, was received; it being further noted that the communications referred from Stage 6 from Councillor van Holst, W. Brock, C. Butler and M. Miksa were received.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5   2nd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-01-18 SPPC Report 2

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following clauses of the 2nd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED: Items 1, 2, 3.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that Councilor S. Turner disclosed a pecuniary interest in items 4.1 and 4.2, having to do with both having to do with appointments to the London Public Library Board, by indicating that his wife is employee of the London Public Library.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) Resignation from the Argyle Business Improvement Association

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication dated January 4, 2022 from R. Sidhu, Executive Director, Argyle BIA with respect to the resignation of Melanie O’Brien (Madison’s Boutique & Consignment) BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Re-Establishment of the Waste Management Working Group

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the Waste Management Working Group BE RE-ESTABLISHED, in accordance with the Terms of Reference as appended to the related staff report dated January 18, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (4.1) London Public Library Board

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to Council appointments to the London Public Library Board:

a)     the resignation of Councillor S. Lewis, from the London Public Library Board BE ACCEPTED; and,

b)     Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar BE APPOINTED to the London Public Library Board, for the term ending November 14, 2022;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated December 9, 2021 from Council S. Lewis with respect to his resignation.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.5   (4.2) London Public Library Board Vacancy

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to Council appointments to the London Public Library Board:

a)     the re-submitted communication dated November 18, 2021 from M. Ciccone, CEO & Chief Librarian, London Public Library BE RECEIVED; and,

b)     Scott Andrew Collyer BE APPOINTED to the London Public Library Board, for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.6   (4.3) Full-Time Compensation Determination

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the communication from Councillor M. van Holst, dated January 9, 2022, with respect to typical daytime office hours, BE RECEIVED and no action be taken.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

8.5.7   (5.1) 6th Report of Governance Working Group

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 6th Report of the Governance Working Meeting from its meeting held on January 6, 2022 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Turner

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Introduction and First Reading of Bill No’.s 65 to 85, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the Second Reading of Bill No’.s 65 to 85, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No’.s 65 to 85, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   3rd Report of Council in Closed Session

  1.    Partial Property Acquisition – 85 Sunningdale Road – Sunningdale Road Improvements Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, and Division Manager, Transportation Planning and Design, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the acquisition of a portion of property from 85 Sunningdale Road, further described as Part of Lot 56, RCP 1029, being part of PIN 08069- 0051, designated as Part 11, Plan 33R-20957, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Sunningdale Road Improvements Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by Barvest Realty Inc. (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $500,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement;

b)    the Grant of Temporary Easement and Consent to Enter, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by Barvest Realty Inc. (the “Vendor”), for the sum of $54,000.00, for the term of twenty-four months (24) with an option to renew for twelve (12) months for an additional $27,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, and

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

  1.    Sale of City-Owned Surplus Property – 2 Saunby Street

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned property located at 2 Saunby Street, further described as Part 1, Plan 33R-20979, being the part of PIN 082470126 (LT), containing approximately 0.227 acres, the offer submitted by Mackenzie Hinschberger (the “Purchaser”) to purchase the subject property from the City, for the sum of $665,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the following conditions:

a)    the Purchaser acknowledging that the property is being purchased on an “As-Is” basis;

b)   the Purchaser retaining the right prior to close to assign the Agreement;

c)    the City acknowledging all costs for discharging financing is a Seller responsibility; and

d)   the Purchaser having the right to visit the property three further times prior to completion.

  1.    Licence Agreement – 80 Dundas Street, Downtown Loop Rapid Transit Project and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 80 Dundas Street, further described as Part 6, Plan 33R-21008, containing an area of approximately 3,429.5 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Downtown Loop Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Municipal Council to approve the Licence Agreement provided by the Province (Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario) as Represented by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, covering the use of the subject property by the City, for a term for three years, for the sum of $22,200.00;

b)    the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor’s Office, similar to that attached as Appendix “C”; and,

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

  1.    Temporary Retention Strategy - Dearness Home Registered Practical Nurse (RPN) Classification

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, that the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary to implement a Temporary Retention Strategy for the Dearness Home Registered Practical Nurse (RPN) classification in the Unifor, Local 302 bargaining unit.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

  1.    Partial Property Acquisition – 85 Sunningdale Road – Sunningdale Road Improvements Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, and Division Manager, Transportation Planning and Design, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the acquisition of a portion of property from 85 Sunningdale Road, further described as Part of Lot 56, RCP 1029, being part of PIN 08069- 0051, designated as Part 11, Plan 33R-20957, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Sunningdale Road Improvements Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by Barvest Realty Inc. (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $500,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement;

b)    the Grant of Temporary Easement and Consent to Enter, attached as Appendix “C”, submitted by Barvest Realty Inc. (the “Vendor”), for the sum of $54,000.00, for the term of twenty-four months (24) with an option to renew for twelve (12) months for an additional $27,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, and

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

  1.    Sale of City-Owned Surplus Property – 2 Saunby Street

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned property located at 2 Saunby Street, further described as Part 1, Plan 33R-20979, being the part of PIN 082470126 (LT), containing approximately 0.227 acres, the offer submitted by Mackenzie Hinschberger (the “Purchaser”) to purchase the subject property from the City, for the sum of $665,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the following conditions:

a)    the Purchaser acknowledging that the property is being purchased on an “As-Is” basis;

b)   the Purchaser retaining the right prior to close to assign the Agreement;

c)    the City acknowledging all costs for discharging financing is a Seller responsibility; and

d)   the Purchaser having the right to visit the property three further times prior to completion.

  1.    Licence Agreement – 80 Dundas Street, Downtown Loop Rapid Transit Project and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 80 Dundas Street, further described as Part 6, Plan 33R-21008, containing an area of approximately 3,429.5 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Downtown Loop Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Municipal Council to approve the Licence Agreement provided by the Province (Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario) as Represented by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, covering the use of the subject property by the City, for a term for three years, for the sum of $22,200.00;

b)    the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor’s Office, similar to that attached as Appendix “C”; and,

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

  1.    Temporary Retention Strategy - Dearness Home Registered Practical Nurse (RPN) Classification

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, that the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary to implement a Temporary Retention Strategy for the Dearness Home Registered Practical Nurse (RPN) classification in the Unifor, Local 302 bargaining unit.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. van Holst

That the Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No.’s 86 to 89, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Second Reading of Added Bill No.’s 86 to 89, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No.’s 86 to 89, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

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

Bill

By-law

Bill No. 65

By-law No. A.-8205-39 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 25th day of January, 2022.  (City Clerk)

Bill No. 66

By-law No. A.-8206-40 - A by-law to raise the amount required for the purposes of the Argyle Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the year 2022 in accordance with section 208 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (2.2/2/CSC)

Bill No. 67

By-law No. A.-8207-41 - A by-law to raise the amount required for the purposes of the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the year 2022 in accordance with section 208 of the Municipal Act, 2001. (2.3/2/CSC)

Bill No. 68

By-law No. A.-8208-42 - A by-law to raise the amount required for the purposes of the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the year 2022 in accordance with section 208 of the Municipal Act, 2001. (2.4/2/CSC)

Bill No. 69

By-law No. A.-8209-43 - A by-law to raise the amount required for the purposes of the London Downtown Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the year 2022 in accordance with section 208 of the Municipal Act, 2001. (2.5/2/CSC)

Bill No. 70

By-law No. A.-8210-44 - A by-law to raise the amount required for the purposes of the Old East Village Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the year 2022 in accordance with section 208 of the Municipal Act, 2001. (2.6/2/CSC)

Bill No. 71

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wp)-45 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 257-263 Springbank Drive. (3.5a/2/PEC)

Bill No. 72

By-law No. CPOL.-407(a)-46 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-407-321, being “Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy” by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”. (4.3/2/CSC)

Bill No. 73

By-law No. L.S.P.-3496-47 - A by-law to designate 1903 Avalon Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest. (2.6/16/PEC – 2021)

Bill No. 74

By-law No. L.S.P.-3497-48 - A by-law to designate 370 South Street (War Memorial Children’s Hospital) to be of cultural heritage value or interest. (2.9/17/PEC – 2021)

Bill No. 75

By-law No. S.-6164-49 - A by-law to permit Blue Vesta Inc. to maintain and use a boulevard parking area upon the road allowance for 26 Sterling Street, City of London. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 76

By-law No. W.-5660(a)-50 - A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5660-92 entitled, “A by-law to authorize project TS180519 – TIMMS-PTIS – Transportation Intelligence Mobility Management System” (2.1/1/CWC)

Bill No. 77

By-law No. W.-5680-51 - A by-law to authorize the Road Network Improvements (Main) - Project No. TS144620. (2.3/1/CWC)

Bill No. 78

By-law No. Z.-1-222992 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 1761 Wonderland Road North. (2.1/2/PEC)

Bill No. 79

By-law No. Z.-1-222993 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove the holding provision from the zoning of lands located at 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East. (2.2/2/PEC)

Bill No. 80

By-law No. Z.-1-222994 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 3924 Colonel Talbot Road. (2.3/2/PEC)

Bill No. 81

By-law No. Z.-1-222995 - A bylaw to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 1389 Commissioners Road East (Summerside Subdivision – Phase 17). (3.1/2/PEC)

Bill No. 82

By-law No. Z.-1-222996 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 150 King Edward Avenue. (3.2/2/PEC)

Bill No. 83

By-law No. Z.-1-222997 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at part of 100 Kellogg Lane. (3.3/2/PEC)

Bill No. 84

By-law No. Z.-1-222998 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1140 Sunningdale Road East. (3.4/2/PEC)

Bill No. 85

By-law No. Z.-1-222999 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 257-263 Springbank Drive. (3.5b/2/PEC)

Bill No. 86

By-law No. A.-8211-52 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Barvest Realty Inc. for the acquisition of a portion of the property located at 85 Sunningdale Road, in the City of London, for the Sunningdale Road Improvements Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/2/CSC)

Bill No. 87

By-law No. A.-8213-53 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Mackenzie Hinschberger, for the sale of the City owned property at 2 Saunby Street, described as Part 1, Plan 33R-20979, being part of PIN 082470126 (LT), in the City of London, County of Middlesex,  and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement (6.2/2/CSC)

Bill No. 88

By-law No. A.-8214-54 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Licence Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, for the temporary use of the property located at 80 Dundas Street, in the City of London, for the Downtown Loop Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.3/2/CSC)

Bill No. 89

By-law No. L.S.P.-3498-55 - A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, for the as Southdale Road West and Wickerson Road Improvements project.

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Turner

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

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 (1 hour, 41 minutes)

I’m gonna start recording and streaming. All these I’ll ask for screens on, please. First of all, you do have quorum. Thank you very much.

I’d like to welcome everyone to the third meeting of city council, this virtual meeting held during the COVID-19 emergency. I’d invite viewers to check the city’s website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts. And the meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city’s website. The city of London is committed to making an effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request to make a request for any city service.

Please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489. I will look for any disclosures of beginner interest, please. We’ll note colleagues that councilor Turner, although he will be coming in soon, I presume, has indicated a conflict relating to items 4.1 and 4.2 of the second SPPC report. Both have to do with appointments to London Public Library Board by indicating that his spouse is an employee of the London Public Library and the other conflicts to declare.

Councilor Turner, I’ve covered off your beginning interest on items 4, 1 and 2 of the SPPC. You can repeat them, but I thought I did a fairly eloquent job, so I think you’re covered. So colleagues, we have two recognitions that I would like to deal with. First, I’d like to call on Councilor Hamou, if you would, please.

Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can. Okay, good.

On January 15th, a radicalized parish took a rabbi hostage in Texas for over 11 hours. My heart was in my stomach, the entire ordeal, hoping that the rabbi and the congregants made it out safely. I was also very concerned about how this affected my Jewish neighbors, especially those I see walking to synagogue every Friday evening for Sabbath. I contacted your Shalom synagogue Monday morning, located two blocks from my house and had a discussion with Rabbi Catherine Clark about any safety concerns the Jewish community may have and assured her that we will protect her community in London because we believe here that if one of us attacks, all of us are attacked.

Rabbi Clark also told me that our London police services had reached out amongst others. And I was very proud of how this city elevates each other throughout these moments of adversity. However, I say this not just to remind us of how we all came together as a community, but that there is still much work to be done. And that we cannot let our guard down.

Holocaust denial and other forms of anti-Semitic hatred have flourished in the digital age. It is on the rise. And it is therefore critical that at this time, we identify the importance of the lessons learned from the Holocaust. The United Nations has designated January 27th, Holocaust Remembrance Day.

And after the horrific anti-Semitic hostage incident that happened on January 15th in Texas, it is especially crucial that we remember how hate is not acceptable in any form. I invite my council colleagues to join me in posting a message on social media to show support towards our Jewish brothers and sisters by using the hashtags we remember, or hashtag never again, between now and January 27th. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Himmu.

And the second recognition is from me. And if I might, colleagues, between this meeting of council and our last session on December 21st, London lost two pillars of our community, particularly in the Western Mustang football world. And as I say, two genuine community leaders. Given all they accomplished, both on and off the field, I felt it appropriate to acknowledge and pay tribute to the memories of coach Larry Haylor and coach Darwin Simodia.

We lost coach Haylor on January 6th, just a few days after the death of coach Simodia. You know, between the two of them, they want to combine four-year venue cup championships and 14 Yates Cup championships. Even more impressive than their achievements on the football field, was their commitment to Western University and the city at large. Touching so many lives, Darwin was a coach, teacher, mentor, and my friend, who deeply cared for his athletes, students, colleagues, and team.

He was a tried and true friend to so many who loved him dearly. His gift of connecting with people was one of his many superpowers. Wouldn’t one couldn’t help but feel special and valued in his presence. Larry Haylor was purple and proud and was part of the Western University community over 46 years.

Took over as head coach of the Mustangs in 1984 until this retirement from coaching in 2006. And during his tenure as head coach, he led the Mustangs to two Vanier cups, eight-eighths cups and was named Ontario Coach of the Year seven times and Canadian University Coach of the Year two times. The highlight of this professional coaching career was being named to the Canadian Football Hall of Fame in 2014. Larry understood the importance of surrounding oneself without standing people, both coaches and players, and it is success we shared with each of them.

Our thoughts are with their loved ones and families. Darwin and Larry, we will miss you. We thank you for your service. May your memories be a blessing.

Thank you, colleagues. I should advise that Councillor Cassidy has indicated she will be delayed joining us around five p.m. And I would indicate to you that I am not aware of any confidential matters to be considered in public. So what I will be looking for, colleagues, and for the benefit of the public, typically at this time we deal with, we go into closed session.

But as has been our custom during the pandemic, I’m looking for a motion for a change in order to move item four in closed session and the third report of council in closed session to after stage 13 and bylaws. I look for a mover for that, please. I should councilor Feitmiller, seconded by councilor Van Merbergen. Let’s call the vote on that, please.

Councillor Lehman. A vote, yay. Thank you. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. I’m looking for a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held on December 21st, 2021. Is there a bill you’re seconded by?

Councillor Hameo. Is there any discussion? I see none, so we will call the question. Servant, hold.

Councillor Lehman. Oh, yay. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero.

Colleagues, we have a number of communications and petitions and one of who we’ll be doing is looking for them to be moved to their appropriate committee reports. Although there are two items that I will ask the clerk to advise the public what it is that we are dealing with because we’ll be looking to deal with two items associated with expropriation, which requires a separate process which we have done a few times over this past year. So what I will do if I might is deal with six, one and six, two, and then the items associated with six, three, we’ll move those to the appropriate committee. So could I ask the clerk, please?

Just to clarify for the benefit of our listeners what it is that we are going to be doing over the next two approvals or two voting processes. Your worship, it’s a two-step process. First, the council sits as approving authority and this is in relation to Salesvale Road West and Workerson Road improvements project. The first motion would be that council convene as the approving authority, pursuant to the provisions of the expropriations act for the purpose of considering communication number one from the deputy city manager, environmental and infrastructure with respect to the expropriation of the lands as may be required for the project known as the Salesvale Road West and Workerson Road improvements project.

So why don’t we start with that if we could, please? I’ll be looking for a mover and a seconder to establish the approving authority for communication number one. Do I have a mover, please? I’ve Councillor Hillier.

I have Councillor Hopkins. Thank you very much. Any comments or questions? So with that, we will call the question.

Councillor Van Halz, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Being as the approving authority, the second step is this. And I will read the motion for the benefit of our public here that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, environmental and infrastructure, with the concurrence of the director, transportation and mobility on the advice of the director of realty services.

The following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of land as may be required for the project known as the Salesvale Road West and Workerson Road improvement project. B, the council, pardon me, A, the council of the Corporation of the City of London as approving authority pursuant to the expropriations act as amended here by approves the proposed expropriation of land as described in Schedule A, as a pendant of the staff reported in January 25, 2022 in the city of London, County of Middlesex had been noted that the reasons for making this decision are as follows. One, the subject lands are required by the Corporation of the City of London for the Southdale Road West and Workerson Road improvement projects. Two, the design of the project will address the current future transportation demands along the corridor.

Three, the design is in accordance with the municipal class environment assessment, study recommendations for the Southdale Road West and Workerson Road improvements project approved by the strategic priorities and policy committee at the meeting held on February 20, 2019, and then B, subject to the approval of A above, certificate of approval be issued by the City Clerk on behalf of the approving authority on the prescribed form, it be noted that no request for hearings and the necessity were received. So for that, I will look for a mover and a seconder. Do I have, please? Councillor van Mirberg and seconder by Councillor Homue, any discussion?

I see none. We will call the vote. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero.

Thank you very much. And the third step in this colleagues, even though we will be dealing with a second item, is that this will require that the approving authority meeting be adjourned and that the municipal council reconvene in regular session with that. I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lehman.

Thank you very much. Any question with respect to that? I see none. We will call the question.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Please, there is but one step for this particular part here, affectionately called step one. And it is that on the, for again, for the benefit of the public, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager environment, environmental and infrastructure with the concurrence of the director, transportation and ability.

And on the advice of the director of real estate services, the following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of land as may be required for the project known as Southdale Road West and Rickerson Road improvements project. A, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff reported in January 25, 2022 as appendix A, being a by-law to expropriate lands in the city of London in the county of Middlesex Southdale Road West and Rickerson Road improvements project. Be introduced at the municipal council meeting to be held on January 25, 2022. B, the civic administration be directed to take all necessary steps to prepare a plan or plans showing the expropriated lands and register such planter plans in the appropriate registry or land titles office pursuant to the expropriations act within three months of the approving authority granting approval of the set expropriation.

C, the Marin City Clerk be authorized to sign on behalf of the expropriating authority. The plan or plans assigned by an Ontario land survey and showing the expropriated lands and D. The city clerk be authorized and directed to execute and serve the notices of expropriation required by the expropriations act in such notices of possession that may be required to obtain possession of the expropriated lands. So with that, I will look for a mover and seconder and then following that have discussion.

Do I have a mover please with Councillor Fyke Miller? Second by Councillor Hopkins, thank you. Any discussion? Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you Your Worship and I wanna thank hopefully Council’s support on moving this forward as we develop our infrastructure has to keep pace with the development. And it’s vitally important to do the improvements as we move around in these new areas that are being developed. So thank you. Well, thank you.

Any other discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Vote motion carries 14 to zero. Very much.

Call using it to turn your attention to 6.3 and 6.4, which we can deal with in one motion. 6.3 deals with amendments to members of council proof of COVID-19 vaccination policy. We have two communications from Councillor Van Holst and one Councillor from G Harper and 6.4 investing in candidate infrastructure program, public transit stream intake three, where we’d be referring that to civic works. Oh, and pardon me, the prior would be referred to corporate services committee, 6.3, 6.4, referred to civic works.

So we have two communications from W Brock. We have one from Councillor Van Holst. We have one from C Butler, one from M Mixa. And so with that, I would like to have motion to move those to the appropriate committees, please.

Moved by Councillor van Mirberg and second by Councillor Palosa. Thank you very much. Any comments or questions? I see none.

We’ll call the vote. Councillor Morion, thank you for closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. There are many motions to which notice has been given, which just moves us right into the committee reports.

And with that, 8.1, the second reported planning environment committee. I’ll call on Councillor Hopkins, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I will be putting the second report of the planning and environment committee on the floor.

I have not heard from anyone that would like anything pulled or that they will be recusing themselves. I will be polling number 14, which is 4.1. There is the first report from EPAC. Thank you.

I wish any of these other items dealt with separately. Seeing none, it has been put on the table. Any comments or questions and all with the exception of 4.1. Councillor Turner, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. Through you, I just wanted to draw attention to number 13, where it’s 3.5 is at 257-263 Spring Bank. There’s a fair amount of interest from the community. This is right across the street from the larger development that the OMB approved previously.

And so that’s led to some apprehensions about the impact of this building on the neighbourhood. It’s a four-story development and it seems reasonably sized. The concerns from the neighbours that speak to the footprint of the building on its lot coverage about how traffic will be managed and mitigated coming off at Forest Hill onto Spring Bank and some concerns about light, privacy and things that mostly can be addressed through site plan. The committee graciously agreed to place an H5 holding provision on the site to allow for more community input onto the site plan matters.

I think those are all reasonable in terms of some of the concerns that were articulated by the neighbourhood in terms of its size and intensity. This is on a fairly high order road from the Spring Bank. It’s mid-rise at four stories and the committee agreed that that was an appropriate size and intensity for the site. But that also, I did want to point out the concerns of the constituents and residents in the neighbourhood for the attention of the council.

But also I have to say that I think this is probably an appropriate building for the site too. And I think a developer in the applicant took a lot of time to consider the public concerns through the public meeting and try to address those things and move them into the proposal that’s set before us today. Thank you very much. I next to council members.

Thank you, worship. And I wanted to extend my gratitude to the committee for supporting the development on King Edward. I think it’s going to make a big difference to that area. So we’re looking forward to the transformation.

Thank you very much, Councilor Hopkins. And if I may, your worship just sum up. We had a number of consent items and special provisions or holding provisions and special provisions throughout consent items. As well as the strategic plan variance report, we had five public participation meetings and the two councilors spoke well to the two PPMs in their awards.

And we also received and approved the EPAC and the TFAAC reports as well. So with that, we’ll put it on the floor. Thanks very much. And I should have given you the opportunity to make those opening comments with regard to that.

But thank you for sharing those Councilor Hopkins. I see no other comments. So with all with the exception of item 14, which is 4.1 of the second report of PEC, we will call the question. Councilor Layman.

Although ye. Present vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you very much, Councilor Hopkins. So I would like to put number 14, 4.1, which is the first report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee on the floor.

And I would like to just add that correspondence and Council should have received correspondence and secretary as to the amendment that I would like to propose regarding 4.1. And that is that civic administration will be a request to consider the inclusion of images of bird friendly residential windows along with an explanation of why the markers are important. Do you have a seconder for that amendment? Councilor Palosa, any comments or questions?

Councilor Layman. Thank you. Not too sure why this is coming as amendment to Council. It says a matter of to go, it’s on the deferred list for planning.

So why wouldn’t this go back to the standing committee? Let’s ask Councilor Hopkins, please. Thank you through your worship to Councilor Layman for asking. So this is really just to add clarification and to be fully compliant to the motion that Council approved back in November when it came to the pamphlet.

And the motion stipulated that civic administration be requested to consider the brochure and information that goes into that. So it’s just really more adding further clarification that this is done through civic administration to be compliant to the motion that was supported back in November. Councilor Layman and your unmute Councilor. I’m just reading the original motion.

The request to update the site control by-law and guidelines for bird friendly building design no plans be added to the deferred list. And I’m not too sure how this adds clarity that I would prefer this to be dealt with that planning. Councilor Hopkins, you wish to respond. The motion that was passed by Council back in November also included that the bird friendly pamphlet noted be circulated to EPAC and the AWAC committee for review to make comments.

And that was part of that motion. And to be fully compliant with that, any amendment should go through civic administration. And that we’re more or less just being compliant with what was already passed. And that it’s sort of contrary if we don’t do it.

Councilor Layman and your unmute. Yeah, I’m sorry. Yeah, I don’t follow that logic so I hope you’re supporting this. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Councilor Lewis. Thank you, worship. And I think I can perhaps provide a little clarity to Councilor Layman here based on what I heard from Councilor Hopkins and in reviewing the message that was circulated to all of us.

So in the original part B, there’s a request to contact civic administration be requested to contact the London bird team to find wise. And in Councilor Hopkins amendment, the direction is to just amend that clause to read that the civic administration be requested to consider the inclusion of the images in the bird friendly residential windows along with the explanation. So I think it’s a housekeeping matter more than anything. I don’t see it as something that needs to go back through PEC at this time because it’s going to go through civic administration.

And then ultimately the rest of the clauses in this motion will send it along back to the advisory committee and ultimately it’ll come back to PEC in the future as well. So it’s a housekeeping order of operations amendment as I read it. So if Councilor Hopkins can provide any clarity that’s, if I’ve misunderstood, that would be great. But through you, I think that’s where the goal of the amendment is landing.

Councilor Hopkins for the benefit of those have nodded in the affirmative. Councilor Hopkins? Yes, if I just may add to Councillor Lewis’s comments as well, it’s important to know that the civic administration ultimately in the end is responsible for the content of the pamphlet. And we’re just being compliant with that.

And the information to add this to the pamphlet ultimately is a civic administration responsibility. Thank you, any other comments or questions? This has been moved and seconded. This is the amendment.

So with that, we will call the question. Hello. Oh, yeah. In the vote motion carries 13 to one.

That is my report. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Oh, excuse me, we’re almost there.

We have to now, that’s right. I had this already written down and noted. We now have, we look for a motion to, or a mover to accept the motion as amended. So with that, I will look for a mover.

Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Palauza. Thank you very much. Any questions on this? This is the motion as amended.

Thank you, Clerk. I see none. We’ll call the question. Councillor Halmer.

It’s in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. I think we can say yes emphatically. Thank you.

Great report. Thank you. Now for the second report of the community and protective services committee, I’d like to believe Councillor Cassidy is here now. I’ll call on Vice Chair Halmer to present the report if I could please.

Thank you. I’m happy to put the full report on the floor. Relatively brief meeting as you will see from the report from the committee. I don’t think there’s any items that need to be pulled for conflicts.

Does anyone want or wish to deal with any of these items separately? It’s been appropriately put on the floor. Any discussion? I see none.

We’ll call the question. The vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you.

That’s it for you, Councillor Halmer. Great job with that title. Now turn us to the second report of the corporate services committee and call on Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

I have not been made aware of any items that colleagues wish pulled at this time. So we’ll see if there’s any there. If not, I will put the whole report on the floor. So we will look to see if there are any items that colleagues wish to have dealt with separately in the corporate services committee report.

Number 12. Councillor Van Halst to set your hand up. Yes, number 12, if you would. Number 12, 4.3 amendment to member of council proof of COVID-19 vaccine policy.

Thank you. Any other items colleagues? So we’re dealing with all, but item 12, 4.3, any discussion? Councillor Morgan, Deputy Mayor.

Yes, just a comment with respect to the election signed by a law update, only because I made the comment at the meeting. There was an it being noted clause with respect to impacts of the proposed changes. And in my comments, I had suggested that there was the possibility of our staff to do some research into the, basically some review of the academic research in this space. I think after reflection, it’s probably more appropriate for our staff to be doing the technical components of the impacts.

I certainly have endeavored myself to go and talk to colleagues at Western and others who can put me in the direction of the academic research related to the impacts of science from a democratic perspective. So I’m not sure if it would be the best idea to have our staff start to interpret and compare journals of academic journals against each other. So I just wanted to walk back a little bit of my comments from the meeting and say, I think it’s obviously appropriate for them to measure the impacts on how science would look. The number of roads included, but I’ll endeavor to do my own research on the other side of things.

So noted, thank you. Any other comments colleagues? I see none. So the exception of 12, which is 4.3, we will call the question.

Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you. Thank you, Your Worship. Item 12, 4.3, the amendment to members of Council proof of COVID-19 vaccination policy as it relates to bill number 72.

That was a, in response to communication that was received from Councilor Van Holst, the committee recommendation was to receive and take no action and I’ll put that on the floor now. Thank you. Any comments or discussion? Councilor Van Holst.

Thank you, Your Worship. And I think this also relates to the policy that we plan to implement. I’m gonna talk for less than five minutes. If I’m interrupted, make a motion to hear the medical advice that’s behind the policy and probably ask that you vote against what’s on the floor.

What we’re passing today seems to be a policy that creates two classes of people, considers the non-preferred classes higher risk and imposes a more rigorous testing regime upon them. My big concerns that we may be doubling down on strategies that haven’t worked and that we may be establishing a municipal precedent for unwanted discrimination or unwarranted discrimination. Remember, there’s people calling for the unvaccinated to be fined and fired and denied medical service segregated and incarcerated and why. It’s not because the vaccines are preventing transmission, but it may be because preconditions for discrimination already exist.

In the form of dehumanizing labels, most people being labeled with the pejorative term anti-vaxxer were never against vaccines in general. They’re against a government overreach that would deprive or accourse from them the right to inform consent, which ironically is what these kinds of policies do. But if we aren’t gonna have policies like this, we should at least make sure they will produce some substantive benefit. But when I look at these tests, look at what they can and can’t do, I have some big doubts which is why I wanted to do my due diligence and hear the medical advice behind the policy.

I haven’t enjoyed the last two years. And when people realize how much debt has been piled on their grandchildren, how much inflation they’ll have to deal with and how little long-term protection the vaccines have given us. I think we may wish we had taken an altogether different approach and different than what we’re doing today. So I’m gonna vote against what’s on the floor, mostly because I don’t believe I even have the authority to pass a policy like this.

I feel the decision is big implications, but as it applies to me on council, pretty small outcome since I’ve already committed to work from home. In the song of “Hiawatha Poem,” the great spirit says, “All your strength is in your union, “all your dangers and discord.” I feel this policy takes away from unity and I hope people will consider voting against it. But at this point, I’d like to put a motion on the floor to go into camera and inquire about the confidential medical advice that was received by staff from the health human. You put a motion on the floor.

Do you have a seconder for that? Now, sir, there is no seconder with that. Thank you, working. Thank you very kindly.

Any other comments or questions with respect to this item, 4.3? Councilor Turner, please. Your worship, not to prolong the things. There are some points to listen to in Councilor Van Holst and there’s some things that I think we all grow tired too.

We’ve, Councilor Van Holst brought this to the tables on the number of occasions. I think that this council has illustrated its position on those matters. The one thing that I would like to draw out from what Councilor Van Holst said is this discussion about otherism. And I think it’s a valid point.

And we’re going through a very, it’s been a tough couple of years as Councilor mentioned. And the divisiveness is there. However, we don’t need to take antagonistic terms necessarily. But the measures that are being proposed here in terms of vaccination requirements for employees are reasonable and they’re appropriate.

They’re not without precedent in a number of other sectors on vaccinations in general. My staff all have to be fully vaccinated. I’m sure, Councilor, you’re breaking up. We’ve lost the last 20 seconds.

After you said your staff were all vaccinated. D. So, vaccination. Again, Councilor, I apologize.

We’re struggling to get the content of those last few words. You wanna try one last time and then we’ll give up on you kind of? No? Well, thank you.

We’d never give up on you for the record. I want you to know. But thank you for your effort in trying. Any other comments or questions, colleagues?

I see none. So with that, we are now voting on 4.3, item 12 on your agenda. We’ll call the question. Close and vote.

Motion carries. Second to one. Colleagues, Councilor Lewis. It includes the report from corporate services.

Well, thank you very much, Councilor. Now for the second report of the Civic Works Committee, I’d like to call on Councilor Close, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ve not been given notice to have anything pulled separate.

And every item was a unanimous vote of committee. Thank you very much, excuse me, for just a moment there. Does anyone wish to have anything dealt with separately? Councilor Vanholz, please.

Yes, could I have item 10 pulled Your Worship? So to be clear, we’re talking about 10 4.1 investing in candidate infrastructure program. So just to be clear, Councilor Vanholz. That’s exactly it.

And it’s regarding my communication to that item. So noted. Thank you very much. Does anyone wish any other item dealt with separately?

I see none, any discussion on all the items with the exception of the item which has been pulled. Your Worship, shall I put them on the floor for you and give an overview as the committee chair? I think that would be very nice, would you please? Thank you, Your Worship, I will put all the items on the floor with the exception of 10 being 4.1 for Councilor Vanholz.

I will note that item nine being 3.1 is the EA for W12A landfill. And your added package staff did do a presentation at committee of about 12 minutes outlining the last four and a half years of the process to get us to this point of decision making that we’re almost to. And like I said, everything else was a unanimous decision of committee. Thank you very much.

I appreciate, I think we all appreciate that clarification, any comments or questions? Councilor Turner, we’re gonna try you again. Go ahead. How about now?

How about now? Okay, good. My apologies earlier, I’ve been having technical difficulties for the past couple of days. So, just with respect to item nine, the environmental assessment for the W12A expansion.

In the presentation, thank you, Councilor Palosa for drawing attention to it. On the second slide or, sorry, a few slides in, it talks about number one A in terms of reference overview. And there’s a key parameters element that says waste diversion, it says 60% residential waste diverted by the end of 2022. It will be moving towards a pilot implementation of green bins in part through this year, which might make it a little difficult to achieve 60% to residential waste diversion by the end of 2022.

Just wondering through you, your worship, if there were more comments to that end. Thank you very much. Would that be Mr. Stanford that would make those comments?

Which member of staff would like to deal with that? Your worship, that would be me. Go ahead, Ms. Sherpa.

Through you, your worship, yes. Certainly our intent is to be much further along with the 60% waste diversion by the end of 2022. As committee, Earth Council’s well aware, we’ve encountered a number of supply chain issues relative to acquiring the vehicles to provide that service. We will start rollout this year as intended, but we will take a little longer than we’ve hoped.

I think it’s a fair comment to say that we’ll be getting to that target into 2023 versus 2022. And I apologize for not catching that on this slide. Thank you, Councilor Turner. Yeah, thank you.

As for your worship, just to follow up. Do we have any obligations either through the EA or the tour to make notifications? Or are we okay with moving in towards that goal in 2023? We sure.

Thank you, Your Worship. We are okay with moving towards that goal in 2023. Our obligations with respect to our diversion targets are for 2025 and we still intend to be well ahead of those days. Thank you, Councilor Turner.

Very good, thanks. That answers the questions. Thank you, any other comments or questions? I see none.

Therefore, we will call the question. Mr. Hallman is in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you. So I’ll note that Councilor Cassidy has joined us. Welcome. And back over to you, Councilor Palosa, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. Item 10 being 4.1 is the investing in Canada infrastructure program, public transit stream intake number three. I will put this one on the floor, noting it starts at page 73 of your Civic Works agenda that the intake has a long breadth of which we have to get projects in, but the completion date of all the projects has to be October 2027, which in actuality isn’t that long out by the time you look into different processes we need to get construction projects ready. The projects outlined in it range from road infrastructure for cycling, pedestrian crossings, and enhancements to the Thames Valley Parkway, bike parking, and accessibility and bridge pinch points.

And this was one of the ones that leveraged municipal funding with provincial and federal opportunities for your $73, I will put it on the floor. Thank you. And with that, I’ll look for any comments or questions. I see Councilor Vanholz, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. The lot of great ideas on that list. I did however think that $14 million seemed like an unbalanced amount to spend on new cycling lanes. So what I’d like to propose instead, realizing that there’s approximately $39 million in streetlights needed to properly own room in the city is to take half of that and put it into the warranted streetlight program.

And I think that will produce a similar effect in making things safer, because certainly streetlights are good for both cyclists and pedestrians and of course, the drivers that will be watching out for them. So that would be my preference. And so I’d like to put a motion on the floor that civic administration be directed to reallocate $7 of the $14 million of PTS funding, earmarked for cycling lanes into the warranted streetlight program. Before I look for a seconder for that, I’d like to ask if I can on all our behalf, perhaps take this to Ms.

Cher and just confirm whether that’s not that it’s not a valid motion, but does that become eligible within the circumstance of the eligibility program or the kind of infrastructure program? That may either make this a simple or an extended discussion. Ms. Cher.

Thank you, Your Worship. Please, is that street lighting likely would be eligible, particularly on higher-order roadways, where there are transit services that directly connect to transit services. I would indicate though, that we would struggle with delivering a program this size within the parameters of the program due to supply chain concerns and capacity issues in the industry that does this type of specialized work. And it seems fairly unlikely we’d be able to expect industry to be able to ramp up and acquire equipment and people unless it was a sustainable level of funding that they could rely on over the life cycle, that kind of investment in their business.

All right, so colleagues, I took that liberty so that we could understand better the, whether the motion was genuine, it would appear that it is an outstanding and Ms. Cher’s comments to some of the challenges. So with that, this has been moved by Councillor Van Holst. Is there a seconder to this?

Councillor Van Holst, I see no seconder. You still have time as you wish. Any other comments or discussions and colleagues? Councillor Hopkins, please.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. If I may, I would like to make a comment because I have heard from the community a number of, more or less comments about what direction we’re going here with this, the funding that’s available to us. And I understand that this is coming from staff’s list. There is a number of items as potential projects.

And generally speaking, I am supportive of the list that we are going to be approving tonight here for the 40 million. It may appear to some people in the public that they’re not considered essential though. And I do understand those concerns representing an area of the city that is all about development and the challenges that we are starting to experience, not only with social infrastructure like schools, for instance, but also the infrastructure that needs to keep up with all this development. And the big missing piece here for me is that transit infrastructure.

It’s really important that we really start to understand that a lot of these development issues are really coming from how we move around. And it is really important from what I’m hearing the community that we do that. And we need to do more, especially out in the West End. If not, we’re gonna be a city of the have and the have nots when it comes to moving around.

And I don’t want the West End to be part of the have not. So I will be supporting this funding going forward, but I just wanted to make those comments. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Councillors.

Thank you, worship. I have a couple of comments and questions. So I’m gonna start with the questions because Councillor Hopkins actually provided a nice segue into one through you, your worship to our staff. Something that seems to be a big missing piece in this round of funding is any investment in London transit and London transit infrastructure.

In an earlier round of this investing in Canada infrastructure funding, the PTIS intake, we approved funding to get 60 new bus shelters. Of course, that’s a drop in the bucket to what’s actually needed out there in terms of providing shelters at London transit stops. It was even mentioned in your state of the city address this morning, your worship that service delivery on demand service to industrial areas is still moving forward. But I don’t see any asks for support in infrastructure investment for LTC to deliver that.

So through you to our staff, I guess the question is simply, where’s the transit asks in this? Mr. Chair. Thank you, your worship, that’s twofold.

So London Transit Commission was invited to participate in this intake at this time they did not wish to advance. Any additional projects, they are, however, working on a number of important projects in the background that could be part of a future ask. I’ll note that there is still money earmarked for both North and West, former rapid transit legs that could be allocated to different transit priorities through the processes with LTC directly or through the Mobility Master Plan, which would provide us another opportunity to review transit service throughout the city. So I absolutely, this does not include transit projects at this time, it doesn’t preclude it in the future, but based on LTC’s availability to deliver and their ability to scope and define their needs right now and they’re preparing to wait and come back with some options in the future.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, well, that answers a little disappointing. I’m encouraged by the fact that there’s potential still in the future for those to come forward. And I hope that the LTC will advance those because I think there’s some significant improvements we can make just to general service delivery for the general rider who relies on transit to get around the community.

Through you, another question to our staff and I’ll preface this with a comment to frame it. Some of the feedback that I’ve heard from the community, and I say this without any, casting any aspersons on our staff. In fact, Ms. Share referenced a little bit earlier the supply chain challenges that we have been having.

And certainly we saw it on the bike lane implementation on Wave L Street. And I will say our staff have been exemplary and wonderful at getting back to constituents with their concerns, but the supply chain challenges have been a bit of a disaster in implementing that and leading it only half completed into the winter months. But I say that in terms of the challenges, not in terms of our staff’s work on that. But one of the things that’s come up is we’re putting in these protected barriers on neighborhood streets like Wave L.

Cheapside is referenced in the Civic Works report as another example of a similar street. And yet we have existing bike infrastructure. Queen’s Ave is a great example, which is substandard. We have an entire block of Queen’s Ave that has no cycling lane.

It simply dead ends and then picks up again a block later. There’s been barriers there. I understand with utilities and land space, but that’s not the only one. There are some other substandard bike lanes in existence around the city.

So why are we prioritizing new bike lane implementation over getting the existing bike lanes that are substandard up to a higher standard of service? Well, let’s ask, make sure. Thank you, Your Worship. This one’s probably twofold as well.

So in selecting these projects, there are a number of factors that’s played in. One of them is the operating cost and capital, cost proportions, the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, those bike lanes, often the capital cost is not a particularly high, but the operating costs can be significant. Where we had, so when we’re looking at external funding, we don’t want to increase our operating burden if we’re not gaining sort of that value in asset. Where we did have higher capital costs and Queen’s Ave is a really good opportunity to take a look at, there is a significant conflict with some hydro utilities there, but also there’d be a need for either property and likely the removal of a number of mature trees through that corridor.

So one of the other factors in picking locations was we didn’t want to have to embark upon property acquisition, generally speaking, because property acquisition costs are not actually funded through this program. And there’s a significant demand on our real estate staff time to deliver those negotiations. We know property costs are also played high right now. So that was another factor.

We are aware that there are areas throughout the city that we do need to improve existing bike infrastructure. We’re trying to integrate that into other capital projects. So it can be done in tandem with replanting those streetscapes, particularly on bridge projects. That’s important, but the big factor for us is trying to find places where we can work within an existing footprint, maximize the capital value and manage the ongoing operating costs in a responsible way.

Councillor Turner, excuse me, Councillor Lewis, I apologize. I would like to hear from Councillor Turner again, because it was a lot of voice, but why don’t we stay with you? Thank you, Your Worship. Well, as Councillors go, we’re perhaps of similar heights.

So that might confuse you a little bit from time to time. But through you, so I appreciate the answer, Ms. Chair provided, and I do hope, and I did have an opportunity to meet with some of the team earlier today and raise a couple of these. And I hope that that is helpful in terms of identifying some projects moving forward.

That might be a value too. I do understand the operating cost equation. I do note that there are operating costs to increase with new infrastructure as well. So I worry that we might be putting that operating cost further and further down the road.

Nonetheless, I do understand the logic, and I think that there’s a lot of good projects in here. The Wonderland and Boulevard bike lanes, for example, are in desperate need of rehabilitation. There’s no doubt about that. And on Bradley Ave, there is absolutely a need in that part of the city with the amenities that people will be able to access that way.

One final question through you to staff. This was raised briefly at Civic Works, with regard to the secure bike parking. I know it was raised as a, for example, but I just wanna make sure that we have clarification for the public as well. When we’re talking about new secure bike lockers, this won’t be restricted just to the core area.

We’ll be in fact looking at other areas around the city. And I think about Masonville Mall and White Oaks Mall and Argyle Mall where there’s significant transit hubs. We’ll be looking at implementing secure bike storage there as well so people can park their bike and take the bus in a multimodal commute. Mr.

Chair. Thank you, Your Worship, absolutely. Key transit hubs are a really good location for secure bike parking. It gives people an opportunity to bike to a higher order of transit, make sure their bike is secure if they don’t wanna have to deal with the on bus bike recs, which are also a good option, but people have that choice.

So absolutely we’ll be looking at other locations outside the core area. We really wanna make sure we maximize the usefulness of those facilities, the ones we’ve put in so far as the pilot are doing well. Thank you, Councillor Turner. Councillor, sorry, it’s in my mind.

Councillor Lewis, please. One more time and I think Councillor Turner owes me a beer after the meeting, or maybe we owe each other one. I would, again, thanks to staff and Ms. Chair for that response.

I’ll certainly follow up with her offline about the importance, so I think of Argyle Mall and the end of the new Wavell bike lane. I can generally be supportive of this, but I do hope that the next round of intake does have a little bit more diversity because as Councillor Van Halst did indicate, this one does seem to be weighted very heavily for one mode of transportation, rather than being spread out among all three pedestrian transit and cycling. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Any other comments or questions?

Seeing none, colleagues were dealing with item 10, which is 4.1 Investing Canada Infrastructure Program. We will call the question. Councillor Vanne, Mayor Burton, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you, Councillor Closa. Thank you, Your Worship, and that concludes my report for the second meeting of the civics works committee. Thank you very much. Colleagues, now for the second report of the strategic priorities and policy committee.

If he’s able, because of his voice, I will call on Deputy Mayor Morgan to present his report. I’ll give it a go. So I’m happy to present the second report of SPPC. I know that there is one colleague with conflict that was declared on items four and five, which are appointments to the London Public Library Board.

So I’d be happy to put the remaining items of the report on the floor with the exception of those two London Public Library Board appointments, unless someone would like something else dealt with separately. Well, let’s ask that question. Anyone wish any items to be dealt with separately? I see Councillor Hopkins.

Councillor, you’re on mute. I think I get it by now. Sorry about that, Your Worship. I do have a question on number 7, 5.1, the sixth report of the governance working group.

I just want to confirm that this is the report that came through the two public participation meetings. I want to confirm that, and if that’s the case, I do have a question that I guess I would have to pull. Well, why don’t we pull it just in the event of rather than getting into the Q and A pre the presentation of the full report? I’m comfortable doing that.

So we’ll deal with items seven separately. Councillor Van Halst. Thank you, number six, which is 4.3, full-time compensation determination, if you would pull that. All right, and as to those things, does anyone wish items one through three dealt with any of those items separately?

Councillor Turner. No, Your Worship, I just wanted to declare that conflict and interest that I have for items four and five at this point, as I missed the declarations at the beginning of the meeting and joined a little late. So for number four and five, my reason for conflict is because my spouse works for London Public Library. Thank you.

And the clerk had advised me accordingly. So I declared your pecuniary interest in advance, but thank you for reconfirming that. Does anyone wish either any of the items one through three dealt with separately? Fairly in that, we will vote.

We will look for any discussion on items one through three. I see none, we’ll call the question. Worship, my e-scribes, Donna? Blind, small vote, yes.

Thank you, Councillor Pfizer. Councillor Halmer. Just one sec, the actual language in the votes as the following clauses of the second report, the planning committee, be approved. Mike, that’s my error, I’ll correct that.

We are dealing with the second report of the SPPC committee. Thank you, Councillor Halmer. You’re closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. That was carried, so call the e-scribes, I need to suggest we do with items four and five, which are 4.1, 4.2 together, because the same conflict applies.

Any comments or questions with respect to 4.1 and 4.2? I see none, then we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. Deputy Mayor Morgan.

Yeah, the next item I could put on the floor is item six, which is 4.3, which refers to an item, a piece of communication for Councillor van Holst that was received without action being taken on it. So I’ll put that on the floor. Thank you, comments or questions? Councillor Redholst.

Thank you, worship. So I apologize for not being at the meeting to discuss this. I’m in communication, I was dealing with a family health crisis, but I’m gonna vote against the taking no action and say why the issue of city of London functioning differently from all their peer cities is I think is one that it’s gonna be an ongoing discussion until it’s really worked out. Well, one of the issues or pieces of information that’s needed in that discussion is of course, well, how much are other communities being paid to have a full time council like that?

And there’s only a few times where we can get that piece of information and it’s often too late to make a difference. So we do a compensation review at the end of each term. This is the best time to get a piece of information like that and it’ll be available for us in the future. Otherwise we’re always, it’s always gonna be too late.

And that’s been this issue in this discussion. It’s very difficult to have because it’s always pushed off or we don’t have the information available. So this is a great time for the compensation review task force to determine a figure like this. I think the timing’s good.

So I believe it would be good to request that. So if the motion is voted down by council this evening, I’ll put the motion from my original communication on the floor. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

The real councilor Turner. Once me, we’ll see if my audio cuts out. At the meeting I voted along with the councilor van holstom this, it’s a tough one to fall on one way or the other. Ultimately the challenge for us is a big question of order of operations.

If council believes that council should sit as a full-time council, then maybe we should just ask that question and get that over with. And then everything else falls from that, right? The question that councilor van holst is asking about how much should counselors be compensated if they’re working on a full-time basis? Okay, fair enough.

Asking this might be a little bit of out of step though, doing it the way that councilor van holst is proposing. We’ve also had motions to change meetings to day time or certain ones. It’s being done in little drips and drabs. It’s not being done with any logical sense to it.

It really lacks focus. So today I’m going to vote against the motion. I voted for it in committee in this circumstance. I just don’t see a clear strategy.

And I think if council is going to continue to take different little approaches to it, we need to get our act together and just sit down and decide what’s it going to be instead of perpetually doing these little things that really stoke division within the council and the community, it happened last term, it happened this term, it happened the term before that. It’s perpetual, it never stops. So if council decides, yeah, we continue as we are and everything is good, make that decision. If we don’t like the way it is, then make another decision.

But make it clear and not just little piecemeal parts. So for that reason, I’m going to vote against it today. And I would caution council to consider those motions that we bring in forward so that it’s done in a bit more of a comprehensive and clear and purposeful way. Thank you, any other comments or questions?

I see Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you, Councillor Turner for those comments. We’re going to agree on this.

I think we have been doing it in dribs and drabs and little pieces and I think it is time to ask that question. I don’t think that this is the way to go about it. And I think that’s part of what you were perhaps cautioning in terms of thinking about the motions we bring forward. Although if that was not, I don’t mean to put that on you, but that’s how I feel about it.

I didn’t think that this was the right way to do it with a council compensation task force looking at what our compensation is right now, independent of us with public input, with Councillors being able to fill out a survey and provide our input. But I do agree that I, the reason this keeps coming up, I think is because it continues to be a question because we don’t want to answer the hard question. Are we expecting members of council to do this job full time? So I know, I certainly do.

I know other colleagues put in more than 40 hours a week doing this job as well and I think it’s not unreasonable to expect that they’re compensated for the time they put in. It is public service, but it is not free service, it’s not volunteer service, it’s a burden, that’s an incredible privilege. You have a lot of important weighty decisions to make, but you’re privileged to be in the position to make those because the community’s been behind you. So, hearing what Councillor Turner said, I’m sure the council will probably continue to follow through on the committee’s direction on this, but I think I’m going to join him in voting no on this because I think it’s time we take a look in the mirror and ask ourselves if we’re prepared to answer the question that’s at the heart of why this keeps coming up again and again.

Other comments or questions? Councillor Halmer. And the last council compensation review, the task force recommended that the salary for councilor be set at the median full-time employment income for lenders. So, I don’t really know where the idea that this is not full-time compensation for a full-time job is coming from half the people in our community who work full-time make less than what we make and half the people who work full-time in our community make more.

What I’m hearing is a bunch of people who would like it to be like, I don’t know, 75%, like 75% instead of the median. The committee looked at that, the task force that looked at compensation, they could have recommended the average full-time income which was substantially higher. I think it was $10,000 higher a year than the median. And if that’s the argument, I guess that people want to make, I mean, make that argument because certainly there’s lots of cities that have counselors that are paid higher amounts than we are, but it was set at the full-time, the median full-time income.

I think that’s been dealt with. If you think the conversation needs to be higher because it needs to be competitive with, I don’t know, Ottawa or Toronto or Halifax or you just want to be more like the other places or you want to set it at a higher level of compensation because you think people aren’t going to choose to do the job if they can’t get paid enough to give up their other work, which probably is paid more. I know I was paid more before I became a counselor and some people are not willing to do that. And it does limit the number of people who can take on this work.

So, you know, I think that whether it’s full-time or not is really a question of how much time people are going to commit. In terms of the wage, it was set at the full-time median income. I think that’s pretty clear that it’s pegged at a level. That’s a full-time salary for a lot of people.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Mr. Cassidy.

Thank you, Ms. Marin. I put my hand up after you called on me. So that’s a little bit nuts.

I just want to agree with what Councilor Halmer said. It is said at the median full-time income in the city of London. It was also explicitly stated in the report that came last term from the Council Compensation Task Force that it is difficult to really define what full-time means and that they didn’t like the idea of defining it as full-time or part-time, but that this should be someone’s primary focus. So it doesn’t preclude somebody from holding another job, which we probably would not be able to do anyway.

However, the advice from the Compensation Task Force that Council should be somebody’s primary focus if they are seeking to seek a term of Council and they are seeking this kind of public service, then they should be all in, really. The other point is that I think what’s more important and this idea of the full-time versus part-time is kind of a red hair we put the effort in that we are, that we each feel we need to put in. I think what would be a more, and I’m not suggesting that we get into this tonight, but I think what would be a more fruitful task for any kind of review, body that’s reviewing the works of Council and how Council should be operating and compensated for it, all of those things, I think the idea of a more equitable share of the workload on Council is something is a discussion that is worthy to have. There are a number of boards and commissions that we sit on, some of them are extremely onerous and it is up to the individual to Councilor to determine whether or not to put their names forward.

No, there’s no requirement for any of us to even sit on a standing committee of Council or just sit on an outside board or commission. And there are some Councilors that really do take advantage of that loophole. So I think into the future for the next term of Council, perhaps, or if Michael, or sorry, Councilor Van Holst wishes to look at how things could be improved. I think that is a really important aspect that should be examined.

But as far as labeling full-time or part-time, I don’t think it gets us anywhere. Thank you, any other comments or questions? So colleagues, I’ll just, for the benefit of all, just read the motion so we know what we’re dealing with. And this was supported at the SPBC meeting that the communication from Councilor Van Holst did in January 9, 2022 with respect, excuse me, with respect to typical daytime office hours be received and no action be taken.

I had no other speakers, so with that, I will call the question. Was in the vote, motion carries 12 to three. You, Deputy Mayor. Yes, the final item is number seven, which is the sixth report of the Governance Working Group.

And I know Councillor Hopkins has some questions, so maybe I’ll just jump in front of that and just let colleagues know that there were two meetings that the Governance Working Group had. One that was spread over two days to listen to the feedback from advisory committee members, which is what this report is. There’s no actions that we took in this report at all. It’s just noting that we had those two days of meetings and received the feedback.

The report where there will be action recommended from the Governance Working Group will come to the next SPBC. So it’s not before Council today. So this is just the report where we listened and heard what people had to say. Any comments or questions?

Colleks, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, worship. And thank you to the chair of the Governance Working Group for clarifying that there were a number of reports. And I wanted to make sure I’m pulling and asking the question in the right report and I am.

And I first of all wanna thank the Deputy Mayor for chairing these two public participation meetings and having that open dialogue and debate. I found a very informative, very helpful. I wanna thank you for that. Coming out of those conversations that I heard, I did have a question when it came to how we’re gonna be moving forward when it comes to these two plans, the climate change plan and the mobility plan.

And there were comments around that there would be some type of a working group or even an advisory group. And I would like to go through your worship and maybe to staff to see if we can have better clarification, not only for myself, but I know for the public as well. Now I had directed the clerk’s attention away from a couple of items there for a moment. So I’ll ask the clerk’s ready to respond to that.

I would like to go to staff Kelly Scheer in particular to respond given that these two are coming from that department, the climate change plan and the mobility plan as well. And I’ll blame the clerk. But happy to hear from the clerk too. Well, I will apologize ‘cause the clerk must have distracted me then, be sure, go ahead, please.

Thank you, Your Worship, I’m really happy to share an answer with the city clerk as well. So we have proposed two structures within the mobility master plan and the climate emergency action plan that might have been the source of some confusion. Our intent is to use the existing advisory committee structure that gets approved by council for the functions of those advisory committees. What we had called and perhaps unfortunately so community advisory team, we’re actually meant to be back of house to support our engagement and communications and project team.

We know that as we go out for general communication with the community on large projects and large programs, multi-decade programs like this, we hear from people who are really passionate about those issues, but communities that face barriers to participation in our public engagement and our community engagement don’t always get a chance to have a voice. And we really think it’s important to ensure that we have equitable, accessible opportunities for people to engage that may not have fit our traditional engagement boxes. So really those are meant to be back of those organizations to support us and not some sort of parallel process to the advisory committee structures as approved by council. I hope that provides some clarity and I apologize if we’ve contributed to any pain or heartburn for council or for the clerk’s office that was certainly not our intention in creating those structures.

Got your options? Yeah, if I can go make my remarks now. If the city clerk has any comments to make, I’d be very open to hearing from them as well before I make my comment. Clerk.

Thank you, Your Worship, through you. I think Ms. Share has indicated quite accurately the situation, the recommendations going forward to a future SPPC will take into consideration all the comments and all the input received from council members and the public. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you for that. And thank you for your comments. I think it’s important that we sort of add clarity as to how the public communication and participation on these two plans that I know has a lot of public interest. But so those will continue as we go through that process and also reaching out to advisory groups that whatever that compensation will, compensation, not composition will be, sorry about that.

It’s been a long day that there will also be asked to be part of that process as well, but really wanted to make sure that there was clarity around the public participation process. And thank you very much. Thank you, any other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, just a comment I wanna thank Councillor Hopkins for her kind words, but I think who we really need to thank is all of those members who took time out of their schedules to come out and share their thoughts. We had an opportunity to suspend the rules, which was an idea that I got by visiting the DAAC committee back in December, chatted with them about approaches to this meeting. And I would say, suspending the rules and having a very open back and forth in a dialogue. Well, at the same time, trying to make space for those who might not be as comfortable jumping in.

I’m hoping that we achieved success in that and I appreciated your comments but really I appreciated that in that open and kind of free discussion of dialogue, everyone was very respectful, very appreciative of each other’s comments. I think it was a great discussion and I think that’s a testament to the individuals who had the opportunity to share their time and come out and participate with us. So I would add our thanks to them as well. So thanks Councillor Hopkins for mentioning that.

So noted, any other comments or questions? I see none, we will call the question. Senator Bowe, motion carries 15 to zero. That’s it for the SPPC report.

Thank you very much, colleagues. There are no deferred matters nor inquiries. I’ve not been made aware of any original motions as well. That turns our attention to the bylaws and the bylaws we will deal with for this very moment are bylaws bills 65 through 85 inclusive.

And for those, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Van Merbergen. Let’s call the vote. As in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

A mover and seconder, seconder of second reading of bill 65 through 85. Moved by Councillor Hilliard, seconded by Councillor Fyfe Miller. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. For third reading and an act made of bill 65 through 85. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder. Please move by Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Hamou.

We’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Much colleagues, we’re about to go into closed session to deal with several items. Before we look for a mover and a seconder to do such thing, I will ask the clerk just to advise the public the reasons for closed session.

Your worship, the matters to be dealt with in closed session are six items that are outlined on the public council agenda. Those are a solicitor client privilege matter regarding litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal in the OLT. Three matters related to a land acquisition with associated solicitor client privilege device and two items related to personal and labor relations matters. Thank you very much.

So with that, I’ll look for a motion moving to closed session moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hilliard. Thank you. We will call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Thanks, Clerk, we will be dealing with those six items in closed session and then we will return to public session when those are completed. Thanks, so we’ll just ask our colleagues around the Zoom machines to just bear with us a few moments as we set up the room. I’ve been advised by the clerk that YouTube will not be part of the returning media, but e-scribe will. Like colleagues to have screens on, please.

The clerk has confirmed quorum, I’d like to welcome the public and our colleagues back into public session. And with that, for third report of constant closed session, I would like to call on Councillor Lewis to put the report on the floor. Thank you, Your Worship. Your council in closed session reports, one on a partial property acquisition, 85 Sunningdale Road, Sunningdale Road improvements project.

That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports with the concurrence over the director of transportation and mobility and vision manager, transportation planning and design on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the acquisition of a portion of the property from 85 Sunningdale Road, further described as part of lot 56 RCP 01029 being part of pin 08069-0051 designated as part 11, plan 33R-2957 as shown on the location map as Appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Sunningdale Road’s improvements project, the following actions be taken. A, the purchase of sale, purchase of sale as Appendix C submitted by Harvest Realty Inc. Sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $500,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. B, the grant of temporary easement and consent to enter as Appendix C submitted by Harvest Realty Inc.

for the sum of $54,000 for the term of 24 months with an option to renew for 12 months for an additional $27,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement and C, the financing of this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as Appendix A. Two, the sale of city owned surplus property, two San B Street, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the direct, on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the city owned property located at two San B Street, further described as part one, plan 33R-20979 being part of the pin 082470126, limited contained approximately 0.227 acres. The offer submitted by Mackenzie Hinshberger to purchase the subject property from the city for the sum of $665,000 be accepted, subject to the following conditions. A, the purchaser acknowledges that the property being purchased on and as is basis, B, purchaser retain the right to, sorry, class is fogging up, purchaser retaining the right prior to close to the assignment of the agreement, C, the city acknowledging all costs for discharging financing is a seller responsibility and D, the purchaser having the right to visit the property three further times prior to completion.

Three, license agreement, 80 Dundas Street, downtown loop rapid transit project, I mean, this full infrastructure improvements. That on the recommendation of deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director construction and infrastructure services on the advice of the director of realty services with respect to the property located at 80 Dundas Street, further described as part six, plan 33R-21008, containing an area of approximately 3,429.5 square feet as shown on the map as appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the downtown loop project. That the following actions be taken. A, the municipal council to approve the license agreement provided by the province for majesty the queen in right of Ontario as represented by the minister of the government and consumer services, covering the use of the subject property for a term of three years for the sum of $22,200.

B, the mayor and city clerk be authorized to execute license agreement in form acceptable to the city solicitor’s office, similar to that as appendix C and C, the financing of this agreement be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A. And finally, item four, temporary retention strategy, dearness home registered practical nurse RPN classification, not on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of social and health development and the concurrence of the deputy city manager and her price supports. The civic administration be authorized to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary to implement a temporary retention strategy for the dearness home registered practical nurse RPN classification in the uniform local 302 bargaining unit. Thank you very much, Councillor.

I wanted you to have a seconder for that. As Councillor Palosa, thank you very much. Any comments or questions? I see none, therefore we will call the question.

I’m gonna have to just do a verbally, I may yay. Thank you. - Thank you. Close on the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Councillor Lewis, colleagues this turns to the added bylaws basically dealing with what we have just approved from our closed session. So we’re gonna be dealing with bills 86 through 89 inclusive. And in that regard, I’ll look for a mover and seconder, excuse me, for introduction, for first reading of those added bills 86 through 89. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Vanholz, thank you very much.

Let’s call the question. Yay, I’m gonna yay. Thank you. Close on the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Seconder, second reading of added bills 86 through 89 inclusive, moved by Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, thank you very much. Any discussion? Seeing none, call the vote. I’m gonna yay if it’s still not working.

Thank you. Seconder vote, motion carries 15 to zero. For third reading and enactment of added bills 86 through 89 inclusive, I’ll look for a mover, please. Moved by Councillor Fyfe Miller, seconded by Councillor Hillier, thank you very much.

We’ll call the question. Yay. Wasn’t the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Much, just before we adjourn colleagues, so many of you and staff participated in the state of the city presentation that I made this morning.

And it’s the last one that I will make on behalf of council for this term. And I had the opportunity to thank our staff and all of you council colleagues for the work that has been done on behalf of our city. And it was very sincere when I expressed my heartfelt appreciation to all of you and shows what great things happen when we, between staff, council and our community when we all work collaboratively. There I acknowledged our union leadership, our staff, all our city workers who have made a tremendous contribution to what has been notwithstanding COVID, tremendous year in so many other ways.

And we are not underplaying what COVID has meant, but I will tell you, I sincerely appreciate all that you have done. And Ms. Livingston, I acknowledge you specifically, ‘cause it was nice to kind of hang out and say that, but I expressed my appreciation to so many of you. And it really is to all of you.

So with that heartfelt thanks, and I’ll look for a mover and secretary to adjourn the meeting. Moved by. I see Councillor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Tur. Actually, all of you it looks like.

So with that, I should do a show of hands. Those in favor of leaving this fine meeting. Motion carries. The motion meeting adjourned.

Thank you.